CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Thursday, May 24, 2012
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- Lessons from The Laffer Curve in the 1920s
- New and Frozen Frontier Awaits Offshore Oil Drilli...
- Huge Subsidies ($6.5B) for Electric Vehicles Are G...
- Quote of the Day: Bastiat on Legal Plunder
- Credit Card Delinquency Rate Falls to Record Low; ...
- One Reason Why Oil Prices Will Remain Stable: U.S....
- 3 Best Websites to Get A Free College Education
- Bakken 2? Oil Prosperity Comes to South Kansas; Co...
- Shale Gas Boom Helps to Slash CO2 Emissions, As We...
- More Evidence We're Past the Housing Bottom
55 Comments:
Wow, I guess that's why nobody used to admit to it before Clinton and Obama. There was a much better interview with Penn on reason.tv late last year.
yes.. all this stuff is Obama's fault even if it was going on LONG before Obama was elected.
Obama has to fix all things wrong even if he did not cause them or it is his fault.
Anyone who thinks that a President to the RIGHT of Obama will stop the war on drugs is smoking something illegal.
the BEST chance to loosen up the war on drugs would be someone to the LEFT of people like Bush and other like-minded right-leaning political leaders.
Just look at the reaction of the right wing on Gay rights...
I never can quite understand how libertarians think their allies are on the right....when the right tends to be repressive as hell on individual rights on social issues.
"Obama has to fix all things wrong even if he did not cause them or it is his fault"...
Don't you just hate it when people call out your boyfriend for his hypocrisy?
"Hope" and "Change" sure have worked out so very well.
At least it appears that a plurality now approves of making weed legal, like alcohol.
yes.. all this stuff is Obama's fault even if it was going on LONG before Obama was elected.
Obama ran as a civil liberties candidate. On that front he turned out to be even worse than Bush.
"yes.. all this stuff is Obama's fault even if it was going on LONG before Obama was elected."
I think the question is ANYTHING Obama's fault according to his boot-licking defenders like you, Larry?
"..the BEST chance to loosen up the war on drugs would be someone to the LEFT of people like Bush and other like-minded right-leaning political leaders."
Maybe so, but then those same liberals will give the druggies more of my tax dollars so they can sit on the couch and smoke their weed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
i am left wondering if any of these libtards even bother to try to look at facts before toeing the party line.
this is a states rights issue. bush, contrary to your uninformed rant, did NOT try to stop state legalization. the feds were not busting into dispensaries in cali under bush.
he explicitly supported a state's right to make that decision in his platform (though he said he personally did not support its legalization).
i realize that it is impossible for the average libtard to conceive of having a view but allowing others to have their own and not ramming yours down their throat through a fascist nanny state, but that's precisely what bush did on this issue.
he said "i don't support it, but i think states should make their own policy here and i will not interfere."
obama, on the other hand, has been ordering raids etc despite running as a personal liberties candidate.
contrary to the absurdist liberal narrative and revisionist doctrine, bush WAS allowing states to legalize pot. the record is very clear. it's obama that will not allow it.
this will, of course, change no libtard minds. if one were capable of being swayed by facts instead of mindlessly regurgitating talking points and ignoring history, well, then they would not be a libtard in the first place.
Thanks to Buzzfeed for providing us a "User's Guide to Smoking Pot With Obama."
" seriously, do you try to misunderstand and misrepresent issues so badly or do you really not get it"
representing Bush as a defender of civil liberties is the funniest thing you've said Morg...
I guess we know which side you fall down on, eh? and HARD TOO!
:-)
"representing Bush as a defender of civil liberties is the funniest thing you've said Morg"...
Proving yet again that larry g's grip on reality is questionable...
Just what did George W do to actively inhibit your civil rights larry g?
Hey paul thanks for that buzz feed link...
Its hilarious!
What did Morganovich write that was incorrect, Larry? Maybe he's wrong, I admit I didn't really pay much attention to the pot initiatives during Bush's terms as it is not really in my wheelhouse.
