Aging Populations and Replacement Birthrate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 28th, 2014

Economics 101

(Originally published July 8th, 2013)

Trying to follow a Baby Boom with a Baby Bust creates Problems in Advanced Economies with Large Welfare States

In the late 1960s began a movement for zero population growth.  It called for women to have only enough babies to replace the current population.  Not to have too many babies that would increase the population.  Nor have too few babies that the population declines.  Something that women could easily do because of birth control.  And, later, abortion.  The drive behind this was to save the planet.  By keeping large populations becoming like a plague of locusts that devour the earth’s resources and food until the planet can no longer sustain life.

China did these zero population growth people better.  By promoting a negative population growth rate.  Limiting parents to one child.  They did this because during the days of Mao’s China the country set some world records for famine.  Their communist state simply couldn’t provide for her people.  So to help their communist system avoid future famines they tried to limit the number of mouths they had to feed.  Of course, trying to follow a baby boom with a baby bust creates other problems.  Especially in advanced economies with large welfare states.

China’s one-child policy and the preference for boys have led to a shortage of women to marry.  Some Chinese men are even looking at ‘mail-order’ brides from surrounding countries.  But China is going to have an even greater problem caring for her elderly.  Just like Japan.  Japanese couples are having less than 1.5 babies per couple.  Meaning that each successive generation will be smaller than the preceding generation.  As couples aren’t even having enough children to replace themselves when they die.  Leaving the eldest generation the largest percentage of the overall population.  Being paid and cared for by the smallest percentage of the overall population.  The younger generation.

States with Aging Populations are Suffering Debt Crises because they Spend More than their Tax Revenue can Cover

As nations develop advanced economies people develop careers.  Moving from one well-paid job to another.  As they advance in their career.  Creating a lot of income to tax.  Allowing a large welfare state.  Which is similar to a Ponzi scheme.  Or pyramid scheme.  As long as more people are entering the workforce than leaving it their income taxes can pay for the small group at the top of the pyramid that leaves the workforce and begins consuming pension and health care benefits in their retirement.  And there is but one requirement of a successful pyramid scheme.  The base of the pyramid must expand greater than the tip of the pyramid.  The wider the base is relative to the top the more successive the pyramid scheme.  As we can see here.

Babies per Generation - Constant Replacement Birthrate

Generation 1 is at the top of the pyramid.  It is the oldest generation.  Which we approximate as a period of 20 years.  In our example Generation 1 are people aged 78-98.  They’re retired and collecting pension, health care and other benefits.  Some combination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, heating assistance, etc.  All paid for by Generation 2 (58-78), Generation 3 (38-58) and Generation 4 (18-38).  Each generation is assumed to bring 6 children into the world.  So these couples are not only replacing themselves but adding an additional 4 children to further increase the size of the population.  Which really makes running a pyramid scheme easy.  For if we assume each member in Generation 1 on average consumes $35,000 annually in benefits that Generations 2 through 4 pay for that comes to $555.56 per person annually.  Or $46.30 per person monthly.  Or $10.68 per person weekly.  Or $1.53 per person daily.  Amounts so small that Generations 2 through 4 can easily pay for Generation 1′s retirement.  Now let’s look at the impact of a declining birthrate with each successive generation.

Babies per Generation - Declining Replacement Birthrate

When all couples in each generation were having on average 6 children this added 1.9 billion new taxpayers.  Which greatly reduced each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1′s retirement costs.  But thanks to birth control, abortion and the growing cost of living each successive generation has fewer babies.  Generation 2 only has 3 children.  Enough to replace themselves.  And add one new taxpayer.  Generation 3 has only 2 children.  Only enough to replace the parents.  Providing that zero population growth that was all the rage during the late 1960s and the 1970s.  While Generation 4 only has 1 child.  Not even enough to replace the parents when they die.  Causing a negative population growth rate.  Which is a big problem in an advanced economy with a large welfare state.  For instead of adding 1.9 billion new taxpayers they only add 217.5 million new taxpayers.  Greatly increasing each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1′s retirement costs.  Instead of paying $555.56 per taxpayer they each have to pay $5,384.62 annually.  Or $448.72 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $103.55 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $14.79 per taxpayer daily.  Numbers that prove to be unsustainable.  The state simply cannot tax people this much for Generation 1′s retirement.  For if they did this and added it to the rest of government’s spending they’re taxing us to fund it would take away all of our income.  This is why advanced economies with aging populations are suffering debt crises.  Because their spending has grown so far beyond their ability to pay for it with tax revenue that they borrow massive amounts of money to finance it.

