Slashdot Mirror

There are actual reasons to reject the treaty other than the fact that it comes from the UN. Just as an example, it does not have the exemptions for small business that are present in the ADA.

You're Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/youre-eight-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-police-officer-than-a-terrorist/print/

Linked that for you

Mostly because I dislike being given copy/paste links to things.

That's because the folks in %other_state% voted for somebody who promised to bring home the bacon, even if that involved screwing over the country.

In case you're interested, according to the Cato Institute and several other sources, the states you should hate for doing this are, in order from worst to least bad, Mississippi, West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii, North Dakota, New Mexico, South Dakota, Montana, Vermont, Alabama, Iowa, Maine, and Kentucky. One important aspect of that list is that it's not really linked to any particular party - Democrats and Republicans both like feeding from the federal trough.

I'm not talking about spending, not tax burden as percentage of GDP. In 2011 government spending was 38.9% of the GDP, 2012 is predicted to be ~40%...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP

The problem is that the government's debt has reached astronomical proportions and that money eventually has to be payed back. Just because our current tax burden is somewhat reasonable (although the claim that it is "historically low" and that ridiculous chart are laughable, as they will be historically high as soon as the Bush tax cuts expire), it can't keep up with our borrowing. If anything, it means we are in for even bigger problems down the road. There is a blog post on the Cato institute on the subject of calculating the government's percent of GDP here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/american-government-spending-41-of-gdp/

Compared to some Euro zone nations we are in good shape. But they are also going bankrupt with governments near collapse.

We live in a time when people seem to think that "distribution of wealth" is something that governments are suddenly capable of doing when history has REPEATEDLY shown otherwise. My views are largely based on what I studied in school (ancient history) and I don't consider myself to be a tea party person. Reality is that the US government is currently operating in an unsustainable manner on many levels (state, federal, and local) and eventually that will catch up to us. Defaulting on government debts will lead to either major global war or an economic takeover by foreign powers. Some would argue the latter is already in motion.

I am quite willing to see Timothy Geitner go to jail for his allowing all the shenanigans to go on in the banking industry when he had direct oversight http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/tim-geithners-amnesia/ (use it while you can, the Koch brothers are trying to take it over)

Obama has increased spending by 25% since he took office, the graphs are right here http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/president-obamas-spending/

basic math please..

Obama took office starting 2009. ignoring that the 2009 budget was set in 2008. 2009 spending $3.4 Trillion and 2011 was $3.6 Trillion (just referencing the chart you pointed too). last i checked 3.6/3.4 = ~1.06 and last time i checked 6% is closer to 0 than 25%.

But (using the chart you pointed too) i'd like to point out that.. 2001 spending was $1.9 Trillion and 2008 was $3.0 Trillion.. which is 1.9/3 = ~1.58 or 58% increase during the bush years.. and i believe most of that was due to starting very very very expensive wars.

I also love how the author of that reference comes up with 28% by referencing 2008 and comparing it to 2013.. the year before and a year that hasn't happened.. while completely ignoring the other 8 years marked to the left..

and they never have been. They are a red herring.

Its a classic LOOK OVER THERE move.

So, please get off this war crap.

The real problem is... we are spending money we don't have and bitching about where this funny money is being spent instead of the fact we are spending it.

Obama has increased spending by 25% since he took office, the graphs are right here http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/president-obamas-spending/

Even if he did allocate that two hundred twenty six million dollars its not money we have, its money your children or their children will pay.

We will have DEFICIT spent that few hundred million before the day is out many times over.

People need to get a clue, we cannot afford this reckless spending. People in the press were having cows over Bush's three hundred and four hundred billion dollar deficits and now that we have in excess of trillion dollar deficits all I read about is how drastic the cuts are!!!

What cuts?

Really people, get real. There ain't going to be any money for NASA or much else down the road unless we get spending under control. Don't look to tax your way out of it either, you could confiscate 100% of what is made over 250K and not pay this years deficit spending.

Sometimes I really wonder if intelligent people post to /. anymore especially after what I see rated insightful. Our budget deficit is almost higher than the budget of Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_budget_by_country

How come my posts are supported by actual facts and your posts are only supported by your vivid fantasies?

http://www.thenation.com/article/159997/nuclear-dead-end-its-economics-stupid

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/radioactive-corporate-welfare/

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/nuclear-renaissance-is-short-on-largess/

http://www.economist.com/node/14859289

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n1/reg15n1-rothwell.html

Terrestrial nuclear fission plants cannot compete in the marketplace. They are a handout of government money to favored corporations.

