A new election is coming and thankfully nobody is claiming that they will lower the ocean level this time. My taxes are still insanely high and as a business owner, I’m expecting to be hammered in a very impressive way by the non-paying public for my reprehensible misdeed of trying to make money. Yes it’s a shame that I’ve worked so hard, but this has turned into a country of the entitled rather than the empowered. No we did not build our success, our company simply sprung into existence on its own by random chance.
That isn’t what the post is about though.
This post is about blogging on something as stupid as global warming. I mean, why would someone so driven, so consumed with other avenues in life, spend time on a subject that draws personal critique on blogs, ridicule in the media, libelous accusations in the journal of Psychology, and global governmental enforcement attention, all on a matter which should be purely science?
It’s simple – maybe.
First, I know that I am regularly disappointed with the poor quality of thinking from the public. How can we possibly believe that running a windmill or 100 of ’em can compare to a coal or nuclear plant? It is beyond my ability to grasp the logic. Why don’t people understand that we don’t know the real damage from CO2 is, but do know the real damage from lack of energy (e.g. Zimbabwe)? Why is there no recognition of the opportunity for blatantly obvious health/life/environmental advantage to huge amounts of low cost energy?
Very poor quality thinking in my opinion but it gets worse.
When the Mullers come out with the idea that because they generated a temp curve from the same data as everyone else, that they have somehow proven Co2 warming as well as attribution, it left my jaw in my lap. They play themselves as scientists yet rational logic does NOT lead from temperature to attribution. Of all things, attribution of temperature change in climate science is known to be absolutely unknown. Unless you are a Muller or a skydragon. Yet somehow these amazing people make the ridiculous sandwich board claim to know that 100% of the land temperature change is manmade – with unequivocal certainty. IMO, stupider is now an official word. They get away with it because the left-wing media and government funded scientists want them to. No reasoned thinker could stand by and accidentally miss how the amazing Mullers solved the attribution dilemma for the IPCC.
But the now enlightened Mullers know truth, and they are happy to tell anyone who will listen that through amazing science they have discovered the truth. I, and many other skeptics, got the same temperature answers on blogs as the Muller BEST curve — well before they did. It didn’t change any of our opinions on global warming doom to my knowledge. The answer only affected the Mullers.
No they are not being logical — in case you were still wondering, and that is disappointing.
So when I see a mannian (lowercase) curve, and I recognize that the data is nothing but regressomatic noise, it leaves the same sick feeling in my stomach as those who don’t recognize the future hell our government is intentionally creating in the US. Just look at the government spending vs income and you should realize it cannot continue. You cannot spend 75% more than you take in for any length of time, yet somehow the question of whether it should continue is a 50-50 proposition in the public’s mind. You also cannot tax your way out of the problem because we already sport some of the highest taxes in the world and there ain’t enough income left to tax. Sorry MSNBC.
What kind of world is this when such simple logic cannot be followed? The Muller stuff is simply more of the same dogmatic nonsense disguised as science that most humans cannot parse. The Muller’s know these facts so I spend time wondering how they rationalize their true intent, until I stop caring.
This all ties together in my mind under the guise of wrongthink. When people don’t recognize that on average our own nature dictates that tough life choices lead to optimal solutions, we refuse to recognize our very nature. Living according to what we are is not an easy path. It’s the same kind of math which drives evolution. Governments don’t need to hide the weak from tough situations, they need to expose them to the hardship and let the people show the world if they are truly weak. A driven person is a very hard thing to stop and when exposed to one of these same “weak” people who thinks something needs to be done, I would suggest that you get out of that persons way. A thinking public would recognize that people need saving from impossible situations, not tough ones, but politicians have long ago figured out a different self-empowering mathematical balance.
At this point, it is unlikely that I will lose the money war because politicians will eventually need $$ from business again, but I feel very sorry for those who will not be given a reasonable opportunity to succeed. Our population is impregnated with small beaten down minds filled with CNN redistribution nonsense. They are left with weak hearts centered on racist or other victimization dogma, and give thanks to uncle Sam for writing tiny checks to them in exchange for jobs they otherwise would have had. When you vote for a politician in the hopes that you will get a check from them, free health care, welfare without a work requirement, larger pensions, something is horribly wrong.
So it was almost exactly 4 years ago, on a sunny August day just before a presidential election, that I was sitting on the carpet in a nearly unfurnished house, and wrote my first blog post. I didn’t know what this blog would turn into but there was a little steam I had to let off. People were about to vote for a man with a golden tongue who was promising to do his best to change America by giving the poor other peoples money — and voters fell for it.
“Once the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic.” – Benjamin Franklin
Most people still think old Ben was a smart guy, though there is probably some wrong-think style discussion on the matter, I’m on Ben’s side.
