Excess Mortality, Thread

Excess Mortality, Thread:

I have just discovered a major error in the #CoVid data of the NCHS Mortality surveillance data. This is all based on the official NCHSData49.csv as downloaded from here (original downloaded 12/15):

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2019-2020/data/NCHSData49.csv

The data begins in week 40 of 2013 and ends week 49 of 2020. The data looks basically like this:

Yr | Wk | All Deaths | Pneumonia | Influenza | COVID | PIC*

*PIC = Pneumonia, Influenza, or COVID deaths (sum of) 

The first COVID death listed was 2020 Week 6. Pneumonia death (P) = 3799. Influenza death (I) = 520. COVID death (C) = 1. PIC = 4320.

Math check: 3799+520+1=4320 ✅

The math adds up fine until 2020 Week 8. P=3699. I=566. C=4. PIC=4268.

Math check: 3699+566+4=4269 ❌

Here's this problem: Deaths are being classified as PIC deaths, as well as P/I/C deaths. So, in 2020 Week 8, someone was classified as a PIC death AND a P or I death, also.

Someone was counted twice.

But, it gets worse. As the COVID deaths accelerate, the double-counting does, too.

2020 Week 9 - 5 fewer PIC than P+I+C

2020 Week 10 - 19 fewer PIC than P+I+C

2020 Week 11 - 29 fewer PIC than P+I+C

2020 Week 12 - 257 fewer PIC than P+I+C

By 2020 Week 13, the NCHS was double counting 1479 excess deaths.

The following weeks vary from a low of 1548 excess deaths to a high of 7550.

By my calculations, there were 121,888 deaths double counted as COVID and as either Pneumonia or Influenza.

So, what do we do with this knowledge?

My assumption here is that few (if any at all) of these deaths were both COVID and Influenza. Likely, these deaths were COVID / Pneumonia. It would seem reasonable that a death could be from Pneumonia caused by COVID.

Or, perhaps some people died of Pneumonia AND had also tested positive for COVID, thereby were counted as both (even if the cause was the Pneumonia, alone).

So we have two likely scenarios, either (or both) could be true.

One, we have 121,888 fewer Pneumonia deaths.

Two, we have 121,888 fewer COVID deaths.

Possibly, we have a split of both fewer Pneumonia and COVID, but without individual case details, that may never be known.

However, I have discovered a strange anomaly elsewhere. In trying to verify numbers, I found the "NCHS Mortality Report for the Week Ending December 5, 2020 (Week 49) Data as of December 10, 2020"

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/12112020/csv/nchs-mortality-report.csv

In this chart, they list Total Deaths, Influenza deaths, COVID deaths, and PIC deaths. These numbers all align with the previous chart. But Pneumonia deaths are not listed.

So I check my history to find the original link to the COVID data. It isn't there.

What do we do with this information?

Well, in reviewing the data, the 2020 Week 39 can be safely compared with the Week 39 data from prior years. Since COVID data for those years will be zero, we can make an apples-to-apples comparison of Pneumonia and Influenza.

Week 39 data:

2014 - P=3017; I=6

2015 - P=3057; I=6

2016 - P=2986; I=11

2017 - P=2888; I=19

2018 - P=2814; I=14

2019 - P=2780; I=16

2020 - P=4715; I=3

We can also compare the Week 40 through Week 39 totals of each "Season":

2013-'14 - P=182,691; I=4485

2014-'15 - P=193,237; I=8197

2015-'16 - P=178,002; I=3448

2016-'17 - P=179,621; I=6954

2017-'18 - P=180,137; I=15,620

2018-'19 - P=168,608; I=7175

2019-'20 - P=263,791; I=9415

It appears evident (to me) that we have found our error. Of the 121,888 duplicated deaths, it would seem reasonable that these were additional Pneumonia deaths who ALSO had COVID.

It would appear that we have excess Pneumonia deaths over the standard yearly average.

And it would be reasonable to assume that these additional Pneumonia deaths, who also had COVID, were likely COVID-induced-Pneumonia, rather than stand-alone Pneumonia cases which incidentally had COVID. Nothing else explains the excess mortality of Pneumonia cases.

Additional conclusions from the data -Overall mortality:

Comparing yearly mortality from ALL CAUSES, including PIC, there does seem to be a spike. But is the spike great enough to account for the COVID deaths, which should likely be in excess of the average?

Total "Season" Deaths:

2013-'14 - 2,580,853

2014-'15 - 2,750,884

2015-'16 - 2,697,072

2016-'17 - 2,790,278

2017-'18 - 2,835,734

2018-'19 - 2,831,233

2019-'20 - 3,142,232; COVID=203,899

Average deaths 2013-2019 "Seasons" = 2,747,674

2020 "Season" deaths less COVID = 2,938,333

It seems reasonable to assume that overall mortality is in a reasonable range for the year if you exclude the excess deaths caused by COVID.

What can we say about the effect COVID has had on Influenza deaths?

Some might say the Influenza deaths are down due to COVID.

Some would assume this is due to the mask wearing, social distancing, and hand washing.

Others would assume this is due to nefarious counting.

Well, if you compare the total "Season" cases of Influenza between 2019 Week 40 and 2020 Week 39, you would see we're actually up a little from the average of 7646 (2013-2019) to 9415 for the 2019-2020 "Season".

What I would like to see is if there is any rise in excess death from suicide and homicide to see if it correlates to the COVID lockdowns. And also if those excess deaths would offset the COVID deaths in any fashion.

But, I do not have those numbers. Yet.

source:

https://twitter.com/rvolt24/status/1343975559668367360

Excess Mortality, Thread:
I have just discovered a major error in the #CoVid data of the NCHS Mortality surveillance data. This is all based on the official NCHSData49.csv as downloaded from here (original downloaded 12/15):https://t.co/VkzgNfDZO6

— Señor Hilaria (@rvolt24) December 29, 2020

Covid Math: Revisited

I first posted "Covid Math" on April 13th of 2020. These were using the statistics known at the time to determine the potential severity of #Coronavirus / #CoVid19 / Sars-CoV-2 / China-Virus, or whatever you want to call it. I am returning to this post in September, after five months, to see how things have held up as predictions. Feel free to read the previous posts and the comparative backgrounds of influenza and H1N1, as I won't be rehashing that data here.

