« Veterans May Render Military Flag Salute | Main | Nevada County – A Summer Evening Concert »

02 July 2011

Comments

Todd Juvinall

I was a bit surprised that Tom said he would vote for a short term increase in the ceiling. If our debt payments are 200 billion, that is about one months revenues to the feds and is doable without raising the limit. I guess I am saddened by the willingness to compromise with the democrats on this. The Congress has had three months now since the first Geithner squawk to come to a fix but we are seeing the can kicked down the road again. We are seeing Greece fall apart because their people are unwilling to give a bit up of their largesse so they are now, as a country, begging other to save them. That is what is happening here with the 51% who get a government check. Tom and Congress can cut commiserate with any increase in the debt limit, but I did not hear that on Thursday night.

Ben Emery

George,
Both you and definitely Mr McClintock are rewriting history at least and outright lying at worst.

"The congressman responded by saying that no one in Washington denies Morgenthau’s assessment of FDR depression era policies; it is a matter of historical record that on the eve of WW2 Morgenthau lamented that Keynesian government spending programs had not worked and had resulted only in increasing the national debt."

The history shows that until the the ill advised conservative idea of balancing the budget in a financial crisis of 37' the FDR policies were working quite well. From inheriting the depression from Hoover and the laissez faire 20's of low Top Marginal Tax Rates, trading on margin, and housing bubble. 1932 unemployment was near 25% and every year until 1937 it went down, 1936 unemployment was just under 17%. Banks were regulated and we didn't see another bank crash until reagan started the deregulating and the Savings and Loans crashed in the 80's. In 1938 the unemployment rated jumped back up to 19%.

From the implementation of the New Deal policies, not all worked but many did, until the reagan revolution that started dismantling these policies we had the strongest growth and middle class in American history. Since reagan revolution we have seen government debt and size explode. Both of these are due to the new incentive to keep capital instead of reinvesting. Keeping it in a small few keeps it out of the economy. The government is now trying to fill the gap created these 3 decade old incentives.

It is not

Ben Emery

People can save the rubbish that war got us out of the depression. It might have contributed but I would argue it stymied the progress more than helped. If war helps us economically why have we seen our economy create huge debts and not help the average working person in 3 decades of unconsitutional undeclared wars?

War is the fastest way of impoverishing the people through taxation/ debt and stripping civil liberties. It was a tooled used by kings and now the used by the new capitalist kings of interlocking monopolistic industries of banking, defense, energy, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and media.

Barry Pruett

Ben: There is so much rhetoric in that mess I do not even know where to start. Simply speaking, if we want our economy to pick up, government needs to get out of the way. The Depression of 1920 was worse mathematically than the Depression of the 30's. In 1920, GNP down 7%, 18% deflation, and 12% unemployment. In 1930, GNP down 7%, 9% deflation, and 9% unemployment.

1920-Depression starts. Harding dramatically reduces the size and scope of government. Economy bounces back in 18 months.

1930-Depression starts. Hoover increase size and scope of government intervention into the economy. Roosevelt continues and expands upon Hoover. Depression continues for a generation.

2008-Massive recession starts. Bush and Obama increase size and scope of government intervention into the economy. No end in sight.

Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.

D. King

"Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it."

...or want to repeat it!

Todd Juvinall

BenE's take on history sends shivers up my spine. I think he must have missed all the classes. Yikes!

Todd Juvinall

Frisch is now calling George and Tom McClintock unAmerican on the leftwingnut's blog. I would suggest Frisch is simply a socialist sucking the taxpayers money from the earners and has accidentally called George and Tom what he truly is himself.

Mikey McD

George, I agree with your assessment of Tom. If I am able to retire before him I would volunteer in his office.

Barry, your points are spot on! D King too!

"Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it."

...or want to repeat it!

Posted by: D. King | 02 July 2011 at 03:25 PM

stevenfrisch

Hey Juvinal, stop lying! I did not call Mr. McClintock un-American. I quoted a section of George's post and said it is un-American.

Todd Juvinall

Stevie, fess up man, stop calling George and the rest unAmerican.

Todd Juvinall

SteveF, Here is your very words copy/pasted about George.

"If he does march he will be doing so not as a patriot. This from his blog this morning:"

So wiggle your portly form out of your own words chump.

Paul Emery

Todd

What is this obsession you have with describing men's body shapes? You might need to talk to somebody. I think George is quite capable of verbally defending himself and can chose when he feels its appropriate.