You must have some contrary information you'd like to share.
http://www.nowandfutures.com/grins/kill_kill.mp3
This comment has been removed by the author.
arry-
what a shock. meaningless drivel from you that has zero facts, just mindless blather that misrepresents the facts.
for the record, i am not a fan of bush nor am i a GOP member.
i'm a pretty die hard libertarian.
i believe in states rights and freedom for individuals to use such recreational chemicals as they like, marry whom they like, and pursue whatever activities do not infringe upon the rights of others.
i believe in government that protects the rights of citizens, upholds contracts, protects the borders, and stay the hell out of the way.
so no larry, your foolish attempts to call me GOP or claim you "which side i fall down on" are just as misguided as your notions about obama vs bush.
pointing out that bush was better on this issue than obama does not slap an elephant trunk on my.
i realize that foolish misatribution, misrepresentation, and distortion all while ignoring and failing to provide facts is you essential metier in terms of discussion, but once more you demonstrate that you are either a willful liar or have little to no logical capability.
this is precisely why i generally avoid talking to you.
now before you go off on one of your silly sulks about "you're just denigrating me blah blah blah" let me lay out to you why what i am saying is FACT, not opinion.
you take my statement that "bush's record on drug legalization is better than obama's" and twist it into "I guess we know which side you fall down on, eh? and HARD TOO!"
this is a provable logical fallacy.
in formal logic, it presents like this:
M beleves bush is superior to obama on drug legalization (proposition), therefore we know which party M supports.(conclusion)
that is pure fallacy.
that's like saying larry likes chinese food better than mexican, therefore larry is chinese.
it is literally the exact same logical construction.
you take one part of a thing and use to stand for the whole. you take a subset and pretend that being in it makes you a part of the larger set as if the venn diagram of opinion has 100% overlap.
for your statement to be true, it must be impossible for one to believe that bush did better on drugs than obama and not be GOP or "fall down on a (particular and knowable) side" etc.
that is clearly and demonstrably untrue.
so lar, perhaps having been shown that what you have said is provably false, you will start actually taking a look at how badly you argue and misrepresent facts and opinions of others. you do this very consistently.
i've taken the time to actually lay out this out because i suspect you have viewed criticism of this sort of behavior from you in the past as subjective and opinion based.
i lay this out as actual logic so that you can see that it is not and that, in fact, you are just plain wrong in a proven, objective sense.
i hope you take it to heart.
to paraphrase dean wermer:
illogical and loud is no way to go through life son.
Larry's always telling us he's not ideological, he's only after "the facts." But look how that changes when he's actually presented with some facts that run contrary to his Democrat talking points.
" You must have some contrary information you'd like to share. "
Claiming that Bush was a "states rights" guy is laughable given his approval of kidnapping and renditions and torture.
If he thought you were a bad guy, it did not matter what the "rights" of a state or other nation were...
The man had his Justice dept tell the SCOTUS that they had no Habeas corpus jurisdiction IN ANY STATE so his "states rights" bona fides were pretty selective.
He was the same guy that also overruled California on consumer disclosure and pollution standards.
I do not think Bush was a "state's rights" guy... at all...
"Claiming that Bush was a "states rights" guy is laughable blah, blah, blah.."
So you are confirming you have zero information contrary to Morganovich's remarks about Bush and the marijuana initiatives. Would have been much simpler for you to admit that rather than go off on a moronic tangent that has nothing to do with his specific claim.
larry-
you may wish to note: after my detailed explanation about using one small thing to stand for a whole, you just went and did it again.
you have attributed a whole position to paul that he (nor anyone else on this thread) has espoused.
once more you take (proposition) bush said drug legalization was a states rights issue (which my the way, paul never even said) and say therefore: bush is a states rights guy.
this is like saying larry left the light on last night therefore larry always leaves the lights on.
seriously, can you not see the glaring logical fallacies you are repeatedly creating? can you flat out not understand this or are you just willfully lying and misrepresenting facts as a slimy debate tactic?
