Reason Roundup

U.S. Income Gap Has Stopped Growing: Reason Roundup

Plus: Google ditching political ads in Washington state and Alice Marie Johnson freed

|

JIM RUYMEN/UPI/Newscom

There's good news on income inequality that nobody's talking about. The income gap between America's wealthiest and poorest people has generated a lot of attention and fueled a resurgence in left-wing activism and interest. But what hasn't grown in recent years is income inequality itself.

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) looked at U.S. income data from 1979 through 2014. For most of this period—between 1979 and 2007—the gap between the country's lowest and highest earners widened at a steady and relatively rapid pace.

This held true whether CBO looked at "market income" (employment and other earnings before taxes are taken out or public-assistance funds added in), income after taxes, or income plus government benefits (including social insurance programs like Social Security and means-tested programs like "food stamps").

In 2007, however, this trend came to a halt. After that, income inequality either grew much more slowly or even decreased, depending on how you slice the data. Measuring market income, the income gap was 3 percent higher in 2014 than in 2007 (compared to an average 1.3 percent increase per year over the larger period). With public benefits included in the calculation, income inequality actually shrank.

"Though few seem to care or have noticed, this trend has important implications for economic policy," writes Bloomberg columnist and American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael R. Strain. He suggests that this lack of attention may arise from the fact that income inequality per se isn't a very telling or important measure.

It's critical to remember that inequality — the income gap between higher- and lower-income households — is conceptually different from income and earnings growth among non-rich households. Inequality can be slowing while non-rich Americans are doing better, worse or the same.

But by Strain's calculations, income inequality is waning, whether we use the CBO methodology or another estimate.

Another measure of inequality is more straightforward than the "Gini coefficient" used by the CBO, and considers only labor-market earnings. It begins by ranking workers by how much they usually earn each week. Take the worker who earns more than 90 percent of all workers. Now take the worker who only earns more than 10 percent of workers. Compare their earnings.

If the rich are getting richer, then "ninth decile" workers will earn increasingly more than "tenth decile" workers. This is exactly what was happening until recently. In the late 1990s, the ninth-decile workers earned about 4.5 times as much as the tenth-decile workers. This shot up to 5.2 times as much by 2012. But over the past six years, inequality has stabilized, echoing the findings in the CBO report.

Looking at household income data from 2014 alone, the CBO found that average yearly income among the lowest-earning quintile was around $19,000. Among the highest earners, it was $281,000. "Means-tested transfers and federal taxes cause household incomes to be more evenly distributed," the office reports.

In 2014, those transfers and taxes:

  • Increased income among households in the lowest quintile by $12,000 (or more than 60 percent), on average, to $31,000.
  • Decreased income among households in the highest quintile by $74,000 (or more than 25 percent), on average, to $207,000.

FREE MINDS

Google drops politics ads in Washington. Google has announced that it will no longer run political ads for Washington-state users because the company can't comply with Washington's onerous disclosure laws. The move is good news for incumbent political candidates and not so good for independents and newcomers.

FOLLOW UP

Alice Marie Johnson freed. Kim Kardashian's meeting with President Trump got results: Alice Marie Johnson, the 63-year-old woman in federal prison for having a small amount of marijuana, was released yesterday following Trump's commutation of her sentence.

QUICK HITS

NEXT: Syria Shows Not Much Has Changed Under Trump's Foreign Policy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There’s good news on income inequality that nobody’s talking about.

    No one gets elected without a victim to save.

    1. Hello.

      lol.

      Climate change ain’t what it used to be. Narrowing income gaps. Trump winning.

      Not good times for the progressive left and its narratives, eh?

      1. Seriously?

        Back in 2016 progressives were giving Obama credit for the income gap thing. They’ve been claiming victory, so, yes, good times for them.

        The climate change train shows no signs of slowing, and the green left is one of progressivism’s more active wings. Trump’s EPA has been a perfect bogey man for them… donations have jumped to Sierra Club and like organizations. Hard to see how that looks like bad times.

        And Trump winning has resulted in the best recruiting the Dems have seen since Obama first ran, and the recent elections saw crowded Dem fields. I bet Dems see those as good signs.

        1. This reminds me of 2004-05 when the Bushpigs were celebrating a “permanent Republican majority and control of the House, Senate, White House, and SCOTUS.

          1. Or 2008-10, when the Obamatrons were celebrating the incoming “permanent Democrat majority.”

            1. Which is why I am for gridlock.

              As I have said many times.

              1. Gridlock NOW that trump is rolling back the massive government regulations and size.

                Butt, You’re a liar. We all know it.

                1. Fuck you LovdCons, you little cumstain.

                  You weren’t around here. You don’t know shit.

                  I have ALWAYS supported gridlock.

                  1. True libertarians don’t support gridlock. They support dismantling.

                  2. Buttthefuckstain, you lie all the time and just did again.

                    You only want gridlock to keep Trump from rolling back government.

                2. Rolled it all the way back to record spending levels.

                  1. Because spending is the totality of government?

                    Jesus christ people, stop letting TDS rot your brain.

              2. Palin’s Buttplug|6.7.18 @ 10:44AM|#
                “Which is why I am for gridlock.
                As I have said many times.”

                Right.
                Along with the opposite which you have said many times!

    2. No one reports good news. It’s kind of sad. But I guess people like doom and gloom more than optimism.

      1. News is unusual, and bad news is more unusual than good news. That’s why you never see a headline reading “all planes landed safely today”; we expect planes to land safely (and, honestly, if that was newsworthy enough to be a headline, it’d be really disturbing).

        1. But there are really significant and suprising good news events as well. Like huge and unprecedented numbers of people in the developing world rising out of absolute poverty, becoming literate, etc. There is a lot of really great stuff happening in the world, but most people don’t even know it and think everything is terrible and getting worse.

          1. When they think things in the world are generally going well, people tend to go about living their lives instead of obsessively reading/watching/click on/sharing ad-heavy media. News outlets therefore have a responsibility to their shareholders to maximize revenue by emphasizing bad stuff and ignoring the major good.

            1. Yeah, I understand it. You don’t get people to tune in every day for “50000 more people got connected to electricity today” or something like that.
              I think most people (in the US at least) actually behave as if they think the world is going pretty well. But speak as if it’s all going to hell.

  2. The Environmental Protection Agency is melting down.

    Global warming.

    1. You left an “s” off for savings.

      1. Global swarming?

        1. Glosbal warming

          1. Bollag Marwing!

    2. Good. I hope other departments follow suit. When you consider that 95% of the staff are partisan Democrats working against you & are basically lifetime appointees, there is no way to get them out short of making their work lives miserable.

