Disqus - Latest Comments for JohnJ

Re: MsUnderestimated » Blog Archive » Bush’s Speech on His New Plan For Iraq (VIDEO)

JohnJ — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:11:54 -0000

I can't get the video to download.

Re: Can You Help Me Find a Decent Video-Hosting Site That’s Conservative Friendly?

JohnJ — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:52:28 -0000

I like popmodel, but when you embed their videos, they autostart, and that's a pain.

Re: A timely Times correction from 1969

JohnJ — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:31:19 -0000

Skylights: "So even in 1920, know-nothing know-it-alls were railing against the experts. I guess this type of anti-intellectual, anti-elitism has always been with us."

Then, as now, the know-nothing know-it-alls were the experts.

Re: Framing the 'Trade Deficit'

JohnJ — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:01:43 -0000

First (if you don't mind my breaking in), there's the fact that social security, welfare, medicare, and the like have grown to encompass half the federal budget. The last time something like this happened, it was FDR prolonging the Great Depression. "Social Security works"? To do what? "The free market distributes goods too efficiently"? That sounds very Marxist! What you're suggesting is taxing someone for the "privilege" of being born in America. That's the opposite of freedom. It has been solidly proven that voluntary charities handle welfare more efficiently than government ever has. Government's job is to protect us from fascism, those who would seek to impose their will on us. The deficits are growing faster because our welfare programs are growing faster. Our spending is growing faster than we could ever hope to make up for in tax increases, especially since taxes inhibit growth. Taxes and growth share an inverse relationship. It's true that high growth does not necessarily coincide with low taxes, but high taxes always coincide with low growth.

Incidently, I love the site.

Re: Framing the 'Trade Deficit'

JohnJ — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:46:18 -0000

"the level that our society requires...hence we collectively decide more needs to be done." This is the tyranny of the majority that Plato warned of democracy. We supposedly conquered this tyranny by breaking our nation into provinces that were autonomously run, so that people could choose to live with the majority of their preference, but the increasing federalization of our country threatens to overrule the individual's right. If I and my ilk decide that we would rather live under a free society, what right does government have to seek to impose its will on us?

"By your insinuation that taxes can be too high (Taxes can't be too high? This is not an insinuation; it's a fact!), you concede that their(sic) is a correct level of spending and taxes...an equilibrium..arrived at by a political consensus...since it is arrived at in that manner, it is not tyranny--as you libertarians like to proclaim." It is tyranny whenever one person forces their will on another, by definition. And I'm not a libertarian, I'm a conservative.

"They are popular and they are effective at what they do. Period." Popular? Yes. Effective? No. This is a proveable claim, so prove it. But you can't, and you won't, so your point is lost. I double-dog dare you to try to prove that government is a more effective charity than private charities.

Re: Sowell on Classical Economics

JohnJ — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:46:51 -0000

After reading Applied Economics, I ordered two more books by this incredibly intelligent guy, who is quite possibly the smartest person in the world (except for that idea about having trained jurists, but it may just be that I'm not smart enough to comprehend it).

Re: Immigration Economics

JohnJ — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:48:39 -0000

The Linda Chavez article was actually very enlightening. Being able to use some real figures instead of the hypothetical figures most people want to discuss helps. Working to greater legal immigration rates sounds very reasonable, as well as doing more to discourage illegal immigration. As a side note, Mexico rigorously defends its southern border against illegal immigrants.

Re: Spin

JohnJ — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:56:45 -0000

While perception may play a part, people who actually do purchase higher quality goods tend to have more success at whatever they do, since they tend to be using higher quality goods with which to achieve success. Perception is not reality.

Re: More on immigration and wages

JohnJ — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:13:49 -0000

Why do discussions about immigration tend to refuse to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration?

Legal immigration - good.

Illegal immigration - bad.

Immigration is good for all the economic reasons people are saying and more.

Illegal immigration is bad for all the economic reasons people are saying and more.

JohnD, most voters favor a tough stance on illegal immigration, so political suicide it wouldn't be. I agree that it is unlikely, though.

Re: The Reddest of Red Herrings

JohnJ — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 21:28:30 -0000

I suppose the best way to bring this up is with a question.

Though Americans tend to have higher skills than many immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, what about the low-skilled Americans who are legally required to turn down any job offering less than minimum wage, that can then be taken by those who see no need to concern themselves with the law of minimum wage? Do these Americans not make up the bulk of our current unemployed?

Re: The Reddest of Red Herrings

JohnJ — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:26:57 -0000

25 percent of 12 million is four million.

5 percent of 100 million (my guess at the "employable". If I'm significantly off, please correct me.) is five million.

