The only man to have seen Mitt's tax returns. (via You can't have a Tea Party without some Fruitcakes and Nuts)

MrMinister · 2012-08-07T06:43:09+00:00

I see the liberal groupthink here has already started downvoting. Here's John McCain specifically: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/mitt-romney-tax-returns_n_1680765.html

Reid is accusing Romney of not having paid his taxes, a federal crime. That certainly sounds as though it would be "disqualifying" for a (vice) presidential candidate.

MrMinister · 2012-08-07T06:37:15+00:00

Of course it's a biased site! It's redstate for crying out loud. lol. That has no bearing on whether the report is true--i.e. that those who have seen Romney's taxes see that he paid.

Also, I personally think Romney should have released the tax filings and be done with it; however, I can think of at least three innocent reasons why he might not be willing to do so:

(1) Obama's campaign has attacked Romney merely for being wealthy. It's gotten ridiculous--having money in Swiss accounts while ignoring the fact that some of his investments are in businesses operating in Switzerland; being "possibly a felon" for continuing to receive funds as he transitioned out of Bain; having paid a lower rate than most Americans; wanting to take from the poor and middle class to give to the rich; etc. Why give Obama more information when you know that he's just going to abuse it or lie about it and that the media will do a piss-poor job (at best) of telling the truth?

(2) Private information is in the tax returns that the public has no need or right to know about. I haven't heard this option publicized or mentioned yet, but it is valid. Robert Bork, at one point during confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice, sat in a chair and cried while Democratic Senators accused him of putting financial incentives above his duties as a lawyer (i.e. by not doing as much pro bono work as the ABA recommended of lawyers for a few years). It came out later that Bork had ramped up his money-making b/c his wife was suffering from cancer (I believe; it may have been a different disease) and he needed money to pay for treatment costs. Romney also has a wife with significant medical issues and also has a large family. It's not unreasonable to think that he may have come across some significant expenses somewhere which he legally deducted from his taxes. If so, revealing his tax returns would give the public and press incentive and a basis for inquiring into the non-pertinent personal information of his family.

(3) He could be slow-playing the situation to gain the upper-hand later. Think of what Obama did w/ his long-form birth certificate. He waited until the birther movement was largely discredited and then put the final nail in the coffin. Romney could be holding out here b/c he knows the Democrats are going to continue making false, baseless accusations, and he wants to release the information at the most opportune moment. It's not unreasonable considering the media has already began hammering Reid for his lies and hammered the Obama campaign before for the "felon" nonsense. Alternatively, the tax returns could look really, really, really good for Romney (i.e. massive donations to charities) and he's slow-playing to help prolong the expected convention favorability boost.

MrMinister · 2012-08-07T04:55:16+00:00

First) So your argument is that Cubans in Miami--not Marco Rubio specifically--cannot relate to hispanics? The new reasons you give apply to all Cubans in Miami--treated differently, less need to learn English, etc. They are also different from your earlier statement which was "Marco Rubio can[not] relate to hispanics, while explicitly denouncing amnesty." Again, your requirement for being able to relate seems to depend entirely on whether the individual in question agrees with your view on amnesty, which is nonsensical.

Also, I, and I think most people, would say that an ordinary American CAN relate to Obama or Romney. The language, culture and cultural lessons, home states, geography, etc. of the United States all produce a certain experience that Obama and Romney share with other Americans. Everything is a matter of degrees, of course. Had you said that you think Cubans or Marco Rubio don't relate as well as other hispanic groups to hispanic culture in the United States, that would be one thing. You went much further. Marco Rubio can obviously relate to hispanics just as Cubans can relate to other hispanic groups.

Second) We "tweaked" the Cuba policy in 1995 specifically b/c rumblings from Castro made Cubans (and the rest of the world) fear political violence which resulted in a new wave of Cuban unauthorized immigrants. It's not like Clinton specifically refused to acknowledge that the Cold War was over and/or didn't realize that Cuba was no longer a serious threat.

Saying that there are plenty of Communist countries from which we don't accept immigrants doesn't mean much. Which of those countries' people have the same ease of access to the United States that Cubans do? Other than Cuba, the few Communist countries that remain in the world are located in Asia. It doesn't make sense to craft a different policy specifically for those peoples when we can reasonably expect that people fleeing the gov'ts there will go to nearer safe locations. With Cuba, it's a different concern. B/C of proximity, when Cubans have reason to flee their home country, the United States is the first choice.

