Cynical Nation

Most of Rudy’s tenure in NYC was GREAT. Not just very good, but GREAT!

Sure, it looked even better when compared with the gross incompetence of the previous Mayor (David Dinkins), BUT Dinkins’ incompetence had nothing to do with any “lack of experience,” he’d spent his entire life in politics and served as City Clerk and the Manhattan Borough President before becoming Mayor.

No, David Dinkins’ “incompetence” was the incompetence that IS big government Liberalism.

Dinkins undid most of the things that Ed Koch had done that revitalized the city. He ended things like the J-51 tax abatement that moguls like Trump used to build million dollar real estate portfolios into billion dollar ones, hiked taxes and fees for services, driving out many businesses and working people in process.

In response, the inner city areas of NYC expanded and crime skyrocketed across the city. Dinkins, like many Liberals saw crime as “a justifiable response to economic and social repression.”

Giuliani brought in Bill Bratton, who took the opposite view, that crime is "a dysfunctional behavioral aberration worthy of punishment."

In his first term violent crime plummeted in NYC and gentrification reclaimed many formerly “ghetto areas.”

Giuliani also slashed taxes and reduced spending by combining many city services and reducing others. The result was that city economy boomed and allowed him to woo Disney to come in and “revitalize” (take over Times Square).

Giuliani’s flaws are similar to Bill Clinton’s and Newt Gingrich’s – they are personal flaws that often reflect poorly on his judgment. His commissioner picks post-Bratton weren’t just bad (Safir, Kerick and von Essen) they were abysmal. His refusal to listen to leaders in the emergency services (Police & Fire) who advised against building the city’s anti-terror bunker in the basement of Building 7 in the WTC was a rare example of just such poor judgment, so was parading Judy Nathan around NYC, while still Married to Donna Hanover.

Aside from his stance on guns and illegal immigration, which, apparently like Mitt Romney’s have “evolved” since he’s gone outside very Blue NYC, his stands are all bona fide small-government Conservative.

There’s no question that the Dinkins/Giuliani tenures showed on a local level the inevitable outcomes of the two competing ideologies. While Dinkin’s style Liberalism leads to economic malaise and social dysfunction, Giuliani’s small government Conservatism leads to economic expansion and social revitalization.

While Dinkins (Liberalism) nearly destroyed New York City, Giuliani (Conservatism) cleaned up the Dinkins’ mess and revitalized the city, beyond what most New Yorkers believed was possible at the time!

As I’ve noted, I like Romney and even prefer him, BUT I’d take Rudy in a heartbeat, over McCain, even over Huckabee (whom I REALLY like) and certainly over any Dinkinscra...I mean Democrat.

I also think Giuliani is an odd choice for a libertarian, but then when I try to identify someone better I come up empty, which I guess is your point.

Ron Paul WAS once a "Libertarian icon," that is UNTIL he became a "Truther" and started happily accepting from Stormfront (a neo-Nazi group)....hmmm, perhaps Ron Paul has "devolved" into a Liberal?

I have also been dismayed by the left turn the Libertarians have taken lately. I could live with Guiliani. Abortion and gun rights aren't something the President can decide on his own anyway. His jobs would be Commander in chief, (better qualified than most), and diplomat (not likely to take any crap). Over the Hildebeast, I would take any Republican, except Ron Paul and mister Campaign Finance Reform.

Maybe Paul or Barry (both more Libertarian than I)could assist me on this.

Years back, I was very much supportive of the Murray Rothbard/Lew Rockwell "Paleo-Libertarian" portion of the LP.

Then in the wake of the First Gulf war, they began railing against "the welfare.warfare state," which admittedly troubled me a great deal because security is one of the few Constitutionally mandated federal mandates (the "to insure domestic tranquility" clause supporting police powers and the "to provide for the national defense" clause that legitimized the military responsibilities of the federal government - the, if you will, "warfare state" that even many "Paleo-Libertarians" railed against.

Initially, I wrote it off as a cheap, even misguided attempt to appeal to Leftists by throwing them a bit of a bone, but after 9/11, when some of the Rockwell/Raimondo crowd began assailing the WoT as a "U.S.-initiated" conflict, those guys (and Ron paul was one of them) pretty much lost me right there.

One of the bizarre ironies of all this is that one of the groups that has most staunchly opposed these wars in the Mideast from back in 1991 and before, has been the Neo-nazis (the Aryan Nation types, etc.) because the Arab States from Turkey to Morrocco had been aligned with Hitler in WW II.

So, from a historical perspective, I can see the objection modern day nazis would have with this (or any) war with the Arab world, what I find much harder to understand is how a formerly rabid Libertarian, like Ron Paul, could find himself in sympatico with such people (National SOCIALISTS).

The "esteeemed Dr. Paul" has come to embrace the inane "Truther" ideology, or at least large swatches of it, and has recently accepted donations from Stormfront, a neo-nazi organization.

SEE: http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/

What happened to the Libertarians?!

"So what's a small-l libertarian to do? ... I think divided government is the best friend a libertarian can have in the real world."

I politically describe myself much as you do. FWIW - this is how I resolve the dilemma.

I have real problems with Giuliani on libertarian grounds. I won't support him in the primaries. I am supporting Ron Paul on principle, although I have zero expectation of him getting nominated or elected. However, if Giuliani is the Republican nominee I will support him in the general election.

We will not be voting for a President in a vacuum. We will be voting for a government whose behavior will be much more determined by the combined makeup of the legislature and presidency, than it will by the position the President staked out when he/she was candidates. The Democrats will certainly hold and probably increase their majorities in 2008. They may even achieve a 60 vote plurality in the Senate.

A Giuliani (or any Republican President) with a Democratic Congress will be a lesser threat to our freedoms and fortune than any Democratic president with a Democratic Congress. Its just that simple.

I will be voting for a Republican President in 2008 for the same reason that I voted a straight Democratic ticket in the 2006 midterms. Divided government is better government. Always.

I expand on these themes i my post VBO (Voting By Objectives)

Guiliani was and is a failure, not to mention quite immoral by the standards Republicans pretend to have when not soliciting sex in restrooms.

Many say that his failure to properly equip firefighters with radios that worked in the WTC towers cost many of them their lives. He knew there was a problem after the first bombing that JMK loves to blame on Clinton.

