|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jun 29, 2014 5:55:32 GMT
I have been reading Thomas Sowell's book, Dismantling America (which is, essentially, a collection of his syndicated columns from over the years).
Mr. Sowell is that most despised of all people (by the politically correct left): an African-American conservative.
Here is a bit of his wisdom:
On the United Nations:
And again:
On universal healthcare:
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 1, 2014 2:31:27 GMT
Oh, here is one more that I like; this one, on the matter of Infrastructure spending:
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 1, 2014 9:30:31 GMT
I have been reading Thomas Sowell's book, Dismantling America (which is, essentially, a collection of his syndicated columns from over the years). Mr. Sowell is that most despised of all people (by the politically correct left): an African-American conservative. Here is a bit of his wisdom:
Criticism does not reflect wisdom and that is all I see from his quotations.
For example he condemns universal health care (UHC) as implemented by other countries but does he offer a solution to the problem of tens of millions of Americans that don't have health insurance at all which results in tens of thousands dying annually? I don't like UHC or "Obamacare" either but I've offered alternatives to address health insurance coverage for those tens of millions of Americans.
What solution is Thomas Sowell offering for ten of millions of uninsured Americans?
The prior two posts contained several criticisms so what are Thomas Sowell's solutions?
We can condemn the possibility of Iran producing a nuclear weapon (although the IAEA has no actual evidence of that happening) but without the United Nations there wouldn't be the Non-Proliferation Treaty so nothing would be preventing any nation from manufacturing nuclear weapons. Because of the veto power of the five permanent UN members we haven't even enforced the NPT like we should have because India, Pakistan, and Israel all have unauthorized nuclear weapons that the UN is doing nothing about. The UN did effectively address nuclear weapons in South Africa, it is addressing nuclear weapons in N Korea, and it is addressing the possibility of Iran producing a nuclear weapon someday in the future but it is doing nothing about nuclear weapons in the three unauthorized countries noted.
So what is Thomas Sowell's proposal that will result in the dismantling the nuclear weapons in Israel, Pakistan and India? Take Thomas Sowell's list of criticisms and then provide his solutions to the problems and let's look at those.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 2, 2014 0:12:09 GMT
I have been reading Thomas Sowell's book, Dismantling America (which is, essentially, a collection of his syndicated columns from over the years). Mr. Sowell is that most despised of all people (by the politically correct left): an African-American conservative. Here is a bit of his wisdom:
Criticism does not reflect wisdom and that is all I see from his quotations.
For example he condemns universal health care (UHC) as implemented by other countries but does he offer a solution to the problem of tens of millions of Americans that don't have health insurance at all which results in tens of thousands dying annually? I don't like UHC or "Obamacare" either but I've offered alternatives to address health insurance coverage for those tens of millions of Americans.
What solution is Thomas Sowell offering for ten of millions of uninsured Americans?
The prior two posts contained several criticisms so what are Thomas Sowell's solutions?
We can condemn the possibility of Iran producing a nuclear weapon (although the IAEA has no actual evidence of that happening) but without the United Nations there wouldn't be the Non-Proliferation Treaty so nothing would be preventing any nation from manufacturing nuclear weapons. Because of the veto power of the five permanent UN members we haven't even enforced the NPT like we should have because India, Pakistan, and Israel all have unauthorized nuclear weapons that the UN is doing nothing about. The UN did effectively address nuclear weapons in South Africa, it is addressing nuclear weapons in N Korea, and it is addressing the possibility of Iran producing a nuclear weapon someday in the future but it is doing nothing about nuclear weapons in the three unauthorized countries noted.
So what is Thomas Sowell's proposal that will result in the dismantling the nuclear weapons in Israel, Pakistan and India? Take Thomas Sowell's list of criticisms and then provide his solutions to the problems and let's look at those.