      1. One thing that Trump is good at is making their work lives miserable.

      2. After reading the article, it’s clear that it’s a grossly hyperbolic ENB headline. I generally like ENB’s coverage. But this piece of spin is rather shameful.

  3. Immigration agents arrested 114 undocumented immigrants in Ohio Tuesday after a raid on a landscaping company that was eight months in the making.

    About time ICE gets them off the government dole by taking them from their workplace and putting them in custody.

    1. It took them eight months because they had to find places where they could split up all the children.

    2. NPR advocates the same treatment for a certain class of people. I’m all for increasing the number of visas we issue, but I don’t mind enforcing immigration laws either.

      1. Of course, nevermind what the state psychiatric hospitals were actually like when they existed. There was actually a reason why they ended up going the way of the dinosaur.

        What interest does the state have in regulating itself, one might simply ask. RE: The VA.

    3. We need to stop all these immigrants from coming here and cutting our grass! Can’t we just form a government agency that takes care of our lawns instead?

      1. Once the wall is built we’ll have to put all the ICE agents to work doing something.

        1. Enforcing immigration law?

          1. I thought the wall would take care of our problems?

            1. Nobody said the wall alone would take care of illegal immigration?

              It will help. Even the threat of the wall lowered illegal immigration.

              Plus, there already is a wall along some of the Mexico-USA border.

              1. That’s really weird that the threat of a wall stopped people from coming over. Since, it seems like you’d see the opposite. If people were afraid of the wall they’d come over before it happened.

                Basically, I’m calling bullshit on that being a reason.

      2. If you live near the border, ICE will trim your trees for you!

      3. Only if that agency provides a lawn to everyone who wants one.

  4. An Austrian copyright case against YouTube could have big implications for “on how not just YouTube but also other online platforms such as Facebook operate.”

    Net neturality would have stopped this from happening.

  5. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is under fire from New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for arresting a pizza delivery dude who was dropping off an order at a Brooklyn military base.

    Hey, pizza boys know going in the risk of getting accosted by armed assailants is high.

    1. They’re not sending us their smartest, are they.

      1. That pizza boy’s tips didn’t come about because of his brains.

    2. Why did that pizza dude think it was a good idea to deliver pizzas to a military base? Not smart.

      Plus it is literally impossible to get on any base I have seen if your car is not registered with the base, showing them your ID will do literally jack squat. Either that base security is trash and lax or that guy has never been to that base before and was less than truthful saying he has been on the base before with only a city ID. Even getting some daypass he would need an escort, you cannot just pick up a piece of paper and roam wherever you want on a military base if you do not have access, does not matter if you are a pizza boy or regular person or whoever.

      The quotes on the article were pretty hilarious. I seriously question someones judgement who thinks they can just get on a military base with a friggin drivers license and thats it. That dude is dumb, he just won his Darwin Award for dumbest illegal of the week.

      1. Why did that pizza dude think it was a good idea to deliver pizzas to a military base?

        Probably because someone ordered a pizza and his employer told him to deliver it.
        I don’t know what’s required to get into a military base. I don’t think most people who haven’t been on one do either.

        1. I’ve delivered pizzas and flowers to military bases. Not a big deal.

    3. That’s a fact, I was a delivery guy for a pizza place in college for a short while delivering to the Section 8 side of town. After getting robbed at gunpoint I realized that maybe minimum wage plus tips wasn’t really worth it.

  6. Stormy Daniels is launching a ‘gender-neutral’ perfume called ‘Truth’ in clear defiance of legal battle with Trump

    Business Insider

    1. Wow, that’s awesome! Thanks for the important info!

      #Resist

      1. It hides the stench of sweaty fat con men off apparently.

        1. Probably smells like rotting fish,

      2. OBL is Mr.Buttplug’s number one fan. He moves a lot of air.

    2. If it’s truly gender-neutral shouldn’t it be called zerfume or something?

      1. If it’s truly gender-neutral shouldn’t it be called zerfume or something?

        Even zerfume is rather distinctly not cologne or aftershave. Maybe just Deodorant?

        1. taint spray

          1. Apparently men have a gooch and women have a taint, so it still wouldn’t be gender-neutral.

            1. Back in my day those words were used interchangeably for both genders. Grundle, on the other hand, was an alternative term for the male taint specifically.

      2. “If it’s truly gender-neutral shouldn’t it be called zerfume or something?”

        How about “smell”?

    3. Smell like a porn star, except without having hella raunchy sex first? No thank you.

      1. The smell of sex, if it’s not from your activities, is the worst.

        1. I wouldn’t say it’s the worst. At least you know somebody had a good time.

        2. I can think of many worse smells.

          1. You haven’t smelled my jealousy, obviously.

            1. And again you decide to make this comment thread about your butthole.

          2. All the dead bodies that socialists have murdered?

    4. I suppose spunk does smell the same whether you’re giving the money shot or receiving it.

    5. “Stormy Daniels is launching a ‘gender-neutral’ perfume called ‘Truth’ in clear defiance of legal battle with Trump
      Business Insider”

      I think it’s mostly guys who do their Business Insider.

    6. Didn’t Stormy just blast her ex-attorney for being a Trump “puppet”?

      That attorney mus have told her how SHE was violating the NDA and was liable for damages.

  7. I also urge @POTUS to do the same for the 2,600 other federal prisoners who are serving similar draconian sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. He should also support the #SAFEJusticeAct, which focuses mandatory minimum sentences on drug kingpins, instead of people like Alice.
    ? Rep. Bobby Scott (@BobbyScott) June 6, 2018

    Maybe if you had an ass like Kardashian the president would listen.

    1. I’ve met him, and he does.

      1. Wait, are you talking about Bobby or Eugene?

        1. Good ol’ Bobby Scott, the guy who theoretically stands up for my interests in the House of Representatives despite the fact that he keeps doing shit that i don’t want him to do. I shook his hand once and he looked through me like i wasn’t even there.

          1. Oh. I was hoping we would get a Fist story.

            1. No one with my BMI has much of an ass to speak of. Although it must still look pretty good judging by the number of people who like to see me walk away.

            2. I’m not allowed to tell the Fist story until the lawsuits are over.

          2. I shook his hand once and he looked through me like i wasn’t even there.

            That’s pretty typical. I went to this semi-formal event for work one time that had a few state representatives in attendance. What you described happened to my wife and I; we shook this rep’s hand and she was looking to the next person to gladhand before she even got half her name out of her mouth.

            It’s truly impossible to have a normal conversation with these people. They only see you as a vote rather than a human being, and their attention is always getting pulled away by self-aggrandizing favor-seekers.