Anyway, Rudy is an adulterer and a pervert, so he would make an excellent Repug candidate.

WoW! Barely, you've pitched a near perfect post! That is, one that is wrong from start to finish.

In reverse order;

(1) Giuliani is a twice divorced, three times Married man. There's nothing remotely "immoral" about that.

If Bill Clinton's personal pecadillos should remain "between him and his wife," as many claimed (and I agreed....his philandering DIDN'T undermine the efficacy and righteousness of Welfare Reform, nor his pro-Free Trade, pro-Business, Supply-Side policies), then the same MUST hold true for Gingrich (I certainly don't believe any of his personal foibles should be used to attempt to undermine him. Gingrich is a brilliant "policy wonk," despite any of the personal flaws he has.

Same goes for Rudy. Just as the Liberal people of Massachussetts have repeatedly re-elected a man who was guilty of running a brothel from his basement (Barney Frank), I'd happily vote for flawed men who uphold my own political viewpoints.

It's human to profess and espouse ideals we don't live up to. After all, M L King was an adulterer and a plagiarist. Abe Lincoln was beset by depression and bios say he tended to be tyrannical with underlings, but those men are still GREAT, despite not living up to their own professed ideals!

(2) You'll never find a statement made by me blaming Clinton for the 1993 bombings anywhere.

I blame the same culprit for the 1993 attacks as I do for the 2001 attacks - Islamo-fascists enemy combatants/"civilian soldiers" (a/k/a "terrorists").

Rudy, as the chief administrator, delegated the radio deals to his Commissoners (Kerick & von Essen).

And even though I revile both those guys, I can't blame them for things that aren't their fault.

Motorola supplied the FDNY with digital radios pre-9/11. They were tested throughout the city in 1999 - 2000 and the results were that those initial digital radios presented problems unique to the Fire service. While communications on the old analogs didn't travel great distances, those on the new digitals did.

That was problematic when there were simultaneous jobs in neighboring communities (ie Washington Heights, Manhattan & Morrisania, South Bronx). It's a problem when a Fire Company one place hears "Roof's open," from another job, because firefighters proceed differently based on such information.

At any rate, those radios were taken out of service in 2000 and they were returned to service in modified form a few months prior to Sept. 11.

Here's the truth about 9/11 and the communication problems;

(A) the primary "communication problem" noted that day was that the NYPD and the FDNY didn't share even one common frequency for emergency communications. That had LESS to do with equipment and more to do with the fact that neither agency much cooperated with the other at higher levels. The two agencies rarely, if ever shared tasks at an emergency.

(B) The existing FDNY radios relied on a "Repeater System" in the WTC, so ground transmissions could be heard on the upper floors. That "Repeater System" went down shortly after the north tower was hit.

(C) While it's true NYPD helicopters reported signs of structural instability shortly before the south tower fell and about a half hour before the north tower came down, prompting the FDNY ground level Comand Post to issue an evacuation order, that wasn't the reason most of the 343 firefighters were killed that day.

Scores of men jumped back on the rigs after they were relieved from duty that morning, figuring that all hands would be needed. Those men did not have radios, as our rigs don't carry extra radios, for a variety of reasons.

By the time the evacuation order was given, most of the firefighters had spent most of the previous hour hiking up to the upper floors of those buildings each carrying an average of appx 90 pounds of gear and by then most of the men were too far up those buildings to be saved by such short notice.

There have long been misguided people who've callously blamed the off-duty firefighters for jumping back on their rigs, for their own deaths, while others (probably for more partisan reasons) who blame Giuliani and von Essen.

Such people are close cousins to the "9/11 Truthers," welcome to their club Barely.

(3) By any measure, Giuliani's tenure was nothing short of a MIRACLE! I like to call it a "Festivus miracle," because for those in the emergency services, it was indeed a time of "fun and festivity" (along with a lot of hard, arduous work), for us. As they say, "the gloves were off."

His administration reversed the disastrous Liberal course that had nearly destroyed the city under Dinkins, and revitalized the city. Bill Bratton engineered a "tough love" approach to crime that saved an estimated 12,000 to 14,000 poor black and Hispanic lives over the course of Giuliani's tenure and laid the groundwork for the reviatlization/gentrification of much of New York!

Like Clinton, Gingrich and Bush, Rudy has his flaws, but amazingly enough, you haven't really touched on a single one in your post.

When you think about it, that's actually pretty astounding. You pitched an almost "perfect (perfectly wrong) post!"

"A Giuliani (or any Republican President) with a Democratic Congress will be a lesser threat to our freedoms and fortune than any Democratic president with a Democratic Congress. Its just that simple." (MW)


That is sad, but 100% true and I say that remaining a registered Democrat. In fact, I've always said that I'm virtually certain of only four things, besides (1) death & (2) taxes, they are (3) the sun's going to rise again tomorrow morning and (4) "the South is gonna rise again," by which I mean, the Conservatives (the Zell Miller-wing) will one day (hopefully soon) regain control over our beloved Democratic Party.

But until such time, what you say cannot be denied.

The sad truth is that David M Dinkins remains a perfect embodient of the ultimate impact of big government Liberalism on a local level (he was the Jimmy Carter of New York Mayors). Anyone who'd want Dinkinsism (crippling job loss, sprawling urban blight and rampant violent crime in the name of "economic & social justice") has to be deranged.

Giuliani is not qualified to be president. He was just a mayor. I know Barry and others here like him, but there many New Yorkers that can not stand him and think he was a failure. For some reason he is perceived as "strong" on terror because of 911. In reality he did nothing on 911 except giving inteviews on TV.

Personally, I would not mind it if Giuliani is the republican candidate, because it will guarantee the defeat of the republicans in 2008. For a simple reason: the evangelicals and religious republicans will not be motivated to go out and vote. He would be probably as bad as Fred Thompson against any democrat. And, of course, the country can not tolerate 4 more years of any republican administration.

So, Barry my advice to you is to vote whoever the democratic candidate would be. Why? Because as libertarian you want, at least, the civil liberties to be protected (and I believe you like ACLU almost as much as I do). The next election will be about protection of civil liberties and not about the economy.

