Seeking Alpha

jakurtz's  Instablog

Send Message
Private investor
  • Political QuickChat 5: Nov. 5th 2012 232 comments
    Nov 10, 2012 7:58 PM

    This is to vent your politics and to allow the original QC to breath without political noise. All correspondences should remain civil and impersonal. You can attack ideas but not fellow PQC'ers.

Back To jakurtz's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (232)
Track new comments
  • First?
    11 Nov 2012, 12:38 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Haven't you won enough this week? :-)
    11 Nov 2012, 07:13 AM Reply Like
  • Second?
    11 Nov 2012, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • survivor to the end
    11 Nov 2012, 11:11 AM Reply Like


    "6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--Average 68 per Day"
    11 Nov 2012, 10:42 PM Reply Like
  • Wonder how many BO voters are feeling betrayed.

    12 Nov 2012, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • Labor unions are not special interest groups or so says Obama. And then we have with Obama doing his talk-the-talk thing.


    Wonder if people in devastated areas of New Jersey and Long Island agree.
    12 Nov 2012, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • Oh gosh, unsubstantiated claims by 'a source' in an article on Erick Erickson's conservative blog.


    I especially love the quote at the bottom:
    “Turth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
    12 Nov 2012, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • Smaller future U.S.?
    12 Nov 2012, 08:54 PM Reply Like


    To add something real, it does seem that we have a real divide between rural and urban America. I don't see how it gets closer anytime soon. It seems an interesting question to wonder would it be better to go separate ways as opposed to having one side inflict it's will upon the other.
    12 Nov 2012, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • :-) In other words rural white Americans prefer someone that speaks their mind, sticks with what they say, and appears honest over someone who doesn't measure up to any of those things. No news there to me. Ever hear the expression, "A man's word is his bond" or of something called an oral contract?
    12 Nov 2012, 10:29 PM Reply Like
  • Watch both parties push for removal of the sequestration promise. They are now going to add it to the fiscal cliff discussion and try for a redo because they do not want to cut anything from their shopping list.


    Another lie, another broken both parties. Spend, spend, spend. The argument is over the shopping list, not the spending. The argument over spending is you watching the distracting hand not the manipulating hand. Everyone needs to open their eyes and see this.
    13 Nov 2012, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • Democrats have no incentive to negotiate anything. They have already won. When the Bush tax rates are repealed they get what they want: Higher taxes. When sequestration happens they get the defense spending cuts they want and the Republicans get blamed for the social programs that get cut. Then King, Voldemort proposes his version of "Tax cuts." and reforms that benefit his friends and political allies while punishing everyone else. What do the democrats have to lose?
    26 Nov 2012, 05:50 PM Reply Like
  • I, for one, would like to see the House pass a budget bill that resolves the "fiscal cliff" and tell Harry Reid Article I, Section 7 of the constitution stipulates that origination of revenue bills is reserved to the House. That is, tell Harry Reid that he has the choice of working with the House on resolution of the "fiscal cliff" or working on nothing at all.
    27 Nov 2012, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • They have many bills there now. Suggest they simply tell him which one to pull out of the trash can. Keep repeating it on TV 24/7 that Harry has the bill and what number it is. Americans should all know the bill number by heart form hearing about it so much. But....


    The republicrats and demicians are in this together to fleece all of us "subjects" so that wont happen either. They have to work out what is in it for them first and that seems to be the problem right now....dividing up an ever decreasing pot of money. I think they are trying to figure out how to keep from carving the goose up soon. A lack of golden eggs has them worried and some are so spiteful they may just carve up the goose.
    27 Nov 2012, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv: Greetings. Dingy Harry has made it abundantly clear that he prefers doing nothing. The House has passed a budget for the last two years as required by law. The Senate didn't debate or vote on either of them. The POTUS ran in part against a "Do nothing CONgress." and is acting as if he received 90% of the vote instead of the 50% he actually got. So there you have it. The people have spoken and they don't want a budget passed. Balanced or other wise.
    3 Dec 2012, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • Personally i am annoyed!!!


    NOW you can smoke pot on your lunchbreak and not get fired??


    Boy, where was that law in the 70's....Can you imagine the guy who smokes on lunch and has to go back to the deli or bakery to finish his day.


    If that was me they would be losing money!!
    12 Dec 2012, 05:57 AM Reply Like
  • John Stewart raises some good points about CEOs and Obamacare


    "Maybe next time," Stewart said, "take all the millions you donated for partisan political purposes and pump it back into the type of health care advances that may ultimately increase business productivity."
    15 Nov 2012, 11:23 PM Reply Like
  • "into the type of health care advances that may ultimately increase business productivity"


    If Stewart knows so much, then why doesn't he start competing businesses in which all these so called "evil" CEOs participate, and then he can take all their employees and all their market share?


    The reason why he doesn't is simple, because lines like the above are just mindless rants by people more concerned with sounding good than doing good. Its always more attractive to be compassionate with other peoples lives and resources.


    What a joke.
    18 Nov 2012, 07:05 AM Reply Like
  • Jon, Stewart is a small business operator. I wonder what partisan political donations he made this cycle?
    3 Dec 2012, 11:27 AM Reply Like


    This POTUS just doesn't care, never did!!!
    18 Nov 2012, 03:59 AM Reply Like
  • A lonely conservative at Harvard!


    The Crisis of American Self-Government


    "Mr. Mansfield sat for an interview ...This year marks his 50th as a teacher at the university. It isn't easy being the most visible conservative intellectual at an institution that has drifted ever further to the left for a half-century. "I live in a one-party state and very much more so a one-party university," says the 80-year-old professor with a sigh. "It's disgusting. I get along very well because everybody thinks the fact that I'm here means the things I say about Harvard can't be true. I am a kind of pet—a pet dissenter."


    Consider voting. "You can count voters and votes," Mr. Mansfield says. "And political science does that a lot, and that's very useful because votes are in fact countable. One counts for one. But if we get serious about what it means to vote, we immediately go to the notion of an informed voter. And if you get serious about that, you go all the way to voting as a wise choice. That would be a true voter. The others are all lesser voters, or even not voting at all. They're just indicating a belief, or a whim, but not making a wise choice. That's probably because they're not wise."..."
    2 Dec 2012, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • Every discussion of raising the debt ceiling should start with a reading of this statement.

    5 Dec 2012, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • Here is a really interesting article....

    7 Dec 2012, 08:08 AM Reply Like
  • Patriots,
    YOUR efforts led Gov. Christie to veto the Health Care Exchange in NJ. We are not out of the woods, but we just made it a bit more difficult for Dr. Evil to set up his exchange under ObamaCare.


    The left never rests its satanic agenda, we can’t stop fighting either. Now marriage, as we know it, is under major assault. Please click here to contact congress and pressure our spineless leaders to Defend Marriage and our Military Chaplains.


    Keep fighting the good fight. May God bless you all!


    May God bless the USA!


    Yours Constitutionally,


    Mahesh Ganorkar....

    8 Dec 2012, 08:00 AM Reply Like
  • Sunday, December 9, 2:17 AM China's urban jobless rate edges up from 8% in August 2011 to 8.05% in June this year, reaching almost double the official rate of 4.1%. Unemployment among the 160M migrant workers, who aren't counted in the official stats, jumps to 6% from 3.4%. The high rate helps explain the government's reluctance to overhaul state companies, which could initially cost 4M jobs, says China expert Minxin Pei.


    Humm...China not telling us everything are they?
    9 Dec 2012, 07:37 AM Reply Like
  • More good news!!


    Wednesday, December 12, 3:17 AM The Fed is reportedly discouraging the top U.S. banks from making large acquisitions as it informally uses powers it received under the Dodd-Frank Law and attempts to limit the ability of banks to threaten the stability of the financial system should they fail. Those told not to make major purchases include include Capital One Financial (COF) after its $9B acquisition of ING's U.S. online business.


    Do they know something we don't ?
    12 Dec 2012, 06:34 AM Reply Like
  • TBTF, is not good, message getting through I would say.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • Can anyone explain to me why the NYC Police dept have sent a ton of men to train with the military..?? Have people i know who have family that are going..
    13 Dec 2012, 08:11 AM Reply Like
  • The politicians intend to do what ever they force if necessary. Cops are being turned into pawns in this game.
    13 Dec 2012, 08:27 AM Reply Like


    This from a Union leader worried about the poor...Give me a break!


    Begging the POTUS to help....
    14 Dec 2012, 07:47 AM Reply Like
  • The clock is ticking faster !!!!


    4:19 AM While much attention has focused on averting the fiscal cliff, the U.S. is just $66B below its $16.4T debt ceiling, which it's due to hit towards the end of the month. Treasury would then embark on some fiscal maneuvering that could buy it another 6-10 weeks. As with the fiscal cliff , Republicans want cuts to entitlement programs before agreeing to increase the debt limit again.....
    16 Dec 2012, 06:12 AM Reply Like


    Finally the media might be waking up?


    Big banks are getting exposed !!..
    17 Dec 2012, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • Morgan and Rockefeller had a large hand in creating the Fed Res.
    17 Dec 2012, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • Look, i fully understand that this is a political chatroom ..


    But i just want to say we should all just say a prayer for those families in Conn, and for our country as it seems this is becoming like an epidemic.


    Hold you kids tight, and tell them how much they mean to you.!!


    My 2 cents..just a break from investing and chatting!!
    17 Dec 2012, 09:25 AM Reply Like
  • Now we will have a national discussion regarding violence. Not really. What we will have is another completely useless argument about the second amendment. It's unfortunate that we can't legislate crazy out of existence. Had this atrocity been committed with a chain saw we wouldn't be thinking or talking about banning chain saws would we? Guns aren't the only tool that is dangerous, even deadly, when used improperly. It's equally unfortunate that there are those among us who would use tragedy to advance a political agenda.
    17 Dec 2012, 05:46 PM Reply Like
  • "It's equally unfortunate that there are those among us who would use tragedy to advance a political agenda. "


    Obama does his best to use every event to advance his agenda.


    One interesting news story I saw linked on dealt with a shooter in a midwest shopping mall. One of the shoppers had a weapon (and carry permit) who drew the weapon and positioned himself to take down the shooter before more people were killed/wounded, held his fire because a shopper behind the shooter had moved close to the line of fire. On seeing the guy with the weapon, the shooter reportedly stopped firing at shoppers and killed himself.
    17 Dec 2012, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • Yup, The POTUS will pounce on this one!!! They ain't getting mine thats for sure..Like you said a school bus driver could just run over the kids.


    Thank god for the NRA...
    17 Dec 2012, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • James, Quinn's take on our current situation.
    19 Dec 2012, 05:11 PM Reply Like
  • Three officials have resigned after the Benghazi report was released. Will the ghosts of the Benghazi Four visit them on Christmas eve?
    19 Dec 2012, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • I think a 4th (Hiliary) will follow.
    19 Dec 2012, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • I wish a 5th would occur where the buck stops (or should), with the Commander in Chief. BO is coated with teflon so nothing can stick! Benghazi; Sandy (people still suffering); Fast & Furious (guns to Mexican thugs); Healthcare law (ensuing regulatory costs, higher taxes, layoffs to avoid paying increased benefits, rising premiums; did I mention higher taxes?); handling (or lack thereof) of fiscal cliff negotiations, staggering budget deficits, mounting national debt, loss of full time jobs being replaced with part time jobs without benefits, slowest recovery on record, etc. He has done little right to help the economy but can do no wrong according to his devotees. There is a deluge of regulations awaiting his inauguration that will stifle business even further in the first half of 2013. Well, all I can say is that I expect some better values in many stocks coming soon. I'm holding onto my dry powder.


    As you'll recall I predicted that BO would let us go off the cliff and not compromise. So far, the compromising has come from Republicans willing to allow tax increases on those with incomes over $1 million. They have asked for spending cuts in return and been told no. The Prez proposed increasing spending (at a slower rate and called it a cut) along with more stimulus (which more than offsets the reductions in the rate of spending growth as if making it separate means it is not a real spending increase), and the usual increase in rates on everyone with incomes over $200,000 (or $250,000, don't remember which) and a few other revenue increases that could affect a broader spectrum of taxpayers (revenue increases are not to be confused with tax increases even if that is what they are). Not one shred of compromise in his proposal. He is not moving and threatens a veto if he doesn't get all of what he wants. And he says it's the Republicans' fault (and the MSM echos his view) because they refuse to compromise. I think he needs to look that word up in the dictionary. I'm not sure he understands the true meaning; or did he sign an executive order to change the meanings of words to fit his agenda? I may have missed that.
    22 Dec 2012, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • Wednesday, December 19, 7:23 PM IntercontinentalExchange ( is back in talks with NYSE Euronext ( and could announce a full takeover of the Big Board as soon as tomorrow, multiple sources are reporting. ICE (worth about $9.3B) was part of a combined bid with Nasdaq OMX ( for NYX (worth about $5.8B) last year that came apart under antitrust scrutiny; this deal would likely be a mix of stock and cash. NYX +12.3% AH; ICE +2.9%.


    361k unemployment this week...GDP 3.1% revised !!


