Yes, before I went on vacation, I thought I should again warn you that the people on Wall Street truly are the Stupidest People on Earth.
As I told you last time, when the stock market had (again) DROPPED (although not as far as it is capable of dropping), IF you were going to trade stocks this summer you should do so during such a pullback. Otherwise, you are simply labeling yourself as one of those Stupidest People on Earth.
Yep. We are back in a stock market BUBBLE, after excessive gains over the past few days. Oh, the "news" was mildly favorable, but not nearly THAT favorable. It is not, as usual, that the stock market went up that is the problem It is HOW MUCH the stock market went up, as the Stupidest People on Earth went into action again.
I remind you again taht the period from the END of July to the beginning of October has produced a MAJOR decline in the stock market for at least FIFTEEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS. The stock market has often gone up in July during that period, as Wall Street--8nlike sports bettors--simply REFUSES to learn from experience. However, once you head into August, the stock market has been a DANGEROUS place to be--especially if it is HIGH. Well, we are back to the stock market being TOO HIGH--way ahead of any slight good news from companies, or even more slight good news on the econoy in general.
Since last October, I have not missed on these "bubble" calls on Wall Street. I don't think I will miss this time. No, I can't guarantee you the stock market will go down today, or Monday, or next week. I can just guarantee to you that this is an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS time to invest in the stock market, as a trader, and that those who continue to buy in the midst of these computer gaming rallies really are the Stupidest People on Earth (after the mainstream "journalists", whho retired the original trophy).
Friday, July 17, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Blog Vacation
I do not expect to make any further blog entries, unless I were to make another before leaving for the airport early this orning, until July 28 (which also happens to be my brithday).
I will be visiting my daughters in NYC (yep, with those high taxes which we have all have to endure eventually) and Boston. I may not survive the trip (not because of lack of health care, but because of the cities involved and the DAUGHTERS involved).
I did invite President Obama to take over the blog, since he has shown he could easily keep up the blog tradition of typos. He is evidehtnly busy trying to ram through this health care disaster and ruin the country.
However, I have noticed that Sonia Sotomayor is even more qulaified, as shown by HER oral "typos" that have come to light. For example, there are tapes of her using "story of knowledge" instead of "store of knowledge"; "providence of Congress", instead of "province of Congeress", "National Labor RELATIONSHIP Board", instead of National Labor Relations Board", and many others. Now I am capable of this kind of TYPING errors, but I don't know that I am capable of this type of ORAL "typo". Nevertheless, Sotomayor would be perfect for thhis blog. You would never know I was gone, and you would not be able to tell whether the errors are typos are the "slips of the mind" that seem to afflict Sotomayor regularly. And Sotomayor really has nothing to do. Her "hearing" is essentially over, and the Supreme Court is not in session.
Therefore, I extend an invitation to Sotomayor to take over this blog while I am on vacation. If you see an entry before July 28, after I get on the plane this morning, you can assume it is here taking me up on this invitation.
I will be visiting my daughters in NYC (yep, with those high taxes which we have all have to endure eventually) and Boston. I may not survive the trip (not because of lack of health care, but because of the cities involved and the DAUGHTERS involved).
I did invite President Obama to take over the blog, since he has shown he could easily keep up the blog tradition of typos. He is evidehtnly busy trying to ram through this health care disaster and ruin the country.
However, I have noticed that Sonia Sotomayor is even more qulaified, as shown by HER oral "typos" that have come to light. For example, there are tapes of her using "story of knowledge" instead of "store of knowledge"; "providence of Congress", instead of "province of Congeress", "National Labor RELATIONSHIP Board", instead of National Labor Relations Board", and many others. Now I am capable of this kind of TYPING errors, but I don't know that I am capable of this type of ORAL "typo". Nevertheless, Sotomayor would be perfect for thhis blog. You would never know I was gone, and you would not be able to tell whether the errors are typos are the "slips of the mind" that seem to afflict Sotomayor regularly. And Sotomayor really has nothing to do. Her "hearing" is essentially over, and the Supreme Court is not in session.
Therefore, I extend an invitation to Sotomayor to take over this blog while I am on vacation. If you see an entry before July 28, after I get on the plane this morning, you can assume it is here taking me up on this invitation.
Democrats and Health Care: New Technique of Legislating for Maximum Failure
Look at how House Democrats, and Obama, handled the "global warming", "cap and trade" "energy bill"--pushing through a bill that was not even PRINTED (in final form) at the time of the vote, with some 300 pages being added to a 1200 page bill in the dead of night. Needless to say, no person in Congress had actually read the final bill when they voted on it. Aside: Sen. Barbara Boxeer had her hedad handed to her by the head of the blackChamber of Commerce (African-American himself), when she tried to suggest--in as condscending a way possible--that he was a itor to his race because the NAACP had issued a statement supporting the "energy bill"--Barara Boxer being accused by this African-American of playing the "race card" when it was totally inappropriate--reducing her to putting the NAACP statement "in the record" to show the DIVERSITY--racial code word--of opinion on this "global warming" fraud--Boxer showing once again that lieftists are the PRIMARY RACISTS left in our society today).
Now we know central planning does not work, either in theory or practice. What can you say about central planning legislation formulated in this manner--pushed through to meet arbitrary deadlines, with provisions inserted that no one has read in order to buy votes. In fact, the entire bills (e.g. the "stimullus bill") are simplly an amalgam of "goodies" that various Democrats want. Even if massive central plainning, and out of contsrol government, were not already a disaster, this method of legislating is a guarantee of failure. Democrats are trying the very same process with the halth care bill--with Obama demanding a bill setting in motion a Federal takeover of the entire health carfe industry, and helath insurance industry, by the August recess. And this bill has NOT been written!!!!! No one knows what will be in the final bill, because Democrats are putting out several versions in several places (in the House and Senate, and in different committees of the House and Senate). Democrats fullly intend to throw together another massive piece of legislation at the last second (if the bill is even fully drafted when the vote comes). This new method of legislating has to be the worst central planning method of massive changes in our countr--involving massive spending--ever devised. That is why I have tried to indicate that Repubicans should not get bogged down in details here, but need to be attacking the big picture.
The Congressional Budget Office dealt Democrats a blow today by stating the obvious: The proposed House bill (to the extent the 1000 page bill is available to read) will INCREASE costs, rather than a dECREASE in costs "paying" for the bill. Now this was obvious, but think how obvious it had to be for the CBO to say so!
Investors Business Daily red the first 16 pages of the bill, and got to a promvision making private health insurance ILLEGAL. Say what? Yes, Investors Business Daily checked, and they were reading it right. Yes, the bill says (in tyical convoluted, "1984" type language and misleading headings) that you get to keep your prsent insurace. BUT, you can never buy private insurance again. IN other words, if you see a BETTER DEAL, you can't switch. You are FORCED to buy the "government option" if you ever lose your present insurance. If you ever needed proof of waht this blog, and others, have been telling you, this is it. Leftist Democrats want a full government takeover of our health care slystem, and they regard this bill as a step in that process. That will be true even if this particular language is changed (fairly likely, but how will you KNOW what is going to be passed in the rush to SOME bill?).
Yes, I reliied on my brother to try to look into the details of the proposed House bill. Since my brother loses at tennis to GIRLS (bad enough that we have a Prfesident who throws like one!), I should have known better. Thus, my brother told me that businesses with 400 employees would be FORCED to provide helath insurance, or pay an 8% payroll tax penalty. Well, my brother says he misread this, and that businesses with $400,000 dollars in payroll ( a much larger number) are subject to this provision. My brother stands by his assertion (seemingly obviously true) taht his small business trucking company--Shipper's Transport--would have failed at least a year earlier with this kind of burden. Yes, my brother's company provided health insurance, BUT with a high deductible and requiring employees to pay half. This kind of "diversity" (see Barbara Boxer misuse of word above) of approach will no longer be allowed, as one Federal size will have to fit all (no matter how many jobs it costs, and how many busineeses it causes to fail--before the entrie country is bankrupted by the complete Federal takeover that was intended from the beginning).
