The View From 1776

Blunting a Democrat/Socialist Campaign Spear Point

The much decried “income gap” between different income sectors is considerably less than Democrat/Socialists and mainstream media propagandists declare it to be.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/27 at 03:26 PM
  1. Mr. Brewton,

    It continues to be annoying to have you constantly refer to "Democrat/Socialist" whenever you are talking about someone with whom you disagree.

    In doing so you slyly combine two epithets, "Democrat," instead of "Democratic" and "Socialist," as a little stinger to give a tiny extra punch to your vile bile.

    In trying to come up with a parallel epithet for your branch of political thinkers I have considered "Conservative/Fascist" - but that is probably not fair, since I do not think you consciously have fascist tendencies.

    How about "Repub/Glen-Beckian"? "Repub" to repeat your discourtesy of not providing the full party title, and GB to capture your wild irrationality -- but yet give credit to your indomitable persistence in sticking to your point of view?

    Anyone else out there have an dea for a sizzling term that would mirror Tom's "Democrat/Socialist"?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/28  at  08:50 AM
  2. JJ-

    How about referring to me as
    a "Lincoln/ Republican"

    Or a Republican/Patriot ?

    And for the other side:
    How about

    A George Wallace/Demorat

    or best of all:

    A Jimmy Carter Democrat
    Posted by bill greene  on  10/28  at  11:46 AM
  3. Mr. Jay:

    If you do develop a term for those of us with whom you disagree, don't use Fascist. The Fascists were nationalistic socialists.

    My use of the term Democrat/Socialist is spot-on accurate. The old Democratic Party has been taken over by the Bill Ayer / David Axelrod wing of the extreme socialistic-anarchistic left.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/28  at  01:28 PM
  4. To all you Angels and Demons out there--Let's get back to The Actual Posting:

    It is certainly true that the figures cited by the agitators for "reform" are always questionable. As someone said: "Figures don't lie, but Liars figure!"

    Almost all statistical data can be manipulated or distorted. What is more alarming is that most statistics put out by governmental agencies are inaccurate. Many are based in large part on estimates and subject to later revision. The revisions often dwarf the original change reported. (When you distort and manipulate inaccurate data you get Democratic spin)

    The recent CBO calculation that the Obama healthcare would not increase the deficit was a case in point. The calculation was based on estimates for an over-all result over the next ten years--but with no expenses charged the first three years--a totally fabricated and misleading number.

    A good reason to be against the Health Care Bill is that our government cannot even estimate inflation right--let alone run the health industry.
    Posted by bill greene  on  10/28  at  04:39 PM
  5. I agree with the other poster. You should call them Democratics/Flaming Radical Leftists. Never "liberal" since they're not in the least bit liberal.

    But back to the Northwestern U report.
    "Only the top 10% of US earners have seen their incomes grow faster than productivity since 1966... For top corporate executives, however, non-market forces (CEO-Board complicity in pay setting) are important, so other policies are warranted... wage increases of skilled occupations like engineers and computer programmers have been remarkably slow compared to the rapid income gains of managers... This enrichment of the concept of SBTC helps to answer an objection we posed in our 2005 paper, where we cited evidence showing that there was no relative increase in the starting salaries of engineering and science BAs in the 1980s relative to humanities BAs, and in fact the reverse was true. Further, there were no above-average wage increases for the occupational groups most directly involved with the development and use of computers, namely, 'engineers' and 'math/computer'. During 1979
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/28  at  05:31 PM
  6. This is more off the subject than even partisan epithets--but interesting none the same:

    "The party is over for tourists who visit Barcelona, where a "Happy Hour" ban is now in effect.

    USA Today reported on October 15 that Catalonia, a popular tourist region that includes Barcelona, will forbid bars from running drink specials.

    This means no more two-for-one drinks at certain hours, no unlimited drinks at a flat fee, and no ladies night specials.

    The United Kingdom Press Association said that the new rule is part of a regional health bill that hopes to combat the binge drinking problem in the city. Violators will face fines of up to $9,000 or might even be forced to close their doors.

    According to a story by Barcelona Reporter, the Public Health Act was put in place because of the millions of euros the Spanish health service spends as a result of over-indulgence in alcohol. The bill is specifically aimed at combating excessive drinking among young people, including tourists who frequent Barcelona for pre-Wedding parties.

    UKPA reported that Spanish Health Minister Trinidad Jimenez "described the measure as positive and said similar measures will be considered in a new national health bill that is being prepared."

    Actually this story off AOL News is relevant to the post at hand--This new fiat in Spain is based on a study that links drinking to health care costs. The findings may be wrong but the government still will take drastic action to fix what may not be a real problem.

    This same issue came up with banning cigarettes in America because of their high cost to health care. However, cigarette smokers allegedly die young from heart disease or lung cancer-- a much lower burden on taxpayers than those non-smokers who live on into dementia and incur huge medical costs for transplants, etc. The unintended consequences for Spain may be increased health care costs. But the statistics and government logic are, as usual, incomplete, inconsistent and flawed.

    Note this action requires the Spanish government to be in the business of banning, fining and closing doors--all punitive authoritarian behaviors. A preview of things to come in America under Obamacare.
    Posted by bill greene  on  10/28  at  05:32 PM
  7. "the higher tiers, who disproportionately live in much higher-cost cities on the East Coast, upper Midwest, and the Left Coast"

    Yes, there's a correlation. But are the high executive compensation packages part of the cause for the high costs of living?

