FDR prolonged the Depression: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409
Synopsis: The New deal Policies prolonged the Depression by about 7 years.
The authors are two UCLA economists and endorsed by Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in Economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago.
We spend so much because of some twisted notion of rights.
"In the past six years, eight people from Austin and one from Luling racked up 2,678 emergency room visits in Central Texas, costing hospitals, taxpayers and others $3 million" http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/04/01/0401er.html
TFA says that:"All nine speak English; three are homeless; five are women whose average age is 40, and four are men whose average age is 50. Seven have a mental health diagnosis and eight have a drug abuse diagnosis. Kitchen said she did not know their citizenship status."
Any reasonable person would say that the addicts and mental health patients should probably be in some kind of controlled environment. Whether that would cost more than 3 million over 6 years if part of a larger program of some kind, I don't know. But the bottom line is that these people are not turned away because they have a "right" to health care and they are not institutionalized in one form or another because it would be a violation of their "rights".
Even a casual browsing of web resources show that the low estimates of U.S. casualties for Operation Olympic were approximately 100,000. Estimates went up from there to around 1 million, with the middle estimates between 250k and 500k. This does not include Japanese military and civilian casualties which undoubtedly would have been much higher.
The debate also included issues of the Soviet Unions pending entry into the Pacific war.
But in the end, they made the decision and the war was ended, likely, with far fewer causalities on both sides than there otherwise would have been.
It's easy for people like you, who were not there, who had not gone through 5 years of bloody war, who neither personally lost a contemporary relative or friend, nor was responsible for sending soldiers and sailors to their deaths in battle, to look back and using (or misusing) information that was not available to the decision makers at the time, decide that they were evil and just wanted to kill people and play with a new toy.
You would be well served by reading the many thorough and well documented books and academic papers available on the subject before you condemn and entire generation.
And here, the parent illustrates why this will never happen.
Years and years in environmental impact studies, many more years of court battles, then the legislatures and Congress stepping in to support the NIMBY positions of their constituents.
To make this happen, Barry will have to wield near dictatorial powers and sweep aside most of the legal avenues people have to fight against something like this if they disagree.
I suspect because Bush and his team observed protocol and gave appropriate gifts.
Diplomacy is built on protocol. It is what allows two parties that would just as soon kill one another to be in the same room and rationally discuss issues. It prevents people from being unintentionally embarrassed and ensures that everyone pretty much knows what is going to happen.
Sure, between G.B. and the U.S. it is just a matter of formalities, but protocol is still important. That Barry apparently has such disdain for, is ignorant of, or that his campaign staff is handling protocol is telling.
He wants to change the world so that everyone "likes" us again. But if he can't even get something as inconsequential as an appropriate girft right, how is he going to pull it off with those not so friendly countries?
The entire NYT management structure is responsible for Blair's action. They hired him, they paid him, they functioned as his editor and were supposed to be fact checking him. They published his work and they benefited from the prestige of his winning the prize.
Why is it so hard to accept that the employer is responsible for the conduct of their employees?
As for Fox, et. al, what they do is no different than what the NYT times does every day, hyperbole, sensationalism, etc. The only difference is that you know Hannity, O'Rielly, and Beck are expressing their opinions and advocating a position. The NYTs pretends it's the "news" while doing the same thing.
Are you saying that one of these folks created a series of segments, aired them, was awarded a Pulitzer prize (television equivalent), then had all revealed as made up and was then fired?
If so, then I'd say yes, they had dropped to the level of the New York Times.
But arguing about Fox vs. NYTs is just a distraction. My statement about the entire organization being responsible for the crap they put out is true. You can argue about who puts out the most crap, but responsible for it all they are.
How can you separate the reporters from the paper?
The reporters are the paper. The editors are the paper, the fact checkers are the paper, the managers that supervise it all and have responsibility for it all are the paper.
When crap is published, they are all responsible, from the top down.
At the moment, everyone's authority with respect to Climate Science, except for just a handful of people, is based on authority in an unrelated subject, is it not?