Oh, there was yesterday's story that high income earners in New York City will pay up to 60% of their income in taxes--that is, they will pay that for a SHORT time until they figure out how not to pay it. There is, of course, also the hefty taxes on much lesser incomes in New York City, including the new tax if you choose NOT to get the government insurance.
The reason I don't feel bad about misleading you on the coverage of this bill is that it DOES NOT MATTER what any version of the bill now says. The final bill that passes, if we are dumb enough to let these people continue this insane process without revolt that even they can't ignore, is going to contain provisons drafted at the last second that no one has read. Who knows what will be in that bill? The only thing we can know with certainty is that it will be a DISASTER. Any bill of the type now being considered would be such a disaster, but this new approach to legislation by Democrats guarantees it belyond any kind of doubt.
My brother (now unemployed, and never above the level the Democrats are (for now) classifying as "rich", suggests a TAX REVOLT: that MASSIVE numbers of people join those kooky tax protestors (like Wesley Snipes) who simply refuse to pay any income tax. Everyone knows that our system depends on voluntary copliance (and a little fear), and that any kind of real tax protest by a large number of people will cause the system to break down.
I have news for my brother (which I think he realizes). I would tend to favor such a revolt. But it does not matter mch, in the long run. Taxpayers WILL revolt, whether they do it that obviously or not. Revenue will NOT be raised (in the long run). People will figure out ways to AVOID the taxes. Thus, the "revolt" WILL happen--whether openly and illegally or less openly and legally.
Now we know central planning does not work, either in theory or practice. What can you say about central planning legislation formulated in this manner--pushed through to meet arbitrary deadlines, with provisions inserted that no one has read in order to buy votes. In fact, the entire bills (e.g. the "stimullus bill") are simplly an amalgam of "goodies" that various Democrats want. Even if massive central plainning, and out of contsrol government, were not already a disaster, this method of legislating is a guarantee of failure. Democrats are trying the very same process with the halth care bill--with Obama demanding a bill setting in motion a Federal takeover of the entire health carfe industry, and helath insurance industry, by the August recess. And this bill has NOT been written!!!!! No one knows what will be in the final bill, because Democrats are putting out several versions in several places (in the House and Senate, and in different committees of the House and Senate). Democrats fullly intend to throw together another massive piece of legislation at the last second (if the bill is even fully drafted when the vote comes). This new method of legislating has to be the worst central planning method of massive changes in our countr--involving massive spending--ever devised. That is why I have tried to indicate that Repubicans should not get bogged down in details here, but need to be attacking the big picture.
The Congressional Budget Office dealt Democrats a blow today by stating the obvious: The proposed House bill (to the extent the 1000 page bill is available to read) will INCREASE costs, rather than a dECREASE in costs "paying" for the bill. Now this was obvious, but think how obvious it had to be for the CBO to say so!
Investors Business Daily red the first 16 pages of the bill, and got to a promvision making private health insurance ILLEGAL. Say what? Yes, Investors Business Daily checked, and they were reading it right. Yes, the bill says (in tyical convoluted, "1984" type language and misleading headings) that you get to keep your prsent insurace. BUT, you can never buy private insurance again. IN other words, if you see a BETTER DEAL, you can't switch. You are FORCED to buy the "government option" if you ever lose your present insurance. If you ever needed proof of waht this blog, and others, have been telling you, this is it. Leftist Democrats want a full government takeover of our health care slystem, and they regard this bill as a step in that process. That will be true even if this particular language is changed (fairly likely, but how will you KNOW what is going to be passed in the rush to SOME bill?).
Yes, I reliied on my brother to try to look into the details of the proposed House bill. Since my brother loses at tennis to GIRLS (bad enough that we have a Prfesident who throws like one!), I should have known better. Thus, my brother told me that businesses with 400 employees would be FORCED to provide helath insurance, or pay an 8% payroll tax penalty. Well, my brother says he misread this, and that businesses with $400,000 dollars in payroll ( a much larger number) are subject to this provision. My brother stands by his assertion (seemingly obviously true) taht his small business trucking company--Shipper's Transport--would have failed at least a year earlier with this kind of burden. Yes, my brother's company provided health insurance, BUT with a high deductible and requiring employees to pay half. This kind of "diversity" (see Barbara Boxer misuse of word above) of approach will no longer be allowed, as one Federal size will have to fit all (no matter how many jobs it costs, and how many busineeses it causes to fail--before the entrie country is bankrupted by the complete Federal takeover that was intended from the beginning).
Oh, there was yesterday's story that high income earners in New York City will pay up to 60% of their income in taxes--that is, they will pay that for a SHORT time until they figure out how not to pay it. There is, of course, also the hefty taxes on much lesser incomes in New York City, including the new tax if you choose NOT to get the government insurance.
The reason I don't feel bad about misleading you on the coverage of this bill is that it DOES NOT MATTER what any version of the bill now says. The final bill that passes, if we are dumb enough to let these people continue this insane process without revolt that even they can't ignore, is going to contain provisons drafted at the last second that no one has read. Who knows what will be in that bill? The only thing we can know with certainty is that it will be a DISASTER. Any bill of the type now being considered would be such a disaster, but this new approach to legislation by Democrats guarantees it belyond any kind of doubt.
My brother (now unemployed, and never above the level the Democrats are (for now) classifying as "rich", suggests a TAX REVOLT: that MASSIVE numbers of people join those kooky tax protestors (like Wesley Snipes) who simply refuse to pay any income tax. Everyone knows that our system depends on voluntary copliance (and a little fear), and that any kind of real tax protest by a large number of people will cause the system to break down.
I have news for my brother (which I think he realizes). I would tend to favor such a revolt. But it does not matter mch, in the long run. Taxpayers WILL revolt, whether they do it that obviously or not. Revenue will NOT be raised (in the long run). People will figure out ways to AVOID the taxes. Thus, the "revolt" WILL happen--whether openly and illegally or less openly and legally.
Taxes and Adjusted Gross Income: The Multiple Deceptions of the Health Care "Debate"
Conservatives are suddenly trying to make a big deal out of the Democratic "sur-tax" being applied to "adjustable gross income", instead of to "taxable income". In the process, they are using the leftist tactic of exaggeration and distortion. See the previous entry. There is a DLIBERATE attempt to confuse "gross revenue" and "adjusted gross income". I even heard one guy last night try to suggest that some people in this country file a form 1040, while others do not, and that thiis "surl-tax" will affect almost everyone filing a form 1040. This is all absurd. EVERYONE (essentially) files a form 1040. Regular corporations, of course, do not, but they are subject to DOUBLE TAXATION--since taking the money out means you have taxable income on--yes--your form 1040. That is another topic, but the Repubican/conservative idea of NO corporate income tax is a TERRIBLE idea, because it encourages GAME PLAYING (as ordinary income is turned into capital gains, which Republicans/conservatives also want to not tax, or tax at a very low rate).
What is going on here? It is deception all of the way around. The left is deceiving as to what they are doing, and conservatives are trying to fight back with deceptions of their own. I don't really have a problem with this, in one sense. The left DECEIVES, and I do not favor turning the other cheek. Meeting deception with deception does not bother me much, except I don't think it is very good tactics.
For example, say that Democrats CHANGE their plan so that the sur-tax is on taxable income, rather than adjusted grooss income? Does that make the Democratic health care plan any better? Don't be stupid. Yet, if you base your opposition to the plan on tihis one (deceptive" argument about the tax code, what do you do when Democrats simply drop the "adjusted gross income" alpproach, and tartet their "sur-tax" at "taxable income", saying that they have MET your objections?
Republicans/Conservatives have simply GOT to stop complicating these arguments. They have made that MISTAKE with the Tax argument already--getting away from the simple Reagan plan of low rates for everyone, with only two non-zero tax rates.