"Finally, what we know of Coronavirus so far"

Again, we are going to use the same data point, but update it with what we know now. So, we still don't know the assumed cases, but we might be able to estimate it better. We have really accurate confirmed cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

Note: There are still questions about the number of deaths. Some are saying many deaths are not attributable to Covid. Recently, the CDC made a statement that only 6% of recorded Covid deaths were strictly caused by Covid, and the other 94% had comorbidities. I will NOT be separating these at this time. My rationale is that we don't know with any high degree of certainty that those comorbidities would have killed the person if they had not contracted Covid. If they would have lived six months or six years with those other issues, then Covid hastened their demise, and I will not try to parse which issue was the ultimate cause of their death. For instance: an obese person with diabetes and heart issues is likely to die early. If they contract Covid and die, was it the Covid, the diabetes, or the heart issue? If they didn't have those other issues, would they have survived Covid? These are questions we are unable to answer at this time, and we likely will never have an answer. Deaths = deaths.

Covid-19 numbers (as of 9/9/2020):

Medical visits (confirmed tests) - 6,334,158

Hospitalizations - 379,866

Deaths - 189,972

Population (est.) - 318,000,000

In the previous post, I extrapolated out the hospitalizations for a year to be about 374,524. Yet here we are at only 8 months and we have already exceeded that estimate. If we (again) do a simple (linear) extrapolation to one year, we will have had 569,799 hospitalizations. That is nearly twice my original estimate.

If we had extrapolated, again simply (linear), the previous deaths of 22,154 would have been 88,616 deaths, which we are FAR past that number. So we see that the numbers we had early on had not proceeded in a linear fashion, which is to be expected with a virus with a Rate of Infection (R0) of greater than 1.0.

If we compare these numbers back to the H1N1 and seasonal flu, we need to compare the death rates:

Known cases:

Seasonal flu - 38,230 deaths / 29,220,523 cases = 0.13%

H1N1 - 12,469 deaths / 60,800,000 cases = 0.02%%

Covid - 189,972 / 6,334,158= 3.0%

Hospitalized deaths:

Seasonal flu - 38,230 deaths / 496,912 hospitalizations = 7.69%

H1N1 - 12,469 deaths / 274,304 hospitalizations = 4.55%

Covid - 189,972 / 379,866 = 50%

To compare this to the previous post's estimates, the Covid case mortality was previously calculated at 1.98%, and it is now at 3.0%. An additional one-percent morality is pretty serious.

If we continue to assume that cases will continue to increase for the remainder of the year (or until a widely accepted vaccine is available), then we will have to make an assumption of total cases. Again, I will use simple (linear) extrapolation, even though it has been shown to be inaccurate. The reason for this is because new cases appear to be trending downward, so hopefully the estimate will turn out to be higher than what we end up with. I hope.

Extrapolated 1-year total cases: 9,501,237

Extrapolated 1-year hospitalizations: 569,799

Extrapolated 1-year deaths: 284,958

This is FAR below the worst-case estimates of the April post. We will have far fewer than the 80 million cases predicted. It will be far below the H1N1 60 million cases. It will be fewer than the 29 million cases of seasonal influenza. But because the death rate is higher than anticipated, the case fatality rate will be higher than the original extrapolation, yet lower than the worst-case estimates.

---

source:

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_coronavirus_hospitalizations

Sorry To Ruin A Good Story

OH SHIT. BLM isn't going to like what I just found out.

I used ONLY publicly available information; including census data, arrest records, federal resources, and independent sources to find this out.

White people and black people have fatal police shootings at the SAME RATE as each other compared to their arrests. That means, if you get arrested, you have an equal chance of being shot by police, REGARDLESS of being black or white.

You read that right.

If you get arrested and WHITE, you have an 11.33 per 100,000 arrests of being shot by the police.
If you get arrested and BLACK, you have a 10.75 per 100,000 arrests of being shot by the police.
You are equivalently equal (if not slightly less) likely; black or white.

These numbers are averaged over 2015 through 2018. Data is incomplete for 2019, and 2020 isn't over.

---

source:
Demographics of the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

US Census
http://data.census.gov

FBI – Uniform Crime Reporting
Arrests by Race and Ethnicity, 2018
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/tables/table-43

Bureau of Justice Statistics
Contacts Between Police and the Public, 2015
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp15.pdf

Fatal Encounters Dot Org
Downloaded 2020-06-12
https://fatalencounters.org/spreadsheets/

Mapping Police Violence
Downloaded 2020-06-12
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/s/MPVDatasetDownload.xlsx

Washington Post database of fatal shootings by a police officer; 2015-2020
Downloaded 2020-06-17
https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-police-shootings

Covid Math

Twitter Thread: bit.ly/CovidMath

Why do y'all make ME do the #Math all the time? I'm so f'n #TiredOfBeingRight.

Why we SHOULD take precautions against #CoVid19 #Coronavirus and how is it NOT LIKE the yearly flu numbers - A Thread:

First, "The Flu":
Best numbers available are 2016-2017. More recent numbers are still in the 'estimate' category, so we'll use the '16-'17 numbers as baseline and reference more recent data as estimates only.

All data is US only, unless noted otherwise.

[All text in brackets are later edits.]

2016-2017 Flu data:
Symptomatic (assumed) - 29,220,523
Medical visits (confirmed) - 13,633,446
Hospitalizations - 496,912
Deaths - 38,230
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2016-2017.html

Population estimate 2016 - 318 million

9% of the population was symptomatic
4% were confirmed medical visits
[0.15%] hospitalized

Of confirmed cases, mortality rate is 0.28%.
Of assumed cases, mortality rate is 0.13%

Second, "H1N1 2009 swine flu" (US only):
Assumed cases: 60.8 million cases
Medical visits [(confirmed)]: Unknown (like Covid19, testing data is incomplete)
Hospitalizations: 274,304
Deaths: 12,469

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/2009-h1n1-pandemic.html

Population estimate 2009 - 308 million

20% of the population was symptomatic
0.09% hospitalized

Of assumed cases, mortality rate is 0.021%.