I would posit that you find more "thinking" from NPR because it is publicly funded and therfore has more time to invest in a story.
That doesn't change that fact, however, that the thinking has a consistant bias to the left and from what I hear (I listen regularly), an implicit dismissal of opinions they don't agree with, albeit politley. Kind of like a professor politely telling a student he is an idiot.
Politician A today unveiled his plans for [some program]. The major parts of this program are [Part A],[Part B],[Part C]. The new legislation will be offered in the legislature next week.
A biased new article is more like this:
Politician A, whose approval ratings are at record lows, today unveiled his plans for [some program], which has been is blasted by [some hyperventilating critic] as [some affront to any number of fringe groups] . The major parts of this [controversial] program are [Part A],[Part B],[Part C]. The new legislation will be offered in the legislature next week but faces widespread opposition by [a minority of lunatics].
Note that there would generally be several paragraphs detailing the supposed failings of the three parts and featuring criticism from various people who have not even seen the legislation.
I suspect that if you are paying attention, you will notice that articles of the latter nature are more prevalent in the media today than.
I care less about the bias than the approach to the news, to the guests, to the context.
So you are OK with the condescending, arrogant attitudes that are typical of NPR?
Well, just hope you are not in the next group they decide needs an ass raping.
Now, Obama and this Imperial Congress are talking about regulating the compensation of companies that did not take any TARP funds. It is not the government's business what a private company pays its employees.
And something you may not realize is that the hated "financial", like it or not is the only vehicle we have to achieve wealth. Your 401k grows because of his sector, your pension fund, your bank savings account. Unless you are on a cash only lifestyle and stuff your mattress with the leftovers, then you have every reason to wish the "financial" sector good fortune and high returns.
Yes, your 401k is down now, but will be back up. Empirical evidence shows this to be true. And if it doesn't go back up A) It won't be the fault of AIG, and B) You will have more to worry about that what some dumbass executives are getting paid.
Summary: A law passed to allow "Large Ferrys" to operate while some environmental study is being done.
Yes, it is a state constitution and a state court, but I think the principals are the same. There are not that many institutioins that will fall under this law.
Regardless, it sends the wong message. It is a violation of the spirit of equal protection any way you look at it. And as I said, if they get away with it, then no one is safe from their grubby, greedy, corrupt hands.
We all know that the average Congressman is an idiot. However, they almost all lawyers too, so they should know better. In fact there was more than one speech on the House floor mentioning this fact. But still the House leadership went ahead.
It goes without saying that they did this for political expediency. The news says they voted to tax the bonuses, and that all anybody will remember. When it fails in the Senate or fails the final vote or is ultimately found unconstitutional, it probably won't be front page news.
On the other hand, if they are serious, what does that say about the current leadership? The Constitution is very clear and unequivocal about this. That they would even attempt it suggests a contempt for the Constitution that at the very least meets the same level of which Bush is often accused, if not exceeds it.
And if they are ultimately successful, then look out.
Their target market is not the folks who take 45 mins to an hour to drive 5-10 miles to work in 45 rush hour traffic.
More like folks living 25-30 miles from an urban center who fly into the local airport and then take 45 mins to an hour to drive 5-10 miles in rush hour traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid I will have to go with two real economists instead someone who is apparently nothing more than political hack for a left wing rag.
FDR prolonged the Depression:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409
Synopsis: The New deal Policies prolonged the Depression by about 7 years.
The authors are two UCLA economists and endorsed by Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in Economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago.
Barry and Friends should do some more reading.
We spend so much because of some twisted notion of rights.
"In the past six years, eight people from Austin and one from Luling racked up 2,678 emergency room visits in Central Texas, costing hospitals, taxpayers and others $3 million"
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/04/01/0401er.html
TFA says that:"All nine speak English; three are homeless; five are women whose average age is 40, and four are men whose average age is 50. Seven have a mental health diagnosis and eight have a drug abuse diagnosis. Kitchen said she did not know their citizenship status."