Republicans/conservatives need to hammer home the idea that more taxes do NOT raise revenue, and will stifle any economic recovery--no matter how they are structured. Republicans need to hammer home that the new revenue to pay for government health care WILL NOT EXIST, not matter how the Democrats "tax the rich" (ruining the economy in the process), and that the middle class will end up paying--one way or another. There ain't no such thinkg as a free lunceh. But Republicans/conservatives keep COMPLICATING that message, with the idea they can compete with Democrats (leftist kind) in DECEPTION. Not likely.
This idea of eliminating/phasing out deductions is already part of the tax code. Yes, it is true that if you give away all of your income to charity, and the charitable deduction is eliminated for your adjusted gross income, you will pay taxes on money YOU DO NOT HAVE. But Democrats were already proposing doing away with these deductions for "the rich", even apart from health care. In fact, we ALREADY "phase out" a number o "deductioins/exemptios for "the rich" as a way of raising taxes on "the rich". Romald Reagan proposed getting rid of many dedutions IN EXCHANGE FOR lower rates, and a simpler tax system. What we have done since Reagan is PLAY GAMES with the tax code to RAISE TAXES, and to complicate the tax code by going back on that implie promise of lower rates in exchanve for reduced deductions. That means that the tax rates for "the rich" are actually SKYROCKETING, to the equivalent of higher rates than even BEFORE Reagan (if Democrats get their way). Repubicans/conservatives should be HAMMERING this idea that highter taxes on "the rich" raise revenue, and hammering home the idea that higher tax rates are only going to kill the economy. This should be done in the context of advocating a SIMPLE tax system, and not a more complicated one. Unfortunately, the Repubican "plan" on health care is a central planning plan COMPLICATING THE TAX CODE with this fairly complex system of tax credits (wellfare for the middle class--except there ain't not such thing as a free lunch).
In fact, Repubicans/conservatives are ven pushing an anti-federalims plan whereby the Federal Government makes Idaho (for example) make its health care insurance plan available to EVERYONE--Republicans/conservatives call this a "national market"!!!! How can states come up with their own "solutionis" to health care insurance if the Federal Government is going to make it IMPOSSIBLE? And Repubicans claim to believe in FEDERALISM!!! They DON'T believe in any such thing!!! Yep. NATIONAL "tort reform" (ESPECIALLY on malpractice) is totally unnecessary. The states can do it, as Texas has. It is another central planning "solution" for political purposes.
Yes, health care "solutions", and taxes, are going to DEVASTATE doctors, and other "professionals". Are not many of these people that are gokng to suffer the double whammy of higher taxes and "cost containment" doctors, and other people in health care corporations? Damn right they are. The idea that this assault on HEALTH CARE small business (which many doctors are) will help health care is a major delusion/deception. It is small comfort that the increasingly leftist AMA has brought this on itself by failing to oppose this stuff strongly, and with conviction.
We are headed for disaster, and at least part of the problem is the seeming acceptance by EVERYONE (except me) that we need a "comprehensive", central planning "reform" of our entire health care system. That is the ultimate DECEPTION here, and it seems to me it is a deception coming from all sides, including Repubicans and conservatives.
What is going on here? It is deception all of the way around. The left is deceiving as to what they are doing, and conservatives are trying to fight back with deceptions of their own. I don't really have a problem with this, in one sense. The left DECEIVES, and I do not favor turning the other cheek. Meeting deception with deception does not bother me much, except I don't think it is very good tactics.
For example, say that Democrats CHANGE their plan so that the sur-tax is on taxable income, rather than adjusted grooss income? Does that make the Democratic health care plan any better? Don't be stupid. Yet, if you base your opposition to the plan on tihis one (deceptive" argument about the tax code, what do you do when Democrats simply drop the "adjusted gross income" alpproach, and tartet their "sur-tax" at "taxable income", saying that they have MET your objections?
Republicans/Conservatives have simply GOT to stop complicating these arguments. They have made that MISTAKE with the Tax argument already--getting away from the simple Reagan plan of low rates for everyone, with only two non-zero tax rates.
Republicans/conservatives need to hammer home the idea that more taxes do NOT raise revenue, and will stifle any economic recovery--no matter how they are structured. Republicans need to hammer home that the new revenue to pay for government health care WILL NOT EXIST, not matter how the Democrats "tax the rich" (ruining the economy in the process), and that the middle class will end up paying--one way or another. There ain't no such thinkg as a free lunceh. But Republicans/conservatives keep COMPLICATING that message, with the idea they can compete with Democrats (leftist kind) in DECEPTION. Not likely.
This idea of eliminating/phasing out deductions is already part of the tax code. Yes, it is true that if you give away all of your income to charity, and the charitable deduction is eliminated for your adjusted gross income, you will pay taxes on money YOU DO NOT HAVE. But Democrats were already proposing doing away with these deductions for "the rich", even apart from health care. In fact, we ALREADY "phase out" a number o "deductioins/exemptios for "the rich" as a way of raising taxes on "the rich". Romald Reagan proposed getting rid of many dedutions IN EXCHANGE FOR lower rates, and a simpler tax system. What we have done since Reagan is PLAY GAMES with the tax code to RAISE TAXES, and to complicate the tax code by going back on that implie promise of lower rates in exchanve for reduced deductions. That means that the tax rates for "the rich" are actually SKYROCKETING, to the equivalent of higher rates than even BEFORE Reagan (if Democrats get their way). Repubicans/conservatives should be HAMMERING this idea that highter taxes on "the rich" raise revenue, and hammering home the idea that higher tax rates are only going to kill the economy. This should be done in the context of advocating a SIMPLE tax system, and not a more complicated one. Unfortunately, the Repubican "plan" on health care is a central planning plan COMPLICATING THE TAX CODE with this fairly complex system of tax credits (wellfare for the middle class--except there ain't not such thing as a free lunch).
In fact, Repubicans/conservatives are ven pushing an anti-federalims plan whereby the Federal Government makes Idaho (for example) make its health care insurance plan available to EVERYONE--Republicans/conservatives call this a "national market"!!!! How can states come up with their own "solutionis" to health care insurance if the Federal Government is going to make it IMPOSSIBLE? And Repubicans claim to believe in FEDERALISM!!! They DON'T believe in any such thing!!! Yep. NATIONAL "tort reform" (ESPECIALLY on malpractice) is totally unnecessary. The states can do it, as Texas has. It is another central planning "solution" for political purposes.
Yes, health care "solutions", and taxes, are going to DEVASTATE doctors, and other "professionals". Are not many of these people that are gokng to suffer the double whammy of higher taxes and "cost containment" doctors, and other people in health care corporations? Damn right they are. The idea that this assault on HEALTH CARE small business (which many doctors are) will help health care is a major delusion/deception. It is small comfort that the increasingly leftist AMA has brought this on itself by failing to oppose this stuff strongly, and with conviction.
We are headed for disaster, and at least part of the problem is the seeming acceptance by EVERYONE (except me) that we need a "comprehensive", central planning "reform" of our entire health care system. That is the ultimate DECEPTION here, and it seems to me it is a deception coming from all sides, including Repubicans and conservatives.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Rush Limbaugh Is a Big, Fat Idiot: Health Care Fantasies and Truths Starring Mentally Challenged Democrats Trying To Do Us All In
The title, of course, is a shot at Democratic Senator Al Franken (no accounting for the insanity of Minnesota voters)--as well as an "affectionate" shot at Limbaugh. Limbaugh is no lonter fat, and never was an idiot.
But Limbaugh let partisan rhetoric lead him into serious error in his discussion of the health care plan today. He was absolutely correct in stating that Obama and the Democrats are taking dead aim at small business. Limbaugh just got tangled up in explaiing WHY that is so.
Limbaugh made the "error" (which assumes that he did not fully know what he was doing, as leftist Democrats so often fullyknow how they are misrepresenting the truth--Obama being a prime offender here) of saying that most Subchapter S corporations make more than $280,000. That is false--a LIE, if you want to call it that. Limbaugh asserted that Subchapter S corporations pay taxes on "GROSS "earnings" (revenue), rather than net. That is FALSE--simply not true. Individuals electing Subcahpter S status fro their "small" corporations elect to be taxed as if they were not operating as a corporation, provided that they are taxed on the NET income of the corporationi (their pro-rata share) as if they had received the money, whether they actuallly received it or not (income might be reinvested in the corporatioin, but, in reality, this is not much of a practical problem for most people with even half-way competent accountants). Nevertheless, it is still NET INCOME that is taxed, and not gross. Limabugh was exactly wrong to accuse Democrats of lying when they asset that most small businesses do not earn $280,000.00. That is exactly correct. I would note that this blog never makes this kind of elementary mistake (except in typos), mainly because I do not let partisan rhetoric lead me into this kind of "error".
