It will remain here, and provide much ammunition for anyone who wishes to call me a scurrilous right-winging teabagging bitterclingeing RAAAAACIST.
But otherwise ...
You’re not defeated as long as you never stop fighting.Actually, you're defeated at the moment that your goal is no longer attainable at that particular point in time. You can keep fighting all you want, but it's not going to change anything. And that is why Hermann Cain is suspending his campaign now, rather than continuing to fight until the Republican Convention.
All indications are, however, that Campaign 2012 will make Campaign 2000 look like a model of truthfulness. And all indications are that the press won’t know what to do — or, worse, that they will know what to do, which is act as stenographers and refuse to tell readers and listeners when candidates lie. Because to do otherwise when the parties aren’t equally at fault — and they won’t be — would be “biased”.Goshers! It's almost as though Truth is more complicated than a single eschatologically-minded ideology can contain! Also, that Journalists are maleducated bobo twits who couldn't form a syllogism with two premises and a conclusion.
though it started as creatical.com, wore a pea-green backdrop, was comprised of “several” co-writers (all of them me, though I gave them loaded, tongue-in-cheek names like Dr. Ann D. Kaufmann; recall, at the time I had no readers and there was no such thing, as of yet, as a “blogosphere,” so the format for what a “respectable” political blog had to look like and operate as had not yet been set), and, believe it or not, got its first ever “Instalanche” not for some clever, pointed piece on the supposed racial overtones in the remake King Kong, say, but rather for a cartoon suggestive of breadstick masturbation.He's still funnier than Ace. And I consider that praise.
Mark Thoma sends us to the new Journal of Economic Perspectives paper(pdf) on optimal taxes by Peter Diamond and Emmanuel Saez. It’s a tough read (I’m still working on it myself), but there’s one discussion that I think helps make a useful point about current political debate.Useful to whom?
In the first part of the paper, D&S analyze the optimal tax rate on top earners. And they argue that this should be the rate that maximizes the revenue collected from these top earners — full stop. Why? Because if you’re trying to maximize any sort of aggregate welfare measure, it’s clear that a marginal dollar of income makes very little difference to the welfare of the wealthy, as compared with the difference it makes to the welfare of the poor and middle class. So to a first approximation policy should soak the rich for the maximum amount — not out of envy or a desire to punish, but simply to raise as much money as possible for other purposes.I was going to say "optimal for whom?" but Paulie K. kindly spells it out: the "optimal tax rate" is the optimal tax rate for the government. It maximizes the revenue of the state, and it's ability to engage in "other purposes." That phrase, however, is not so clear: what are these "other purposes"? How well are they performed? How well is that performance even measured? If the people decide that the government no longer needs to perform them, can they get their money back?
The “market” is not a thing to be managed, or a process to be controlled. The market is just an aspect of the natural world, working on the creatures who move through it. Merkel’s comment reflects the combination of arrogance and ignorance that is at the root of so many of our economic problems.Yes. And the only thing wrong with this statement is that every GOP candidate is not shouting it from the rooftops, all the time. Every quarter the GDP is "unexpectedly" less than envisioned, and yet the premise of progressive politics -- that a learned technocracy can manage the wealth of the land better than the people -- remains a truism in the minds of too many people. They will continue to believe it until the bottom drops out.
|GET IN MAH BELLY!|
You are probably one of the most disgusting human beings I’ve never met!We are constantly told that poor kids are forced into the drug trade or worse from lack of economic opportunity. I don't see how giving a kid a job that pays $8-16 an hour doesn't constitute an economic opportunity. Nowhere does Newt say that the child labor laws would be abolished; at best, they'd be amended. We're not talking about a 12-year-old working 40+ hours a week and missing out on school; we're talking about maybe 10 hours a week, before or after school and weekends.
I want my neighbors 9yr olds or 14 yr olds cleaning up behind my children while I focus my children onto focusing on their education and letting my children to be “KIDS”.
Everyone knows that you Repugnants wants to model our society after China and make everyone a slave to Corpratism. We get it!
I don’t mind working my fingers to the bone but………….CHILDREN…………Really???
|And like that... they're gone.|