Inquiring minds want to know if growing weed is anything like green shoots?
" So you are confirming you have zero information contrary to Morganovich's remarks about Bush and the marijuana initiatives."
no .. I'm confirming that Bush did not care about states rights on a number of other issues and that I've not seen any real proof that he DID care about it on this issue.
Bush did not give a rats butt about state's rights in general... if he had other fish to fry.
Remember.. Bush did sign the Medicare Part D which is Fed govt health care... when he could have vetoed it and said it was a State issue.
He also tried and succeed to squash California's attempts to force mercury labeling of Tuna and stricter pollution standards.
he did not defend states rights across the board at all.
seriously, do you try to misunderstand and misrepresent issues so badly or do you really not get it.
He is either the stupidest person around or playing games with you. I suggest that reducing responses to his postings might be something to think about unless you really think that the point you make is useful to others.
VangelV
Yeah, you're probably right. Look at his last nonsense post. He can't address a specific question so he brings up issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
"misrepresent" ?
ha ha ha
"misrepresent" is to claim that George Bush was a states rights guy...
THAT's a misrepresentation if I ever heard one.
yes....soon.. we'll hear another pronouncement from Morg about a lack of 'contributions' and "prattling".
:-)
Yeah, you're probably right. Look at his last nonsense post. He can't address a specific question so he brings up issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
It is worse than that. Our pal can't even agree on word definitions so he often says things that nobody who uses those words properly can follow. And he refuses to learn simple concepts or shed his ignorance about facts that he should know. Arguing with him is often a waste of time unless he makes a point that you want to address because it might help others understand the issue better.
"Claiming that Bush was a "states rights" guy is laughable given his approval of kidnapping and renditions and torture."
Wow. Just Wow. Larry sets out to prove beyond any doubt that he is incapable of logical thought
Wow. Just Wow. Larry sets out to prove beyond any doubt that he is incapable of logical thought
That is true. But he is right that Bush was not a states rights guy. He was for central power held in the Office of the President. Just like Obama, Clinton, Bush I, etc.
Bush was NOT a states right guy on many issues, but on some issues, specifically the medical MJ being discussed here, he WAS.
In contrast, I can't remember Obama being for state's rights on ANY issue. In his mind, it seems he wants to have the final say on EVERY issue.
Hard to imagine he might slip up and support states rights once or twice, so maybe he did.
Others might be able to cite an instance. Please do so.
And no, I'm NOT a Bush fan, nor will be I be voting for Romney this time around.
"That is true. But he is right that Bush was not a states rights guy. He was for central power held in the Office of the President"...
You got something credible to back that up with vangeIV?
"Claiming that Bush was a "states rights" guy is laughable given his approval of kidnapping and renditions and torture"...
Now again larry g sets out to prove just how seriously stupid he is and succeeds beyond his wildest dreams...
So Bush's 'alledged use of torture which has yet to be defined' is somehow linked to a domestic issue of states' rights...
Really larry g, that's one for the history books!
Bush was NOT a states right guy on many issues, but on some issues, specifically the medical MJ being discussed here, he WAS.
Let us see reality as it was. Bush was a disaster for the nation. While he may not be as big a disaster as Obama that is not a reason for anyone to make excuses for his horrible record in office. Bush was clearly against states rights and was a terrible president when it came to civil liberties. Sadly, Republican governors who never said that they would ignore federal laws that violated individual rights when Bush was in office are now acting as if everything that is happening is Obama's fault. By not admitting that their man was a corrupt and incompetent idiot they lose credibility and look like partisan hacks.
Voters need to send both parties a message and elect as many independents as possible.
morganovich: contrary to the absurdist liberal narrative and revisionist doctrine, bush WAS allowing states to legalize pot.
California legalized medical marijuana in 1996. Raids occurred throughout the Bush Administration. This is a long-standing issue of federal-state powers.
http://www.canorml.org/fedcasessum.html
You got something credible to back that up with vangeIV?