If "small businesses" are not going to be subject to this "sur-tax" on the "rich" the House Democrats are proposing, as most will not be, what is the problem? Well, let us start counting the problems.
1. The "sur-tax" is going to HURT employment as unemployment is heading above 10%. As Paul Rodriguez reminded environmentalists in California, without farms there are no farm workers. The proposed sur-tax would directly take money out of the private economy--from the most successful small business, and others, just at the time the econlmy can least afford it.
2. The democrats are proposing to REQUIRE employers to provide health insurance. You may think you know that that means. You don't. What KIND of health insurance? Is the government going to requirfe every business to provide "cadillac" health insurance? That is DEATH to many small businesses, who may be providing health insurance with large deductibles, or otherwise controlling costs. In other words, are employers going to have to provide at least the equivalent of the "government option"? Can employers tell their employees to elect the government option? Yes, this provision is presently targeted at businesses with over 400 employees, WHETHER THEY MAKE ANY MONEY OR NOT, and those are the "samll" businesses that are providing the most jobs--and where higher costs will cost the most jobs. My brother's trucking company, Shipper's Transport, employed 500 people when he took it over. My brother says this provision would have KILLED his company, because it provides for an 8% payroll tax PENALTY for every such employer who does not provide health insurance. This is a land mine field of of traps for businesses, big and small (the very big businesses, like Wal-Mart, have not problem with it because it hurts their smaller COMPETITORS more than it hurts them). In other words, the government is surely going to TELL employers what health insurance they HAVE to offer, and to the extent the coercion is not sufficient, it will be INCREASED until emplopyers SCREAM (as they already are). Then what will happen? Right. We will get an entirely government system, which is the goal here. In the meantime, the econominy will suffer (losing jobs). This is the central planning problem: ONE size fits all, and coercion is the name of the game. Yes, individuals will HAVE to buy insurance, if they do not get it from employers. Again, what KIND of insurance? Deductibles? Coerage? The media assumes that everyone means the same thing by "helath insurance". That is only true in a CENTRAL PLANNING system, where the government is mandating that there be only one kind of insurance. It is absurdly stupid for the government to try to take over the health care system this way, and most people know it.
3. This "sur-tax" on even people earning more than $1,000,000.00 WILL NOT RAISE ENOUGH MONEY. That sur-tax "raises" $50,000.00 for each person with more than a million dollars in INCOME. That is supposed to pay for health insurance for people who cannot afford it, along with the lesser sur-tax on people with incomes starting at $280,000.00. How much does it cost for a government accepted health insurance plan? $10,000.00? Surely not much less. That means that the extra tax on people earning one million dollars will take care of FIVE people. Okay, say it takes care of TEN people. Even assuming that people with present incomes of over one million dollars do not figure out how to AVOID this tax (and the other rising income taxes on their income--such avoidance being one reason such taxes generally RAISE NO MONEY), there are not enough people earning that much money to pay for the coverage for the other people. Hence, you see why there is this REQUIREMENT that employers provide health insurance. It still will not be enough. This is a disaster waiting to happen, at a time when can least afford it.
4. When you combine the econoomic impact of the extra taxes with the tax avoidance induced by all of these extra taxes (this sur-tax being only one of the many extra taxes proposed for the "rich" in the Age of Obama), NO EXTRA MONEY WILL BE RAISED TO PAY FOR THIS EVER EXPANDING "ENTITLEMENT".
5. This entitlement WILL expand, and is intended to expand. Democrats want Michael Moore style, "single payer", universal health coverage. Yes, that will be a central planning nightmare that will ruin both our health care system and our government. But it is not much more of a nightmare thann the absurd mish-mash of a central plannning system that the Democrats are trying to foist on us. Democats are using absurd ten year projections for a plan not intended to last ten years. Employers alone are going to start SCREAMING (as stated above). The intent is for people to demand a total government system And that will happen. In the meantime, our economy will be further destroyed (if any is letft after the "global warming", "cap and trade" tax). This is a Soviet style "ten year plan" INTENDED TO FAIL--intended to fail in a very specific way that results in a total Federal Government takeover of health care.
6. Just why is it necessary for the Federal Government to mandate all of tis? Has the Federal Government shown the ability to operate efficiently on this kind of scale? There is no "crisis" in health care in this country. Health care is pretty darn good. The poor are covered (in a Medicaid program going broke). The elderly are covered (in a Medicare program going broke). People have "universal health care", in the sense no one is turned away from a hospital emergency room. Why mess this up with a disaster from which we cannot recover--a central planning disaster when we KNOW central planning does not work, and cannnot work. Health care insurance mandated by unions (who thought their members were not "payiing" for it) is "credited" with dooming General Motors. Why should anyone trust the government to tell businesses what kind of health care insurance they have to offer? Still less should we trust the government to take over the entrie health care system (the ultimate goal here).
7. The cost of this kind of Federal program is ALWAYS underestimated, and the revenue to pay for it (see above) is ALWAYS overestimated. This leads to a never ending spiral of more an dmore taxes on an ever expanding number of people as it becomes obvious that it is impossible for the "rich" to pay for everone else to have everything they want.
Did I say the Republicans were much better here? They aren't. As best I can tell, their "plan" is WELFARE for the middle class, providing $5700 for every family to buy health insurance. What about employers? Will not every employer tell peple to use that money, and get out of providing employer insurance? Is that the Republcan GOAL, or do they want to mandate eemployer insurance too? Republicans plan to give a TAX CREDIT, with NO ONE to pay any more taxes (although the rich will not get any net tax benefit). You say you thought Republicans were against increasing the deficit? YOU FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!! What ever made you think that.
The first, second and third optiions here are to DO NOTHING. Wait until we are out of the recession, and then we MIGHT consider tinkering with the margins. Really, the best thing to do is to go back to federalism, and let the "pay as you go" because they can't print money, except for the doomed attempt by California) decide how to handle health care in each state.
Yes, I am going to "out" my brother--the former truck company owner--here. My brother agrees with me that both TORT REFORM (Republicans also believe in central planning) and health care insurance regulations can be handled by EACH STATE. My brother says: "If the 12 non-government employees in Montana don't like their state's plan, they CAN MOVE. Then we will just have one less state." Now you people who live in Montana, or just like Monatana, DO NOT BLAME ME FOR THIS ONE. This was MY BROTHER (who also said: "There is a good reaons Monatana has no speed limit. They don't have enough people to put in police cars to enforce one.") Okay, people of Montana, go lynch my brother. But the point is valid (not about Montana, but about states beind different, and having the option to MOVE if you don't like your state). Why have ONE approach, when you can have 50. You say that why have 50 approaches, when one is the best one? That is the central planning DELUSION? How arrogant are you, Obama, the Democrats, and the mainstream media, to assume that you KNOW the ONE right apporach? All you have to be is wrong ONCE, and the game is over. YOU LOSE. That is not true in the free market, and it is not true in federalism. People are fallible. They make mistakes. The problem with central planning is that a mistake spells DOOM.
Nope. Rush Limbaugh is not an idiot. He is fundamentally, instinctively right. The Democrats really are out to destroy small business in this country. They want economic fascism: that central lplannng partnership between Big Government and Big Business. Then they want Big Government to dominate that partnership. I just wish Rush would not let his partisan zeal lead to falsely overstating his case. The case aginst Federal "health care reform" is overwhelmingly strong without any exaggeration using "dramatic license" (borrowing the license from Obama and other leftists).