So I started a climate blog, because in my opinion, people needed another scientific conservative who can understand math and is willing to accept the data for what it is. I truly don’t care if the warming from CO2 is worse than the IPCC predicts. I don’t give one methane filled fart! If that is the case, it would be nice to know so that we can find a true solution (not carbon exchange nonsense). If we need a solution, and I’m not at all convinced that we do, then we need one which doesn’t involve the attempted destruction of same the economies which gave us the power to warm the environment in the first place.
I also like puzzles and many climate claims are simply puzzles to be considered. So far, in my 4 years of puzzling, I’ve found nobody who really knows the answer on the future of climate. There have been plenty of people who claim to know the answer in all different directions across the whole spectrum from skydragons to Muller with the IPCC awkwardly positioned in between, but when examined closely, these people don’t really know the future either.
So why climate?
I’m not entirely sure but at least in part it is because you can’t spend your life being mad at the world for acting stupid, but you can spend a few cathartic hours pointing out the idiots.
I’m feeling better already.
the Air Vent 
Keep it up, Jeff. You can’t know who you will affect positively even as you blow off steam.
And perhaps you need to say that you are “creating jobs” with your business rather than “making money.” Why let the libs have a monopoly on euphemisms?
So good to hear that blogging has therapeutic value for you. You may be surprised to hear that your rants often make other people feel better too.
Your latest rant appeals to me because it says I am not alone in questioning the sanity of government policies that have terrible consequences not just for the USA but around the world.
If we truly cared for the “Have Nots” we would be working to bring affordable electricity to every dusty hamlet instead of talking about “solutions” that even first world countries can’t afford.
Like you I cannot believe that the election on November will be close. After four years of Obama we still know very little about him but his actions tell us all we need to know.
Task NASA with Muslim outreach! Snub Isreal! Insult the Brits by returning the bust of Churchill! Sue Arizona for attempting to block illegal immigration! Block American oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico while funding Brazil, Mexico and Colombia to step in! “Fast & Furious” cover up! Run up deficits in a manner that has only been seen during WWI & WWII!
I strongly recommend the movie “2016”. For weeks the showings were sold out here in Florida but finally I got to see it. For me one of the most interesting interviews was with Obama’s half brother who lives in Nairobi. He would make a far better president than the one we have!
Thanks for the message, Gallopingcamel, we will either sink together or we will collectively find a way to restore:
1. Constitutional limits on government and
2. Integrity in government science.
I am the academic uncle of Dr. Marvin Herndon. His new book on the betrayal of trust by NASA is one that my research adviser (the late Dr. P. K. Kuroda, Marvin Herndon’s academic grandfather) would be proud of.
I will watch “2016”, although I rarely look at movies now.
Hang in there! We have all been richly blessed to “live in interesting times.”
Jeff, you have played an important role in exposing a cancerous growth on government science that had flourished, out-of-sight, for sixty-four years (2009 – 1945 = 64 yrs) in a nourishing bed of public research funds before finally surfacing in late Nov 2009.
Today I will try to write a short summary for Professor Curry on the unfolding Climategate drama, a tale of international intrigue that has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with climate and everything to do with establishing the tyrannical government that George Orwell described in 1948: http://www.george-orwell.org/1984
https://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127
A few other brave souls [1-3] have already noticed and reported this:
http://tinyurl.com/974sxlx
1. Dr.Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic
Blue Planet in Green Shackles (Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2007, 100 pages) http://tinyurl.com/5z4j6g
2. Dr. Robert Zurbin, President of the Mars Society:
Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Anti-humanism (New Atlantis Books, 2012)
3. Dr. J. Marvin Herndon, President of Transdyne Corporation
NASA’s Science: A Betrayal of Trust (e-book, 2012)
http://tinyurl.com/8rgskdl
Great list! Here is a link you may like:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/demographic-bomb-and-us-debt-explosion/#comment-40204
“What kind of world is this when such simple logic cannot be followed?”
Anthony touched on the explanation for this in his PBS interview, calling it “noble cause corruption”. When you’re convinced that you’re “saving the planet”, the ability to think rationally seems to disappear.
It is the other way around, in many people.
The pretense to a noble cause corruption is the excuse to pursue the politics.
I started my blog 4 years ago also, for some of the same reasons. Mine is way more obscure and centered on a population that guarantees I’ll never achieve much with it. But at 100 hits a day, I’m just happy to be able to disseminate all the garbage in my brain just to ease the pressure. I say away from contentious issues, except occasionally, I feel one coming up in November…
Nice rant/vent.
I concur completely.
Here’s an excellent video on the current status of the rapidly unfolding drama of Climategate, as we head toward the next election or revolution:
http://tinyurl.com/9stcnxw
I just wrote a bit about the insanity where I usually blog these days:
http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2012/09/your-dollars-are-blowing-wind-and-burning-sun
Sometimes I have to avert my eyes from the serious discussions on the internet and take a break from it because it becomes all consuming and nauseating at the same time. I retreat to less controversial things. Well, that and school work.