Paul Emery

Here's a general question to consider. What % of GDP do you feel is healthy for government spending?

stevenfrisch

You lying freak---here is what I said:

"I wonder if George Rebane will be marching in the Fourth of July parade? Will he be with the Tea Party Patriots, Republican Party or the Republican Women?

If he does march he will be doing so not as a patriot. This from his blog this morning:

“As these pages show, I join my small voice with the many national commentators who point out that if we look at Obama’s path to the White House, the people he has surrounded himself with, and their written and spoken words, then there is a much simpler explanation for the strivings and accomplishments of this administration. It is not enough to just accuse them of being insane in their reapplication of policies that haven’t worked and this time expect a different result. It is not productive to continue to negotiate with the progressives under the public face of a common goal. Since if such goal does not exist, then the Republicans are doomed to bear the burden of every failure that derives from these negotiations – this is the consistent advice from every theory and handbook on successful negotiations.”

So here we have George’s answer to not getting his way. He stomps his feet, in the flowery language of an intellectual, while disguising his persona as child.

This is why I call them the perpetuators of the “Baby State”. Here is their drill: I am a baby and I will not compromise with anyone, ever, anytime, under any circumstance, regardless of consequence, including the collapse of our financial system, until and unless I get my way.

It is fundamentally un-patriotic to demand the predominance of your interest in a republic.

Don’t be fooled by these un-American charlatans on the 4th of July. This is not the spirit that founded the nation. This is not the value system that negotiated the constitution. These are not the actions of “real” Americans.

What an unpatriotic mind set to have in a enlightened republic."

Todd Juvinall

Paul one thing about conservatives is we have a sense of humor. You liberals are droll and boring. Besides, I don't smoke the ganga so I have my full facilities.

Frisch is just a plain loon and I will no linger respond to his lying ways. Well, maybe. Anyway, you lefty's have a nice time this Fourth, you plumpers you. LOL.

Oh, and read Rush Limbaugh story on he Founders and get inspired if that is even possible.

Todd Juvinall

Frisch, thanks for reprinting your words from the FUE's blog to certify I was correct.

Greg Goodknight

Paul Emery, here's a specific question for you to kick it off... is the current level of federal, state and local government spending too high, too low or just right?

IIRC Limbaugh claims that Democrats define bipartisanship as when Republicans cave on their principles to vote with Democrats. It would seem that Frisch agrees.

George Rebane

My post was on exposing the true objectives of the progressives in the debt limit negotiations in order to make progress. Their desire to continue the same borrowing and spending policies, while throwing out the fiscally ineffective sop of additional taxes on their 'rich' guarantees the country's financial collapse while igniting class warfare fires in the streets.

Astoundingly the progressives call any reasonable opposition to this future as "un-American", unpatriotic, "perpetuators of a 'Baby State' " (this one confuses me), etc.

What no one from their side wants to talk about is their published details of the "fundamental transformation" of America they want to achieve.

If an attribute of patriotism is the perpetuation of the United States as a strong and sovereign nation-state, then The intelligent reader here is the best judge of who are the patriots.

stevenfrisch

As strong sovereign nation state does not result from factions solely acting in their narrow financial self-interest and refusing to work for the common good. The rich are getting richer, more so than almost any other time in American history, by screwing the middle class, and it is your allies who are doing it. Your faction is un-patriotic and un-American because you have ceased working for the common good and the strength of the sovereign nation.

And Greg, it would seem that Mr. McClintock is even more willing to negotiate than those here. Is he a friggin' 'collectivist'.

stevenfrisch

BY the way, I am on record here, and across these blogs, with by far the most realistic, comprehensive, and potentially bi-partisan deficit and debt reduction plan of any of the participants.

Happy friggin' fourth to the secessionists.

Greg Goodknight

Frisch, a conservative who believes the government spends too much money and taxes too much already and, as a result, refuses to vote for higher spending and raising taxes, is working "for the common good". They just disagree with Stephen Frisch as to what the common good is.

Paul Emery

Greg

Historically the Republicans have had little concern about the national debt. In fact this is kind of a new interest to them. I'll drone on about the tripling of the debt under Reagan Bush 1 and the unbelievable legacy of Bush 2 with two unfunded wars that will cost trillions and the lowering of the reasonable tax rates that were helping to pay down the debt under Clinton-Gindrich (yes that was bi-partisanship)

Nixon didn't care, fallen hero Reagan didn't care. neither of the Bushes cared and now the Republicans are supposed to be the gallant knights trying to save America from financial ruin when in fact they were the ones that drove us off the cliff. Why would anybody trust these guys to do the job? Obama inherited the mess and hasn't done much better and that brings us up to date.

