billion dollar Big Mac revisited

I once did a post about the minimum wage, McDonalds, and the Big Mac. I used the publicly available information at the time, and I did the math (FUN!). That was six years ago. Time flies and statistics change. How would that post read if written today?

Let's do it!

	McDonalds 2013	McDonalds 2018
Company Owned Locations	6,738	2,770
Franchise Locations	28,691	35,085

We can already see that McDonalds has shed many company owned locations in favor of franchise owned. This distributes the liability of employees to the franchisees. So there is one direct impact of the minimum wage that will affect local, small businesses to a greater degree than it will the large corporation. Raised wages will cripple the small business owner, and only trickle-up to the corporation.

Company-operated restaurant expenses ($millions)
Food & paper	3,153.8
Payroll & employee benefits	2,937.9
Occupancy & other operating expenses	2,174.2
Franchised restaurants-occupancy expenses	1,973.3
Selling, general & administrative expenses	2,200.2

They directly employ 210,000 employees as of 2018. I don't have how many are employed by francisees. So we'll have to extrapolate franchise employees. If we do, we get about 2.5 million franchise employees. Previously, only about half of all employees were US-based. So, let's say only 1.25 million franchise employees are in the US, and we will ignore the McDonald's corporate employees, because we're not sure how many are salary versus hourly. And if we say 20% of the franchise employees are salary, that gives us a cool one million employees to work with.

1,000,000 McDonalds employees in the US

$7.50 minimum wage

$15.00 desired wage

550,000,000 Big Macs sold per year

Let's do math! (FUN!)

1,000,000 x ($15.00 - $7.50) = an additional $7,500,000 to employ all McDonalds employees for one hour.
but they don't all work at the same time... let's assume there are many more part-time workers than full time... and let's estimate each worker works and average of only 20 hours during any given week... we'll estimate low, just y'know, because we don't want to be unrealistic.
$7,500,000 x 20 = an additional $150,000,000 to pay for one week of all McDonalds employees.
there are 52 weeks in a year... usually.
$150,000,000 x 52 = an additional $7,800,000,000 to pay the additional wages of all McDonalds employees for one full year.
that's 7.8 Billion additional dollars... that has to come from somewhere... like raising the price of Big Macs.
$7,800,000,000 / 550,000,000 = an additional $14.18 per Big Mac.
what are they now, like $4.39?... so a Big Mac would cost $18.57 plus tax... no fries... no shake.

We just learned a few things. In the last six years since I first wrote the "Billion Dollar Big Mac", McDonalds has undergone some changes. First, they've shed corporate employees, but overall employment has risen. Second, the price of a Big Mac has nearly doubled. Lastly, the effect of the minimum wage has only worsened.

And who does it still effect? The poor and the small business owners.

the "rich" don't pay for Big Macs... it's the working poor... it's the same people who work at places like McDonalds who then shop and eat at places like McDonalds... it's us... we have to come up with $7.8 billion dollars.

---

sources:
https://rvolt24.blogspot.com/2013/08/billion-dollar-big-mac.html
https://corporate.mcdonalds.com/corpmcd/investors-relations/financial-information/sec-filings.html
http://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000063908/94ad07bd-66c3-433c-a81e-94f1587b0ed8.pdf
https://www.reference.com/food/many-big-macs-sold-day-225cf538abc342ab

EDIT (2021-03-09):
Proof: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28506/w28506.pdf

Rs vs. Ds - Questionist - Re-Blog

re-blog post of The Questionist... some formatting and all emphasis are mine... no edits of content.

Every once in a while a post comes along that shines a very bright spotlight on just how profoundly insulated some people's personal echo chambers are. This one is mind boggling in its contempt for reality. Before I deconstruct this fantastical narrative, I need to clarify that this is NOT a defense of Republicans, nor is it an indictment of Democrats.

Claim #1:
Democrats are responsible for 65 straight months of economic growth.
Facts: The economic collapse of 2008 resulted in economic indicators that reach 75 year lows. These numbers were so far from average that the chances of them improving were near 100%, no matter what the government did or who was in charge. This results from a statistical phenomenon called “regression toward the mean.”
One famous example of this phenomenon in action is the “Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx.” Athletes or teams that are featured on the cover are chosen only following extremely good performances. Regression toward the mean all but assures that their performance will not be as good as the exceptional performance responsible for getting them on the cover. The same phenomenon holds true for any variable metric.
The economic growth that we have realized is much smaller and slower than expected, and the evidence that Democratic policies are responsible is non-existent, especially considering more than half of that growth was realized under a Republican House.

Claim #2:
Democrats are responsible for record 56 months of private sector job growth.
Facts: See #1.