If we assume, like seasonal flu, confirmed mortality is 2X's assumed, the baseline H1N1 "confirmed" mortality would be about 0.04%.

We can already see that H1N1 wasn't that bad compared to seasonal flu. Or was it?

To understand this, you have to understand how many strains of flu virus are out there, in "the wild" if you will. There are four basic types: A, B, C, D.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/viruses/types.htm

Types A & B are your typical human flu viruses. Type C can sometimes cause mild symptoms. Type D mainly affects cattle.

Type A is split into 2 subtypes: H & N. There are 18 H types and 11 N types. Of these combinations, only 131 subtypes have been detected in nature thus far.

These 131 subtypes can be further broken down into 'groups' and 'subgroups'. But for sake of discussion, we will only focus on Type A's 131 subtypes.

Type B is split into 2 lineages: Y & V. These also can be divided by group and subgroup.

Since Type D affects cattle, we will disregard it.
Since Type C is often mild, we will disregard it.
Since Type B is rarely known to cause pandemic, even though severe, we will disregard it.

So, of the 38,230 "flu" deaths, these are attributable to those 131 strains of Type A.

So when you consider that H1N1 was "only" 32% as deadly as the seasonal flu, what you're really saying is that ONE virus is 32% as deadly as [all] 131 viruses [combined].

Or, more accurately, H1N1 (12,469 deaths) is 42X's more deadly than a single seasonal flu virus (292 deaths per virus).

Finally, what we know of the Coronavirus so far:
Symptomatic (assumed) - unknown (incomplete data)
Medical visits (confirmed) - 558,599 (as of 4/12/2020)
Hospitalizations - 93,631
Deaths - 22,154

Again, we will assume some things. One, these numbers are accurate (something we'll discuss later). And two, that symptomatic cases are roughly 2X's the confirmed cases. Each of these assumptions will be vetted later.

Population estimate 2020 - 318 million

0.35% are already symptomatic [(assumed)] at three months in.
0.18% have already been confirmed.
0.029% have already been hospitalized.

[These numbers are for only three months.] Simple extrapolation to a full year means we are looking at [0.12%], or [374,524] people being hospitalized.

So far, it looks like H1N1. Maybe even a little better, right? Not so fast.

Of the confirmed cases, the mortality rate is 3.97%.

Remember, we are assuming symptomatic cases is 2X's the confirmed. So the mortality rate of all symptomatic cases would be 1.98%.

Recap:
Seasonal flu symptomatic mortality rate: 0.13%
H1N1 symptomatic mortality rate: 0.21%
Covid19 symptomatic mortality rate: 1.98%

Do you see the difference yet?

*Elephant in the room*
The numbers.

Here we'll address assumption #1; the accuracy of the numbers.

Many have been saying the numbers are inflated. And they may well be. Some of the reasons for this belief include: inaccurate reporting, intentional skewing, and outright lying.

Inaccurate reporting:
Yes. This is a dynamic situation. We may never know 100% of all the data. Even the seasonal flu data is subject to this. The H1N1 data shows that much of the earliest numbers were full of errors and assumptions. Testing for a novel virus isn't error free.

As with any statistical analysis, you have to bake inaccuracies into the cake. You have to try to keep all of your assumptions the same across data sets. So, we assume there are inaccuracies in the Covid19 data, but we hope similar inaccuracies exist in the H1N1 and flu data.

And we know they both do have similar inaccuracies. Not everyone who gets the seasonal flu reports it. Even of those who see a doctor for it, few get tested. They are often diagnosed without confirmation.

Likewise, there are reports of diagnosis of Covid19 without testing.

Intentional skewing:
There is money to be made from inflating Covid19 numbers. But again, this is baked into the cake. However, the intentional skewing may be higher in the US and other countries because of the governments throwing money at those "confirmed" cases.

So, let's compare to other countries. We know China has bad data, so we'll throw them out from the start. So let's use several others:
Italy (worst case)
UK (similar to US)
Turkey (possible control group)
India
Malaysia
Japan
Singapore (best case)

We need to compare three things:
Confirmed cases
Confirmed rate (percent of population)
Confirmed mortality rate

Italy: 156363 - 0.26% - 12.7%
UK: 89554 - 0.13% - 12.7%
Turkey: 61049 - 0.073% - 1.96%
India: 9635 - 0.0007% (!) - 3.43%
Malaysia: 4817 - 0.015% - 1.60%
Japan: 7370 - 0.006% - 1.67%
Singapore: 2532 - 0.044% - 0.31%

Analysis:
The confirmed rate as a percent of the population is ALL OVER THE PLACE. In Italy and the UK, you see 'confirmed' cases at rates similar to the US (~0.18%). In all other countries, the rates are much lower. So this appears to confirm that the reported cases are high.

But how high? Can we tell from the other numbers?

First, we have to assume some other factors. One: Turkey, India, and Malaysia likely have terrible reporting and tracking. Their numbers are suspect. If you look at India, their reported cases are staggeringly low.

Another anomaly with India is their death rate is very high for having so few reported. I would bet that all of India's numbers are bad. So we will leave India aside for now.

What about Italy and UK? Their reported cases rate is similar to the US, but mortality is HIGH!

The death rates in Italy and UK are a factor of 10 higher than the US. It is VERY likely that there is something wrong with their numbers. We might assume they would be higher due to some outside factors, but not 10X's more.

What about Japan and Singapore?

Japan and Singapore already have a high level of social distancing and widespread mask use. It would stand to reason that their numbers would be low. And their reported rate is very low. Their reported rate is a factor of 10 lower than the US and the UK.