Of course it will end up a bipartisan effort. The Ryan budget is dead and stinky with pathetic public support. The debt ceiling will rise after the Dems do some trimming to make the Repubs feel they accomplished something with their tantrum and we will survive without the class warfare that George so casually and without substance predicts.

In short what "Republican principals" are you talking about? Certainly not anything demonstrated in the last 60 years.

Todd Juvinall

Why is it a concern that the rich are getting richer? Jealousy? Envy? The pie is ever growing in America, at least it was until the Frisch ilk gained power. Now all Americans are hurting because the liberals have created and enhanced an unfair tax system. (along with their police state of collection) Only a small percentage of the people pay federal income taxes which means the rest are getting a free ride. How is that fair Frisch? Also, you progressives have passed a fee on just about every human endeavor known to man and now you want to tax and fee CO2 for goodness sakes. It will affect the lower and middle class, those groups the liberals say they feel the pain for, more than any rich person. So, with every post, Frisch and his leftwing ilk assist us in educating the masses of the danger these people, are putting our country and our planet in. I say cut off all these grant, rent seeking SBC types and save billions in dollars and dry up their leftwing propaganda.

Todd Juvinall

Paul, you must have been out of the country during the 60's. I recall vividly the national debate about deficits during the democrat Johnson led Vietnam War. I think the national budget was something like 250 billion and the war was making a lot of people, mostly conservative republicans, very concerned. I would say your ilk are the deficit drivers par excellence. We conservatives have always been concerned about deficits but America was always able to bounce back into prosperity, now you lefty's have driven America into the ditch and the tow truck is not big enough to yet pull it back to the roadway.

George Rebane

- The national debt is a concern only to the extent that debt service becomes a major part of the federal budget.
- Class warfare in America has already started and is daily *substantively* abetted by progressives of all stripe. The Peter/Paul Principle has been successfully used to free half the country's earners of federal taxes which have been shifted disproportionately to the country's top earners.
- Class warriors teach that the rich take their earnings from the poor, instead of creating that as marginal wealth.
- As American tax rate history shows, it is near impossible to directly transfer wealth from the rich to the poor - the rich simply stop producing excess taxable wealth.
- Class warriors do not recognize the natural impact of education and technology on earning power in a (semi)free market. This systemic effect will only become stronger creating a bigger differential between the wages of the rich and poor.

Paul Emery

Todd

I was actively doing my best to end the Viet Nam War. What were you doing to try to stop it? So now 50 years later you have come out of the closet and we have the anti war activist Todd Juvinall. Really Todd, what did you do to end the war?

Are you saying we weren't "in the ditch" at the end of Bush2's debacle?

George Rebane

From an analysis of the current fiscal state of the union.

“We have been all too willing to believe the story that future growth driven by indomitable American ingenuity will deliver us from our debt. Unfortunately, unless another decade-long period of explosive technology innovation is in the cards for us, we may have just now hit a wall. … The Boomers have screwed Generation X.” Dr Jason Hsu, Anderson School, UCLA

Douglas Keachie

Tis country had no trouble going through many, many, many generations of computers and software over the last 30 years, as improvements showed up like clockwork, and the previous generations were tossed. I see no reason to believe that this will not continue, or that it is not equally applicable to improvements in solar technology, if proper incentives are offered. If the USA makes it the top national priority to go solar, improvements in cost and efficiencies will come, as the cash flows drive them from the minds of daring young entrepreneurs.

Todd Juvinall

Paul, I as a teenager, supported the country's effort in Vietnam to stop the communists. The anti-war nuts did not represent me and many other Patriotic Americans. So, while you were protesting I was in agreement we needed to win.

Paul, were you part of the Weather Underground?

Douglas Keachie

So Todd, did you support more, or less cash for the troops? Sounds like you supported more, and thus your were not a properly conservative budget saving Republican back then. In your own words:

"I recall vividly the national debate about deficits during the democrat Johnson led Vietnam War. I think the national budget was something like 250 billion and the war was making a lot of people, mostly conservative republicans, very concerned."

Which side were you really on? Saving money, or making the troops "victorious?"