Capitalism addresses poor achievement just fine by allowing failure and the consequences thereof. Attempting to get everyone, regardless of lack of ability, to the same level of education is the most damaging thing in the educational world today. No matter how badly something isn't working, the public school solution is almost always "we just need more money" which is why in DC it costs almost twice what private school costs.

http://thelegalwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/01/capacious-crimes-and-creative.html
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-article.html
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles/02/12/08/2244247.shtml
http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/486/news/news_2/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110716/01290815117/vague-law-vindictive-law-enforcement-hide-your-veggies.shtml
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-unbearable-vagueness-of-%E2%80%9Chonest-services-fraud%E2%80%9D/

Yeah, I've often thought we were best off with a Democrat president and republican congress. Of course, the only times that happened in the previous 60 years has been Clinton and Obama, so it's a little thin as statistical meaning. Overall, plotting deficits by party is tricky, especially when you try to account for election years and items outside the normal budget. The 2009 stimulus was done by obama, most of the budget that year wasn't...

My understanding was that the deficit hawk democrats were a small minority of democrat congressman if they exist at all.

Yeah, I've often thought we were best off with a Democrat president and republican congress. Of course, the only times that happened in the previous 60 years has been Clinton and Obama, so it's a little thin as statistical meaning. Overall, plotting deficits by party is tricky, especially when you try to account for election years and items outside the normal budget. The 2009 stimulus was done by obama, most of the budget that year wasn't...

My understanding was that the deficit hawk democrats were a small minority of democrat congressman if they exist at all.

Yeah, I've often thought we were best off with a Democrat president and republican congress. Of course, the only times that happened in the previous 60 years has been Clinton and Obama, so it's a little thin as statistical meaning. Overall, plotting deficits by party is tricky, especially when you try to account for election years and items outside the normal budget. The 2009 stimulus was done by obama, most of the budget that year wasn't...

My understanding was that the deficit hawk democrats were a small minority of democrat congressman if they exist at all.

...I'd be surprised if they don't want to expand their coverage to trans and buses as soon as it's feasible.

Have you been living under a rock the last six months? They are already moving that direction. Here's a short list of links, for your reading/viewing pleasure:

In train stations.
...and again.
In a bus station.
Video of the Savannah, GA train station search.
TSA's spin^Wresponse to the Savannah, GA search.
What a VIPR operation is.
Napolitano musing about expanding the scope of TSA's operations before the above searches happened.

HTH!

Yeah, exactly! Fortunately, TSA only conducts searches at airports before you board the airplane and they never, ever, direct train passengers to a secure area (where it wasn't otherwise necessary for them to go) at the END of a trip BY TRAIN. Because that would just be absurd. How soon will the government apologists be arguing that if you leave your house, you are giving implied consent to be searched?

How about the government goes back to respecting the spirit of the 4th Amendment? You don't have the right to conduct an invasive pat-down or electronic strip search until and unless you have a bona fide reason to suspect that I might be a danger to other airline passengers, and no, buying a ticket is not a "reasonable suspicion."

will fix all of this, oh wait, by the standard of law naming in Congress this will do the opposite of what it claims.

See http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_SN_799.html and http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-privacy-bill-of-rights-is-in-the-bill-of-rights/

[T]he measure applies only to companies and some nonprofit groups, not to the federal, state, and local police agencies that have adopted high-tech surveillance technologies including cell phone tracking, GPS bugs, and requests to Internet companies for users’ personal information–in many cases without obtaining a search warrant from a judge.
---

In other words, the government seems keen on protecting us from ourselves while opening us to them by any means. It really comes down to crafting laws with safe sounding names all in an effort to circumvent the Constitution. As most realize, Congress's favorite activity of the last fifty or so years has been how to get around the limits our Founding Fathers placed on the Federal Government.

Do you even read the discussion? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A69tXh5f_-o

And I have a big problem with public sector unions in general... http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/wisconsin-virginia-and-public-sector-unions/

Honestly, I'm just surprised I never heard of someone suggesting this before.