            1. If you want them to acknowledge you, extend your hand like you’re going to shake but then pull it back before they grab it. Bonus points if you say something like “Sorry, I thought you were someone else.”

              1. “Too slow, bitch!”

            2. Ugg. I would never want to meet, touch or speak with a politician. I feel so fortunate I’ve never had a job that required more from me than doing my job.

              1. I’ve met both state reps and Congressional reps, and the former truly are “King/Queen Shit of Turd Mountain” types–their sense of self-importance tends to be WAY out of proportion to their actual position on the political ladder. The latter tend to be a lot more personable.

                1. I used to go to a Chinese restaurant for lunch that often hosted the Tucson Democrats. So I’ve seen my congressman, Raul Grijalva, speak many times. And I hate him for ruining my damn Chinese food.

            3. I’ve met both Ron and Rand Paul and they spent a minute chatting with me. Ron was a lot more popular during his visit so there was a long line. Didn’t think he would chat with me as long as he did. Rand was at a book signing that didn’t have a huge gathering and we spoke for a couple minutes about this and that…really casual.

          3. To be fair, you probably never donated large amounts to the Democratic Party.

    2. It makes you wonder about the nature of a true libertarian presidency. I would assume he/she would just spend all of their time pardoning people.

      1. How long does one pardon take? It could.

        That reminds me. When Harry Browne was running, he sad his first official act as president would be to pardon all nonviolent federal drug offenders. Now, that’s a libertarian candidate! He was the last good one.

        1. Yeah I liked Harry Browne too. What has he been up to?

          1. Oh never mind, looks like he passed away in 2006. 🙁

            1. Dianne Feinstein looks like she passed away in 1899, so that’s not necessarily an impediment to a political career.

              1. Certainly it’s less an impediment then being a libertarian candidate.

        2. I think a president could issue a blanket pardon to all ex-cons of a certain group.

          On Sept. 16, 1974, President Gerald R. Ford issued a proclamation that offered amnesty to those who evaded the draft during the Vietnam War. Mr. Ford also granted amnesty to those in the military who deserted their duty while serving.

          Individual pardons are not necessary nor does the Constitution require individual pardons.

      2. Oh, I think you could get that out of the way pretty quick. Just get some staff to draw up all the necessary papers and set aside a few hours per week and start signing.

        1. Oh, I think you could get that out of the way pretty quick. Just get some staff to draw up all the necessary papers and set aside a few hours per week and start signing.

          I can’t imagine The President has to sign off on each person by name.

          1. Unclear. Jimmy Carter offered pardons to any draft dodger who requested one. This implies that there is some formal paperwork to be done for each one.

          2. The president does not have to issue individual pardons.

            1. The constitution does make it pretty open. I have no idea if there are other laws about pardons, or if it’s just customary protocol.

              1. There is a government department for that! Haha.
                DOJ.com

                Article II, Section 2:
                The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

                Only impeachment cannot be pardoned. This is why a politician should resign before being impeached if they want to possibly be pardoned.

            1. My guess is most pardons are a bit of a photo of anyway. Make it individual.

          3. Too bad George Ryan didn’t preemptively sign his own pardon.

  8. Google has announced that it will no longer run political ads for Washington-state users because the company can’t comply with Washington’s onerous disclosure laws.

    So your adblock will have less work to do browsing away in the evergreen state.

    1. They will still highlight fair and balanced news stories of the wise and wonderful proposals of progressive candidates and the sinister plots of conservative candidates, they just don’t want any fake news being spread by spin doctors.

  9. Kim Kardashian’s meeting with President Trump got results

    There are times where I wonder if the Left developed a unified strategy to constantly praise and compliment Trump, if they could come out of his presidency with more of what they want than a normal Republican presidency.

  10. It’s critical to remember that inequality ? the income gap between higher- and lower-income households ? is conceptually different from income and earnings growth among non-rich households. Inequality can be slowing while non-rich Americans are doing better, worse or the same.

    This is really the only thing that ever needs to be said in response to claims that something needs to be done about income inequality. Well, aside from maybe pointing out the role of personal resentment as a motivator of said claims.

  11. An Austrian copyright case against YouTube could have big implications for “on how not just YouTube but also other online platforms such as Facebook operate.”

    You know who else’s actions had big implications?

    1. No one here?

    2. Crusty’s, after a night of binging on Mad Dog 20/20 and midget porn?

      1. Wouldn’t those be Little implications?

        1. Speaking of ‘little implications’, the last Munchkin (can I say that?) from the Wizard of Oz passed away.

          1. I guess you can delete that Google News Alert now.

      2. Shortstacks are for gentlemen only.

  12. “Income inequality after government transfers is down since 2007, according to CBO’s measure.”

    Hooooray for “government transfers” then? Is THIS how we build a prosperous nation? Venezuela, here we come!

    1. Low income inequality =/= prosperity.

      1. Bit it makes ENB happy and feelings are all that matters.

  13. Immigration agents arrested 114 undocumented immigrants in Ohio Tuesday after a raid on a landscaping company that was eight months in the making.

    Talk about your “get off my lawn” moment.

    In related news, Human Progress linked to this article about robots on farms.

    1. Call me when we get sex robots on farms. Always wanted a fuckable thresher.

      1. Ouch. That’s a lawsuit waiting to happen. Customers in the sex-industry are notorious for using the wrong end just for the sake of variety. 😀

      2. Someday sex robots that have grown old and unattractive will be mowing our lawns and picking tomatoes.

      3. +1 Crushinator

  14. The Environmental Protection Agency is melting down.

    My personal Department of Sad Violin is still hiring.

    1. Come on, everyone knows that’s just your nickname for your penis.

      1. It’s because it literally sounds like a violin.

        1. He learned that at a young age when he was “experimenting” with the tuck and strut.

        2. He plays with his penis like one plays a violin.

          1. You know, you don’t have to respond to every joke by retelling it in a more obvious way.

            1. If it was a joke, I would have not felt the need to.

    2. Fist, rosin up your bow and play your fiddle hard!

  15. BOOM! Oliver Darcy of CNN DESTROYS conservatives who complain about the media’s coverage of Melania’s health: I’m sorry, but those who obsessed over Hillary Clinton’s health should probably spare everyone the lectures about the Melania Trump health coverage.

    Right-wingers are total hypocrites. They made such a big deal about Hillary’s minor 9 / 11 fainting incident, so they’re in no position to downplay the importance of the #Where’sMelania scandal. If one health-related story is newsworthy, then surely the other is as well.

    1. The difference is Hillay CHOSE to be in the public eye and wanted to be, you know, THE PRESIDENT. So yeh, her falling all over the place is kinda important, no?

