Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
'William Wollaston's 1722 book The Religion of Nature Delineated describes the "truest definition" of "natural religion" as being "The pursuit of happiness by the practice of reason and truth.'
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Interesting how she refers to Dawkins as an idiot. He is one of the
most learned people I can think of. It is not such a good idea to
tie religion to politics.
There are two basic facts for which the evidence is overwhelming ...
1. The earth us very old.
2. Simpler lifeforms came before more complex ones.
No matter how impossible people say that evolution is, based on these
things we know that it happened. So if it really is impossible i.e.
if we can't explain how it happened (we can), then we would have to
assume that God made evolution happen. I would prefer to look for a
more scientific explanation rather than assume that a miracle
occurred. The purpose of science is to explain how things happen and
not assume that magic made it so. You could assume that at the time
of creation God made the laws of physics, but everything that happened
after that has a mechanism that usually can be determined by science.
'Honest analysts know these facts. But politicians ignore them in favor of sowing suspicion of the industry. The latest "solution" they offer is to reduce supposed tax-code "subsidies" to Big Oil.
In fact, the energy industry is hardly undertaxed: It pays an effective tax rate of 41.1 percent, compared with 26.5 percent for the rest of the S&P Industrials.
More important, this is no subsidy. When a business -- any business -- incurs expenses, it deducts those expenses against its revenues at tax time. In the case of the oil and gas industries, those expenses are overwhelmingly the costs of exploration and production. Some "subsidy."
So the real-world effect of a politically motivated tax penalty on energy companies will be reduced exploration and extraction. Of course, that would be just fine for the green ideologues. For them, the less drilling the better, and the more subsidies for green energy, the better.'
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
On Aug 22, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Larry Trout <utahtrout wrote:
Friday, August 19, 2011
On Aug 19, 2011, at 9:46 AM, larry.r.trout wrote:
'Consider what happened last week when Laura Meckler of this newspaper dared to ask White House Press Secretary Jay Carney how increasing unemployment insurance "creates jobs." She received this slap down: "I would expect a reporter from The Wall Street Journal would know this as part of the entrance exam just to get on the paper."
Mr. Carney explained that unemployment insurance "is one of the most direct ways to infuse money into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren't earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get . . . and that creates growth and income for businesses that then lead them to making decisions about jobs—more hiring."
That's a perfect Keynesian answer, and also perfectly nonsensical. What the White House is telling us is that the more unemployed people we can pay for not working, the more people will work. Only someone with a Ph.D. in economics from an elite university would believe this.
I have two teenage sons. One worked all summer and the other sat on his duff. To stimulate the economy, the White House wants to take more money from the son who works and give it to the one who doesn't work. I can say with 100% certainty as a parent that in the Moore household this will lead to less work.'
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Subject: The Federal Budget• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
...• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000
Now, remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget.
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385
Sorta brings the issue "home" doesn't it.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
'Toomey, a former House member who was elected to the Senate last year with Tea Party backing, is the only member named so far who voted against the legislation that created the committee. At the time, Toomey said he was "concerned that the long-term cuts over the next decade will not materialize."
"All Congress has to do to override this bill's spending restraints in the future is pass another law that overrides them," Toomey said. "If Congress is truly serious about cutting spending, it would mandate serious spending cuts in next year's budget — the only year in which cuts are actually guaranteed."'
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
This sounds nice on paper, but I think that the debt deal was a victory for the big spenders.
Monday, August 1, 2011
'The debt ceiling deal struck by the nation's top lawmakers includes $350 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next decade, according to the White House.
And the deal's second round trigger -- a penalty if lawmakers are unable to get their act together -- would slash another $500 billion over 10 years.
Of course, it might not come to that. What is guaranteed is the initial $350 billion in cuts, which experts say the Defense Department can weather.'
From: "Larry Trout"
'You FAVOR raising the debt ceiling only if Congress
takes action to reduce by trillions of dollars the
amount the government owes 45%
You OPPOSE raising the debt ceiling even if Congress
takes action to reduce the amount the government owes 36%
In another proposal, Congress would raise the debt ceiling only if a balanced budget amendment
were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending
were approved. Would you favor or oppose this proposal?
25. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?