But their death rates are not so dissimilar to the US, Turkey, and even Malaysia. Singapore has a very low death rate; possibly the lowest in the world. Is there misreporting on the other side? Perhaps Singapore's semi-socialist governance wants to inflate their healthcare?

However, even if we take Singapore's unusually low death rate, it is still higher than the 2009 H1N1 death rate.

More likely, the correct death rate is something along the rate of Japan (which is similar enough to Turkey and Malaysia to give confidence).

[Outright lying:]
[It's absolutely possible that countries are lying about their results. China is a prime example. But the question becomes, who is lying and which direction are thy skewing the numbers? The US, UK, and Italy may be lying to make their numbers higher. Japan and Singapore may be lying to make their numbers lower. But again, this has to be backed into the cake.]

What does that mean?

A mortality rate of 1.6% [(Malaysia / Japan)] is 7.5X's the rate of the H1N1.
And it's 12X's the rate of ALL seasonal flu viruses, combined (remember, there are 131 varieties)!

As for the assumption that symptomatic cases are roughly 2X's the number of confirmed cases, we can make the assumption in any direction, and the outcome will be affected very little. Once we have determined the mortality rate of the virus, very little else matters.

For instance, let's assume the number of symptomatic cases are 5X's (instead of 2X's) the confirmed cases, and the mortality rate is that of Japan (1.67%):

US's assumed symptomatic cases: 2,792,995
Expected deaths: 46,643

That's 2X's the known deaths (which we have already assumed is inflated). If the actual deaths are lower than the reported, then the US mortality rate would be lower than Japan. Does that make sense?

Let's assume it does (which it doesn't): Then what?

If the US assumed symptomatic cases are really that high, and the actual deaths are lower (let's say by half):

11,077 deaths / 2,792,995 cases = 0.04% mortality rate

That is STILL DOUBLE the rate of the H1N1!!!

Recap:
We have QUINTUPLED the symptomatic cases, and we have halved the REPORTED deaths.

And Covid19 is still twice as deadly as anything we've dealt with in a century.

So, even if we play the game of "The numbers are wrong", we still come out with a pandemic on the scale of the 1918 Spanish Flu.

But if we take a realistic look at the numbers being reported around the world, we are looking at a 1.5% - 3% mortality rate.

If we don't act like Covid19 is a big deal (which it is), and we behave like we did under the H1N1 or Ebola pandemics, we will end up with 80 million infected in the US alone. And with a mortality rate of a conservative 1.5%, that's 1,200,000 dead in a year.

TrumpLand and Clinton Archipelago

Trump Land as envisioned by percent voting for Trump in the 2016 popular vote


Clinton Archipelago as envisioned by percent voting for Clinton in the 2016 popular vote

---

source:
TrumpLand and Clinton Archipelago - Vivid Maps

Deliver up your arms said Xerxes

Once again, I see so many posts about gun control following a tragedy. The emotional reaction is understandable, but the failure to think logically is not. We want to protect the defenseless from those who would do them harm. But the emotional reaction is to remove the tool from the would-be attacker's hand, never getting to the logical conclusion that you also remove the same tool from the hands of the defender.

In an emotional state, we want to remove "assault weapons" from violent criminals. "Assault weapons" sound very dangerous, so on an emotional level, it seems to make sense to remove them from reach of criminals. But if we do, the criminal either obtains the weapon illegally, or they simply choose another weapon. The defender has become defenseless against such a person unless they too become criminals.

But who needs an assault weapon to defend themselves?

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

how do you #selfie your soul?

STOP SKINNY SHAMING!
seriously, this nonsense has to stop... people keep writing articles about how it's "Fat-Shaming" whenever someone posts a picture of themselves looking skinny, fit, or just good... apparently, this makes fat people feel bad about themselves.

honestly, maybe they should feel bad... seriously... being fit is being healthy... "i can be fat and healthy," says the offended... sure you can... you can smoke cigarettes and not get cancer... you can sky-dive and always have your parachute open... Evel Knievel can jump over the Grand Canyon and not plummet to his doom.

but let's be real about statistics for a moment... if you have excess body weight, you (statistically) will have higher triglycerides, cholesterol, etc... you are (statistically) at a higher risk for heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc... your mortality rate (again, statistics) goes up.

for those who haven't made the connection:

• if you're fat, not fit, you're going to die sooner... if you're fit, you live longer.
• hell, if you're fit, you feel better.
• you can walk up stairs without having to sit down half-way up.
• sex is even better (and who doesn't want that?).
• on that note, excess body fat obstructs the base of the penis... that's right... the fit, skinny guy has a longer penis.
• skinny women receive greater penetration during sex... no thunder-thighs to get in the way.
• more sexual positions!... if you're fit, you can have sex in those damnable small bathtubs... (trust me, two whales mating in a puddle isn't pretty... don't Google that!)
• if you're fit, you can wear a greater variety of clothes... not because you look good in them, but because they make your size... the Big And Tall shop is a misnomer... tall has very little to do with it... it should be called, to paraphrase Gabriel Iglesias, "Big and Damn!"
• if you're fit, your children are more likely to be fit... that's right, if you live longer, so will they!

but, no... people have to get pissed of whenever someone else feels good about themselves.

like this turd... she gets all holier-than-thou about a lady who is internet-famous for her butt... she takes "selfies" of her own tush... along comes this lady who calls it "objectification of women"... so, a woman feels good about herself, takes a picture of her butt (which she obviously worked hard to get), posts it online because she's proud of it, and somehow she's objectifying herself.

let me get this straight... if i, as a guy, put on a tie, get a haircut, spruce myself up and decide "damn, I look good", the moment i share a photo of myself, i've objectified men?... because that's what you're saying women are doing... "damn, I look good"... *click*... *post*... objectification.

what... the... hell.

back to the "turd"... here's some of her bitching:

Someone needs to say it: Ladies, get a grip. Face selfies are one thing; butt selfies are another.

And yet, the problem with butt selfies and all manner of obsession with the female backside is old as time: It’s the objectification of women.

