Quote of the Day
The 'Inside-Out' approach to personal and self;even more fundamentally, to start with the most inside part of self
with your paradigms, your character, and your motives.
The inside-out approach says that private victories precede public victories,
that making and keeping promises to ourselves precedes making and keeping promises to others.
It says it is futile to put personality ahead of character,
to try to improve relationships with others before improving ourselves.
Stephen Covey
Like Barry, Hillary Laughs At Her Own Jokes...
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| Via LFC |
Guest Post Comment: Washington Times Story on Rand Paul Pushing Immigration Reform in the Aftermath of the Cantor Primary Defeat
[This is an example of why I don't like to get involved in public forums; you deal with people whom will never admit that they're wrong and they'll resort to personal attacks--I've filtered a lot of the crap, but a few of the jerks tested my patience. See if you can figure out the "progressive" troll whom entered the thread; the redneck trolls are fairly direct and blunt; "progressive" trolls typically have this smug, self-superior, sarcastic tone. HINT: "Progressives" love to demonize the Gilded Age, the overhyped "robber barons", etc. I had a hint "progressives" snuck in to discuss the Clinton golden era without immigration reform, which I promptly dismissed, pointing out higher growth, particularly during the Gilded Age. In one recent op-ed, Krugman used the term as a perjorative in his column heading.]
Wow. "But his latest effort pushed him further into the middle of a strident battle between establishment Republicans like Mr. Norquist who see immigration reform as essential to economic growth, and tea party activists who fear the current efforts in Congress will only lead to de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants." Wow, I never thought I would tax reformer Norquist described as "establishment Republican"; Norquist has always been a small-government fiscal conservative; Justin Amash, an unambiguous libertarian-conservative Tea Party type, has had close ties with Norquist, and recall that leadership stripped Amash of a key committee assignment for being insufficiently loyal. Real mainstream Republicans, like Chamber of Commerce types, don't like what they consider Norquist/Amash playing hardball on budget negotiations and have been funding a RINO opponent for the Michigan August primary. The idea that "tea party activists" are behind anti-immigrant populism is absurd; Brat got no endorsements from major Tea Party groups. The idea that real Tea Party people like myself favor the past 90 years of economically self-defeating, counter-productive, unenforceable, restrictive immigration policies, Big INS, busybodies getting in the way of whom employers can hire and family reunification, and renouncing a history of liberalized immigration which helped propel the US as the world-leading economy, is patently absurd.
No the anti-immigrant movement did result in the People's Democratic Republic of California and since Wilson's scorched-earth policy, with only a nominally GOP actor being elected statewide in its aftermath. Immigration restrictionists were a key reason Romney lost a lot of ethnic community votes--including Asian as well as Latino. The anti-immigration populists helped bury 2007 immigration reform, years before Santelli's clarion call on morally hazardous mortgage policies resulted in the birth of the Tea Party. That anti-Obama populist conservatives tried to latch onto and co-opt the movement is predictable, but don't portray these ideological heretics as the "real" Tea Party. They are, at best, contemptible opportunists, like Laura Ingraham.
Impressive drivel; La Raza propaganda gem.
Ad hominem attacks are what I come to expect from xenophobes and economically illiterate trolls like yourself.
YOU don't know anything about the Tea Party.
YOU are a liar.
YOU are full of Liberal BS.
Are you also an Illegal Alien?
Unlike you, I am a CONSISTENT small-government libertarian-conservative whom is more Tea Party that your politically opportunitistic ass will ever be. We won't let your kind hijack the movement. For your information, I oppose a strong federal government, and I don't support the social welare net. FYI, I was born in Texas (French-Canadian American--yeah, my ancestors immigrated during the Gilded Age) and graduated from high school and 4 times from colleges in Texas; my Dad was career-enlisted USAF. I will say that I have met a lot of hard-working, God-fearing Latinos over the years, and I would rather live next door to them than people like you.
I wonder how President Clinton achieved such amazing economic growth without immigration reform??????
Actually Clinton's GDP record was largely an artifact of loose monetary policy under the Fed, plus the fact that the GOP put an end to his scheme to nationalize healthcare and put him in a fiscal straitjacket for the last 6 years of his Presidency. This alleviated the government crowding out investment in the private sector. Reagan did sign immigration reform, but it kept in place the constraints against temporary worker immigrants, wanted by crony unionists to manipulate labor costs.
Clinton lucked into a government coming out of recession, plus the end of the Cold War, which allowed cuts to DoD. Reagan inherited a severe recession based on nearly 20% interest rates to break the back of inflation, high unemployment and sluggish economic growth. Both Reagan and Clinton hovered just over the long-term economic growth trend of about 3%. Note that JFK and LBJ did better after instituting long-overdue tax reform.