Claim #3:
Democrats are responsible for unemployment falling from 10.1% to 5.9%.
Facts: Both the Employment to Population Ratio (also called simply the employment rate) and the Labor Force Participation Rate have dropped to 30+ year lows.
The unemployment rate of 5.9% that we see on the news does not give us the entire picture. If you add those actively seeking employment + short term discouraged workers + long term discouraged workers + part time workers who want to work full time, the number is closer to 23%. And if we used the same unemployment measurement we used prior to 1994, unemployment would be around 18%.
Add to this that people who are reentering the labor force are getting jobs with lower wages and fewer hours, and add to this that income inequality is increasing, and add to this that wages are not keeping pace with inflation; and the 5.9% unemployment rate we see in the headlines is not particularly meaningful. And... See #1 – regression toward the mean.

Claim #4:
Democrats are responsible for the budget deficit being reduced by two-thirds.
Facts: This one is more complicated, and I'm not going to pretend to understand all the reasons for this. What we do know from looking at revenue compared to spending is that spending has largely leveled off, and revenue has slowly increased since a $500 billion dip following the collapse; so part of this reduction is due again to regression toward the mean. Spending under Bush increased at a faster than normal rate due to increased military spending and, because for most of his term, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Any time the same party is in control of both the executive and legislative branches, spending increases.
I'll conclude that this claim has some truth to it, but keep in mind that the National Debt has increased from $10.7 trillion to $18 trillion under Obama. In terms of debt as a percentage of GDP, it has increased under Obama from 65% to over 100%. As a comparison, under Bush it increased from 55% to 65%. This is a long term trend that has little to do with who is President or who is in control of Congress, but it is a distinctly unhealthy trend.

Claim #5:
Democrats are responsible for fewer Americans in harm's way in war zones.
Facts: The reduction in troops in Iraq was the direct result of the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement signed by Bush in 2008.
Yes, there are fewer troops overseas, but what Americans wanted and expected when they voted for Obama was a drastic reduction in military interventionism, not just the number of troops on the ground.
What we did NOT want or expect was hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan, an invasion of Libya, American citizens killed in Yemen, 17,000 residual forces, diplomats, and defense contractors left in Iraq, and 10,000 troops left in Afghanistan after the end of 2014.
As recently as September of 2012 Obama said. “We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And I've set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014. And when I say I'm going to bring them home, you know they're going to come home.” This is clearly not the case.
We did not want or expect an escalation in Iraq that included renewed airstrikes. We did not want or expect a new war in Iraq and Syria.

Claim #6:
Democrats are responsible for zero attacks by al Qaeda on US soil.
Facts: I'm not sure how Democrats are responsible for this, and there are far too few data points to draw any conclusions about which party is better or worse at preventing terrorist attacks.

Claim #7:
Democrats are responsible for record stock market growth.
Facts: This is perhaps the most clear example of regression to the mean. A stock market at rock bottom has nowhere else to go but up. In addition, the Federal Reserve dumped 16 trillion printed US Dollars into the market in 2008-2009, and has continued to pump 85 billion printed US Dollars into the market ever since. There is no possible way that the stock market could NOT have gone up under these conditions, and the negative effects are a dramatic increase in wealth inequality, a huge stock market bubble, and economic growth that is supported almost exclusively by debt. Despite the record stock market numbers, the US economy is very sick in a very real and long term sense.
Again, this has nothing to do with which party is in power, and much to do with short-sighted monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve. Almost all politicians focus on short term solutions with complete disregard to long term effects. This cliff will be very difficult, if not impossible, to retreat from.

Claim #8:
Republicans are responsible for two economic recessions.
Facts: Recessions are largely the result of natural economic fluctuations, and the only influence that politicians can hope for is to reduce the effect or shorten the duration. The recession of 2002 was a direct result of the bursting of the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s.
The collapse of 2008 was the result of several factors, none of them having anything to do with which party was in power. The precipitating factor was the collapse of the housing bubble which was, in turn, precipitated by artificially low interest rates by the Federal Reserve and ridiculously easy lending terms which resulted in millions of people getting mortgages that were above their abilities to maintain.
Another factor was the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which separated commercial and investment banking. This allowed commercial banks to, effectively, gamble with our money. The repeal of this act was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and signed by Bill Clinton.

Claim #9:
Republicans were responsible for the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.
Facts: See #8.

Claim #10:
Republicans were responsible for the worst terrorist attack in history.
Facts: This claim is probably the most disconnected from reality of any of the claims on this list. One only needs to read exactly what Osama bin Laden himself explained as the reasons for the attack. [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver]
Among the motivations stated by bin Laden for the attack were: long term US aggression in the Middle East, US attacks on Somalia, US support for Russian atrocities in Chechnya, Guantanamo Bay, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, immorality of Americans (including the President), US support for Israel, and US sanctions against Iraq. (People seem to forget that Clinton was bombing Iraq throughout his term on a regular basis.)
None of these alleged provocations had anything to do with which party was in power, although the most immediate of them (and infuriating for bin Laden) happened on Clinton's watch.
Another possible motivation for the 9/11 attack offered by terrorism experts is that bin Laden wanted to provoke America into a war that would incite a pan-Islamist revolution. Considering what is currently happening with the Islamic State, one can only conclude that this strategy has been largely successful.

