Sorry, but wooooo!  Giants!!!

I like Clint Eastwood, but that commercial is nothing but a compilation of disgusting claptrap meant to put a fig leave over billions of socialism and corporatism that are the only reason that the failed company Chrysler still exists.

He is right that one could say it's halftime in America, but it's "halftime" because of foolish choices, not because of outside adversity.  And the only way to win that game, to continue with that metaphor, is to play better; however, I think there's a large number of our fellow citizens that don't know what good economic play is and they won't hold Washington to account for not encouraging a fair game.

If we were to continue that metaphor, you could say Washington was like the official in the booth that overturned the end of this thrilling superbowl and said that the Pats caught that hail mary and won the game.  And by doing that, they would be punishing all of the hard work of the Giants while rewarding the failure of the Patriots.

So, similarly, Washington overturned the call and gave the game to Chrysler, and punished Ford and all the other car companies.  Sad.

 As the population of the US is not projected to decline any time soon (even with the baby boomers shuffling off this mortal coil), a decline in workforce participation is bad news as it means there's less productive citizens out their keeping our society growing (or just running).

Apparently those emminent economists have defined down good news to be just not miserable news.  Also, they're probably not considering workforce underparticipation--like all of those 20 and 50 somethings that are working part time or in jobs they're overqualified for becauset the economy hasn't grown enough in the past 4 years to even come close to creating enough high-quality jobs for them to fill.

Until we get several years of 3.5+ GDP growth, this malaise will continue, and we'll just begin to forget what good times are and how America was once great.  And with that, you should probably just turn to the immortal words of the Gipper, who said it better than I...

There is a right, but it is a monopoly priviledge granted in law, not a natural right to one's properties governed by the laws of scarcity (ie, physical goods, land: rivalrous interests--if you have it I don't).

A fair discussion can't be had until it is honest, and anyone conflating copying a music file with stealing your car is being dishonest.

Once we get beyond that, it is a simple discussion of three parts:

1) What is the best way to fund the advancement of the arts and sciences?

2) If it is copyright, what is a fair amount of time for an artist to earn fair remuneration for their works?

3) What is the best way to enforce these rights in law so the artist can actually collect their monopoly earnings?

However, you'll notice that the latter two parts require a level of economic wisdom and management that is antithetical to the theory of limited government by imperfect men that underlies the Founding.

There is a right, but it is a monopoly priviledge granted in law, not a natural right to one's properties governed by the laws of scarcity (ie, physical goods, land, etc; as I said above, rivalrous interests--if you have it I don't).

A fair discussion can't be had until it is honest, and anyone conflating copying a music file with stealing your car is being dishonest.

Once we get beyond that, it is a simple discussion of three parts:

1) What is the best way to fund the advancement of the arts and sciences?

2) If it is copyright, what is a fair amount of time for an artist to earn fair remuneration for their works?

3) What is the best way to enforce these rights in law so the artist can actually collect their monopoly earnings?
However, you'll notice that the latter two parts require a level of economic wisdom and management that is antithetical to the theory of limited government by imperfect humans that underlies the Founding.

There is a right, but it is a monopoly priviledge granted in law, not a natural right to one's properties governed by the laws of scarcity (ie, physical goods, land, etc; as I said above, rivalrous interests--if you have it I don't).

A fair discussion can't be had until it is honest, and anyone conflating copying a music file with stealing your car is being dishonest.

Once we get beyond that, it is a simple discussion of three parts:

1) What is the best way to fund the advancement of the arts and sciences?

2) If it is copyright, what is a fair amount of time for an artist to earn fair remuneration for their works?

3) What is the best way to enforce these rights in law so the artist can actually collect their monopoly earnings?
However, you'll notice that the latter two parts require a level of economic wisdom and management that is antithetical to the theory of limited government by imperfect humans that underlies the Founding.

Bottom line: current copyright law is unjust and economically inefficient (stifling innovation and creativity for the sake of a small pool of rent-collectors), and this law does nothing but extend this injustice and enforce the scheme with draconian penalties that will have a ice-age impact on free speech.

So, all around, this law is terrible.  If it passes it shows that the House of Representatives is truly broken and is not serving its purpose as the People's house; this will serve as yet another example of why the number of representatives if far too few because the common man is not driving the work of the House.

So, let me yet again make my plea: increase the size of the House to 10,000 representatives--it will have a dramatic effect in improving the government of these United States.

Here's a brief summary of why this is such a great idea:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228369/we-need-bigger-house/jonah-goldberg

James, one of the major problems with this law is that it will censor complete websites for one link to one "pirated" piece of content, which is disproportionate to the crime to say the least.  Even if this penalty won't be enforced all the time, it gives regulators entirely too much discretion--we need to be rolling back ad hoc governance, not increasing it.

Second, the current scheme of intellectual "property" law is not in alignment with the natural law and is thus unjust.  Just because Disney has bought Congress several times and extended copyright from two renewable 30 year periods to well over a century of automatic extensions is not to say that this scheme is just and that those that violate it are "thieves" and "pirates".