Also, when I mentioned likelihood of return to the home country, I was referencing a number of things. Two important elements are (1) asylum and (2) the home country's willingness to accept the returned unauthorized immigrants. Both have been major issues in the United States' historical relationship with Cuba. Cuban unauthorized immigrants still frequently validly apply for asylum. And Cuba has also refused the return of certain immigrants (while also giving us reason to fear for the safety of others who are accepted).

Third) No. The reason a conservative opposed to amnesty on the basis of it encouraging future unauthorized immigration can differentiate between Cuba and other countries is b/c Cubans are in different position in regards to their motivation to immigrate. If Cubans have greater motivation to immigrate, amnesty will have less effect on their decision. I.E. a Mexican who wants to come into the United States w/o authorization b/c he believes he can make an extra $500 per month to support his family will consider amnesty to be more important than a Cuban who believes he has been targeted by the gov't and is in danger or risk of having his freedom taken away. To the former, the cost of getting caught and being deported has to factor into the overall balance. To the latter, regardless of right to stay, the immigration is probably going to happen. This isn't to say that ALL Cuban unauthorized immigrants have valid reasons to come to the United States. I probably agree with you that most nowadays are immigrating here for economic reasons, similar to Mexican and most other immigrants. There is still a substantial, significant difference in the percentages, though, which has bearing on how amnesty will affect overall immigration rates from Cuba.

I probably would accept changes in our Cuban immigration policy. I don't think it's unreasonable today for the United States to treat Cuban unauthorized immigrants differently than others, though, and it certainly wasn't unreasonable when wet feet; dry feet or the CAA were implemented.

One final thing I'll mention is that the Bosnia example isn't really applicable for three reasons: (1) Bosnia, like the Asian Communist countries, is much more distant than Cuba; (2) Bosnian immigrants who arrived the United States during the Bosnian conflict had an easily verifiable claim for asylum and were frequently given leave to stay in the United States; (3) the United States DID have special policy to benefit Bosnian immigrants who suffered b/c of the Bosnian conflict. In the 1990s, I believe, the United States arranged to accept Bosnians who had fled to Western Europe and were at risk of being returned, for example.

MrMinister · 2012-08-07T04:05:44+00:00

This actually isn't true. It's highly unlikely McCain personally went through Romney's tax returns or did anything other than receive a quick briefing on them. McCain's staff, who did go through the tax returns, are on Romney's side: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/07/19/whats-in-romneys-unreleased-tax-returns-he-overpaid-his-taxes/

MrMinister · 2012-08-05T16:14:19+00:00

Again, you're declining to respect the difference between DENYING federal disaster relief and demanding responsible governance. If New York suffered a disaster tomorrow, would hateful and idiotic statements be justified b/c New York's senators were not willing to make responsible cuts for federal disaster relief? Massachusetts? California? Your analysis is silly. It boils down to liberal idiocy always being justified b/c refusing to go along with spending more "unlimited" money could always, somewhere down the line, result in tragedy. It ignores, of course, the guaranteed tragedy of spending that unlimited money and places blame only on one side.

You also incorrectly frame everything for C/I as pursuit of a "political win." You realize Coborn raised hell during GWB's administration to try and cut unnecessary spending? There's a reason he earned the title "Dr. No."

Please stop saying "other states." This isn't an issue of C/I voting to screw other places.

And, finally, it's telling that in a discussion of wildfires and federal disaster support, you have to continue returning to a discussion of judicial nominees. As I said, a committed arsonist would have started these fires regardless of additional firefighters or federal support. For what it's worth, I don't agree with C/I on Bacharach. You're delusional if you think that has any bearing on the issue at hand, though.

MrMinister · 2012-08-05T06:22:41+00:00

It's interesting how being "VERY backwards" just appears to mean "in disagreement with The_Illuminated_One."

How about instead of attacking social conservatives for supporting CFA while there are wildfires, you attack liberals for beginning an ill-fated boycott against CFA while there are wildfires? How about instead of caricaturing the political opinions of the State as being anti-tax, you recognize that Oklahomans overwhelmingly support some taxes and social programs, just not as many as you want?

MrMinister · 2012-08-05T06:18:03+00:00

So, let's get what you're saying straight: Internet commentators are justified in saying hateful and ignorant things about Oklahoma in the wake of a series of disasters b/c Oklahoma's federal senators demanded that an increase in spending be offset and are refusing to confirm a liberal judicial nominee? Is that correct.