Claim # 11:
Republicans were responsible for the two longest wars in US history.
Facts: This claim regarding the war in Iraq is mostly true. This happened on Bush's watch with fabricated claims made by his administration, and a large majority of Republicans supporting the Iraq War Authorization. Note that a majority of Democratic Senators also voted in favor of the resolution.
This claim regarding the war in Afghanistan is, however, completely false. Only three members of Congress did not vote in favor of this, one Democrat and two Republicans.

Claim #12:
Republicans are responsible for the worst record of job creation since Herbert Hoover.
Facts: It is true that job creation under Bush was the worst since Hoover, and a certain amount of blame can be placed at the feet of Republicans. Another factor is (you guessed it) regression to the mean. After the dot-com boom, employment was exceptionally high, and it was a statistical near certainty that job creation would slow down or decrease.
Another factor is that the forces that led to the 2008 collapse were working against the economy well before the actual collapse itself. It's also worth a reminder that governmental actions have limited effects on job creation, and what small effects there are can lag several years behind the action.

Claim #13:
Republicans are responsible for a complete collapse of the stock market.
Facts: See #8. (It's interesting that three of the seven claims against Republicans are essentially the exact same claim. I could have come up with a lot more legitimate complaints against Republicans.)

Claim #14:
A budget surplus turned into a trillion dollar deficit.
Facts: It's true that Republican led spending on military intervention added to the deficits experienced under Bush. But yet again this can, to a large degree, be explained by regression to the mean. The 1990s saw an unprecedented information revolution, and a dot-com bubble that was further inflated by a badly timed reduction in capital gains taxes (which was supported by both Democrats and Republicans and signed by Clinton).

https://www.facebook.com/janisianpage/photos/a.357587427661315.87486.357191544367570/736868986399822/?type=1&theater

---

Source:
The Questionist on Facebook - post

billion dollar Big Mac

• 1,700,000 McDonalds employees worldwide
• 800,000 McDonalds employees in the US
• $7.50 minimum wage
• $15.00 desired wage
• 550,000,000 Big Macs sold per year

thanks redstate.com for image

if we raised the wages of all US McDonalds employees (because we don't care about international employees) to their desired demanded wage of $15.00 per hour, what would we have to raise the price of the Big Mac to cover those costs?

let's do the math (FUN!)

800,000 x ($15.00 - $7.50) = an additional $6,000,000 to employ all McDonalds employees for one hour.

but they don't all work at the same time... let's assume there are many more part-time workers than full time... and let's estimate each worker works and average of only 20 hours during any given week... we'll estimate low, just y'know, because we don't want to be unrealistic.

$6,000,000 x 20 = an additional $120,000,000 to pay for one week of all McDonalds employees.

there are 52 weeks in a year... usually.

$120,000,000 x 52 = an additional $6,240,000,000 to pay the additional wages of all McDonalds employees for one full year.

that's 6.24 Billion additional dollars... that has to come from somewhere... like raising the price of Big Macs.

$6,240,000,000 / 550,000,000 = an additional $11.35 per Big Mac.

what are they now, like $2.99?... so a Big Mac would cost $14.34 plus tax... no fries... no shake.

i know... McDonalds would raise the price of everything in small amounts, not just one item... but you're obviously already missing the main point here... of course, if you've read this far, you're probably smarter then the average fast-food worker, so maybe you do see the problem.

$6.24 billion dollars has to come from somewhere... it doesn't just magically fall from the sky or spout from the mouth of a geyser... it comes from consumers... it comes from average working-class citizens like you and me... maybe not even you, because you probably wouldn't deign to enter such a bastion of capitalism like McDonalds, so maybe it's just coming from me... and people like me.

the "rich" don't pay for Big Macs... it's the working poor... it's the same people who work at places like McDonalds who then shop and eat at places like McDonalds... it's us... we have to come up with $6.24 billion dollars.

and if you are still arguing for higher wages, you are too stupid to be worth paying more than minimum wage... like the Ouroboros, you think you're getting fed by eating your own tail.

and i bet you wonder what the head tastes like.

http://unsider.deviantart.com/art/Ouroboros-Drawing-271330221

---

source:
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company.html
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/63908/000119312511046701/d10k.htm

truth matters

President Barack Obama had been on the job less than a week when a top economic adviser told him and Vice President Joe Biden that the country faced a trillion dollar deficit, Biden told a roomful of Florida supporters Saturday.

Vice-president Joe Biden - reported by TAMARA LUSH, Associated Press from FORT MYERS, Fla. 09/29/2012

At the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2005, the deficit was $318 billion – about a quarter of what it is now. It fell every year until 2007, when it was back down to $161 billion. Then the voters, who’d been fed a steady anti-Bush media diet, decided to give Democrats another turn at bat and handed Congress and its budget-making power over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The very next year, the deficit jumped back up to $459 billion. The year after that, Obama became President, and the deficit hit an all-time high of $1.4 trillion. True, Biden can argue that was partly Bush’s fault: he did start the TARP bailouts. But that was a one-time expenditure that’s since been paid back with interest. If there’s a good explanation for why it’s still Bush’s fault that the deficit has remained over $1.2 trillion throughout every year of Obama’s term, well… apparently, that excuse hasn’t dropped into anyone’s lap yet.