But Limbaugh let partisan rhetoric lead him into serious error in his discussion of the health care plan today. He was absolutely correct in stating that Obama and the Democrats are taking dead aim at small business. Limbaugh just got tangled up in explaiing WHY that is so.
Limbaugh made the "error" (which assumes that he did not fully know what he was doing, as leftist Democrats so often fullyknow how they are misrepresenting the truth--Obama being a prime offender here) of saying that most Subchapter S corporations make more than $280,000. That is false--a LIE, if you want to call it that. Limbaugh asserted that Subchapter S corporations pay taxes on "GROSS "earnings" (revenue), rather than net. That is FALSE--simply not true. Individuals electing Subcahpter S status fro their "small" corporations elect to be taxed as if they were not operating as a corporation, provided that they are taxed on the NET income of the corporationi (their pro-rata share) as if they had received the money, whether they actuallly received it or not (income might be reinvested in the corporatioin, but, in reality, this is not much of a practical problem for most people with even half-way competent accountants). Nevertheless, it is still NET INCOME that is taxed, and not gross. Limabugh was exactly wrong to accuse Democrats of lying when they asset that most small businesses do not earn $280,000.00. That is exactly correct. I would note that this blog never makes this kind of elementary mistake (except in typos), mainly because I do not let partisan rhetoric lead me into this kind of "error".
If "small businesses" are not going to be subject to this "sur-tax" on the "rich" the House Democrats are proposing, as most will not be, what is the problem? Well, let us start counting the problems.
1. The "sur-tax" is going to HURT employment as unemployment is heading above 10%. As Paul Rodriguez reminded environmentalists in California, without farms there are no farm workers. The proposed sur-tax would directly take money out of the private economy--from the most successful small business, and others, just at the time the econlmy can least afford it.
2. The democrats are proposing to REQUIRE employers to provide health insurance. You may think you know that that means. You don't. What KIND of health insurance? Is the government going to requirfe every business to provide "cadillac" health insurance? That is DEATH to many small businesses, who may be providing health insurance with large deductibles, or otherwise controlling costs. In other words, are employers going to have to provide at least the equivalent of the "government option"? Can employers tell their employees to elect the government option? Yes, this provision is presently targeted at businesses with over 400 employees, WHETHER THEY MAKE ANY MONEY OR NOT, and those are the "samll" businesses that are providing the most jobs--and where higher costs will cost the most jobs. My brother's trucking company, Shipper's Transport, employed 500 people when he took it over. My brother says this provision would have KILLED his company, because it provides for an 8% payroll tax PENALTY for every such employer who does not provide health insurance. This is a land mine field of of traps for businesses, big and small (the very big businesses, like Wal-Mart, have not problem with it because it hurts their smaller COMPETITORS more than it hurts them). In other words, the government is surely going to TELL employers what health insurance they HAVE to offer, and to the extent the coercion is not sufficient, it will be INCREASED until emplopyers SCREAM (as they already are). Then what will happen? Right. We will get an entirely government system, which is the goal here. In the meantime, the econominy will suffer (losing jobs). This is the central planning problem: ONE size fits all, and coercion is the name of the game. Yes, individuals will HAVE to buy insurance, if they do not get it from employers. Again, what KIND of insurance? Deductibles? Coerage? The media assumes that everyone means the same thing by "helath insurance". That is only true in a CENTRAL PLANNING system, where the government is mandating that there be only one kind of insurance. It is absurdly stupid for the government to try to take over the health care system this way, and most people know it.
3. This "sur-tax" on even people earning more than $1,000,000.00 WILL NOT RAISE ENOUGH MONEY. That sur-tax "raises" $50,000.00 for each person with more than a million dollars in INCOME. That is supposed to pay for health insurance for people who cannot afford it, along with the lesser sur-tax on people with incomes starting at $280,000.00. How much does it cost for a government accepted health insurance plan? $10,000.00? Surely not much less. That means that the extra tax on people earning one million dollars will take care of FIVE people. Okay, say it takes care of TEN people. Even assuming that people with present incomes of over one million dollars do not figure out how to AVOID this tax (and the other rising income taxes on their income--such avoidance being one reason such taxes generally RAISE NO MONEY), there are not enough people earning that much money to pay for the coverage for the other people. Hence, you see why there is this REQUIREMENT that employers provide health insurance. It still will not be enough. This is a disaster waiting to happen, at a time when can least afford it.
4. When you combine the econoomic impact of the extra taxes with the tax avoidance induced by all of these extra taxes (this sur-tax being only one of the many extra taxes proposed for the "rich" in the Age of Obama), NO EXTRA MONEY WILL BE RAISED TO PAY FOR THIS EVER EXPANDING "ENTITLEMENT".
5. This entitlement WILL expand, and is intended to expand. Democrats want Michael Moore style, "single payer", universal health coverage. Yes, that will be a central planning nightmare that will ruin both our health care system and our government. But it is not much more of a nightmare thann the absurd mish-mash of a central plannning system that the Democrats are trying to foist on us. Democats are using absurd ten year projections for a plan not intended to last ten years. Employers alone are going to start SCREAMING (as stated above). The intent is for people to demand a total government system And that will happen. In the meantime, our economy will be further destroyed (if any is letft after the "global warming", "cap and trade" tax). This is a Soviet style "ten year plan" INTENDED TO FAIL--intended to fail in a very specific way that results in a total Federal Government takeover of health care.
6. Just why is it necessary for the Federal Government to mandate all of tis? Has the Federal Government shown the ability to operate efficiently on this kind of scale? There is no "crisis" in health care in this country. Health care is pretty darn good. The poor are covered (in a Medicaid program going broke). The elderly are covered (in a Medicare program going broke). People have "universal health care", in the sense no one is turned away from a hospital emergency room. Why mess this up with a disaster from which we cannot recover--a central planning disaster when we KNOW central planning does not work, and cannnot work. Health care insurance mandated by unions (who thought their members were not "payiing" for it) is "credited" with dooming General Motors. Why should anyone trust the government to tell businesses what kind of health care insurance they have to offer? Still less should we trust the government to take over the entrie health care system (the ultimate goal here).
7. The cost of this kind of Federal program is ALWAYS underestimated, and the revenue to pay for it (see above) is ALWAYS overestimated. This leads to a never ending spiral of more an dmore taxes on an ever expanding number of people as it becomes obvious that it is impossible for the "rich" to pay for everone else to have everything they want.
Did I say the Republicans were much better here? They aren't. As best I can tell, their "plan" is WELFARE for the middle class, providing $5700 for every family to buy health insurance. What about employers? Will not every employer tell peple to use that money, and get out of providing employer insurance? Is that the Republcan GOAL, or do they want to mandate eemployer insurance too? Republicans plan to give a TAX CREDIT, with NO ONE to pay any more taxes (although the rich will not get any net tax benefit). You say you thought Republicans were against increasing the deficit? YOU FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!! What ever made you think that.
The first, second and third optiions here are to DO NOTHING. Wait until we are out of the recession, and then we MIGHT consider tinkering with the margins. Really, the best thing to do is to go back to federalism, and let the "pay as you go" because they can't print money, except for the doomed attempt by California) decide how to handle health care in each state.
Yes, I am going to "out" my brother--the former truck company owner--here. My brother agrees with me that both TORT REFORM (Republicans also believe in central planning) and health care insurance regulations can be handled by EACH STATE. My brother says: "If the 12 non-government employees in Montana don't like their state's plan, they CAN MOVE. Then we will just have one less state." Now you people who live in Montana, or just like Monatana, DO NOT BLAME ME FOR THIS ONE. This was MY BROTHER (who also said: "There is a good reaons Monatana has no speed limit. They don't have enough people to put in police cars to enforce one.") Okay, people of Montana, go lynch my brother. But the point is valid (not about Montana, but about states beind different, and having the option to MOVE if you don't like your state). Why have ONE approach, when you can have 50. You say that why have 50 approaches, when one is the best one? That is the central planning DELUSION? How arrogant are you, Obama, the Democrats, and the mainstream media, to assume that you KNOW the ONE right apporach? All you have to be is wrong ONCE, and the game is over. YOU LOSE. That is not true in the free market, and it is not true in federalism. People are fallible. They make mistakes. The problem with central planning is that a mistake spells DOOM.