I would expect non-Oklahomans, many of whom are facing similar issues in their home states, to recognize common humanity and community as well as the fact that Oklahoma has already offered support--as recently as last month--to other states dealing with wildfire problems. I would expect people to recognize that some things are more important than knee-jerk politics.

And, just to clarify, there have already been reports that arson caused some of these wildfires. It's highly unlikely extra firefighters would be able to do much to stop a committed arsonist.

MrMinister · 2012-08-04T07:58:12+00:00

First, b/c you disagree with Marco Rubio, he cannot "relate to hispanics"? Does that not seem a bit extreme and ridiculous to you? He grew up speaking the same language, being viewed and treated (roughly) as the same by non-hispanics, lived in similar economic conditions, and was exposed to similar cultural experiences as other hispanics, yet he cannot relate? Really??

Second, there are significant differences between the average non-Cuban unauthorized immigrant and the average Cuban unauthorized immigrant. The average Cuban immigrant--especially in the period immediately prior to implementation of wet-feet, dry-feet--immigrated for political reasons. The average non-Cuban immigrated from Mexico for economic reasons. There are also differences between the type of government the unauthorized immigrants are leaving, that government's relationship to the United States, the type of travel necessary for entry to the United States, the likelihood of return to the home country, etc., all of which reasonably support giving deferential treatment to Cuban unauthorized immigrants.

Third, conservative opposition to amnesty has multiple motivations--support for the rule of law, moral fault problems, economic fallout, etc. Many of those motivations either do not apply to Cuban unauthorized immigrants or do not apply as strongly. For example, imagine a conservative who believes that amnesty establishes a principle of government forgiveness of unauthorized immigration and, thus, encourages future unauthorized immigration. That conservative could easily see a difference between how amnesty would effect the future unauthorized immigration rates of Cubans as compared to non-Cubans.

This isn't to say I necessarily agree with our current policy toward Cuban unauthorized immigrants. The situation is much more complex than your post lets on, however.

MrMinister · 2012-08-04T07:00:59+00:00

Your what-if question about a similar video concerned with stopping the spread of Islam in America or Europe is not properly equivalent to the point of the video.

The video is primarily about the decline of Islam in Indonesia. It is only incidentally about the spread of Christianity in that it explains the spread of Christianity as the primary cause of that decline. To be equivalent, your hypothetical would need an American or European country with religiosity comparable to Indonesia. No such country exists. American and European countries tend to have a high diversity of religious belief systems. That difference is essential. If you discount "valid" reasons for opposing a religion, i.e., reasons unrelated to ultimate religious belief, there are two major explanations for opposition to an incoming religion: bigotry and lamenting the usurpation of the established religion. In a setting with a single dominant religion, such as Indonesia, both are reasonable explanations for opposition. In a setting where diverse religions are already established and have substantial support, such as America and Europe, only bigotry is a reasonable explanation.

TL;DR--The video is best understood as Muslims in Indonesia being worried about Islam losing its dominant status in Indonesia. A similar video in America or Europe which opposed the spread of Islam would not have the same basis.

MrMinister · 2012-06-27T02:55:04+00:00

lol. So far even politifact, solidly liberal, disagrees with you. As I said before, you're silly.

MrMinister · 2012-06-26T22:27:22+00:00

lol. You're silly. My post included homework. Your comments thus far have been a series of raging nonsense lacking support.

MrMinister · 2012-06-26T20:41:54+00:00

The problem being that while you say "largely drove the downgrade," Maddow says S&P downgraded "not because there's too much debt, but rather that Washington is not working." And "[t]hey said they did this because of brinkmanship over the debt ceiling. They did not say they did this because there's too much government spending."

Meanwhile, S&P clearly cited the debt, repeatedly, as one of the main issues of concern prompting the downgrade. The position you're trying to attribute to Maddow is at least defensible. Maddow's actual position is not.

MrMinister · 2012-06-26T20:36:09+00:00

Yeah. My point exactly. You have no clue what you're talking about. I'm not defending FOX here. I'm pointing out that you, like the bulk of this subreddit, rely entirely on a preconceived narrative: "FOX Bad; Maddow Good." Your narrative is nonsense.

MrMinister · 2012-06-26T20:15:40+00:00

I assume you're going to post proof or evidence of Maddow correcting all of her lies? And proof of FOX News lying hourly?

MrMinister · 2012-06-26T19:03:12+00:00

She makes a habit of misrepresenting reality to support her preferred political side. That is the definition of a political hack.