It’s great for Ms. Selter to promote #hardwork and #cleaneating, among other healthy lifestyle choices. It would be even better for someone to come along and remind us that we are cutting ourselves short when we focus purely on the physical.

if you can't take photos of yourself, what are you allowed to take pictures of?... you go to the gym, lose weight, feel great... take a photo of the car you drove to the gym?... won't that offend people with older model cars?... or, worse yet, no car?... that lady who had three kids, looks great, and challenges others to do the same; somehow she should take photos of something else?... what, her vagina for giving birth?... would that cause labia-envy?... the lady who showed off her six-pack abs just days after giving birth; should she take photos of her college degree?... or would that offend the illiterate?

i'd just like to know something... how in the hell do you take a selfie of your soul?

---

source:
The Case Against Butt Selfies, by Erin VargoErin Vargo | TUE. MARCH 25 | Acculturated
Mom Angers World After Showing Off 6-Pack 3 Days After Giving Birth by Ericka Sóuter December 2, 2013
'Hot Facebook Mom' Still Wants To Know: 'What's Your Excuse?' The Huffington Post | by Cavan Sieczkowski 03/07/2014

HuffPo logical fallacies

xkcd Comics

Causation vs. Correlation:

"Costco reported a profit of $537 million last quarter, up from $394 million during the same period last year, according to the Wall Street Journal. The healthy earnings report comes just six days after Jelinik urged lawmakers to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour."

One year of profit reports as opposed to six days following a comment.

---

Straw Man Fallacy

"Costco makes more than $10,000 in profits per employee, while Walmart takes home about $7,400 per worker, according to the Daily Beast (Walmart and Costco aren’t exactly the same type of business, however)."

Costco (X) makes Profit (a). Walmart (Y) makes Profit (b)

You propose X:Y::a:b, but that is not remotely true.

If X /= Y therefore you cannot make assumption of a=b

---

source:

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

an armed american way of life

"Hunting and shooting are more than just hobbies in south Mississippi. For many, these activities are a way of life, a tradition handed down from fathers to sons, grandfathers to granddaughters. For centuries, the people of Mississippi have lawfully owned firearms, for their personal protection as well as a means of providing for their families. Now the president and his liberal allies are attempting to use a national tragedy to promote their own plan to limit the Second Amendment rights of every American citizen.

I have heard from my constituents and agree with them wholeheartedly: We will not be disarmed by a president bent on creating a society incapable of defending themselves against enemies foreign or domestic."

"The Supreme Court has consistently struck down gun bans including two in the past few years in both the District of Columbia and the City of Chicago. In the opinion written by Justice Scalia, it was noted that when guns are banned, data shows that murder rates increase. This simple fact is just another in the long line of facts ignored by anti-gun advocates. The opinions also noted that the Second Amendment applies to current weapons that are commonly in use. Simply put, when a type of firearm is used commonly, it should be protected by the Second Amendment."

---

source:
Guns are a way of life, a protected right by Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) in Hattiesburg American

banning effectiveness

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Year:	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Five Year Totals
Total Murder Victims	14,965	15,087	14,916	14,224	13,636	72,828
Not banning handguns	7,400	7,251	7,518	7,424	7,184	36,777
Assuming "Firearms, type not stated" are also handguns	5,912	5,897	5,813	5,599	5,350	28,571
Not banning knives	3,992	4,067	3,996	3,711	3,525	19,291
Not banning clubs	3,384	3,449	3,349	3,108	2,914	16,204
Not banning fists	2,479	2,608	2,480	2,233	2,113	11,913
Assuming "Other weapons" are type of weapon not banned	1,521	1,468	1,475	1,234	1,218	6,916
Not banning poison, explosives, fire, etc.	1,105	1,035	1,026	903	860	4,929
Not banning shotguns	583	545	569	461	442	2,600
Congratulations, you are this effective:	3.9%	3.6%	3.8%	3.2%	3.2%	3.6%

---

source:
FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles on Breitbart by AWR HAWKINS on 3 Jan 2013

Hysteria Over The "Risk" Of Being Poor

By Neal Boortz

Please stand back.  I’ve been waiting all weekend to write this particular section for Nealz Nuze.  Seldom have I heard a more idiotic statement from someone in a position to know better … I mean this is so magnificently ignorant – even stupid – that if this woman’s ignorance were radioactive Democrats could build the mother of all nuclear brain bombs.  Just one could wipe out all intelligent life on Earth.

The woman we’re talking about is Melissa Harris-Perry.  Apparently she has a weekend show on MSNBC.  No surprise there.  At last check MSNBC had about 2,200 centrifuges at work 24/7 trying to purify stupid.  They’ve done quite well with Melissa Harris Hyphen Perry.

Melissa Harris Hyphen Perry is also political science professor at Tulane.  Read a bit further and you’ll pity her poor students.

Melissa’s meltdown (Can I just call her Melissa?  The Harris Hyphen Perry is tiring) occurred on her show over this past weekend.  The topic had turned to welfare and income mobility.  Melissa apparently lost it when a guest on her show suggested that people move from lower to higher income brackets by taking risks.  Oh my!  Now THAT yanked Melissa’s chain.  She actually started screaming and thrashing about on the air like a beached barracuda.  Here’s a section from the transcript of her hysterical fit, provided by Hot Air:

“What is riskier than living poor in America?   Seriously! What in the world is riskier than being a poor person in America? I live in a neighborhood where people are shot on my street corner. I live in a neighborhood where people have to figure out how to get their kid into school because maybe it will be a good school and maybe it won’t. I am sick of the idea that being wealthy is risky. No. There is a huge safety net that whenever you fail will catch you and catch you and catch you. Being poor is what is risky. We have to create a safety net for poor people. And when we won’t, because they happen to look different from us, it is the pervasive ugliness.”

Where to start?  This is like hunting over a baited field.  So many targets standing completely still with stupid expressions on their faces that you scarcely know where to shoot first.  (OMG!  A gun methaphor!)