If the UN is "addressing" the problem of a nuclear-armed North Korea, I must have missed it. And any attempt to halt Iran's (apparently irresistable) march toward obtaining nukes has also been ineffectual. Perhaps Israel (either with or without Washington's imprimatur) will take care of Iran's nuclear program, by whatever means necessary. I would certainly hope so. As for Thomas Sowell, what has he said that might indicate that he believes that the nuclear weapons in "Israel, Pakistan and India" must be destroyed? (I seriously doubt than any of these countries might ever use its nukes against the US; or even use them as leverage to attempt to implement a particular policy that is uncongenial to American interests, unopposed.) As for Thomas Sowell's "solution" to "tens of millions of uninsured Americans": As he notes in another essay--quite correctly--many of these uninsured Americans are simply young people, who would prefer to spend their limited resources on something other than medical insurance; which they are far less likely than older (or even middle-aged) Americans) to need. So they should remain free to make that choice. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 2, 2014 1:06:41 GMT
Oh, here is Thomas Sowell on the fetish for "affordable housing" that led, ultimately, to the crash in 2008 (that devastated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others):
And in another essay:
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 2, 2014 12:32:22 GMT
If the UN is "addressing" the problem of a nuclear-armed North Korea, I must have missed it. And any attempt to halt Iran's (apparently irresistable) march toward obtaining nukes has also been ineffectual. Perhaps Israel (either with or without Washington's imprimatur) will take care of Iran's nuclear program, by whatever means necessary. I would certainly hope so.
North Korea and Iran are both being subjected to severe economic sanctions but those sanctions are only as good as the compliance of nations that are members of the United Nations where, by treaty agreement, that are committed to honoring their treaty obligations. Many complain about the ineffectiveness of the United Nationns when instead they should be complaining about the failure of nations to comply with their treaty obligations as members of the United Nations. By way of analogy it's like complaining about state government that has laws against robbing banks because we still have bank robbers.
Blame the "criminals" and not the entity that establishes the laws.
The purpose of the UN is to resolve conflicts without resorting to war. It uses means other than war to accomplish this end and that includes economic sanctions that can cripple a nation economically. It uses "dollars" instead of "bullets" and is actually quite effective at it so long as the member nations fulfill their treaty committments. South Africa was forced to give up it's nuclear weapons program (that Israel was behind) because of UN economic sanctions if you will recall.
We don't have any actual evidence that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. The IAEA is able to track all Iranian nuclear materials and, to date, Iran has not produced any nuclear materials above 20% enrichment which is well below the 90% enrichment necessary for weapons grade uranium so they don't even have the "fuel" for a nuclear weapon. Yes, 20% enrichment is well on the way towards creating nuclear weapons grade uranium but it is also used for peaceful purposes. We can also note that the NPT doesn't not prohibit the theoretical research required to build a nuclear weapon. Nothing in the treaty prohibits a nation from knowing how to build a nuclear weapon. It only prohibits actually building one or of providing the nuclear materials required to build a nuclear weapon to someone else.
Iran has been at the diplomatic table and while there have been minor issues related to an actual final agreement it was the economic sanctions that drove Iran to the bargaining table. Apparently the UN economic sanctions are working. Of course this whole issue could have been resolved years ago if the UN (US) wasn't hypocritical in it's actions. Years ago Iran offered to allow any inspections that Israel also agreed to comply with. The only motivation for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon are the nuclear weapons that Israel has. It is Israel that represents the greatest military threat in the region and not Iran. How many times has Iran invaded neighboring countries since 1979? How many people outside of it's territorial borders is Iran currently subjecting to military occupation? Now compare that to Israel.
There is a 99% likelihood that the United Nations will eventually stop any nuclear weapons ambitions by Iran and a 100% likelihood that Iran will secretly produce nuclear weapons if Israel attacks it IMHO.
Moving on to Pakistan and India it is actually in the mutual best interests for both to dismantle their nuclear weapons. Each has nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear attack by the other country. It's like two two people pointing cocked pistols at each other and just one slight twitch of a finger will result in a gun fight. Both nations would be more secure if they were disarmed because it removes a threat that neither can afford to endure. No nation can win a nuclear war.
