1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Please, Janet Yellen, Shut Up

ChuckintheOC Wrote: Oct 18, 2014 6:23 PM
“A major reason the United States is different,” says Yellen—different in this case means worse in liberal-speak—“is that we are one of the few advanced nations that funds primary and secondary public education mainly through subnational taxation.” Will someone please inform Ms. Yellen that we are also one of the few advanced nations that is a republic of sovereign states; that being such a nation is largely responsible for our historical prosperity and liberty, and that what she is actually doing is advocating for the gradual abolishment of our form of government under the guise of wanting every school district to receive equal funding? Furthermore, it doesn't even make any sense to argue for equal school district funding, as the cost of living, including the cost of primary and secondary education varies from state to state. If California, for example, were to be restricted to what Alabama spends on education, the Golden State couldn't educate its children. Same for New York. And if Alabama suddenly got Federal funding for its primary and secondary school districts equal to that of California or New York, they'd be swimming in extra cash! Even districts WITHIN a state varying considerably as to how much funding they need to provide the same level of education to their children. So the whole idea that funding education in America is best done at the Federal level is nothing more than a socialist lie, perpetrated by those who are either too stupid to understand that doing so would simply be one more step toward making state governments irrelevant, and transforming this country from the republic it is into the "supreme soviet" socialists want it to be. Socialists like Yellen have an entirely different understanding of the national slogan, "E pluribus unum". For her it is something not yet achieved; something to be worked toward; something literally true, instead of true in the abstract.
Melting icebergs don't raise sea level. Calving icebergs do, and rivers fed by melting inland ice, which eventually reach the oceans certainly do, but melting icebergs? Not a chance.
I think retiring Baby Boomers have as much to do with the shrinking work force as do the long term unemployed who have given up looking, and so are no longer counted as unemployed by the BLS.
Unfortunately, if an American cosmonaut ever wants to get into space again, or if the NSA ever wants to put another intelligence satellite in orbit again, or if America ever wants to set foot on it's space station again (I say "its space station, because the American taxpayers paid for the vast bulk of it!), she's going to have to do it in a vehicle propelled by a Russian rocket motor for the foreseeable future. So natural gas supplies for the EU is not the only "card" Putin is holding. I don't know which president allowed this, but Putin now has a vote on the degree of future American national security. Not good.
While I agree with you that increases in the minimum wage are always job killers to begin with (and that they thus hurt the very people the politicians say they are trying to help), I don't believe they affect business closures all that much, and here's why: the group that will, as a group, experience the job and income losses represent the bulk of the demand for consumer goods and services. Businesses that provide the bulk of the consumer goods and services this group (the lowest two income quintiles group) consumes hires the bulk of unskilled labor, the group that will most be affected, both positively and negatively by the increase. As this group suffers a net loss in employment, it will benefit from a net gain in federal subsidization, in the form of more unemployment, more food stamps, more housing assistance, more daycare, etc., which will go a long way, in the aggregate, to offsetting the job loss and the resultant lose of income for the group as a whole. So because this group will have basically the same amount of money to spend on consumables, and since the businesses that lay off due to the minimum wage increase generally hire from within this group, those businesses will generally work the remaining employees longer hours to produce basically the same amount of goods and services for this group, and the equilibrium will be fairly easily restored after a short period of disruption, albeit with the taxpayer footing the bill for the exercise in economic futility. That's how it has always played out in the past, but in the past we've never had a 106% increase, the historical range being closer to 15%. So this time around, who knows what will happen, either in the short run disruption of the status quo, or as the economy seeks its new equilibrium. My guess is it won't be good.
Unless Obama plans to orbit 100 US fighter-bombers, fully loaded with air-to-ground weapons, over Irbil and Sinjar, 24/7, then that number needs to be increased from 4 a day to 400 a day...starting tomorrow. And I mean, what's the point of limiting the strikes? If one or two armored personnel carriers, made in the US, and manned by blood-thirsty terrorist savages threatening death to America as soon as they get the time, is okay, why not all of them? Are we concerned that we might unintentionally eliminate the threat to us and to our allies in the region if we don't severely limit our targets? Wouldn't "accidentally" killing ever last one of those monsters with 500lbs bombs be a good thing?
California state flower! It's also become a cliche.
I'm not confident the story merits a discussion on Pitcher's preferences in underwear materials. I could be wrong, though.
I can tell you, relying on considerable experience, it already is construed as a pejorative for a physical disability...the physical disability to play to par; a malady from which, I'm extremely sad to say, I'm a long-sufferer.
You really need to pay closer attention to what you read. The good professor's fears had to do strictly with horticulture. He had nothing to say about physics or astronomy, which apparently remain safe until Ben audits a physics class or visits an observatory.
1 - 10 Next