Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Fred Thompson

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at June 11, 2007 03:44 PM

It would be nice to think so, Dennis, but that's not obvious...

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 11, 2007 03:49 PM

- Isn't a French right winger quite to the left of an American Democrat? Even if Sarkozy tightened things up a bit, they would have vastly more benefits from the state than here. Also consider that he has said that Global Warming is his #1 international priority, following the lead of Angela Merkel, another Euro-right-winger, and our own ultra lefty Algore (Merkel apparently is terribly miffed at Bush on this matter).

- George Will pops the Thompson bubble:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140623/site/newsweek/

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 11, 2007 06:21 PM

In a recent speech, Thompson expressed a truly distinctive idea about immigration. Referring to the 1986 amnesty measure that Reagan signed into law, he said: "Twelve million illegal immigrants later, we are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world."

I went on to comment as follows:

Kids, do not try to deconstruct that thought at home; this is a task for professionals.

And yes, I am George Will. Thank you for asking.

Posted by George Will at June 11, 2007 07:16 PM

Yea and here is the latest from the Breck Girl: Gun ownership is a "privilege"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aea8e3OzddM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjunkyardblog%2Enet%2Farchives%2F2007%2F06%2Fjohn%2Dedwards%2Dha%2Ephp

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at June 11, 2007 09:13 PM

Reagonomics Is Coming!

Warn the homeless to expect a population explosion! Oh, wait, France doesn't have homeless people.

And what happened to the Dems, who are all the time telling us that we should be doing things the way the Europeans do?

We didn't say Americans should do what the Europeans do, we said the Europeans were doing things Americans should also do. You know, kind of like the Republicans with Saudi Arabia--their values just happen to coincide on some things.

The Democrats are stuck in a punitive, soak-the-rich time warp with class warfare written all over it.

Right, "punitive." For a taxpayer who wouldn't even notice if their taxes doubled without being informed by their accountant, I'm sure the thought gives their children nightmares. The right in this country is stuck in a Louis XIV time warp, so up their own asses with their sense of entitlement they forget that some people actually do feel the taxes they pay, and that the same expenses apply regardless of who pays for them or by what mechanism. So if you can live in a luxury home in a wonderful neighborhood, drive to work or leisure in Ferraris and Bugattis, spend weekends taking your sailboat out for a spin on the lake, and send your children to Ivy League prep academies, but still feel like a victim and cry out "that's not fair!" because your tax rate is higher than a bus driver's, that's not called "punitive taxation"--that's called "you're a spoiled idiot." Tax policies are for meeting the expenses of the nation, and are to be undertaken with a view toward minimizing their impact on the lives of the taxpayers--not assuaging the egos of fortunate sociopaths.

Despite all the current polls, I still believe their Walter Mondale approach to taxes and their McGovernite soft-on-the terror war approach is a losing combination that will doom the Dems next year.

Conservatives underestimate the power of honesty, integrity, and intelligence. After six years of heinous idiocy, pushing senseless tax cut after senseless tax cut while the expenses of their own agenda went through the roof, conservatives still think the American people can be bought off with another round of "here's a cookie, now take off your pants"? Furthermore, what possible foreign bugaboo could Republicans conjure to terrorize the public into granting another four years of opportunity for mayhem? They're already spitting on the Cheney regime's attempt to cast Iran in that role, and any Republican who sounds remotely like these maniacs is going to lose the presidency in a titanic landslide.

After watching how Republicans "defend" America--letting the people who attacked us escape, all but making out with the Saudi prince, invading and occupying a prostrate country that had nothing to do with it, turning it into the bloodiest charnel house since Vietnam, and going to every press conference drenched in self-congratulatory triumphalism while their 80th consecutive set of objectives fails--they will be lucky to win the presidency of the Confederacy. But by all means, they should accuse their opponents of being "soft" on a fictional war, and wonder why it's so quiet when they pause for applause.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 12, 2007 12:18 AM

BS: "honesty, integrity, and intelligence"

Two words: Harry Reid.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 12, 2007 05:12 AM

GW: "this is a task for professionals."

And yet you missed it anyway, George.

What Thompson was saying, though a bit poorly, is that we are not controlling our borders in a time when there are people bent on crossing those borders with the intent of killing us by the thousands.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 12, 2007 05:16 AM

After six years of heinous idiocy, pushing senseless tax cut after senseless tax cut

And a Dow over 13000 from 6900. That's not senseless, that's economic strength. Tax cuts that allow corporations to flex and grow are not senseless. Tax cuts that give the people their money back is not senseless. Arguing that tax cuts are bad is senseless.

Posted by Mac at June 12, 2007 05:21 AM

Warn the homeless to expect a population explosion! Oh, wait, France doesn't have homeless people.