      Melania, on the other hand, is unelected and the FL, and obviously values her privacy. There’s no real need to muse about it until she freely volunteers the information as it doesn’t impact the day to day operations of a country. She’s clearly different from Michelle and her turnip advocacy.

      Asshole CNN.

      1. For once I agree with pea-brained Rufus. Hillary asked to be scrutinized. It does not explain the redneck rights obsession with insulting Michelle Obama though.

        Rufus, why did you Canucks burn down the White House in 1812?

        The Dotard wants revenge.

        1. It’s strange* that a proud classical liberal such as yourself has taken to aping the language of a crazy Asian dictator.

          *it’s not strange

          1. Kim and Trump are cut from the same authoritarian cloth.

            1. That must be why one is worth quoting and the other is not.

            2. Hard to think of a President who hasn’t been authoritarian. Maybe Carter?

            3. Obama:

              1) Rammed Obamacare without a single GOP vote and despite polls showing Americans didn’t want it.
              2) Pledged a Paris Accord without Congress.
              3) Signed an Iran deal….without Congress. And turned a blind eye to Hizbollah’s activities.
              4) Attacked Libya (and other countries)……..without….Congress.
              5) Spied on Americans. Weaponized the IRS and EPA.
              6) Prosecuted journalists and whistleblowers.
              7) Armed anti-Assad rebels aligned with….ISIS.

              What’s your definition of ‘authoritarian’ Captain Classical Liberal?

              1. Oh in case that wasn’t enough….

                Took Nuns to court if they didn’t fall to his commands on abortion.

          2. Him claiming to be a classical liberal is the run-on joke around here.

            1. No kidding?

              I suppose subtlety is a lost cause anymore. People just can’t follow unless you’re outright calling someone a cock eating douchebag fuckface asshole.

              1. Not everyone is so senior in the Reason Union, Sparky.

                There is nothing wrong with continuing to point out how big of liars Butt and Tony are. A simple reply comment on a thread pointing out their BS content is reasonable.

                1. Stupid just isn’t a strong enough word for you. Even moron is insufficient at this point. Congratulations on pushing stupidity past a describable threshold.

                  1. Sparky, I have only been on here about 1.5 years and I have already made your mental defect unmanageable by meds.

                    It’s so easy pointing out the truly moronic things you say.

                    Pray on moron.

        2. “Hillary asked to be scrutinized. It does not explain the redneck rights obsession with insulting Michelle Obama though.”

          I only criticized her when she attempted to be something the wasn’t, like a certified nutritionist.

          1. Exactly.

        3. There does not need to even be a First Lady.

      2. And call me old fashioned but I’m not a fan of those dumb poses. He’s a ‘senior reporter’. Play the part. He looks more like a late night show host.

        I know the left likes its lines blurred but come on! Strike a professional pose!

        /moons CNN.

        1. “The left likes its lines blurred.”

          That would explain the #MeToo movement.

      3. The difference is Hillay CHOSE to be in the public eye and wanted to be, you know, THE PRESIDENT. So yeh, her falling all over the place is kinda important, no?

        Your statement comes off like there’s only one difference. There are many.

        -Hillary chose to be in the public eye generally, Melania didn’t.
        -Hillary chose to be in public when she fainted or blacked out speaking or whatever, Melania didn’t.
        -Hillary is a septuagenarian, Melania’s not even 50.
        -Hillary was a candidate for President, Melania is chief White House decorator.
        -Hillary was the next ascendant to the throne with a daughter behind her, Melania (within the limits of my understanding) can’t become President and there’s no indication that another Trump would run or could win.

        If it weren’t in defense of somewhat malicious ‘opposition research’, it would be laughable.

        1. I seriously yearn for the day we don’t give a shit about the first significant other at all.

          1. You know the first gay spouse is going to want to be called the First Fag. But we should be good after that.

            1. It’s worth considering what would we call the first gay significant other of the POTUS?

              Or, for that matter, the first guy married to a female POTUS as well.

              Both will almost certainly occur at some point, I’d imagine.

              1. “First Gentleman”?

          2. At all? When was that, the Carter Administration?

        2. Yup.

        3. Your statement comes off like there’s only one difference. There are many.

          Also, nobody cared what Hillary had in terms of health problems between 1993 and 2001. That’s another difference.

    2. Is there video from some brave gender-fluid latinx dangerhair showing Melania’s security detail throwing her into a van like a sack of potatoes, due to not being able to handle the east coast’s brutal 80-degree weather?

      1. The guy that captured that video of Hillary is a hero.

        It is testament to our freedom of the press that an American can capture a video of a dangerous individual like Hillary and live to tell the story.

  16. People in need of money were getting a huge boost from Obamacare. A family making less than 50k could get $700 in value a month from insurance subsidies. That’s a huge impact on that family.

    1. Wait, is this a phishing ad? Aren’t you supposed to have some cryptic link attached to it or something?

      1. I’m having flashbacks to the days of joe from lowell.

        1. Does Leo know from Joe from Lowell?

          1. Who knows, man. Who knows.

          2. I think I’m too new to get the reference.

    2. Yeah, those Ocarr subsidies from 2007-2012 were awesome!

    3. No, for most people, even though they considered their insurance premiums to be high, they weren’t 8% of their income. What Obamacare did was jack up insurance rates to where they are more than 8% of their income, but subsidized everything over that. Couple that with jacked up deductibles and co-pays, and most people saw an increase in their health care expenses because of Obamacare.

      1. And we got to keep our doctors if we liked them!

  17. Income inequality after government transfers is down since 2007, according to CBO’s measure. pic.twitter.com/mqm1MO9Jsl
    ? Michael R. Strain (@MichaelRStrain) June 2, 2018

    I hope he truly reconciles with Kelly Ripa. They were so good on that show together!

  18. With public benefits included in the calculation, income inequality actually shrank.

    This is not anything worth celebrating.

    1. Just can’t bring yourself to say “Thanks, Obama!”, can you? Somewhere, John Rawls is smiling as it becomes the accepted wisdom that equality is the primary moral good of a society, a moral good that requires inequality in every aspect of society to achieve. Since an equal society is objectively a better society even though most members of society do not agree with that fact, some of the more equal animals must have an unequal share of power to impose equality on everybody else – but that in no way contradicts the larger point that equality is better than inequality even if we’re all equally worse off rather than unequally better off.

      1. Are you stealing sarc’s bit again?

  19. An Indiana public-school teacher is fighting back after declaring that the school district’s policy of requiring teachers to use the preferred pronouns of transgender students goes against his religious beliefs.