Hmm...

Both of my figures should be too high. I'm sure not all of the twelve million illegal immigrants are considered "workers", just as I'm sure that my estimate of a "100 million worker" force of Americans is too high.

But I'd like to see if the actual proportions are close. Does anyone have any numbers to go on?

Re: The Reddest of Red Herrings

JohnJ — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:29:21 -0000

Just to point it out, that "fact" is attributed to this quote from your article, JohnD:

"Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant.

'Our assumption is that about three-quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes,' said Stephen C. Goss, Social Security's chief actuary, using the agency's term for illegal immigration."

That's a heck of an assumption.

Re: The Reddest of Red Herrings

JohnJ — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:05:26 -0000

3 million, of course.

JohnD, are you suggesting that all or a vast majority of illegal immigrants who work work for minimum wage or more?

Is that really what you believe?

Re: The Reddest of Red Herrings

JohnJ — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:20:26 -0000

Many workers claim there are two sets of wages - one for citizens or green-card holders, and a lower wage for illegal immigrants.

"They pay me less because I don't have papers," said Mandy, 27, a clerk at a women's clothing shop.

http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/29398...>

''Cleaning contractors deliberately seek out an undocumented work force because they want workers they can intimidate and exploit,'' said Lilia Garcia, executive director of the Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund, a Los Angeles group run by business and labor representatives, which investigates janitorial companies to uncover illicit practices. ''Workers who are here legally would not work for the wages that they pay.''

http://www.lexisone.com/news/nlibrary/n071305h....>

Well, you asked.

Re: The Reddest of Red Herrings

JohnJ — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:21:44 -0000

But I realize that my news sources might not be as authoritive as your two personal friends.

Re: The Reddest of Red Herrings

JohnJ — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:35:30 -0000

"1.7 million (U.S. workers) take home

even less (than the minimum wage) because the law doesn't cover them."

http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubb...>
(I don't know how to do that "tinyurl" thing)

But I'm sure that those 1.7 million are legal residents who have the protection of the law, as opposed to illegal aliens, who are more willing to accept jobs that don't question whether or not the law covers them.

It seems to me that we're kind of getting off the point here, though.

Re: The Reddest of Red Herrings

JohnJ — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:42:31 -0000

I'm gonna cut you off at the pass, JohnD. I'll go ahead and admit that that study doesn't prove that those 1.7 million people are still receiving less than minimum wage. Since I can't prove that it's happening right now at this very instant, I guess you're right. Sadly, that 1.7 million figure falls pretty close to 10 percent of 12 million people, but I'm sure that's not evidence in my favor or anything. Plus that discounts all the people brought here illegaly to engage in illegal industries, such as sexual slavery.

Re: The Reddest of Red Herrings

JohnJ — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:22:47 -0000

I agree. There's not enough information out there to come to a solid conclusion. One could pretty much "what if" any of this to death.

Re: The Best Deal Going

JohnJ — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:52:46 -0000

Don't forget how you support the economy every time you buy something! Support Americam entrepreneurism; buy something! Anything!

Re: Infinite Desires and Finite Means

JohnJ — Wed, 10 May 2006 19:16:15 -0000

It seems to me that wealth is really no more than a form of security, giving comfort that we have the ability to control our world and that we will be able to protect ourselves. Those without wealth often find ways to enjoy life without that degree of security, or find other ways to boost their idea of power. It's those who believe that wealth is happiness who are often disappointed, while those who see wealth as a means to an end are more able to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Re: Immigration and Assimilation

JohnJ — Tue, 23 May 2006 10:20:01 -0000

Immigration is a problem in any democracy. This is why every nation has a right to control its borders.

Re: A Not-So-Timely Proposal

JohnJ — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:10:58 -0000

How about a law that people who earn less have to drive more slowly? Since their time is worth less to them, this would be a way to cut down on fuel consumption while maintaining a healthy respect for the individual's time. This could even be correlated with the individual's choice in vehicle. If he or she has a more fuel efficient car, then he or she may drive faster. It makes sense, in a liberal kind of way.

I predict a huge increase in wages for people who drive for a lving, though.

Re: Hocus-Pocus Indeed

JohnJ — Fri, 01 May 2009 22:29:09 -0000

Because everyone knows that Bush's biggest problem were that his intentions weren't good enough. Of course, liberals believe that Bush was both genuinely stupid AND evil.

Re: An Unintended Consequence

JohnJ — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:48:24 -0000

But what if I have gas?

Re: An Unintended Consequence

JohnJ — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:48:01 -0000

But what if I have gas?