"The next election will be about protection of civil liberties and not about the economy." (BW)


Well, now I see why you usually avoid trying to make actual arguments for your positions BW, as that’s one of the dumbest things, this side of Barely Hanging, that I’ve seen posted on the entire internet. Still, I do commend you on the attempt.

First off, that statement is a tacit admission, on your part, that the Dems will wreak havoc on the economy, but your apparent advice for all those who’ll be laid off in a “Carter Redux” is “Don’t worry, your personal suffering isn’t nearly as important as making sure that the authorities don’t listen in on calls made from suspect Americans (particularly those of Muslim and Mideastern descent) to suspect foreign portals aren’t listened in on, and that Arab and Muslim here in America aren’t targeted for extra scrutiny.”

Well, thanks for admitting that the Dems will be disastrous on the economy (we KNOW that), but truth be told, that really IS important to most Americans. What isn’t as important is the idea of treating terror suspects as we treat “other criminals,” because a large majority of Americans don’t see terrorism as a crime, they define it the way I do – “unconventional warfare waged by civilian soldiers (“enemy combatants”) upon civilian populations.”

Since that’s the precise definition of terrorism, it’s clear that terrorism is NOT a criminal action and that terrorists are civilian soldiers/enemy combatants NOT mere “criminals,” and as such don’t warrant the civil and criminal protections afforded by America’s courts.

Serious question; WHY are most Liberals so bad at making affirmative arguments for their side? You're far from alone BW. In fact, I’ve only met two Liberals (both College professors) who were actually able to make consistent arguments for the Liberal position, acknowledging, among other things, that “We need to go through some short-term pain for longer term gain,” but don’t take to simply repeating that mantra, their arguments were far more involved than that.

I mean it’s as if many Liberals seem to think that Liberalism is like gravity – long and well established principle - and that any ideas that run counter to that, for instance (Libertarianism (“government should rarely be seen and even more rarely be heard”) and Conservatism (“Government should be restricted to its Constitutionally mandated functions – police, military, minting & coining currency and providing a system where civil torts and criminal proceedings can be addressed”) are, in effect, heresies.

They have a name for that kind of thinking – “fundamentalist religious thinking.”

>So, Barry my advice to you is to vote whoever the democratic candidate would be. Why? Because as libertarian you want, at least, the civil liberties to be protected (and I believe you like ACLU almost as much as I do). The next election will be about protection of civil liberties and not about the economy.

So you'd have me ignore economic issues entirely this election cycle? It's all about civil liberties?

Okay, who is the Democratic candidate who strongly champions the Bill of Rights in its entirety? Bear in mind that includes amendments II and X. I'm listening...

Unfortunately, the precise definition of terrorism is 'violent crime used to achieve political ends'. Terrorism is nothing more than a highly motivated but chronically underfunded type of organized crime. Anything they gain through their heightened motivation and desire to explicitly commit crimes, they likely lose through their typically weak recruiting and chronically poor funding.

When you involve soldiers, you have by definition moved beyond terrorism. Even a militia (citizen soldiers) isn't terrorism anymore, which is why the Iraqi insurgents can't be classified as terrorists. They're rebels.

Terrorist groups are almost never capable of recruiting without an external threat. Think of all the domestic terrorist groups currently active - how many make the news? Although they all commit crimes, we hear about only the most spectacular instances of terrorist activity.

Our current presence in the middle east has become increasingly suspect because, without it, terrorists would be no more threatening than a few random murderers.

The thing that divides truthers from non-interventionist libertarians is that truthers believe we're in the middle east because it allows the terrorist groups to recruit more easily, while the non-interventionist libertarians believe we're in the middle east because it benefits specific corporate interests. (It does. The argument of non-interventionist libertarians against most warfare is the same as the argument of libertarians in general against corporate welfare. It benefits the few against the many, and is organized theft.)

I don't bother trying to figure out why we're in the middle east. I consider it sufficient to say that both aiding the recruitment of terrorists and transfering wealth from the markets to the military-industrial complex are bad. The why is as relevant as how many angels can dance on a pinhead.

As a last note, terrorist attacks in the USA have been few and far between. However, crime in general is a very real threat in many areas. Even assuming we were capable of killing would-be terrorists faster than they can use our killing people as a hook to recruit more people, it would be far more effective at preserving security, per dollar spent, to focus on suppressing non-terrorist domestic crime.

Naw, you got us all wrong. We're basically just seeing through you. You should be grateful. You get to see yourself as others see you.

Thankyou N. Pannbacker for a specific and well-reasoned disagreement.

It seems that our basic disagreement is over a definition of the term "terrorism." Certainly different people often define the same things differently and that is source of all manner of miscommunications and other troubles. Without question many Liberals and a lot of Libertarians define terrorism in terms of a criminal justice model and many such people would apparently prefer a return to a criminal justice method of dealing with terrorism.

All of that is mere policy disagreement.

But the criminal justice method had failed previously and for that reason it has been replaced by the one accepted by those currently in power, which is a more military definition and one that many, if not most, in law enforcement have also come to accept.

Certainly, very few people would call the Iraqi insurgents (the IRAQI Sunnis & Shiites), who had been, until very recently warring against each other and both, to varying degrees warring against the occupying forces, "terrorists" (I know I wouldn't), but the foreign al Qaeda members now fighting in Iraq and the Syrian and Iranian backed foreign fighters, certainly are.

Terrorism, as currently defined, at least "state sponsored terrorism," is really not a criminal act, it's an act of "unconventional warfare directed against civilian populations," making those who engage in terrorism civilian “soldiers,” as they are in effect, carrying out an “act of war” on behalf od the state sponsoring country(ies).

That current definition probably evolved due to the fact that virtually all the current "anti-terror experts" are either current or former military and/or law enforcement people.

Some of them would argue that "only state sponsored terrorism fits that definition," but I’d disagree, to the extent that a well trained, non-state funded terrorist can inflict as much damage as a highly trained state sponsored terrorist.

For instance, it is actually pretty easy to make basic, or rudimentary nerve and blister agents, the chemicals, in small amounts ("small" by government standards is under 1,000 pounds, large enough to make enough to inflict massive casualties in an urban environment), it is not an at all difficult or even very intricate process. Explosives like ANFO are not only extremely easy to make and use (ANFO, for instance, is a very stable explosive - a tertiary explosive), in many places it can be bough pre-mixed. Moreover, it has far too many legitimate uses to ban or restrict access to. Farmers and ranchers use it to blow stumps out of the ground, etc.