Mike Huckabee - Facebook post - 10/4/2012

---

FACTS:
CBO sees 2005 deficit at $317 billion - October 06, 2005 - William L. Watts, MarketWatch, Wall Street Journal
U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1) - By John Brinsley, Bloomberg - October 11, 2007
U.S. deficit climbs to $402 billion - By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer - January 7, 2009
U.S. Deficit for 2009 Totals $1.4 Trillion, Budget Office Says - By Brian Faler and Julianna Goldman, Bloomberg - October 8, 2009

---

Government Spending Chart: United States 2001-2017 - Federal Data

---

Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public, 1971 to 2010, in Billions of Dollars - Congressional Budget Office - January 2011

beautiful unique snowflake in a blizzard

You are not special. You are not exceptional.

Contrary to what your u9 soccer trophy suggests, your glowing seventh grade report card, despite every assurance of a certain corpulent purple dinosaur, that nice Mister Rogers and your batty Aunt Sylvia, no matter how often your maternal caped crusader has swooped in to save you… you're nothing special.

Across the country no fewer than 3.2 million seniors are graduating about now from more than 37,000 high schools. That's 37,000 valedictorians… 37,000 class presidents… 92,000 harmonizing altos… 340,000 swaggering jocks… 2,185,967 pairs of Uggs. But why limit ourselves to high school? After all, you're leaving it. So think about this: even if you're one in a million, on a planet of 6.8 billion that means there are nearly 7,000 people just like you.

You see, if everyone is special, then no one is. If everyone gets a trophy, trophies become meaningless.

Like accolades ought to be, the fulfilled life is a consequence, a gratifying byproduct. It's what happens when you're thinking about more important things. Climb the mountain not to plant your flag, but to embrace the challenge, enjoy the air and behold the view. Climb it so you can see the world, not so the world can see you. Go to Paris to be in Paris, not to cross it off your list and congratulate yourself for being worldly. Exercise free will and creative, independent thought not for the satisfactions they will bring you, but for the good they will do others, the rest of the 6.8 billion-and those who will follow them. And then you too will discover the great and curious truth of the human experience is that selflessness is the best thing you can do for yourself. The sweetest joys of life, then, come only with the recognition that you're not special.

---

source:
Full transcript: "You're Not Special" speech - Boston News, Weather, Sports | FOX 25 | MyFoxBoston

invisible mothers - ReBlog

i know this blog has been quiet for a while... personal issues precede my desire to post more often.

however, i could not pass this one up... some may tell me that it's "none of my business"... i disagree... but the key point to this re-blogged post is the recognition of some basic truths... recognizing who is a mother and, more importantly, who is a child... also, there are some powerful lines about responsibility and cowardice... and courage...

i see this as seeking truth and not compromise.

… The bumper sticker read, “Having an abortion does not make you un-pregnant, it makes you the mother of a dead baby”. The word “mother” struck me because “mother” is such a powerful word. It conjures many meanings, and when a woman becomes one she is fundamentally changed. “Mother” as a verb means to nurture, care for and protect. “Mother” as a noun means a female person who is pregnant with or gives birth to a child; or a female person whose egg unites with sperm, resulting in the conception of a child.

By this definition if you’ve ever been pregnant you are a Mother. Even if you’ve had an abortion you are still a Mother… a grieving Mother.

“A voice was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation; Rachel weeping for her children, and she would not be consoled, since they were no more.” Matthew 2:18

There is no consolation to be had for the mother that loses a child. She will grieve in her heart for the rest of her life. Abortion; however, not only robs a child of it’s life and a mother of it’s child, it also robs the mother of her grieving. She is not allowed to grieve because she cannot publicly claim the title Mother.

Abortion advocates will never admit a post-abortive woman is a Mother because to admit that would acknowledge the existence that there was once a child. Not a clump of cells, but a very real living child. When girls begin menstruating they are not called mothers to a clump of cells, yet so many people really believe an abortion is just like having a heavy period or passing a large menstrual clot. This was how it was described to me when I found myself in their clinic fifteen years ago. Two years later when I returned to have a second abortion the lie had not changed.

For fifteen long years I’ve lived with the pain, shame and guilt associated with my past. In that time I’ve experienced denial, anger, and depression. It wasn’t till my conversion to Catholicism that I finally sought the reconciliation my soul needed. Once I received the grace of forgiveness I was charged with the next most important task of my life… to tell as many women as I can how horrible, evil and despicable abortion is.

However, it has taken me another six years to find my courage. In order to honestly talk about the truth I needed to admit to my past and in this one area my words failed me. Today I write this past so that I may finally own up to what it is I have done and make the necessary reparations for my crimes so that others will know just how fundamentally soul-destroying abortion is.

I am choosing this day to find my voice.