    English teachers should fight back on grammar grounds.

    1. English teachers should fight back on grammar grounds.

      OK, it’s an Indiana school so the teachers’ RTKBA is in tact. Which means this could be an all-around appropriate depiction.

    2. This. But the media likes to spread the idea that only religious wingnuts could possibly raise an objection to this stuff.

      PS. How many John Kluges are there?!

      1. They are legion. One of them used to own most of the city of Charlottesville.

    3. The story says the teacher was refusing to use the students’ trans-first names. It doesn’t say anything about pronouns.

  20. An Indiana public-school teacher is fighting back after declaring that the school district’s policy of requiring teachers to use the preferred pronouns of transgender students goes against his religious beliefs.

    And the Lord spake saying “Thou shalt not misuse the name of God. Nor shalt thou misuse the pronouns that God created for the gender of the creatures. If the creature shall be a he, then it shall be called a he and not a she. If the creature be a she, then a she it must be and not a he. If a creature once be a he, then a she it can never be. Obey my commandments and thee will be allowed to feast on the lambs and the sloths and the carps and the anchovies and the orangutans. If I hear thee once utter the term cis-hetero, then straight to the stoning pit shall thee go.”

    1. Skip ahead a bit, brother.

      1. And the Lord spake saying “In the stoning pit, shall the righteous pick up the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. First, shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy misusers of God’s pronouns, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.”

        1. Pie Iesu domine, dona ies requiem

  21. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is under fire from New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for arresting a pizza delivery dude who was dropping off an order at a Brooklyn military base.

    Thank heavens ICE was on the job, saving us from the scourge of undocumented pizza delivery guys! Can you imagine the utter chaos that we would have if we permitted just any regular person to deliver pizza without the correct government documentation? It would be madness!

    1. I am glad cops are enforcing the law rather than killing people.

      1. What do you think would have happened if this guy dropped the pizzas and ran?

        1. They could save on a tip?

          1. That is quite a conundrum. Are LEO’s more tempted by their constant need to eat or their constant need to shoot people in the back? Replace pizza delivery with donut and I think we all know the answer.

    2. That guy has got to be the dumbest illegal in the history of dumb illegals. The only way he could be dumber is if he went to an ICE office and asked to check in.

      1. “Hey, you guys weren’t looking for me, were you? Just checking.”

      2. Yup. Its like the dumb dumb taggers who show up at locations for vandalism awards. Police sting, of course.

      3. If you read the article, the pizza delivery guy had delivered pizza to the base plenty of times before. It was just this one time when they demanded an extra layer of identification from him.

        1. Bases aren’t known for being lax on letting people in.

        2. Could’ve been heightened security implemented due to information not publicly available.

          Could be the strictor scrutiny is actually what they’re supposed to do, but until recently wasn’t enforced.

          Could be a change at post leadership and they think it should’ve always been that way.

          Simple fact is, entering any federal building or federal land requires ID and potentially other checks, to be decided by the government and can be modified at will without notice for reasons they’re not obligated to share. Same authority is granted to all land owners with respect to entering their land.

          Either way, the driver took a huge gamble each time he entered post with minimal checks. Just because he became accostumed to them has no bearing on the fact it was a huge risk and he paid the price.

          Advice, show up legally or hide better. As delivering food to the FBI or military installation or other such facility isn’t behavior considered smart when trying to hide.

  22. An Ohio dad whose son died of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy?famously found in professional football players with dementia?has filed a lawsuit against the maker of youth football helmets.

    I used to think suing a gun manufacturer for making and selling guns was about the dumbest thing you could do. I was wrong.

    1. Never underestimate peak stupid.

    2. So you’re saying the dad was a former professional football player?

    1. I’m disappointed. You said ‘whacky’ and this was not about Canadians beating each other with hockey sticks.

      1. Are you one of these anti-sportsball people? Cuz u seem to have an unhealthy obsession with ice hockey.

        Which is totally understandable, since it is the best sport in the world.

        1. Cuz u

          You seem to be an anti-grammarian

          anti-sportsball people … ice hockey.

          When did they introduce a ball into ice hockey?

          Also, you appear to have missed the ‘joke’.

          1. You’re not funny, so no joke.

    2. All they need to do is figure out the dividing line between religion and madness. I mean, come on, people.

  23. Yeah, but what about the quality of that inequality? Huh?

    That’s why I propose the Fairness Index: a true measure of Social Justice.

    1. Seriously. If progressives were really committed to equality, it wouldn’t be limited to money income.
      True equality includes intelligence, health, appearance, personality, power and influence,
      number and quality of friends and sexual partners, scope and quality of leisure, spiritual
      fulfillment, and all sorts of other non-pecuniary aspects of life. These are actually far more
      important than money income.

      Despite their protests that libertarians put profit before people, progressives are the ones obsessed
      with money income and wealth.

    1. The 404 Not Found competition? That’s the story of my life!

      1. It’s a worst tattoo competition.

        1. Worst inability to post a link competition, more like.

            1. Yep. It would have been an actual contest if SugarFree was still around…

  24. a resurgence in left-wing activism

    We’re back to the Garden, but the socialists want to get us kicked out again. “You can be as G_d,” Marx whispers into their ear.

  25. The Trump has used bogus claims of security concerns to negotiate with various governments over trade–some of those claims have been implausible, but the case against ZTE at least made some sense.

    Looks like the Trump administration and the Chinese have reached a deal over ZTE.

    “WASHINGTON?The U.S. and China have reached a deal that will allow telecommunications company ZTE Corp. to continue to do business, requiring it to pay a $1 billion fine and place U.S. enforcement officers in the company to monitor its actions, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Thursday.

    According to Mr. Ross, speaking on CNBC, ZTE must change its management and its board, pay the fine, and put $400 million in escrow, which it will forfeit if it violates U.S. sanctions on North Korea and Iran.

    —WSJ

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/zt…..1528374558

    1. Is Trump striking a blow for libertarianism here?

      No.

      Is this deal good for American security?

      Maybe. Maybe not.

      Neither of those questions are germane to the point I’m making here. The point is that it often seems to be the case that when Trump threatens trade actions, he’s merely creating leverage for himself for purposes of negotiation. After all, contentious negotiations tend to be won by the party with the most leverage, and if Trump can create leverage for the U.S. out of thin air, yeah, he’s demonstrated both a willingness and proclivity to do that.

      This is not to say that such tactics are good, desirable, smart, or approved of by yours truly. This is to say that those who criticize Trump’s on free trade grounds are often off topic–regardless of whether they realize it. Meanwhile, there’s a meeting between The Donald and The Fat Kid on June 12, and these recent concessions on trade (ZTE, China announcing it would buy $70 billion in politically sensitive U.S. products) by both Trump and Emperor Xi auger well for the success of that summit.

      Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

      1. Let’s keep our fingers crossed…

        …that he does something to validate the undying faith you have in him.

        1. My disapproval of Trump’s rhetoric and threats regarding trade certainly aren’t about to make me hope that Trump’s summit with North Korea is a failure.

          I’d hope that we were able to neutralize North Korea’s nuclear and ICBM programs through peaceful negotiations even if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders were president.

          You’re not hoping that the summit is a failure just because you disapprove of Trump, are you? That would be undeniable evidence that either 1) you have a severe case of TDS or 2) that you’re a traitor to the cause of American security.

          I’m trying to think of another explanation–they’re all in addition to rather than instead of those two.

        2. Probably that Ken is hopeful that Trump getting the USA to this point advances to a next step of peace in Korea.

          Sparky, the lefty media is melting your brain.

  26. Well, Inspector General Horowitz’ next formal report is coming out, and it looks like Loretta Lynch and Jim Comey are in deep shit.

    By the way, this so-called “livertarian” outfit has never said the words “Operation Crossfire Hurricane” even one time. Pretty disgusting and shameful.

    1. it looks like Loretta Lynch and Jim Comey are in deep shit.

      Well, for decency’s sake, *reprimand* them!

      1. The accusations involve federal criminal offenses. So prosecution is more like the route.

        Everyone should understand the corruption of Comey, Mynch, and numerous other FBI and DOJ figures is why they were scrambling to get Trump. The could not buy off or threaten Trump off the scandal.

        Another reason that Trump was better than Hillary.

      2. They may have to take this to the highest level, a finger-wagging, a tsk-tsking, a disapproving glance and a sternly-worded letter.

        1. Whoa, slow down there. That’s a bit harsh.

  27. Google drops politics ads in Washington. Google has announced that it will no longer run political ads for Washington-state users because the company can’t comply with Washington’s onerous disclosure laws. The move is good news for incumbent political candidates and not so good for independents and newcomers.

    I see the plan is coming together.

    1. Hannibal Smith is pleased.

  28. An Ohio dad whose son died of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy?famously found in professional football players with dementia?has filed a lawsuit against the maker of youth football helmets.
    I bet football helmet companies never claimed their products prevent head injuries only limit them.

    If your dumb kid hits his head against something else hard, he might get a brain injury. DUH!

    There is not way this should be a product liability action that survives summary judgment for the defendant.

    1. Imagine how many times this Dad exhorted his son: Don’t be a pussy. When you go in for a tackle, lower your head and stick’em good.

      1. You’re probably 100% correct. This dad is trying to blame someone else for his bad parenting.

        1. Or he’s know some lawyers who told him what a win fail this could be….

          Though if he actively sought this out, it is likely some form of projection.

  29. The Environmental Protection Agency is melting down.

    Trump got this guy to cut the EPA and that is exactly what has happened.

    MAGA!

  30. Immigration agents arrested 114 undocumented immigrants in Ohio Tuesday after a raid on a landscaping company that was eight months in the making.

    As the silent majority wants Trump to do.

    US Constitution, Section 8:

    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;….

    Section 9:
    The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
    ….

    1. Section 9 – The Meaning
      Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808.

      http://www.annenbergclassroom……-section-9

      1. Forget it. Original intent only matters with the 2A. The rest of the Constitution means whatever the Republican Party says it means.

        1. sarcasmic|6.7.18 @ 11:13AM|#
          Forget it. Original intent only matters with the 2A. The rest of the Constitution means whatever the Republican Party says it means.

          “forget it” because you’re wrong.

          Words and original intent matter.

          The 2nd Amendment prohibits any infringement of the People’s right to keep and bear Arms. No exceptions and there were not federal exception back in the 18th Century USA either. The states had some gun control but the 14th Amendment would put an end to any state gun control.

          Article I, section 8 & 9 discuss the power of Congress to regulation naturalization and immigration and slavery (after 1808).

          1. Words and original intent matter. The 2nd Amendment prohibits any infringement of the People’s right to keep and bear Arms.

            Yes but – it also REQUIRES that Congress fulfill its enumerated responsibility under Art1 Sec8 to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.

            Here is the original 2ndA as the House approved it.

            A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

            The Senate eliminated the last clause but that did not change the focus of the entire thing as a limitation on what govt could do in the performance of its duties requires under Art1Sec8. And EVERY state-level guarantee of the right to keep and bear explicitly mentions that right and the necessity of a militia directly next to its prohibition against standing armies. Absent that linkage, the only natural right is self-defense (which is fine – but is also limited because that right in its exercise has always been subject to the judgment of others).

            NO ONE before maybe the 1970’s ever thought that a simple keep and bear right – on its own – does a fucking thing to secure liberty or a free people. I have yet to hear a modern pro-2A argument even MENTION standing army existence and abdication of organized militia as a violation of the 2ndA.

            1. NO ONE before maybe the 1970’s ever thought that a simple keep and bear right – on its own – does a fucking thing to secure liberty or a free people.

              They also thought pet rocks were awesome. They were idiots. People in the 70’s thought gays getting married was fucking ridiculous.

              I have yet to hear a modern pro-2A argument even MENTION standing army existence and abdication of organized militia as a violation of the 2ndA.

              So, you believe the Founders sought to make their revolution illegal?


              1. So, you believe the Founders sought to make their revolution illegal?

                I guess it’s pretty hard for some people to figure out that an ‘army’ that won almost strictly through guerrilla warfare wouldn’t understand how effective guerrilla warfare might be and plan accordingly.

                Notably, their idea’s apply very much to today given that it’s also the best defense vs. terrorism. Needless to say, our governments position that no one should be armed is the literal opposite of what an effective defense would look like which is ironic since they’re the one’s stoking the fires of terrorist fears to grab guns.

            2. Free, good thing the Founders specifically did not want their notes for writing the Constitution to be used for constitutional arguments. The says what is written.

              Since that is not good enough for gun grabbers, the Founders initially thought that the people would never give up their right to bear Arms so they briefly considered having no Bill of Rights. Luckily, they decided to add it afte4 thinking that sooner or later tyrants would come demanding the guns.

      2. And migrants. After 1808, Congress can regulation slaves and immigrants.

        The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. That still leaves immigration policy as a Congressional power.

        1. Why would Congress not regulate “immigration” until 1808 unless it was a euphemism for slavery? It makes no rational sense.