But I took to commenting extensively on climate because while I think most political discussions hinge fundamentally on ideological differences that are difficlut to reconcile, climate is, ostensibly, “different”-in that pronouncements are supposed to be objectively justified by “science”-and yet there seems to be no area with as much demonstrable falsehood propogated as this. In short, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Shockingly stupid fish that refuse to acknowledge intellectual bullet wounds, sure, but still easy picking.
I think global warming is a critically important subject for technically trained people to think about because the potential harm (economic and political) from politically motivated “mitigation” is almost without limit. I mean, AGW is one of the few areas where socialist/redistributionist/leftist/green policies could be ‘legitimized’, or even ‘demanded’ by ‘the science’. The danger is exaggerated because so many of the people involved in climate science are obvious political advocates (as so plainly demonstrated by the UEA emails and statements like those of the late Stephen H. Schneider… it is OK to lie if it advances the cause). Well, it’s NOT ok, and the only people who can call them on the lies are those who are technically trained.
Andrew said
September 19, 2012 at 5:14 pm
I agree with you, Andrew…I have to get away from internet sometimes as it sickens me as a PhD to observe the truly pathetic attempts (by other PhDs) to blame every thing “wrong” with our world on global warming aka climate “change”! Some of these people are borderline deranged, and it wouldn’t bother me so much if someone else was footing their bill; but, alas, we’re spending BILLIONS of dollars on unnecessary climate research and “green” projects, all for the benefit of a few people in academia and government. And we can’t afford it anymore…
Given that federal taxes as a share of GDP are the lowest they’ve been since 1950, I’d say there was a fare amount of income left to tax. If you look at total government spending (local, state, and federal — currently ~40%), there are any number of countries with tax burdens that high or higher. Although collecting taxes at such high rates might offend the sensibilities of libertarians, it is clearly possible to do.
CCE, you are full of crap my friend. I don’t want to go into the numbers again because I’m familiar with your delusion already. The GDP argument is a non-sequitor. Besides the fact that most of our workforce to generate that GDP is NOW overseas where it wasn’t then and that workforce used to pay tax, there are a huge pile of taxes and costly regulations that did NOT exist in 1950 and a huge pile of shelters in 1950 which allowed corporate investment. I pay multiples of my takehome money as tax right now – 500% not 40% as you claim, not to mention massive state tax. This is what happens when you own an S corp manufacturer that is growing. Income must be re-invested if you want to survive. Some of this income gets capitalized which is fine as long as you don’t try to increase your market share. When you do grow, the capitalization costs of inventory, labor, equipment and tooling, become a massive TAX drag on a manufacturer and when you don’t reinvenst, you die. Just the repeal of the Bush tax cuts alone will take 3-4 people’s salary away from us and the dumbasses of this world think they should take more. Try manufacturing yourself in the US and then tell me I should pay more but don’t claim knowledge of something you clearly don’t have. Also, the health care bill, which I have spent considerable time reading, will force us to drop coverage.
In addition, the magnitude of the deficit cannot be touched even if you take it all.
Go ahead, vote liberal and steal another 3 or 4 jobs out of our company. I will do fine but the tax base will continue to shrink, the deficit will continue to rise and it will be time to tax even more.
Jeff,
I don’t know about CCE’s experience, but I sure know about mine, and I am not delusional. I have run an S-corp for more than 15 years. Yes, we pay lots of income taxes on retain profits, and yes, rapid growth of any small business demands that a substantial portion of net income be re-invested. But unless you are making bad investment decisions, and/or not properly depreciating those investments, your investments in your company are adding to your accumulated wealth. Income is income, whether from labor or investment, and is subject to income tax. Why should your accumulation of wealth (as assets held by your corporation) take place free of income taxes? The rate of income tax, what expenses are and are not deductible, depreciation schedules, the progressiveness of income tax rates, and much more, are all legitimate subjects for debate, but I think you will find relatively few people who think it reasonable that investment of profits in a business be allowed without income tax.
I have also been involved in small businesses outside the States, and I know for a fact that in many (if not most) places, the burdens of regulations, bureaucracy, and taxes are MUCH worse than in the States. In lot of places, even starting a small business (permits, forms, licenses, etc.) takes between 6 months and a couple of years, plus many thousands of dollars.
Finally, it is common to consider taxes and government spending as a percentage of GDP. I can’t see any other reasonable way to make apples-to-apples comparisons. Among large economies, total government expenditures vary from ~40% of GDP (in the States and Japan), to 60% or even 70% of GDP in places like Denmark. I agree that very high rates are effectively confiscation of wealth (and I would add that there are lots of countries which also directly tax all wealth at significant annul rate… which is much worse than real estate taxes in the States). There is just no reasonable way to compare government expenditures between countries except as normalized by GDP.
“but I think you will find relatively few people who think it reasonable that investment of profits in a business be allowed without income tax.”