If you want a Generous Welfare State you need Parents to have More Children

If you carry this out two more generations so every generation only has one child the per taxpayer amount tops out at $14,736.84 annually.  Or $1,228.07 per taxpayer monthly.  Or $283.40 per taxpayer weekly.  Or $40.49 per taxpayer daily.  Amounts far too great for most taxpayers to pay.  This is what an aging population does in a country with a large welfare state.  It makes the population top-heavy in elderly people who no longer work (i.e., pay taxes) but consume the lion’s share of state benefits.  When couples were having 6 children each across the generations there was a ratio of 84 taxpayers per retiree.  When there was a declining replacement birthrate that ratio fell to 15 taxpayers per retiree.  If we look at this graphically we can see the pyramid shape of this generational population.

Generational Population - Constant Replacement Birthrate

With 84 taxpayers per retiree we can see a nice and wide base to the pyramid.  While the tip of the pyramid is only a small sliver of the base (Generation 4).  Making for a successful Ponzi scheme.  Far more people pay into the scheme.  While only a tiny few take money out of the scheme.  This is why Social Security and Medicare didn’t have any solvency problems until after birth control and abortion.  For these gave us a declining replacement birthrate over time.  Greatly shrinking the base of the pyramid.  Which made the tip no longer a small sliver of the base.  But much closer in size to the base.  That if it was an actual pyramid sitting on the ground it wouldn’t take much to push it over.  Unlike the above pyramid.  That we could never push over.  Which is why the above Ponzi scheme would probably never fail.  While the one below will definitely fail.

Generational Population - Declining Replacement Birthrate

If you want a generous welfare state where the state provides pensions, health care, housing and food allowances, etc., you need parents to have more children.  For the more children they have the more future taxpayers there will be.  Or you at least need a constant replacement birthrate.  But if that rate is below the rate of a prior baby boom the welfare state will be unsustainable UNLESS they slash spending.  The United States has a replacement birthrate below the rate of a prior baby boom.  While the Obama administration has exploded the size of welfare state.  Especially with the addition of Obamacare.  Making our Ponzi scheme more like the second chart.  As we currently have approximately 1.75 taxpayers supporting each social security recipient.  Meaning that it won’t take much pushing to topple our pyramid. We’re at the point where a slight breeze may do the trick.  For it will topple.  It’s just a matter of time.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Catholic Women have more Sex and that Sex is more Satisfying

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 26th, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats get the youth vote.  Because the Democrats aren’t these kids’ parents.  After a lifetime (i.e., high school) of their parents telling them ‘no’ after they turn 18 they turn on their parents.  And start voting Democrat.  Wait until you’re married before having sex?  I think not, Mom & Dad.  Because there isn’t anything wrong with having cheap meaningless sex with a bunch of different people.  The Democrats understand this.  And provide these young women with birth control and access to abortion so they can have a lot of casual sex without any consequences.  Of course, a lot of this sex won’t be very good (see Devout Catholics Have Better Sex, Study Says by Elizabeth Flock posted 7/17/2013 on US News and World Report—an older article appearing in their Twitter feed this past week).

Devout, married Catholics have the best sex of any demographic group, the Family Research Council said at an event Wednesday, pointing to a collection of studies from the last several decades.