    What impact does all of this have on stocks..More electronic trading, less floor trading?????
    20 Dec 2012, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • The wrong debate rages in DC framed in a manner guaranteed to foster partisan bickering and solve nothing. Politicians refuse to address the real issues surrounding these massacres like Sandy Hook School. We can all agree that protecting our citizens especially our children is the real issue. We are well aware that gun control doesn't work. Look no farther than Mexico to see a real time case study of how well banning guns works. Unless Democrats are ready to propose repealing the second amendment they need to start looking for real solutions and quit playing politics. Perhaps it has escaped their notice but we are at war with Islamists around the world. Are we going to wait until they attack a school to take meaningful action? It took more than 25 years of hijackings and the 9/11 terror attacks to begin hardening cockpits on air craft. It was deemed too expensive until 9/11 happened. What is the price on our children's heads? How many political points equal a child's life?
    20 Dec 2012, 02:17 PM Reply Like
  • RBF,
    My wife is a teacher in elementary schools and would have no problem with the carry of a weapon for the purpose of defense. All these cowardly attacks have happened in weapons free zones. Imagine the lives saved if the patrons in the Colorado theatre or the teachers and administrators at the school in Conn. had been armed. An armed society is a polite society. Self defense is not optional as police agencies can't be everywhere all the time and seconds make the difference between life and death.
    20 Dec 2012, 02:32 PM Reply Like
  • Still Dazed: Season's Greetings: Those were obviously not gun free zones as people were shot there. A more accurate description would be self defense free zones or target rich zones. You can always call 911 and they will respond within minutes. They will also be minutes too late.
    20 Dec 2012, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • RBF,
    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours.
    I see that we agree that we have an individual right and responsibility to provide for our own safety. I believe that it was Ben Franklin that said (I paraphrase) "Anyone that gives up freedom for safety will have neither".
    20 Dec 2012, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • I'm sure will help advance "the cause" of gun control. (SARC)
    20 Dec 2012, 04:57 PM Reply Like
  • Its really not gun control. Its people control. An emotional tradegy is used to get people to forego their good sense, and give in to the control.
    20 Dec 2012, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • Teachers in Israel carry a rifle!!
    20 Dec 2012, 02:36 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting Times: Season's Greetings. They understand the threat!
    20 Dec 2012, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • I wonder if our teachers would get a little more respect and discipline in the classrooms if the students knew they were carrying a firearm? I suspect that in some schools (inner cities) the teachers would need to be prepared to use them in self defense against their students. I smell lawsuits from parents and libs! I would also expect those firearms carried by teachers to be stolen by criminal-minded students even if locked up. How can a teacher access the gun in a time of need if it is truly secure? There may only be a few seconds from the time a threat is identified to when it is too late. This is a really sticky situation that needs a lot of consideration and probably some testing before being enacted by law. Also, I'd rather not see anything more on this coming out of Washington, DC. It seems it would be much better it handles locally or by states until someone gets it right. Then the feds can help educate other localities and encourage them to adopt what works, but through information not funding or threats of cuts thereof. Just my opinion.
    22 Dec 2012, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • Robert


    Yup, now my local high school just arrested a 16 year old because he said he was bringing a machine gun to school the next day. Also sent him for Psyciatric evaluation.


    My daughter is subbing and said it kinda got wild for a while..
    20 Dec 2012, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » The GOP just shot themselves by not voting on Plan B. They had the POTUS and democrats in a corner, all they needed to do was pass the bill and say, "ok, we averted the fiscal cliff, the ball is in your court, if you don't sign what we passed it is your fault we go over the cliff."


    Now the cliff will be pinned on uncompromising republicans and the dems win even when we go over the cliff which it is guaranteed we will now and by inaction the republicans just raised taxes on all Americans.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • "The GOP just shot themselves."


    Has the House adjourned for the day or voted down the tax bill?
    20 Dec 2012, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » The republican leaders pulled it and decided not to hold the vote. Supposedly, because they did not have enough votes to pass it.



    Dow futures were down over 200 points.
    20 Dec 2012, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • D


    Not enough votes to pass it..What a mess now..


    Just tired of all the games being played with our futures!!
    20 Dec 2012, 08:55 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Agree IT. Both parties can now go suck an egg and four weeks ago I was a Republican supporter. Not anymore, from the way they treated Romney to this. It's all junk.
    20 Dec 2012, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • PULEEES. Are you telling us that Nancy Pelosi couldn't get any Democrats to vote for a bill she was pushing in May of this year? You want us to believe that establishment Republicans in conjunction with Democrats couldn't get the votes to overcome a small conservative voting block? A voting block that ran and got elected on a platform of smaller government and lower taxes. Even Grover, Norquist came out saying that the tax on those earning over $1M was acceptable. Face facts here the Democrats can't wait to go over the cliff. In their view they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so. Harry, Reid said it wouldn't pass the Senate before he ever saw it. The POTUS said he would veto it before he knew what was in it. What did you expect? Compromise from Democrats?
    21 Dec 2012, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Hi RBF, I think it could have and should have passed but this is why I am befuddled that the republicans abandoned it in the House and never held it to a vote. They then could have sent it to the senate and said, " Here you go. A reasonable compromise, now the ball is in your court." They could have then sat back while the dems sent us over the cliff by not signing it. As it is now all the headlines are going to be that repubs. who won't even compromise with themselves are responsible for sending us over the cliff and raising taxes on everyone. Grover Norquist did say the bill was ok, so I am really searching for an explanation on why they didn't vote on it?
    21 Dec 2012, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • While I thought "Plan B" had some prospect of passing the House I'm not surprised the tax bill was pulled before a vote after a spending bill was passed first. Republicans have been persistent in pressing two issues -- no tax increases and reducing size of government and entitlement spending. I strongly suspect Republican leadership gave away too much on the spending side to pick up a few Democrat votes, leaving some Republicans unwilling to vote for ANY higher tax rates without entitlement benefit reformulation.


    The most left-leaning press is surely putting out headlines that Republicans are sending us "over the cliff", but some press articles are just spouting fear of looming consequences. Boehner has made a case publicly for Democrat intransigence. And the press is reporting lots and lots of Democrats drawing "lines in the sand" around entitlements.


    When I read quotation of Obama's press secretary Tim Carney as saying Obama's top priority is protecting 98% of americans from a tax increase, my reaction is to wonder about the probability of those words biting Carney and Obama in the ass. If Obama's top priority is protecting lower income groups from higher income tax rates, he can achieve it any time he wants by simply agreeing with Republicans. The liar in chief is a hypocrite.


    21 Dec 2012, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • The problem with that theory is that not a single Democrat voted for the measure. It was passed without bipartisan support just like Obamatax. No Democrat would vote in favor of the tax increase that they put forward prior to the election either. Absent Democrat backing there were not enough votes to pass the measure and it was withdrawn from the floor. Effectively the Democrats sabotaged their own tax bill! The Senate will get the spending cuts which Harry Reid will never bring to a vote. That shouldn't come as a shock as he had already said nothing coming from the House would pass the Senate. Meaning he wouldn't allow debate or voting in the Senate. This method protects the president from having to make a decision to sign or veto legislation so his hands stay clean. Regardless of that the ensuing recession will be known as the Obama recession and Boehner will be a foot note in history.
    21 Dec 2012, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • Jak


    Same here..Need a new party as REPUBLICANS are obsolete and out of touch with reality..I am one as well. Not anymore.....


    But i still think posturing might be going on...we shall see..
    20 Dec 2012, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • Has anyone seen details on the content of the spending bill passed by the House? What I've seen suggests it shifts budget cuts away from defense to domestic programs without any further detail.
    20 Dec 2012, 10:00 PM Reply Like


    Did the NRA one up the POTUS...Plan they want to start sounds good to me...A must watch video .I just attached an article.


    Happy Holidays to all.
    21 Dec 2012, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • God, i LOVE this country !!!!



    Payback sometimes bites you in the bu@@
    26 Dec 2012, 06:44 PM Reply Like


    SS in normal cashflow deficit.
    26 Dec 2012, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • That's odd, I use the calculator that they link to and get different results. The outflow is the same, but the income is higher.


    I ran fiscal 2012
    26 Dec 2012, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • jpau ... perhaps the difference lies in the distinction between "normal cashflow" and cashflow including irregular events. From the article,
    "Despite its fiscal 2012 “net cash flow” deficit, as SSA describes it, the agency was able to book an on-paper “increase” of $64.580 billion in the Social Security Trust Funds. That, SSA says, is because the U.S. Treasury “paid” the trust funds $112.398 in “interest” in fiscal 2012 on the historial surpluses in Social Security taxes that the Treasury siphoned off to cover other spending by the federal government."
    26 Dec 2012, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • Does that take into account the temporary 2% payroll tax cut? I don't think it represents normal cash flow in either case.


    There's so much creative accounting that seems to occur in this country, be it banks, corporations, or our government - I wonder if such a thing as normal cash flow still exists.
    27 Dec 2012, 12:20 AM Reply Like
  • I am curious if this is true. I have not heard these "facts" about this man before.

    27 Dec 2012, 12:22 AM Reply Like
  • Responding to Maya's post on the QC


    US newspaper publishes names and addresses of registered US gun owners:



    Here's a map of NY residents who own guns:





    original article:


    Love that people are angry at the newspaper...


    Consider that the government has an interactive map of every gun owner in the country


    I neither own a gun nor want to. I think the NRA has gone bonkers in the wake of the Connecticut incident. I think the 2nd amendment needs to be upheld.


    I think when something like Connecticut happens, people should put duct tape over the mouths of every pro- and anti-gun lobbyist, politician and journalist for 2 weeks minimum. It is not the time. People are mourning. Shut up and let them mourn, preferably without some stupid camera in their face trying to capture their emotion for the rest of the country.


    I think articles like this make for another wave of distracting media stories that keep people from ever realizing how much we could accomplish if we stopped getting wound up like a barrel of monkeys by the media and actually talked to one another, and found out how much common ground we have.


    Of course, it could just be all the medication I'm on and my insomnia talking.


    Thought for the day: don't get sick in a foreign country with family. You just wind up taking too many things and not knowing what a single one of them are. Then, you feel sick... and weird.
    27 Dec 2012, 06:32 PM Reply Like
  • From what I have read, the 2nd amnd wasn't intended to limit the states from setting gun control. The Bill of Rights was intended to control the Fed gov. Its a pretty good model. The Fed has the army, but an army can be turned against the populace. So the states have malitias, and the state says what weapons you can keep for self defense and what weapons the state will keep in the armory for a "well regulated militia". The the labratories of democracy work the market magic, and states with the best system attract the most citizens.


    But beware the state that wants a defenseless populace in the name of stopping violence. History has shown that a defenseless population just means the gov is the one doing all the violence.
    28 Dec 2012, 04:01 AM Reply Like
  • Oh yes it does limit states from setting gun controls!!!


    McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.


    The true problem is antidepressants and they should be outlawed.


    Prescription Drugs Often Behind Mass Shootings



    Another link that will overwhelm you with info is this one.



    Only a fool would think that the cars are killing folks in car accidents, or the cell phones when texted on or.....this list could go on forever.


    Its the people not the guns. I have never heard of a gun crawling around shooting folks. But you put a mind altering drug into someones head and there is no telling what the result will be. They should be outlawed because they are causing folks to kill other people and the big pharmas and our govt leaders receiving money from them for reelection are doing nothing about it.


    Read the article before commenting please.
    28 Dec 2012, 03:02 PM Reply Like
  • DG,
    I could write a book, or simply say I agree on all points.


    My wife is a teacher with a Masters in Psychology. She thinks many of the hyper kids on meds really just need to go out and run and play to burn off energy before trying to sit in one spot to learn.


    I am old now and wish I had some of that boundless energy the kids have naturally. Yeah, kids are like herding cats, but that is better than herding zombies. The human spirit is a terrible thing to waste.
    28 Dec 2012, 03:14 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I scratched my last comment because it looks like your second link is saying that one way to tell whether the psychiatric condition or the psychiatric drug caused the violence is by looking at history. If we assume the condition was just as pervasive in society in the past then then it was not until the introduction of the drug did this type of violence increase. Interesting stuff.
    28 Dec 2012, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • "was a landmark[1] decision "


    That's what I was getting at. There was a reason this was "landmark". The original spirit of the constitution was to limit the Fed gov. Incorporation doctrine came later after the civil war, when the nature of the "union" was changed forever.


    Either way though, the idea of Federalism makes a lot of sense, and it may be worth our while to consider the union as constituted still makes sense. There is logic to a union that says, "if you join here are the rules, if you like them you can stay, if you don't you can leave". One of these rules would be no memember of the union can prevent the right to bear arms (which is really the right to self defense). I think our original union would have been better off, if the states had agreed that individuals had a right to defend themselves, but that local nuisance laws could determine if someone were allowed to keep a nuclear weapon in their basement in language that would have stood the test of time better.
    28 Dec 2012, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • Conn. Attorney annoyed at that newspaper article turned around and posted EVERY journalists name, phone number, and address that had anything to do with that story..


    Also googled the Editors house as well..A site went viral with all that info.


    So now you have all of Westchester mad. The gun owners feel like pedophiles and the non gun owners feel they are exposed now to potential villians..


    Wild !!
    28 Dec 2012, 12:48 AM Reply Like
  • Malkin pulled some crap like this back in 2006. It's not good when anyone does it. Is there any value to this other than intimidation?
    28 Dec 2012, 07:54 AM Reply Like
  • None, whatsoever. The lesson here (obviously not learned yet) is that we should all stop and think about the potential consequences (to ourselves and others) before we decide to do something stupid. Apparently, they don't teach that in journalism schools anymore!
    28 Dec 2012, 03:35 PM Reply Like
  • December 28, 7:37 AM A port strike looms this weekend that could paralyze cargo traffic from Maine to Texas. Nearly all retailers could be affected, but none more than Home Depot (HD) and Lowe's (LOW) as Christmas comes in spring for the home-improvement industry. The President has the power to force workers back on the job, but the White House is mum at this point.


