Good read
Why Do We Call Them Democrats (when they are Socialists)?

Although we are blessed with some powerful female voices on the right including our own MM, Laura Ingraham, Kathryn-Jean Lopez and numerous others, it is an obvious fact that — on the whole — the political instinct of women is to think short-term and close-to-home. They want to provide relief or benefit for their families RIGHT NOW. They are much less inclined than men to take the longer and broader view. An obvious example is their greater reluctance to see their children go to war, however compelling the case may be. They tend to want to keep their children safe at hearth TODAY and worry about that far-away threat TOMORROW.

All of this, of course, makes them a natural Democrat constituency. They want better schools, daycare, healthcare, and every kind of government amenity that they see as prospering their family enterprise. They tend to be much less interested than men in long-term economic impact, unintended consequences, dangers of a growing government, etc.

On June 21st, 2008 at 1:29 am, Paul-Cincy said:

Politicalguano said:

He was reportedly abandoned by his father, is very smart, and makes the ladies swoon.

Would it kill the Democrats to nominate a prez candidate who was raised with a father in the house? First Clinton, now Obama. They’re both adored by their mothers, the “golden boys” of the family. They miss what a father would have provided.

I think that you are on to something profound here, friend. Black males have long been on the decline as a force in raising the next generation. Now, it is also happening among whites, although for somewhat different reasons. Many black males have been irresponsible, been too young for their fatherly roles, landed up in jail, or otherwise abandoned their families many of which were created by the “single moms” as an entrée into welfare.

Of course, we have some of all of that with white males (and Bill Clinton is from that type of environment), but we also have large numbers of “successful” white males abandoning a traditional male role. Many who have not swung all the way to the open homosexuality, have become femminized “metrosexuals.” So any way you cut it, strong, traditional male participation in child rearing is seriously on the decline. “Single mom” has gone in a couple of decades from being a badge of shame to being badge of honor. All this is showing up in our politics, both in our candidates and in our voting patterns.

When South Carolina elects a swisher like Lindsey Graham, that says a lot.

Politicalguano said:

He was reportedly abandoned by his father, is very smart, and makes the ladies swoon.

Would it kill the Democrats to nominate a prez candidate who was raised with a father in the house? First Clinton, now Obama. They’re both adored by their mothers, the “golden boys” of the family. They miss what a father would have provided.

On June 20th, 2008 at 11:38 pm, nbarry said:

“How do oil company profits go up if they cut supplies from the market?” somebody asks. How do tax revenues go up when the government cuts tax rates?

Not a bad question. Just as tax revenues would fall to $0 from marginal rates of 100%, BP’s revenues from the sale of gasoline would fall to $0 if they priced gasoline at $14/gallon.

On June 20th, 2008 at 11:38 pm, nbarry said:

“How do oil company profits go up if they cut supplies from the market?” somebody asks. How do tax revenues go up when the government cuts tax rates?

Oil companies are selling a commodity. They only make money by selling. Why do stores put items on sale? 1) to create traffic and increase sales of non-sale items and 2) to sell more of the item, thereby making less per unit, but more in the aggregate. Depending on the type of tax you’re talking about, governments make money on economic activity. The less the government takes out of a transaction, the greater the reward for the activity, hence the more activity and the greater the revenue to the government.

For the same reason Kramer and Newman thought they could make money on Michigan bottle deposits: some people are foolish

They don’t look as foolish as some politicians though…

Sure, most of been unsuccessful, but it they are so unsound ecomonmically (sic) and unsuccessful, why are they tried time and again.

For the same reason Kramer and Newman thought they could make money on Michigan bottle deposits: some people are foolish.

Sure, most of been unsuccessful, but it they are so unsound ecomonmically and unsuccessful, why are they tried time and again. Answer: the potential capital gain outweighs the risk.

Not quite. The perceived gain outweighs the anticipated risk. George Soros really, really thought that he was rich and powerful enough to bankrupt the Bank of England. In hindsight, it wasn’t even close. I think the operative word here is “hubris”.

answer this: Do you support the nationalization of the oil industry? If so,How will nationalization of the oil industry help America?