Still, I can easily accept limiting the current definition of "terrorism" strictly to “state sponsored terrorism,” so long as all international terrorism is presumed to be state sponsored and the bar for proving state sponsorship is not all that high.

Government (at least the current administration) has wisely come to the conclusion that since terrorism (at least state funded terrorism) can be as deadly, and even more effective than conventional military action, that the sanctions against it must be "extra-legal," or outside the scope and purview of our legal system.

Some argue that this is motivated by career military and law enforcement folks seeking to expand the scope and breath of their powers, while those who claim that "terrorism is merely violent crime on a larger scale," are open to the very similar self-aggrandizing charge of seeking to expand, as well as enrich those involved in our legal system (specifically lawyers).

There's little doubt, in my view, that if one reads the Federalist Papers and the writings of Jefferson, that there is no basis on which to oppose what some Libertarians call the "warfare" or security state.

While no social or humanitarian functions were given to government (undermining the efficacy of the “welfare state”) in the Constitution, both police and military powers indeed were.

The law and its interpretations are largely arbitrary and new laws written and the interpretations of old ones are carried out by those currently in power.

There are those who’d inanely insist, for instance, that the death penalty violates the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Constitution, despite the fact that those who wrote that Constitution happily lived in an age when the death penalty was meted out for THIRTEEN (13) crimes. Thankfully, that is NOT the prevailing view, nor interpretation of the current administration, nor its appointees to the courts.

Likewise there are those who’d claim that terrorism is merely “mass murder on a large scale,” despite the fact that James Fox, then director of the FBI’s New York Office, said back in 1993, in the wake of the 1993 WTC attack, “The American criminal justice system is inadequate to dealing with the state sponsored, terrorism.”

Now, should a, say, Edwards-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate come to administer our government, the currently accepted definition of terrorism will almost certainly be replaced by one rooted in the language of our criminal justice system...just as “cruel & unusual punishment” would, at least temporarily, be interpreted to include any use of Capital Punishment.

The only “silver lining,” in that, if indeed there is one for Conservatives and Paleo-Libertarians (Robert Bork-like “strict Constitutionalists”), is that as James Fox intimated, America’s criminal justice system will almost certainly prove inadequate to the task of dealing with (stopping) state sponsored terrorism here, and that since virtually ALL of the primary terror targets within the U.S. are in overwhelmingly “Blue regions,” – NYC, Washington, D.C., other large urban areas, etc.

A few well placed and effective terror strikes in those regions may indeed make it hard for “Blue America” to muster the votes necessary to maintain even a semblance of strong representation, let alone control after such attacks, allowing America, in the wake of such attacks to be “re-Borked.”

But is that price America will have to pay for a return to a stricter, more originalist interpretation of our Constitution for domestic policy, while making amends with a growing Military/Police (security) arm of the government that has evolved along with our “super-power status?”

I hope not.

"Naw, you got us all wrong. We're basically just seeing through you. You should be grateful. You get to see yourself as others see you." (DBK)


Serious question;

Is that a response to a post here, or it it a response that belongs with another topic, or is it a response to an imaginary post...or poster.

As it stands, it's unclear just what or even to whom that response was directed.

Well, I just took the libertarian purity test. I scored a 33:

31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on.

Not sure I really want to become more extreme, but there you go.

”Okay, who is the Democratic candidate who strongly champions the Bill of Rights in its entirety? Bear in mind that includes amendments II and X. I'm listening...” (BNJ)



Well, there you go, not a single answer from either BW or DBK in over 24 hours.

I’d presume that’s because both know that there are few, if any Liberal Democrats and none of the leading Democrats running (Edwards, Obama, or Clinton) who support the 2nd and 10th Amendments, even though the Second (the God-given right to “violent self-defense”) is perhaps the most basic right of all.

Most of us are fine with some restrictions on speech (libelous, threatening, inciteful speech are all unprotected), and I think most people would give up the right to assemble in protest of our grievances before they’d surrender the right to protect what is ours (our lives and our property)!

So, I guess BW concedes that not only will the Democrats be horrific on the economy (see Rangel’s proposed $3.5 TRILLION tax hike), but they’d suck on protecting some of our most basic God-given (as I’m sure both BW & DBK would agree that there are NO “government-given) RIGHTS, such as the right to violent self-defense, the right to equal access to opportunity (no special privilege based on race, gender, or ethnicity), equal treatment before the law (which would eradicate “hate crimes” legislations, which treat the victims of predators of a different race/ethnicity, differently and more seriously than victims of predators of their own race).

OK, so according to Bluewind, Libertarians should support the Democratic candidate even though that candidate will undoubtedly be far worse on the economy and won’t protect some of our most basic rights, endowed to us by “our Creator.”

Hmmmmm, now that doesn’t seem all that inspiring an argument to me at all.

LOL! As usual, JMK is wrong about everything in recorded U.S. history.

It is Republican policy that has destroyed the once thriving economies of FDR, JFK, and Clinton. It is exactly the wild west Capitalism that JMK loves that led to the Great Depression, which was only rescued by the governmental programs of FDR.

Reagan and his asshole followers, like Bush, want nothing more than to destroy the legacy of FDR and go back to what there was before FDR: a few mega-rich, and a lot of poor to serve them hand and foot.

The latest Republican assault on the economy, led by Chimpboy, is finally crashing as the Fed, against all logic, actually LOWERED interest rates when they had to be raised, guaranteeing INFLATION, which is already beginning.

Chimp busted the budget, allowed corporations and speculators to run wild, and now the rest of the world is going to euros while the dollar plummets.

It is an unmitagated disaster, all caused by idiot traitors like Bush, and his retarded followers like JMK.

Nice job, dunce.

I scored a 58, which according to the testers means, "You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much."

Only when I talk to Liberals.

I scored 54.

51-90 points: You are a medium-core libertarian.

Barely, you don't read so well!

As I noted, I support a well regulated market-based economy, along with the Free Trade and Supply-Side policies favored by JFK, Reagan (a JFK disciple), both Bush's (Supply-Siders) and Bill Clinton (also a pro-Free Trade Supply-Sider).

Free Trade has created Tillions of dollars of prosperity without American workers losing any ground.

