jryan

So they didn't jump in too soon because they were afraid of their feelings being hurt?

I don't see that the data during the Regan era points to a support for Keynesian Economics at all, because you simply can't take any presidency in a vacuum. Indeed, the stagflation that Regan inherited from Carter was the result of Keynesian economic policies of Carter. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOh, and as a matter of full disclosure, I am aware that Volker played a large role in pulling the country out of stagflation. But the recession that followed should be expected as inflation dropped from double digits to 3.2% in a year. But what Krugman does here, as Krugman does everywhere, is ignore all data that doesn't support his claim. He ignores the existence of large tax cuts in the same time as Volker's clamp down on inflation simply to claim a false victory for Keynesian economics. Volker's work didn't happen in a vacuum either. Krugman has always rubbed me the wrong way as his explanations have always been far too static. If X+Y=Z, he will argue that raising X raises Z... which makes some sense on casual review. But if X and Y have inverse correlation then you can't assume that raising X raises Z... but this reasoning is the underpinning of almost all of Krugman's arguments while he rarely bothers to look at the relationship between X and Y. Here is one particular refutation of Krugman on that count.

Well, that's true. I was just pondering a situation in which we would see the kind of huge influx of workers and wage equalization as we saw in the women's liberation or equal rights movements. Putting that aside, I just don't find that Krugman's analysis was sufficient as it ignored the dramatic changes in the American work force in the 50s and 60s.

Thank you. .. don't open the Reaganomics thread.

Well, "median household income" would also reflect the surge of two income households and a drastic rise in household income parity during that same time period. The marginal rate tax cuts of the early 60s fueled the influx of new people into the workforce then, and it had the same effect under Reagan... except rather than being a massive influx of liberated work force it was buoying a rising number of newly unemployed. As such, the effect of the tax cuts was magnified in the 50s and 60s, but more mundane in the 80s and 90s.... as there was no dramatic flood of new workforce in that time. As an example: if you were to grant all illegal aliens amnesty, and cut the top marginal rates, the added cash and the sudden explosion of legal work force would likely cause a dramatic rise in media household income similar to what we saw in the 1950s and 60s, but it would eventually reach equilibrium as it did in the late 70s and early 80s, at which point tax cuts would seem to have a less dramatic effect on MHI but would help sustain normal growth in the employment base. So that leaves me with two conclusions: Raising taxes will have an adverse effect on employment rates, and if any congressman wants to discuss amnesty for illegals they will have to also discuss cuts in marginal taxes so that employers can afford to hire them at a legal wage.

Well, I do have one serious question about the BP response, and it does lead directly to the difference between a Government response and a business response. It seems to me that the "Kill Shot" being attempted today, as reported, has the best shot at closing the pipe of all the efforts tried so far. Why is it being tried a month later rather than week later? Early on BP appeared to be still hoping to salvage this well. but packing it with concrete pretty much kills that hope. Had the government been the one making the decision I have to think they would have gone for the "Kill Shot" first rather than throw a bunch of experimental fixes at it.

It doesn't have to have a material component, though. In the case of hiring practices it would be zero sum anyway as any challenge on a discrimination basis would invariably hurt some other potential or current employee materially. But I do understand your point. We don't defend shouting fire in a movie theater for good reason.

Because the real world isn't as easy as that. You can't erase our instinct to horde and dominate with the wave of a magic wand. Well, again, it isn't as easy at that. A starving child in a prison camp in Sudan may want to be a U.S. Astronaut, but it almost certainly won't come to be. We are still working out the cooperative skills needed to feed ourselves much less expect some universal achievable dream. As such Libertarianism is a lot like the book "The Secret"... for those who fortune smiles on it seems to work, ignore those left behind in the gutter. I do tend to care about the ones in the gutter as well and think there is a very real need to cooperate rather than insulate ourselves from such people. We have tried a fairly libertarian period in this country and the results were not surprising. We can not help but hurt ourselves, and we find ways always within the confines of law, and without the confines. "Harm" itself is a word that is easy to say but even easier for a lawyer to define as it suits their client. I can't seem to unravel this statement. It seems like it is making a point, but the ideas don't seem to mesh. Rather than grasp at the intent, could you rephrase that? Not a knock on you, more of a knock on me. That is too simple a question, I think. Because throughout history these two ideologies have been implemented with varying degrees, and the nanny nations invariably go broke and become envious of the wealth of those who are more free. But on the other side of that we have the industrial revolution as an example of too much freedom ending in far less freedom for the majority of citizens. You and I both benefit daily from the protections provided us by our state and local and federal governments and I am not so quick to assume that absent those government organs we wouldn't revert back to late 1800s exploitations, many of which failed to meet the criteria for "harm" because they were easily categorized as "choice". I don't disagree, but I see the libertarian knife cutting far to deep as it takes a wickedly cold and actuarial approach to individual success -- in that it cares only for the success and little for the individual.