Let’s start with the poor.  The poor, poor, pitiful poor.  Just how risky is it to be poor in America?  Lose your job?  You’re on unemployment.  No job? You’re on welfare!  Can’t find something to eat?  Food banks and numerous feeding programs.  Just tell me when was the last time you heard of someone dying from hunger in this country.  You have to hide somewhere to do that.  No roof over your head?  Check in to a shelter.  Fact is, most people who sleep outside make that choice after rejecting a bed in a shelter because they don’t want to abide by the rules.  For every story of some poor person who died on a freezing night outdoors, there is a story of a bed in a shelter rejected.  Get sick?  Medicaid.  Nobody is denied basic life-saving medical care in this country because they can’t afford to pay for it.

What’s it like to be poor in America?  Dare I say it?  Not all that horrible, actually.  First – in a general sense – the average poor person in America has a higher standard of living than the average European.  Read that sentence again – you need to understand what I’m saying there.  Read it until it sinks in.  Take the average POOR person in America and tell them they’re going to have to live like the AVERAGE EUROPEAN .. and they’ll start screaming racism, discrimination, oppression, and every other leftist trigger word they can remember.  Tell a poor person in America that they’re going to have to lower their living standard to that of the average European, and the proggies will tell you that you be “hatin’” on the poor.

Specifics?  Yeah .. I have some specifics.

First .. let me go back to a story and picture that appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution earlier this year.  The story is re-written for use every winter --- it’s about pitiful po’ folks having to wait in line to get their home heating assistance dollars from the government to heat their homes in the winter.  This past winter the AJC showed a picture of some pitiful poor person bemoaning the fact that she might not get her heating dollars.  Right there in her living room we saw her big-screen television (at least 50”) and the PlayStation video game.  There was also a space heater in the background.  The AJC writer told us that sadly this woman can only afford to heat the room she is occupying.  Well … guess what the hell what?  That’s the way the average European does it!  In Europe many think it’s just plain silly to heat a room you are not using.  That’s also the way your parents or grandparents probably lived in this country.  You wouldn’t expect this AJC reporter to know that though.  The purpose of the story was to make your heart bleed for this pitiful poor woman, not to give you any actual facts.

Pretty risky stuff, right Melissa?

More specifics?  Here you go.  This is from a two-year old study from The Heritage Foundation. 

• The typical “poor” household in America has a car
• 78% of “poor” households in America have air conditioning
• 64% of “poor” households in America have cable or satellite TV .. most have two TVs, along with a DVD player and  VCR
• Most “poor” households in America with children have a gaming system such as an Xbox or PlayStation
• 38% of “poor” households in America have a personal computer
• Most “poor” households in America have a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. They also have other household appliances such as a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
• The typical “poor” American has more living space than the average European.
• The typical “poor” American family is able to obtain medical care when needed.
• The average “poor” household in America claims to have sufficient funds to meet all essential needs.

One can only assume that in light of the growth of Obama’s entitlement society these numbers are even better now.

But wait!  (As they say.)  There’s more!

I’m about to show you that you have more disposable income in America as a single mother with three children – from God knows how many different fathers – than does a traditional two-parent middle class family.  Hold on.

Let’s consider the head of a household of four making minimum wage in America.  More specifically – a one-parent household of four.  The mom – making minimum wage – and three children.  Compare this to a two-parent household with two children making $60,000 a year.  Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current ran the numbers on these two families and discovered that the single-mom with three kids,  and no job marketable job skills that she could use to earn more than minimum wage,  actually has --- now get this --- actually has more disposable income than the family making $60,000.  How does that work?  Well .. you throw in the various government income redistribution programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, the school lunch program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, CHIP, Section 8 rent subsidies, and the heating assistance program and you have little Miss Minimum Wage – earning $14,500 a year – actually walking away with $37,777 in disposable income.  Meanwhile, the family earning $60,000, after taxes and childcare costs, brings home about $34,366. 

There, Melissa.  There’s your risky lifestyle.  Really?  Just where IS the risk you speak of?  Frankly, I don’t see that much at all.  It’s a life in thrall .. the government provides you with the security you so ardently desire in exchange for one simple little thing every two or four years … you’re vote. 

Do you want me to tell you about poor people and risk-taking?  Here you go:

• Having unprotected sex so that your boyfriend can knock you up, and then having a child you absolutely cannot afford to raise … that’s risky.

• Ignoring your education and job training opportunities to the point that you can’t qualify for a job that earns more than minimum wage … that’s risky.

• Getting hooked on drugs … that’s risky

• Spending your spare money on lottery tickets and at your local Tresses and Talons shop … that’s risky.

• Taking money you could use to buy your kids a book .. and spending it instead on a cool tattoo.  Risky.

• Getting a job --- and then making a habit of not showing up for work on Monday’s and Fridays … that’s risky. 

• Refusing to move out of a crime-ridden inner city environment and relocating, by whatever means necessary, to an area with better schools, less drugs and crime, and some basic job opportunities … that’s risky.  And don’t give me this “can’t afford it” crap.  Our ancestors did that walking alongside covered wagons with a few tables and chairs and maybe a bed inside.  They had to dig holes in the ground to drop a deuce along the way.  You have a car.  There’s rest areas on the expressways.  Load it and use it.

• Embracing the “no snitching” culture so that the police can’t do an effective job of ridding your neighborhood of the thugs that shoot your friends on street corners … risky. 

Now … dear, sweet, mindless Melissa.  You say that there’s no risk-taking in being wealthy?  Oh .. and that there’s a “huge safety net that will catch you whenever you fail over and over?”  Really?  Well .. you’re a political science professor .. so we’ll just assume you don’t know what in the hell you’re talking about.  Pretty safe assumption, I’d say. 

CNN’s Money.com tells us that households have lost a total of $16 trillion plus in household wealth since the recession.  Now this wasn’t wealth held by the pitiful poor.  By definition, they have no net wealth.  So where was the safety net for this $16 trillion in lost net wealth, Melissa?  Is the government out there making these people whole again?  Is the government restoring lost savings accounts?  How about depleted IRAs and 401Ks?  Being rich is risk-free? 