    This POTUS is loving this !!!
    28 Dec 2012, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • Strike averted.
    28 Dec 2012, 05:03 PM Reply Like
  • For now, just a start of what's ahead..
    28 Dec 2012, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • Correct. I can imagine the phone call fromthe WH to the union leaders...


    WH: "Dammit, didn't you get the memo?"


    Bosses: "Sure, but the election is over, and now..."


    WH: "No strikes until after the Inauguration. It was IN the memo!"


    Bosses: "But we got a good opportunity to make some progress, and the media coverage is good. We could..."


    WH: "Pull the plug, now, before we have to. You can wait until February like everyone else."


    Bosses: "OK, OK, don't blow a gasket, you know we're on the team..."
    2 Jan 2013, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • Great quote


    "Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian."


    Henry Ford
    28 Dec 2012, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • Another leak from the White House exposing true intent:


    POTUS wants Senate to kill all amendments to the bill and extend it for another 5 years, allowing NSA to do wire taps and collect info on anyone without warrants. Doesn't take much to figure out why, does it. This is one of those things that Democrats called Bush on when he was in office. Of course, now it's okay. There were supposed to be limits, but those have been whittled away and we are now all exposed to the gov.
    28 Dec 2012, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • Well, in fairness to blame everyone, the post-9/11 trauma freakout that trampled the Constitution was done by a Republican President with a majority Democrat Congress, and with widespread support from the American public (between 2002 and 2005, talking about defending our rights under the constitution seemed to be an invitation to other people having a competition to see who could scream loud enough at you to break your ear drums first). More than a decade later, a state of war continues...
    29 Dec 2012, 03:35 AM Reply Like
  • Oliver Stone takes aim at Obama compounding Bush II's errors (15 minute video):
    29 Dec 2012, 05:05 AM Reply Like
  • NRA INFO.....


    NRA leader was interviewed on MEET THE PRESS and the anchor held up a 30 round magazine for an AR -15...SAID DOES ANYONE REALLY NEED THIS?


    Turns out that where it was filmed the law states you cannot be in possession of that type of magazine..Either to possess, or own.


    Now the anchor might face criminal charges..


    You just can't make this stuff up !!
    28 Dec 2012, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » That is funny. Here is a link to one article on it. Apparently NBC already new it illegal b/c they contacted the local police.

    28 Dec 2012, 08:12 PM Reply Like
  • Yup...They knew in advance but did it anyway !!!


    So it's ok for that show to do it...Personally i believe the NRA found the email stating it was illegal and ran with it!!


    Now lets see what happens. Was in my local gunshop tonight and the shelves were half empty with salesguy saying you better buy what you need now !!!


    Something big is up...
    28 Dec 2012, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • JAK


    Now this added to MEET THE PRESS!



    Amazing !!!!
    28 Dec 2012, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • Think the NRA are crazy? Watch this video and you might change your mind !

    29 Dec 2012, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • Thanks IT. That was an eye opener! Good stats upon which to base resistance of gun confiscation.
    30 Dec 2012, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • K202


    I have no idea how all of our issues are going to end. What i do know is that a panic is happening in Upstate NY where guns are concerned.


    1) They now have a number system and a sign that says wait could be up to 3 hours!!


    2) Ammo shelves are half empty already, and a salesmen at a large store said i better buy what i think i would need now !!


    3) Do i want to do it, or hope most buying are wrong? Worse yet could these new gun owners actually rob me one day?


    4) One newpaper listing EVERY pistol owner in Westchester, and will now add Putnam county as well. WHY?


    5) a LAWYER lists all the journalists and editors personal phone numbers, address, and even googled ones house and stated you might get unexpected company!! WHY ?


    What is happening is scary for sure..
    Are we starting to unravel?
    30 Dec 2012, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • "Are we starting to unravel?"


    That could be the plan.
    31 Dec 2012, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • "That could be the plan. "


    That suspicion has been in mind for three years or more.
    31 Dec 2012, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv you ought to read through this on a rainy or snowy day.


    You need to get down to where it says "THE SCIENCE ALREADY CAME IN — BUT NO ONE WAS PAYING ATTENTION" for it to get interesting and start to get to the point of it all. 5-6 scrolls down. Just after BO sweating. This article will not make either R or D zombies happy.

    31 Dec 2012, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • " "


    Thanks, dg. I read the report when it was published and have been disappointed to not see more about it in the media. I had lost the link to the paper.
    31 Dec 2012, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • There was a reason financial institutions were very large contributors to Obama's 2008 campaign. I'll believe the Justice Department is actually prosecuting wrongdoers when arrests are made, charges filed, and effective prosecutions are under way.


    In the mean time, we continue to see crap like that described in


    A government official conduction official business under a pseudonym directly with the Department of Justice and who knows how many other Administration officials. How many other pseudonyms did Jackson use? How many other Obama Administration officials are using pseudonyms to avoid "sunshine" falling on the promised "transparent" administration? Where are the federal charges due against Lisa Jackson and the Justice Department officials with whom she communicated for violating FOIA laws if not many, many others?
    31 Dec 2012, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv, one big problem on the prosecutions. Holder, Eric Holder. My vote for DB of the year last year and I would say he still is high up there. I would vote for Hillary this year for letting 4 patriots die in Bengazi begging for help. She now may be pretending to be ill in an attempt to not testify before congress on this.


    2 big failures will be attributed to here. Reset with Russia, LOL and now this disaster where we left people to be raped and murdered.
    31 Dec 2012, 04:45 PM Reply Like
  • Tuesday, January 1, 4:31 PM House Republicans - including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor - are reportedly overwhelmingly opposed to the fiscal cliff deal approved by the Senate. The House appears poised to amend the deal and send it back to the Senate, setting up a legislative high-wire act.


    This is gonna get interesting !!
    1 Jan 2013, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • Why are they opposed to the deal?
    1 Jan 2013, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • No spending cuts.


    Here is the perspective. However they folded.

    1 Jan 2013, 10:02 PM Reply Like
  • Voting at 9pm tonight without any changes...Hold onto your hats!!
    1 Jan 2013, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Now that Voldemort has succeeded in sticking it to the rich we will move directly to the debt ceiling battle that Voldemort has said he won't participate in. He's still insisting that it's his way or the highway. He will try to farther divide and diminish/marginalize House opposition in hopes of Democrats regaining control of the House in 2014. He has no interest in doing what's best for the country. It's all about driving the country as far left as possible before the sheeple he and his political allies just fleeced figure it out. With the Obamatax tax increases coming on top of the aforementioned payroll tax increases I don't expect robust economic growth. On the bright side he did say he will approve the Key Stone XL pipeline.
    2 Jan 2013, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • Jakurtz: Greetings and salutations for a healthy happy and prosperous new year. Thank you for starting and maintaining this political blog. It's a great idea for people to vent without cluttering up the QC.
    2 Jan 2013, 05:29 PM Reply Like
  • Now for something completely different. James, Quinn on soft tyranny.
    2 Jan 2013, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • Well, I must admit I was wrong in my prognosis! The first step in avoiding the fiscal cliff has been taken. Early on I predicted that Congress would wait until the very last moment. Then later I changed by expectation to watching the buffoons let the nation go over the cliff. Now, there has been virtually no fix (as predicted by myself and just about everyone else here) to the budget problems (tax increases won't come close without spending cuts) and the can has been kicked another year down the road. So, we are now looking at a sixth year of $Trillion+ deficits in a row.


    Will Republicrats cave again on the debt limit? Of course, they will. They have no choice and BO has them right where he wants them. And Wall Street interprets all this as good for the economy... short-term thinking prevails again!


    Okay, rant done. Thanks for allowing me a place to let off some steam. Happy New Year, everybody! Got to go now. I heard there was a gun store that hasn't sold out yet and it's less than an hour from here! (just kidding)
    2 Jan 2013, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • Really? I'm not so sure! Are you somewhere on that news paper's gun map?
    3 Jan 2013, 05:02 PM Reply Like


    Right across the river from where i am though...Not a happy camper with them right now!!
    3 Jan 2013, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • Why shouldn't i be surprised !!!

    3 Jan 2013, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • No prognosticating skills needed there. We got the big pork laden package. I'm amazed it came in at only 154 pages long. Dingy Harry must have been in a hurry. The legislators got a good THREE MINUTES to thoroughly read the bill before they voted on it. The amount of DD they put into their work is just astounding.So once again they had to pass it to see what was in it. Who didn't see that coming?
    4 Jan 2013, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • Now this is more of what we need!!



    Speak up, this newspaper has an agenda that most don't like !!
    4 Jan 2013, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • Here we go, Military in Turkey now !!!

    4 Jan 2013, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • IT,
    Since Turkey is part of NATO and we have bases there, it should come as no surprise.
    4 Jan 2013, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • Still


    I understand we have bases there, but manning patriot missles just adds fuel to a fire we don't need now!!
    4 Jan 2013, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • Now we see what's real. Before the election no Keystone pipeline. After the election but before the coronation King, Voldomort agrees to approve the project. Those suckers in the green movement are seeing his true colors for the first time. He got their money and their votes, thus he doesn't need them or their agenda anymore, so under the bus they go. Which group of disaffected saps that voted for him is next under the bus? Oh look; it's the lower middle class by golly! He didn't throw them under the bus though. He threw them off the fiscal cliff instead.
    4 Jan 2013, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • Something for all to look at if you get a chance.


    4 Jan 2013, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • Nothing like getting it shoved down your throat !!



    Just what i expected, no need to worry about the Republicans anymore !!
    4 Jan 2013, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • The gun issue.



    Alex's reason why we need guns.





    Suicide pills

    8 Jan 2013, 07:59 AM Reply Like
  • Just when you think you read it all. AIG no less!!



    Amazing !!
    8 Jan 2013, 08:53 PM Reply Like


    I wonder if Reid, et al have any idea just how close they are getting to converting political "cold" war to "hot". Dictate, dictate, dictate.
    11 Jan 2013, 05:38 PM Reply Like
  • You know he has Pelosi backing him as well....We will be a laughing joke and not taken serious anymore..


    The dollar will die quicker thats all..!!


    Well if we are going out, might as well with a bang..Create that trillion dollar coin !! Boy is China gonna be real upset with this...


    Just when you think we have seen it all, amazing if they actually get away with this !


    Gotta go buy some more ammo !
    11 Jan 2013, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • King, Voldemort was sworn in on Sunday in the Blue Room of the White House. During this activity he swore an oath to uphold, protect and defend the constitution. Yesterday during his inaugural address he laid out an agenda stating that he would work unilaterally if necessary. I guess when he repeated the oath of office it was the first lie of his second term.
    22 Jan 2013, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • President Obama is likely to approve a GOP proposal to suspend the debt ceiling until May 19, which has the backing of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as well. The House is due to vote on the measure today, with the bill also requiring both chambers to pass budgets by April 15; if they don't members' salaries would be withheld.


    They just keep kicking the can huh...It ain't funny anymore!!
    23 Jan 2013, 07:04 AM Reply Like
  • In a typical MSM spin job this report is about the House passing a extension of the debt limit as detailed by IT above. There was no fixed dollar amount given just a time frame to pass a budget. Of course it's reported as a Democrat victory but only time will tell. Of course it's a virtual certainty that the citizens, especially the tax payers, will be the losers.
    23 Jan 2013, 02:17 PM Reply Like
  • I want to thank Jakurtz and others for the invitation to express political views here as opposed to investment articles. I very much oppose political discussion in investment articles as it polarizes the conversations.


    Also I will state that I am an economic centrist that has read every comment on this instablog. This blog is very "right" leaning and shows little balance in its discussion. I definitely lean the other way.
    I respect several of the participants on this blog. Because of that I would love it if I could get the answers to a couple of questions I have been pondering.
    1) Economic growth gave the government the added revenues needed in the 90's to restore balance to the budget. Why is it that the same strategy can not be accepted now?
    2) What would the impact on the deficit be, if the interest rate on US bonds go up, due to the debt ceiling not being raised and the bond rating lowered?
    3) I typically believe that government is inefficient. Savings from efficiency would be easy and helpful. What is the best way to make the government 10% more efficient?


    Just a couple of thoughts I keep coming back to when I contemplate these matters. I do not believe in government conspiracies, one world government theories, black helicopters, or that the President is anything other than the duly elected President of the US. For those reasons I try to look objectively at the economic plans of the two political parties and make sense of them. Solutions are difficult to formulate. I would love to hear any realistic proposed solutions to reduce the deficit and debt while government continues to do the work we have asked it do accomplish.
    Again, thanks for the invitation to join the discussion.
    24 Jan 2013, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • 1) The problem with the "balanced" budget approach is that misconception that the US gov is a separate entity from the population like Apple or any other company. Apple could close a deficit by increasing revenues, if it improved its producitivity by coming up with a new product to sell. The gov improves its revenues by drawing from the collective savings of the population that is denominated in a monopolized money medium called Federal Reserve notes. In other words, its like Apple "funding" its deficit by calling in shares of Apple stock. In such a system, the debt and the deficit aren't the problem, its why they are being incurred. In the US the deficit is being incurred to encourage lower productivity. As such, you want to stop that failed policy. Raising "revenues" to close the deficit does nothing to address that. All it does is take Fed notes out of the system that are currently being used to bid up asset prices.