Here is the truth I spent so many years denying and keeping from the public – I killed two of my children, robbed my parents of grand-children, and murdered my son’s siblings. These abortions directly caused a medical condition known as incompetent cervix which resulted in the premature birth of another son who died after a week long struggle in the NICU in 2001. The suffering I’ve endured and caused others is immeasurable and the guilt almost drove me suicidal. I am a coward in every way.

I was a coward in my youth, unable to take responsibility for my sexual actions and I am a coward today because I’ve failed to honestly speak out against abortion for so many years. I failed to shout from the highest building all the ugly truths for every ear to hear. I tried to help a friend once who was considering abortion but there only so much I could say without giving away my own horrible, awful secret. In the end, withholding that information was not enough to convict her otherwise and she had an abortion. I failed her with my silence.

I refuse to be a coward anymore. In these times, no one can afford to be a coward. The price of our silence is paid in the blood of millions of innocent aborted babies. This is a deplorable evil and it must end now.

Women, post-abortive American women, will be the ones who will make the greatest strides against abortion and change the nation’s heart. Now, on this election year, is the time to stand up and honestly share, in heartrending and uncensored detail, what happens to women when they have an abortion and how they are forever changed in hopes that no one will suffer the same pain. I’ve been silent for far too long.

Please forgive my silence and I apologize for the scandal these words may cause. Please know that what ever deplorable opinion you hold of me pales in comparison to the opinions I have had of myself.

---

source: Fifteen years later and silent no more… May 22, 2012 By The Crescat

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus

"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus. Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.' Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

---

source:
Newseum - Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus - Sept. 21, 1897 by Francis Pharcellus Church

99% = minority

By autumn of the year, a million people across the land had gathered in various places to protest against the politics that had led to their misery. Unemployment. Inflation. The cost of living was unbearable.The nation had borrowed an unprecedented amount of money from foreign nations, and now faced the impending threat of bankruptcy. Unrest roiled the nation. Peasants rose up by the thousands in protest against wealthy landowners. City dwellers, too, met by the thousands to protest, peacefully at first, violently later as the government cracked down on them. It was a leaderless movement driven by the people's passion for national reforms.

sounds familiar?... it's Occupy Wall Street, right?... wrong.

it's the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

here's a little history... the Bolshevik name meant "The Majority", which was a misnomer, because they represented a tiny fraction of the Russion populace... they named themselves this because they narrowly defeated members of their own party (the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) in a decision of party leadership... but when the Menshevik ("Minority") won vote after vote regarding party membership and rules, the Bolshevik split from the party... the Bolshevik minority held on the the "Majority" title.

For at that time we were fully aware that the Soviets were not yet ours, that the peasants still trusted the Lieber-Dan-Chernov course and not the Bolshevik course (uprising), and that, consequently, we could not have the majority of the people behind us, and hence, an uprising was premature.
- Vladimir "Lenin" Illich Ulyanov (emphasis added)

and now we come full circle... we have the "99%" demanding change and revolution, yet they represent the minority of Americans... they claim to represent the laborers and workers, yet they are comprised of college students, aged "hipsters", and criminals.

there is a visible arc to history... try not to stand where it falls.

---

source:
Today's Thought: 11.1 A Bolshevik Look at Occupy Wall Street

all's fair in class warfare

"It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."

---

he must have misspoke... what he should have said is, "It is wrong to think that someone earning $50,000 pays higher tax rates than somebody earning $50 million. Because they don't."

---

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

---

literally half of all taxes (49.8%) paid in are paid by the top 4.5% (who make $200,000 or more)... in 2009, that was $431 million paid in.

---

Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15%. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35%, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.

---

so if you have money to invest, you are taxed at a level rate, no matter how much you have invested... people with more money have more to invest... if we tax investments at higher rates, people will invest less because they will get less (net) return... i thought we were trying to fix the economy.

---

"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, 'But all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting,' which is also the case."

---

here's the layman's version... everyone can deduct a portion of their college tuition from their taxes... let's say (for sake of argument) that you can deduct 100%... so, if you go to Tinytown Community College, and pay $1,000 in tuition; then you get $1,000 tax break... but if you go to Harvard Medical School at $47,500 a year; then you get a $47,500 tax break... but some (liberals) think it is unfair that a rich person can afford Harvard and also gets a bigger tax break.

this is simply class envy... and politicians have escalated it to class warfare.

sources:
Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes – USATODAY.com - By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press

IRS raw data (excel format)

ReBlog - history will repeat itself

history will repeat itself... this is a truth we learned in our youth... our social studies, civics, and history professors said it time and time again... and yet we don't listen... we don't learn... history will repeat itself.

If we are to survive the looming catastrophe, we need to face the truth - By Janet Daley 9:00PM BST 06 Aug 2011 - Telegraph
[emphasis added]

Which of these is the most important question to ask in the present economic crisis: how can we promote growth? Should we pay off government debt more or less quickly? Is the US in worse trouble than Europe? Answer: none of the above.

