The secret of attraction is to love yourself.
Deepak Chopra
Chart of the Day: What Pope Francis Left Out of His Exhortation
 |
| via Libertarian Catholic |
 |
| "Eggs Benedict": An Offensive, Mocking Portrayal of Pope Benedict in Condoms Exhibited at Milwaukee Museum via CNN |
Why the Obama Stimulus Didn't Work
The High Cost of Government in Every Glass of Beer
Political Potpourri
As I started this post segment, I was planning to discuss the infamous McCarthy gaffe where he seemed to suggest that House hearings on Benghazi and the Hillary Clinton scandals had the desired political effect of dragging down her poll and/or favorability ratings. Hillary Clinton sees a vast right wing conspiracy if she oversleeps in the morning. Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton alone, is responsible for her political problems, not the Republicans. Whereas I don't like, support or admire Clinton, I don't have Clinton Derangement Syndrome. What McCarthy did was trivialize the hard work and investigation and question the motives and the professionalism of his colleagues; it was a political unforced error which made his promotion from Majority Leader to Speaker impossible.
So when I saw an email float by this morning announcing that McCarthy, who had been the prohibitive favorite to become Speaker before the gaffe, was withdrawing from consideration. There have been some follow-up pieces; one of the biggest rumors is a movement to draft Paul Ryan, current chair of Ways and Means and former Romney running mate; according to a National Review piece, Ryan has resisted because he has small children and he is worried the duties of Speaker would cut into the already limited family time he has already. There are also reports that Boehner is willing to defer his retirement until a successor is chosen and is lobbying Ryan to accept. Hensarling is a personal favorite; some libertarian-conservatives are pushing Ron Paul or Justin Amash, and Sean Hannity has been pushing the return of Gingrich. Another name nobody is discussing is former Majority Leader Eric Cantor. My personal feeling is that Ryan is seriously considering it.
Whereas many pundits are noting Trump is still leading many or most polls, another trio of state polls has Trump with a 2-6% lead (CA, OH, PA). I realize that this sounds like wishful thinking, but I'm very skeptical that people will actually vote for Trump. Trump has recently taken on healthcare and neo-con policy which cut against the grain of general Republican policies; he is losing head-to-head contests with prospective Democrat nominees, and his personal attacks on fellow candidates are beginning to wear thin. I do realize this is speculative, of course. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the lead change in some of the closer states over the next 2 weeks. This next debate will be critical for Trump to firm up and expand his base.
Political Humor
Facebook Corner
(Cato Institute). A continued thread on TPP.
Ronald,. the problem with your analysis is that it wholly ignores the fact only five of the 30 chapters deal with trade and the rest deal with establishing cross ocean governance in other areas of law and regulation, and it ignores the fact this thing shut out the GOP congress leaving its negotiation to OBAMA, was negotiated in TOTAL SECRECY, may only be viewed by congressmen voting on it in a basement room after strip and cavity search and the law we will live under will be kept secret for five years, You have blind faith in Obama and international bureaucrats. All this international control and loss of sovereignty for a reduction of tariffs that average 2%?
What was ambiguous about my response? I never said this was "free trade": it's freer trade than the status quo. This is clearly implied when I wrote that all you need for free trade is to let it happen and we should do it unilaterally. I'm not a fan of managed trade pacts and neither is Cato Institute. I do not consider non-trade provisions legitimate, but is it a step in the right direction, do consumers and companies enjoy a benefit from increased competition they don't have from the status quo? Yes. Would I have negotiated things differently? Of course. But with the whiff of global recession in the world, the last thing I want is a pan-Pacific trade war.
(Catholic Libertarians.) "Some Catholics may find this difficult to stomach, but free market capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other institution in the history of mankind—including the Church." ~ The Libertarian Catholic [See Chart of the Day.]
Some Catholics may find this difficult to stomach, but in such countries, individuals still cannot afford basic healthcare, food, or adequate housing...The early 20th century is pretty close, although then regulations had to be put in place because markets were leading to unjust wages and horrid working conditions.
Why is it some economically illiterate progressive OP troll refuses to acknowledge the fact that the free market has done more to alleviate serious issues than his fascist or socialist policies? Get your act together, and stop repeating retarded leftist propaganda bullshit. Not to mention your beloved government rulers have done more to spread the misery of war, imprisonment, poverty, and disease than any private entity. Your economic history is all bullshit: the fact is there were real increases in wages and the standard of living and the highest economic growth during the Gilded Age. As DiLorenzo and others have repeatedly shown, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly. And it was Henry Ford, not unions or their political whores, who led the way in compensation and workplace reforms. "Unjust wages and horrid working conditions?" Compared to what, idiot? In many cases, these workers came from hard agriculture and meager existences.
As to [first commenter] , that first statement (There's not a country on earth that is truly practicing capitalism. ) is unnecessary and too defensive. The hidden assumption is that somehow capitalism "causes" these issues, which is utter crap. There's a nuanced distinction between capitalism and free markets, but let's point out that government is usually the problem, not the solution. Only when the socialist rulers of China loosened their chokehold on the economy, allowed some measure of privatization that we saw economic growth and rising living standards. Will political whores perpetuate the myths of the robber baron stereotype? Of course. It's a diversion from the failed policies of fascism and socialism, like the fascist LBJ's War on Poverty which has converted whole generations into dehumanizing government dependents.
If only the Church did not reject consequentialism, this would be a good argument. But a basic moral principle is that the end does not necessarily justify the means. A system that violates social justice is not morally justified by appealing to desirable consequences of that system, in this case a reduction of poverty.
"Social justice" is a self-serving presumptive ideology where the morally corrupt justify using force to deny the natural rights of others.
Political Cartoon
 |
| LOL--I think those are economic nationalists Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Courtesy of the original artist via Facebook |
 |
| On the Road to Courtesy of the original artist via LFC |
 |
| Courtesy of Eric Allie via IPI |
Roberta Flack (with Donny Hathaway), "The Closer I Get To You"
Lawsuit Abuse
The purpose of the Consumer Protection Act should be obvious: protecting rights of consumers. But personal injury lawyers are using the law as a conduit for big payouts. Watch and learn more:http://bit.ly/1Gx7FJ5
Posted by Sick of Lawsuits on Wednesday, October 7, 2015
