Previous 31 - 40 Next
In response to:

Obama’s Scandal Playbook

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jul 04, 2014 10:20 AM
Step 5; Wait for the next scandal to supplant the peoples interest in the previous scandal.
In response to:

The Wrong Type of Values

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jul 04, 2014 10:13 AM
That is because you do not consider the aborted baby to be a life whose life and whose pursuit of happiness certainly is being denied and Conservatives do.
In response to:

The Wrong Type of Values

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jul 04, 2014 10:09 AM
So let's see. On the one hand we have Hobby Lobby whose owners have a religious conviction, the free exercise of which is specifically protected by the First Amendment, that life begins at inception and, therefore, do not want to provide and pay for their employees to terminate that life free of charge. On the other hand we have those who do not have any religious objection to abortion and who believe that access to it is somehow protected by the Constitution because they read into the Constitution some vague undefined right to privacy. They do so even though neither privacy nor abortion is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution nor is it anywhere explained just how abortion is a matter of privacy, particularly in a way that does not also include virtually any other individual decision that might be made. And, having done that they further extend it to be something that not only must be made available to them but which must be done so free of charge to them and paid for by their employers even when those employers have a specially Constitutionally protected right to freely exercise their religion that proscribes against it.. All so that women who become pregnant do not need to be faced with the responsibility to gestate and give birth to the baby once they have voluntarily, in the vast majority of cases, done what is necessary to become pregnant and not having taken advantage of 16 other available means by which to prevent it that are provided to them free by those against whom they rant in moral outrage for having religious convictions against there selfishness. It might be noted that Hobby Lobby's case took only one sentence to articulate while the involved and convoluted case upon which their opposition relies took the rest of a decidedly long paragraph.
"Long-term unemployment is down even though Congress ended extended unemployment benefits."? No single factor is solely responsible for the unemployment rate but long-term unemployment is down, in part, BECAUSE Congress ended extended unemployment benefits. The idea is that unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to look for work as, indeed I believe it may do for some. So reducing the duration of unemployment benefits should increase the incentive to look for work by decreasing the incentive to not look for work. Therefore the unemployment rate should, if anything, go down assuming that greater incentive to look for work would be successful. But that assumes the economy is truly getting better and jobs are available. If that is not true, then the unemployment rate would stay the same. Now consider how the government manipulates the issue. Unemployment rate = unemployed / work force = unemployed / (unemployed + employed) The unemployed who run out of unemployment benefits are no longer considered part of the work force nor are they considered unemployed. To receive unemployment benefits you must be looking for work. If your unemployment benefits run out you are understood to not be looking for work. There is the rub. If you reduce both the numerator and the denominator by the same amount the quotient goes down. 4/10 = 40%. 3/9 = 33 1/3%. Why, you may ask, would you be understood not to be looking for work if you run out of unemployment benefits? It is government logic so I can't answer that but consider that the unemployment rate is calculated by the government and taken as a measure of how well the government is doing its job. Understanding those who run out of their unemployment benefits as no longer looking for work lowers the unemployment rate which makes the government look better. The impression is that must mean more of the work force is employed when, in fact, more people are not employed because the economy has not actually improved and there are not more jobs with which to employ them. Instead the unemployment rate has gone down because less people are understood to be looking for work.
I believe Jill Ireland was an actress, I meant Patricia Ireland. Thanks.
Every conservative who talks about the VA scandal needs to begin and end the conversation with "this is an undeniable, real life example of government run health care". Obama is not excused because neither G. W. Bush nor any number of Presidents before him could not improve the situation. It is government run health care that is at fault, not whoever happens to be president at any such time as its failure becomes is publicly revealed. In fact, that is not confined to heath care. The truth is that government cannot do anything well and efficiently. The only things they need to do, as our Founders understood, are things that need to be done, even poorly, and that no other agency can do. Liberals may be surprised that at least this conservative believes that to be true even of the military. Perhaps especially of the military given that the need it alone can fill is so fundamentally mandatory. I support the military and constantly appreciate what they do for us but that is because we need to be defended against foreign aggression, not because I admire the msanner and efficiency with which they do it.
What Obama has done is to operate in complete compliance with the liberal ideology, thereby demonstrating that it does not work. The problem, for his supporter, of course, is they cannot admit that because it means they are wrong. But, neither can they oppose him rather than his policies because he is the first black president and that too would shatter their self-image. They have, then, no choice but to support him no matter what he does or how awful are the consequence of what he does. They must get terribly tired of that. Like Bill Clinton before, they cannot lower the bar low enough that he cannot find a way to slither beneath it.
Journalists should have more allegiance to their profession than to their personal beliefs when executing that profession. Sam Donaldson used to say that reporters may be biased personally but they are too professional to allow that to influence their reporting. The problem, of course, is that they are not that professional. If they were then we, the great unwashed who are never privileged to interface with these people on a personal level and whose opinions of them, therefore, are confined to their professional conduct accurately know them to be flaming liberals. Of course, since then, reporters have decided they are actually journalists, not just reporters. The difference, as near as I can tell, is that reporters are just tattle tales while journalists are full fledged gossips. .
Jill Ireland would seem to make a point when she asks what if a family business was owned by people who belonged to the Christian Science religion. Would they be allowed to offer no health care since the type of health care Obamacare requires is against their religion. The answer is yes. That gets to the larger issue. The government should not be allowed to require any employers to pay for health care coverage for their employees. She is being too clever by half when she uses her opinion of a larger issue to be presumed in a discussion of a more confined piece of that issue. Employers should not be required to pay for health care coverage for their employees and that is particularly buit not only true when it violates their religion.
It may sometimes be difficult to determine when, precisely, the government has overstepped its bounds but when they enforce regulations to protect themselves rather than the people you can sure they have done so. This cannot be allowed to continue and should be objected to regardless of party affiliation. It is unconscionable.
The details get messy but Milton Friedman's idea was, as you said, a negative income tax calibrated to insure than anyone who actually worked at a job would benefit from what that work paid over and above what would be earned by anyone who did not work. That leaves some incentive to work that a simple guaranteed $20,000 per year income supplement would not. Even that has problems in that whenever you introduce purchasing power into an economy that does not come as a result of something consumable having been produced, prices go up. That would require that whatever minimum level of income was being promoted would need to go up the next year to account for this inflation. But beyond that, conservatives are allowed to and often do disagree with each other.
Previous 31 - 40 Next