Israel doesn't need nuclear weapons. It can't use them under any conditions and has never shown any need for them. What it does do by having nuclear weapons is to provide a rationalization for other nations to produce their own nuclear weapons based upon the policy of "mutually assured destruction" that the US and USSR lived under during the Cold War. Israel would NOT dare to attack Iran if Iran had nuclear weapons and we both know that. If Iran truly is trying to develop nuclear weapons it is being rationalized based upon the nuclear weapons that Israel already has.
This is the same rationalization for North Korea producing nuclear weapons. The US, the most powerful military on the planet and a nuclear weapon nation, is sitting on it's border representing a threat of invasion. We could have easily defeated North Korea before it had nuclear weapons but today we don't dare invade. North Korea could easily nuke Japan, our ally, if we did and that is unacceptable. It could also nuke any US troops that attempt to invade North Korea as well.
The only way to prevent a nuclear war is through disarmement of nuclear weapons. The propose of the NPT, a UN treaty organization, is to disarm the world of nuclear weapons. That is it's stated purpose and it attempts do do this without war because war is what drives the rationalization for nuclear weapons development for third world countries. We would not have invaded Iraq in 2003 if it had nuclear weapons. Saddam, as history now shows, had ample reasons for wanting to possses nuclear weapons to prevent an invasion by the US government.
But I ramble a bit.
The point being that no nation should have nuclear weapons at all and the only reason there should be any authorized nuclear weapons nations is if they have them on hand to launch a retaliatory strike against any nation, friend or foe, that ever uses a nuclear weapon, ever!!! In fact it should be a "friendly nuclear nation" that would launch the "retaliatory" striked to avoid escalation of a nuclear war to a worldwide nuclear war. Once agian using Israel as an example if the US retaliated because Israel used a nuclear weapon it would not generate a nuclear response from Russia but if Russia retaliated it could generate a nuclear response by the US resulting in all-out nuclear world war where billions of people would die.
Nuclear weapons represent a threat to all mankind and we need to eliminate them using non-military means because military aggressions merely enforces the rationalization for nuclear weapons. You never avoid war by going to war.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 2, 2014 12:51:16 GMT
As for Thomas Sowell's "solution" to "tens of millions of uninsured Americans": As he notes in another essay--quite correctly--many of these uninsured Americans are simply young people, who would prefer to spend their limited resources on something other than medical insurance; which they are far less likely than older (or even middle-aged) Americans) to need. So they should remain free to make that choice.
The bottom 20% of American households (about 24 million households) have less than $20,260/yr in gross income. In 2009 when Obamacare was being addressed the cost for a family insurance policy according to the Kaiser Foundation started at about $7,000/yr as I recall. That would be over 1/3rd of the entire gross income of the household. To claim that people didn't purchase insurance just because they didn't want to but could afford it is BS. That $7,000/yr insurance premium would have been very hard for even someone in the bottom 40% of household to afford.
It wasn't that they could afford the insurance and simply decided to not purchase it but instead it was because they couldn't afford the insurance policy and still pay all of their other bills.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 2, 2014 13:09:33 GMT
Oh, here is Thomas Sowell on the fetish for "affordable housing" that led, ultimately, to the crash in 2008 (that devastated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others): And in another essay:
Basically all Sowell is pointing out is that, apparently by executive order, Bush and Clinton violated the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that required banks to maintain "safe and sound operation" lending practices.
We can note though that the practice of "redlining" where banks wouldn't loan to people living in a targeted area (overwhemlingly affecting African-American families) regardless of their ability to repay the loan was nefarious discrimination.
We can also note that there were mortgage loan agents that resorted to nefarious practices of misinformation to the borrowers because the agents worked on a commission and they merely acted as an intermediator where they weren't the actual representatives of the lending company that ended up with the mortgage. There was a lot of greed that lead to nefarious predatory lending practices during under the Bush Adminstration as I'm sure you're aware of. Numerous lawsuits by the US government since then have resulted in huge fines because of the practices that took place. Of course these huge fines don't go to the victims of the fraud by the lenders. I'm not blaming Bush but instead blaming capitalistic greed for those practices.