Well, I am not wiling to let go of my immediate beliefs just yet because I know that historically such reasoning, while logically sound, is monstrous in practice. I still value actual individuals above the concept of individuals. I still think the libertarian ideology (actual libertarian, not the billion pretender off-shoots) is an impractical ideology as it requires mechanical thought processes that analogue humanity is simply incapable of as a species. It seems to me that the libertarian social proposition is something like replacing your automobile's breaks with more comprehensive auto-insurance.

An interesting question I heard elsewhere and want to share here: I was listening to a defense of the Rand Paul's position which was mostly boilerplate, but it had an interesting aspect to the defense that I have never considered before. The speaker first stated the old adage that you can only judge your dedication to freedom of speech when the speech in question is abhorrent to you. He then asked whether that same rule applies to freedom of assembly, and by connection to discrimination. My first thought was a resounding "No", but his argument only became more compelling. He theorized that discrimination is simply an aspect of freedom of assembly, and while we all discriminate every single day, racial, sexual and religious discrimination would qualify as those practices of assembly which most of us find abhorrent, but that we must defend if we truly wish to defend freedom of assembly. It is an interesting argument. One I am not entirely sold on, but I must admit it is the closest anyone has come to convincing me to rethink my position on the topic.

I know you want steak for dinner, Pangloss. But I really want you to eat wall paper paste. Surely we can compromise... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBy the way, when discussing compromise between conservatives and progressives, I like to point out that given the progressive view of America's borders it would seem that they can't even agree with me on the SHAPE of the country.

They don't need to profile at that point because the law requires the police to check the residency status of all people stopped for other reasons. See bascule's quote of the law here: ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373©. If they must verify everyone then where does the profiling start? If it is a replacement for the Social Security card then it doesn't add any bureaucracy it simply moves the technology to the 21st century.

Well, it would have to be citizens actually, since legal residence are legally required to carry residency documentation anyway. This would all be solved with a national ID card... Also, a brief bit of comic relief:

Yes, but the Government is dealing with the financial sector which deals heavily in Government bonds, especially in times of uncertainty in the stock market. There is nothing unexpected about this cycle. As I said, if the Government handed out TARP on the grounds that the banks couldn't buy bonds then both the Government and the banks would be screwed in that deal.

And I think you are wrong. When the Government spends trillions in deficits and raises that money largely through bonds they can't help but have their bonds purchased in part through money gained through previous deficit spending that previous bonds are meant to cover. The banks were given that money with the assumption that they would make money on tat money and become solvent again. That is what they are doing. This will always be the case until all debts are repaid.... unless you want to limit the banks to only investing is the stock market until all debts are repaid.... but if they were required to do that they would be in dire need of a bail out right now. Finance is complicated and Jon Stewart isn't. In short, it isn't the viscous cycle of TARP, it's the viscous cycle of deficit spending.

That's not really the viscous cycle of TARP as much as it is the viscous cycle of all Government subsidy.

The way I see it, there is a good chance that it will APPEAR like racial profiling even when it isn't. There is no doubt that the vast majority of illegal aliens in Arizona are Hispanic, and even if the request for citizenship status is applied evenly it will catch predominantly Hispanic illegals. The numbers of challenges of this law, the ones that make it to the news, will therefor be predominantly Hispanics. The majority of the rest of those who are asked for proof of residency will provide their proof and be on their merry way. But just because a law will catch mostly Hispanic law breakers doesn't mean it will involve racial profiling.

