1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The High Cost of Liberalism

Richard31 Wrote: Apr 22, 2014 12:26 AM
Urk. Ignore/delete above, please. Thought I was on a more technically sophisticated site, not TownHall.
In response to:

The High Cost of Liberalism

Richard31 Wrote: Apr 22, 2014 12:25 AM
??? Moderator - Disqus software change or glitch? HTML tags not working in the above; edit also missing?
In response to:

The High Cost of Liberalism

Richard31 Wrote: Apr 22, 2014 12:23 AM
I normally enjoy your columns, Mr. Sowell; your analysis is entirely correct in this one, as usual. Unfortunately, I fear that you have simply narrowed your focus a bit too much. The "Liberals" (I feel that "Regressive" is a far better term, but shall not quibble) that put these open space policies into place were quite well aware that restricting supply in the face of increased demand would only push prices higher. However, the only reason this increase manifested is that they have their sub-plan implementations out of sync with each other. Supply was to be held stable; demand was to be reduced. Unfortunately, they are only now managing to act to reduce demand: 1) Through aggressive abortion (particularly of the "inferior" races); 2) Rationing of medical care to ensure that the nonproductive (elderly and genetically troubled) occupy only a small plot in the cemetery, a small drawer in the crematorium, or ideally are recycled into "organic" farms; 3) The productive class that are left are brainwashed into thinking of a 120 square foot "green" apartment is the most wonderful thing, so wonderful that all people (of their social class) should aspire to live in. Don't worry, Liberals, the new economic dynamic will soon be established (or so you can hope). Perhaps you will even be able to catch a glimpse of the estates of your betters, built where a dozen houses stood in years gone by.
A political historian, eh? Well, then, let us put this into terms that you might understand (assuming your handle has any relation to your education). Stevens is definitely a Regressive - one who wishes to move political power back to a privileged elite few. Every ruling, writing, and statement he has ever made shows this. Now, just what kind of Regressive is he? I cannot find anything that says he is a Classist (power concentrated to the monarch or nobility, inherited). So this leaves the broad categories of: Fascist, Socialist, Technocrat, or Communist. He definitely falls into the category of Socialist or Communist - power is his that seizes it, not necessarily due to business or technical ability. Beyond this we cannot go - there is no indication that he has ever used the lie of the Communists that the "State will wither away." So my best estimation is that he is a Socialist - eternal power of the elite, with the mobs told that they "own" everything - but they may not control it; that is the province of their betters, like John Paul Stevens.
Oh, I think this is a great educational opportunity for these kids. Especially those whose parents managed, against all opposition, to get them through high school. Graduation is supposed to be about the future. These kids will not just receive a lecture from one of their owners, parading around in her designer dress; they'll actually see the armed thugs in their RayBans with their REAL assault rifles, the people up in the rafters with their scoped .50 caliber sniping rifles, the perverts at the gate fondling them quite intimately... Practical education is always the best.
In response to:

Tax Refund Siezure

Richard31 Wrote: Apr 15, 2014 2:23 PM
I am glad to see that a writer finally got most of the story right - and then asked the right questions. One correction - the section is not just the title, the language is actually in the bill as passed, signed, and entered into the Register. A curious thing about the section, although I cannot say whether it was deliberate or not, is that it consists of just a few lines, that are split by a page break. Now, any old printer (on paper, not electrons) knows that you do NOT split a paragraph, particularly a short one, at the bottom of a page such that a couple of lines are on one page (a widow), and the rest (an orphan) on another - it is well known that the human eye tends to skip the whole thing. Bad thing for a novel, but this being a section that has no relation to the one before it, and no relation to the one after it - a reader could easily miss it and never have a clue that they did.
The sad thing, John, is that we can only get the numbers for politicians and high Executive branch people. They, at least, have to exercise some degree of caution when taking advantage of their insider knowledge. We'll never know, but how much do you think the family members and "close friends" of these politicians and their staffers (not subject to public reporting requirements) make from their corruption?
Now, this is not to say that there is no blame to be laid on the shoulders of Republicans. The veto would never have been overridden without the votes of 99 Representatives with (R) after their names (see http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll417.xml) and 35 Senators with (R) after their names (see http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00151). Amusing factoid - the override is one of the votes that Obama, Clinton, AND McCain all skipped, being too busy with campaigning to pay any attention to the "peoples business." All three are listed as "not voting."
Did some research on this tiny, but seriously dangerous, "stealth" provision. The farm bill of 2008 was passed by the 110th Congress. Please note - the Congress that was under the control of the DEMOCRATS. The bill was sent to the (Republican) President, George W. Bush. Two days later, he VETOED the bill - for several reasons, most of them having to do with the earmarks, waste, lack of controls, and parts totally unrelated to agriculture. (Think this provision might fit that last reason?) There was one other sentence in his veto message to Congress - "Additionally, provisions in the bill raise serious constitutional concerns." (Seems this one fits for that reason also - being, in essence, an ex post facto law, since it suddenly resurrects a debt that was expired.) The 110th Congress (once again, controlled by Democrats) turned around and OVERRODE the veto. Telling the President, in plain English terms, "We got your objections, and we don't give a d**n."
Article fix, please - this garbage was not passed in 2011, it was passed in 2008 - over President Bush's veto.
1 - 10 Next