I certainly didn’t advocate for anything different but when taxes were so much higher in the past there were profit shelters for investment. For instance, expensing large equipment or some fraction of inventory would be awfully nice right now and a reasonable step for a country with shrinking manufacturing. Instead we pay the tax and buy the equipment and pay state tax long term on the owned property. As far as percentage of GDP, I don’t really care if it is the best way, it is not a consistent measure to compare today to the 1950’s or to other countries. The US is still the largest economy in the world, yet we have outsourced much of our manufacturing. There is lots of money flow from other countries production exported through the US to the world. This leads to large net cash export with a vastly different distribution of GDP creating expenses. The labor in the 50’s used to pay tax and that left the money in the local system for longer than today when much of the labor is outsourced. Outsourcing of labor or overly progressive tax code ends the tax intake in one or two steps and reaction by toploading the businesses with further tax is a silly solution. Also, there are a large number of regulations which add substantial cost now that didn’t exist in the 50s.
Like I told CCE, people who think it is reasonable to raise taxes on the wealthy because of the GDP number are not understanding what they are asking. It is foolish to claim that we should operate as these socialist countries do simply because they hold a higher tax rate, these countries also TRY to offer additional services (like health care which we pay for ourselves), but people find all kinds of ways to rationalize the stupidity and us business owners just have to deal with it.
And again, even if they take all of the profits, it cannot dent the deficit.
Jeff,
I do not, and never will, advocate higher marginal income tax rates; marginal rates on ordinary income are quite high enough. I would in fact trade lower marginal rates for elimination of distorting deductions/incentives like interests on house loans. I am also opposed to special treatment of investment income (AKA capital gains), beyond an adjustment to account for inflation during the period an asset is held. These tax ‘incentives” are terribly disruptive and inefficient, and the primary reason why businesses like yours and mine have such a hard time arranging bank financing. You would not be forced to plow most earnings back into the business if bank financing was available and reasonably priced. It is the distortions/inefficiencies that do the real harm.
“In lot of places, even starting a small business (permits, forms, licenses, etc.) takes between 6 months and a couple of years, plus many thousands of dollars.”
Then by all means then we should catch up. That must be the best way to build a stronger economy. 4 out 5 politicians agree.
I also have a little experience with other countries. Spain for example is extraordinarily difficult to start a business in. Anyone want to volunteer to have that economy?
You might find it a “non sequitur” to talk about actual numbers in a discussion about taxes, but I don’t. In 2011, the US economy produced $15 trillion in goods and services. That same (fiscal) year, the US Federal government collected $2.3 trillion in revenue on those transactions. This is what is known as “taxes.”
I “claim” that Government SPENDING (local, state, and federal) is currently about 40% of GDP according to your pals at the Heritage Foundation. If you want to balance revenues and spending, then revenues from all levels of government would have to equal that. There are numerous countries that collect revenues as high or higher than 40% of GDP (which is not a tax “rate”), so it isn’t true that it is “impossible” to close the deficit with taxes. You and I might not like to pay taxes like a Scandanavian, but it remains a fact.
Now, there is an argument to be made that the tax code is complex and inefficient. Everyone agrees with that. I am actually partial to AEI’s plan of the X-Tax (a progressive consumption tax) combined with a carbon tax, although I doubt we’d agree on the rates. Needless to say, they aren’t liberals.
But that is beside the point. The money exists in the economy to pay for the debts of the US assuming Congress has the stomach to impose large (but not impossible) taxes. This is not a matter of opinion or ideology. It certainly is not “crap.” It is simply a fact.
Amazing cce, no talk of cutting spending. This tells me you believe there is no where to cut, anywhere. Especially future outlays.
A good rule of thumb – stop spending when you don’t have the money.
Kan, please don’t tell me what I believe. A claim was made about there “not enough income left to tax.” That is not true, even at the current high rates of spending.
The primary driver of long term spending is healthcare costs, and there are various plans to address it. For example, both the Ryan plan and the Simpson Bowles Commission target the Medicare growth rate at GDP+1% which is a “cut” compared to projected spending.
And your rule of thumb is what you are supposed to do when times are good, not when times are bad. The former is “saving” and the latter is “starving.”
The primary driver of long term forecast spending problems is both Social Security and Healthcare. The 2035 projections under current law SS – 6.4% (up from 4.2% in 2007), Medicare – 5,7% (up from3.7 in 2007) of GDP. Social Security is a larger problem.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
However, to bring this back to the current situation, the current administration intentionally created the exact trap you are making an argument for. Spend or commit the money now – as much as possible – then claim it is only by tax increases can we get out of debt.
There are other ways to reduce the debt besides increase taxes:
1) Inflate you way out. Reference Argentina for how to do this.
2) Default on the commitments. See Russia 1998 (as an aside see a little company named Long Term Capital Management for how the plot of this story unfolds).