Paul Emery

Todd

So why are you complaining about the costs of a war that supported ? This is important only because it illustrates a typical Republican hypocritical posaition . It's the same thing about the war in Iraq and the billions that it added to our national debt. Todd did you support that war? How do you think these useless wars should be paid for? War tax?

Weather Underground? No. I was a strong supporter of Eugene McCarthy in 68. Who did you support ?

Todd Juvinall

Paul, what are you talking abut? I supported the Vietnam War and I even debated a loony lefty fellow student on local cable at the time. I alo supported us battling the terrorists over there rather than on Mill Street here. War is a terrible thing but there are times they mist be fought. I am unapologetic for my position. So, Paul, are there any wars which you have supported? Seems you were for Bosnia weren't you? How about Grenada? The Mexican War?

When our troops are in a war, we Americans of a Patriotic bent have always supported them with our treasure. How you and Keachie can derive your conclusions about my point of recognition about deficit discussion with hypocrisy is why you two are from Mars and I am from earth.

Douglas Keachie

Let's trust corporations!

42,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone River and it only affects 10 miles of the river, according to Exxon? 10 miles is 52,800 feet. That's a bit less than one gallon per foot of river. How stupid does Exxon think we are?

Account Deleted

"The rich are getting richer, more so than almost any other time in American history, by screwing the middle class, and it is your allies who are doing it." OK Steven - please give us one example. I can give you several examples of the "rich" screwing the middle class, but it's all of the left-wing rich. And the funny part is that the middle class want to get screwed. On a regular basis, the middle class vote for endless rules and regs that will drive up the cost of everything they they buy and enrich the already wealthy. Then they want to turn around and cry about being screwed? Don't blame the conservatives. They had no part in it. Look at the cost of building a home in Nevada County today. Because of Fed, State and local regs the cost has gone through the roof (pun intended) and who is to blame? What conservative cried for more costs to be added to the cost of construction? BTW - I will have to point out once more that there were more millionaires created in the 30's than in the 20's. It was due to big govt. concentrating wealth and robbing from the middle class and handing the money to the rich. Liberal big govt benefits the wealthy and crushes the middle class. The poor get thrown a bone for photo ops. The liberal 30's produced racist laws such as the "prevailing wage" that is still used today for monopolistic policies to control the labor market and help the established contractors while stifling the poorer contractors. The liberal socialist govts of Europe have created a uber-wealthy class of the elite in Europe and kept the middle class stagnant. No one screws the middle class and the poor in America today more than Obama.
He openly brags about wanting to "skyrocket" the cost of electricity. And he is doing it. Who pays - and who gains? The middle class pay and the wealthy gain. The working poor pay taxes to govt and the govt hands the money to the wealthy for buying a car that the poor can't afford. And the libs blame the ones that tried to stop it. Madness!

Paul Emery

Todd You wrote this
"Paul, you must have been out of the country during the 60's. I recall vividly the national debate about deficits during the democrat Johnson led Vietnam War."

This seems to imply that you were opposed to the deficits caused by the Vietnam War. Why else would you have written that other than to make a point about the war costs?

Douglas Keachie

Paul, Todd likes to be a man of mystery. I asked about this too.

Todd Juvinall

No Paul, I write that because I was pointing out there were always discussions and concerns about deficits. As you may recall, democrat Johnson shoved his new massive social programs through and the country was discussing the total budgets and the future. It appears the people who were concerned about the Great Society and its costs were correct since the country is now on the brink. You are trying to put words on the paper I did not say, but that is what the lamestream media has taught everyone.

Paul Emery

Pretty weak Todd. If you're concern was the spending of
"Great Society" programs you should have said so. Instead you chose a the war, which you were a supporter, of to make an example.

Paul Emery

History shows that it's the Republicans that can't be trusted with the national wallet. Here's the five worst presidential Administrations for deficit spending.

Bush (Georgie) 05
Bush (Papa) 89
Reagan 81
Reagan 85
Obama 09

Republicans, beyond a doubt the biggest spenders. I wouldn't hire this crew to run my business.

Todd Juvinall

Paul, are you dense/ I repeat that I brought up the first national discussions I remember about deficits not that I was taking a position on deficits as a fifteen year old. You need to quit skimming and read the posts before making a statement of fabrication. Regarding deficits, I don't like them, I don't like the national debt. What more is not clear to you? Oh, and I am very PO'd about Trajan since you always go to the past for examples.