    2) This assumes that interest rates will go up. The reason that interest rates are so low, is because there is a large demand for dollar denominated assets. Not because the US is so clean, but because its the least dirty shirt in the basket. A debt downgrade won't change this, as the alternatives to the US are even worse, or if they aren't worse, they don't have the volume of notes issued on an economy as large as the US.


    3) Gov is inefficient because it is price blind. It has the grant of coercion. As such, it doesn't have to learn from its mistakes unless countervailing coercion is brought against it. Gov can only regulate that which it can be granted. Gov can only be granted coercion, as such it can only regulate coercion. However, to keep gov coercion regulated, gov must be divided. You must create a market for gov. To do this you need many levels of competing gov. One thing you would do is take away 90% of the power the Fed gov has centralized in itself and move it back to the states. This would create a market for competing govs and people could move to the states that where the govs do it better than other states.
    24 Jan 2013, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Thanks for stopping in Futurist.


    On your first question economic growth comes from the private sector, the 90's boom came from the .com bubble and increased revenues came from thriving businesses. So that strategy is accepted now, the difference is how the two parties believe where economic growth comes from. Republicans tend to favor a more robust private sector with limited government involvement while democrats tend to favor more taxes and increased gov. involvment. If you take from the private sector to add to the black hole of the public sector you get a much smaller return on investment than if all that money remained in the private sector.


    2.) I think the debt ceiling needs to go up and we pay our bills as do the republicans. The argument is that we use this opportunity to cut back on government spending. In all our personal lives you can only spend as much as you take in, why should it be different for the government? As the government continues spending that is interest and debt that you eventually have to pay back, and the middle class will see that pay back in the form of higher taxes and higher inflation. Is it responsible to be spending $1 trillion dollars more a year than what we take in?


    3.) For the government to be more efficient it should stick to what it was originally intended to do by the constitution, which is to protect the security of the people, maintaining law and order both domestically and abroad.


    Thats my .02 cents for now.
    24 Jan 2013, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • Jhooper,
    In your answer to my question #1 you talk about raising "revenue " to close the deficit. I wanted to be sure we are on the same page. I was referring to the policy of increased government revenue due to economic growth. 10% of 10 million dollars is more than 10% of 1 million dollars. Total revenues have decreased since the recession. Future growth will put more dollars in the government coffers. If government spending were stagnant the next 8 years, then the deficit would be cut due to increased revenues.
    I'm not sure we need much in cuts ( except the war spending) but we do need government spending restraint.
    24 Jan 2013, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • Nice to be here Jakurtz.
    I agree with you that the debt ceiling needs to go up. If Congress authorizes the expenditures then pay for it. I don't agree that it is a debatable issue. Spending comes from spending bills. Attach the argument to the point. Lets debate while passing spending bills. The last debt ceiling debate cost the government 60 Billion dollars. Somehow, that just doesn't make any sense. But I get that politics does get in the way of logic.
    24 Jan 2013, 10:30 AM Reply Like
  • Jhooper,


    "You must create a market for gov. To do this you need many levels of competing gov. One thing you would do is take away 90% of the power the Fed gov has centralized in itself and move it back to the states. This would create a market for competing govs and people could move to the states that where the govs do it better than other states."


    There are times when a monopoly must be granted. Utilities are a good example. It is best to have the power come from one utility than to have two in competition and both go broke.
    To suggest that states should compete (giving complete victory to those with current advantages) means that services that help everyone ( like the interstate road system) would not be built.


    We are a republic of 50 states + territories. We are not 50 individual countries with local governments acting like CEOs of profit making institutions.
    We fight together, live together, and prosper together.
    24 Jan 2013, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • Milton Friedman used to say that if you cut gov taxes and gov revenue went up, then you didn't cut taxes enough.


    The reason for this would be if the economy improved and gov revenues went up, then the question we should ask is, "How much more could the economy have improved if we kept cutting taxes to keep the debt the same?"


    I think the problem we have is that most people, including Obama and most of the Dems and most of the Repubs, are still thinking as if we are using gold or a gold standard for our money medium. When Nixon took us off gold completely in 1971, our monetary sytem changed. The limiting factor on how many notes we produce is really now about a relationship between how productive the US population is to how many notes we are generating. In other words Fed Res notes (and treas notes) are more akin to stock certificates.


    As such, there is really no reason to pull them in to "fund" the gov. Thus our worry shouldn't be so much about the debt and deficit in the way Apple might worry having a net loss for the year. Our focus should be on whether gov policy is growing the debt while supporting policies that make us less productive by making us more price blind.


    Then the conversation can change from, "Oh my goodness we need to get rid of the debt!" to "Oh my goodness we are incurring debt to pay people not to work!", or "Oh my goodness we are incurring debt because we are punishing people who do work!"


    So all this talk about what do we do about the debt really needs to shift to talk about how much our standards of living are going to be reduced because we are issuing notes for people to engage in consumption while at the same time we are punishing production.
    24 Jan 2013, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » "Spending comes from spending bills...Lets debate while passing spending bills". Exactly right, the problem for the congress is that the senate has not passed a budget for four years, so there has been literally no debate. The only time they have been able to bring up the subject of spending is when the debt ceiling comes up, it is their only card. The congress was elected by the American people too, and their mandate was to reduce spending, they are attempting that by the only means available.


    A quote:
    "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." -- Senator Obama, 2006
    24 Jan 2013, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • Jakurtz,


    You stated this:
    3.) For the government to be more efficient it should stick to what it was originally intended to do by the constitution, which is to protect the security of the people, maintaining law and order both domestically and abroad.


    Its a favorite line of my brother Gary ,the tea party guy. I read the entire constitution and asked him where he ever got the idea that the document ever stated such a limited role for government? The world, even in 1776, needed a government to pay for the war debt of the revolution. Its citizens needed a common currency. A postal Service? Yes, in the constitution.
    But to suggest that the Constitution is a document that was intended not to change is simply not realistic. It has rules imbedded for changing it. The founders knew that the world would be a changing. It has. Government has. Populations have. Politics have changed also.
    I for one am not afraid of future change and refuse to be bound by anyone's limited view of the world in 1776. Even my loved brother.


    To me the kind of argument you put forth does nothing to solve our countries problems. It simply looks back and wishes things to be the way they were.
    With all due respect.
    24 Jan 2013, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • "which is to protect the security of the people" & "where he ever got the idea that the document ever stated such a limited role for government?"


    So are you suggesting that there is a place for a gov that should be violating the security of the people? That's not the future. That's the past. It was the form of gov that the world had known for thousands of years. So if that's want you want, that doesn't mean you are moving forward or progressing. It means you are going backwards and regressing.


    "It simply looks back and wishes things to be the way they were."


    Think about what the Founders went through and the philosophies they had been educated with. The world had gone through a long period of Fuedalism followed by Absolutism. The rise of the Physiocrats in France were the ones that started popularizing the idea of why should gov control every aspect of human life? Why was their grant of coercion a tool that could force everyone to be more productive and price sensitive? The 1000s of years of experience revealed that such power led to dungeons, torture, chains, slavery, war, and the rich getting richer while the poor got poorer.


    Now, its not as if the Founders were of all one mind with regards to the principals of enlightenment, but they were fighting a foreign power that had centralized that power. They wanted to actually employ the principals of enlightenment to establish something the world had never seen before. A gov of self rule. Where people did not live by another's leave. Where power was brought under the rule of law, and to keep that power limited they divided the gov to create a market for govs. Did they get every detail right? Of course not. It was the first attempt, but just because they made mistakes doesn't mean you chuck the whole idea of enlightenment.


    They devised a system for the gov to be changed, but there was a process for that. It was a system of supermajority rule, but what has happened is that the system for change has just been ignored. Now the courts, the executive, and even the legislative branch can just ignore the voice of the people, and if 51% win the vote, they can do whatever they want to the 49%. That's not divided and checked power, and its not the future. Its the past before the experiment of the US. Its the tyranny of the mob and of the minority, whichever one manges to capture the coercion.


    If you really are a futurist, then you should recognize what the founders were trying to accomplish was the future because what came before is exactly what we are getting now.
    24 Jan 2013, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Postal service is $6B in debt, how about Fedex? War/security is exactly the thing the federal government is intended for, even environmental protection, after all if our environment is set on fire our security becomes compromised.


    I am aware of constitutional amendments for changing times, but it is my belief the federal government has overstepped its boundaries and "the Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally." i.e. compromises our security.
    24 Jan 2013, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • Jhopper,
    I love your enthusiasm for political discussion. Thanks. But you wrote this question:


    "So are you suggesting that there is a place for a gov that should be violating the security of the people?


    The answer is No. But your premise is not right. Your statements are slanted in the following way:


    You don't like the fact that we are deep in debt, going deeper, and are spending money you don't approve of. You then look back and say Hey,this threatens the people therefore its unconstitutional.
    (obviously I'm not really quoting you, just trying to make a point)


    That's backwards. Everything the Congress,President, and Supreme Court has done is constitutional. The laws were passed by democratically elected individuals in Congress. They were signed by a legally elected President, and the Supreme Court ruled as provided in the constitution.
    Living in a democracy can be a bitch if your not in the majority. But to change spending, borrowing, or other political matters requires politicians to do their job. Governing is not easy. When a party is out of power they need to help governing. When in Power they need to govern with all in mind.


    I find it interesting that you bring up the French in 1776. There own revolution. Same philosophy of democratic rule as ours. Look how the two countries have grown differently from a political standpoint.


    Its easy to call our government "socialist". Its far easier to look at France and see what that really means. And how far from that position we are.


    I stand by the fact that this country tries hard to be a good government. We might not always succeed, but we have the best type of government for succeeding in the future.


    God Bless America
    24 Jan 2013, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • JaKurtz,
    No one I know is suggesting that the fiscal dilemma does not weaken us economically, here or abroad. I am simply stating that we have a country that passes laws to help its citizens. This is done in an appropriate way under the current system.
    Your quote
    "but it is my belief the federal government has overstepped its boundaries "... is simply untenable. All actions have been legal and appropriate. If a citizen is unhappy with the results they are free to work to make things better. But simply crying foul is an excuse to not do the hard work of citizenship. ( nothing personal intended).


    This is my core complaint. Our citizens complain that things are not fair or not being done right. Yet they don't read, learn, discuss, vocalize, vote, and run for office. When they do these things they get elected and then get denounced for speaking truths and voting in a way that helps everyone.


    Politicians govern. That is their job. Both parties must participate. Citizens should be giving their parties direction.
    I'm not sure why the big overwhelming negativity between the parties has given rise to non governance. I simply know that each party must do their job. Working together to pass legislation which solves problems.


    But yelling about the constitution in 1776 does not get the job done.
    Working together under the constitution of 2013 can accomplish much.
    24 Jan 2013, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Futurist,


    I am not exactly following you on where you think the government should limit its power. The tea party and the republicans of congress are doing the things you argue complainers should do, they vocalize, vote and run for office, yet they are demonized. You believe the government is doing the best it can, the republicans in congress and the Tea Party are part of the government.


    They are doing the best they can to curb "reckless spending" which I think you agree goes on, while the other side wants to raise taxes to 40%. 40% of someones income, when we think about that for a second, that is a lot, when is enough, enough? You are shrinking the private sector and inflating the public sector. When the government orders us to buy health care or be fined that is an intrusion into ones life that goes well beyond the federal government powers (unless you just call it a tax). Can't they say at some point you must eat broccoli twice a day or be "taxed" because unhealthy eating is costing the government health care system too much money? It might sound ridiculous but Mayor Bloomberg just outlawed soda drinks over 16 oz., when and where should it stop? Can't people be responsible for their own decisions and pat the consequences? Its a cruel,cruel world but it is the only one that truly helps people.


    The democrats are supposed to be against big nasty business, but the laws, fines and regulations they put in are killing small business. Private practice doctors can't afford a $13,000 fine because they put the wrong date on their dictation. They also can not afford to have a human resources department to comb through 2600 pages of health care legislation to be sure they are in compliance, big hospitals can afford all of that. Private practices will be a thing of the past in the next decade. Wal-mart can afford fines, permits and regulations but the small business that wants to compete can not, through government intervention they are helping big businesses create monopolies by placing too heavy of a burden on small businesses, through taxes, fines and legislation that go beyond what is necessary in a free-market, but all in the name of "helping" people.
    24 Jan 2013, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • Wow,
    Where do I start.
    1st) I think the government should limit its power according to the constitution as evaluated by the Supreme Court. As an example:
    Japanese US citizens placed in camps during WW2. It was unconstitutional. They should not have done it. The process took awhile but the truth is it will not be done again because that power has now been defined.


    2nd) I disagree with the tea party's premise that the government is operating unconstitutionally. They have the right and my respect for believing whatever they want. I just think it is bad politics and destined for failure.
    3rd) I think the republicans have been a negative party since 2008. Governance is helping rule. They have obstructed to a point of causing problems instead of solving them. The 60 Billion wasted on the last debt ceiling crisis is simply a good illustration.
    I respect the politicians who go to govern. I have little respect for obstructionist in times we need to move ahead and solve critical economic issues. I'm not sure we agree on what reckless spending is. I can quote the stats of debt v GDP during the last depression and the last recession. We can talk about the bail outs. We can talk about unemployment insurance and medicaid paying for elderly care in nursing homes. What is reckless? War?


