Slashdot Mirror

From Donald Luskin.

And here's another look at why the crises is much closer than Lowenstein believes by the same author.

Reunite Church and State? Maybe the government should give funding to churches. Do you think they also fund mosques?

Your link contradicts your argument ... we find the Federal Government (ever mindful of the constitutional separation of church and state ;-) has addressed the issue (the DEVIL is in the details ;-):

Partnering with the Federal Government: Some Do's and Don'ts for Faith-Based Organizations

If I cannot take government money to support religious activity, how do I separate our religious activities from our Federally-funded social service program? link

Money Quote:A faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently religious activities, such as religious worship, instruction, or proselytization, are separate - in time or location - from the government-funded services that it offers. link

BTW, the term "faith based" would appear to include "mosques." Any evidence that it does not?

Tax breaks that only benefit the rich? Here's what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject.

Ah Yes ... noted Enron Advisor Paul Krugman ... there is now a large number of Krugman readers - The Krugman Truth Squad who have a knack for catching Krugman making inaccurate and often false statements regarding the economy.

Krugman's work has become very sloppy as of late ... too busy writing ... too lazy to research his arguments or check his data. More Krugman errors can be found here with links to supporting DotGov data ... scroll down to "New York Times"

More to follow ...

Reunite Church and State? Maybe the government should give funding to churches. Do you think they also fund mosques?

Your link contradicts your argument ... we find the Federal Government (ever mindful of the constitutional separation of church and state ;-) has addressed the issue (the DEVIL is in the details ;-):

Partnering with the Federal Government: Some Do's and Don'ts for Faith-Based Organizations

If I cannot take government money to support religious activity, how do I separate our religious activities from our Federally-funded social service program? link

Money Quote:A faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently religious activities, such as religious worship, instruction, or proselytization, are separate - in time or location - from the government-funded services that it offers. link

BTW, the term "faith based" would appear to include "mosques." Any evidence that it does not?

Tax breaks that only benefit the rich? Here's what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject.

Ah Yes ... noted Enron Advisor Paul Krugman ... there is now a large number of Krugman readers - The Krugman Truth Squad who have a knack for catching Krugman making inaccurate and often false statements regarding the economy.

Krugman's work has become very sloppy as of late ... too busy writing ... too lazy to research his arguments or check his data. More Krugman errors can be found here with links to supporting DotGov data ... scroll down to "New York Times"

More to follow ...

Check out Buffett's Lies From The Pulpit ... with many supporting links to irs.gov data.

Appears Warren might be concerned he'll finally have to pay a dividend to his stock holders one of these days.

Again ... "data talks & bullshit walks"

Some blogs are good. I find them by reading or hearing about good one. Example: Forbes listed 5 good ecomnomics blogs.

There are blogs I read regularly, and they are in some ways similar to slashdot. The blog points out things of interest, and sometimes allow comments.

Some interetsting Blogs: Seth Godin's Blog

Poor and Stupid

Marginal Revolution

EconLog

The reason why the unemployment rate has been falling is because people have been being crapped out the other side of the unemployment intestine, so to speak.

This is completely untrue.

The unemployment rate is based on the household survey of employment, not on unemployment claims. The number of people "crapped out", discouraged workers, is at 0.3%. This is not high by historical standards. There is another misconception about the underemployment rate. The underemployment rate is currently higher than the unemployment rate, duh! Underemployment should be compared to other underemployment rates, not unemployment rates. Underemployment is also low by historical and international standards.

The unemployment rate has fallen from a high of 6.3 last June to 5.6 now. New weekly jobless claims have fallen from a high of 459K last April to 344K this month. This tracks very closely to the passing of the most recent tax cuts. The tax cuts specifically reduce personal income tax rates, and increase business-like personal deductions, while corporate tax rates remained unchanged. This makes self and small business employment more competitive against business establishment employment than before. It is no surprise that the employment has increased significantly, to a record high, since then while payroll survey job numbers have been flat. This divergence, the large increase in non-payroll employment, is a good thing. Working for yourself or directly for a small business owner is much preferable than working for pointy-haired-bosses in big corporations.

Because the 'jobs' and 'unemployment' come from different surveys, many people come to the incorrect conclusion that anyone neither unemployed nor on a payroll job is 'discouraged'. That is that anyone who doesn't work for a PHB is a "discouraged worker". I would think that most slashdotters would believe the opposite to be true.

American: Look! It doesn't have a McDonalds!

Guess again...

Here's an article by Donald Luskin debunking the Krugman column, mentioned at the top of Cringley's artilce, just as he's debunked a number of Krugman's other columns in the past.

its another to assist in the advocacy of violence against another

As I posted elsewhere on this page, Luskin advocated cream-pieing Krugman on his book tour. This was he himself who posted this, not some anonymous reader of his blog. And now he doesn't want to be called a stalker?

Luskin posted Krugman's book tour dates on his site, suggesting to his readers a different coloured pie to throw at each date.

So who's the "literal" stalker? I also read the Krugman interview transcript, it seemed pretty clear to me he was using "stalk" in the dictionary sense (follow purposefully and stealthily) not in the legal sense.

For the record, here's what President Bush actually said in his SOTU: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

What with all the other anti-bush lies in the queue, I imagine your second example is probably still awaiting it's well-deserved debunking.