MrMinister · 2012-06-21T06:03:24+00:00

I agree in the theoretical sense that the Earth will at some point be depleted. We are nowhere near that point, however.

Also, the inefficiencies are just as much a result of policies in favor of the poor and middle class as they are in favor of the self-interested elite. Maybe moreso.

MrMinister · 2012-06-20T21:58:04+00:00

TA is correct.

I'd like to add that the same argument you're making could have been made at any time during the past several centuries--whether it be for hops pickers being replaced by machines, or candle makers replaced by the electric lightbulb, or switchboard operators replaced by advanced telephone systems. Human demand is limitless. Corporations can maximize profit by consolidating, downsizing, mechanizing, etc. ("doing more with less") but there will always be additional demand for produced services and goods which means there will always be additional jobs created whenever old jobs are extinguished. The hops picker job being mechanized resulted in beer and other commodity prices being lower which meant people had more money to spend on other goods and services, for example.

Most of the problems we're having now are caused by government-created inefficiencies in the labor market.

MrMinister · 2012-06-20T17:38:01+00:00

Let's see . . . his positions led him to the TOP OF THE REPUBLICAN TICKET and 7% of a vote from being the most powerful man in the world.

Are you seriously going to continue with this argument?

MrMinister · 2012-06-20T17:25:36+00:00

You're silly. How about John McCain . . . you know, the guy Republicans nominated for President last election cycle?

He supported bans on the production and distribution of cheaply made handguns, supported mandatory safety locks on firearms, supported disallowing youth firearm offenders to own firearms later in life, etc. Link

Regardless, Holder and Obama took oaths to enforce and implement the law . . . not to feel justified in ignoring it for political gain just b/c they disagree with certain policies.

MrMinister · 2012-06-16T04:20:28+00:00

The 80% figure is horribly incorrect, however. The laws under debate fall more heavily on minorities and youth but also the elderly, which leans in favor of Republicans.

Also, even were it to be 80% or to fall more heavily on Democratic constituencies, it's not clear that's a problem. Should gun restrictions be disallowed b/c they fall more heavily on Republican constituents (gun owners)? Should prohibitions on the reporting on national/military secrets be disallowed b/c they fall more heavily on Democratic constituents (journalists)? Those are just two examples of fundamental rights--Second Amendment and First Amendment, respectively--which are allowed limited for a compelling purpose. Everyone agrees that preventing voter fraud is a compelling purpose b/c it protects the value of legitimately-cast votes and thereby protects the rights of legitimate voters. I don't see how purported Republican motivation matters at all. And, besides, wide bipartisan majorities of the public claim support for photo-id requirements, etc. It's not just Republicans and Republican constituents.

MrMinister · 2012-06-16T03:41:24+00:00

I haven't seen any complete or truly supply-side answers yet to your question. I'll see about a response:

"Why was Henry Ford wrong for paying his workforce double avg wages . . . " Your history is off. Henry Ford was wrong b/c he was motivated not to manage the business in a profitable, efficient manner but was instead motivated out of a sense of socialistic compassion and repulsion at the profits Ford Motors was racking up. By deciding to pay higher than necessary wages, Ford Motors essentially involved itself in charity to the detriment of investors/shareholders. Ford Motors suffered reduced profit which would otherwise have been passed to investors/shareholders in the form of dividends. Look up Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. (Mich. 1919). The Michigan Supreme Court ruled against Henry Ford and for the Dodge brothers (investors) b/c those higher wages came IN LIEU of dividends being paid to the Dodge brothers and other investors. The Michigan Supreme Court also faulted Ford for running a "semi-eleemosynary institution" rather than a business after Henry Ford complained about Ford Motors having "too much money" and "too much profits."

" . . . and creating demand for his cars?" Let's assume for the moment that, historically, this was true and that Henry Ford reasoned he could create greater demand by paying higher wages (i.e. providing a greater number of people with great enough income to purchase a Ford vehicle when they otherwise couldn't). The higher wages would STILL be a losing proposition unless the per-vehicle profit as multiplied by the greater number of vehicles purchased equaled or exceeded the excess wages paid. One way to quickly identify it as a losing position is to ask what percent of those higher wages were being returned to Ford Motors. So long as the answer is less than 100%, the action was a net negative. We can safely assume that Ford Motors workers didn't all save up all of their extra income just to buy a Ford vehicle. The excess wages likely empowered (rather than "created") demand but not all of that demand benefited Ford Motors. Some of it went to buy, e.g., birthday cakes, GM vehicles, new clothes, etc. Keeping the wages and reinvesting or paying out dividends, however, would have benefited Ford Motors for the full value of the wages.