So what are Sowell's recommendations that would prevent this in the future? Less regulation of the banking industry that will only result in it happening again? Or is he calling for more regulations of the banking industry to prevent it from happening again? Just curious as to what he recommends to keep it from happening again.
BTW I'm also curious as to how local politicians were responsible for high real estate and housing prices. Was this because of regulations against "slum lords" that didn't maintain their property and this housing was often very unsafe to live in? Does Sowell believe that people should be subjected to living in rat infested fire traps? I really don't know how local politicians affect local real estate markets were pricing is based upon supply and demand.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 3, 2014 0:16:14 GMT
If the UN is "addressing" the problem of a nuclear-armed North Korea, I must have missed it. And any attempt to halt Iran's (apparently irresistable) march toward obtaining nukes has also been ineffectual. Perhaps Israel (either with or without Washington's imprimatur) will take care of Iran's nuclear program, by whatever means necessary. I would certainly hope so.
North Korea and Iran are both being subjected to severe economic sanctions but those sanctions are only as good as the compliance of nations that are members of the United Nations where, by treaty agreement, that are committed to honoring their treaty obligations. Many complain about the ineffectiveness of the United Nationns when instead they should be complaining about the failure of nations to comply with their treaty obligations as members of the United Nations. By way of analogy it's like complaining about state government that has laws against robbing banks because we still have bank robbers.
Blame the "criminals" and not the entity that establishes the laws.
The purpose of the UN is to resolve conflicts without resorting to war. It uses means other than war to accomplish this end and that includes economic sanctions that can cripple a nation economically. It uses "dollars" instead of "bullets" and is actually quite effective at it so long as the member nations fulfill their treaty committments. South Africa was forced to give up it's nuclear weapons program (that Israel was behind) because of UN economic sanctions if you will recall.
We don't have any actual evidence that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. The IAEA is able to track all Iranian nuclear materials and, to date, Iran has not produced any nuclear materials above 20% enrichment which is well below the 90% enrichment necessary for weapons grade uranium so they don't even have the "fuel" for a nuclear weapon. Yes, 20% enrichment is well on the way towards creating nuclear weapons grade uranium but it is also used for peaceful purposes. We can also note that the NPT doesn't not prohibit the theoretical research required to build a nuclear weapon. Nothing in the treaty prohibits a nation from knowing how to build a nuclear weapon. It only prohibits actually building one or of providing the nuclear materials required to build a nuclear weapon to someone else.
Iran has been at the diplomatic table and while there have been minor issues related to an actual final agreement it was the economic sanctions that drove Iran to the bargaining table. Apparently the UN economic sanctions are working. Of course this whole issue could have been resolved years ago if the UN (US) wasn't hypocritical in it's actions. Years ago Iran offered to allow any inspections that Israel also agreed to comply with. The only motivation for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon are the nuclear weapons that Israel has. It is Israel that represents the greatest military threat in the region and not Iran. How many times has Iran invaded neighboring countries since 1979? How many people outside of it's territorial borders is Iran currently subjecting to military occupation? Now compare that to Israel.
There is a 99% likelihood that the United Nations will eventually stop any nuclear weapons ambitions by Iran and a 100% likelihood that Iran will secretly produce nuclear weapons if Israel attacks it IMHO.
Moving on to Pakistan and India it is actually in the mutual best interests for both to dismantle their nuclear weapons. Each has nuclear weapons to deter a nuclear attack by the other country. It's like two two people pointing cocked pistols at each other and just one slight twitch of a finger will result in a gun fight. Both nations would be more secure if they were disarmed because it removes a threat that neither can afford to endure. No nation can win a nuclear war.
