We have problems in this country because we don't all speak the same language.

Reasons to agree:

  1. The guy who one 338 million dollars lived in America for 38 years, and doesn't seem to be able to speak any English. He arrived in this country when he was 19. It should not be that easy go through life in this country, without speaking English. People will never assimilate if they don't learn English. They will live separably. Those who spoke German, French, Chinese, Polish, and every other language learned to speak English when they moved here. So should those who speak Spanish. It not just me telling other people how to live our life, its me saying what I think will help us all get along BETTER. We don't want to consider each other "Other" people. We should all assimilate. Maybe some people went too far. I don't know anything about any of my German Heritage. On the one hand that may be bad, but on the other hand, if my German ancestors loved Germany so much, maybe they should have just stayed there.
Reasons to agree:
  1. (I want to represent both sides of this issue. However I don't have enough time to address every issue. Please take what I wrote above as just a conversation starter. I have not made my mind up yet on any issue, but just want to represent both sides of the issue, so if you have a different opinion, please help me explore it by leaving a comment.

The War in Iraq was a huge win for China

  1. The Iraq war cost America trillions of dollars.
  2. We would never have a conventional war with China. They have hundreds, and we have thousands of Nuclear weapons.Nothing we learned in Iraq would help us fight China. Any competition between us and China will be economic in nature, unless one of our countries wants to destroy all human life on this planet. 
  1. The War in Iraq allowed us to get red of all our old ammunition.
  2. The War in Iraq allowed our military to learn a lot. 

When Work Is Punished: The Tragedy Of America's Welfare State


Exactly two years ago, some of the more politically biased progressive media outlets (who are quite adept at creating and taking down their own strawmen arguments, if not quite as adept at using an abacus, let alone a calculator) took offense at our article "In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year." In it we merely explained what has become the painful reality in America: for increasingly more it is now more lucrative - in the form of actual disposable income - to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work. This is graphically, and very painfully confirmed, in the below chart from Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a state best known for its broke capital Harrisburg). As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, "the single mom is better off earnings gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045."

We realize that this is a painful topic in a country in which the issue of welfare benefits, and cutting (or not) the spending side of the fiscal cliff, have become the two most sensitive social topics. Alas, none of that changes the matrix of incentives for most Americans who find themselves in a comparable situation: either being on the left side of minimum US wage, and relying on benefits, or move to the right side at far greater personal investment of work, and energy, and... have the same disposable income at the end of the day.

Naturally, the topic of wealth redistribution is paramount one now that America is entering the terminal phase of its out of control spending, and whose response to hike taxes in a globalized, easily fungible world, will merely force more of the uber-wealthy to find offshore tax jurisdictions, avoid US taxation altogether, and thus result to even lower budget revenues for the US. It explains why the cluelessly incompetent but supposedly impartial Congressional Budget Office just released a key paper titled "Share of Returns Filed by Low- and Moderate-Income Workers, by Marginal Tax Rate, Under 2012 Law" which carries a chart of disposable income by net income comparable to the one above.

But perhaps the scariest chart in the entire presentation is the following summarizing the unsustainable welfare burden on current taxpayers:

  • For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance
  • For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.

The punchline: 110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and rising rapidly.

And since nothing has changed in the past two years, and in fact the situation has gotten progressively (pardon the pun) worse, here is our conclusion on this topic from two years ago:

We have been writing for over a year, how the very top of America's social order steals from the middle class each and every day. Now we finally know that the very bottom of the entitlement food chain also makes out like a bandit compared to that idiot American who actually works and pays their taxes. One can only also hope that in addition to seeing their disposable income be eaten away by a kleptocratic entitlement state, that the disappearing middle class is also selling off its weaponry. Because if it isn't, and if it finally decides it has had enough, the outcome will not be surprising at all: it will be the same old that has occurred in virtually every revolution in the history of the world to date.

But for now, just stick head in sand, and pretend all is good. Self-deception is now the only thing left for the entire insolvent entitlement-addicted world.

* * *

Full must read presentation: "Welfare's Failure and the Solution"

Governments are inefficient

  1. Governments are monopolistic and monopolies (lack of competition) lead to inefficiency. People are not as strongly motivated to improve when they have a monopoly.
  2. Big organizations are hard to change and change is needed in order to continually ensure organizations maximize efficiency. Very few organizations are able to stay efficient over time. Only one fortune 100 company from 1900 is still on the list.
  3. Governments tend to have inefficient policies
  4. Governments don't have to be efficient in order to get money and Organizations that don't have to be efficient will not choose to be efficient 
  5. Very few organizations are able to stay efficient over time. 
  6. Governments don't reward efficiency as well as the private sector. 
  7. Governments don't punish inefficiency as well as the private sector. Businesses that aren't efficient go out of business.

The federal government should return power to the states and the people

  1. The federal government does many things that the states can do better. 
  2. The federal government should not duplicate things the states do better. 
  3. It is wrong for one state to get free stuff, and make another state pay for it. 
  4. Money should be used as closely to the place that it was raised as possible.
  5. The federal government should mostly only do things that the individual states all agree are OK.

Sub Mitt

By Mark Steyn

Via the Other McCain, I'm belatedly catching up with this analysis in The Washington Post:

In fact, as the chart below details, Republican Senate candidates under-performed GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney in most of the important races of 2012.

In five races, the GOP candidate under-performed Romney by at least nine points. This includes Reps. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) and Rick Berg (R-N.D.), who both lost in states that Romney carried by at least 13 points.

In New Hampshire we didn't have any senate races, but the same phenomenon was observable downticket, including for both GOP House seats. Statewide, Charlie Bass, who's a classic RINO squish, and Frank Guinta, who isn't, drew about six per cent fewer votes than Mitt, and both lost. Regardless of what kind of Republican you are, the electorate was antipathetic to you.

In other words, whatever the weaknesses of a supposedly weak candidate, the party was weaker. With hindsight, that first debate performance appears to have made Mitt sufficiently likeable for a narrow slice of voters to overlook the R after his name. The candidate was less of a problem than the Republican brand.