Actually, like poverty and unemployment, homelessness is actually quite prevalent in France and has been so for a long time, e.g. Paris Journal.. 1993. Housing for the homeless was an issue in the recent elections.

France had a month long riot not too long ago centered mostly in the ghettos around the country where a huge number of minorities and immigrants find themselves locked in long term unemployment, poverty, and high crime.

This all happens despite very high taxes, which haven't prevented France and Germany from having deficits and debts as large or larger than the US as a percentage of their economies. (E.g. see CIA Factbook rankings.)

When the Euro was introduced, keeping deficits below 3% of their GDPs was a major commitment for all of the participating countries. However, for most of this decade, neither France or Germany met that requirement. E.g. see EU set to absolve Germany of breaching deficit rules

France has had unemployment in the 10% range continually since the days of Mitterand. Real unemployment is probably substantially higher. A friend of mine is a professor at a university in Paris. When he first started teaching he was surprised to find about half the class reading newspapers or talking at full voice with each other. Turns out they were essentially being paid to go to school. He found it was unacceptable to give failing grades to anyone.

Similar tricks were played in Sweden where I used to live. The official unemployment rate was about 5.5% last year but if computed like everywhere else, it was actually around 15%. That's the major reason a conservative coalition took over recently despite the fact that a huge percentage of the population either works for the government or gets subsidies of one kind or another.

Yes, I think the US should move to a health insurance system that provides better preventive care to all citizens. (I found that many Europeans don't know about Medicaid and think that poor people are turned away from emergency treatment.) However, I doubt that middle class Americans will tolerate a European health insurance system, which is basically a government run HMO that rations services. Private HMOs in the 1990s worked quite well at keeping health costs down but their rationing techniques were found to be unacceptable.

Etc. etc. The European welfare state model has some nice advantages (e.g. long vacations if you have a job) but it also displays many severe shortcomings. Holding it out as an ideal for the US to strive for strikes me as fantasy fulfillment rather than a rational analysis of its pluses and minuses.

Posted by Clark at June 12, 2007 06:34 AM

The European welfare state model has some nice advantages (e.g. long vacations if you have a job) but it also displays many severe shortcomings

For example, slow motion self-genocide by inadequate reproduction.

Posted by Paul Dietz at June 12, 2007 06:52 AM

Swiderski, what would you call a "fair" rate for the so-called rich? I say "so-called" because rich seems to be a moving target. Based on some of the Dem's harebrained tax schemes I've read about lately, I would just barely fall into their definition of "rich". I drive a 5-year-old Pontiac. My wife's van is 9 years old. Our kids go to public school. Raise our taxes 4 or 5% and you just took away my ability to invest in a 401K. Besides the personal impact, you can bet I wouldn't be the only one forced to stop saving (i.e. investing). Do you think that *might* have some kind of economic impact?

Do you think it would be "fair" to jack up taxes on someone like myself who's just beginning to see the fruits of 20-odd years in the workforce? So where's the incentive for me to achieve if in the end someone who thinks they know better is just going to confisicate most of the profit?

What would "fair" be to you? 50%? 60%? This IN SPITE of the evidence that punitive tax rates strangle economic growth and eventually hurt everybody? We have deficits because the gummint just can't control itself, not because tax receipts aren't coming in. For most people, economic advancement happens in increments of a few percent at a time. Roll that back and we'll just see what happens.

I don't begrudge anyone their income, whether they're privileged idiots or not. The problem with too many Dems is they want to paint everyone above a certain income level with that brush. It's easier to sell their ill-advised plans that way.

Don't spew ignorant vitriol like that and then try and pretend you're not trying to "punish the rich". Your language gives the lie away.

Posted by Pat C at June 12, 2007 07:01 AM

Full of BS writes, "...turning it into the bloodiest charnel house since Vietnam..."

My Cambodian friend says when the body count gets to TWO MILLION, give him a call.

Posted by Bill Maron at June 12, 2007 09:25 AM

"Warn the homeless to expect a population explosion! "

That was Carternomics that did that one.

Never has so few labored so much to put such a gross quantity of stupid on one post as Brian's contribution to this thread. It is like a years worth of stupid pills swallowed in one gulp.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 12, 2007 09:43 AM

The number of european countries with real top end tax over 60% is pretty small now but there are quite a few with 50%.

I used to pay 40% in the UK, but what has surprised me moving to WA is that while there's no state income tax I'm still ending up paying about the same out of my income as I did in the UK. I might be able to get a bunch of it back at the end of the year - but sorting out dual submissions in 2 countries is going to be pretty complicated.

Generally speaking, the UK and US aren't all that far apart in tax terms.