Although she's run away from the position since then, this is not unlike what Sarah Palin did in Alaska. Raise substantial taxes on oil companies and redistribute that money to Alaskans in the form of cash payments.

A cynic might see this as vote-buying, but it fits into your model as well.

Or, alternatively, folks could buck up a bit more cash so that we actually pay for all the shit we've been begging the government to give us.... (whether you want rich folks, poor folks, or in-between folks to buck up more cash is irrelevant, the point is, cutting away services is not the only way to reduce a deficit).

Why cut or "buck up a bit more cash"? Just keep spending at the current level.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/new-cbo-numbers-re-confirm-that-balancing-the-budget-is-simple-with-modest-fiscal-restraint/

Second, you mentioned the “0.3C per decade” prediction from emission Scenario A, but you’ve repeatedly ignored Scenario B which Hansen himself called “more plausible” in 1988. [Dumb Scientist]

That’s great, but I’m not talking about Hansen88, but AR1, which focuses on Scenario A. It’s possible this was done to scare politicians into action, but when one reads it, the +0.3C increase appears to be the best guess. [ShakaUVM]

No, what you and Michaels are doing isn't "great" in any sense of the word. Again, by "summarizing" the IPCC AR1 WG1 report as though it only gave one scenario, you pulled a "Pat Michaels".

As I've explained ad nauseum, the dynamical nature of climate models means that evaluating a GCM ensemble requires comparing projected forcings to the actual forcings. In other words, each scenario is an "if-then" statement: "If greenhouse gas concentrations rise at rate X, then temperatures will rise at rate Y." You and Michaels not only chopped off the first part of that sentence, you both presented it as the only scenario... which "coincidentally" makes it seem like scientists are discrediting themselves by making bad predictions.

The correct approach is to open the AR1 to the Annex on page 333, and examine the rates of CO2 rise given in the top-left of figure A.3. Scenario "A" (BaU in that plot) only applies if CO2 levels exceed 400ppm by 2010, which hasn't happened. The top right graph also shows that methane rises to over 2000ppm in that scenario by 2010, and once again that hasn't happened either.

Just like in Hansen88, AR1's scenario B is the closest match to the actual forcings. That's not really surprising, considering that Hansen was a contributing author for sections 6 and 8, table 2.2 on p52 repeatedly references Hansen88's radiative forcings and corrects a typo on p9360 of Hansen88, and chapter 3 repeatedly references Hansen88. Unsurprisingly, the emissions scenarios used in both studies seem very similar.

I thought you'd be able to learn something from the eerie parallels between your mistake and Michaels's, but apparently I was wrong. Again.

Unlike many other scientists, I don't think Michaels is lying because his "rebuttal" seems to indicate that he's trying to draw conclusions based entirely on each scenario's legend, and that he doesn't understand the difference between dynamical and empirical models. If he thinks that climate models are empirical, it makes sense that he wouldn't understand the reason for making three different projections. In that case

Ok, I won't argue with you about the Indiana Toll Road. I am not that familiar with it. Secondly, you'll note that your dozen letters (and a check) are a government provided monopoly. I said packages are better from UPS, you can send letters via UPS, but it has to be overnight, not 1st class.

And to my last point, every state in the US is facing service cuts, not FUNDING cuts. Roads, bridges, and infrastructure are getting spent the hell out of (seen those stupid signs for the reinvestment act or whatever). Local schools are spending more than ever despite falling grades http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/05/grigori-rasputin-bailout/. Public safety funding is at all time highs as well. Service is being cut because of unions demanding more benefits and pay despite lower revenues due to lower tax income with the economic downturn. The only rollercoaster is on revenue, funding remains a positive slope. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Annual_federal_outlay.png The last negative slope was after WWII. There has been no downturn since.

Some good recent opinions on the situation over there...

NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01friedman.htm

Cato
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/02/are-our-goals-in-afghanistan-fairly-modest/

no actual movement to decriminalize drugs

Just as you said, "You lack of exposure does not constitute a lack of interest." From the "American Journal of Economics and Sociology", Legalize Drugs Now!. Let's see how many others there are...

1. LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition - Cops Say Legalize Drugs
2. What if we legalized all drugs?
3. Tom Tancredo Says: Legalize Drugs!
4. Commentary: Legalize drugs to stop violence
5. Legalize drugs -- all of them
6. Is Now The Time To Legalize Drugs?
7. Why we should legalize drugs

Those are just the first page of results of legalize drugs. There are about another 245,000 results.

The people want it. That you don't talk to the types of people voting for such things doesn't change the fact they do.

Many of the people don't want it. That you don't talk to the types of people voting for such things doesn't change the fact they don't. And as a matter of fact I have talked to some who want to keep drugs illegal, my sister is one. I've also talked with people who want to bring back Prohibition, they say it will work this tyme. But everyone I know I know where their position is who lives in the real world and not a fantasy want at least some drugs legal. About the only drugs some don't want legal are so called hard drugs like opiates. They don't always know the facts though, for instance it's said an addiction to opiates is nearly if not impossible to break, however as the Rat Park experiment showed given the right environment even those addictions can be broken.

Fight against him? They encouraged him.

Liked J Edgar Hoover? That's a big laugh. Politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, didn't like him. The only reason he kept his position as director of the FBI is because of his extensive collection of private files. They were all afraid he'd blackmail them. As for most people, they didn't know about him or about the files he collected on public figures.

Falcon

What is in it to stop the premiums going up as the money from subsidies comes in? In other words, will the basic laws of supply and demand in a free market not still apply? This bill does not seem to limit the dynamics of the free market.

To understand the answers, you need to understand the true purpose of the bill.

The Democrats want to completely socialize health care: they call it "single payer", i.e. the US Government is the only entity to pay for health care. The Democrats knew they couldn't get there immediately, but rather needed to pretend to do something else.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/49788

This bill is over 2700 pages long, and I haven't read it. So, I'm relying on various news sources for this analysis. But as I understand it, here is how the bill works:

Each American is required to buy health insurance. Anyone who cannot afford it can apply to the government for help. But those who don't buy insurance, can simply pay a "fine" to the government. This fine will cost less than the insurance would have cost.

This bill also requires insurance companies to accept anyone, and pay for their care, regardless of pre-existing conditions.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/21/health.care.faqs/index.html

So, in short: I could cancel all my insurance, and pay a fine to the government, and no insurance company gets any of that money. Then one day I could discover that I had cancer, buy insurance, and that insurance company would be compelled to accept me as a patient and pay for my cancer treatment. Or, one day I could get in a car crash, then buy the insurance and get treated.

Because the above would completely destroy the actuarial basis of insurance, all the companies currently providing health insurance would be forced by cold hard economic reality to stop selling insurance. If they didn't stop on their own, they would go out of business, and close down.

The end game is that the US government would announce that due to the entirely unexpected and unforeseeable wave of insurance companies closing down, the US government would start offering insurance. That, or else it would buy the remaining insurance companies the way the government bought failing car manufacturers.

And there you go: single-payer. The US government would provide all "insurance" (really, it wouldn't look anything like insurance at that point, but the name would be kept for sentimental reasons).

Also, the bill as written saves a tiny bit of money: over ten years, it saves (IIRC) about 160 billion dollars. However, the bill as written includes drastic cuts to Medicare to help pay for it; and the bill does not include the "Doc Fix", so it assumes that bad cuts to doctor pay will be allowed to stand. Also, this bill includes the provision that the broad increases in taxes go into effect immediately, but the benefits don't start to get paid out for four years. I do not expect the cuts to Medicare to be allowed to stand; I expect to see another bill to increase taxes in order to put back everything that was cut. In short, I am expecting the actual costs of this bill to be far in excess of what was promised.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/04/health-cost-projections-to-2019-the-doc-fix-trick-again/

I view this bill as a complete disaster. Either everything I have read about it is wrong, or else all the cheerful and happy postings I have read here on Slashdot are uninformed.

steveha

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/13/surveillance-secruity-and-the-google-breach/

"The government subsidies may have encouraged a monoculture, but that's beside the point. The GM crops improve yield. Why would that have not been a success in a pure free market?"

First off, "GM products" are not the problem. This particular type of GM product may be a problem. If the summary of the study is correct and if conclusions of the study can be replicated.

There are many, many ways of increasing yields. The government subsidies created a situation where a rapid transition to GM corn was, by and large, the most practical and the most efficient choice. People make rational choices based on the incentives you give them.