Paul Emery

Todd

My last post was not specifically for you but more to give an example of why the Repubs are the worst option when it comes to dealing with money. They have no idea how to balance a checkbook.

Wasn't it you that brought into the conversation a while ago the Barbary Pirates when we were talking about Islamic extremism? I guess that's not looking at the past.

Todd Juvinall

s I have heard my fiancee' say to her two kids, "whatever".

Benjamin Comptom

We all find it rather funny and hypocritical when the right does not want to raise taxes, but then they also don't want to cut their spending either.

Tax rates are at their lowest level in years for the upper class, and the economy is in shambles, but they still want to keep the rich making their money no matter what it does to the average family.

I remember the "trickle down" theory, and I have one question.... How well has it trickled down to the middle class? I think I'll start calling it the "drool down theory" as is seems to work as well as my nice clean hand below my dogs mouth they you say the word "cookie"!

George Rebane

BenjaminC, what part of "their spending" doesn't the right want to cut?

Greg Goodknight

It was the Gingrich congress that forced the Clinton administration into a balanced budget, and there never was anything called "trickle down" economics except as a pejorative term for just about any tax benefit that flowed to businesses, the preferred tax collector of the Feds.

D. King

"We all find it rather funny and hypocritical when the right does not want to raise taxes,..."

Are there two of you in there?

"Tax rates are at their lowest level in years for the upper class..."

Maybe the 50% that pay no tax…should.

Sounds like you've doomed yourself to be in the lower class. Try some initiative!

When you give up before you start, you will go nowhere.

Douglas Keachie

Todd, the phrase you're looking for was "guns AND butter."

Douglas Keachie

"and there never was anything called "trickle down economics"

Somebody failed his history courses, I see.

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'" Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.[14] During this period, in his Cross of Gold speech, Democrat William Jennings Bryan said:

"There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests up on them."

Proponents of Keynesian economics and related theories often criticize tax rate cuts for the wealthy as being "trickle down," arguing tax cuts directly targeting those with less income would be more economically stimulative. Keynesians generally argue for broad fiscal policies that are direct across the entire economy, not toward one specific group.

In the 1992 presidential election, Independent candidate Ross Perot called trickle-down economics "political voodoo."

Or maybe Greg is trying to rewrite history, an old commie stunt.

D. King

Unions, tisk, tisk, tisk!

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/07/04/teamsters-vegas-convention-calls-for-ceo-prosecutions-union-pension-bailout/

D. King

Union pensions in trouble!!!

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/criticalstatusnotices.html

Douglas Keachie

Not CALSTRS, and I am expecting this year's mid July report to be even better.

July 19, 2010
12.2 percent return a positive note, but 2008 declines still impact portfolio.

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA– The California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) investment portfolio posted a solid 12.2 percent return at the end of the 2009-10 fiscal year.

The CalSTRS investment portfolio’s market value at fiscal year’s end was $129.77 billion. The 12.2 percent return rate beat the actuarial rate of 8 percent and brought in more than $10 billion as the 2009-10 fiscal year ended on June 30.

However, because CalSTRS bases its investment portfolio performance on a three-year rolling average, the last two years’ losses of 25 percent and 3 percent, still have an effect.

“We’ve taken steps to position the portfolio for long-term growth, but we’re not out of the woods yet,” said CalSTRS Chief Investment Officer Christopher J. Ailman. “The American economy suffered a near-death experience in 2008, and it’s going to take some time to fully recuperate from that. This year’s performance is a solid start along that road to recovery.”

The CalSTRS Board and investments staff have positioned the fund for ongoing recovery by:

Expanding its target asset ranges to avoid having to sell at a loss.
Temporarily shifting 5 percent of the portfolio from global equities to fixed income, real estate and private equity to take advantage of the distressed market.
Permanently shifting 5 percent of the portfolio from global equities to create a new absolute return asset class for inflation-protection.
Adopting a new asset allocation mix to further diversify the portfolio and reduce its stake in the global stock market.
Launching the Innovations and Risk unit to explore new investments such as a macro global hedge fund strategy, commodities and microfinance.

Returns by asset class were: 14.5 percent for global equities (U.S. equities posted 15.7 percent, non-U.S. 12.1 percent), fixed income at 12.3 percent, private equity with 21.7 percent, and real estate with -12.4 percent.