How about his record? Look at his attack on medical marijuana for one. The states have every right to allow their citizens to use pot for medical purposes. But Bush (and Obama) do not agree. Look at the Department of Education, which Bush expanded. It should not exist because education is a state, not a federal issue. Look at the EPA not permitting the state of California to set tailpipe emissions even though the Clean Air Act allowed it to do so. While I agree with the EPA that the idea was idiotic and would do grave harm the fact is that California has the right to make up stupid rules if it wishes. Look at Medicare Part D. Look at all of the departments that impose rules on states even though those departments are not authorized by the Constitution.
You are not dumb enough to really believe that Bush was a fiscal conservative or for state rights. So why pretend.
VangelV: But Bush (and Obama) do not agree.
Scalia agreed the federal government had to power to regulate marijuana, along with five other members of the Supreme Court.
Scalia agreed the federal government had to power to regulate marijuana, along with five other members of the Supreme Court.
So what? It is not surprising that federally appointed judges will side with the federal government no matter how absurd and unconstitutional the law. That is why the states have to start nullifying federal laws.
VangelV: So what?
VangelV: The states have every right to allow their citizens to use pot for medical purposes.
People have rights. States have powers. The division of powers would seem to be a political or constitutional question.
People have rights. States have powers. The division of powers would seem to be a political or constitutional question.
It is. But as the founding fathers pointed out, when you have a federal court decide it will go with its masers, not the states. That is why they supported nullification of bad federal laws.
VangelV: But as the founding fathers pointed out, when you have a federal court decide it will go with its masers, not the states.
Not sure that answers the question. If people have the right to use marijuana, then it doesn't matter whether it is outlawed at the state or federal level. It's still an intrusion into the private sphere. Yet you argued for states' rights in this instance. What if the federal government preempted state law to make marijuana legal?
Not sure that answers the question. If people have the right to use marijuana, then it doesn't matter whether it is outlawed at the state or federal level. It's still an intrusion into the private sphere. Yet you argued for states' rights in this instance. What if the federal government preempted state law to make marijuana legal?
That is not the issue being discussed. The point is that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from meddling in a number of areas. That does not mean that the states cannot regulate in those areas. The states rights argument is about federal regulations overriding those of a state in an area where the federal government is not supposed to have any power to make laws.
"You are not dumb enough to really believe that Bush was a fiscal conservative or for state rights. So why pretend"...
So in typical liberal fashion vangeIV you blather on making blanket statements that lack credibility and then when challenged on them you have a hissy fit...
O.K. you can't answer the original question so why bother making up fairy tales about what someone supposedly said or thought?
What's the point since you've already established you didn't have an answer?
The original question wasn't a big deal but there you went and exposed to one and all your BDS...
So in typical liberal fashion vangeIV you blather on making blanket statements that lack credibility and then when challenged on them you have a hissy fit...
O.K. you can't answer the original question so why bother making up fairy tales about what someone supposedly said or thought?
What's the point since you've already established you didn't have an answer?
I answered the question. Bush expanded the size and scope of government and wrote federal rules in areas that are supposed to be regulated by the states, if at all. Under his watch the pages in the Federal Register averaged more than 75 thousand pages, more than the Clinton and Carter averages of around 72 thousand.
Actions that showed Bush was against states rights include the Justice Department's war against Medical Marijuana laws by the states, the Oregon assisted suicide law, and the California tailpipe emissions regulations.
It is time for Republicans to stop being idiots and admit that Bush was not a fiscal conservative and was not in favour of smaller government that would let the states have more power because that is exactly what the data is showing.
" It is time for Republicans to stop being idiots and admit that Bush was not a fiscal conservative and was not in favour of smaller government that would let the states have more power because that is exactly what the data is showing. "
friendly amendment:
"Republicans and seriously misguided libertarians"
"Republicans and seriously misguided libertarians"
You could not be more wrong. Libertarians promote liberty. Like the Democrats, Republicans are the enemies of liberty.