Israel doesn't need nuclear weapons. It can't use them under any conditions and has never shown any need for them. What it does do by having nuclear weapons is to provide a rationalization for other nations to produce their own nuclear weapons based upon the policy of "mutually assured destruction" that the US and USSR lived under during the Cold War. Israel would NOT dare to attack Iran if Iran had nuclear weapons and we both know that. If Iran truly is trying to develop nuclear weapons it is being rationalized based upon the nuclear weapons that Israel already has.
This is the same rationalization for North Korea producing nuclear weapons. The US, the most powerful military on the planet and a nuclear weapon nation, is sitting on it's border representing a threat of invasion. We could have easily defeated North Korea before it had nuclear weapons but today we don't dare invade. North Korea could easily nuke Japan, our ally, if we did and that is unacceptable. It could also nuke any US troops that attempt to invade North Korea as well.
The only way to prevent a nuclear war is through disarmement of nuclear weapons. The propose of the NPT, a UN treaty organization, is to disarm the world of nuclear weapons. That is it's stated purpose and it attempts do do this without war because war is what drives the rationalization for nuclear weapons development for third world countries. We would not have invaded Iraq in 2003 if it had nuclear weapons. Saddam, as history now shows, had ample reasons for wanting to possses nuclear weapons to prevent an invasion by the US government.
But I ramble a bit.
The point being that no nation should have nuclear weapons at all and the only reason there should be any authorized nuclear weapons nations is if they have them on hand to launch a retaliatory strike against any nation, friend or foe, that ever uses a nuclear weapon, ever!!! In fact it should be a "friendly nuclear nation" that would launch the "retaliatory" striked to avoid escalation of a nuclear war to a worldwide nuclear war. Once agian using Israel as an example if the US retaliated because Israel used a nuclear weapon it would not generate a nuclear response from Russia but if Russia retaliated it could generate a nuclear response by the US resulting in all-out nuclear world war where billions of people would die.
Nuclear weapons represent a threat to all mankind and we need to eliminate them using non-military means because military aggressions merely enforces the rationalization for nuclear weapons. You never avoid war by going to war.
To assert that you "never avoid war by going to war" is a mere tautology. But it is often possible to avoid war by threatening war--quite seriously. (It is known as the doctrine of peace through strength.) To claim that Iran is just scared of Israel because of Israel's nuclear weapons--that it is just responding as a matter of self-protection--is downright ludicrous. Israel has never demonstrated the slightest inclination to launch nukes agains Iran--even before Iran ever began its nuclear program. And why would Kim Jong-un or Hassan Rouhani care even one whit about the sanctions that are affecting only their respective populaces--but not the countries' leaders, themselves? (Do you seriously believe that these two men are humanitarians?) Your apparent desire for nuclear disarmament--and not merely of Israel, India, and Pakistan, but of all nuclear nations--is rather pollyannaish. It seems to rest upon the foundation of a belief that compliance from everyone could be assured by some worldwide body; or that, even if that were to fail, well, at least a major nuclear conflict would be avoided; and that this trumps all other considerations. Well, I disagree. Strongly, in fact. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 3, 2014 0:19:34 GMT
As for Thomas Sowell's "solution" to "tens of millions of uninsured Americans": As he notes in another essay--quite correctly--many of these uninsured Americans are simply young people, who would prefer to spend their limited resources on something other than medical insurance; which they are far less likely than older (or even middle-aged) Americans) to need. So they should remain free to make that choice.
The bottom 20% of American households (about 24 million households) have less than $20,260/yr in gross income. In 2009 when Obamacare was being addressed the cost for a family insurance policy according to the Kaiser Foundation started at about $7,000/yr as I recall. That would be over 1/3rd of the entire gross income of the household. To claim that people didn't purchase insurance just because they didn't want to but could afford it is BS. That $7,000/yr insurance premium would have been very hard for even someone in the bottom 40% of household to afford.
It wasn't that they could afford the insurance and simply decided to not purchase it but instead it was because they couldn't afford the insurance policy and still pay all of their other bills.