What of all the businessmen who have had to close down their businesses – their life’s dreams – as a result of the recession?  Where was that government safety net that catches them over and over and over?  Can you tell me one business lost to a small businessman that has been restored by government?  Can you tell me how the government stepped in and gave this businessman back the cash and time he invested in his business?  Isn’t it great that this guy wasn’t taking any risks? 

What about the stock losses in failed corporations?  What about the dividends no longer being paid by corporations on the financial brink?  Tell me, Melissa, how is the government stepping in to stretch a safety net under these investors?  Even The Huffington Post reports that wealth lost during the recession hit middle and upper income people the hardest.  Tell me what the government safety net did for them, Melissa?

Do you want to know what the safety net for the rich is?  It’s the exact same safety net your wonderful poor people have:  SNAP, Section 8, EITC, Child care tax credits, food banks, TANF and the rest of the social welfare programs that prop up your neighbors in that violent neighborhood you can’t bring yourself to leave. 

Don’t move, Melissa.  Trust me .. you’re right where you belong.  It’s nice they let you work in the house sometimes.  

---

source:
Hysteria Over The "Risk" Of Being Poor

Happiness is.

what is happiness?... Aristotle had quite a bit to say on happiness... and so it seems do conservatives.

PBS (oft-thought as liberal) had a recent discussion about happiness and your ideological beliefs... this may come as a surprise to the liberals out there, but conservatives are happier on average... and the reasons may surprise you... below are some selected portions of PBS's findings:

One of the biggest correlates with happiness in our surveys was the belief of a meritocracy, which is the belief that anybody who works hard can make it. That was the biggest predictor of happiness. That was also one of the biggest predictors of political ideology. So, the conservatives were much higher on these meritocratic beliefs than liberals were.

belief in your own merit makes you happier... the belief that you are owed something makes you unhappy... this is what conservatives call "common sense".

Now, optimism alone doesn't determine contentment. Religion boosts happiness. So does marriage. But Napier's research accounted for that.

JAIME NAPIER: "We adjusted for education, for income, for marital status, religion, people who lived urban vs. rural, all kinds of things. So, you know, on average, just your ideology alone is an independent predictor of your subjective well-being."

did you get that?... i know the jokes about marriage, but it makes you happier... it makes me happier... just ask my wife; she'll tell you what i think.

and "religion boosts happiness"?... oh, the compounding effect of a religious conservative.

they even adjusted for education and income... this means that even poor, stupid conservatives are happier than rich, educated liberals... alternatively, a well educated conservative is still happier.

Napier says American economic malaise of the past few decades disheartened everyone, but liberals most of all.

So, everybody was decreasing in happiness as there was more inequality, but liberals to a significantly greater extent than conservatives.

And, in 1974, the difference between liberals and conservatives on happiness wasn't statistically significant. It was, basically, ideology didn't predict happiness in 1974.

so, the Summer-of-Love liberals were equally happy as their conservative counterparts... and while the inequality of wealth became greater, only the liberals became unhappy... apparently, they seem to think they aren't getting their fair share... the conservatives, on the other hand, aren't looking for a hand-out, so they are content to work for what they earn.

It's not true that conservatives are richer than Liberals. Liberals are actually richer than conservatives.

The reason that conservatives tend to be less concerned with income inequality is not because that they're ignorant. It's not because they're calloused. It's not because they have less of a sense of a morality. It has to do with the fact that they see the world differently.

sorry to take away all of your arguments, liberals... apparently, statistically speaking, you're the rich ones... but, somehow, you've made the claim that the conservatives are the 1%... not true... you've claimed they're ignorant, callous, and immoral... not true.

what is true is that liberals are the cause of their own problem... the expectation that someone else owes you anything sets up a logical fallacy... Person A expects value V from society Z... society Z is the sum total of all persons, "n"... for all persons "A" to each receive V from Z, then Z owes a total of V*n (split equally to A*n)... simple math... (V*n)/(A*n)= V/A or 1V per 1A... however, for society to have V*n to give, it must receive from A*n the total amount for distribution... that means, each A must contribute 1V to Z prior to receiving their 1V in return... liberals don't want to give into the system from which they expect to receive... but if no one puts into the society, it is fallacious to think you can get anything out of it... maybe you've heard of squeezing blood from a turnip?

liberals would have you believe that there are two groups giving into society and two receiving... person A is poor and needy (proletariat)... person B is rich and needless (bourgeoisie)... therefore, the above math goes something like this: 0A+2B=V₁ (value put into society Z)... V₁=V₂ (value taken from society)... V₂=2A+0B... "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

---

With regard to what happiness is (men) differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honor. They differ, however, from one another -- and often even the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor.

Happiness is desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. But honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves, but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient.

Aristotle

---

source:
Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals? PBS NewsHour Dec. 9, 2011 PBS

at one time, it wasn't broken

The accompanying graphic shows a fascinating correlation. In the years before New Deal regulation of banks and after the easing of regulations began in 1980, bank failures were quite high. So was income inequality.

But from about 1933, when the federal regulation of banks was put in place, to 1980, when Chicago School theories began to shape policy, bank failures were rare. During those years incomes were much more equal, with a prosperous middle class.

Correlation is not causality, but the fact that income inequality rose as banking regulations were eased makes sense. Freed of restraints, banks got into all sorts of activities that generated fees and saddled clients with high-interest debt. And once banks could collect fees for mortgages without having to worry about repayment — because the mortgages were sold off by Wall Street — the crucial link between reward and responsibility was severed.