          1. It makes perfect sense.

            As I explained above, the most important thing was establishing the USA. The slaves states would not agree to the Constitution unless there were slave concessions. The slavery concessions included apportionment counting of slaves at 3/5, banning of the slave trade would not be allowed until 1808, and the fugitive slave clause.
            Constitutional Rights Foundation- slavery and Constitution

            Slave states felt that the non-slave states would use a congressional power to regulate “migrants” to block slavery. In effect, Congress would rename slaves as “migrants” and tell slave states who they could admit. Before 1808, the slave states could admit free persons and slaves of their choosing. Originally the date was 1800 but pushed back to 1808.

            1. You are making my point for me. What is used to justify federal control over immigration was originally a compromise with slave states over that word that they did not want to mention. So they used euphemisms instead. Once slavery was abolished those euphemisms were reinterpreted by racists who wanted to exclude certain undesirables. It is still being used today as an excuse to shoot brown people from Mexico and Guatemala.

              1. You’re not even making a point for yourself or your open-border cause.

                You are trying to say euphemisms are so secret they don’t stand for anything?

                The compromises of slavery in the Constitution did not disappear just because the 13th Amendment was ratified. The language is all still there.

                You people and your desire to erase history instead of seeing the mistakes of the past and make sure they stay repealed.

                Article I, section 9 covers slaves and migrants and the power of Congress to regulate both. After 1865, slavery was abolished but migration was not. Congress therefore can regulate immigrants.

                1. You’re not even making a point for yourself or your open-border cause.

                  What open-border cause? I’ve never stated my stance on immigration.

                  You people and your desire to erase history…

                  Like your desire to erase how sec 9 was hijacked by racists?

                  I’m really starting to think that those who clamor about illegal immigration are closet racists who don’t like brown people.

                2. I do find it interesting that many of those who object to the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause are in total support of a broad interpretation of the Migration or Importation Clause, as long as it gives federal agents an excuse to shoot brown people.

                  1. A lot of brown people sure have been shot too. I thought they were being rounded up and shipped back to Mexico via bus but you set me straight. Haha.

                    I am Native American dumb dumb. I am from the first group that tried to enforce the border and lost. Take it from me. Allowing a flood of white men to take my tribe’s land has not worked out well. And yet it has worked out well. Its kind hard to get to visit Europe via canoe.

          2. You understand that even some slave owners hated slavery? Some hated slavery but did not like the black man. Abolitionist hated slavery at all costs. Some people hated slavery and considered the black man an equal (very rare).

            They were prisoners of their own economic model. They could not just free all their slaves because not only did some of their wealth come from slaves themselves but who would work all the cash crops? There were literally not enough people located in America (without slaves) to work the crops. Immigration and birth rates of Americans later changed this problem. The Founders knew it would.

            Even Thomas Jefferson and Washington only freed their slaves after they died.

    2. Although the first debate over slavery at the Constitutional Convention concerned representation (see Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), the second debate arose when Southern delegates objected that an unrestricted congressional power to regulate commerce could be used against Southern commercial interests to restrict or outlaw the slave trade. That the resulting provision was an important compromise is underscored by the fact that the clause stands as the first independent restraint on congressional powers, prior even to the restriction on the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

      Taking Southern concerns into consideration, the draft proposed by the Committee of Detail (chaired by John Rutledge of South Carolina) dealt with trade issues as well as those relating to slavery. The draft permanently forbade Congress to tax exports, to outlaw or tax the slave trade, or to pass navigation laws without two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress. Several delegates strongly objected to the proposal, including Gouverneur Morris, who delivered one of the Convention’s most spirited denunciations of slavery, calling it a “nefarious institution” and “the curse of heaven.”

      1. When the issue came up for a vote, the Southern delegates themselves were sharply divided. George Mason of Virginia condemned the “infernal traffic,” and Luther Martin of Maryland saw the restriction of Congress’s power over the slave trade as “inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution and dishonorable to the American character.” But delegates from Georgia and South Carolina announced that they would not support the Constitution without the restriction, with Charles Pinckney arguing that failing to include the clause would trigger “an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union.”

        Unresolved, the issue was referred to the Committee of Eleven (chaired by William Livingston of New Jersey), which took the opposite position and recognized a congressional power over the slave trade, but recommended that it be restricted for twelve years, and allowed a tax on slave importation. Although that was a significant change from the Committee of Detail’s original proposal, Southern delegates accepted the new arrangement with the extension of the time period to twenty years, from 1800 to 1808.

        1. Agitation against the slave trade was the leading cause espoused by the antislavery movement at the time of the Constitutional Convention, so it is not surprising that this clause was the most immediately controversial of the so-called slave clauses of the proposed Constitution (see Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3; and Article V). Although some denounced the Slave Trade Clause as a major concession to slavery interests, most begrudged it to be a necessary and prudent compromise. James Madison, for example, argued at the Convention that the twenty-year exemption was “dishonorable,” but in The Federalist No. 42, he declared that it was “a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate for ever within these States” what he called an “unnatural traffic” that was “the barbarism of modern policy.”

          Some claimed that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to regulate both the interstate and the foreign slave trade once the twenty-year period had lapsed. James Wilson of Pennsylvania argued, “yet the lapse of a few years, and Congress will have power to exterminate slavery from within our borders.” Though the question was not clearly resolved at the time, Madison denied this interpretation during the First Congress. Not even Abraham Lincoln claimed that congressional power to regulate commerce could be used to restrict interstate commerce in slaves.

          1. In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Roger B. Taney pointed to this clause, along with the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3), as evidence that slaves were not citizens but were to be considered property according to the Constitution. Observers are virtually unanimous that those clauses did not address the question of citizenship at all. Although protection of the slave trade was a major concession demanded by proslavery delegates, the final clause was not a permanent element of the constitutional structure, but a temporary restriction of a delegated federal power. Moreover the restriction applied only to states existing at the time, not to new states or territories, and it did not prevent states from restricting or outlawing the slave trade for themselves. As the dissent in Dred Scott points out, there were freed blacks who were citizens in a number of Northern states and who had voted to ratify the new constitution.

            Source

          2. Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist, yet he freed the slaves and pushed for an end to slavery under the 13th Amendment.

            History.com

    3. SCOTUS has ruled that the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate immigration (separate from naturalization) because, according to them, the US is a sovereign nation and the country can’t be sovereign if it doesn’t have the power to track every visitor who comes and goes from the country. In other words, they just read that power into the Constitution. Not so coincidentally, they did so in a case upholding the Chinese Exclusion Act, an *explicitly racist* piece of legislation banning Chinese workers from coming here.