Fundamentally copying your work is not the same as sneaking into your house and stealing your TV as copying a work is non-rivalrous, to use the economic term.  Trying to conflate copying works to being the same as theft of physical property and to corrupt the language by calling potential Shakespeares (a well known user of other's intellectual "property") "thieves" and "pirates" is genuinely Orwellian.

Didn't Harry Reid just eliminate the need for a 60 vote majority when he nuked the Senate last week?  This, and the repeal of Obamacare, is well amending the rules once the new GOP majority takes office.
Back to the main topic: even with the flaws in Cain's plan, as articulated now it's still vastly better than the status quo, and that's all that matters.  As has been said several times by now, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Here here!  I completely agree with all of your remarks above, David.  Well put.

 Paul Ryan has endorsed the 9-9-9 plan as well, saying it's injecting the kind of thinking we need to get us out of the fiscal mess we're in.

Economically, the 9-9-9 plan is a no brainer and increases the fairness and justice of federal taxation.  It eliminates subsidies to politically powerful constituencies from others.  Like me, for example, a young professional just starting out who is renting because I may need to move and I don't need that much house.  Why am I paying to subsidies to workers older than me who earn much more than I do so they can buy more house?  And why am I paying 14% FICA (that's what it really is, the employer portion is a joke) for a retirement plan that I'll never see (I'm 27).

For anyone not recieving subsidies right now, this plan will lead to more money in my pocket.  And for those that are recieving subsidies, they'll benefit too from the increased economic growth.  My extra income will partially go towards increases savings, and that capital accumulation will lead to growth that benefits everyone.

So, Forest Cox, allow me to modify my initial comment to be concerning material poverty instead of poverty in general.

Material poverty is not a problem in this country, so to answer Diane's question on what the conservative approach to poverty should be: to recognize that poverty is more than just a want of things and that money cannot solve many of the problems the impoverish face. So, we should tailor our solutions to fit the real problem instead of throwing money down the rat hole that is most of the modern welfare state. 

Let us marshall our economic resources on the fronts where they will be effective, like providing work for the willing and prosperity for the productive, and marshall our spiritual resources on the front of poverty, for that is what we have a dearth of in that battle.

And thanks, Diane, for bringing up this topic.  I love it when I am able to evolve my opinion to be better and more truthful, something which is nigh impossible not to do when reading the comments of your faithful readers.

One other point related to the wisdom of Jesus' saying that the poor will always be with us: all good conservatives with a "constrained vision" (per Tom Sowell) will agree that this is obviously true, there will be people poor in wisdom, intellect, fortitude, courage, ingenuity, prudence, compassion, thrift, and every other human quality of virtue.  And a lack in many of these, like intellect and fortitude, will often lead to a lack of economic or social success in a dynamic economy that spans the globe.

We can, as good Christians, care for these people by feeding them, clothing them, and offering them our love.  However, this is very different than throwing money at them and expecting material comforts to alleviate their poverty--all that does it waste money that could be better used to provide for others with even less by growing our economy and lifting more of the world from real poverty.  Material things are not what they are wanting of, so money cannot solve their plight.

Forrest, I think you're right that my treatment was obviously too superficial in some important ways, because I certainly I agree with you that there are many tragedies about the existence of many of those poor souls who live in the ghettos of our inner cities.

However, is poverty itself what the problem is in those areas where misery is intractible?  I think we may have a disagreement on the meaning of the term.  I think of poverty as feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.  Beyond providing the bare essentials like this, and some love and brotherhood that is part of Christian compassion (which the government can NEVER provide, as it is dependent on individual virtues and not bureaucratic mediocrity) what else can one do that is related to poverty?

I think education is an obvious answer, but remember that no one can learn who doesn't want to learn.  What do we do with those people?  Some problems have no solutions, but are instead part of life in this world.  We'll never eliminate those poor, just as Jesus said.

I think it does matter, though, Diane: a lot of us believe, and some here have argued, that if you define poverty as real crushing, life-destroying poverty, it virtually doesn't exist in America, and to the extent it does exist it is emminently solvable by private charity alone.  Why bother discussing this in a US context if there is no problem to solve?
I enjoy intellectual conversations as much as the next guy, but if I have to talk practical politics like this, than I only want to discuss real problems.  The real problem in America is that our "poor" aren't really poor, and that we're wasting trillions and dampening our growth to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

I think that it is true that simply living one's own life well is hard enough.

However, it seems to me that there is a difference between the current cultural position on divorce and the direction the culture seems to be headed (or at least is argued to be headed by certain peple) concerning homosexuality; while divorce seems to be still considered a failure in most cases, even if it's one in which we do little about, the advanced position on homosexuality deems there to be no failure or mistake.

I think this distinction is where the rub lies: certain people, myself included, will never conceed that certain actions will ever be morally justified, and those include divorce (in most cases) and homosexual fornication.  I think it's clear to see there is an irreconcilable disagreement here on first principles, one that is more extreme than the divorce case, and more in line with, say, disagreement concerning the morality of abortion.