The truly fundamental question that is at the heart of the disaster toward which we are racing is being debated only in America: is it possible for a free market economy to support a democratic socialist society? On this side of the Atlantic [UK], the model of a national welfare system with comprehensive entitlements, which is paid for by the wealth created through capitalist endeavour, has been accepted (even by parties of the centre-Right) as the essence of post-war political enlightenment.

This was the heaven on earth for which liberal democracy had been striving: a system of wealth redistribution that was merciful but not Marxist, and a guarantee of lifelong economic and social security for everyone that did not involve totalitarian government. This was the ideal the European Union was designed to entrench. It was the dream of Blairism, which adopted it as a replacement for the state socialism of Old Labour. And it is the aspiration of President Obama and his liberal Democrats, who want the United States to become a European-style social democracy.

But the US has a very different historical experience from European countries, with their accretions of national remorse and class guilt: it has a far stronger and more resilient belief in the moral value of liberty and the dangers of state power. This is a political as much as an economic crisis, but not for the reasons that Mr Obama believes. The ruckus that nearly paralysed the US economy last week, and led to the loss of its AAA rating from Standard & Poor’s, arose from a confrontation over the most basic principles of American life.

Contrary to what the Obama Democrats claimed, the face-off in Congress did not mean that the nation’s politics were “dysfunctional”. The politics of the US were functioning precisely as the Founding Fathers intended: the legislature was acting as a check on the power of the executive.

The Tea Party faction within the Republican party was demanding that, before any further steps were taken, there must be a debate about where all this was going. They had seen the future toward which they were being pushed, and it didn’t work. They were convinced that the entitlement culture and benefits programmes which the Democrats were determined to preserve and extend with tax rises could only lead to the diminution of that robust economic freedom that had created the American historical miracle.

And, again contrary to prevailing wisdom, their view is not naive and parochial: it is corroborated by the European experience. By rights, it should be Europe that is immersed in this debate, but its leaders are so steeped in the sacred texts of social democracy that they cannot admit the force of the contradictions which they are now hopelessly trying to evade.

No, it is not just the preposterousness of the euro project that is being exposed. (Let’s merge the currencies of lots of countries with wildly differing economic conditions and lock them all into the interest rate of the most successful. What could possibly go wrong?)

Also collapsing before our eyes is the lodestone of the Christian Socialist doctrine that has underpinned the EU’s political philosophy: the idea that a capitalist economy can support an ever-expanding socialist welfare state.

As the EU leadership is (almost) admitting now, the next step to ensure the survival of the world as we know it will involve moving toward a command economy, in which individual countries and their electorates will lose significant degrees of freedom and self-determination.

We have arrived at the endgame of what was an untenable doctrine: to pay for the kind of entitlements that populations have been led to expect by their politicians, the wealth-creating sector has to be taxed to a degree that makes it almost impossible for it to create the wealth that is needed to pay for the entitlements that populations have been led to expect, etc, etc.

The only way that state benefit programmes could be extended in the ways that are forecast for Europe’s ageing population would be by government seizing all the levers of the economy and producing as much (externally) worthless currency as was needed – in the manner of the old Soviet Union.

That is the problem. So profound is its challenge to the received wisdom of postwar Western democratic life that it is unutterable in the EU circles in which the crucial decisions are being made – or rather, not being made.

The solution that is being offered to the political side of the dilemma is benign oligarchy. Ignoring national public opinion and turbulent political minorities has always been at least half the point of the EU bureaucratic putsch. But that does not settle the economic predicament.

What is to be done about all those assurances that governments have provided for generations about state-subsidised security in old age, universal health provision (in Britain, almost uniquely, completely free), and a guaranteed living standard for the unemployed?

We have been pretending – with ever more manic protestations – that this could go on for ever. Even when it became clear that European state pensions (and the US social security system) were gigantic Ponzi schemes in which the present beneficiaries were spending the money of the current generation of contributors, and that health provision was creating impossible demands on tax revenue, and that benefit dependency was becoming a substitute for wealth-creating employment, the lesson would not be learnt. We have been living on tick and wishful thinking.

So what are the most important truths we should be addressing if we are to avert – or survive – the looming catastrophe? Raising retirement ages across Europe (not just in Greece) is imperative, as is raising thresholds for out-of-work benefit entitlements.

Lowering the tax burden for both wealth-creators and consumers is essential. In Britain, finding private sources of revenue for health care is a matter of urgency.

A general correction of the imbalance between wealth production and wealth redistribution is now a matter of basic necessity, not ideological preference.