As of June 30, 2010, the portfolio holdings were: 51.7 percent in U.S. and non-U.S. stocks, 22 percent in fixed income, 14.5 percent in private equity, 10.1 percent in real estate, 0.9 percent in absolute return assets and 0.8 percent in cash.

The California State Teachers' Retirement System is the second largest public pension fund in the United States. It administers retirement, disability and survivor benefits for California's 848,000 public school educators and their families from the state's 1,400 school districts, county offices of education and community college districts.

D. King

Nothing to see here!

George Rebane

The only thing that really matters is that the local jurisdictions are required to contribute no more than the normative predicted amounts. If they need to contribute more, then these become unfunded liabilities and no amount of bullcrap stats will save the day. CalSTRS was underfunded. We shall see.

Paul Emery

I need to ask. Where does that 50 percent non taxpayer number come from. Can someone help me on that. It is an assumption without details.

George Rebane

PaulE, According to the National Taxpayers Union the latest IRS report is that in 2008 the bottom 50% of "adjusted gross income" earners paid 2.7% of federal income taxes. And AGI itself is a slippery figure that includes transfer payments for the lower income people who are then taxed on what they make/receive - i.e. they have to give some of it back. The bottom line is that essentially half of American adults pay no federal income taxes on their own earnings. The estimates for all American voters is a bit more than half.

paul emery

Thanks George I'll check it out

Mikey McD

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_la780fL5Xo1qbi2t8o1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1309971816&Signature=JtESIb5i6b43XI%2FJ91bY24LYUfY%3D

George Rebane

This comment thread on taxes and who pays what may be continued on 'Class Warfare a la Joe the Lip'
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/07/class-warfare-a-la-joe-the-lip.html

Greg Goodknight

Thanks for making my point, Keach. Galbraith *was* doing just what I referred to, "there never was anything called "trickle down" economics except as a pejorative term". No economist ever formulated a "trickle down theory" and promoted it, and socialists like Galbraith (I heard him accept the label) in a debate with Buckley) liked pejorative terms for policies that make shaking down businesses harder. Referring to "trickle down" is political speech, not economics.

My minor was in history, grades were good, thank you.

Greg Goodknight

Just taking some of Keachie's post and searching, it turns out he's cut and pasted a bunch from Wikipedia without attribution. That's plagiarism, Keach, and it violates the terms of use of the page you copied it from.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use

Douglas Keachie

It's the meaning of the word "is" . If you wish to believe that there is nothing that anyone thinks of as trickle down economics, as a reflection of the economics they live under, that is your right. BTW, you left out mentioning the oats and sparrows theory from the days of William Jennings Bryant, as a history minor, I thought you'd love that part. And besides, I did not claim it to be an "official theory" of any given economist, now did I? Don't go claiming utterances that don't exist.

Greg, here's a real wild goose chase for you. Go find out what percentage of people bother to do so, and also, do you contribute to the Wikipedia annual fund drives? I'd be willing to bet they be more than willing to give dispensations to all who do, and I'd qualify, having given for years. if I were making cash off of the repostings of information, that would be altogether another matter. Given the ease with which anyone can search for a unique string from any post, it is very easy to trace stuff. You obviously understand the concept.

Here's the thought question, when you did your search, you did so using "copyrighted materials," so are you guilty of using copyrighted materials. How nitpicky would you like to get? Happy submarining! Don't run out of coal...

Oats and sparrows?

Feed a horse (the rich) more fresh oats (tax breaks), and surely the sparrows (the other 94% of the population) will find a few seeds to eat, in the horse droppings. Such a good image for today!

Douglas Keachie

BTW, if it really bothers the community at large here, I'll be happy to attach the url, which is all that is required to meet the rules. If nobody other than Greg is distressed by this, then to be somewhat true to the spirit of Wikipedia, I'll do the following:

--Wikipedia --

a simple macro on the keyboard.

Greg has cited a lot of statistics, with no references whatsoever for many of them. I don't see anybody crying in their beers over the situation.

Greg Goodknight

Keach, you also forgot to put quotes around the stuff you lifted verbatim. Is this how you learned to write at UC Berkeley?

Plagiarism is plagiarism. You didn't write those words, someone else did.

Greg Goodknight

To be true to the spirit of Wikipedia, you need to give credit as specified by Wikimedia. You might be surprised to note that can be a list of authors of the article you're quoting. It's about authorship credit, Keach, not indulgences to cover past sins. You can't buy your way out.

The comments to this entry are closed.