3) Grow you way out. Growth and higher taxes are inverse operators.
4) Reduce future outlays (Such as Congressman Mack’s One Percent Spending Reduction Act of 2011).
Fundamentally on the political level, you are left with trying to argue if growth spurs more government revenue, or higher taxes. The EU can help answer that question.
Times are bad, but not starving bad. See this:
http://www.numbernomics.com/nomicsnotes/?p=4042
or this
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/07/13/multinationals-and-the-high-cash-holdings-puzzle/#more-30405
There is a lot of cash waiting to be unleashed. Especially when compared to the period 1998-2000 (good times?). The puzzle is why is it sitting there.
One, of many reasons, is the oncoming tax increase Jan 1, 2013.
The non sequitur is today’s gdp to 1950 as though it is apples to apples. GDP is not profit, it is sales – often of goods which never touched our shores by workers who can no longer be taxed on their checks. My company uses overseas workers because we have to and we buy them a lot of stuff every single month. Giant checks shipped overseas so your GDP argument is CRAP. I wonder, in your mind, just how much of that 15 trillion was to taxable profit vs the government? That PROFIT is the ONLY remaining money you can steal and I would recommend for your children’s sake, that you don’t try to do it. See, the reason I don’t want to talk numbers with you because you have your brain all twisted up pretending that 15 trillion is available for your government’s use so that if someone ignorant comes by, they will think you might have a real point.
Case in point:
“The money exists in the economy to pay for the debts of the US assuming Congress has the stomach to impose large (but not impossible) taxes.”
Complete and utter bullshit but you have already decided. If you try to take more of it, you will find out very quickly that industry will simply ship to better areas. I just wish people like you didn’t stomp around pretending knowledge because you read the government financial report or imagine higher taxes work so well elsewhere. I suppose we will just find out how tall the cliff is after we jump.
If the USA wants to bring jobs back from overseas it will need to eliminate the stifling web of federal regulations and high corporate taxation that drove the exodus of so many manufacturing companies over the last 40 years.
A bunch of federal departments need to be eliminated and their duties sent back to the states. Once the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy and the EPA have been eliminated each state will be free to pursue policies there citizens support. Too much of the “One Size Fits All” already.
It will be worth it just to see the Greenies weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth. Probably they will find a couple of states that will reject prosperity, abundant jobs and a vibrant economy.
GallopingC,
“Probably they will find a couple of states that will reject prosperity, abundant jobs and a vibrant economy”
YOU TALKIN’ TA ME?!?!?!?!
Yeah, I live in California!!
I got interested when I read a news article on the CO2-warming meme. It’s a subject that has political and social implications but is also a technical/scientific problem. It’s something that the amateur scientist can investigate (thanks to the internet and personal computers). Once you’ve kicked over the rotten log of supposedly scientific papers and seen the abysmal quality of work being done, it’s hard to just ignore it anymore. You have the technical expertise to actually expose the error and that’s hard to resist if you’re a real engineer/scientist.
Of course, the current problem with government is that we are spending, and at all levels of government, more than we can afford. It is also rather well agreed by all sides on the issue of taxation that higher taxes will impede an economic recovery and slow economic progress in good times. It is also a fact of life that governments will never reign in spending when they are allowed to raise taxes.
Notice that in the recent economic down turn that most economists are proposing the printing of money and deficit spending. Most talk about the need to cut the deficits and debt but to do it later. This cycle is never ending and with each cycle becoming more difficult to control and getting us further into debt. We have even bigger problems than the debt and that is the unfunded liabilities for government retirement healthcare programs at all levels of government. In the most recent downturn the government decided to cut payments into the SS system (which are spent and not put into a fund) and then dare anyone to change the cut.
Government is running amuck and yet most of the politicians and a goodly number of the population are in denial about the need to reduce government spending and by large portions. What is happening in Greece and other Euro nations in financial difficulties is happening here. We are merely at an intermediate stage. But our current attitudes are such that we will inevitably be there also.
I hear so-called fiscally conservative people talking about changing the taxing system to some other strategy for filling the government coiffeurs that will be “fairer” and “simpler” while ignoring the problem staring us in the face: government spending.
Franklin never said the above quote. Fitting, given the subject matter and political climate Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and Franklin would be vilified as godless communists today.
Here’s something Franklin did actually say:
“The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People’s Money out of their Pockets, tho’ only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors’ Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell’d to pay by some Law.
All Property, indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.”
That is interesting that the quote is mis-attributed yet so widely used.
Thingsbreak,
Why are you presenting this quote out of contect?? You one o’ those guys McCarthy warned us about?? You trying for a job at Pravda??
Here is the full quote:
http://www.deleonism.org/text/hd000004.htm
Notice that he is talking about the Indian society and NOT the colonies when he makes the above quotation!!! You didn’t even include the complete paragraph it is from!! Spit.
