Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

Embarrassing Economists

SD3 Wrote: Oct 22, 2014 8:44 AM
Oh, please. Krugman gave up his job as an economist long ago for his current job as a shill for the NY Times. Expecting him to behave like an economist is like expecting objectivity from a former umpire who now works as a broadcaster for the Dodgers.
In response to:

Federal Persecutors

SD3 Wrote: Oct 22, 2014 8:37 AM
About a hundred years ago government warned about the dangers inherent in organizations with monopoly powers. The dangers are the same today, but now government IS that organization with monopoly powers.
You do realize that Denmark is the way it is largely because it has a homogeneous population? Back when Minnesota was almost entirely Scandinavian you were able to do the same thing there. Today we push multiculturalism, which is antithetical to "getting to Denmark".
In response to:

Predatory Journalism

SD3 Wrote: Oct 21, 2014 9:40 AM
So apparently you would rather that they either not borrow at all or borrow from a loan shark. Why do you prefer that? And why should you get to make that decision for them?
In response to:

Predatory Journalism

SD3 Wrote: Oct 21, 2014 9:10 AM
You didn't mention mortgage lending. The NY Times supports forcing lenders to lend to people who can't reasonably be expected to afford the loan. No matter, the Times gets to strut that they are making home loans more affordable to lower income people.
Larry -- You're missing the whole point of the minimum wage, which is to eliminate competition from entry-level and other low skilled workers. If my labor value is, say, $10, I don't want to compete with some teenager who is willing to work for $8 and if there's a $10 minimum wage I don't have to. It's exactly the reason the most famous MW (the Davis Bacon Act) was passed in 1931 -- to eliminate competition from black workers who offered to work for less. It accomplished its objective then and it will today.
In response to:

Crumbling Constitution

SD3 Wrote: Oct 15, 2014 10:28 AM
I wonder how the people who think the Constitution is a "living" document would feel if they rented their home with a "no pets" provision and the renters said "things have changed and this is a 'living lease', so I'm going to start breeding dogs."
In response to:

Crumbling Constitution

SD3 Wrote: Oct 15, 2014 10:26 AM
If those who ratified the constitution had wanted it to be as flexible as liberals say it is, why did they not write "Congress may do anything they think is in the best interests of the country."
In response to:

Irresponsible 'Education'

SD3 Wrote: Oct 15, 2014 10:10 AM
What a fabulous idea. Sell your citizenship on eBay. Only trouble is, where would they go? Which country would welcome somebody who had demonstrated that kind of judgment? I'd expect them to be as big a problem to me as they were to the US. Not to mention, you'd have a disproportionate number of the shiftless and addicts who just want the money for a short-term buzz. Maybe a more workable idea would be for all the shiftless and addicts to move to California and all the productive people to move to Texas. Oh wait, that's already happening, isn't it?
In response to:

GOP's Big Idea: Let's Not Have a Wave Election

SD3 Wrote: Oct 09, 2014 11:13 AM
Yes, I do wonder how anyone can rail at what Democrats do and not vote to keep them out of office. .
In response to:

GOP's Big Idea: Let's Not Have a Wave Election

SD3 Wrote: Oct 09, 2014 10:26 AM
Democrats certainly choose their donors over the voters (Keystone Pipeline, school choice). Why is that necessarily a bad choice? You do have to win before you can govern, and they certainly have won with that strategy. Now, governing is another topic . . .
Previous 21 - 30 Next