---

source:
The taxpayers’ burden - David Cay Johnston - Dec 3, 2011
The author is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

fear and lying in Flint Michigan

You know Pat Moynihan said everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but they’re not entitled to their own facts. Let’s look at the facts. In 2008, when Flint had 265 sworn officers on the police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city. In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes — just to pick two categories — climbed to 229.
- Vice President Biden - October 12, 2011 - Flint, Michigan

I was up in Flint, Michigan, last week. Their police department’s cut more than in half. The murder rate, close to triple. The number of rapes have quadrupled. - Vice President Biden - October 18, 2011 - University of Pennsylvania

---

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports for those years show that the number of reported rapes declined from 103 in 2008 to 92 in 2010, or a nearly 11 percent drop.
- Factcheck.org

---

just for clarity, in 2009, Flint had 38 murders and 110 rapes... a 7% increase from 2008... and a 16% decrease from 2009 to 2010...

figures don't lie... liars sure do figure.

---

source:
Biden’s Whopper in Flint, Mich. - FactCheck.org Posted on October 20, 2011
FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports - 2008, 2009, and 2010

we don't need no stinking facts

the trouble with lies is that facts often get in the way of a perfectly good untruth... take, for instance, the "Bush-era tax cuts"... the common misconception is that these tax cuts caused (in whole or in part, depending on the lie being told) the current deep recession we are in... for example:

Recently, a Florida Democratic representative, Corrine Brown, explained her vote against the debt ceiling agreement by citing "eight years of horribly reckless spending and excessive tax cuts for the rich under President Bush and the Republican Congress."

point... and counterpoint:

Bush did indeed cut taxes for the wealthy -- along with everybody else who paid income taxes. But does Brown remember that tax revenues actually increased in the years after the Bush tax cuts took effect?

Obama Partisans Ignore Facts When Bashing Bush - Byron York - Townhall Conservative

Revenues fell in Bush's first two years because of a combination of the tech bust and the start of the tax cuts. But then things took off. After taking in $1.782 trillion in tax revenues in 2003, the government collected $1.88 trillion in 2004; $2.153 trillion in 2005; $2.406 trillion in 2006; and $2.567 trillion in 2007, according to figures compiled by the Office of Management and Budget. That's a 44 percent increase from 2003 to 2007. (Revenues slid downward a bit in 2008, and a lot in 2009, when the financial crisis sent the economy into a tailspin.)

---

FEDERAL REVENUE CHART:

USGovernmentRevenue.com

---

FEDERAL DEFICIT CHART:

USGovernmentSpending.com

---

so, what would have been saved had the "Bush-era" tax cuts been permanent?... well, by the charts above, maybe our federal government, but i don't want to speculate over what-might-have-been... let's look at those damnable facts again:

Treasury estimates the costs of making the tax cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over 10 years.

Of that, $3 trillion accounts for the cost of extending them for the vast majority of Americans, as the president has proposed. The remaining $700 billion is the cost of extending them permanently for the high-income earners.

Bush tax cuts: What you need to know - By Jeanne Sahadi, senior writer for CNN Money

so what the Big Lie is, if we cut taxes on the rich, we'd lose $700 billion over a span of a decade... my math isn't the best, but that's about $70 billion a year... the deficit as of 2011 is $1,500 billion (that's $1.5 trillion)... but, let's presume we somehow recoup the money the rich should have spent since 2001 when the taxes were introduced... the federal deficit would have been $700 billion less, or only $800 billion... that's still $790 billion more than it was in 2001.

what is the point of all this fact-finding?... the point is that blaming the "Bush-era" tax cuts for our current situation is like blaming Dr. Jonas Salk for polio deaths... there was a financial problem, and President Bush tried to solve it... like his solution or not, he worked under adverse conditions (i.e. tech-bubble, 9/11 WTC attacks, Democrat Congress) to make the economy better.

and when President Obama has troubles (i.e. mortgage-bubble, bailouts, european debt crisis), we look to see what he and his Democrat Congress are going to do... and what do they do?... they blame Bush-era tax cuts.

and three years later, they still blame him... oh, it's turned to blaming the rich for wanting $700 billion in tax cuts... those dirty, evil rich people.

what about the $3 trillion that the not-so-rich are holding onto?... no one seems to remember them.

and yet, in 2010, my taxes increased and Social Security withholding reduced... remember that?

i sure do.

an inconvenient truth (about taxes)

Soak the rich? You can’t.

Higher taxes reduce the incentives to work, produce, invest and save, thereby dampening overall economic activity and job creation.

Although Hauser’s law sounds like a restatement of the Laffer curve (and Hauser did cite Arthur Laffer in his original article), it has independent validity. Because Laffer’s curve is a theoretical insight, theoreticians find it easy to quibble with. Test cases, in which the economy responds to a tax change, lend themselves to many alternative explanations. Conventional economists, despite immense publicity, have yet to swallow the Laffer curve. When it is mentioned at all by critics, it is often as an object of scorn.

Hauser’s Law via Hoover Institution
by W. Kurt Hauser and David Ranson

Mr. Hauser is chairman emeritus of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and chairman of Wentworth, Hauser & Violich, a San Francisco investment management firm.

David Ranson is head of research at H.C. Wainwright & Co. Economics Inc.

This essay appeared in the Wall Street Journal on May 20, 2008.


See also There's No Escaping Hauser's Law in the Wall Street Journal by W. Kurt Hauser on November 26, 2010.


EDIT:
also see the following:
Millionaires Go Missing - Wall Street Journal
excerpt:

One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

proof is in the pudding

Let those crackers and hillbillies in the red states wallow in their filth and their ignorance, say proud upholders of the blue state model. We blue staters believe in things like quality education — and that costs money.

The American Interest blog

one thing this blog fails to point out is the proportion of magnet, private, charter, and preparatory schools who outrank your basic, public school... perhaps this is more reason to put public schools on notice... provide tax vouchers to parents and allow them to take their children to the schools that perform... stop rewarding mediocrity... it appears that "No Child Left Behind" is leaving too many children behind... it just gives the appearance of success by setting the bar lower.

The Path to Prosperity: America's two futures, visualized

This 3-minute video is a visualization of the House Republicans' budget, "The Path to Prosperity," presented by Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee.

For more information on our plan to avert the US's nearing debt crisis and chart a path of growth and prosperity, visit http://budget.house.gov/

http://budget.house.gov/fy2012budget/

The GOP Path to Prosperity - WSJ

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