When a man's knowledge is deep, he speaks well of an enemy.
Instead of seeking revenge, he extends unexpected generosity.
He turns insult into humor, ...
and astonishes his adversary who finds no reason not to trust him.
Baltasar Gracian
Tweet of the Day
HT TPNN
Hillary Clinton, “Don’t let anybody tell you businesses & corporations create jobs.” Huh? That’s not trickle down, that’s who hires people.
— Jon Lovitz (@realjonlovitz) October 25, 2014
Every job I’ve gotten is from a business & corporation. And when the corporation goes out of business, people lose their jobs! Common cents!
— Jon Lovitz (@realjonlovitz) October 25, 2014
Image of the Day
 |
| Ferguson Protest in Portland: 12YO Devonte Hart Gives "Free Hug" to Sgt. Bret Barnum via ABC |
As We Approach the Centennial of the WWI Christmas Truce of 1914: A Great Supermarket Ad
From history.com:
On December 7, 1914, Pope Benedict XV suggested a temporary hiatus of the war for the celebration of Christmas. The warring countries refused to create any official cease-fire, but on Christmas the soldiers in the trenches declared their own unofficial truce.
Facebook Corner
(Ron Paul). Do you think the Tea Party Movement has been hijacked? ––> http://bit.ly/1xDDBaV
I think the official Tea Party got co-opted by other right-wing groups who went beyond its limited government roots and tried to push their own, unrelated conflicting agendas, e.g., pro-military, anti-immigration, social conservatism.
As to how Sarah Palin, basically an unprincipled populist, got conflated with the Tea Party movement is beyond me. Remember, she was a big spender during an era of rising state oil revenues, and her biggest legislative "achievement" was a punitive progressive tax increase on oil companies. Parnell tried to roll back the increase to prove more of an incentive to expand production, when Palin joined the repeal movement (and in a related matter, Parnell just lost his reelection battle). Other figures like Michele Bachmann have voted for the Patriot Act and oppose immigration reform.
(Independent Institute). Senior Fellow John Goodman: "Republicans in Congress have created their own internal gridlock on ObamaCare. Even if the Democrats all abstained and let Republican legislators do whatever they wanted, the Republicans still could not agree on what to do next."
I have some nuanced differences with Goodman. I was initially surprised to read him write "The reason ObamaCare looks like a Rube Goldberg contraption is because it is almost purely the product of special interest bargaining...Should labor union plans be taxed to subsidize health insurance for their non-union competitors? Absolutely not." The deferment for the Cadillac tax was a clear example of the earlier statement. But the issue with Cadillac plans is the fact they get "more equal" tax subsidies; the real issue is whether other taxpayers should subsidize union tax subsidies in the form of Cadillac plans. I'm not sure why the Dems implemented an excise tax on Cadillac plans; they could/should have simply capped/standardized any subsidy, e.g., like McCain's universal deduction. As someone who prefers restoration of a free market to the healthcare sector, I don't see the logic in exempting everyone since healthcare expenses should be treated like all economic transactions; if anything, policy tends to obfuscate/exacerbate sector prices.
I would have approached a GOP reform differently: (1) use interstate authority to promote a free market against state barriers to entry; (2) repeal centralization authority, e.g., IPAB; (3) implement the principle of Subsidiarity: e.g., match subsidies to state/region high risk pools, regulate at the state/local level, etc; (4) restrict health insurance coverage to risk-based events, conditions, not ordinary expenses and/or reinsure against catastrophic expenses
(Catholics for a Free Market). If this roots out more closeted nationalists, I'll be overjoyed.
[Robert Higgs:] I am disgusted by the frequency with which I encounter this argument: because the state takes money from me and uses it to finance certain benefits enjoyed by "illegal" immigrants, I am in favor of the state's activities to keep such people from coming to the USA.
Several responses immediately occur to me: (1) do you really believe that the state will take any less of your money if it tries to "secure the border," rather than permitting peaceful people to come here freely? (2) do you really believe that it is better for you to support a state's manifestly unjust actions than it is to lose (as you suppose you will) a few more dollars, at most, to the state's plundering? (3) do you not understand that you will lose far more of your income and wealth to a state that undertakes the enormously expensive activities associated with "securing the border" than you would lose if peaceful migrants were permitted to come here freely? (4) do you not understand that the problem we face here is not the arrival of "illegal" immigrants, but the existence of an evil welfare state? and, finally, (5) what difference does it make if your money goes to total strangers (often clearly undeserving ones) born on one side of an arbitrary line rather than another?Agreed. So help me if I hear one more anti-immigrant repeat Friedman argument about incompatibility of open immigration with the welfare state. They misunderstand Friedman's argument; as Stephen Moore pointed out in a WSJ piece, Friedman also argued "Legal and illegal immigration has a very positive impact on the U.S. economy...Look, for example, to the obvious, immediate and practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now that Mexican immigration over the border is a good thing. It is a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It is a good thing for the United States, and it is a good thing for the citizens of the country.But it is only a good thing if it is illegal." What Friedman argued against was immigration motivated by State handouts; unauthorized aliens do not qualify for handouts. Thus, Friedman's argument has more to do with restrictions on immigrant eligibility for welfare state benefits; note that the private sector, e.g., charities, could provide as-needed humanitarian assistance. Quite typically, immigrants are younger, productive workers who contribute to vs. consume State programs
When we look at the fact of unauthorized entries, we have to treat the disease, not the symptoms. It's things like the union opposition to temporary work visa programs and absurdly tight quota systems that delay family reunification for years. The existence of a black market exists because of arbitrary protectionist restrictions on voluntary contracts between employer and immigrant worker. It's patently absurd to advocate the State overhead of border control, which is grossly inefficient, when the real solution is to liberalize and make more transparent the process of immigration.
(IPI). The average American pays $6,000 in subsidies to corporations every year, but that gigantic chunk of taxpayer change simply is not enough for some special interests.
FDR created "Boeing's Bank", just like his other redistribution schemes, like agricultural price supports at the expense of consumers. It's the well-known problem of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs: e.g., domestic sugar producers really like above world-market sugar prices. Domestic consumers (beyond candy makers, bakeries, etc.) may not think it's worth their while to protest a few cents a pound. Let's hope that the new GOP-controlled Congress drives a stake through the heart of FDR's Dracula.
(IPI). Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel called a special city council meeting yesterday on a proposal to raise the minimum wage in the city to $13 an hour.
Economic illiterate political ploy by a politician pandering for the pro-labor vote without putting up the money for the job-crippling policy. Let's be clear; if you are low-skilled/inexperienced and can't find work at the current minimum wage, you don't have a shot at $13/hour. All this "progressive' moron will be doing is reducing the work schedules and/or opportunities of workers: the law of supply and demand, as you raise the price of labor... If a worker's skills were worth $13 or more, they would already be making it in a competitive market. An idiot politician pulling some arbitrary number out of his ass is simply telling people without jobs they don't have a right to available gainful employment at a lower price; with "friends" like this, who needs enemies?
Caption This...
 |
| Via Washington Times |
 |
| Via IJReview |
 |
| Courtesy of Ken Catalino via Townhall |
Tchaikovsky Nutcracker Suite - 3 'Sugar Plum Fairy
