More on how to pronounce Fluke. The narrative is back to square one, before “duck” and “hook.” http://wp.me/pMJMW-24b
UPDATE: I am now being told that there is some dispute as to the proper pronunciation of Fluke, I was assured it is pronounced FLUCK, which does in fact rhyme with SUCK but I am hearing all of the MSM news outlets pronouncing it as FLUKE which rhymes with PUKE.
h/t Anthropocon
Super Spade gives self a pep talk. He’s on to something, of course.
Santorum gets David Gregory’s goat for what he says and how he says it, not how often he says it. Gregory comes across here as very excited, almost obsessed by Santorum.
He’s not the only one, of course. See this exchange with Margaret Carlson leading the charge but also being told off.
The sound you hear is a Republican tearing his hair out.
Mitt Romney spoke to several empty seats Friday in Detroit, in a speech that offered Democrats more fodder for their attacks and failed to deliver the major economic address his campaign promised.
Is there a skilled politician out there? Somewhere? I leaned toward Romney (asked by lib Dem close friend) some months back.
Now I aim to cast my Illinois vote on March 20 for the Santorum man, who by the way gets a strong thumbs-up by the extremely well-versed international politics expert Michael Ledeen in the WS Journal.
HOLD ON THERE: Larry Kudlow praises Romney’s Detroit speech, in which
. . . he touted his new across-the board 20 percent reduction in personal tax rates. The language is crucial: “By reducing the tax on the next dollar of income earned by all taxpayers, we will encourage hard work, risk-taking, and productivity by allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn.”
This is supply-side language. It is incentive language.
And what this voter wants to hear. What’s going on here? The Hill has been reliable, ditto Kudlow.
Get a load of this stunning message from the county board president. Egad, if she isn’t something new for Crook, what is?
Sorry for this: Thought I was posting a complete email message, but it was not post-able. Didn’t check it in time, deleted message, cannot find it on my computer nor on the ‘Net. Preckwinkle had good advice presented in quite usable fashion. More later maybe, but not now . . .
She does talk up econ development, however, and has been doing so from the start.
. . . oil companies should not export?
You’re paid so handsomely [writes Donald J. Boudreaux, of Cafe Hayek and Geo. Mason U.] because there’s a large nation-wide demand for your commentary and bombast. In your career you’ve worked for broadcasters in Boston, Dallas, Denver, Hartford, and elsewhere. And before moving to Fox you were a correspondent for ABC News.
You apparently never hesitated to sell your product to the highest bidder; you never hesitated to export yourself from one market to another in search of higher pay; you never resisted the bidding for your services by buyers (i.e., employers) far and wide which put upward pressure on the amounts of money that you are paid, both to appear on television and to deliver lunch and dinnertime speeches.
As the nation’s best-known populist, can we expect less?
If Obama knows this, why does he talk like he does? If he doesn’t, why doesn’t he?
Using data on more than 100 countries, we found that higher corporate taxes lead to lower wages. In fact, workers shoulder a much larger share of the corporate tax burden (more than 100 percent) than had previously been assumed. The reason the incidence can be higher than 100 percent is neatly explained in a 2006 paper by the famous economist Arnold Harberger. [Arnold C. Harberger, Corporate Tax Incidence: Reflections on What
is Known, Unknown, and Unknowable, in Fundamental Tax Reform: Issues,
Choices, and Implications, ed. John W. Diamond and George R. Zodrow
(Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2008)]Simply put, when taxes are imposed on a corporation, wages are lowered not only for the workers in that firm, but for all workers in the economy since otherwise competition would drive workers away from the low-wage firms. As a result, a $1 corporate income tax on a firm could lead to a $1 loss in wages for workers in that firm, but could also lead to more than a $1 loss overall when we look at the lower wages across all workers.
Leftist-cocoon syndrome of he doesn’t, vote-scavenging if he does.
Textbook example of decapitating opponent. Heartland Inst. shows the way.
Blithe Spirit 