Nope. Rush Limbaugh is not an idiot. He is fundamentally, instinctively right. The Democrats really are out to destroy small business in this country. They want economic fascism: that central lplannng partnership between Big Government and Big Business. Then they want Big Government to dominate that partnership. I just wish Rush would not let his partisan zeal lead to falsely overstating his case. The case aginst Federal "health care reform" is overwhelmingly strong without any exaggeration using "dramatic license" (borrowing the license from Obama and other leftists).
President Obama at the All-Star Game: Perfect Guest Host for this Blog? (Although I Can Throw a Baseball MUCH Better Than Obama)
President Obama really cemented his legend as a comic genius last night at the baseball All-Star game:
1. He throws like a girl, or rather lilke the most helpless 1950's girl you ever saw (on video) try to throw a ball. It was so bad that the TV cut away from the cathcer, so that you did not see where the ball ended up.
2. Obama wore a White Sox jacket, and calls himself a White Sox fan. But, in his booth interview (while the game was ignored), Obama referred to "Cominskey Field" as the former home of the White Sox. As even I knew (never a White Sox fan), the correct name was "COMISKEY PARK". The PRESENT White Sox ballpark is called U.S. Cellular FIELD. Just how much of a White Sox fan is/was Obama?
3. The above is all a follow-up to Obama's speech overseas where he said (to "relate" to students, I think) that he met his (Obama's) wife IN CLASS. He actually met her AT WORK, when he was an intern at a law frim (or something like that).
I have a question about 3 above. Yes, it shows Obama is a comic geniius. But is he a DEAD comic genius. If not, it must be because his wife realizes that he will say ANYTHING that sounds good at the time, and that it doesn't really mean that he has forgotten where he met her--and maybe who she is (thinking of a DIFFERENT girl?).
Yes, this is the man who said there were 57 states, and that 1,000 people died in that tornado in Kansas a year or two ago (13 or so died). There are many other examples.
That is why Rush Limbaugh is theorizing that Obama's teleprompter was MURDERED, or perhpas committed SUICIDE--either because the teleprompter was incompetent or because Obama was incapable of reading it correctly. The Vicnce Foster mystery has nothing on this. Yes, Obama's teleprompter DIED suddenly (see Drudge headline--yesterday, I believe).
Why do I think Obama would be a perfect "guest host" for this blog? Well, he is a comic genius, and would provide comic relief while I am on vacation (July 17-July 28). But the main reason is that the harshest criticism I have gotten, outside of my comments on baseball, has been about typos, bad spelling (mainly typos), and other such errors. As I have noted, I don't even use "spell check", because my eyesight makes it a major CHORE for me. And I am not gettting paid for this. Well, I think Obama will fit right in as an author of this blog. Yes, I will sometimes get names wrong, either because I thought I knew the correct one or because I was too lazy to look up the correct spelling (or sometimes repeating the mistake of someone else). If Obama will just step in, you will not even know I am gone. In fact, you will probably notice an INCREASE in errors. Think of how much fun you would have jumping on my errors again!!!!! No, I am not worried about Obama sounding like a liberal. There have been a number of entries in this blog where I have noted that Obama often sounds EXACTLY LIKE ME (as Sotomayor has done). Yes, he usually says exactly the opposite the next day (such as on whether we can afford those huge budget deficits). As long as Obama stays in touch with this side of his "mulitple personality", I am confident that you will not realize I am gone if Obama "guest hosts" this blog--except he will be FUNNIER. I am confident he can even match the bloated verbosity that is a hallmark of this blog. If you see no entries from July 17 through July 27 (when I will be in New York City and Boston), it will be because OBAMA has let you down. I am issuing him an open invitation to him to be guest host of this blog. I am even willing to give him credit at the end (only at the end, in order to test out whether anyone can really tell the difference).
1. He throws like a girl, or rather lilke the most helpless 1950's girl you ever saw (on video) try to throw a ball. It was so bad that the TV cut away from the cathcer, so that you did not see where the ball ended up.
2. Obama wore a White Sox jacket, and calls himself a White Sox fan. But, in his booth interview (while the game was ignored), Obama referred to "Cominskey Field" as the former home of the White Sox. As even I knew (never a White Sox fan), the correct name was "COMISKEY PARK". The PRESENT White Sox ballpark is called U.S. Cellular FIELD. Just how much of a White Sox fan is/was Obama?
3. The above is all a follow-up to Obama's speech overseas where he said (to "relate" to students, I think) that he met his (Obama's) wife IN CLASS. He actually met her AT WORK, when he was an intern at a law frim (or something like that).
I have a question about 3 above. Yes, it shows Obama is a comic geniius. But is he a DEAD comic genius. If not, it must be because his wife realizes that he will say ANYTHING that sounds good at the time, and that it doesn't really mean that he has forgotten where he met her--and maybe who she is (thinking of a DIFFERENT girl?).
Yes, this is the man who said there were 57 states, and that 1,000 people died in that tornado in Kansas a year or two ago (13 or so died). There are many other examples.
That is why Rush Limbaugh is theorizing that Obama's teleprompter was MURDERED, or perhpas committed SUICIDE--either because the teleprompter was incompetent or because Obama was incapable of reading it correctly. The Vicnce Foster mystery has nothing on this. Yes, Obama's teleprompter DIED suddenly (see Drudge headline--yesterday, I believe).
Why do I think Obama would be a perfect "guest host" for this blog? Well, he is a comic genius, and would provide comic relief while I am on vacation (July 17-July 28). But the main reason is that the harshest criticism I have gotten, outside of my comments on baseball, has been about typos, bad spelling (mainly typos), and other such errors. As I have noted, I don't even use "spell check", because my eyesight makes it a major CHORE for me. And I am not gettting paid for this. Well, I think Obama will fit right in as an author of this blog. Yes, I will sometimes get names wrong, either because I thought I knew the correct one or because I was too lazy to look up the correct spelling (or sometimes repeating the mistake of someone else). If Obama will just step in, you will not even know I am gone. In fact, you will probably notice an INCREASE in errors. Think of how much fun you would have jumping on my errors again!!!!! No, I am not worried about Obama sounding like a liberal. There have been a number of entries in this blog where I have noted that Obama often sounds EXACTLY LIKE ME (as Sotomayor has done). Yes, he usually says exactly the opposite the next day (such as on whether we can afford those huge budget deficits). As long as Obama stays in touch with this side of his "mulitple personality", I am confident that you will not realize I am gone if Obama "guest hosts" this blog--except he will be FUNNIER. I am confident he can even match the bloated verbosity that is a hallmark of this blog. If you see no entries from July 17 through July 27 (when I will be in New York City and Boston), it will be because OBAMA has let you down. I am issuing him an open invitation to him to be guest host of this blog. I am even willing to give him credit at the end (only at the end, in order to test out whether anyone can really tell the difference).
Rick Ankiel (Approaching the Mendoza Line), Sotomayor, Race, and a "Good Story"
Rick Ankiel is a Cardinal outfielder with an "inspiring story". He failed as a pitcher, because of some sort of mental block (now called "social anxiety disorder") which suddenly caused him to be unable to throw strikes. He remade himself into an outfielder, and made it back to the major league Cardinals last year, in that position, with a flurry of home runs.
That shows the difference between sports and the rest of our increasingly leftist society. For Ankiel, and anyone in sports, a "good story" is not enough. In politics, a "good story" (and teleprompter) was enought to get Barack Obama elected PRESIDENT of the United States. A "good story" seems to be the major qualification for Sonia Sotomayor to be a Supreme Court justice.
