1 - 10 Next
One small nit to pick: née, with the extra e at the end, is for females. Ronald, a.k.a. Maulana, may not be pleased. The proper form for a male is né. The form "née" is by far the most common in English for the simple reason that men rarely change their surnames.
1) Are you saying it's impossible? 2) Are you saying that the creators of Microsoft, Home Depot, and McDonald's were all born rich? Oh, and my self-employed plumber friend, excavator friend, carpenter friend, paid-his-own-way-through-college-and-grad-school engineer friend - all must have been born rich, because they could not have created their own self-employed job, right? 3) All jobs are controlled by a plutocratic conspiracy controlled by the Koch brothers, right? Or is that the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers? No, it must be the Rothchilds. Wait - no, it's the papacy. Dang, I just can't keep all this straight in my little tiny brain.
The chart is interesting, but only modestly so. Its message would be much better if it were normalized for inflation local to the country in question (granted, it's plucked from another source, but it appears not to be so normalized) -- or normalized to a standard basket of goods. Further, it does not show that the /poor/ are better off. Per capita GDP /could/ rise by the rich getting all the money. I don't at all believe this is the case, but the graph does not show that it isn't. In other words, while showing that per-capita (all capita, i.e. all heads, i.e. all people) GDP rises in Hong Kong faster than in France, it would be good to show that, concomitantly, the share of GDP of the working poor also rises. I would intentionally exclude the non-working poor, i.e. those on the public dole, because their share of GDP is unlikely to rise much, if at all, in a growing economy. If included with the working poor (e.g. by simply studying the bottom quintile), their constant income would tend to flatten that curve, thus supporting or even enhancing the argument of those who think that a growing economy does not help the poor. It would seem self-evident that a growing economy does not help those who live off a constant monthly welfare check, or at least not to a great extent, but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise if my H-null is incorrect.
The most incurable disease is ... WILLING STUPIDITY.
It's BAD, BAAAAD ... if you send your kid to private school. (You pay for the public school anyway, but so what?) So is it not equally bad to allow parents to decide to live in a nice, affluent suburb, so as to send their kid to THIS public school rather than THAT one? So to REALLY, TRULY make our public schools good, we have to FORCE parents to live in the city where they work. No more suburbia, no sir!
In response to:

Trains to Nowhere

MDB8080 Wrote: Aug 28, 2013 1:08 PM
Several problems with this column: 1) Buses travel on publicly financed roads, so that $20 probably does not reflect the true cost. On the other hand, the $150 for the train (which one?) is probably not the full cost, since the feds pay Amtrak's infrastructure cost. Amtrak recovers much but not even all of its "operating" costs. 2) I am opposed to federal funding of the California train. However, to build it from nowhere to nowhere is politically smart. The middle of the proposed line is where the line can be most easily, most cheaply built. Once it's built, a political case can then be made for extending it closer to the cities, which becomes much more expensive due to land costs in general, and eminent domain claims in particular. 3) Government is ONLY good at breaking things. So the military fits perfectly, since this is one of their jobs by their own admission.
In response to:

Excuse me? GOP to blame for ObamaCare?

MDB8080 Wrote: Aug 08, 2013 11:19 AM
There appear to be only 2 options: Either: 1) attach a defunding of Obamacare to an omnibus bill that funds both necessary (Defense) and popular (veterans' benefits, Social Security) items, or: 2) write a bill that funds Obamacare at zero OR adds a 10-year Trust Fund, forces Obamacare to be funded via a separate tax, as a separate line-item on wages, and disallows deficit funding - thus immediately jacking up its cost by 150% and forcing the public at large to deal with it.
The statistics in this column require more analysis that has been given. First off, Bush was in office 8 years; Obama, only 4.5 so far. 188:4.5 :: 1:8 is a much larger disparity than is being suggested in the column. Secondly: Obamacare did not get passed until near the very end of year 2 of Pres. Obama's first term. So if Obamacare is truly the reason for the 188 visits, then they should all have occurred in the last 2 years of term 1 and the half year thereafter. Thus, 188 visits / 2.5 years. But was this the case? Was there actually an uptick in the number of visits per annum /after/ the passage of Obamacare, or not? If not, it suggests that Obamacare is an excuse or a lie.
In response to:

Adams 2016

MDB8080 Wrote: Dec 10, 2012 1:53 PM
Second: (2) There shall be no limit to the number of terms a person may serve in the House of Representatives nor Senate, but no person shall be eligible for the said office unless they have physically resided with their fellow citizens in the district, for the House, or state, for the Senate, from which they shall have been elected, for a period of time of at least three-quarters of the time for which they shall have been elected. Time in elected and appointed offices of the state or federal government served outside of the district or state, respectively, shall not qualify as residency in one's district or state, respectively.
In response to:

Adams 2016

MDB8080 Wrote: Dec 10, 2012 1:50 PM
2 more Amendments for your cogitation: First: No person shall be eligible for the office of the President or Vice-President, having any relative whether living or deceased, of the third degree or closer, who has been elected as President; but it will be permissible for persons having previously served as Vice-President to be elected to the office of President.
1 - 10 Next