I'm still not sure I see the substantive difference between economic rationing of health care and rationing in terms of medical need. But that's probably just me. In the case of the British, we pretty much get what we pay for, which is about 6.5% of GDP spent on a poor universal system, versus something like 14% in the US.

Posted by Daveon at June 12, 2007 11:44 AM

"...a Dow over 13000 from 6900."

I acknowledge that the rich are awash in capital. I concede that American corporations are making record-breaking profits, year after year, by underpaying their workers (the American people) and overcharging their consumers (the American people). I admit that the stock market has inflated, along with the cost of living, so that investments stay afloat while ordinary people get poorer in real terms. So, yes, the Dow is at 13000.

Posted by Ashley at June 12, 2007 02:30 PM

"I concede that American corporations are making record-breaking profits, year after year, by underpaying their workers (the American people) and overcharging their consumers (the American people)."

And yet by some miracle, these underpaid workers that continue to ger poorer in real terms manage to to make enough continue to demand more and more of these overvalued services. Enough to provide a record growth in corporate profits and a record stock market along with record low unemployment! Imagine that!

I wonder what Occam would say about your model?

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 12, 2007 04:04 PM

"I wonder what Occam would say about your model?"

Shush! It's only a model. /Monty Python

Posted by Michael in Seattle at June 12, 2007 04:31 PM

Many of those "under paid" Americans are loosing their jobs to Chinese who will work for a fraction of the "under paid" Americans wage.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 12, 2007 05:23 PM

Stupidity of this magnitude bears repeating.

The rich are awash in capital, yes, because most invest wisely.

American companies are making record breaking profits, because they're run by dedicated professionals that have a large investment tied into their own company. If their company fails, they lose everything. One of the hallmarks of a well-run company is managers and chairpersons with large stakes in that company. Those hallmarks usually spell a good investment opportunity for small investors too.

Underpaid workers with 401K plans. Free money. Better yet, I as a worker take an additional 100 a month from my pay to invest myself and manage to trounce the S&P by 20% over the last year. BTW, I'm not rich, I'm struggling, but getting it done.

Ordinary people are not getting poorer, they getting dumber in that they don't learn how to maximize their pocketbooks. That information is easily achieved by reading a freakin book. Ashley, go see www.fool.com and get a clue about investing and you'll see just how stupid your post really was.

Posted by Mac at June 13, 2007 05:42 AM

"And yet by some miracle, these underpaid workers that continue to get poorer in real terms manage to make enough continue to demand more and more of these overvalued services."
It's no miracle. Americans are working a lot harder to make up the difference - putting in more unpaid overtime, losing breaks and holidays, etc. They also receive fewer benefits like health insurance, so more of their renumeration comes in the form of cash they can spend. Finally, consumer debt is very high. I never said that the poor didn't make mistakes, or aren't partially responsible for their own lot.

"American companies are making record breaking profits, because they're run by dedicated professionals that have a large investment tied into their own company."
The executives that run those companies are typically extravagantly compensated whether their business succeeds or fails, and when they do have stock or stock options, they only need to create the appearance of a successful company. They can run the business into the ground to inflate the stock price, take their profits, and leave the mess for someone else to clean up.

"Ashley, go see www.fool.com and get a clue about investing..."
My investments are already doing quite well, thank you, and I'm already among the richest 10%. You seem to assume that because I want to help my poorer neighbors, I must also be poor. In fact, I'm just not a selfish sociopath like so many who have hijacked and corrupted the once-good name "libertarian".

Posted by Ashley at June 13, 2007 09:45 AM

...typically extravagantly compensated whether their business succeeds or fails...

Typically? I disagree. A lot of companies are now basing compensation directly to performance. Gotta love that. I don't think its typical for companies to compensate for business failure. Its just heard a lot in the media, because they don't report those compensated for a job well done.

My investments are already doing quite well, thank you, and I'm already among the richest 10%.

Congratulations! I look forward to joining you in the future.

You seem to assume that because I want to help my poorer neighbors, I must also be poor.

I assumed nothing. Actually, I think you assumed I assumed. Anyway, help thy neighbor! Teach good investing and how to maximize your earning potential. Giving money will always lose to teaching how to make money.

In fact, I'm just not a selfish sociopath like so many who have hijacked and corrupted the once-good name "libertarian".

How sweet. By the tone of your original post and the subsequent reply, foaming at the mouth liberal might apply.

Posted by Mac at June 13, 2007 10:55 AM

"Teach good investing and how to maximize your earning potential. Giving money will always lose to teaching how to make money."

How does that old saying go?

"Build a Hippie a fire and keep him warm for one night. Set a Hippie on fire and you have kept him warm for the rest of his life!"

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 13, 2007 05:18 PM

Conservatives underestimate the power of honesty, integrity, and intelligence.