The socially conservative Christian group relied heavily on statistics from the University of Chicago’s last National Health and Social Life Survey, conducted in 1992, which found the most enjoyable and most frequent sex occurring among married people, those who attended church weekly – any church, whether Catholic or not – and people who had the least sexual partners…

The notion that Catholics have better sex isn’t a new one, especially coming from Catholics. In 1994, Andrew Greeley, a Catholic sociologist and priest, published “Sex: The Catholic Experience,” which released a litany of new statistics: 68 percent of Catholics professed to have sex at least once a week versus 56 percent of non-Catholics; 30 percent of Catholics had bought erotic underwear versus 20 percent non-Catholics; and 80 percent of devout Catholic women approved of having sex for pleasure alone.

Girls go to parties where guys ply them with alcohol.  To get them drunk enough to lower their inhibitions.  A Girl may want to be relaxed enough to be with a guy she likes.  While a guy may just want to get her drunk so she can’t say ‘no’.  One thing for sure, though, whatever happens won’t be the subject of any romance novel.  It could be a scene in a porn movie.  But it sure won’t end up on the big screen in a love story.

Let’s face it, any sex where being inebriated is a prerequisite just isn’t going to be that good.  Or memorable.  Further, it is likely to leave a woman filled with shame or regret.  As she worries about what she did.  With whom she did it with.  And then the questions to fret over.  Did she take any precautions?  Is she pregnant?  Did she catch a sexually transmitted disease?  Did someone make a video of her while she was passed out and naked?  Doing things to her?  Is she going to see herself on the Internet?  Will her friends and her family see her on the Internet?  Her professors?  Her boss?  Will this come up should she decide to run for public office?

To have the same frequency of sex married women have may leave her with more feelings of shame and regret.  And an emptiness.  For while she is having sex a married woman is making love.  For a married woman doesn’t have to get drunk to lower her inhibitions.  For there are no inhibitions to lower.  She doesn’t have to worry about catching an STD.  And if she gets pregnant it may be because she wanted to get pregnant.  Also, there is no shame and regret the day after.  For a married woman is not coming home disheveled the following morning.  Where her neighbors can see her wearing the same clothes she had on the night before.  And see her underwear fall out of her purse while digging out her keys.

For a married woman sex is about love-making.  Sharing intimate moments with the person she loves.  Someone she wants to please.  Just as her husband wants to please her.  As well as honor her and protect her.  He won’t be posting any videos of her passed out and naked on the Internet.  Sure, they may leave the bathroom door open, but there’s honor and protection.  As well as an active sex life spiced up with things like erotic underwear.

So what are the Democrats really doing to our young women by being anti-parents?  Opening them up to a lot of shame and regret.  And worse.  Democrats are ruining their sex lives.  For using birth control and abortion to stay unmarried only makes their sex lives less fulfilling.  At least according to this study.  And it’s rather ironic that the women who oppose birth control and abortion (i.e., Catholics) are having better sex lives than those who don’t.  So once again their parents were right.  Even when it comes to waiting until marriage to have sex.  For if you do it will apparently blow your socks off.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT215: “Of course the Republicans are the party of ‘no’ because that’s what grownups say to children.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 28th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

Children only care about the Here and Now and Instant Gratification

“Mom, can I eat this whole birthday cake?”  “No.”  “Dad, can I stay up past my bed time?”  “No.”  “Mom, can I go out and play instead of cleaning my room?”  “No.”  “Dad, can I skip my homework and play football with the guys?”  “No.”  “Mom, can I go to the concert with Billy and his big brother?”  “No.”  “Dad, can I use your table saw?”  “No.”  “Mom, will you buy me this micro dress for the dance?”  “No.”  “Dad, can I borrow the car this Friday to drive to a party?”  “No.”  “Mom, can I have boys in my bedroom?”  “Hell no.”  “Dad, can I have $50?”  “For what?”  “Stuff?”  “What kind of stuff?”  “You know, stuff.”  “Oh, in that case, no.”