And how many of that bottom 20 percent, in your opinion, are young people whose respective employers offer (highly subsidized) healthcare insurance; but who would simply prefer to spend their limited income in other ways? |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 3, 2014 0:52:12 GMT
Oh, here is Thomas Sowell on the fetish for "affordable housing" that led, ultimately, to the crash in 2008 (that devastated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others): And in another essay:
Basically all Sowell is pointing out is that, apparently by executive order, Bush and Clinton violated the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that required banks to maintain "safe and sound operation" lending practices.
We can note though that the practice of "redlining" where banks wouldn't loan to people living in a targeted area (overwhemlingly affecting African-American families) regardless of their ability to repay the loan was nefarious discrimination.
We can also note that there were mortgage loan agents that resorted to nefarious practices of misinformation to the borrowers because the agents worked on a commission and they merely acted as an intermediator where they weren't the actual representatives of the lending company that ended up with the mortgage. There was a lot of greed that lead to nefarious predatory lending practices during under the Bush Adminstration as I'm sure you're aware of. Numerous lawsuits by the US government since then have resulted in huge fines because of the practices that took place. Of course these huge fines don't go to the victims of the fraud by the lenders. I'm not blaming Bush but instead blaming capitalistic greed for those practices.
So what are Sowell's recommendations that would prevent this in the future? Less regulation of the banking industry that will only result in it happening again? Or is he calling for more regulations of the banking industry to prevent it from happening again? Just curious as to what he recommends to keep it from happening again.
BTW I'm also curious as to how local politicians were responsible for high real estate and housing prices. Was this because of regulations against "slum lords" that didn't maintain their property and this housing was often very unsafe to live in? Does Sowell believe that people should be subjected to living in rat infested fire traps? I really don't know how local politicians affect local real estate markets were pricing is based upon supply and demand.
As regarding your question concerning how local politicians might be responsible for astronomical housing prices, I think Mr. Sowell hit the nail squarely on the head: I do not believe that Mr. Sowell has "recommendations" to "prevent" abuses by "nefarious" agents; but he has made suggestions (which I have repeated) to prevent abuses by the federal government--which I believe is much more worrisome than any real-estate agent is. (The best thing that the federal government can do for the American citizenry, in my opinion, is just to stay out of the way--and not even pretend to try to help.) The banks' erstwhile practice of "redlining," in my opinion, was not especially nefarious. Yes, it may have negatively affected a higher percentage of African-American families than it affected Caucasion families; but that was not by design. And I have very little use for laws that are designed to prevent a so-called "disparate impact" on minorities. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 3, 2014 10:36:40 GMT
To assert that you "never avoid war by going to war" is a mere tautology. But it is often possible to avoid war by threatening war--quite seriously. (It is known as the doctrine of peace through strength.) To claim that Iran is just scared of Israel because of Israel's nuclear weapons--that it is just responding as a matter of self-protection--is downright ludicrous. Israel has never demonstrated the slightest inclination to launch nukes agains Iran--even before Iran ever began its nuclear program. And why would Kim Jong-un or Hassan Rouhani care even one whit about the sanctions that are affecting only their respective populaces--but not the countries' leaders, themselves? (Do you seriously believe that these two men are humanitarians?) Your apparent desire for nuclear disarmament--and not merely of Israel, India, and Pakistan, but of all nuclear nations--is rather pollyannaish. It seems to rest upon the foundation of a belief that compliance from everyone could be assured by some worldwide body; or that, even if that were to fail, well, at least a major nuclear conflict would be avoided; and that this trumps all other considerations. Well, I disagree. Strongly, in fact.
That is a perversion of what the doctrine of "Peace through Strength" means. That doctrine is based upon the logical understanding that if one nation is adequately armed to defend itself from attack/invasion then other nations will not attack/invade that nation. It was never about threatening other nations with the use of military force.
Israel has demonstrated that it is a rogue military nation willing to attack and invade others in violation of it's International Treaty obligations. Based upon the number of attacks and invasions committed by Israel it is the greatest threat to peace between nations in the Middle East. Iran has ever reason to fear Israel's threats that Israel might unilaterally attack Iran and there has been no indication that Israel wouldn't use nuclear weapons against Iran. You're damn tootin' that the Middle East nations, including Iran, are afraid that Israel might use nuclear weapons against them.