Any reasonable person would say that the addicts and mental health patients should probably be in some kind of controlled environment. Whether that would cost more than 3 million over 6 years if part of a larger program of some kind, I don't know. But the bottom line is that these people are not turned away because they have a "right" to health care and they are not institutionalized in one form or another because it would be a violation of their "rights".
At least with market driven health care, you have an option. "If you can afford it", you say? Even if you can't afford it, there are still options.
I seem to remember that in Hillary's plan from the 90s, if you went outside the government's plan, you and the doctor could go to jail.
It's one thing to not be able to afford extraordinary life saving intervention (organ transplant, etc.) and it is regrettable and unfortunate.
But it something completely different when the government says you cannot have a procedure because you are not worth saving.
What does their culture have to do with an autocratic government?
Even a casual browsing of web resources show that the low estimates of U.S. casualties for Operation Olympic were approximately 100,000. Estimates went up from there to around 1 million, with the middle estimates between 250k and 500k. This does not include Japanese military and civilian casualties which undoubtedly would have been much higher.
The debate also included issues of the Soviet Unions pending entry into the Pacific war.
But in the end, they made the decision and the war was ended, likely, with far fewer causalities on both sides than there otherwise would have been.
It's easy for people like you, who were not there, who had not gone through 5 years of bloody war, who neither personally lost a contemporary relative or friend, nor was responsible for sending soldiers and sailors to their deaths in battle, to look back and using (or misusing) information that was not available to the decision makers at the time, decide that they were evil and just wanted to kill people and play with a new toy.
You would be well served by reading the many thorough and well documented books and academic papers available on the subject before you condemn and entire generation.
Because the rest of the free world doesn't spend much on their military.
There. Fixed that for you
I almost forgot. They have these nifty little things called CIRCUT BREAKERS that can deal with cut cables.
And here, the parent illustrates why this will never happen.
Years and years in environmental impact studies, many more years of court battles, then the legislatures and Congress stepping in to support the NIMBY positions of their constituents.
To make this happen, Barry will have to wield near dictatorial powers and sweep aside most of the legal avenues people have to fight against something like this if they disagree.
Hmmm...Barry? Dictatorial powers?
Maybe we will have wind farms after all.
I suspect because Bush and his team observed protocol and gave appropriate gifts.
Diplomacy is built on protocol. It is what allows two parties that would just as soon kill one another to be in the same room and rationally discuss issues. It prevents people from being unintentionally embarrassed and ensures that everyone pretty much knows what is going to happen.
Sure, between G.B. and the U.S. it is just a matter of formalities, but protocol is still important. That Barry apparently has such disdain for, is ignorant of, or that his campaign staff is handling protocol is telling.
He wants to change the world so that everyone "likes" us again. But if he can't even get something as inconsequential as an appropriate girft right, how is he going to pull it off with those not so friendly countries?
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
The entire NYT management structure is responsible for Blair's action. They hired him, they paid him, they functioned as his editor and were supposed to be fact checking him. They published his work and they benefited from the prestige of his winning the prize.
Why is it so hard to accept that the employer is responsible for the conduct of their employees?
As for Fox, et. al, what they do is no different than what the NYT times does every day, hyperbole, sensationalism, etc. The only difference is that you know Hannity, O'Rielly, and Beck are expressing their opinions and advocating a position. The NYTs pretends it's the "news" while doing the same thing.
Are you saying that one of these folks created a series of segments, aired them, was awarded a Pulitzer prize (television equivalent), then had all revealed as made up and was then fired?
If so, then I'd say yes, they had dropped to the level of the New York Times.
But arguing about Fox vs. NYTs is just a distraction. My statement about the entire organization being responsible for the crap they put out is true. You can argue about who puts out the most crap, but responsible for it all they are.
My original state is still true that
Hmm.
How can you separate the reporters from the paper?
The reporters are the paper. The editors are the paper, the fact checkers are the paper, the managers that supervise it all and have responsibility for it all are the paper.
When crap is published, they are all responsible, from the top down.