It appears you are correct about the other quote not being Franklin. No attribution seems to be available:
http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html
Thingsbreak,
I owe you an apology. The exact quote you posted appears in a letter to a Robert Morris in 1783. As this is several years before the Constitutional Convention we must assume that Franklin had either changed his mind about property rights or conceded to others beliefs.
http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=41&page=044
It does make a rather interesting juxtaposition to the quote I found first!! Since my quote is from 1789…
Ben Franklin was no libertarian, but a point he made here is one that regrettably has long been forgotten. The past months of campaigning for the US presidency should reminds us of why it would be a good idea to have to send people to Washington and them going only begrudgingly because it was their turn.
“Speaking of America, Franklin said, “Of civil offices, or employments [civil servants], there are few; no superfluous ones, as in Europe; and it is a rule established in some of the states, that no office should be so profitable as to make it desirable. The 36th Article of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, runs expressly in these words; ‘As every freeman, to preserve his independence, … ought to have some profession, calling, trade, or farm, whereby he may honestly subsist, there can be not necessity for, nor use in, establishing offices of profit; the usual effect of which are dependence and servility…faction, contention, corruption, and disorder among the people. Wherefore, whenever an office, through increase of fees or otherwise, becomes so profitable, as to occasion many to apply for it, the profits ought to be lessened by the legislature.’”
http://kirkcameron.com/2012/08/the-animating-contest-of-freedom/
The risk of profitless public service, if such a thing is possible, is that it attracts do-gooders, the Kennedys for example, whose wealth insulates them from the adverse effects of the programs they advocate. And as we have discovered, the “profit” can be harvested long after the service has been performed.
It seems possible to me at least that Franklin hadn’t thought about this enough when we delivered the thoughts that Kenneth has shared with us.
Of course, “do-gooders,” such as the Kennedy family, aren’t really as altruistic as they seem. They know the fruits of their endeavors, they know the ultimate goal of collectivist ideals. A lot of people spin on about how guilty the wealthy are, failing to realize, in my opinion, that the pay-masters at the top of the food chain are not operating out of guilt – they are operating out of a desire for power over others.
Mark
Jeff, et al.,
In writing an outline of events leading to Climategate, I came across stories of international intrigue after the destruction of Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945 in hiding Japan’s atomic bomb (genzai bakuden) in order to use the deep sense of guilt in Allied scientists to promote
a.) Formation of the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945
b.) Destruction of national boundaries & constitutions
c.) Deception on energy in atoms and stars in 1946
d.) An Orwellian, totalitarian, one-world government
https://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127
Comments, questions, or additional information would be appreciated.
I neglected to link to the story of international intrigue that kept Japan’s atomic bomb (genzai bakuden) project in Konan, North Korea hidden from the public and deepen the sense of guilt in Allied scientists: http://tinyurl.com/blm92lf
Apparently the USSR entered the war against Japan on 8 Aug 1945, just before Japan’s surrender,
The USSR started to invade Manchuria on 9 Aug 1945, the day that Nagasaki was destroyed, and
The USSR continued to march south into North Korea to occupy Konan, the alleged site of Japan’s A-bomb
The USSR kept Japan’s A-bomb facility secret to deepen the sense of guilt in Allied scientists and leaders
To promote formation of the UN and a totalitarian, one-world government
a.) By deceit noted on 2 Oct 1946
_ http://tinyurl.com/blm92lf
b.) Orwell warned about in 1948, and
c.) Climategate exposed in 2009.
I deeply regret that it took me so long to decipher these events.
https://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127
A companion to the alleged Franklin quotation in the original post is one allegedly from de Tocqueville:
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
A pity that neither seems to be a true attibution.
Sounds like you are sour on the upcoming election for your candidate. Perhaps a look at Battleground Watch will change your mind.
“your candidate.” Hehe, spoken as one truly ignorant of… well, of it all. Everything is black or white. Sigh…
Think a little deeper… it is much more than one election, it is an entire philosophy that is designed solely for the purpose of making it difficult to succeed without a handout from the government. It is a philosophy that discourages opportunity, growth, and any acheivement while paying lip-service designed to keep the uninformed from catching on. It is not difficult to fool ideologues into thinking the trade they are making is a good one.
Mark
Jeff, There are many people out there (and I am one) who respect your contributions to climate science. However not all of them share your political standpoint. You may dislike the poor and you have every right to express that feeling here or anywhere else. Doing so at such length on this blog may however obscure the valuable scientific material which is also to be found here.
“You may dislike the poor” — Wow!! That is crazy my friend.
It isn’t about dislike for the poor. Ten years ago I lived with less money than 99.9% of the people that have read here over the last 4 years have ever experienced. Huge debt, no job, zero assets, and I worked my way out of it without government support. Do you think I hate myself? Do you think that I was or even still am guaranteed long term sucess?