      Source: http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immig…..pter2.html

      In other words, SCOTUS completely invented the federal power to regulate immigration in order to justify a racist immigration law. That is what you are hanging your hat on when you defend the government’s constitutional power to regulate immigration.

      1. Do you know why migration was mentioned in Article I, Section 9 along with slavery?

        Because the slave holding states were nervous that calling slaves “migrants” would be a work around the 1808 restriction.

        Slaves could be charge an importation fee that is capped and both slaves and free persons (migrants) could be regulated by Congress after 1808.

        The Founders just wanted to establish the United State of America even if it meant dealing with slavery between 1776 and 1808 or after 1808. America definitely did not want a conflict over slavery during the Revolutionary War since they needed everyone they could get to fight. The more states and their residents the better.

        1. Slavery was not mentioned at all. Migration was a euphemism.

          1. Article I, Section 2:
            …which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

            You’re correct about the word slavery not being used in the Constitution. Hm… I wonder what the Founders meant by “all other persons”? Free persons are non-slave residents of the USA. Indians are, well, Indians. All other persons are slaves.

            Its because they wanted to humanize slaves and hoped that the issue would be resolved someday.

            In Section 9, only slaves are imported. Free person who are not Americans are migrants (immigrants today) and are not “imported”. Free person are admitted into the USA or not.

            The Founders used this clause to shift authority for importing slaves and admitting immigrants from states to Congress after 1808.

          2. You’re trying to say migration and importation are the same thing and are used to describe only slaves?

            I had to imagine what the incorrect reading of that clause would be to understand what you were trying to say.

            The Founders did not use the word “slavery” but clearly used two very different words to describe two different manners of being admitted into the USA. Migration is a free movement of free persons. Importation is a term to describe owners movement of non-free property (slaves).

            Hope this helps your confusion.

      2. the power to regulate immigration (separate from naturalization)

        Separating immigration from naturalization is part of the modernist problem of interpreting history. During the constitutional era, naturalization was the aggregating terminology for a number of feudal-era laws/practices relating to the rights/duties of aliens, residents, expatriating and inpatriating migrants, citizens, etc. Some of them are explicitly mentioned in the early bilateral consular treaties (eg Saxony in 1845 mentions droite d’aubaine)

        But in ALL cases then, it is viewed within the context of a FEUDAL system where there is no individual right to migrate anywhere. People are tied to the land they are currently on and any movement of that individual to someone else’s land required the explicit permission of the sovereign of that other land. All colonial charters are based on that legality. The US colonies were frustrated as hell at that feudal concept – the main ACTUAL impetus for independence imo (outside NEngland) was itchiness about being restricted to east of Appalachia after 1763. But even that frustration was not seen as an INDIVIDUAL right to migrate west. That notion came much later – prob during Manifest Destiny or the Free Soil era. Even if it really is a natural right that was just not recognized as such (and still isn’t in our land/property laws).

  31. An Indiana public-school teacher is fighting back after declaring that the school district’s policy of requiring teachers to use the preferred pronouns of transgender students goes against his religious beliefs.

    Good for him/her/it

    1. But xi better believe *that’s* a paddlin’.

  32. inequality ? the income gap between higher- and lower-income households

    It’s indicative of something that “inequality” is the term used for this, as opposed to, say, “variance” or “span”.

    1. Should we really be celebrating reductions in…in coming quality?

    2. Equality is the lowest common denominator. Better to be equally poor than unequally rich.

  33. President Trump’s First Year Of Job Growth Was Below President Obama’s Last Six Years

    Forbes

    MAGA!

    1. Get Michelle’s dick out of your ass, Plug.

    2. Do you have a link for that?

      It seems to be saying, not that job growth under Obama beat Trump’s numbers six times.

      It seems to be saying that one year under Trump has created more jobs than six years under Obama did–when Obama’s last six years of job growth are added together.

      1. Yeah, looks like turd didn’t read his own source.
        Mr 8% all over again.

      2. https://goo.gl/spFXmj

        2011: 2.091 million

        2012: 2.142 million

        2013: 2.302 million

        2014: 2.998 millon

        2015: 2.713 million

        2016: 2.240 million

        2017 original: 2.046 million

        2017 updated: 2.188 million

        1. Hey, turd!

          “It isn’t too surprising that job growth has slowed since the unemployment rate has dropped to very low levels.”

          RTFA, you imbecile.

        2. Funny, the lefty says Trump’s numbers are being manipulated while Obama’s numbers were being manipulated.

          How can unemployment numbers continue to go down at the rates they are unless Obama’s administration excluded millions of people from unemployment stats, that stopped looking for work during Jan 2009-Jan 2017?

        3. So, by the updated numbers, Trump’s first year was only worse than Obama’s last four years–not six.

          And that’s despite Obama having a larger pool of unemployed people from which to draw.

          You really should include a link when you’re citing statistics like that.

        4. Labfor when barry took office: 65.7%
          Labfor when barry ledt office: 62.9%

          That is the largest decline in post-war history.

    3. Found it:

      “Over the September to December timeframe, there were 163,000 additional jobs per month and for the year 171,000 jobs were added monthly. This compares to President Obama’s last six years where the job market averaged at least 174,000 per month and hit 250,000 in 2014. It isn’t too surprising that job growth has slowed since the unemployment rate has dropped to very low levels.

      —-Forbes

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/ch…..3d243125ab

      Job growth is difficult when there are so few unemployed people to hire.

      From a quality perspective, we’re probably looking at companies having to hire convicted felons, people with black marks on their job histories, etc. That’s what happens when they’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.

      1. Or, or, under Obama, things were so great that fewer people found it necessary to even have jobs whereas now under Trump you need a job because things are so terrible. And no mention of how many of those jobs are low-quality minimum wage jobs compared to how many are “good” jobs – as was so frequently the case when Obama’s jobs numbers came out, even by the Left.

        1. Unemployment, job growth, and other stats of this nature are notoriously political and therefore manipulated constantly.

          Obama, like most administration, exclude people from unemployment numbers when they stop looking for work. They are still unemployed because they want to work but cannot find work.

          If anything, these stats can give general trends. The current trend is that unemployment is really low and its an employee’s market to find work.

    4. Um, when unemployment is at 10% there’s a lot more room for improvement than when it’s at 4%. That comparison is as idiotic as noting that Bolivia has a higher gdp growth rate than we do ergo we ought to copy their policies.

  34. In the late 1990s, the ninth-decile workers earned about 4.5 times as much as the tenth-decile workers.

    +++

    Sounds like government math!

  35. I was hoping the good news about income inequality was invented hat nobody was talking about it.

  36. Wait, does this mean I’ll have to start paying the orphans more to polish my monocle???

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.