In baseball, your "story" is not enough. Ankiel had to PERFORM to make it back to the major leagues as a position player, and he will have to PERFORM to stay there. Right now, he is NOT performing. There is something called the "Mendoza line" for a hitter (don't hear the term much lately, perhaps because Mendoza is a "latino" name, which had nothing to do with the origin of the term). That was the term coined, in "honor" of a notoriously light hitting position player, to refer to any position player who approaches a .200 batting average (the "Mendoza line"). Well, Ankiel is approaching the "Mendoza line". In fact, we may have to coint a new term for Ankiel, the "Ankiel line", to represent a player who can't hit more than .100. Ankiel is hitting LESS than .100 for his last 25 or so times to the plate. Further, this is not much of an aberration. After that flurry of home runs when he was first called up last year, Ankiel did not hit well. Further, he did not hit well this year, even before ramming a fence and going on the DL. Ankiel would ot be getting any playing time now, and would perhaps be back i the minor leagues already, except the Cardinals HAVE NO ONE ELSE to play left field who is much better. Chris Duncan is making his own assault on the Mendoza line.
Sports is still an area, and has been ever since Jackie Robinson, where individual merit rules. It is an area pretty much color blind.
You may have watched the All Star game. If you managed to get past the attempt to turn the game into a leftist political commercial, complete with Obama and Carter, you probably noticed the lack of African-Ameridan PITCHERS. Oh, there have been, and are, some good African-American pitchers. But they are not NEARLY so prevalent as black position players. Where is the "affrimative action"? Why not let black pitchers pitch from 50 feet? Why not give them a bigger strike zone.
Take golg and NASCAR. There is Tiger Woods. But name another black golfer! (yes, I am aware there are a few.). Is there any movement to give African-American golfers a stroke a hole? Same with NASCAR. Where is the "affirmative" action? (I know. There may actually be a problem with black drivers getting an opportunity with the racing teams who dominate NASCAR, but the fact remains that any driver who showed real ability would likely get his chance, and auto racing goes way beyond NASCAR, with a limited number of top quality black drivers).
I could come up with all kinds of "socio-economic" reasons why black men dominate some sports (NBA, for example) and/or positioins, and are "underrepresented in others. So What? It is INDIVIDUAL MERIT that matters, and you would be lloked at as NUTS for suggesting that black golfers should get a stroke here and there to make up for their "disadvantages".
You say sports are "different? NO, THEY ARE NOT. The lack of merit of "reverse discrimination" is simply obvious in sports, while leftists DECEIVE elsewhere. How is it different to give a black person 5 points on the LSAT (or some equivalent advantage in the application process for law school) than it is to give a black person strokes at golf (where "handicap" is even part of golf at the club level)? It is NOT different. It is only that leftists can "spin" it differently. In either case it is INDIVIDUAL MERIT that should matter, and not the color of a person's skin.
Yes, we are back to the New Haven firefighters adn Sotomayor. It is like Rick Ankiel overcame his problem throwing strikes (as at least one of the "white" firefighters overcame a type of learning disability), only to be told that he could not go back to the major leagues because of "diversity" requirements. There is NO difference, and leftists are hypocritical liars when they say there is a difference.
Yes, it is SOMETIMES harder to evaluate individual merit outside of sports. That is no excuse for evaluating people on the basis of their skin color--especially when objective measures do exist evaluating individual merit.
How do leftists try to finesse this argument--lying, racist hypocrites that they are? Well, they have recently trended toward the "diversity" scam, which is nothing more than a blatant attempt to impose a racial quota system. However, if pressed, they will fall back on trying to twist the word "qualified".
Do you realize that "qualified" has NO objective meaning? Well, it doesn't. Is Rick Ankiel "qualified" to be playing as left fielder for the St. Louis Cardinals? Not that I can see, but it is a RELATIVE thing. If Ankiel is the best they have at any tiven time (God help them, the way he is now hitting), then he is "qualified". "Qualified" ONLY has meaning in a relative sense. In sports, this problem is handled easily. There are no arguments as to whom is "qualified" to be on the PGA tour. The peoople who WIN the qualifying tournament are "qualified", and the others are not. It makes no difference that many of those who fail to make the PGA tour play pretty darn god golf, and are ALMOST as "qualified" as those on the tour. You are still evaluated on your individual merit, in comparison with other INDIVIDUALS, and not on lyour skin color.
Using the logic of the left, thousands of people are "quafified" to be on the PGA tour, because they play perfectly acceptable golf. What the left is saying is that you don't need to make ANY effort to evaluate the most qualified individuals, because there is always a big pool of people who are "qualfied"--just not equally "qualified". Do you see the DECEPTION here? The leftist idea is that black New Have firefighters will make perfectly acceptable firefighters, and that it is irrelevant whether some white firefighters might be "better". More importantly, of course, the question is why people should be discriminated against on the basis of the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN.
If the left applied the sme logic to the PGA tour, they would argue that preferences for black golfers would not really mean that golfers on the PGA tour were "unqualified". They would still be a whole lot better golfers than you or me. Who would notice if you haved SLIGHTLY less "qualified" golfers? They would still be "qualified", would they not? They would still play GOOD GOLF. After all, every week some of the golfers on the PGA tour play pretty BADLY. How do you know "affirmative action" golfers would do any worse?
What is "qualified"? There is no objective meaning. That is irrelevant to the fact that people deserve to be evaluated as INDIVIDUALS< and not as a member of a racial or ethnic group. Sports (generally) gets this right. Leftists (generally) get this wrong.
Thus, despite his story, Rick Ankiel had better improve, FAST, or he will be back in the minor leagues. I, personally, tink he should be there now in an attmpt to rebuild his confidence, and perhaps work on obvious flaws in his swing. Ankiel's "story" will not ultimately save him in baseball.
P.S. I have no intention of turning this blog into a Cardinals fan site, or sports fan site. However, I do think Rick Ankiel in particular, and sports in general, are useful in proving a point about society at large. The poin of this entry is that people should be treated on their merits as an individual, and not either as members of racial or ethnic groups or based on their "life story". Now "life story" may be relevant in many areas, such as inspirational speaker, but a "life story" does not give you abilities in skilled areas--does not, for example, make you a first quality mathematician or computer programmer.
That said, I have some supplemental comments on the Central Division of the National League. With present balck holes in left field, and at third base, the cardinals are still not a truly "good" team. However, with both Ludwick and rookie Rasmux getting got, they MAY stick around to the end, with a chance to win the division (the wild card still comes out of the West). I now have eliminated Milwaukee, unelss they pick up pitching help. Even though Milwaukee is still second in the divisioin, their pitching is just NOT GOOD ENOUGH (even if "qualified"). Their hitting is pretty good, but can't make up for the pitching deficiency (as the Cardinal hitting could not last year). I now reduce the Central Divisnon race to three--a DIFFERENT "trio" of (mediocore) teams from Dan: St. Louis, Chicago Cubs, and HOUSTON. Houston did not seem to figure, and yet they are playing as well as, or better than, any team in the division. I am TEMPTED to eliminate the Cubs, who have been terrible on the road and have substantial injuries. Even with Derek Lee having heated up, he has had some physical problems. It seems like Ramirez should still be on the DL, although he is back in the lineup. Their catcher is no the DL. I just can't quite eliminate the Cubs, because they have adequate pitching (if healthy), and the potential to eventually catch fire. I don't considrer the Cubs a truly "good" tema, which is my opinion of every team in the division. But I can't quite dismiss them, because of the substaintial flaws in every other team in the division. The team that wins the division will probably be the team that best "corrects" its flaws. The Cardinals, for example, need to do SOMETING aobut Duncan, Ankiel (left field) and thrid base. DeRosa might yet help, but is now on th DL without a Cardinal hit. And which teams will develop MORE FLAWS because of injuries and/or slumps. Baseball players see to suddenlly be very fragile. I still consider the Central Division wide open, but now believe the winner will be one of the three teams named. Isn't it "brave" of me to elminate Milwaukee? I think so.
That shows the difference between sports and the rest of our increasingly leftist society. For Ankiel, and anyone in sports, a "good story" is not enough. In politics, a "good story" (and teleprompter) was enought to get Barack Obama elected PRESIDENT of the United States. A "good story" seems to be the major qualification for Sonia Sotomayor to be a Supreme Court justice.