No government programs would have been able to touch my problems anyway, in fact with the affirmative action applying to contracts for women and minority business, tax breaks for competition, health regulation, and mountains of extreme left wing employment law, the United States government has been a huge hindrance to a white male’s success.
I want everyone given a fair chance to create something better for their families. I want the healty poor to have to work to the level they can without receiving a never ending mind-entrapping welfare check. In fact, conservatives in general want people to become wealthier than anyone on the planet. Properly (read minimally) managed free markets lead to wealth for the poor, NOT the opposite as you keep hearing on media propaganda outlets. All you have to do is look at the free market countries in history and realize that when properly managed they provide orders of magnitude more for the low-performance group of society than any other system. They also lead to better schools, a cleaner environment, control over the evil countries on the planet, and empowerment over your own life.
It is completely beyond my imagination that anyone old enough to read falls for the line that Socialists want to help the poor and evil conservatives don’t like them. Frankly, it is stunningly naive. In my world if you are healthy and want to live poor, feel free, I don’t care. Just don’t ask the rest of us to pay for healthy people to not work over decades and you can choose to be as poor as you like.
We must help the helpless without entrapping the clueless.
Despite what Cce wrote above, even if you took all of the money from those mysterious rich, you cannot make up for the spending of our government. That is what this post is complaining about.
Jeff,
Hang in there! I was a left-wing, liberal environmentalist most of my life.
Now some former colleagues and relatives think I am a right-wing, capitalistic because I finally recognized that environmentalism was being used as propaganda for totalitarian control of the world and its people.
Clever propaganda artists were using psychology for this propose long before Lewandowsky came along.
I agree for the most part My problem is that I’ve seen government spending wildly increase since 1980. During this time, it’s been mostly Republicans in charge of the Presidency and the Senate. It seems they only really care about spending when Democrats do it. They have lowered taxes, but they refuse to lower government spending. No wonder we’re in so much debt. Then they have the audacity to blame people for not paying taxes when their very policies have led to these people not paying taxes. They also refuse to even consider reducing military spending or reigning in our worldwide military presence. Even if you think the threat from overseas is worth all of this, why don’t Republicans see this as basically foreign aid? We are paying for the military defense of the entire Western world. The continuous restrictions to civil liberties doesn’t help either. Both parties have their problems there, but more Dems are willing to stand against them than Republicans. Then we have the problem that, with our borders wide open both ways, we’ve allowed immigrants to come in and provide additional competition to lower skill workers and allowed companies to freely move jobs overseas to countries with much lower costs of living. The hand of the market isn’t going to fix the problem for a very, very long time (there’s a lot of world left to modernize) and just expecting Americans to be better workers than the rest of the world isn’t going to cut it. Pandering to our friendlier religious extremists doesn’t help either.
I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson in this election, but until the Republican party addresses their problems I don’t see how I can vote for them on a national level. At least the ones I have available. My Republican choice for the House, Tom Price, hasn’t met an authoritarian or military bill he didn’t like.
Jeff, what is your take on tax rates (and regulations and other burdens) in the US in the late 1990’s? On Fed spending in the 1990’s? Though this short question may seem loaded, I am not sure I have a real point or “trap” here other than of course referring back to a time when the income tax rates were slightly higher and cap gains taxes much higher, when we had a decently growing economy (even if you remove the tech bubble) and, most importantly, we had small (and zero) Fed deficits. (Yes, SS taxes and expenditures can complicate that balanced conclusion, but we can all agree things were balanced or nearly balanced.) And, I’d find it hard to argue that regulations increased in the 2000s, too (which I recall you invoking to support lower taxes now than we had in the 1990s). So, I don’t see why we can’t roll back to 1990’s spending (adjusted) and taxation rates and try again…try to retrace our wayward steps in the 2000s back to a bettter point and start again?
By the way, I applaud what you do on climate science. There is much damage to come from that field when people pretend to know truth when they don’t. (It is not uncommon in other fields too.) For what it’s worth, I likely have much agreement with you on that topic (I can’t keep up closely). But when it comes to taxation, elections, and politics—and their affects on business— you sound like any number of grumpy folks making complaints and absolute statements when the underlying “facts” are rather complicated and gray. You lose some credibility, in my opinion, on those topics. On taxes, you come across as one of the folks that claims to know “truth” when the truth is hard to determine.
CDM,
Until I ran a business, I didn’t see the costs. I am not an expert on tax in the 90’s. In the late 90’s though, I did consulting as a partner in a smaller business and prior to that worked for another. You can say that I don’t know of which I speak if you like, but I know a lot more about business than climate and many read here for climate.
A service companies growth does not require significant inventory. Look up the definition. Manufacturers (read creators) are faced with huge costs to grow. Tooling, personnel, inventory….
The problem with my discussion of these issues on line is the same problem which caused me to blog under Jeff Id. Our competition reads the blog. I can generalize numbers but even that can only fall within my own experience and the majority of the big players in our industry have pockets deep enough to read this blog on their yachts.