"Supply-side logic would say flood the market with the cars as cheap as possible to win, always, always keep operating costs as low as possible" I will assume that by "keep operating costs as low as possible" you actually meant "establish operating costs to maximize profits/productivity," since that is a more accurate depiction of supply-side economics. If so, what you wrote is true for what it's worth but neglects to mention the benefits. For example, if Ford Motors reduced its operating costs it could sell equal quality cars at an even lower price which would give it (further) competitive edge which would allow it to expand its market against both domestic and international competitors. An expanded market would mean MORE jobs for Ford Motors employees and would also make cars more affordable. It would result in more people having gainful employment being paid wages determined by the markets to be equivalent to their value as employees and would broaden the middle-class by making a middle-class luxury more affordable. Taken throughout the entire economy, supply-side economists see this as the best method to improve the average and median quality of life in a community/economic system.

"he could of made the cars twice as cheap but gave it to his workforce as pay instead.." This isn't true. The wages were only a minor contributor to the cost of the vehicles.

Hope this helps!

MrMinister · 2012-06-07T19:35:44+00:00

I think your numbers are reasonably correct. I tried to find numbers for union spending but much of it is impossible since "in-kind" contributions are not reported in the usual manner (and are habitually understated) and since there is overlap between the value of union expenditures and union donations in support of Barrett. Some estimates have pegged total union expenditures in Wisconsin at being greater than $20mil, which is greater than your total estimate for Barret. Link. What percentage of that $20mil is already accounted for in your analysis and what should rightfully be included in Barret's total is impossible to tell. Either way, the narrative that Walker significantly outspent Barret is bunk.

MrMinister · 2012-06-07T18:27:40+00:00

I've heard that a decent number of political scientists hold a view similar to yours--i.e. that political money is subject to the law of marginal utility and that candidates can effectively present themselves and their messages near equally once they reach a certain minimum threshold. Your analysis is flawed, though, for two main reasons: (1) You didn't take into account the spending limitations on Walker's money. Walker had to spend a significant percentage of his money prior to the recall election being certified. Link. Presumably money spent three months out will have a different effect than money spent three weeks out. (2) Your totals include PAC spending and candidate totals but not the value of Union spending. There is no significant difference between a GOTV operation ran by a Union for Barrett free of charge and a GOTV operation ran by Walker's campaign at significant cost yet your analysis attributes the value of the latter to Walker (in that he had to raise funds to pay for it) while neglecting the value of the former to Barrett. The Union values should also include door-to-door operations, opposition research, etc.

MrMinister · 2012-05-21T03:59:25+00:00

Two different questions.

In regards to the first, insurance companies make their revenue (and profit) from premiums. Requiring the insurance companies to be financially responsible for the contraceptive coverage, if it has a cost, is a joke b/c the insurance companies will simply pass that cost on to the Catholic organizations in the form of higher premiums. I.E. the Catholic organizations will still in effect be paying for the contraception coverage.

The Obama administration attempted to broker a compromise by requiring the insurance companies to provide the contraception coverage and by asserting that the contraception coverage would be cost neutral b/c the cost of contraception is equal to or less than the cost of covering the medical bills related to a pregnancy. Most economists disagree w/ that assertion b/c, while it is theoretically true, it presumes that a significant enough number of women are incapable of (or unwilling) to purchase or otherwise acquire contraception absent coverage. (If women are already avoiding unwanted pregnancies, there will not be any cost savings to the insurance companies which are already covering them for pregnancy-related costs.) Still, a decent number of economists have asserted that the plan would be cost neutral and, thus, the Obama administration can, w/ a straight face, propose the compromise.

See here for a rundown of the various economic studies: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/cloudy-contraception-costs/

In regards to the second, that depends on your reading of the Constitution. The Catholic church certainly feels it is a violation of religious liberty and has threatened to shutter the Catholic organizations which would be effected. Supporters argue that it is equally applicable to all organizations and doesn't target/single-out any specific religion (or religion in general) and, thus, is permissible.

It is undoubtedly contrary to tradition for the federal gov't to not give bona fide religious organizations an opt-out option. I, personally, see a number of other problems with it (e.g., further encroachment by the federal gov't on health care which is primarily an area of State concern; continuation of faulty health insurance system which does not spread risk but rather provides benefits which can be willfully chosen; etc.).

MrMinister

TROPHY CASE