Kim Jong-un or Hassan Rouhani are concerned with power. Hassan Rouhani obviously doesn't have power secured as well as Jong-un because he was elected but even Jong-un can be disposed of by a revolution of the people of North Korea. The longer the people are oppressed because of the actions of their leaders the more likely they are to be disposed of. That is a simple fact and economic sanctions create economic oppression of the people that the people eventually associate with the actions of their leaders. It might take a generation or more but someday people will revolt against leaders that cause them to suffer. There are, of course, other reasons that can be addressed to encourage a nation to dismantle their nuclear weapons such as removing a threat against the nation.
It would be wonderful if we could live in a nuclear weapon free world but that is not pragmatically possible. We do require nations that will have nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of retalliation in the event of any nation producing and using a nuclear weapon. As much as we might wish it wasn't the case we must threaten any nation with immediate nuclear retalliation if they ever use a nuclear weapon. The leaders of a nation must understand that if they ever use a nuclear weapons they, and their nation, will be completely annihilated by nuclear retalliation. The threat of nuclear war is so great that the only way to possibly prevent it is by the threat of complete annihilation if any nations used a nuclear weapon.
It is a very scary situation because nuclear war can destroy all of mankind.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 3, 2014 10:45:05 GMT
And how many of that bottom 20 percent, in your opinion, are young people whose respective employers offer (highly subsidized) healthcare insurance; but who would simply prefer to spend their limited income in other ways?
There are probably many that would choose to spend their limited income on things like rent, utilities, and food because those are necessary daily expenditures. Even if we assume they have "excess" income above and beyond their basic needs then are they not acting irresponsible by not enrolling in their employers health insurance? They place the taxpayers or others at financial risk because they could have a serious medical condition arise. Should we be supporting personal irresponsibility that creates financial risk for others?
We should note as well that most of the 20% don't have employer provide health care plans at all so the actual percentage that do is somewhat irrelevant. Most low paying jobs don't have employer group insurance as a part of the compensation package.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 3, 2014 11:00:26 GMT
As regarding your question concerning how local politicians might be responsible for astronomical housing prices, I think Mr. Sowell hit the nail squarely on the head: I do not believe that Mr. Sowell has "recommendations" to "prevent" abuses by "nefarious" agents; but he has made suggestions (which I have repeated) to prevent abuses by the federal government--which I believe is much more worrisome than any real-estate agent is. (The best thing that the federal government can do for the American citizenry, in my opinion, is just to stay out of the way--and not even pretend to try to help.) The banks' erstwhile practice of "redlining," in my opinion, was not especially nefarious. Yes, it may have negatively affected a higher percentage of African-American families than it affected Caucasion families; but that was not by design. And I have very little use for laws that are designed to prevent a so-called "disparate impact" on minorities.
So apparently there is no dispute that the Clinton and Bush adminstrations were violating the criteria of the law when they allowed or encouraged mortgage institutions to not maintain proper lending practices. So what is Thomas Sowell's recommendation to prevent this from happening again? Yes regulation or more regulation of the lending institutions? You seemed to gloss over this question.
Can you (or did Thomas Sowell) provide any source of these "emperical" studies that zoning laws increased the cost of home by $100,000? I'm sort or curious as to where and why this occurred. Of course it does make sense to limit conversion of farmlands into housing. Farmlands tend to be the flatlands and not the steeper hillsides. We can build homes a lot of places where we can't farm and that's where we should build homes. Always remember that once farmland is lost it is never regained. Without farmland we don't eat and eating is a pretty important thing for all of us.