“No.”  It is the most important word in a parent’s vocabulary.  For kids want to do a lot of things that aren’t good for them.  Things that will get them into trouble.  Things that might hurt them.  Things that may leave them with unpleasant and/or long-lasting consequences.  Parents have to say ‘no’ because kids just don’t know any better.  They only think about the here and now.  Not about the future.  They want instant gratification.  They want to have fun.  They don’t want to wait.  They don’t want to work.  And the last thing they want to do is to delay gratification.

So parents have to keep saying ‘no’ for their children’s own good.  At least, responsible parents do.  Because parents are older and wiser than their children.  Contrary to popular belief children have about their parents.  Children like to say that their parents “don’t know anything.”  But they do.  In fact, they know a lot.  Because they were once impulsive children having the same arguments with their parents.  And now that they are parents they see the world differently than they did as children.  They see it as their parents saw it.  And realize that their parents were right all along.  Thanks to a lot more education, a lot more work experience and a lot more life experience.  The things that makes one wiser as one gets older.

Children who never Grow Up as Adults tend to Remain Liberal and Vote Democrat

Children that grow up into responsible adults tend to be more conservative.  They get jobs.  Straight out of high school.  Or after college.  And party less.  They cut back on reckless behavior.  Such as drinking and driving.  Because they realized they could get a DUI.  They could hurt themselves.  Or, worse, hurt someone else.  If they used drugs they cut back.  Some stop using them completely.  They stop having  casual sex with random people.  In part to avoid an STD.  In part because they want something more than just a good time.  So they, instead, get married.  And settle down.  Raise a family.  And it’s about this time that these one-time wild liberals start voting Republican.  As they see there is a lot more to life than partying with booze and drugs.  And having sex.  Especially when they become parents.

Becoming a parent changes a person.  Single coworkers may still want to go out and get a drink after work.  They may look forward to the weekend so they can drink themselves into a stupor.  But not a married person.  At least, not a married responsible grownup.  They want to go straight home to their wife.  Or husband.  They want to spend time with their kids.  And they don’t want to do anything that could harm their kids.  Like risking their job by coming in late hung over after a night of excessive drinking.  They’d rather get to work early.  Do their job.  And build a successful career.  That is both personally satisfying.  And takes care of their family.  Something sobriety helps.  And our days tend to be easier when they don’t start with a hangover.

Children who never grow up as adults, on the other hand, tend to remain liberal.  Focused on the here and now.  Without a thought about the future.  For them gratification is all that matters.  These people tend to keep the wild ways of their youth.  And those who go on to college take it up a notch.  Away from their parents incessant ‘no’s they can finally say ‘yes’ to everything.  And a lot of them do. They’ll get drunk and video things with their smartphones.  And upload them to the Internet.   The kind of things you once had to go to a pornography store to buy.  But they and their friends will post these videos for all the world to see.  And these things will still be floating around the Internet years later when they’re saying ‘no’ to their own children.  Or interviewing for a job.  Jessie Watters on The O’Reilly Factor has interviewed some of these young college students on spring break.   Asking them questions about history.  International events.  Current events at home.  And if they could identify members of the Federal government.  Few could.  Very few.  Because they have more pressing things in their lives apparently than getting an education.  At least based on what they’re doing with their smartphones.

Democrats only care about the Here and Now and Instant Gratification

Liberal Democrats love these kids.  For they know all they want is to have fun.  So they become the party of fun.  Free birth control.  Access to abortion.  Decriminalizing marijuana.  Anti-religion.  No moral absolutes.  Anything goes.  Even encouraging reckless behavior (they’re going to have sex anyway so we might as well make it easier for them).  Veritable anti-parents.  Who tell these kids that they (these kids) know what’s best for them.  Not their parents.  And if they want instant gratification that’s okay.  You don’t have to worry about the future because if you vote Democrat that’s something else we’ll do for you besides the birth control, abortion, marijuana and the lack of moral constraints.  If you vote Democrat we’ll take care of you from cradle to grave.  Just like that The Life of Julia slideshow promised.  With so little education, work experience and life experience these kids don’t know any better and say, “Okay.  Where do I vote.”