    Why are NY, Los Angeles, San Francisco (and SiliValley), Chicago, and the San Diego suburbs of Rancho Santa Fe and Fairbanks Ranch such high cost of living areas? The last 2 aint that beeeeautiful, though the weather is kind of nice. The other areas are hideously over-populated and over-crowded, meaning that, it may be necessary to offer a premium to get people to put up with living there, but it also means that an awfully lot of people have been persuaded to locate there. My limited visits to Los Angeles and the SF area didn't disclose any special draw.

    I know the early movie-makers chose Los Angeles because the weather was better for more of the year than the places from which they moved, back in a time when lighting and such were very important, and the systems for producing it didn't work well with clouds and wetness.

    So, it could be that it requires paying people for to get them to live in such rotten places. Or it could be that some "compensation leaders" drive up the local costs of living.

    A look at the histories of the development of each may reveal far more. I know that arbitrary decisions by certain individuals have had marked effects on the locations of some cities (e.g. Cincinnati, OH where an officer saw a pretty woman, thus turning the planned city into what is still a small village and the block-house into the city; Fort Wayne, IN where a wealthy merchant made sure they had good roads and then railroads) that you'd normally expect would be based wholly on access to natural ports, navigable rivers, good steadily replenished fresh water supplies, etc.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/28  at  05:54 PM
  8. J.Jay,

    I am sure you socialists would like nothing better than we concede to your demand. But, there is nothing untoward in calling Democrats (and Democrat was a perfectly acceptable term for you guys until very recent times) or in conflating you with socialists, because these days they mean one the same thing. If there is any discrepancy, it is in socialists pretending you are nothing of the sort and hijacking the venerable old
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/28  at  06:57 PM
  9. For those wishing to read Dr. Gordon's analysis more directly and in greater detail try:
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/28  at  07:11 PM
  10. Bob,

    I appreciate the effort you took to reply to my complaint (and I found your historical perspective enlightening). However I must disagree with your argument, if only on purely diction grounds.

    "Democrat" is the accepted noun for us folks on the left. And no, you should not refer to individuals of the Democratic party as "Democratics."

    "Democratic" is the adjectival form of the noun, for in modifying other nouns. So when you refer to something that on the left you add the "ic" to indicate you are making an ajective. (This kind of thing is generally taught in high school.)

    Several years ago Rush Limbaugh, et. al. took to using the noun form of the word as an adjective (as in "Democrat" Party) to be cute and sarcastic. This coinage has now gained currency with those on the far right who have little respect for others or even for the sad deterioration of English usage.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/30  at  10:28 AM
  11. JJ

    That is all very correct (I think) but in the vernacular, with tongue part way in cheek, I still like to hear it as "Demorat." By omitting the "c" there is a subtle comparison to the laboratory experiments where scientists use rodents to determine how far they can manipulate the behavior of mammalian species--and that is just what liberal Leftist Democrats try to do with American citizens as part of their Big Government programs. So the term I suggest has a metaphorical justification, not to mention its representing a serious commentary on today's political debates.

    But, semantics aside, this post was about the misuse of statistics and I hoped you would respond to my posted comment (#6 above) suggesting that the Spanish government's banning of Happy Hours will actually cost more than it saves in medical costs? And if in doubt, is the banning of personal vices, the closing of businesses, and imposition of fines, all administered by additional bureaucrats, worth the decrease in personal liberty and the public expense created by their policy?
    Posted by bill greene  on  10/30  at  03:18 PM
  12. J. Jay,

    You obviously did not get the question was rhetorical and in jest. This still begs the question why you Democrats get so bent out of shape that we call your party the Democrat Party (which was the official designation at one time) as the party of Democrats. Your party isn't especially democratic or about making our country more
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/31  at  11:23 AM
  13. Bob,

    By now I have a more than a few white hairs on my head and my recollection of the onset of the usage of "democrat party" for "democratic party" does not go back beyond Limbaugh - but I will admit that I have not researched this issue and am prepared to be proved wrong.

    However, I think the whole issue loses traction when you consider that in fairly representing the views of another group in collegial and civilized debate, you should adopt whatever term the other group selects as their moniker - unless you intend to sway the argument by ad hominum attacks rather than by the weight of your argument.

    And finally, on your other question, whether the government of Spain oversteps it authority in restricting booze sales as a public heath measure, the answer probably lies in the Spanish Constitution, with which I am not familiar. In this country it has been long accepted to control alcohol to some degree (age, day of week, place, distance to a school, etc.) and to the nth degree during prohibition. If you argue against any control at all of alcohol sales, you then have to consider whether controls on other intoxicants (hemp comes to mind) should also be lifted.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/01  at  08:07 PM
  14. JJ-- You must be an intellectual!--You cloud the issue with trivia--Spain is banning happy hours at public restaurants and bars to presumably lower government paid-for medical care. It is not a question of banning all alcohol sales or the Constitution. It is a question simply of whether it is not too much nanny statism, abridgement of personal freedom, and bad statistics.

    If alcohol kills people early, encouraging happy hours would actually be the correct way to save on medical care costs--wouldn't it? Like with smoking--we should encourage it! If that is true, their curtailing happy hour policy is abridging freedom for a fallacious reason that will actually increase health care costs!

    Personally, as a responsible drinker, I think they should give tax credits for alcohol consumption to help reduce the costs of alzheimer patient care.

    This Spanish thing is just another example of how counter-productive most government policies usually are, and how their statistical justifications are usually inaccurate, misleading, and biased.

    Please consider these implications--we are all still hoping to convert you to our side. David may be a lost cause, but with you, there's hope.

    (P.S. If you go to my website, and "Contact" me, I would like to send you a complimentary copy of my book--"Common Genius." If you could bring yourself to read it through it would help us communicate--It does not advocate Republican or conservative stuff--but it does present the irrefutable historical case for free economies and limited government.)
    Posted by bill greene  on  11/01  at  08:28 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.