BTW I find the claim by Sowell on this increase in the cost of housing by $100,000 to be rather silly. Yes, it could happen in a very limited location but overall it has no impact at all. It would be such a rare occurance that it is insignificant in the bigger picture.At best he appears to be pointing to rare exceptions as opposed to a common occurance. Without referernce to the study (and you oppose studies except when they fit your opinions) we don't know what the hell Sowell is actually referring to.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 3, 2014 18:44:23 GMT
To assert that you "never avoid war by going to war" is a mere tautology. But it is often possible to avoid war by threatening war--quite seriously. (It is known as the doctrine of peace through strength.) To claim that Iran is just scared of Israel because of Israel's nuclear weapons--that it is just responding as a matter of self-protection--is downright ludicrous. Israel has never demonstrated the slightest inclination to launch nukes agains Iran--even before Iran ever began its nuclear program. And why would Kim Jong-un or Hassan Rouhani care even one whit about the sanctions that are affecting only their respective populaces--but not the countries' leaders, themselves? (Do you seriously believe that these two men are humanitarians?) Your apparent desire for nuclear disarmament--and not merely of Israel, India, and Pakistan, but of all nuclear nations--is rather pollyannaish. It seems to rest upon the foundation of a belief that compliance from everyone could be assured by some worldwide body; or that, even if that were to fail, well, at least a major nuclear conflict would be avoided; and that this trumps all other considerations. Well, I disagree. Strongly, in fact.
That is a perversion of what the doctrine of "Peace through Strength" means. That doctrine is based upon the logical understanding that if one nation is adequately armed to defend itself from attack/invasion then other nations will not attack/invade that nation. It was never about threatening other nations with the use of military force.
Israel has demonstrated that it is a rogue military nation willing to attack and invade others in violation of it's International Treaty obligations. Based upon the number of attacks and invasions committed by Israel it is the greatest threat to peace between nations in the Middle East. Iran has ever reason to fear Israel's threats that Israel might unilaterally attack Iran and there has been no indication that Israel wouldn't use nuclear weapons against Iran. You're damn tootin' that the Middle East nations, including Iran, are afraid that Israel might use nuclear weapons against them.
Kim Jong-un or Hassan Rouhani are concerned with power. Hassan Rouhani obviously doesn't have power secured as well as Jong-un because he was elected but even Jong-un can be disposed of by a revolution of the people of North Korea. The longer the people are oppressed because of the actions of their leaders the more likely they are to be disposed of. That is a simple fact and economic sanctions create economic oppression of the people that the people eventually associate with the actions of their leaders. It might take a generation or more but someday people will revolt against leaders that cause them to suffer. There are, of course, other reasons that can be addressed to encourage a nation to dismantle their nuclear weapons such as removing a threat against the nation.
It would be wonderful if we could live in a nuclear weapon free world but that is not pragmatically possible. We do require nations that will have nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of retalliation in the event of any nation producing and using a nuclear weapon. As much as we might wish it wasn't the case we must threaten any nation with immediate nuclear retalliation if they ever use a nuclear weapon. The leaders of a nation must understand that if they ever use a nuclear weapons they, and their nation, will be completely annihilated by nuclear retalliation. The threat of nuclear war is so great that the only way to possibly prevent it is by the threat of complete annihilation if any nations used a nuclear weapon.
It is a very scary situation because nuclear war can destroy all of mankind.
I agree one hundred percent with your assertion that the doctrine of peace through strength is all about deterring aggressor states from starting a conflict. When has Israel ever shown itself to be a "rogue" nation? When has it ever "invade[d]" another nation, except in response to that other nation's aggressions? Note: You may be correct in your assertion that Israel might use nuclear weapons against Iran. More specifically, it might use tactical nukes--or bunker-buster bombs, or some combination thereof--to destroy Iran's known and suspected nuclear facilities. Although this would surely violate the post-WWII Western taboo against the first use of nuclear weapons, I cannot say, honestly, that I would be especially upset by it. That is because I simply am not phobic about our "lowering the threshold" for the first use of nuclear weapons, as many on the left are. And I am still trying to imagine just how "the people of North Korea" might be able to mount a successful revolution against the (highly oppressive) government in Pyongyang. What sort of armaments are the people there equipped with, anyway? |
|