In fact, Stephen J Rose (an adviser to Robert Reich) compared 1979 to 2005 (generously adjusting 1979 salaries some 150% for inflation) and found that since 1979 "There has been a tremendous growth in the number of men in high-paying jobs: In 1979, just 10% of male workers earned above $75,000, while fully 34% of new jobs since 1979 have paid this amount or more."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119318171973969059.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Reagan followed JFK's tax cutting, anti-Union policies that freed workers from Union coercion and increased salaries in the process (see the Rose stats above), CLINTON followed Reagan's Supply-Side policies and re-appointed Supply-Side guru (Alan Greenspan as Fed Chief).

To paraphrase Richard Nixon, "We are ALL Supply-Siders now."

Things have improved dramatically for the American worker since 1979 and so long as we follow these time-tested Supply-Side policies things will almost certainly keep on improving.

Barely, Barely, BARELY....first you couldn't understand how the chart you posted on H-1B Visas showed the explosion of H-1Bs went FROM 1 MILLION by 2001 (all during Clinton's tenure, you erroneosuly blamed Bush), then you mistakenly believed that RICO allowed for the "confiscation of assetts prior to conviction," even though the article you referenced said otherwise, as did I.....and now you don't understand that JFK, Ronald Reagan AND Bill Clinton were ALL pro-Free trade, pro-Supply-Side leaders.

Come on, don't just "look at the words," UNDERSTAND what your reading. It's comprehension that is the most vital aspect to reading!

Oh, and according to Stephen J Rose the outcome for women has been even better; "there has clearly been a sharp increase in female middle-class employment. As recently as 1979, 61% of female workers were in jobs that paid less than $25,000, and only 3% earned more than $50,000 a year. By contrast, more than 36% of new jobs that opened since 1979 for women pay more than $50,000 and only 17% pay less than $25,000."

The ONLY people hurt by the switch to the Information Economy post-1979 have been males with only HS diplomas. Some low paying jobs are paying comparatively even lower today, but as he notes "For three-quarters of the workforce (women and the top half of male earners), economic growth translated into earnings gains. But for male workers in the bottom half of the earnings distribution, the decline of unionized manufacturing employment has led to the drying up of some middle-class jobs for those with no post-secondary education.

"For the clear majority of the workforce, then, the job market has become more welcoming, not less so. But where are these jobs?...(administration, sales, finance and business services)

"...we should bear in mind that real gross domestic product per person is up over 60% since 1979, and our goal for the job market should not be simply to keep pace with where things stood nearly three decades ago."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119318171973969059.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

TYPO:

"first you couldn't understand how the chart you posted on H-1B Visas showed the explosion of H-1Bs went FROM 1 MILLION by 2001 (all during Clinton's tenure, you erroneosuly blamed Bush)..." SHOULD READ: "first you couldn't understand how the chart you posted on H-1B Visas showed the explosion of H-1Bs went FROM UNDER 50,000 in 1993 to OVER 1 MILLION by 2001 (all during Clinton's tenure, you erroneosuly blamed Bush)..."

Barry, as to that "Libertarian Purity" Test, I think those last 5 point answers are troubling, in that they are, for the most part, all very extreme positions;


Part III (5 points each)

51. Should all taxes be abolished?
Yes
No

52. Should highways and roads be privatized?
Yes
No

53. Should the Fed be abolished and replaced with free banking and privately-issued money?
Yes
No

54. Should all legislation be replaced by judge-made law, arbitration, and other private rule-suppliers?
Yes
No

55. Is all government inherently evil?
Yes
No

56. Is government an unnecessary evil?
Yes
No

57. Should police be privatized?
Yes
No

58. Should the courts be privatized?
Yes
No

59. Should the law itself be privatized?
Yes
No

60. Should the state be disarmed and its military disbanded?
Yes
No

61. Is it morally permissible to exercise "vigilante justice," even against government leaders?
Yes
No

62. Is all government essentially exploitation of the productive members of society for the benefit of a parasitic ruling elite?
Yes
No

63. Should the state be abolished?
Yes
No

64. Would you call yourself an "anarcho-capitalist?"
Yes
No


The problem is that government is unfortunately a "NECESSARY EVIL," not an "unnecessary one," and that any government requires taxes to exist.

The problem today's Americans face is that we are one of the most highly taxed industrialized nations in the world and the tax burden falls almost solely on legitimate working Americans (the truly rich don't rely on income for wealth and those engaged in the underground economy don't pay taxes). Our problem is an excessively high tax rate and a grossly inefficient tax policy (the graduated income tax).

Disbanding the Military (a Constitutionally mandated government function) and privatizing the police and courts are just naively idealistic ideas.

I'd seriously have to wonder about anyone who got many of their "points" from among those particular questions.

So you'd have me ignore economic issues entirely this election cycle? It's all about civil liberties?
Okay, who is the Democratic candidate who strongly champions the Bill of Rights in its entirety? Bear in mind that includes amendments II and X. I'm listening...

I think the best democratic candidate for you would be Richardson. He is very pro-second amendment and he is the favorite candidate of the NRA (among both republicans and democrats). But I dont think ANY of the democratic candidates plans to touch these amendments.

Voting for any republican in the next election would be to complete the destruction of civil liberties initiated by the Bush administration. That is just my opinion of course, but if you think it carefully, you may realize I am right.

"Who is the Democratic candidate who strongly champions the Bill of Rights in its entirety?" (BNJ)


"But I dont think ANY of the democratic candidates plans to touch these amendments." (BW)


WoW! Now that's a ringing endorsement of the Bill of Rights, "I dont think ANY of the democratic candidates plans to touch (repeal) these amendments" they disagree with.

So there it is, from BW himself, horrific on the economy (thanks for the advance warning Charlie Rangel) and BW personally "doesn't THINK they'll touch (look to repeal) those amendments,"....NO, they just won't support basic individual Liberties, like gun rights, the right to equal protection under the law and equal access to opportunity.

Why that kind of endorsement of individual Liberty would probably bring a tear to Thomas Jefferson's eye.

>I think the best democratic candidate for you would be Richardson.

I agree. And I would happily vote for Richardson in the general election if the Dems should nominate him. Too bad that won't happen.

>Voting for any republican in the next election would be to complete the destruction of civil liberties initiated by the Bush administration.