So I must write very generally:
Total taxes now are actually very similar to previous years for the highest earners. This happens because the writeoffs of the past were correctly removed from today’s law. They should be. Writeoffs promote favors to politicians, especially obscure writeoffs. Writeoffs are a consequence of overtaxation which are utilized by both parties, many will disagree with my opinion that it is primarily the left though.
In history the highest earners paid very high tax % in history http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213, except that they didn’t because they had enough writeoffs to pay zero. The evidence for this is that in 69 the AMT was enacted to prevent the zero tax payers. (Please don’t skip that point). An odd fact is that I would love to pay AMT today, which is far, far,far higher than most readers pay! The really goofy thing is that the AMT doesn’t apply to most high income people these days BECAUSE THEY EXCEED IT AND MUST PAY THE greater OF EITHER AMT OR THE STANDARD CALCULATION. Sorry for the caps, it is important for the casual reader. Just look at the 90% rates and ask yourself if businesses like Sears could function under that true rate? Clearly it is not possible to give away 90 percent of your profit and still function. It is good for politicians though, because they can choose arbitrarily whom should receive writeoffs. ((BTW, this was the real political intent of the carbon exchange!!! )) Then spend a few minutes at the percent GDP collected by government Cce’s favorite number. It has changed little but drops in recent years are due to loss in profitability not reduced tax — check the timing of the drop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg — please note this plot was produced in 2010 so the remainder is FALSE very left-wing projection.
By that plot, the US has clearly reached maximium collection percentage based on our economy. NOT DENMARK’s!! More tax equals less output at many times in history. Other countries are held to much lower levels of productivity for years on end in exchange for a high percentage of GDP and greater service.
We have done so many anti business things in the last 4 years, with the voter polling, I doubt we can recover. People still think it can be somehow reasonable but it very, very, clearly isn’t.
I don’t believe Romney can stop it either.
So I’m a grumpy business owner who has to type his tax check because it doesn’t fit otherwise.
Just don’t think for a moment that this isn’t a tax on the poor.
Oddly enough, I bet I’m socially more liberal than most anyone on this blog. I really don’t think the government belongs in personal matters which don’t “directly and significantly” affect others.
Humans are very good at sorting what is best for themselves. When they damage other people, we need government to insure the damage is not severe.
In far too many cases these days business has been damaged by government programs for purposes other than the stated “protection of the victim”.
I see business as an evolutionary process where the best survive – sometimes. No guarantees, no favors. If we allow politics to meddle with the mathematics, it is at our own peril. Solyndra and many others are case in point.
CDM, you left out a HUGE issue in your question.
The US CONTINUED to increase its total indebtedness during the Clintoon years. You can maunder all you want about BALANCED budgets, BUT, that is just hiding the dirty deeds behind the curtain!!
Social Security is close to insolvent 20 years early due to the borrowing to BALANCE THE BUDGET!!! This will be a HUGE drag on future budgets when we are paying for SS out of general funds!! Please note, SS has a positive paper balance. This paper balance is comprised of IOU’s from the treasury. With our continuing trillion dollar deficits what chance is there of these IOU’s being repaid?? NONE!!!
Balancing your budget with your Credit Rating may seem like a cool idea, UNTIL YOUR CREDIT RATING IS DROPPED TWICE AND THE COST OF BORROWING ROCKETS!! Now Barry Soetoro is hiding it under INFLATION by having the Fed “print” the money.
I would also point out that there was quite a bit of dancing in the streets over the PEACE DIVIDEND as Clintoon and the Republicraps gutted the military. NO ONE talks about how much of the Bush spending on the military was due to REBUILDING from lack of maintenance and deferred replacement of equipment after Clintoon utilized our advanced systems so much he darned near ran out of cruise missiles!!! B-52’s, B-1’s, B-2’s and smaller tactical aircraft incurred heavy use also. Then there was the wear on the Carrier Task Forces that Clintoon, Bush and Barry all loved to sail around the world to impress the peasants!! (don’t forget they made significant contributions to disaster relief efforts!!) VERY expensive to bring back to full operational status!! Oh, and they couldn’t be bothered to close very many bases because the politicians couldn’t agree on whose states were going to lose the DOLLARS spent by the bases!!!
Yes, if you live in a bubble and ignore those things you don’t like, Clintoon seemd really cool, except I am STILL waiting for him and his UN buddies to show us the 10’s of thousands of murdered bodies in the mass graves around Kosovo for which reason we were told we had to bomb the infrastructure of Yugoslavia and turn over more countries to Jihadis who were drug and human trafficers!!!!!
Yeah, once SCOTUS determined that SS was part of the general fund, i.e., that it was not a guaranteed benefit and the government could spend the money as desired, “balancing the books” became a much easier task. True deficit spending started once they hit that money pot.
Mark
Thanks for the reply.