    When the recession hit this country was in deep doo doo. It is no longer in that same no bank remain standing situation. The wars are ending. We need less recession stimulas. The situation is slowing spending. The real federal deficit has not spiraled out of control. Now we need to pay the debt. Not by grandstanding but by governing.
    I sure hope the Repubs can join in and play a part in the future decisions. They are needed. So far, not much but grandstanding.


    4th) When you start attacking athe democrats because they want to curb broccolli you should ask yourself this: Which party has already put a "personal control" bill on the house agenda? The country is largely for abortions, yet the Rebublicans continue to try and control that personal liberty. Which is worse for control? Soft drink regs or making a woman deliver a baby?


    I could care less about the subject matter. I care that the legislation is lawful and is made to help the country a better place. Your statements seem to me to indicate that you dislike the legislation therefore its illegal. That isn't solid logic.


    If soft drinks are a health concern and health and welfare is a legitimate government concern, then I'm ok with the legislation.
    BTW, isn't NYC a great example of small government making independent decisions? Maybe the big bad federal government should trump that legislation.
    I just don't get the circular arguments.


    Not all laws are good laws. Thats why we have the power to change them. But not all bad laws are illegal. The Tea Party has to stop with that argument.
    5th) I have to say that the Democrats did raise taxes. I liked what they did. 12 years ago the Repubs lowered the tax rates to gain economic growth. The trickle down didn't work. So the Dems changed it back. When Regan lowered taxes the top tax rate was 90%. He lowered it to 40%. That worked. Lowering from 40% to 30% didn't work. Now we are back at 40% for high earners. Whats the beef?


    Basically, I support good government. Politicians taking actions together to solve problems. If I am missing the point that this is happening please enlighten me. Politicians dedicated to the public is what we need. Pols dedicated to themselves is what we have.
    24 Jan 2013, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » We agree we both believe in good government, but we disagree in what that means. I believe a government should be more limited and more free-market driven and I believe through America's history compared to that of the rest of the world it has proven itself to be more prosperous for the people despite its setbacks, you like the government to be more involved with more power, I find that to be dangerous to our liberties and growth.


    We will agree to disagree.


    Comparing soft drink banning to abortion thing doesn't work. One involves an individuals choice that only effects what they put in their own mouth and the other involves two individuals (at least that is the argument).
    24 Jan 2013, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist: Greetings. The court struck down the non-recess recess apointments made by the man who would be king. that is because he was attempting to circumvent the conformation process as required under the constitution. Thus you can readily see that the checks and balances put in place by the founders and framers do work and are needed. I don't beleive for one second that our current president has the good of our nation at heart. He has no repect for the constitution and has said so on several occasions. The over riding philosophy of the current progressives is victory at all costs and the ends justify the means. The constitution does in fact have the means of changing it built in. However the current progressives know they can't get their changes pushed through and actively advocate using extraconstitutional means to acheive their ends. They want to decide which amendments should be stripped away or modified. Do you realize it was the Democrats that put the proforma legislative session into practice to prevent Bush the younger from making recess appointments? Now look at them crying about Republicans using their own rule change against them. Their solution? Change the rules to favor themselves and allow them to advance their agenda at will. The minority party has the role of advise and consent but is not required to consent. That would amount to them being nothing more than a rubber stamp for the majority party. When Democrats are in the minority they don't hesitate to obstruct the Republican agenda by any means available and get a free pass in the press or even encouragement from the fifth estate. When the tables are turned it's a very different picture isn't it?
    28 Jan 2013, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • "The answer is No"


    Why don't you want the gov violating people's rights? I know why I don't, but I am curious as to why you would oppose this. You talk about democracy, so if 51% of the people vote to violate the other 49%, then why should you, based on your beliefs, be opposed to this?


    Do you think there is some higher law than just what a court, a president, or a legislature says there is?
    24 Jan 2013, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • "I think the government should limit its power "


    "ver got the idea that the document ever stated such a limited role for government? "


    So, which is it? Does gov have a limited role or not?
    24 Jan 2013, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • Jhooper,


    Of course governments power is limited. Its limited by its charter. In our case our government is limited by the Constitution as defined by the Supreme Court.


    The entire system of jurisprudence is set up to interpret and define laws and regulations. Governmental power is like water in a fish bowl. If moved ( as in times of war) the fish bowl is picked up and the water sloshes around. But the water is always inside the bowl. The glass bowl is the government charter.


    When the water slops outside the bowl then you have anarchy. Most countries experience a military takeover. What then.
    If lucky the people get a new charter in the future. If unlucky the dictatorship simply rules for life with no restraint of power.


    Your question asked about the limited "role" of government. It can't be answered without knowing the situation. Pretend:


    A deadly pandemic hits America. A virus that is airborne has hit our shore. Doctors have an antidote but to work every American must be inoculated within 5 days or the virus will evolve and 90% of Americans will perish. Is the Government role to force all persons to take the vaccine?


    I say yes. They probably would. Perhaps ,years later we will discover that the government overstepped their bounds and the act was unconstitutional. If so, then the next pandemic wont be stopped and 95% of all Americans will perish.


    The role of government is to serve its people. Give them a society that is organized and fair. But it is impossible to lay down the specific role without knowing the circumstances.
    24 Jan 2013, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • "Its limited by its charter."


    But then you say


    "Your question asked about the limited "role" of government. It can't be answered without knowing the situation. "


    But this isn't a limitation. You are basically claiming there are no limits on gov, and it can do anything we want it to do.


    So if the "we" is 51% and the 51% vote to pluner the 49% via a new charter, are you saying that in that situation the 51% should go ahead and plunder the 49%?


    This is the whole problem with your approach. You haven't admitted to the laws of nature that are evident in your speech, but that you just refuse to acknowledge. You have no logical basis for what you want gov to do. You say it is to serve the people, then that would mean 100% of the people. This is a super majority rule, and the only thing a gov should do then is to only act when it gets a 100% vote. But that's not what you are advocating. You are advocating for the centuries old spoil system. In this system the gov is just another vehicle of theft, but it is disquised as the "public good". If it really were the public good, you wouldn't need guns to enforce it.


    The public good argument for coercion is an old one.



    So to say you can't define gov without knowing the circumstances is to assume gov can do all, in which case it has no limits, and when it has no limits the human beings that get access to gov coercion will act like all human beings do (in their self interest) and will then proceed to use the gov as a vehicle of theft all in the name of the public good as has been the pattern for thousands of years.
    24 Jan 2013, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • Jhopper,


    We probably agree on your premise.
    The writers of the declaration of independence stated that when a government does not recognize certain basic fundamental rights of liberty then the people have the right to secede from that government and form a new one.
    To that I agree. So did they.
    Our government was then formed and the role and limitation of that government ( our existing government) is laid out in the document entitled Constitution of the United States written in 1789. This document was written because the original Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, did not work because it limited the power of the Federal Government.


    From that point on we disagree.
    Your proposal that governments, formed by the people, have some limitation other than that granted by its charter has no basis. The minority of this country is protected by the Constitution.


    You keep insisting that government equals coercion. Not poetic but probably correct. But that is exactly what government is. The power to organize society. Our government does not have unlimited power. It has the powers granted to it.
    You further keep suggesting that the "role" of government is defined. I disagree. The power of government is spelled out in the Constitution. The "role" of government is not a legal matter. It is a philosophical question, imho.
    You talked about the minority being disenfranchised. Since the President can be elected with less than popular support your argument that the republic is controlled by 51.01% of the population is untrue. The majority does rule, most of the time.


    To me, that is better than a dictatorship where a minority rule all the time.
    24 Jan 2013, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • "formed by the people, have some limitation other than that granted by its charter has no basis."


    The limits are the limits of nature. In other words, because of the physical laws of the universe, there is a difference between what we WANT gov to do and what it CAN do.


    For instance, what if we added an amendment to the Constitution that said, "the gov will find a cure for cancer by the end of next week". Do you think that the gov could perform this function by the end of next week, or would you say that gov is limited by the laws of nature?


    So what I am getting at, is just because you might WANT a gov to "serve" the people (like a cure for cancer), if the people can't give the gov that power, then the CAN'T "serve" the people in that way.


    So, the only thing the populace CAN do is grant the gov coercion. They do that so the gov can use that coercion against illegitimate coercion, but since coercion is dangerous, then LIMITS must be placed on that gov, so that coercion doesn't get out of hand and then become the source of oppression that the people were trying to avoid. Gov is coercion. It has to be. Its the defining characteristic. If you are suggesting gov action just be voluntary, then the gov hasn't been given a grant of coercion to repel illegitimate coercion and all you have is just a bunch of blowhards try to make suggestions.
    24 Jan 2013, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • Jhooper,
    No offense meant but you seem angry at saying exactly what I am saying.
    You keep using the word coercion as if government can be granted anything other than forced rule. It is what makes a society. Forced rule.
    The people, by charter, have granted our government, the rules by which to force people to act. Its called governmental power. It is what we grant the government to do. I'm not sure where you think we disagree.


    I know the Constitution grants the Federal Government certain powers. It does not require they cure cancer. Rather it empowers the government to care for the welfare of society. If the legislators agree that cancer research is a way of achieving that goal, and it is a constitutional use of their power, then Voila, cancer research funding.
    This country is not on a death spiral down due to any excessive abuse of power. It is on the way up due to the Constitution allowing our representatives to do their job.
    24 Jan 2013, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • That's not what I asked you. I asked if gov cold mandate a cure for cancer with its grant of force. So, can it?
    24 Jan 2013, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • I'm sure you know that man cannot, by mandate, overcome the physical laws of science.


    But what does that have to do with our political operation? You have created the straw man argument.


    If we can't overcome the laws of nature then there is something wrong with the way we are governing. Ridiculous.


    If you have a question that means something then ask it. If you want spurious arguments, then this is not a legitimate forum for political argument and I will gladly leave it to those who approve of the conduct.


    I answered your earlier question and you wrote back this mis quote:
    "You are basically claiming there are no limits on gov, and it can do anything we want it to do."


    I never said that but you think it clever to misquote and mislead.
    I asked you earlier about a scenario of a pandemic, but you refuse to debate a valid example of extreme governmental power.


    Exactly why is it you want to discuss anything? Misquotes and straw men are not the types of discussion I find enlightening.
    24 Jan 2013, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • "I'm sure you know that man cannot, by mandate, overcome the physical laws of science."


    Good, you are now making progress. This is what I am getting at. Now calm down and don't be so angry. I know its hard to have your strawmen go up in flames by having to address logic and fact, but the purging will be good for you. The only thing you can control in this world is how you react to it, never give another the power to insult you and always remember if someone says something that insults you, that's your fault, not theirs.


    So, since you can't mandate a cure for cancer, you can certainly mandate research for cancer. What you also can't mandate is that the economic law of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits no longer exists. In the situation of mandating cancer research, you run the risk of never finding a cure, but you also create the economics of finding a cure no longer being the reason the research exists. The researchers may even discover that a cure is not possible, but they will never admit that to themselves because if they did, then their research job goes away. The incentive structure is to actually never find a cure, but to build a whole research industry that gets bigger and bigger. Then, all the resources and time that could have gone into other projects, or other cures that might have happened never occur. What makes this possible is the gov's grant of coercion. It allows the people in gov to be blind to prices, and thus continue on with a mistake far longer than a price sensitive market would.


    What we have now moved into is Bastiat's seen and the unseen. You talk about gov roads, utilities, and gov distribution of vacines in epidemics, but what you don't talk about is the superior transportation that would have been built had the gov not built the roads, the vast choices of energy had the gov not monopolized utlities, and the vastly cheaper and more widely available medicare that would have prevented the epidemic in the first place.


    So just because a gov builds a road, does not mean that something else would have been built instead. In fact, logic would dictate that something even better would have been built because the alternative to coercion is voluntary cooperation. Voluntary cooperation requires the utmost in price sensitivity because unlike a gov sponsered research project that can go on long after its clear it won't succeed, a price sensitive system of voluntary cooperation has to learn from its mistakes. The sensitivity of learning from mistakes is what you coercive police state of putting guns in people's faces to make them live like the gun holder's belive they should can only figure out with its market correction of violence.


    And you can't pretend that your system is based on violence because you just said it was.


    "the rules by which to force people to act. "


    This is where we disagree. The only logical role for gov is to use its coercion to repel illegitimate coercion. That means when people are trying to force you to act a certain way. What this basically describes is tyranny, and tyranny is not new, its not progressive, its regressive. The logical role of gov is to keep people free of coercion, not to use gov to coerce people. The slave holders in the south did this. The nobles in Europe who created the slave holders in the South did this. Socialists do it. Communist do it, and the Nazis did it. They were all coercives. The wanted to use gov to force people to act. The problem is, gov CAN'T do this, because people get fed up, and violence is the only market correction available to them.


    As soon as you want to start pointing guns in peoples faces to collect taxes for welfare, you don't have one big family that are all sharing and kind, you have people with access to coercion that are now stealing so they can use that money to buy votes so they coercion wielders can get rich.