Yeah, yeah, yeah....

>Barry, as to that "Libertarian Purity" Test, I think those last 5 point answers are troubling, in that they are, for the most part, all very extreme positions;

I agree, of course. In my college days, I had a bit of a fling with Ayn Rand, but I never had much truck with Rothbardism. What the hell would that be like? My private cop can beat up your private cop? Please.

Anyway, I can't help but laugh that you scored higher than I did on the test, since you typically refer to me as "more libertarian" than you. Ah hell, this is all arbitrary anyway. And besides, I was erring on the side of "respectability" when I took the test. As much as I'd *like* to do some of those "reforms" on the test, I'd like to do them incrementally, and not all at once. Heh, maybe I'm getting more conservative in my old age. ;-)

Yeah, yeah, yeah....

Oh yeah! Dont forget that YOU formally regretted voting for Bush. At least this time, listen to your liberal friends who know :-)

"Anyway, I can't help but laugh that you scored higher than I did on the test, since you typically refer to me as "more libertarian" than you." (BNJ)


Yeah, that is pretty amusing. I'd like a complete unfettered free market to work, and with a well-educated, self-sufficient populace, it probably would, but it's just not practical in the reality that faces us now.

It seems as though we're stuck with a regulated market-based system.

The primary arguments today seem to be over MORE regulation vs. LESS. I tend to favor less and believe, at this point, we're over-regulated.

It is pretty ironic that both France & Germany appear to be moving in a more "Americanist" direction - France is moving TO the 40 hour work week and more flexibilty for employers, and no major protests in sight!

If Charlie Rangel & Co. get thier way, we'll ironically be moving in the direction Europe voted overwhelmingly to reject.

Funny stuff.

>Dont forget that YOU formally regretted voting for Bush.

True. But it wasn't because he wasn't liberal enough. Trust me on that one.

Nominate Richardson and I'll vote for him. Nominate Hillary and I'll consider it. Nominate anyone else and you're on your own.

Barry,
Do you really believe that we need your vote to win the election? Nope :-)

But you are lucky, because it seems that Hillary will likely be the nominee, and you may end up voting for a real winner.

By the way, the final straw for you when you "formally" regretted your vote for Bush was him vetoing the stem cell research funding bill. And trust me...that is not a conservative cause (of course I know you have other issues with him as well).

>But you are lucky, because it seems that Hillary will likely be the nominee, and you may end up voting for a real winner.

If the GOP nominates anyone other than McCain or Giuliani, then yea, I will vote for Hillary Clinton.

And yeah, you're right, it was the stem cell veto that pushed me over the top. There's always that "last straw," isn't there? And yes, I was on the "liberal" side of that issue. But I'd caution you against reading too much into that. ;-)

"Do you really believe that we need your vote to win the election? Nope :-)" (BW)


Anyone who think this Election is "already determined" is either dumb or crazy.

The Democrats only regained the House and Senate by running Conservative "Blue Dogs" out West and down South. Now these "New (Conservative) Democrats" are over 20% of the Dems in Congress! Those are MY peeps.

Virtually EVERY ballot referendum from gay Marriage to race/gender-based preferences (MI) to Eminent Domain went Conservative - AGAINST gay Marriage, in FAVOR of restricting Eminent Domain and AGAINST race/gender-based preferences, even in Blue Michigan!

And it doesn't appear the country's getting any less Conservative on those or any other issues.

Over 70% of Americans polled want an enfocrement FIRST approach to illegal immigration - they want the wall and they want employer sanctions.

And the Libs are not at all adept at convincing or converting...a good thing for Conservatives.

What are the Liberal Dems gonna run on? We're gonna raise your taxes, but it'll be all good?"

Good luck with that one.

Serious answer: it was in response to this: I don't go out of my way to label myself, but I have, on occasion, used the term small-l libertarian to describe my views. Seems as apt as any, but this has provided folks like Jill, DBK and others endless opportunity to amuse themselves by pointing out perceived inconsistencies in my opinions.

Still too stupid for words, eh JMK? Sweet Jesus you are such a moron.

Now, be a good moron and give us 3,000 words that waste your time and the time of anyone who bothers to read them.

You're saying THIS, "Naw, you got us all wrong. We're basically just seeing through you. You should be grateful. You get to see yourself as others see you," is a response to Barry saying I don't go out of my way to label myself, but I have, on occasion, used the term small-l libertarian to describe my views."

That response doesn't make any sense!

It certainly isn't an answer to a fair question, "If you can explain why Hillary, Obama, Romney, Edwards or any of the others can stake a more convincing claim to my vote, then let me have it. I'm all ears," in fact, it's a bizarre and ridiculously inane response to that.

I think not being able to defend your positions has gotten to you DBK.

JMK, do you really, honestly, deep in your heart believe that saying the same wrong things you say, repeatedly and ad nauseum ... makes you the winner?

The saddest part is that you get everything you say from three equally dumb sources: Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly.

Once again, there is no point in making detailed arguments against a noise machine.

What's this Limbaugh-O'Reilly obsession of yours?

From all the existing evidence I've seen, Limbaugh is indeed a true Conservative. His message resonates with so many Americans because the vast majority of Americans have fully bought into the regulated market-based economy and the view that "Free Trade brings about more prosperity for more people," as Stephen J Rose pointed out.

O'Reilly is a Center-Left Moderate and that's why he's been so successful, his moderate political views.

He's NOT a "Conservative," as he holds to a number of very Liberal views; (*) he's against the death penalty, (*) he's pro-abortion, though anti-third trimester abortion (with over 2/3s of the American people with both those stands), (*) he's pro-"hate crimes" legisltaion and in favor of a "work visa program for the illegal aliens already here.

Those are ALL undeniably Liberal positions, but he's perceived by radicals and extreme-Leftists to be "Right-wing" because he favors a Bill Bratton styled (tough-love) approach to crime, supports Megan's Law and helped it pass in 47 states so far, and opposes the "open border policy" espoused by the most radical Leftists.

Again, those are all MODERATE positions. There's nothing at all "Conservative" about any of them. Even the Bill Bratton approach to crime is deeply rooted in compassion; First a deep compassion for the innocent victims and second a compassionate "tough-love" that says, in effect, "I'm gonna throw you in jail for the rest of your life for your own good" kind of an approach to the miscreants.