So the Democrats use these kids to stay in office.  They know little so it is easy to lie to them.  About the ‘evil Republicans’ that are as big a killjoy as their parents.  And about how much better the Democrats are going to make their lives.  If only they keep voting Democrat.  So they do.  Because the Democrats offer everything an irresponsible adult could want.  Which is a shame as a lot of what the Democrats offer is bad for the rest of us.  And the country.  Their Keynesian economics fails over and over yet they keep using these failed policies of the past.  Putting the country further into debt.  And further depreciating the dollar.  They lie to these kids about global warming.  Allowing the Democrats to remain in power and pass crippling regulations.  Threatening the coal industry.  As well as increasing our energy costs.  They want to raise the minimum wage for unskilled, entry-level jobs.  Reducing the number of entry level jobs available for those looking to enter the workforce.  And they want to take over our health care.  The best health care system in the world.  Replacing it with something not as good and more costly.

But these grand domestic plans require a lot of money.  Which they often get from gutting the defense budget.  Weakening our military (something they never liked to begin with) to free up money for buying votes (i.e., spending) elsewhere.  They help justify this with a horrible foreign policy.  Instead of peace through (costly) strength they choose a ‘please like us’ foreign policy.  Marginalizing American Exceptionalism.  Being kind to our enemies.  And leaving our allies doubting our commitments.  But if our enemies like us we won’t need a large military anymore.  Allowing them to use those defense dollars elsewhere.  And how has that been working out?  Not good.  Since the ‘please like us’ foreign policy juggernaut Egypt is in chaos.  Syria is in a bitter civil war.  Iran is developing a nuclear bomb.  Israel is feeling abandoned.  Al Qaeda is taking over Libya and Iraq.  The Taliban will return to Afghanistan once the U.S. leaves.    North Korea is test-firing ballistic missiles.  And Vladimir Putin is restoring the Soviet Union.  Because he can.  Thanks to America’s new ‘please like us’ foreign policy.  Instead of the peace through strength of previous presidents.  Like Ronald Reagan.  And JFK.

There’s something else children who never grow up do.  Go into politics.  Into the Democrat Party.  Not the Republican Party.  The party the Democrats derisively call the party of ‘no’.  They join the Democrat Party.  And do all of the things that give us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  And a more dangerous world.   Despite this they still want to do more.  Without caring what their actions may do to our future.  Just like children.  All they care about is the here and now.  And instant gratification.  So of course the Republicans are the party of ‘no’ because that’s what grownups say to children.  ‘No’.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sandy Hook, Gun Control, Second Amendment, Patriot Act, Motor Vehicle Accidents and Partial-Birth Abortion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 13th, 2014

Politics 101

(Originally published January 10th, 2013)

The Social Democracies of Europe were all Oppressive Absolute Monarchies at one Time

What happened in Newtown, Connecticut, was a tragedy.  The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary took 26 lives.  Including 20 children.  The most innocent of us.  Which has ignited a firestorm of debate over guns.  The Left blames these deaths on an epidemic of gun violence.  Caused by people having access to guns.  So the Left wants to have a real debate on gun control.  To stop this epidemic of child deaths caused by firearms.  By severely restricting access to guns.

Those on the Right, on the other hand, want to protect their Second Amendment right.  The right to keep and bear arms.  Which allowed the First Amendment.  Freedom of speech.  The British colonial governors tried hard to clamp down on the anti-British sentiment in their American colonies.  And to muzzle that anti-British speech.  They sent over British Red Coats to occupy American cities to keep order.  And to find and confiscate the Americans’ guns.  So the first few amendments of the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) protected free speech.  Gave us the power to protect ourselves from future state oppressors.  And they even included the Third Amendment.  Which states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”  Again, further protection from state oppression.