    If we could divide the country up, and put everyone on one side that agreed completely with you, and everyone on the other that agreed with me. In 10 years your side would wind up with a very wealthy ruling elite controlling a large swath of a very poor populace. The people on your side would be risking their lives to escape the ruling minority, and they would have to scale walls, jump fences, and swim moates. And guess who would have built those barriers. It wouldn't have been the people on my side. In fact we would welcome those people, because on my side, the noncoercive side, price sensitivity is at its maximum, and that would mean so much economic opportunity that we would welcome people from all over the world because we would need the help to capitalize on those opportunities.


    Granted it might not be your intention for this to happen, and I am sure you believe you can share your way to prosperity, but the cold hard facts of life are what they are and we can't change them. We have to use them to our advantage, and when we do we unleash the amazing power of our reason to raise our standard of living and experience pleasurable things we never thought possible.
    24 Jan 2013, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Jhooper, incredibly well said. That was educational and I thank you for taking the time to write it out so clearly. I never quite grasped what you were saying about coercion but this put it together for me.
    25 Jan 2013, 02:02 AM Reply Like
  • Since you have chosen to insult me in the first paragraph I will leave without ever having read more of your statement than that. Hope your ability to converse improves.
    25 Jan 2013, 07:09 AM Reply Like
  • Thanks for the invitation but I won't be staying. I wish you well.
    25 Jan 2013, 07:10 AM Reply Like
  • "Since you have chosen to insult me in the first paragraph I will leave without ever having read more of your statement than that."


    I told you, never give anyone the power to insult you. If you are going to play with the big boys, you better learn to be willing to have your ideas challenged. Racus debate is how we learn. Rough seas make for good sailors.


    You've basically called me angry and insinuated I was some sort of uneducated, selfish boob, but I didn't let that bother me. I recognize our gov school system has educated people to be hypersensitive and emotional. Its how you create a fickle mob, like that scene from "Julius Ceasar". I was still willing to engage in the debate.


    If you are ever going to be sharpened, you had better learn to put up with some abraison. If not, you get this...


    "Thanks for the invitation but I won't be staying."


    This is the typical response when an illogical argument meets a logical argument.
    25 Jan 2013, 07:23 AM Reply Like
  • jakurtz


    This is not a new argument. Its just classical economics. You don't hear it very much these days, because gov schools don't want people skeptical of gov coercion. Think about it, is a gov school that uses coercion to force people to pay for it, ever going to have any incentive to have people question that coercion?


    A coercion free society is the basis for the idea of a "free" market. Its not a market where you are free to do whatever you want. That would include stealing and fraud, but a market that is free from stealing and fraud. This is why de Gournay came up with laisse faire. It was French for, "hands off". The rise of the Physiocrates was in response to Colbert and the Sun King controlling everyones life with regulation after regulation that was making the King and Colbert richer and richer while everyone else was getting poorer and poorer.


    If you think about the theft transaction, its the only transaction where one party gets richer while the other party gets poorer. The only way for the theft transaction to take place is coercion. Thus, in order to stop coercion and leave people with only the option for survival of production, people create gov. Then they grant that gov the power of coercion to oppose the illegitimate coercion. Of course coercion is dangerous, and the reason its dangerous is because of human nature.


    People are all motivated by the instinct of survival. They will either produce or steal to survive depending on which one costs less. Coercion makes stealing very cheap. Thus, when you create a gov, you basically give a group of people the right to use coercion. Thus you have just made stealing very cheap for them if you don't have limits on that use of coercion. The way you put limits on it is to divide the gov. This is why you see gov constantly wanting to centralize. Its because the centralization lowers the price of using the coercion because the humans in gov have a survival instinct which drives them to lower the cost of stealing. This is why it is so critical for the people to retain their rights as a check against that cheapening of the coercion costs. They must always be able to abolish their gov and start a new one. So they retain the right to keep arms, the right to secede, the right to express their opinions, etc, etc.


    So whenever you see a market where people are getting richer while others are getting poorer, you don't have a free market, you have a market polluted with coercion, since coercion is the only transaction where someone gets richer while another gets poorer. Of course people won't put up with this, so you have to disguise the coercion as for the "public good". Then you get people to drop their defenses, they surrender their rights (like being armed), and then they are completely defenseless. Then the plunder really takes off, and why places like N Korea and Cuba where they are all one big happy collective have the highest of all income disparities. Un and Castro live like kings (they get richer) and everyone else lives like peasants (they get poorer).


    Coercion only has two uses. It can be used to steal or it can be used as a defense against stealing. When gov is not using its grant of coercion to protect us from stealing, the gov becomes the source of the coercion and theft. So JP Morgan back in 1913 captures a bunch of politicians, and for the "public good" cartelizes the banking industry. Now, whenever JP Morgan and the bankers get in trouble, the Fed taxes the population via currency debasements, transfers that wealth via the tax (they get richer) from the populace (who gets poorer), and presto the gov has become the agent of theft. All for the "public good" mind your because we absolutely couldn't let JP Morgan take a hit. He's just too valuable to the economy. Colbert and Louis IV said the same thing, and Bousset would write endlessly about the need for Absolutism.


    Futurists represents one of the throng that has been lied to and has believed the lie, and now his ego is wrapped up in furthering the lie because he has been taught this makes him good to give up his rights and obey the state. All that has happened is he has been turned into a peasant that will roll over and let his wealth be transferred to the people that have captured the coercion.
    25 Jan 2013, 07:43 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Its very interesting. A true free market is a coercion free market, I have had the vague idea but I never knew how to talk about it. Do you have a book on the subject you would recommend?
    25 Jan 2013, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • Its a massive read, but if you can get through Rothbards "Conceived in Liberty" it gives a really good history of the regulatory history of colonial America. You get a really good feel for the environment that formed the experiences of the colonies and the coercive control they experienced at the hands of Europe. In it you see that the distance the colonies had from Europe gave them a chance to be free from the coercive control and people saw what it was like not to be forced to pay a tithe or a tax and what it was like to keep everything they earned and have no regulatory body controlling their trade vs having all that taken away as the European authorities finally started to arrive with troops and guns.


    Its a four volume set, so its not weekend read, but it does give you a good basis for viewing how the gov control and regulatory framework of today is no different than what was going on in Europe for hundreds of years. It basically boiled down to a bunch of trade wars erupting into the real thing. Which is natural. The only way to oppose coercion is with more coercion. Its a good way to view the markets from a macro perspective, and I use it for my bond trading as a guide for the general direction of interest rates. Its worked really well.
    25 Jan 2013, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • How were the people served by the bailout of the 2B2F banks and the UAW? Said action was unprecedented and probably unconstitutional. When you have those in power who chafe at restraint and openly even brazenly over reach and mislead that is not good government. As I said up strem the minority party is not there as a rubber stamp and the majority party must respect that not demonize the loyal opposition for obstructing bad appointments or legislation. Governing by replacing legislative processes with executive order is pattently unconstitutional. Enacting the DREAM act through executive order, declaring DOMA unconstitutional by executive authority or putting Cap-N-Tax in place via the EPA all because the legislature refused to do so is executive over reach. The man who would be king sure likes to play fast and loose catch me if you can games through the courts for a constitutional scholar that he claims to be. In fact he creates a new constitutional crises almost every week. We never hear about it though because our "News outlets." are too invloved with the imaginary freinds of college atheletes or doping scandals amongst bicyclists.
    28 Jan 2013, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • Would govts role be to shoot those that refuse to get the vaccine. Those that would believe they can force them to get the vacine would most likely have the attitude that its ok to shoot them for not taking the vaccine. Once you believe that govt is force to be used on people or against thier rights you are over the line in the proper application of govt.
    28 Jan 2013, 04:42 PM Reply Like
  • Jhooper, I guess I should have read down further prior to commenting above. You covered things very well.
    28 Jan 2013, 04:50 PM Reply Like
  • What the conservatives in this room don't understand is that your form of dialgoue keeps pushing out the centrist and liberal people, which means it goes from being a room of political dialogue to a room of political rants from one point of view.


    If you want to learn nothing and pat yourselves on the back for how very right you are, this is a valid and successful blog. If you want to have a conversation and try to understand other points of view, this blog is a failure.


    Sometimes it helps to understand why people you disagree with think the way they do, and learn from them, rather than be so insecure in your own views that you have to blast them with rants until they walk away. That doesn't make you right, it just means your socially unable to work or talk with people you don't agree with. NMFP.
    25 Jan 2013, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I do wish more liberals and centrists would join in. I can't bring myself to come to the conclusion that they don't just because the conservatives here are mean in the way they approach the dialogue.


    I always try to break it down that we all want the same thing, good government that creates an environment where the most people prosper. How do we get there should be the argument. If we can all start with that premise then the discussion should be constructive. But the modern dialogue has become that one party cares about the poor and less fortunate, wants to be self-less and protect the citizens, while the other side does not. I have found through my discussions that my liberal counterpart is actually trying to convince me to care about the environment, health-care and the poor, in other words, they believe I am such a scoundrel that I have not given those things any thought, instead of realizing that my proposed solutions are trying to solve those problems for the most people possible in the most efficient way. I think I understand why, they are under the belief that deeper government involvement is the only solution to those problems, so when I talk about making government smaller and less intrusive it sounds like I am saying let the poor, sick and hungry die and let big business run the show. They become disgusted with me. I literally lost a smart liberal friend because I "liked" Mitt Romney on my facebook page.


    I don't know, to come in to a forum on politics one has to have pretty thick skin and no one should take anything personally.


    NothingMFpersonal Is that about right?
    25 Jan 2013, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • "your form of dialgoue keeps pushing out the centrist and liberal people"


    That's not my fault its there fault. They are the ones that are intolerant. They only want confirmation bias. The whole point of an argument is to have your ideas challenged. In their world (and apparently yours) having your ideas challenged is an insult. How can you ever have an argument with a point of view like that? Its tantamount to a little kid putting their hands over their ears and going "la, la, la" at the top of their lungs so they don't have to hear what they don't want to hear.


    The so called liberals (which they really aren't, they are coercives -liberals believe in liberty, which is being free from coercion), and centrists are just people that are afraid to admit they are a liberal (see above).


    I'm told that my view that gov is the worst charity vehicle means that I want to throw old people in snow banks, starve children, and step on baby chics, and I don't see you coming to my aid when that happens. But I'm still here ready to take and engage in racuas debate. If no one is worried about handling me with kitt gloves, then why should I worry about handling them with kitt gloves? If I have to take being called an old person killer and child killer because I think gov is the worst vehicle for charity, then they can take hearing that using guns to force charity is a prescription for charity.


    But if they want to go home and cry in their cereal, that's there fault not mine. I polished off my chocolate covered sugar bombs at home, and I am here ready to have everything I believe challenged and I am ready to defend it with logic and reason and fact. If they just want to come here and spout off a bunch of feel good platititudes that are poorly thought out and will lead to chaos and expect that is going to change my mind, then they are indeed going to be disappointed. Life is hard, its brutal, and the only thing we have that we can control is how we react to that. This is a lesson they need to learn if they ever expect to learn anything else and finally have the ability to come out of their sheltered bias confirmation blogs.
    25 Jan 2013, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • Every liberal and centrist that has been in this forum, abandoned it.


    I can't explain to you better why they have, but they have, so *maybe*, *just maybe*, something is going on here that causes it.
    25 Jan 2013, 10:52 AM Reply Like
  • Yeah. Its them. Again, it just goes to show they don't want to debate, they want to dictate. Like I said. I'm here and I am willing to take it. The so called centrists and liberals (disguised coercives) are proposing dangerous things that have resulted in the death and suffering of billions. If they aren't willing to hear that or call it an insult, then they definitely aren't going to learn anything.


    I'm still here. I'm still waiting to hear my beliefs challenged. I'm not going to let insults end my willingness to debate. I don't see why they can't do the same. They are going to have to learn that pretending the world doesn't offer adversity isn't going to make it go away. You have to face the sea of troubles to deal with them.
    25 Jan 2013, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I would agree with that except that every conversation I have had with a liberal counterpart has ended the same way. They either become visibly angry with me or they walk away saying something like, "talking politics is stupid."


    This includes my family who I get along with really well until politics comes up and they almost literally want to strangle me, and I am a pretty easy going dude. I swear all I talk about are policies I do and do not like and why I think they fail, I never get personal with them (until they get angry and then I ask them why they are getting so angry with me and they reply by calling me stupid or something.)


    Either way, I can not control how or what people talk about here, but it wouldn't be bad for everyone to consider what Springer is saying and see if dialogue can become more constructive. Otherwise, it is what it is.
    25 Jan 2013, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • Couldn't be a reason for it. Definitely not. Definitely them.


    Reminds me of an uncle. His sister stopped talking to him. His oldest son stopped talking to him. His nephew stopped talking to him. Yet, some people in the family somehow still want to believe its them, not him. Couldn't be him...
    25 Jan 2013, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • Yeah, because they all couldn't give themselves the power not to be offended. I'm still here waiting to talk. Where's futurist? So, yeah, its his problem not mine. I'm willing to hear a challenge. That's what's different from your scenario above.
    25 Jan 2013, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • Nope. Pretty much the same situation. Self assured, unable to listen, defending your personal right to be offensive and trying to blame others for deciding your words have no value.


    Happy pontificating to you.
    25 Jan 2013, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • "unable to listen"


    Huh? I'm here listening. Where's the other guy? I don't get offended. That's my point. The other guy can't take it, and its not my job to avoid the truth so he can.