In baseball, your "story" is not enough. Ankiel had to PERFORM to make it back to the major leagues as a position player, and he will have to PERFORM to stay there. Right now, he is NOT performing. There is something called the "Mendoza line" for a hitter (don't hear the term much lately, perhaps because Mendoza is a "latino" name, which had nothing to do with the origin of the term). That was the term coined, in "honor" of a notoriously light hitting position player, to refer to any position player who approaches a .200 batting average (the "Mendoza line"). Well, Ankiel is approaching the "Mendoza line". In fact, we may have to coint a new term for Ankiel, the "Ankiel line", to represent a player who can't hit more than .100. Ankiel is hitting LESS than .100 for his last 25 or so times to the plate. Further, this is not much of an aberration. After that flurry of home runs when he was first called up last year, Ankiel did not hit well. Further, he did not hit well this year, even before ramming a fence and going on the DL. Ankiel would ot be getting any playing time now, and would perhaps be back i the minor leagues already, except the Cardinals HAVE NO ONE ELSE to play left field who is much better. Chris Duncan is making his own assault on the Mendoza line.
Sports is still an area, and has been ever since Jackie Robinson, where individual merit rules. It is an area pretty much color blind.
You may have watched the All Star game. If you managed to get past the attempt to turn the game into a leftist political commercial, complete with Obama and Carter, you probably noticed the lack of African-Ameridan PITCHERS. Oh, there have been, and are, some good African-American pitchers. But they are not NEARLY so prevalent as black position players. Where is the "affrimative action"? Why not let black pitchers pitch from 50 feet? Why not give them a bigger strike zone.
Take golg and NASCAR. There is Tiger Woods. But name another black golfer! (yes, I am aware there are a few.). Is there any movement to give African-American golfers a stroke a hole? Same with NASCAR. Where is the "affirmative" action? (I know. There may actually be a problem with black drivers getting an opportunity with the racing teams who dominate NASCAR, but the fact remains that any driver who showed real ability would likely get his chance, and auto racing goes way beyond NASCAR, with a limited number of top quality black drivers).
I could come up with all kinds of "socio-economic" reasons why black men dominate some sports (NBA, for example) and/or positioins, and are "underrepresented in others. So What? It is INDIVIDUAL MERIT that matters, and you would be lloked at as NUTS for suggesting that black golfers should get a stroke here and there to make up for their "disadvantages".
You say sports are "different? NO, THEY ARE NOT. The lack of merit of "reverse discrimination" is simply obvious in sports, while leftists DECEIVE elsewhere. How is it different to give a black person 5 points on the LSAT (or some equivalent advantage in the application process for law school) than it is to give a black person strokes at golf (where "handicap" is even part of golf at the club level)? It is NOT different. It is only that leftists can "spin" it differently. In either case it is INDIVIDUAL MERIT that should matter, and not the color of a person's skin.
Yes, we are back to the New Haven firefighters adn Sotomayor. It is like Rick Ankiel overcame his problem throwing strikes (as at least one of the "white" firefighters overcame a type of learning disability), only to be told that he could not go back to the major leagues because of "diversity" requirements. There is NO difference, and leftists are hypocritical liars when they say there is a difference.
Yes, it is SOMETIMES harder to evaluate individual merit outside of sports. That is no excuse for evaluating people on the basis of their skin color--especially when objective measures do exist evaluating individual merit.
How do leftists try to finesse this argument--lying, racist hypocrites that they are? Well, they have recently trended toward the "diversity" scam, which is nothing more than a blatant attempt to impose a racial quota system. However, if pressed, they will fall back on trying to twist the word "qualified".
Do you realize that "qualified" has NO objective meaning? Well, it doesn't. Is Rick Ankiel "qualified" to be playing as left fielder for the St. Louis Cardinals? Not that I can see, but it is a RELATIVE thing. If Ankiel is the best they have at any tiven time (God help them, the way he is now hitting), then he is "qualified". "Qualified" ONLY has meaning in a relative sense. In sports, this problem is handled easily. There are no arguments as to whom is "qualified" to be on the PGA tour. The peoople who WIN the qualifying tournament are "qualified", and the others are not. It makes no difference that many of those who fail to make the PGA tour play pretty darn god golf, and are ALMOST as "qualified" as those on the tour. You are still evaluated on your individual merit, in comparison with other INDIVIDUALS, and not on lyour skin color.
Using the logic of the left, thousands of people are "quafified" to be on the PGA tour, because they play perfectly acceptable golf. What the left is saying is that you don't need to make ANY effort to evaluate the most qualified individuals, because there is always a big pool of people who are "qualfied"--just not equally "qualified". Do you see the DECEPTION here? The leftist idea is that black New Have firefighters will make perfectly acceptable firefighters, and that it is irrelevant whether some white firefighters might be "better". More importantly, of course, the question is why people should be discriminated against on the basis of the COLOR OF THEIR SKIN.
If the left applied the sme logic to the PGA tour, they would argue that preferences for black golfers would not really mean that golfers on the PGA tour were "unqualified". They would still be a whole lot better golfers than you or me. Who would notice if you haved SLIGHTLY less "qualified" golfers? They would still be "qualified", would they not? They would still play GOOD GOLF. After all, every week some of the golfers on the PGA tour play pretty BADLY. How do you know "affirmative action" golfers would do any worse?
What is "qualified"? There is no objective meaning. That is irrelevant to the fact that people deserve to be evaluated as INDIVIDUALS< and not as a member of a racial or ethnic group. Sports (generally) gets this right. Leftists (generally) get this wrong.
Thus, despite his story, Rick Ankiel had better improve, FAST, or he will be back in the minor leagues. I, personally, tink he should be there now in an attmpt to rebuild his confidence, and perhaps work on obvious flaws in his swing. Ankiel's "story" will not ultimately save him in baseball.
P.S. I have no intention of turning this blog into a Cardinals fan site, or sports fan site. However, I do think Rick Ankiel in particular, and sports in general, are useful in proving a point about society at large. The poin of this entry is that people should be treated on their merits as an individual, and not either as members of racial or ethnic groups or based on their "life story". Now "life story" may be relevant in many areas, such as inspirational speaker, but a "life story" does not give you abilities in skilled areas--does not, for example, make you a first quality mathematician or computer programmer.
That said, I have some supplemental comments on the Central Division of the National League. With present balck holes in left field, and at third base, the cardinals are still not a truly "good" team. However, with both Ludwick and rookie Rasmux getting got, they MAY stick around to the end, with a chance to win the division (the wild card still comes out of the West). I now have eliminated Milwaukee, unelss they pick up pitching help. Even though Milwaukee is still second in the divisioin, their pitching is just NOT GOOD ENOUGH (even if "qualified"). Their hitting is pretty good, but can't make up for the pitching deficiency (as the Cardinal hitting could not last year). I now reduce the Central Divisnon race to three--a DIFFERENT "trio" of (mediocore) teams from Dan: St. Louis, Chicago Cubs, and HOUSTON. Houston did not seem to figure, and yet they are playing as well as, or better than, any team in the division. I am TEMPTED to eliminate the Cubs, who have been terrible on the road and have substantial injuries. Even with Derek Lee having heated up, he has had some physical problems. It seems like Ramirez should still be on the DL, although he is back in the lineup. Their catcher is no the DL. I just can't quite eliminate the Cubs, because they have adequate pitching (if healthy), and the potential to eventually catch fire. I don't considrer the Cubs a truly "good" tema, which is my opinion of every team in the division. But I can't quite dismiss them, because of the substaintial flaws in every other team in the division. The team that wins the division will probably be the team that best "corrects" its flaws. The Cardinals, for example, need to do SOMETING aobut Duncan, Ankiel (left field) and thrid base. DeRosa might yet help, but is now on th DL without a Cardinal hit. And which teams will develop MORE FLAWS because of injuries and/or slumps. Baseball players see to suddenlly be very fragile. I still consider the Central Division wide open, but now believe the winner will be one of the three teams named. Isn't it "brave" of me to elminate Milwaukee? I think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)