The hardest obstacle to overcome will be the idea that anyone who challenges the prevailing consensus of the past 50 years is irrational and irresponsible. That is what is being said about the Tea Partiers. In fact, what is irrational and irresponsible is the assumption that we can go on as we are.

history will repeat itself... this is a truth we learned in our youth... our social studies, civics, and history professors said it time and time again... and yet we don't listen... we don't learn... history will repeat itself, unless we heed it's dire warning.

i hate being right

this is something i've noted before... but first:

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job | The Weekly Standard

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

wait... let me gloat for a moment... let me bask in the sun of "Being Right"...

damn... doesn't feel as good as i thought it would.

the problem is evident in the basic arithmetic of the bailout... my Ramblings post from October 8, 2010, looked at the simple numbers... and i quote:

is anyone doing the math on this?... they have awarded $218 BILLION and made 750 THOUSAND jobs... that is the US Government, your tax dollars, paying $290,924.15 PER PERSON to create or save their job... has this not sunk into your heads yet?... they are actually saying, even admitting, that they are paying an average of a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS to create a single job... and the government, our government, is okay with this!

and the worst part is not THAT it happened... but the EXTENT to which it happened... when i posted back in October, it was $218 billion... this has ballooned to $666 billion... and we keep letting them write checks!!!

if this were a business, the CEO and CFO would be terminated and possibly sued for their negligence and incompetence... but this is government... they'll just run for re-election.

media blackout

why aren't we hearing about this?...
Nebraska Nuclear Plant at Level 4 Emergency
Airspace Over Flooded Nebraska Nuclear Power Plant Still Closed - Business Insider
Two Nebraska Nuclear Plants Partially Submerged by Missouri Floodwaters - DBKP
US Orders News Blackout Over Crippled Nebraska Nuclear Plant - EUTimes

FDC 1/6523 - CALHOUN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, BLAIR, NE
!FDC 1/6523 ZMP FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS FORT CALHOUN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT BLAIR,NE
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR
SECTION 91.137(A)(3) TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT FOR FLOOD RELIEF EFFORTS WITHIN A 2 NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF
413113N/0960438W OR THE OMAHA /OVR/ VORTAC 316 DEGREE RADIAL AT 26.1 NAUTICAL MILES AT AND BELOW 3500 FEET MSL.
NEBRASKA STATE PATROL, LT. FRANK PECK TELEPHONE 402-450-1867 IS IN
CHARGE OF THE OPERATION. MINNEAPOLIS /ZMP/ ARTCC TELEPHONE
651-463-5580 IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Potter Stewart
"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." - John F. Kennedy


EDIT
Waters Encircle Nuclear Plant - Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2011

The NRC's Mr. Dricks said temperature monitors were working properly and temperatures of key parts of the nuclear power plant were normal. Water has not seeped into any of the containment structures, he said.

two words - Chris Lee

Anthony Weiner Admits Sending Racy Pictures, Refuses To Resign

i hear "libs" say Weiner shouldn't resign... that's BS... if it had been a conservative, the same people would lust for his blood!... several have resigned in shame over the years... but, somehow, if you're a liberal, you are not held to the same standard.

one of the arguments is, "conservatives are hypocrites, claiming they run on platforms of family values; while liberals don't claim this, so aren't held to that standard"... so, if i run on a platform of anti-baby-rape, and you don't, then it's by default okay for you to rape babies... that's not just illogical, it's plain stupid.

let's accept the "hypocrisy" argument... does it really make this right?... of course not... one thing that makes this so wrong is it calls to question the man's judgement... can we expect this person to make the right decisions in the legislature when he makes poor decisions in his personal life?

but, this isn't the worst of it... what are the implications of a Congressman making these poor decisions and a foreign entity finds out about it?... and what happens when that entity then blackmails the Congressman for certain favors or access?... for example, if John Edwards had won the Presidency a few years ago, only to have his extra-marital affair to be disovered by a Mexican drug cartel?... would a bill which increased Border Patrol funding ever get past his desk?... can you think of worse scenarios?... i know i can.

the point is simple... it doesn't matter what your political affiliation, your philosophy, or your platform... when you are given power as a representative of the people, what you do in your private life matters.

the donkey and his purchaser

Chris Matthews laughs about murdering someone's "grandma":

And talk about an ad that's over the edge, literally. A liberal group has produced [ad plays onscreen.] Oh, there you see it, not holding back on that one. [Laughs.] Throwing grandma or- that's- I think it is supposed to be Paul Ryan pushing the wheelchair with grandma over the edge. That's in the Sideshow. We will show you the full ad.
Finally, grandma gets thrown off the cliff. A liberal group called The Agenda Project has just released an ad wacking at Paul Ryan's to privatize Medicare. Subtle? This ad is not.
Boy, I love the point of view on that one as she tries to slow down with her feet.

Chris Matthews Called Conservative Political Talk 'Ugly,' But Laughs at Murdering Grandma | NewsBusters.org

talk about "violent rhetoric"... and they're laughing about it... where is the outrage over this?... where are the media pundits calling for boycotts and investigations?

and where is the Huffington Post, which was so outraged with right-wing rhetoric, on this one?... no where.

maybe that's because Erica Payne is a main contributor to HuffPo... and who is she, you ask?... she's the founder of The Agenda Project... so much for reasoned and rational discussion... also, this person has the following bio:

At the Roosevelt Institute, Payne co‐edited Make Markets Be Markets: Restoring the Integrity of the US Financial Markets and produced a major conference by the same name that included George Soros, Elizabeth Warren, Simon Johnson, Lynn Turner and other experts.