"I answered the question. Bush expanded the size and scope of government and wrote federal rules in areas that are supposed to be regulated by the states, if at all. Under his watch the pages in the Federal Register averaged more than 75 thousand pages, more than the Clinton and Carter averages of around 72 thousand"...
You did not answer the question vangeIV, you gave me someone's cartoon of which may or may not be credible...
Actual page count means nothing...
George W Bush - 291 executive orders...
Slick Willie - 326 executive orders...
At the very least each E.O. and its attendent paperwok would have to be dissected line by line before one could determine if your blanket statements had any validity...
Professor Perry:
I expect that you meant to give a hat tip for the Penn video to Warren Meyer, not Warren Smith.
Actual page count means nothing...
George W Bush - 291 executive orders...
Slick Willie - 326 executive orders...
So? Slick Willie was also a big government guy who had no regards for state rights. And you are forgetting the fact that Willie was a lot more fiscally responsible than Bush was.
At the very least each E.O. and its attendent paperwok would have to be dissected line by line before one could determine if your blanket statements had any validity...
You are grasping at straws. Bush had a record of expanding government and increasing the budget of regulatory agencies. He talked a good game but when it came to the size of government acted as the worst of liberals.
Gadfly: A regular CD reader Warren Smith sent me the link to Warren Meyer's Coyote Blog link to Penn, so I acknowledged both.
"So? Slick Willie was also a big government guy who had no regards for state rights. And you are forgetting the fact that Willie was a lot more fiscally responsible than Bush was"...
Ahhh, wrong on both counts vangeIV...
You have NO idea if every or even any of those EOs impinges on states rights though its a safe bet that at least a few do...
Slick willie was NOT more fiscally responsible in any way, shape, or form...
One of the few bright & shiny moments for the Republicans over the last fifty or sixty years was that the little bit of fiscal responsibility supposedly on Clinton's watch was due welfare reform that Clinton and the dim-witted Dems whined, cried, and had a collective hissy fit over was due to the imposition of the reforms by the House Republicans and Blue Dog Dems...
those "reforms" were agreed to by Clinton though.. he signed the legislation and a balanced budget results.
Compare and contrast that with Bush and the Republicans in 2000-2006 where they eviscerated the balanced budget with their "reforms" to taxes and spending.
Ahhh, wrong on both counts vangeIV...
You have NO idea if every or even any of those EOs impinges on states rights though its a safe bet that at least a few do...
Slick willie was NOT more fiscally responsible in any way, shape, or form...
One of the few bright & shiny moments for the Republicans over the last fifty or sixty years was that the little bit of fiscal responsibility supposedly on Clinton's watch was due welfare reform that Clinton and the dim-witted Dems whined, cried, and had a collective hissy fit over was due to the imposition of the reforms by the House Republicans and Blue Dog Dems...
I will not disagree that when it comes to fiscal responsibility both the Congress and the President matter. But history is not kind to the GOP. After all, when it controlled both the Presidency and Congress under Bush the spending exploded. And no matter how you try to spin it, and all it is is spin, Clinton comes out better than Bush.
The problem that American voters have is the lack of choice. As the man said, the two main parties are just the two wings of the same bird of pray. And that bird is feeding on the productive class. If voters want improvements they have to reject both parties, not keep choosing one over the other.
" The problem that American voters have is the lack of choice"
well, they had every chance to vote for Ron Paul and they did not so there's a real question that if folks who consider themselves fiscal conservatives abandon Ron Paul when given that "choice".
well, they had every chance to vote for Ron Paul and they did not so there's a real question that if folks who consider themselves fiscal conservatives abandon Ron Paul when given that "choice".
Talk is cheap. People who call themselves fiscal conservatives have no problem with spending a trillion on a military that tries to police the world just as people who think of themselves as 'good Christians' have no problem with torture or seeing their government kill innocent civilians.
Clinton comes out better than Bush.
V is correct, per the actual total debt facts etc.
http://www.nowandfutures.com/images/debt_only_last_five_presidents.png
WHOA! look at Reagan!
nice link.. thanks!
Post a Comment
<< Home