    Basically what you are saying is I have to pussy foot , but he doesn't. That's childish behavior. Its his loss not mine.
    25 Jan 2013, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • Exactly what my uncle would say. He's never met two of his grandchildren, yet would say its their loss because of their parents, not his. LOL
    25 Jan 2013, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » See how it gets personal into my personality and the way I must be delivering the message, (no offense taken)


    People get angry in discussions when something they have created in their minds and formed an emotional attachment to gets criticized.


    an analogy:
    a burgeoning artist creates a print. He/she worked really hard on it, a full two weeks and he has been practicing painting for an entire year! A friend comes over and gives the painting a critique and while it is a good effort, the artist really needs to keep working. The artist pouts gets angry and says you know nothing of what you are talking about (this artist has formed an emotional attachment to their work that they now take the criticism personally, as opposed to how it should be taken, a criticism of that piece of art)


    Now an artist who has been working for years creates a piece of work. He/she is confident in her abilities and also knows her limitations, strengths, and weaknesses. A friend comes over and critiques the piece, the artist says thanks appreciate the words, explains why they did this, this and this and then moves on.


    I am afraid people, very smart people have created a figure of this president in their minds and an emotional attachment with it which has made any type of criticism of him impossible without drawing an emotional reaction: They don't think he is perfect, far from it but they believe he is a victim; a victim of white right old mens bigotry, he stands up for other little guy victims, the poor, gays, minorities, the environment against dirty big business. He cares deeply about people and wants to do what is right but gets unfairly attacked, probably because he is black because the last president sucked and he was white and no one criticized him. So when this emotional idea gets criticized people respond emotionally and with anger. I have seen it a million times.
    25 Jan 2013, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • Didn't read beyond 2nd paragraph. You like the sound of your voice. Enjoy it. People who don't agree with you will not listen to you.


    That is your problem. Not theirs. The way you communicate makes you intolerable. If you want to convince people of a point you're trying to make, you would reflect on this. If you want to simply engage in verbally exciting yourself with words and thoughts that give you pleasure, you will continue to harp in a way that gains you more people who just ignore everything you post.


    As I used to say about my uncle... "...the biggest problem I have with him is that 10% of the time he says something really smart, but I don't listen to it because the other 90% of the time he's an idiot, so I just assume everything he says is stupid."


    Your percentage of saying smart things is probably significantly higher, but the point remains, and the assumption that your words are likely going to waste my time remains.


    "Poetry has done enough when it charms, but prose must also convince." - H. L. Mencken


    "I can't convince you to put the drink down if you're an alcoholic, you have to want to do that. I can't convince you to stop eating the cookies when you're a diabetic. You have to do that. And that takes responsibility." - Don Young
    25 Jan 2013, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • Aw geez... so aggravated... thought I was responding to jhooper...
    25 Jan 2013, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • "Every liberal and centrist that has been in this forum, abandoned it."


    :-) Does that mean you are neither "liberal" nor "centrist" Jon?
    25 Jan 2013, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv,


    I don't know...


    I'm the guy who contributed the max to Ron Paul and Barack Obama in 2008, and told them all to go fly a kite in 2012.


    I'm the guy griping that people haven't dialogued the same in this country since 9/11, and believes the entire country has been scarred by that event but won't acknowledge it, and can't figure out how to get past it (4 days of nothing but one event on TV 24 hours per day is called brainwashing in most cultures).


    I'm the person who keeps griping at people that if they stopped and talked to people they disagree with long enough, they'd find they agree on a lot more than they think we do.


    I'm one of those idiots who thinks compromise is integral to the functioning of political endeavors. It shouldn't be us vs. them, but a question of how we negotiate something that moves beyond gridlock toward governance. That's how elected government works. Otherwise, we will have what we got, a bunch of ninnies yelling at each other to entertain our irritations.


    I'm a weirdo who likes


    I'm amused that if I listen to my friends on the far left, and then I listen to my friends on the far right, I have to realize that according to them, by 2016 I'll have been living under fascism for 16 years (since the lefties called Bush II a fascist and the righties have called Obama a fascist). Thus... I am just amazed that we'll still have democratic elections in 2016 after so many years of fascism without even so much as a revolutionary militia required.


    I'm a fool who will say that Jon Stewart has become the closest thing we have to an Edward R. Murrow figure in the news media, and that's sad on more levels than I can go into without writing a thesis on it. Really? A comedian is the only one doing investigative reporting and vetting the truth any more? Has our news devolved so far to just be about entertaining our animal spirits to keep us angry at one another, and thus controlled?


    And that statement is not a compliment for Jon Stewart, it is an indictment of our current media, and a statement that we desperately need real journalists with integrity, thoughtfulness, tough questions, and researched stories, on both the left and right, right now. And, I have no idea where they will come from.


    What am I? Not sure...


    (but probably abandoning this forum again... (I already did once for quite a while... but I sent people over here... so I thought I should be part of the dialogue if I did that...))
    25 Jan 2013, 03:04 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Well said!
    25 Jan 2013, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • "I'm one of those idiots who thinks compromise is integral to the functioning of political endeavors."


    But where is the compromise between poison and food. If some people want to do something really harmful and damaging to everyone's life, is the compromise, "Well let's just hurt them a little?"


    No, you stand up against it. You push past the insults and fight for what's right. You figth for people's liberty and you don't negotiate for just taking some of it away because someone claims to have good intentions.


    The problem is with people who claim debate means everyone giving up what they believe and if they don't then they are mean and not listening. Just because you suggest I should only drink half the poison you suggest I should drink does not mean I am being unreasonable. It means just the opposite.
    25 Jan 2013, 03:36 PM Reply Like
  • By the way - long as we're venting - congrats to the conservatives on their fantastic victory on Martin Luther King, Jr., Day in redistricting Virginia. Holding a state congressional session while Democrats are away at the Presidential Inauguration is also a good way to avoid dialogue and win. And, indeed, a happy Lee-Jackson-King Day to all.
    25 Jan 2013, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • Welcome to a duopoly. What you are describing is a market of only two products. When a gov gains the power to start controlling prices, you create the economics for duopolies. You only have two products to choose from, and they pretty much wind up being the same thing (they both have the same incentive structure), so your choice is really about bad or really bad.
    25 Jan 2013, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I will just add that the news source by citing this was done on MLK day incites hate and anger because people have deep emotions about MLK. Repubs. intention was not to take advantage of MLK day they took advantage of dems being on recess for the inauguration, much like Obama did last year or the year before when he nominated positions in his cabinet while the house was in recess.


    The media and pundits have created good and evil and that's why people can't look at the other side and have calm conversations. The link I posted below on Obama is just that he violated the constitution, it is not that he is an evil bad guy, he just violated the constitution. Yet, that will be received with as much or more vitriol that people are just out to get Obama than the media source insinuating republicans desecrated MLK day by redistricting VA.
    25 Jan 2013, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • “Senate adjourned in memory of General Thomas J. 'Stonewall' Jackson,” according to the minutes (on MLK Day; and on the day of the second inauguration of our first mulatto president).


    And, really, just a flat out classy move to redistrict on a national holiday and the day of the presidential inauguration... because if you can't win fairly, change the districts.
    25 Jan 2013, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I don't think it is pretty, but I don't pretend one side does it and the other side does not. Was it nice to make an ad accusing Romney of being responsible for a woman's death by cancer, because he fired a worker seven years earlier? Its ugly stuff, but he were creating race hate and anger and vitriol by bringing into it that race aspect, when if it were a white democratic president and all things being equal, it would have happened the same way.
    25 Jan 2013, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • That Virginia Congress session did everything possible to bring race front and center into it. The only people who cannot see that probably have a real racist problem.


    Fact is, I've just about never met anyone who is not at least a little bit racist, self included. We all have prejudices. Acknowledge it. Move on.


    In the end, redistricting won't change demographics.
    25 Jan 2013, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Almost as much success as this one. "A federal appeals court ruled that President Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel."



    -- but we could probably fling these things around all day.
    25 Jan 2013, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • Yeah, if you are looking for good guys and bad guys between Repubs and Dems, you're barking up the wrong paradigm.
    25 Jan 2013, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • See what I mean.

    25 Jan 2013, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • If you conflate, you get conflated.
    25 Jan 2013, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • There's nothing see. There's no dialogue. You don't listen, you lose, not me. Go talk to an empty chair.
    25 Jan 2013, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • What? You're trying to get me to say the Democrats are good and the Republicans are bad? My point is to recognize the world for what it is, and in this world everyone works for their own self interest. Letting people have unchecked access to coercion simply because they claim to "care" is a prescription for disaster. If people are going to get insulted at the notion that maybe that aren't as alturistic as they think they, then you can't have an honest look at the world.


    The pattern of history is clear. There is always a trend for power to be concentrated, and then tha coercion will be used to transfer wealth from those without such access to those that do. The Democrats will do it, the Republicans will do it, anybody will do it. Not because they don't have good intentions, but because the incentive structure causes them to rationalize that what they are doing is good even though it is hurting people.


    So one thing you do with this information is recognize the very real impact these laws of nature (of which human nature is a part) have on markets. After all, markets are just the sum total of human actions attempting to satisfy the human of survival, and recognize how those actions are going to affect human productivity, which is what we use to consume and thus survive and thus establish a standard of living. Then you can make assessments about a certain set of policy issues as to whether they are going to be good for production and thus good for consumption and thus good for the standard of living and thus good for the markets.


    The other thing you can do is recognize the struggle between the coercives and the noncoercives and see which direction the battle is going, and when you see the coercives winning (like always getting insulted when you point out their coercion and noticing that just about everyone is insulted), then you can recognize that coercion is bad for productivity, thus bad for consumption, thus bad for the standard of living, and thus bad for markets.


    Then we can have a discussion about how coercion is manifesting itself and how it is not, and then consider that impact on our standard of living and how we can react to what's going on in order to protect our standard of living.


    But if you just want to go home and cry into your Cheerios because I suggested that some of your policies prescriptions favor coercion and that's bad for people, then we can't have that discussion. But if you want to stay here and accuse me of favoring coercive policies, then fine, we can debate that, and if you can point out where I am missing the coercion in my policies, I will be happy to concede that. But to do so, you just can't say I am mean or nasty, you have to have a reason and a logical set of steps that allows you to arrive at that reason for me to be willing to consider your position.


    But expressing an opinion about someone's favoring coercive policies as being tyrannical is not an insult, because that's what coercive policies are. I can't control someone else's feelings. That's their job. Anybody at anytime can say they are offended or upset. With such a position you couldn't have any debates of any kind, because as soon as someone started to loose, they can say they are upset and are going to go cry in their Cheerios. What I have to do is examine if what I said is logical and if it is and they are still upset, then all that means is that they are the ones with the problem.


    But if you are willing to stay here and be willing to consider if you are favoring tyrannical polices, then I am willing to consider if I am favoring tyrannical policies. But if polite means never mentioning something that might be hard for people to hear, then yeah, there will never be any listening.
    25 Jan 2013, 01:26 PM Reply Like
  • The appeals court must be mistaken, jak. Futurist assures us that
    "Everything the Congress,President, and Supreme Court has done is constitutional."
    25 Jan 2013, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • Alright. I've made my irritated comments here.


    The point, which seems largely moot, is that if this were a political chat for all, it would be welcoming to a broad array of views. It is not. Therefore, it doesn't function well. Therefore, I can't recommend when people get into politics in other investment discussions that they can come here to vent, and discuss... because in the end... it becomes like much of the news on the left and right these days, a pointless exercise of people shouting flawed data at each other while not listening to a word the other side says.


    Futurist came here because I suggested on the Axion Power Concentrators that political discussions could move here, as they got out of hand over there. However, he left because this room is lopsided... and less interested in learning than pontificating self-justifications.


    That's my irritation. I can't fix it. Not today.
    25 Jan 2013, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • "Alright. I've made my irritated comments here."


    Exactly. The only person that can control your irritation is you. The problem here is that people think hearing something that they don't want to hear is impolite. Well if you are going to go through life with that position, all you will ever experience is confirmation bias. Just imagine a world where no one, ever, let themself be insulted. Imagine how different and how much more advanced we would be.


    Take a breath, and reread what I have wrote, and try and walk away without being offended. See if you can do that.
    25 Jan 2013, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • Make sure you get the last word in. That's how you'll know you're right.
    25 Jan 2013, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • OK
    25 Jan 2013, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • "However, he left because this room is lopsided... and less interested in learning than pontificating self-justifications."


    No question that Futurist expressed opinions that did not attract supporting affirmation from others, Jon. OTOH, "less interested in learning than pontificating" strikes me as applying to him as much as anyone else participating in the exchanges. I tend to suspect he stopped participating because of lack of expressed sympathies for his views.


    I find jhooper a bit doctrinaire, Jak willing to listen and consider other views and you as encouraging such exchange with openness to consider opposing views.


    :-) Now for myself there can be no question that I have a corner on "the truth" and I am correct in my judgments 100% of the time until I a senior moment and meander in confusion.
    25 Jan 2013, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • Fair enough assessment D-Inv. Especially, the last paragraph - LOL. Nice one.
    25 Jan 2013, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • Oh, by the way...


    I mentioned to my wife that someone made a comment about negotiating a compromise being like agreeing to eat poison with your food.


    She responded:


    - That assumes they know what is poison and what is food.


    - All food is poisonous to someone or something.
    25 Jan 2013, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I was going to say that the argument you are trying to make is that one side needs to give the other side enough credit for being intelligent enough and meaning well enough and decent enough that they would not offer you poison.


    The rebuttal is that they do not realize they are offering poison.