Agenda Project, Progressive Group, Unveils 'F*ck Tea' Anti-Tea Party Campaign

you are known by the company you keep.

unprotected speech

i have beliefs... i must be stupid.

that's what too many people seem to believe... and i am talking primarily about those "tolerant" liberals... apparently, my conservative principals are deemed ignorant and intolerant by those who "know better"... for some reason, their beliefs are superior to mine.

for example, i believe that not everyone who says they are homosexual actually is... according to some, you are born that way... which is fine... i know several people who were gay all of their lives, but only discovered it once they matured... when they "came out" everyone around them said "we know"... also, it can be scientifically proven that there are physical differences between the sexes (surprised, right?) and that there are physical differences in a truly homosexual person and a heterosexual person... besides hormone balances, there are physical differences in the human brain (densities and arrangement of some ganglia) as well as theorized genetic differences where "feminizing" genes in males have stronger influence (and conversely less influence in homosexual females)... so, there is plenty of science which indicate truth in "born gay".

however, there is as much science showing that there are non-physical reasons a person claims to be homosexual... psychology plays an active role in many, where a person behaves as a homosexual due to a variety of reasons; such as, rejection or hostility of a parent, unhealthy sexual experiences (from rejection to rape), or social expectations of peers... many children today are told that if they are confused about sexual issues that they can be homosexual (or bisexual) as a choice... the problem is that children are having huge waves of hormones crash on their systems... on some days they may be more feminine/masculine than on others... how do they accurately determine what they are going to be, sexually, when their hormones level out?... and this may not happen until well into their twenties.

but, despite these facts, on which i base my beliefs, those tolerant liberals say i am intolerant, sexist, bigoted, and/or homophobic.

i recognize that other people hold different beliefs... whether i disagree with them or not is not at issue... if someone espouses tolerance, the first thing they should do is tolerate differing opinions... belief in free speech requires defense of that speech which differs from your own; otherwise, it wouldn't require defending.

Flaming Slacks (or "pants on fire")

I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

...

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans--a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

...

Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

(emphasis added)
Sen. Barack H. Obama
INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT -- (Senate - March 16, 2006)
Congressional Record - 109th Congress (2005-2006) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

---

yes, Senator Obama... once again, you and i are in complete agreement.

---

Obama Regrets Vote Against Raising Debt Limit

Obama "thinks it was a mistake," presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters. "He realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with."

---

DAMMIT!!!

racist south, i mean north

57 years since Brown v. Board of Education and we still have segregation... funny thing is (and always HAS been), the worst racists are in the northern states... they're just better at smiling in your face while they stab you in the back... "sure, we are equal opportunity here... until we see you"...

which are the statistically most segregated cities?

1. Detroit, Michigan
2. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
3. New York, New York
4. Newark, New Jersey
5. Chicago, Illinois
6. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7. Miami, Florida
8. Cleveland, Ohio
9. St. Louis, Missouri
10. Nassau-Suffolk, New York

America's 10 Most Segregated Cities - Huffington Post
Census data show 'surprising' segregation - USA Today

Do It Anyway

People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.

If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Do good anyway.

If you are successful, you will win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.

Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.

The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds.
Think big anyway.

People favor underdogs but follow only top dogs.
Fight for a few underdogs anyway.

What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.

People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.
Help people anyway.

Give the world the best you have and you'll get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you have anyway.

Anyway, The Paradoxical Commandments - Do It Anyway - Kent M. Keith, Silent Revolution
© Copyright Kent M. Keith 1968, renewed 2001"

Thomas Sowell - Basic Economics

ever wanted to know in simple terms how economics works?... this is the man... Thomas Sowell discusses the facts and fictions of economics.
why, historically, raising taxes doesn't raise revenues... why the Great Depression had decreasing unemployment until federal involvement... why a trade imbalance doesn't cause unemployment...
things i thought i knew are no longer so.
Watch Uncommon Knowledge: Thomas Sowell - Basic Economics RIGHTNETWORK

ode on a broken urn

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period.

That means that you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion? The US should pull out of Washington.

SSAA - Australian Shooter magazine (Oct, 2006)

while the statistics are dubious (at best), i thought it was a logical argument to make... what are the troop levels versus the mortality rate of those troops?... how does this compare to our nation's capital, Washington D.C.?... moreover, what conclusions can you make regarding these facts?... so, i did some (very) quick research... i thought i would share my findings.

Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan
US soldiers killed = 1,503 (via Casualties by year and nationality - 2001-2011 )
US soldiers in theater = average 36,530 (via Average Monthly Boots On the Ground FY2002-2012 )
Deaths per 100,000 = 411

Homicide Rates - Washington, D.C.
Persons killed by homicide = 2,057 (via Metropolitan Police Department - Washington, D.C. )
Median population = 582,049 (via Google Public Data from U.S. Census Bureau )
Deaths per 100,000 = 35

so, what does this tell us?... two conclusions are clear to me.

#1 - figures don't lie, but liars often figure.

#2 - i'm not visiting either Afghanistan or Washington, D.C.