"The Gilded Age saw the greatest period of economic growth in American history, producing over one third of international goods such as oil and steel. From 1869 -1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8 % for NNP (GDP minus capital depreciation) and 4.5 % for NNP per capita. The nation’s wealth grew at an annual rate of 3.8 % during the 1880’s while the GDP doubled....Democrats led the call for a free market, low tariffs, low taxes, less pending and in general, a hands-off government, while denouncing overseas expansion." Doesn't sound like today's Democrats, does it? In fact, the last time the Democrats elected a decent President--Grover Cleveland. And, yes, liberalized immigration was a big part of that story.
Ironic that massive immigration leading to incredibly low cost labor with no benefits, was the single most potent ingredient in the 'Gilded Age'. And that golden goose is being plucked at the Southern borders now.
Actually, economic and historical illiterates like you could be anything from a unionist to a paleoconservative troll. Go back and do some reading on the Gilded Age--it was also an era of wage increases, greater consumer equality, and a higher standard of living. What's true of the immigrants of yesterday and today is an incredible work ethic and also a brighter future for their children. When my ancestors immigrated during the Gilded Age, they weren't attracted by the social welfare net but work opportunities, including hard work in textile mills. Of course, they had to deal with ignorant Know Nothing nativists, not unlike today, especially anti-Catholics whom said they didn't know how to keep their breeding under control.
A paleoconservative troll ! How very erudite ! Would you be kind enough to give me a reference to 'the social welfare net' of the Gilded Age - that pre union era when children were put to work in factories ?
May I suggest you go to legitimate historians (vs. "progressive" propagandists), like Tom Woods? Tom DiLorenzo, an economist, also combats the ignorance being taught in today's abysmal public schools. Deirdre McCloskey is also an excellent economics historian (My PhD is not in history or economics, but I'm well-read in a number of disciplines.)
You have been so brainwashed by your "education", it's impossible to know where to start. First, let's point out that the rapid growth in income during the Gilded Age and early Progressive Era enabled families to achieve a level of income not requiring contributions of older children. As to child labor legislation, that was pretty much pushing on a string, and it wouldn't have meant squat if the family needed extra income. By the way, the free market works: for example, Henry Ford doubled daily wages while cutting down hours and provided for a 40-hour week long before his company inked a union pact; these paid for themselves in increased productivity. But to answer your "question" more directly, churches, charities and philanthropies, fraternity organizations, mutual aid societies, immigration support groups, etc., often provided private sector (vs. parasitic public sector) support if and when needed.
No more history lessons. I'm not here to educate trolls for free.
These times: Between 1881 and 1890, there were 9,668 strikes and lockouts, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 1886, more than 600,000 workers engaged in 143 strikes and 140 lockouts. State and federal militias were repeatedly called out to quash labor unrest. In the Pittsburgh rail yards in 1877, Pennsylvania militia members fired into the crowds and violence broke loose. President Rutherford B. Hayes sent federal troops to restore order.
And your point is what exactly? That the Gilded Age, despite the strongest economic growth, rising wages, and increasing standard of living in American history, was not a tranquil utopia? (Who would have guessed--labor unrest in the era of Karl Marx?) May I suggest you read Robert Higgs' The Transformation of the American Economy?
I Started a Kerfuffle on a Cato Institute FB Thread on Cantor's Primary Defeat
From yesterday, here's my original comment followed by subsequent exchanges:
With all due respect, some of the votes discussed in the post reflected legislation proposed by President Bush and Eric Cantor was part of the GOP leadership; it would have been politically suicidal to publicly break with the President on key votes. Sometimes in baseball you have to sacrifice your at-bat for the sake of the team; Bush is responsible for his policy deviations from a small government perspective. Cantor was no Clintonian "finger in the wind" conservative: he has a 95% ACU lifetime voting record.BULLSHIT! You either have principles, or you don't! Obviously he don't!
What I'm saying is as a party if you're in leadership, you have a responsibility. As much as I prefer Ron Paul and Justin Amash, you pay a price if you're a political gadfly. Justin Amash got stripped of a plum committee assignment, and his August primary opponent is being funded by mainstream opponents. Do you think Ron Paul didn't compromise? He wanted to end the Fed, not simply audit it; he didn't have the votes, but he had a long-term perspective: once there was more transparency about what the Fed did during the economic tsunami, it would help build his case against the Fed. Look, I don't know what Cantor did behind the behind the scenes to keep a bad bill from being even worse, but Cantor was a solid conservative, not a RINO, and his district would be better off being represented by a potential Speaker than just a freshman.
Incidentally, the primary winner, an economics professor named Dave Brat, claims to be free market but largely ran his campaign bashing immigration, heresy in the pro-liberty movement. So arguing principles is rather hypocritical in this context.
Suicide be damned. This isn't a game. It's a country. They aren't there to have long careers. They're there to do the right thing for the country. He not only failed us, he betrayed us.