I'd bet there are a lot of thugs now in jail who upon reflection have thought, "Ya know, this really IS what I deserved and I really needed to look at myself and this solitary confinement for 23 hours a day really forced me to do that."

I seriously bet that that's the case.

At any rate the "Capitalism" you revile IS Americanism.

Capitalism is rooted in the Biblical adherence to private property as the basis for an ordely civilization. America, in turn, is rooted on that very principle - "Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of PROPERTY." Jefferson used "property" not "happiness" in his defining manuscripts that forged both the Declaration and the Constitution.

There is ONLY ONE way to argue against Capitalism and that is to argue that indeed there is only a certain amount of wealth/currency available at any given time and so the accumulation of "excesss" by some, directly results in deprivation for the many.

That's arguing, in effect, that we have a "fixed economic pie."

The reality however is that there is NOT a fixed economic pie, nor a set amount of currency or wealth available at any one time. The economy is dynamic, NOT static. Wealth and currency both continually expand and contract along with various economic indicators.

We have developped a regulated market-based economy, one that benefits established corporate entities, by regulating some of the competition out of the market, but also raises the costs of doing business by requiring businesses to offer health insurance to all F/T workers, to pay money to withhold taxes from employees and to pay into an unemployment compensation fund, as well as complying with various OSHA, EPA, etc regulations.

Workers gain some protections, including more job security, as companies aren't constantly put out of business as new ideas and new companies continually enter an unregulated market, while losing some of the leverage individual workers would've had to demand higher compensation based on previous achievements.

We see that in modern sports ("merit pay") where owners of businesses, dealing with unfettered individual workers often bid the price (compensation) of the best players into stratospheric levels, which in turn, raises the compensation costs for lesser, more average players.

Not a good business model at all, as major league sports has found it all but impossoble to offer a quality product at a price affordable to average people. They've cheated the consumer, to placate a commodity - the labors sold by various workers (ie. A-Rod, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, etc).

Capitalism works, socialism (the "command" or state-run economy) does not. It's about as simple as that.

Now I don't know what O'Reilly or Limbaugh say about that, BUT every leading economist alive (Paul Krugman and Laura Tyson don't count as "economists" - one's a commentary writer and the other's a politician) would agree with that statement.

That's why there is no existing defense of Keynesianism (government spending, especially social and education spending are good for the economy), because there IS NO rational defense of Keynesianism!

"We see that in modern sports ("merit pay") where owners of businesses, dealing with unfettered individual workers often bid the price (compensation) of the best players into stratospheric levels, which in turn, raises the compensation costs for lesser, more average players."

Oh boo-hoo. But you think that CEOs *deserve* $60,000,000 bonuses? Even when they fail? Oh sure, they were stock options. Let me clue you in, JMK: stock options can come like mine did when I worked for one blue chip company (at $44) or they can be given away to corporate CEOs (at $2). Do you see the difference? I got nothing because the stock went down. The CEO raked in ten of millions, despite the fact that the company lost money.

Are you getting it now, JMK? Don't be a child.

Greed is not good. The Bible said that the love of money is evil, not good. We can all agree that multinational corporations like Halliburton love money, can't we?

A CEO, like ANY employee is worth what the market for that position pays.

Since we don't know what the skill-sets are, necessary to be a CEO, it's impossible for us to determine what the exact level of compensation should be.

Often it seems obscenely high, but again, that's not rooted in anything other than conjecture on our parts.

How much is an effective CEO worth?

I have no idea, except to say that I'd think it somewhere between the $1 million in salariy that's tax deductable, or even $10 million and the nine figures that some rare exceptions have walked away with.

The person who says that CEO Mr. X isn't worth his compensation package, is much like the sports fan who says A-Rod isn't worth $30 million.

Perhaps neither is, BUT the market for each appears so restricted that there are people (team owners and corporate boards) that seem to feel they are worth those extreme compensation packages.

The answer ISN'T in trying to limit those packages by fiat, but by looking to expand the pool of candidates, thus lowering the cost by more competition for those positions.

There's no way for government to legislate the market. If it could, the feds could, with the stroke of a pen, make a school teacher's pay equal to that of a thoracic surgeon.

That kind of legislation results in a severe shortage of thoracis surgeons and a glut of school teachers.

"Often it seems obscenely high, but again, that's not rooted in anything other than conjecture on our parts.

How much is an effective CEO worth?"

Oh, but it is VERY EASY in this case, JMK. GM has had its ass beaten and been dethroned by Toyota.

How much does the CEO of the winning team, Toyota, make?

Uh oh, JMK is WRONG AGAIN!!!

Funny how you don't think that programmers should make unlimited income, but it is OK for CEOs.

Did Rush explain all this to you? I bet if he told you the Tooth Fairy is real, you would put your false teeth under your pillow every night.

Japan is NOT as free an economy as America's.

In Japan, for instance, people are programmed into the jobs various "preference" and "aptitude" tests show they're geared to.

In Japan I'd probably be stuck being a math teacher and you, probably a janitor somewhere.

I'd bet we'd both be very unhappy, regardless.

Programmers, school teachers, police and firefighters are indeed free to make as much as anyone is willing to pay them. We're all free to make "unlimited income" so long as others are willing to pay us that level of income.

The reality is that employers pay a certain amount for all those professions because there are far more people willing and able to do those things then there are jobs for them. That's not as true for thoracic surgeons or patent lawyers.

There's a computer guru who lives nearby whose wife's a math teacher and he now works for himself building computer systems and repairing and installing systems.

He's GREAT! And he does a brisk business and charges $20/hour!

That's the labor market at work BH.

A part of your problem is that you think my accepting the current realities and acknowledging the basic TRUTH that the regulated market works best for the greatest amount of Americans, makes me the cause of your personal woes.

Your personal woes, whatever they may be, are all your own doing and all created by the way you perceive the world.

You're a self-centered, nihilistic, xenophobic, chronic complainer.

The key is to accept your lot in life with a smile on your face and a song in your heart (I'm serious aboiut that).

There are a few guys I've met on FDNY (thankfully a very few) who always complain - "To the city we're just a number," and "When you get F'd up the city's looking to get rid of you as cheaply as possible for them."

That's just sour grapes.

