Glaivester's Blog

Glaivester Commented on He Told You So by Bernard Avishai

2009-02-07T01:34:16Z

FDR saved laissez-faire from itself.

Laissez-faire did not cause the Depression.

The Federal Reserve did.

Glaivester Commented on I Guess Tax Cuts Aren't Wasteful Spending? by teemunney

2009-02-06T03:34:46Z

Why do you say that the Bush tax cuts are a money giveaway to the wealthy?

Because it gives them money that belongs to the government. You see, all money belongs to the government, and anything the govenment does not take in taxes is a gift to us. Haven't you been listening?

The total cost of the stimulus bill is in the $800-$900 trillion dollar range right now. Big number, sure. I don't need anyone to show me how big it is, Senator Thune.

But what about the total cost of the Bush tax cuts? Try twice the amount of the stimulus bill. And the total cost if (for some reason) they were extended through 2018? Try $4.4 trillion.

I think that in calculating costs, it would make more sense to see what they would cost over 1 year, 2 years, 3 years. If the stimulus lasts for 3 years and the tax cuts for 8, then how much would each cost the first year, the second year, the third year?

Glaivester Commented on What to Do? by YIKES!

2009-02-01T05:48:38Z

YIKES!, you have suggested that you support third parties. Do you have interest in ballot access issues? If so, you can contact me at glaivester at sign yahoo dot com.

I'm a Constitution Party dyed-in-the-wool conservative, but I am willing to work with people of any strip on ballot access issues.

Glaivester Commented on Social Security Reform by Marquis de SeaToShiningSea

2009-02-01T05:44:18Z

There are other options to Republican than just Democrat.

Interestingly enough, I'm a big third-party supporter myself. I guess the last election discouraged me so much that I didn't allow myself to consider that you were too (although as a Constitution Party voter, I think we are probably on the opposite sides of the third party spectrum).

Glaivester Commented on The Gospel according to Obama by Xpostfactoid

2009-02-01T04:38:52Z

A cratotheist means someone who worships the government. It was designed as a play on words, with the root terms for theocrat reversed.

An atheist who is a God worshiper?

I think you try too hard, G.

Well, if she doesn't worship anything, why does she go to church? By calling the US Capitol/Congress her "church," she is saying that, in effect, government is to her what God is to religious people.

Glaivester Commented on The Gospel according to Obama by Xpostfactoid

2009-02-01T02:43:58Z

So you're saying that instead of being a theocrat, she was a cratotheist?

Glaivester Commented on The Gospel according to Obama by Xpostfactoid

2009-02-01T02:40:37Z

I think that that would be the scariest sort of theocrat of them all - someone who worships the government as their God!

Glaivester Commented on The Gospel according to Obama by Xpostfactoid

2009-02-01T02:37:58Z

Remember, when we became independent, most of the states had official religions leftover from colonial rule that were thrown off in relatively quick order by the Bill of Rights!

No, they were not. The states threw them off of their own accord. The Bill of Rights has absolutely nothing to say against the establishment of religion, except by Congress (and by extension the entire Federal government).

The difference between the mainstream, traditional and far less dogmatic (if not nondogmatic) Christian viewpoint and fundamentalism is that it is predisposed to accept changes as they come. In other words, it is essentially open-minded and optimistic where the other viewpoint is closed and pessimistic. It embraces "the other" while dogmatic fundamentalism demands comformity in all ways: in thought and practice in every aspect of life.

It seems to me that what you call the traditional Christian viewpoint is largely humanism dressing itself in the language of Christianity rather than actually being Christianity.

Glaivester Commented on The Gospel according to Obama by Xpostfactoid

2009-02-01T02:30:33Z

I actually advocate for two sane parties vice one that is mostly progressive and another that is clearly off the rails.

Really? I always thought that we had two parties that were clearly off the rails.

Glaivester Commented on Social Security Reform by Marquis de SeaToShiningSea

2009-02-01T02:23:28Z

So your answer is to back republicans?

I don't think that YIKES! ever said that. Then again, I don't actually think that he has an answer.

Glaivester Commented on Social Security Reform by Marquis de SeaToShiningSea

2009-02-01T02:21:46Z

Whenever you hear anyone propose Social Security reform, there is one and only one reform to support:
1. Raise the ceiling on the the payroll taxes (eliminate it) and expand it to non-payroll income.
2. Continue the benefits under current practices (as if the ceiling were not eliminated).
3. Use the surplus thus generated to solve the health care finance problems.

What would you do about the "Trust Fund?" Let's be clear here - the "Trust Fund" is simply an accounting of hwo much SS funding has been ploughed into the General Fund plus some estimate of interest, with the implication that the General Fund should be used to cover future SS deficits with the "Trust Fund" being either the maximum or the minimum that the General Fund should pony up.

If you raise the ceiling on the payroll taxes, would you (a) jsut erase the concept of the "Trust Fund," (b) count all additional revenues generated by the elimination of the ceiling (compared each year to what the adjusted ceiling would have been for that year) as General Fund revenues that are paying off the "Trust Fund," or would you (c) keep accounting for new SS surpluses as going toward a "Trust Fund?" If (c), then what would be the significance of the "Trust Fund?"

IF you are going for option (b), would it perhaps be better for accounting purposes to leave FICA the way it is but to alter the brackets for the income tax so that money earned over the limit is taxed at 15% higher, so that the money is counted against the "Trust Fund?"

One other point: considering what the "Trust Fund" really is (accounting of the ploughing of SS surpluses into the General Fund), would it not make sense when calculating the "Trust Fund" to deduct from it tax credits whcih are essentially used to subsidize SS tax cuts out of income tax revenue? (i.e. the "refundable" portion of the EITC, which is essentially designed as a FICA tax cut, should be counted against the Social Security surpluses when calculating the "Trust Fund.")

Glaivester Commented on H.R. 676 by Hilarym99

2009-01-31T15:43:01Z

Er... doesn't the Conyers bill require medical providers who participate to be public or "not-for-profit?" They are not exactly "private practitioners" anymore if they want to participate in the system, so it is a socialized system.

Glaivester Commented on Illegal Immigration - Final Solution? by ttarleton

2009-01-31T15:40:36Z

Luke (who wrote Luke, and I believe, Acts as well) was a Gentile Greek.

Glaivester Commented on Illegal Immigration - Final Solution? by ttarleton

2009-01-31T14:41:31Z

I don't see anyone advocating housing illegal immigrants in these "pens" for a long time. It seems to me that the idea is to house them there while waiting to deport them, with the assumption that if they agree to leave on their own prior to a hearing where they challenge the deportation (essentially analogous to pleading guilty instead of going to trial in a cirminal case or settling out of court in a lawsuit) they would immediately be taken out and sent back to their home country.

This idea may be a bit draconian, but it isn't the same thing as death camps.

Personally, I believe that the goal ought to be simply to deny illegal aliens jobs and most will self-deport. I don't dislike illegal aliens myself. I just like them a lot better in their countries of origin.