For a timely discussion of how all this works in practice, read this:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/12/pepsi-throwback-and-the-sugar-racket/

The major reason we're growing so much corn is because the government has, for decades, kept the price of sugar artificially high. (And to make subsidised ethanol, a more recent development.) And they simultaneously funnel money to the companies that make corn syrup.

In a real free market, one not distorted by the power of the government to redistribute vast sums of money at will, corn crops would have had to compete against other crops which might have been more profitable to grow. And the manufacturers of corn syrup (which would now be sold at true cost) would have had to compete on an even playing field against sugar growers on factors like price, taste, and mouth-feel. But by making sugar super-expensive and corn syrup super-cheap, the government all but ensures one single outcome.

Think about that the next time you want the government to "fix" something.

Like the Police raid on a Mayors home that left two family dogs dead over a package of marijuana that was delivered to their home, even though Police were well aware that a drug-smuggling ring was using the home addresses of uninvolved people as the destination for the package delivery.

Like the Police raid on a Mayors home that left two family dogs dead over a package of marijuana that was delivered to their home, even though Police were well aware that a drug-smuggling ring was using the home addresses of uninvolved people as the destination for the package delivery.

I would go further to speculate that the patent system as it is harms technological advancement more than it encourages it in most industries. The patent system was established with the intent to create temporary monopolies for inventors in order to encourage the development and dissemination of that R&D throughout society. The problem is that too often, it's used to destroy competitors. The court costs and inequality of enforcement associated with the system defeat most of its purpose as specified in the US constitution. Software patents are only the tip of a very large iceberg.

This must be more of that "New Professionalism" that Scalia was fantasizing about.

Unfortunately I don't have such a choice now, I rent an apartment.

Do the research, if you can make it make financial sense(remember, it'd be a deductible expense!), talk with your landlord. They might do it.

I have done some research. Hopefully in a few years I'll own the apartment building. My sister owns it now but when the mortgage is paid down enough so I can qualify for one the plan is that she will sell it to me and I'll take over the mortgage. Once I do own it I'll have an energy audit done, then save money to have an architect redesign the building.

in the sense of a 'carbon tax', nuclear power is lumped in right along with wind, solar, tidal, etc...

Except nuclear power isn't carbon free, the construction emits a lot of carbon. How? Nuclear power plants require vast amounts of concrete and steel. Both require a lot of energy to make, concrete is made from cement and cement is made from heating lime to 1450C in a kiln. A lot of heat is also required to make steel. More than likely that energy comes from a fossil fuel. Then there's uranium mining. These along with other things are called the nuclear cycle.

Oh, and when have I expressed anything but disdain for coal power?

When did I say you didn't?

I'm trying to remember, did you ever post a link showing just how much nuclear power is subsidized? Bonus points if it shows coal or nuclear above wind/solar per kwh.

Yes I have. "Hooked on Subsidies: Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power" is one. CATO, a Freemarket Institute, also has articles that say something about coal subsidies.

• Coal-to-liquids: "It's a Syn
• Clean Coal: "McCain, Obama, and Clean Coal"
• Rural Subsidies

And it doesn't matter if the company making the solar panel doesn't get the subsidy if every customer who buys their product gets one.

You're right it's still a subsidy however the people have a choice as to who they buy from. When a subsidy is given to nuclear power people don't have that choice.

BTW, your first solar and nanosolar links go to the same spot.

Oops I cut and pasted wrong, NanoSolar.

Nanosolar gets government subsidies

Maybe I spoke too soon. Looking at that page you provide a link to though it doesn't say how much or what type of subsidy Nanosolar gets. The second link says Germany gave the company a subsidy for it's German plant. The "Spectrum" article " First Solar: Quest for the $1 Watt" says the subsidies are feed-in tariffs. Because it's not the government giving the money though I don't consider them subsidies. Perhaps "rebate" would be a better word.

Falcon

Excellent questions. Much is sucked up by the beuracracy. And the cost of teaching "special needs" kids is no small portion.

Some Interesting reading

Obama's tax cuts are aimed at people who actually work, so lazy people who are sitting around and not contributing aren't going to get anything back.

Now, let's talk about Alaska. They don't pay income tax up there. In fact, every single man, woman, and child (even infants) get paid by the government to live there. Alaskans all receive an "equitable share of the state's non-renewable resources." That certainly doesn't happen in Texas!