What standard could be lower than to not make stuff up out of whole cloth?
At the moment, everyone's authority with respect to Climate Science, except for just a handful of people, is based on authority in an unrelated subject, is it not?
I would posit that you find more "thinking" from NPR because it is publicly funded and therfore has more time to invest in a story.
That doesn't change that fact, however, that the thinking has a consistant bias to the left and from what I hear (I listen regularly), an implicit dismissal of opinions they don't agree with, albeit politley. Kind of like a professor politely telling a student he is an idiot.
An unbiased news report might look like this:
Politician A today unveiled his plans for [some program]. The major parts of this program are [Part A],[Part B],[Part C]. The new legislation will be offered in the legislature next week.
A biased new article is more like this:
Politician A, whose approval ratings are at record lows, today unveiled his plans for [some program], which has been is blasted by [some hyperventilating critic] as [some affront to any number of fringe groups] . The major parts of this [controversial] program are [Part A],[Part B],[Part C]. The new legislation will be offered in the legislature next week but faces widespread opposition by [a minority of lunatics].
Note that there would generally be several paragraphs detailing the supposed failings of the three parts and featuring criticism from various people who have not even seen the legislation.
I suspect that if you are paying attention, you will notice that articles of the latter nature are more prevalent in the media today than.
I care less about the bias than the approach to the news, to the guests, to the context.
So you are OK with the condescending, arrogant attitudes that are typical of NPR?
Well, just hope you are not in the next group they decide needs an ass raping.
Now, Obama and this Imperial Congress are talking about regulating the compensation of companies that did not take any TARP funds. It is not the government's business what a private company pays its employees.
And something you may not realize is that the hated "financial", like it or not is the only vehicle we have to achieve wealth. Your 401k grows because of his sector, your pension fund, your bank savings account. Unless you are on a cash only lifestyle and stuff your mattress with the leftovers, then you have every reason to wish the "financial" sector good fortune and high returns.
Yes, your 401k is down now, but will be back up. Empirical evidence shows this to be true. And if it doesn't go back up A) It won't be the fault of AIG, and B) You will have more to worry about that what some dumbass executives are getting paid.
Then this is all the more reason to despise the contemptible sacks of warm smelly dung that are the leadership now.
Being hit by a bus would be too kind to Pelosi, et.al
Perhaps you are correct, this court finding would argue otherwise: http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/516133.html?nav=10
Summary: A law passed to allow "Large Ferrys" to operate while some environmental study is being done.
Yes, it is a state constitution and a state court, but I think the principals are the same. There are not that many institutioins that will fall under this law.
Regardless, it sends the wong message. It is a violation of the spirit of equal protection any way you look at it. And as I said, if they get away with it, then no one is safe from their grubby, greedy, corrupt hands.
This is probably the most disturbing thing about the whole AIG mess.
The house just passed what is in all likelihood a Bill of Attainder: http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
We all know that the average Congressman is an idiot. However, they almost all lawyers too, so they should know better. In fact there was more than one speech on the House floor mentioning this fact. But still the House leadership went ahead.
It goes without saying that they did this for political expediency. The news says they voted to tax the bonuses, and that all anybody will remember. When it fails in the Senate or fails the final vote or is ultimately found unconstitutional, it probably won't be front page news.
On the other hand, if they are serious, what does that say about the current leadership? The Constitution is very clear and unequivocal about this. That they would even attempt it suggests a contempt for the Constitution that at the very least meets the same level of which Bush is often accused, if not exceeds it.
And if they are ultimately successful, then look out.
Their target market is not the folks who take 45 mins to an hour to drive 5-10 miles to work in 45 rush hour traffic.
More like folks living 25-30 miles from an urban center who fly into the local airport and then take 45 mins to an hour to drive 5-10 miles in rush hour traffic.
They should only see what I want them to see. Now if I could only find one.
A "real" fiscal conservative would be running away from Obamanomics as fast as he could.
I suspect you are merely an Obama Acolyte pretending to be a fiscal conservative.