    The truth is both sides are offering what the other considers poison.
    The truth is both sides are offering what they consider the elixir.


    Tough negotiators view their sides this way and attempt to have as much of their elixir drank as possible. Depending on who you agree with probably depends on which cup you believe has more elixir than poison.


    (Apologies if this does not make sense to anyone but me)
    25 Jan 2013, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • liked your comment jak
    25 Jan 2013, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • Its easy to determine food and poison. Poison repeatedly kills people, and food repeatedly lets them live. This is what our capacity to reason is utilized for. Constantly experimenting to find food and poison. Over time we learn incontrovertible truths about what is food and what is poison.


    For instance. If you say there is no truth, then you are saying its TRUE there is no truth. Well if you have just said its TRUE, you've learned there is TRUTH. From this foundation, you can then move on to find other truths, like what is food and what is poison. Once you do this, then you no longer need to compromise about food and poison, because your reason has been utilized to teach you which one is which.
    25 Jan 2013, 09:01 PM Reply Like
  • Jon, many feel that compromise is like this:


    Your arguing with a rapist and the argument goes to how much penetration your going to get. He wants full penetration and you want none. How do you compromise on that.


    In life there are some things that people simply will not compromise on and it seems we get into those arguments more than any other because the political lines have been drawn at those points. Abortion is the very first one that comes to mind.


    One of your comments above (I appologize for being late...maple syrup/wood cutting/splitting takes all my free time) intrigued me.


    "I'm the guy griping that people haven't dialogued the same in this country since 9/11, and believes the entire country has been scarred by that event but won't acknowledge it, and can't figure out how to get past it."


    I think you should look at this site to get a bit of an understanding about what happened there. Most folks have no clue what their soul is telling them about that event and I think the real split in this country is now the attack on the Christian religion but the effects are subliminal at present. JMHO



    If you believe it is possible that 9/11 was a prophecy then you understand the reason it is still having an impact on folks today.


    If anyone here gets more interested try reading a book called the "Harbinger"

    29 Jan 2013, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » What a coincidence, DG. My grandmother was just talking to me about that book on Saturday when I called her for her 93rd birthday (she is fit as a fiddle) my uncle had given it to her to read.


    I don't know enough about the book, I know I don't like doom and gloom and I definitely have a little different outlook from my grandma, but without having looked into the into the book anymore, I won't say anymore right now. I can appreciate your views on the core problem with America today.
    29 Jan 2013, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • Jak, You should listen to your grandmother. Take a look at the two links at least. You might even consider buying the book and just hanging on to it for the time being. Hint, hint.


    Grandmothers do know best and there is no such thing as a coincidence. Things happen for a reason. Me and your grandmother, hmmmm... I would say you should listen. LOL in a serious way.
    29 Jan 2013, 10:27 AM Reply Like
  • DG,


    I assume no politician knows best, and therefore a meeting in the middle of all their stupidity can only be more intelligent than their individual views; and it might actually represent all people, instead of one self-righteous group or the other.


    If there is no value placed on the democratic process, in which sometimes our views lose, then maybe it is time to support a different form of government. However, to support democracy, means supporting politicians working together through their disagreements to find a way.
    29 Jan 2013, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • "However, to support democracy, means supporting politicians working together through their disagreements to find a way. "


    Which is why you want a filtered democracy, like a republic, instead of a pure democracy. Special interest is the manifestation of democracy. The reason is because of the economics principle of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. This is why it so important for the society to design its gov in a way that forces the wrong people to do the right thing. If the system is designed where the hope is that only the right people will be in power and will only do the right thing, then you have designed a system that recognizes nothing about reality.


    In reality there are absolutes. Nature does not compromise. As such, if you institute a gov, it must be designed in recognition of these absolutes. Its like trying to build a house by throwing a bunch of building materials into a pit and just hoping they produce the house you want, and when they don't, you get angry at the building supplies for not doing what you wanted.


    As such, there is a difference between what we WANT gov to do, and what it CAN do. There is no compromise on this, and if you try and build a system that rejects that reality, all you will get is conflict. Thus, you let gov do the things it logically can do and what you can logically get a super majority support for, and then it becomes extremely difficult for either the right or the wrong person to do the wrong thing.


    We can grant gov coercion, thus gov can regulate with regards to coercion. But, because coercion is dangerous, you limit that power by breaking up gov, and thereby create markets for gov. Granted this will make building a gov road system difficult or a gov health care system difficult, but roads and bridges are based on price. Since we can't grant gov superior price information, then there is no reason to expect gov to regulate prices.


    In the attempts to get anything different from gov than what a supermajority can support, even though their will be disagreements in this and compromises (which is why you create a market for govs), the result is everyone is at each other's throat and that's why socialist and communist and central control structures break up and fall apart. The people literally tear themselves away from each other. Its exactly what we are seeing form in the US today. If it continues, you should expect the UNITED States to break up like the Soviet UNION.
    29 Jan 2013, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I will check out the book, she will be thrilled to hear I heard about it through other sources. :-)
    29 Jan 2013, 02:34 PM Reply Like
  • Jak, Tell her its the quality of the people here on seeking Alpha but please do not direct her to our political rants.....ouch, ouch, ouch, grandmother spankings.
    29 Jan 2013, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • There must be recognition of the fact that not all parties are interested in playing by the rules set forth under the constitution. When powerful groups representing special inerests or more sinister ends come to power by what ever means is necessary problems will become apparent. Look at the group known as ACORN. They have no interest in democrtatic ideals, processes or outcomes. Their only goal is to advance their progressive agenda by winning elections through cheating. This is King, Voldemorts root. He's a student of Alynsky and Marx. He is not doing yeomens work from the oval office he's creating one constitutional crises after another to satisfy his owners including George, Soros who is no freind of the US of A. In my veiw he is in fact a domestic enemy of the constitutiomn and has said so in no uncertain terms. The latest court decission reflects this fact. There will be more forthcoming. He has been playing fast and loose with the constitution and catch me if you can through the courts. Now he is starting to get caught and he's not liking it. Wait until the Fast and Furious documents are released under court order. That should be an interesting series of events.
    30 Jan 2013, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • I hear allot that we don't listen to one another and that discourse has become crude and vulgar. There are those who insist that effectively debating the issues whatever they may be should be conducted in a more genteel fashion. That those who are not congeneial are just wrong. Futurist is a prime example of someone who having lost the intelectual argument retires from the feild. Just because I don't agree with another doesn't make me wrong. Starting from the assumption that just because someone has attained high office means that they have done so for beneficial motives. History shows us that it is folly to make such assumptions. Many if not most of those seeking high office do so for less than altruistic motives. The Roberts decision on Obamatax was a stark reminder that elections do indeed have consequences. We are seeing them daily. King, Voldemort demonizes the Republicans in the house constantly especially those evil TEA Party activists that somehow won an election just like he did. He has willing accomplices in the press which has degenerated into his cheerleading section. Simple math shows the flaw in this. There are slightly more than sixty of them in a body of 435. What we are told is that those sixty five representatives are holding the nation hostage to their radical right wing agenda. So the other 370 members can't put together a coalition to accomplish anything. REALLY? Just who are these powerfull sixty five representatives and what radical agenda are they pushing? I think upon closer examination you will find they are closer to the founders and framers in philosophy and intent than any of the polished professional carreer politicians working on both sides of the isle. When an individual loses the intelectual argument they use other options like invoking the race card, calling names or disparaging the intelect and/or intentions of their opposition. The other option is to quit the debate. Quitting the debate indicates recognition that your position in the argument is untennable. That doesn't mean that those who presented the better argument are mean spirited or have bad intentions. It merely means they presented the more cogent argument. I have seen this repeatedly on the Breakfast club as well.
    28 Jan 2013, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » State capitalism at its finest. In the fiscal cliff deal a last minute provision went in by Harry Reid that drastically cuts Medicare payments for Elekta AB's product while not touching those of its competitor Varian Medical Systems. Varian is based in CA, while Elekta is a Swedish company.


    "Mr. Reid has a deep relationship with Varian. About nine years ago, he secured federal funding for Varian to work with the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies"



    Excellent work on the fiscal cliff deal. So he first gave them our money for the federal funding, then he gave them an unfair competitive advantage so when they screw up their product, were all stuck with it.


    It won't last forever.
    28 Jan 2013, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Ask McConnell, Baucus and Hatch why Amgen got $500 million in tax breaks the same way.
    28 Jan 2013, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » I should have noted that I wasn't attempting to be partisan. I am aware the cronyism goes both ways. It's a part of the system that can not last forever or else innovation will slowly die off and people, I hope, will not stand for regression.
    29 Jan 2013, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Jpau, you should work on recognizing the difference of the two deals. The Tax break effected biotech firms across the board, it did not favor one company over another. Amgen is just the largest of the companies. This is not crony capitalism giving unfair advantage to one company over another company in the same sector, this is a tax break to a sector not unlike tax breaks in every other sector for one thing or another.


    I should have known to read the story before conceding they were both the same thing.


    It also highlights the deception the liberal media continues to pull over the American people. First they try to make it sound like crony capitalism targeting a specific huge company, second they say it will cost the taxpayers $500m when the only reason for the tax break to exist was to counter the costs the new healthcare law is placing on this sector by cutting Medicare reimbursements to these companies.
    29 Jan 2013, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • jakurtz, it's crony capitalism where Amgen has some percentage of their 74 lobbyists asking for a special break it doesn't need to be profitable (Morningstar says they netted $4.345bn in 2012). The fact that they didn't care that other companies selling dialysis drugs would benefit really doesn't make it any cleaner IMO. It's going to cost Medicare $500 million over the next 2 years.


    I'd also like to point out that I included Baucus, a dem. I've pretty much lost hope for our government, it seems almost entirely beholden to corporate masters.

    29 Jan 2013, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Jpau,


    There is a great book I read recently called "The End of the Free Market" by Ian Bremmer. It describes the term State Capitalism and that there are different degrees of government control over a capitalist/free-market system (no country has ever been pure capitalism or even pure socialism). So, if there were a line of degree of state capitalism the farthest left point representing the most government involvement and the farthest right point representing the least, we would probably see China at the farthest left and America at the farthest right.


    When the financial crisis hit and sent the world economy into a sputter all those countries on the farthest left portion of the line like China said, "See, capitalism does not work. Our way of controlling the markets and businesses creates less risk. The corporations of America controlled America and led to the economic catastrophe." So the motto since then has been don't let corporations be in charge, the government needs to be in charge. This was a heavy blow to free-markets and a loving embrace of government run capitalism.


    Which is better corporations running things trying to squeeze profits to beat their competition and give their shareholders (me, you and every working adult with a 401k) better returns or the government official who now has the power to pick and choose what company will succeed and which one will fail?


    We know the corporations motive, it is predictable; money/profit. What is the government officials motive, is it power, money, success, greed, favors, if it starts out pure and altruistic will it remain that way? How will we know? What are China's politicians motives? Are they pure and altruistic, if they start out that way do they end up that way?


    I know these deals the government officials do, don't sit well with me and I can't believe they would act better if I gave them more power to control which bio-medical surgical tool my hospital gets to use or which energy company gets to survive and which gets gobbled up. I guess I feel better that if government truly got out of the way of corporations there would be more competition and when a company did something stupid it would be forced to pay the consequences, the law of consumer choice takes over and gets to pick and choose which survives and thrives and which dies.
    29 Jan 2013, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » A new PQC this way. Thanks to everyone who is and has participated, I think it is always interesting to get a wide variety of views.

    30 Jan 2013, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • Just can't pass on this one, but I am not responsible, I have a sickness.


    Beelzebub, AKA “Lord Of The Flies”

    31 Jan 2013, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • Labor unions now up in arms over Obamacare. Seems they finally read the bill.

    31 Jan 2013, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • Teachers at war with tax payers in Ohio. The Kelly Kohls mentioned in this article is my tea party president.

    29 Mar 2013, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • dg ... your link returns a "403 Forbidden" error message when I try to access it.
    29 Mar 2013, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • On Climate ...



    article in The Economist ...|sct
    29 Mar 2013, 02:15 PM Reply Like
  • Re - Obamacare Anyone besides me react with displeasure to the thought of being compelled to pay for medical treatment of STDs contracted by others which is implicit in news from Centers For Disease Control that there were more than 111 million active STD cases in the US in 2011. (US population ~330 million) It boggles my mind to think a third of the US population is walking around with an STD, but that is what the CDC STD incidence report indicates.


    We see lots and lots of press coverage on medical costs associated with obesity, smoking etc. which raises huge question of why we are not seeing the same type of coverage and medical community pressure for behavioral change to avoid contracting STDs.
    29 Mar 2013, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv...believe the 111 million number is total # of infections, not number of persons infected.. (ie multiple infections per person) ... makes number a bit more believable, but doesn't change your point...
    29 Mar 2013, 03:33 PM Reply Like
  • That would be my guess too. Damn if you have multiple infections per year, maybe many multiple, you must be the village idiot at the villiage of idiots. Kinda like Biden. There I go again just cant help myself.
    29 Mar 2013, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • Trying again.

    29 Mar 2013, 03:34 PM Reply Like
  • Thanks, dg.
    29 Mar 2013, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Author’s reply » Don't forget we have a new PQC here... D-inv, it disturbes me too. But remember, we are all in this together STD's and all (end sarcasm font)

    29 Mar 2013, 04:59 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

Latest Comments

Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.