Now, let's talk about Palin.

Palin said: "Alaska-we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs"

Palin passed a windfall profits tax , literally taking profits away from oil companies, and redistributed it amongst every man, woman, and child in America, to the tune of an extra $1200 on top of what Alaskans got that year from the Permanent Fund Dividend.

First, I don't think any sane person thinks the government is the "main blame" for the subprime crisis. I feel the "main blame" goes to those who made loans and purchased MBSs/CMOs without an accurate risk model (specifically, what happens if home prices start to go down?). However, the government did make things worse.

80% of the loans which were fully or largely outside CRA jurisdiction

But many were. Specifically, after 1995 changes in the CRA banks were pressured to take low-income CRA loans. Don't take my word for it, read what the Comptroller of the Currency said:

Letter states that financial institutions may receive favorable CRA credit for investing in a middle income housing down-payment assistance program if the investment is a "qualified investment" under the CRA regulation...Interagency CRA letter stating that an investment in an MBS bond that is specifically tailored to an institution's CRA requirements appears to be a "qualified investment" under the CRA regulations...purchases of obligations of certain special purpose vehicles backed by affordable housing mortgages...

Again, part of the problem, not all of the problem. Government also enhanced the housing bubble in general through mortgage interest deduction as well as zoning regulations.

Throw in unregulated ratings agencies

You may want to Wikipedia Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization, recognized by the SEC to determine whether securities are "investment quality" or not for regulatory bank and broker-dealer net capital requirements. Years ago people in the investment area started suspecting the NRSROs were screwed up (thus all the Credit Derivative Swap insurance policies), but the SEC didn't do much to reform.

You can blame Bush all you want, but lets also remember Democrats were pushing the GSEs to take on additional alt-A and subprime loans in the name of "affordable housing". They are still talking about bailing out individuals who took out unsustainable loans. I don't think we should bail out Wall Street firms or individuals, lest we reward all of their bad risk taking.

Like all great disasters, there were lots of people and problems contributing to the problem.

What we do know is that the 70,000 pages of new banking regulations published every year did not stop it.

I'm wondering, in terms of the Supreme Court, what is it that you're seeing as your "different priorities"?

My top priority is to block creeping government powers. For example, 90 years ago everyone knew that the government didn't have the authority to ban alcohol, so they amended the Constitution; now, the government just bans things, and the courts allow it. I'm not really a fan of illegal drugs, but I don't like government just assuming powers.

Viewed in that light, the Roe vs. Wade decision is highly suspect. Just where in the Constitution does the Federal government get authority to dictate abortion laws to the states? Even if you like the result, I hope you are bothered by the way it was done. If the Supreme Court can just say what the law is, they have way too much power.

If there is any doubt at all, the Supreme Court should rule that the Federal government has no authority over any issue. This would mean that the states would have the authority, and I think that would be a good thing. At all levels, government should do less, and authority should be pushed down to lower levels where it's easier to change things.

By the way, libertarians are split on the abortion issue. Every libertarian agrees that it is okay to criminalize murder, but libertarians disagree over whether abortion is murder or not. If a fetus is a person, then abortion is murder, and it is acceptable and desirable that government prevent abortions. If a fetus is not a person, then the right of the woman to control her own body is paramount, and government should not restrict abortion.

As for the bubble collapse and 9/11, that explains drops in revenues, but it does not justify wildly fiscally irresponsible expansions of spending on top of reduced revenues on top of tax cuts further strangling revenues.

I'm not happy with either party. The Republicans promised to reduce the size of government and cut spending, and they really didn't.

But you are asking me to worry more about what McCain might fail to do, than about what Obama has announced as his plans. McCain has specifically said he wants to renew the Bush tax cuts, and Obama opposes them. Since I believe the US is over-taxed, I view the tax cuts as a good thing.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/09/17/obama-tax-cutter-or-tax-hiker/

And I flatly do not believe that Obama can save a whole bunch of money from the Iraq war. He's not irresponsible enough to pull out the troops too fast, no matter what his rhetoric is on the subject. No matter who is in the White House, troops will be coming home as soon as possible without leaving a power vacuum in Iraq.

You were talking about "gridlock" to control government spending.