Cecil: Two words: Harry Reid.

Two more words: Republican Party.

Mac: And a Dow over 13000 from 6900.

Oh, that's much better than health insurance, hospitals, and schools. Do you even understand why it's a non sequitur to respond with stock market figures?

That's not senseless, that's economic strength.

No, it's idiocy. When an economy shifts resources from basic infrastructure to the consumer products of a fortunate minority, it's failing badly.

Tax cuts that give the people their money back is not senseless.

All tax cuts give people their money back, so you're claiming that zero taxes would be sensible. That is undeniably senseless.

Arguing that tax cuts are bad is senseless.

Denying that tax cuts can possibly be bad is senseless.

Clark: Actually, like poverty and unemployment, homelessness is actually quite prevalent in France and has been so for a long time, e.g. Paris Journal..

I stand corrected. France's housing programs are apparently not as pervasive as portrayed either by their advocates or critics.

Housing for the homeless was an issue in the recent elections.

Hard to imagine that ever happening in America, isn't it?

Similar tricks were played in Sweden where I used to live. The official unemployment rate was about 5.5% last year but if computed like everywhere else, it was actually around 15%.

And yet, from all I hear, both countries' standards of living remain quite high. The United States isn't exactly being flooded with Swedes and Frenchmen.

The European welfare state model has some nice advantages (e.g. long vacations if you have a job) but it also displays many severe shortcomings. Holding it out as an ideal for the US to strive for strikes me as fantasy fulfillment rather than a rational analysis of its pluses and minuses.

No specific program should be regarded as the Holy Grail, but the current--and quite frankly fascist--system that governs everything we do in America needs massive overhaul. It's completely out of control--we are not permitted to do anything through our own elected government unless Big Business gets a huge cut.

Pat: Swiderski, what would you call a "fair" rate for the so-called rich?

Any position would be arbitrary, but I'd say on principle the max should be 50%.

I say "so-called" because rich seems to be a moving target.

Yes, but moving in a direction that benefits the taxpayer. I also believe in revenue neutrality and balanced budgets--i.e., the government can only tax what it spends and only spend what it taxes, with the only exceptions being savings or reserve programs.

Based on some of the Dem's harebrained tax schemes I've read about lately, I would just barely fall into their definition of "rich". I drive a 5-year-old Pontiac. My wife's van is 9 years old. Our kids go to public school.

Which schemes do you mean? For my part, when I say "rich," I actually mean rich--people who couldn't deny being rich with a straight face. And you're terribly mistaken if you think Democrats are trying to take away your ability to invest--I and those I support want to give as many people as possible access to the capitalist system. Unfortunately, investment doesn't make much sense for a lot of people who can't afford basic services for their children, and once it does make sense there are still significant barriers to entry for most plans (e.g., $2000 minimum account opening).

This IN SPITE of the evidence that punitive tax rates strangle economic growth and eventually hurt everybody?

There's a big fallacy at the heart of conservative tax policies, and it's this: People aren't going to choose not to get rich just because they would have to pay more taxes, and there obviously is no barrier to getting rich if the large rates only apply once you're there. No advocate of your theory has ever been able to answer this satisfactorily: Why is Silicon Valley in California instead of Wyoming?

Bill: My Cambodian friend says when the body count gets to TWO MILLION, give him a call.

Reflect on what you're saying and get back to me.

Mike: That was Carternomics that did that one.

It was just pure coincidence that the homeless population explosion happened when Reagan gutted HUD and emptied the psychiatric hospitals.

Never has so few labored so much to put such a gross quantity of stupid on one post as Brian's contribution to this thread. It is like a years worth of stupid pills swallowed in one gulp.

No time for love, Doctor Jones.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 14, 2007 10:54 PM

Mac: And a Dow over 13000 from 6900.

Oh, that's much better than health insurance, hospitals, and schools. Do you even understand why it's a non sequitur to respond with stock market figures?

I guess that would explain why the Democrats did it so much to explain why Bill Clinton shouldn't have been removed from office.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 15, 2007 04:44 AM

BS, do you have a JOB or do you spend your entire day writing liberal dissertations on blogs?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 15, 2007 11:20 AM

Rand: I guess that would explain why the Democrats did it so much to explain why Bill Clinton shouldn't have been removed from office.

We never cited the economy in defending him from impeachment, nor did we ever have to. The fact that Starr's kangaroo brigade had no case was sufficient.

Cecil: BS, do you have a JOB or do you spend your entire day writing liberal dissertations on blogs?

Money works for me, not the other way around. That's why I said earlier that I might, in ten years or so, be able to get into angel investing for space ventures.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at June 19, 2007 10:54 AM

Post a comment