I've been burned, I've been banged up and had a number of surgeries and I'm still smiling and still going to work every day happy to do my part and I don't see the city as my adversary. Last time my left knee was operated on, the surgeon offered to testify for me in a disability hearing (a disability pension is 3/4s of your salary tax free), but I had no intention of giving up this job, so I just kept smiling....yep, even when the Medical Board sought of rushed me back to work after the surgery. I kept rehabbing it on my own time.

It's hard to respect wimps who complain about any job they willingly engaged to do. Right?

But there's a lesson there for all of us. Look for the good in everything and things invariably look a lot brighter, look for the bad and your world is filled with gloom.

I was around and working in the late 1970s and the world seemed pretty gloomy, thanks in large part to a goofey President whose response to Stagflation was "We'd all better get used to tightening our belts."

But, since about 1981 the economy has gotten better and better and the world's looked a lot brighter!

Keynesianism's been discredited and Communism's fallen and all is right with the world.

Sorry JMK, after you said that by aptitude you would be a math teacher and I would be a janitor I was laughing so hard I really couldn't read the rest.

I was on the Math Team in college. I doubt if you ever went to college, and if you did, you certainly never came close to being competitive. I went to a major university. I have a degree in Computer Science. You have nothing but Rush Limbaugh looping in your brain, too much time on your hands, and a desperate need for an editor.

I'm am fairly certain that, at minimum, I have 40 IQ points on you, Fire Marshall Bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zee050CQx70

Barely, I'm not exchanging insults with you.

I don't know why you'd seem to think I am....I don't engage in that sort of thing.

I gave you an honest assessment as I see it.

You're not a former "techie," you're not a former business-owner and if you really are now a teacher, it would appear you're a very poor one because you have such a twisted worldview - some classic Barelyisms are that "Reagan wasn't a Conservative," your own racialist and xenophobic views are, "Supply Side policies are anti-Conservative," etc.

Math and logic tend to go together. Few people adept at math, would fail so miserably to understand RICO, or fail to read a basic chart that clearly showed that H-1B Visas exploded from under 50,000 in 1993 to just over 1 Million by 2001, as you did, and few would fail to realize that compensation DOES NOT equal "salary," as a significant part of most worker's total earnings comes in the form of "other compensation" (health insurance and pension benefits) that isn't counted or even taxed as "income."

Those are ALL very basic, common-sense things that any individual with average intellect and even just a minimum of common sense understands.....and don't now try and take the inane tact, that "The reason I (BH) was wrong on all those things is that I'm incredibly book-bright, but have no common sense."

Such "incrediibly book-bright" folks tend to look for clarification, OR define there arguments differently in light of their using terminology wrong, or "differently" than as "custmarilly defined."

You did neither.

Oh yeah, and those "incredibly book-bright individuals" NEVER boast about their own intellect. My cousin Peter wrote 800 on both the Verbal & Math portions of the SATs, had perfect scores on every Regents exam and scored a 172 on a profesionally administered WISC-R test.

He's a very bright guy. He got an engineering degree from the University of Pennsylvania, then went back to Law School and today practices business law...he even has a decent amount of common sense, and he, like most folks of his capacity (and unlike either myself or you) assiduously never lauds himself.

Suffice to say that "CEO worth" is beyond the scope and purview of both yours and my own knowledge.

That's probably why we, like most Americans can't understand why Chrysler recently hired Bob Nardelli (the former CEO at Home Depot) as their CEO, after Nardelli's reign at HD resulted in plummeting profits for HD and his own escape with a $200+ Million Golden Parachute.

Is Nardelli worth it?

Is A-Rod???

Neither of us seems to be in any position to answer that.

You seem to think just because you don't like something, it's wrong. I'm apparently somewhat more open-minded and aware that we don't know everything. I figure that Nardelli must be worth something close to those numbers since Chrysler, not generally in the business of making poor decisions, hired him even after his failures at HD.

Well JMK, you are right: I am not a "former" techie, I am quite current.

I currently work on military software. I have a Computer Science degree from a top university. I have certification and security clearances that you could never get. I was an intercollegiate Math Team representing my university, and I finished second in my region.

Your cousin Peter is in about the same range as me, and if you recall, I have not been on this board bragging about any of this for years on end -- you challenged me. Remember that, retard?

Some laud themselves, some don't. I don't put my IQ or SAT score on my resume, personally, because nobody cares. It looks silly. If you have real skills and accomplishments to talk about, you don't need test scores.

But it is amusing to watch you deny the facts, yet again.

Yes, I owed two businesses.

Ah, you are embarrassing yourself again by repeating your same stupid list of things you took out of context or just lie about.

Too bad you weren't smart, like your cousin and me.

Barely, how could such an accomplished person be so wrong on H-1B Visas, RICO, salary versus compensation, Jimmy Carter's legacy???

Maybe your like "Rainman?" Good at one thing (math) but an idiot in everything else, thus the term, "idiot savant?"

First, try making an articulate, rational argument some time and actually earn being taken seriously.

I mean, you'd have me believe that I explained, or "schooled" (in your parlance) a fairly bright guy on RICO, on H-1B Visas, on salary vs compensation, on the meaning of "CAUSE" and the Carter legacy!

No, by your insistance on being wrong and your flat out inability to understand these things in even their most simplified form, it would seem that I've explained these things to an incredibly stupid (not "ignorant," as in lacking of information, but "stupid," as in the inability to comprehend information).

Maybe that "security clearance" was really just your janitor's contract?

I mean, did it ever occur to you that that's the reason they have you empty the waste baskets each night?

Think about it!

Hyuk, take dat, Barely! I scooled u by bein' wrong bout ever single thang!

How cun u beat me when all I du is lie bout what u say and when I can pruve that GRAVITY DOES NOT EXIST cause my balloon went UP, not DOWN stupid Barely!

Duh hurr, I scooled u good, cause I be smart!

I lied bout tort reform, I lied about health care, an I even lied about my hero, Rush Limbaugh, lying all da time!!! An u couldn't do nothin bout it!

Dats because I AM SMERT and U R NOT!

U tink dis is sompin? If only i hadda squelch butten like Rush I could MUTE U and den say a lot of stuff an PRETEN U ran away like a stinkin coward Lib'ral!!!

U lucky dis jus a blob feedbak thang!