It's funny, I just put that in as a light throwaway, semi-tongue-in-cheek comment. Yet that got more attention than the part I thought was important, about whether the economists were objective or not. I guess I should leave the comedy to Scott Adams.

steveha

You managed to talk trash like you know something about electric generation but you failed to mention how coal is somehow subsidized. You even managed to insert Bush and McCain in there.

Tax breaks are given for coal mining. And it's not just some environmental website saying that. Even the CATO Institute, a Libertarian think tank, says coal is subsidized. Bush has proposed subsidizing clean coal as well as nuclear power. McCain has pledged to provide $2billion for clean-coal.

I'm waiting for the Obama will save us all line. I actually think it is funny how people claim the army protects this

I find it funny, actually stupid, when people "ass"ume I support Obama. In fact as of now I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and during the last presidential election I supported Michael Badnarik. Actually since 1988 when Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian Party candidate I voted for the LP candidate except in 2000. As far as I'm concerned both Democrats and Republicans are half right and half wrong. Democrats what to control businesses whereas Republicans want to control people's lives, especially Christian Conservatives. And both are parties to the War on Drugs.

The bottom line is that prices are the way they are based on a history that stretches far beyond your age.

And how do you know how old I am? You can read minds? I doubt it as you "ass"umed I supported Obama.

Nothing unfair is going on here.

It is unfair when you have to compeat with an industry that receives government subsidies but you don't, or receive more than you do. I won't go over the rest because you're so good at reading minds to think I don't support a free market.

Falcon

You managed to talk trash like you know something about electric generation but you failed to mention how coal is somehow subsidized. You even managed to insert Bush and McCain in there.

Tax breaks are given for coal mining. And it's not just some environmental website saying that. Even the CATO Institute, a Libertarian think tank, says coal is subsidized. Bush has proposed subsidizing clean coal as well as nuclear power. McCain has pledged to provide $2billion for clean-coal.

I'm waiting for the Obama will save us all line. I actually think it is funny how people claim the army protects this

I find it funny, actually stupid, when people "ass"ume I support Obama. In fact as of now I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and during the last presidential election I supported Michael Badnarik. Actually since 1988 when Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian Party candidate I voted for the LP candidate except in 2000. As far as I'm concerned both Democrats and Republicans are half right and half wrong. Democrats what to control businesses whereas Republicans want to control people's lives, especially Christian Conservatives. And both are parties to the War on Drugs.

The bottom line is that prices are the way they are based on a history that stretches far beyond your age.

And how do you know how old I am? You can read minds? I doubt it as you "ass"umed I supported Obama.

Nothing unfair is going on here.

It is unfair when you have to compeat with an industry that receives government subsidies but you don't, or receive more than you do. I won't go over the rest because you're so good at reading minds to think I don't support a free market.

Falcon

My country buys 10 billion [currency] worth of widgets from your country
Your country buys 5 billion [currency] worth of widgets from mine
My country has a trade deficit of 5 billion [currency] in the widget sector.

It's imports vs exports.
When imports do not = exports, you have an imbalance.

For your nonsensical post to be correct, we would have to be buying and selling widgets in equal quantities. Hint: we aren't.

I really can't understand how anyone moderated you up.
This stuff isn't that hard.

Then what's your excuse for flunking it?

For one thing, your "widget" example relies on the unstated assumption that it's the same widgets being traded. It isn't.

Second, we are only able to buy more things from overseas because we have the currency to do so -- in other words, a "trade deficit" is the mirror image of a capital surplus. It's a reflection of the fact that nations are different, and does not represent a problem any more than the same "imbalances" between US states or US cities, or even between you and the local grocery, are "problems". It's a function of where the lines (borders) are drawn , no more.

Unless you're a screwball leftist who equates trade with theft, it ought to be clear that all trades involve *different* things moving in opposite directions.

Destination USA
American's Record Capital Surplus
Isn't the Capital Surplus a Good Thing?

Here's a different perspective on "a la carte" vs. bundled programming that you might find enlightening.

• Run the technical management well.
• Jealously guard it from the depredation of the UN.
• Not provide any protection or assistance to police states that want to pervert it when people circumvent their efforts. The Swiss aren't perfect, but they don't have a reputation for publically attacking a country and then having that government torture mutual enemies *cough*extraordinary rendition*cough*Syria*cough*