When you're dealing with the likes of spendthrifts like Reid and Obama, the latter holding a veto which can easily be sustained in either chamber of Congress, you have to temper your expectations. Look--the House under Cantor's leadership has done a relatively good job cutting off Obama's activist agenda to the point that there was an Atlantic piece a while back claiming the 7-Trillion-Dollar Man (and counting) was one of the more fiscally responsible Presidents since the 1950's. Ignore the shell game, for instance, that attributes all the TARP charged to Bush (even though the Dems controlled the Congress) while bank paybacks of loans under the point of a gun offset new Dem spending under Obama. Obama had a public temper tantrum over making sequester cuts, literally pennies on the dollar.
Would I like to have seen more? Of course. But I have to deal with the fact we don't have a Harding or Coolidge in the White House or a Robert Taft in the Senate. Eric Cantor played his cards as well as they could be played under the circumstances. Cantor failed or betrayed no one; you're simply in a state of denial and scapegoating a solid conservative, no RINO.
What is stated above is a pretty good articulation of exactly what's wrong in Washington. Individual votes are made for the "good of the party", not for the good of their district.
No. Eric Cantor has a lifetime ACU rating of 95. I said that the post had singled out certain votes where as part of leadership, he had to carry the ball for Bush. But the issue was with Bush's leadership, not Cantor's. What I'm arguing is you have to look at Cantor's overall voting record, not picking and choosing a few sacrificial votes where a public defeat would have undermined Bush's Presidency
Good points, Ronald A Guillemette. But its a combination of problems for Cantor and a big one is losing touch with his own district. Say what you will about John Boehner, but he didn't lose touch with "the folks".
Cantor says that he was back home every weekend, but I do think the perception was out there that he was out there trying to lay the groundwork for succeeding Boehner as Speaker. However, it's more plausible Brat, an alleged free-market economist, exploited anti-immigrant fearmongering, promoted by the likes of Laura Ingraham, hardly a pro-liberty Ron Paulist.
Facebook Corner
(Bastiat Institute). "A CBP agent had thrown out the pills and insulin she needed to treat her myriad health problems, including hypertension, diabetes, migraines, anxiety, and convulsions. So Quiñones wound up using the same, single sanitary pad for her entire period. She tried to extend its life by covering it in toilet paper, but without success, and her pants and underwear became soaked in menstrual blood."
I'm ashamed of my country doing this to any visitor, regardless of circumstances.
(The Libertarian Republic). Re: how Seattle area companies are trying to cope with minimum wage increases. Most businesses simply tend to raise prices to compensate, but few businesses would have the courage to do what MasterPark has done and broadcast to the public just exactly the impact their economic illiteracy has on the marketplace.
Ideally, government should not be in the welfare business. But as a compromise, image if we could replace all entitlements (as in eliminate all existing entitlements and welfare first) with a "basic income". It would be paid regardless of income or situation (even to the "rich") and at current welfare/entitlement spending would come to $5000 per individual (minors share paid to parents or legal guardians).
I think the point is one Charles Murray and others have made, which is that it would be a lot easier just eliminating the high-cost bureaucracy; we could save money just by direct handouts, and it would be more efficiently spent in the economy vs. the government's arcane regulations. The problem is that this reform still doesn't eliminate the perverse moral hazard effect of redistributive policy and how government intervention creates uncertainty for private-sector support systems.
(The LibertyPaper.org) Can you believe it? Eric Cantor was actually beat by a Libertarian.
Brat is an anti-immigrant hack, which is definition isn't pro-liberty, small government.
(Reason). As much as a single person could personify everything that sucks about the contemporary GOP—a patently fake commitment to small, limited government, a lack of social tolerance, and uncritical support for a military-industrial complex that has lost the last two wars it foisted on Americans—that person was Eric Cantor.
First of all, the hack job is by Reason here, one of the worst pieces I've seen published by Reason in some time. He is no RINO but he is a principled conservative--granted, not a fusion conservative-libertarian like the Paul's, Amash, and yours truly, but there are only a handful. If you think Brat, an alleged free-market economist whom exploited anti-immigrant populism, is more principled than Cantor, you are in a state of denial. If you are in the leadership, and you've had to deal with the Bush/Obama Statist agenda, there's only so much you can do. My mom used to tell me, bide your time, work within the system, and one day you'll have a chance to change things. Cantor is a solid conservative with a lifetime ACU rating of 95. Cherrypicking a handful of votes where he had to take one for the team is intellectually dishonest. There are a lot of people in leadership worth taking out; Cantor wasn't one of them.
(National Review). Laura Ingraham: "“Everybody that’s hoping and praying for a Jeb Bush run, they should spend a lot of time focusing on what just happened in Virginia.”
This economics illiterate anti-immigrant populist managed to find the only "free market" economics professor whom is in a state of denial about win-win immigration. Real Americans have zero patience for xenophobes and labor protectionists whom, like the Know Nothings and the KKK, reject our common immigrant roots.
 |
| Courtesy of Nate Beeler via Townhall |
John Denver, "Looking for Space"