Well, if your argument is that the law will lead to occasions where a police officer won't follow the law then I would ask you what law does that argument not apply to?

Neither can the RNC.

Edit: ah, nevermind...

I wouldn't be so quick to blame the drugs on the illegal immigration issue, or the crime issue. It is an aspect of the rising crime rate here in the U.S., but that shouldn't be a surprise that people willing to break U.S. law to make money would.... break U.S. law to make money. Crime rates are on the rise in Europe even as their drug laws become more liberal.

Here is the actual article about Miss America It was actually a puff piece about the view of women in the West and Islam and a pointless jab at some "neo-conservative" blog (not cited). I think you should have actually read that article before presenting it as evidence.

That's true. But the idea of compromise in this case is as strange as a boycott, anyway. Arizona has every right to do what it is doing. Any compromise from that position is simply giving up some of that right. It is not a position subject to compromise. California, we should remember, has at least some boarder fence in place. I would guess that the real worry in California is not for the poor illegal aliens... it is the fear that the law would mean more AZ illegals drifting into CA.

So are you asserting that there is actual statements making fun of Spratt's Parkinson's that he failed to mention while accusing them of making fun of his Parkinson's? Your burden-of-proof-o-meter needs some calibration. Again, you are assuming that Spratt didn't include any of the offending verbiage in his complaint about the offending verbiage but included verbiage that isn't at all what he claimed it to be. Which would make him stupid. Given that I don;t think he is stupid I simply assume that everything that he was offended by was in the complaint. As such, he has failed to meet his responsibility when making such a serious allegation. I have no choice but to judge his claim by the information offered. I judge him to be a completely wrong in his assessment based on the information provided. If you are suggesting we need to consider information that is NOT provided and that you only assume exists then ... I want us to consider the emails that Spratt sent to his staff informing them that he was going to spin this non-issue into a victimization based on his medical condition. Since we are in fantasy land I might as well.... YES HE DOES! Criminey. How is that so hard to understand? If someone makes a claim and provides no compelling evidence to support their claim then rejecting their assertion is your only logical conclusion. Sure we can. Because this isn't a case for CSI or Criminal Minds. This is a guy claiming that he was ridiculed for having Parkinson's and he provided no compelling evidence to support that claim when, we can only assume, he had access to all pertinent information.. Indeed, he would have to have access to be offended at all! The only logical conclusion is that he has provided what offended him, and I judge him to be either very mistaken for seeing offense -- other than standard political offense -- where none could logically be derived.. or an opportunistic slime ball. Since he IS a politician I am leaning towards the latter. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What does my weight have to do with this discussion??!?!?!1 How dare you bring up that affair I had in Reo! That has nothing to do with this discussion!!!1 This is a back handed smear about my erectile dysfunction isn't it? Does your slime know no depths?! I can't believe you outed me! I thought you said it was just between us! My affiliation with the Soviet Union was only briefly in the mid-70s in Vietnam... how dare you call me a Communist! Oh so you're pulling the race card again?! Racist! Back to the erectile dysfunction again? Typical.... Well, sure Jane Fonda sat on my canon. But those were different times and I have no idea what relevance that would have to the South Carolina congressional race. And so on. I figured I might as well take Spratt's tactic on this debate. Let's assume that the we don't have the full context and that my offense is completely founded. I await an apology!

That is not a compelling argument as the police have a long standing right (and duty) to search people when they have reason to suspect they are breaking the law. The rules regarding search and seizure are well established, and in the vast majority of cases the legal system maintains a fair administration of the law. In the case of this law, requesting identification is no different, and can only be done when the person is suspected of another crime first. The law is very clear. So the hand wringing being done over this law makes no sense. In the case of the car full of people: if it is pulled over for speeding the police have the right to ask the driver for ID, but if the rest of the passengers are doing nothing wrong then the officer has no cause under this law to request ID. If they are all in a stolen car, or there is a smell of drugs, or something else occurs that makes the passenger a suspect in a crime then they would come under scrutiny as per this law. I am truly mystified by how otherwise clear thinking people can spin this very clear law into Nazis and Concentration camps in their head.