The nature of states is to oppress their people.  Most have throughout history.  Even the social democracies of Europe were all oppressive absolute monarchies at one time.  Where kings could do pretty much anything they wanted to.  England changed that with representative government.  America expanded on these liberties in the New World.  And ever since has been very wary of government.  Until the Twentieth century.  When the growth of government began.  Transferring ever more power to the federal government.  Everything the Founding Fathers feared would happen without a Bill of Rights.

When it comes to Restricting our Constitutional Rights Liberals Trust Government while Fearing Republicans

Those on the Left say the Constitution is a relic of a different age.  That today’s government is a kinder government.  A more caring government.  One that just wants to take care of the people.  By providing generous benefits.  Of course this is how some of the worst dictatorships started.  Nazi Germany and the USSR both put the people first.  Or so they said.  Even their names said they were putting the people first.  The Nazis were National Socialists.  And the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  Socialism is all about taking care of the people.  Yet these nations had some the most brutal secret police that terrorized and oppressed their people.  For there is no easier way to dictatorial power than championing the people.  And once the people stop fearing their government is when the state can take away their guns.  To make that oppression easier.  The Syrian government is currently having difficulty oppressing their people because they failed to keep guns out of the hands of those they wish to oppress.

If you read a history book you will read a lot about state secret police and state oppression.  It’s more the rule than the exception.  When you grow up in a free country it’s hard to believe this.  And when you’re young you think whatever you know and have experienced is normal.  And that things have always been that way.  Which is why the younger liberals dismiss talk about the transfer of power to the federal government.  While the older conservatives who have seen great change in their lives and know history still fear their government.  While the younger liberals grow up believing that government is not to be feared but to be trusted blindly.  They even look at what China is doing with their economy with approval.  Where the government controls the economy.  They like that.  Because liberals believe we can always trust a government more than a private corporation.  Even if that government oppresses their people.  Like they do in China.  Where people still deal with famine in the country.  Rural workers are paid poorly and live in dormitories in the city factories.  And political dissidents are tortured in labor camps where they manufacture goods without pay.

So naïve liberals trust government.  Completely.  Unless it’s George W. Bush using the Patriot Act.  That they fear.  But when President Obama uses the Patriot Act liberals ask, “The Patriot what?”  When it came to secret wiretaps on people with known ties to terrorists the Left quaked with fear over where these abuses of power would end.  But when President Obama starts talking about gun control they haven’t a care in the world.  Because when it comes to restricting our constitutional rights liberals trust government while fearing Republicans.

People killed 37 Kids with Guns in 2010 while Partial-Birth Abortions have claimed some 2,000 Lives a Year

President Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  For the best way to advance an agenda (especially an unpopular agenda) was in the emotional chaos following a serious crisis.  Such as the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.  The majority of Americans oppose gun control.  But in that majority are some people that they may be able to convince that some restrictions on the Second Amendment is a good thing in the emotional chaos following Sandy Hook Elementary.  Convincing them that guns are causing an epidemic of childhood deaths.  That without guns these kids simply wouldn’t be dying.  A powerful message during emotional times.  But if you remove the emotions and look at some facts you see something different (see 10 Leading Causes of Death, United States by the Centers for Disease Control).

These are deaths by unintentional injury.  Looking at the leading causes of death in 2010 (the latest year of data) for children aged 5-14 you see 1,643 deaths.  About half (809) of those are from motor vehicle accidents.  Drowning came in next at 251 (15.3%).  Then fire/burn at 135 (8.2%).  Then suffocation at 79 (4.8%).  You have to go all the way down to number 7 on the list to get to firearms.  Where we can see they killed 37 children in 2010.  Or 2.3% of the total number of kids aged 5-14 who died from an unintentional injury.  Based on an approximate population of 41 million kids aged 5-14 the total number of kids killed by firearms comes to about 0.00009% of this total.  According to the CDC’s numbers, guns aren’t killing a lot of kids.  Motor vehicles are.  But firearms are not.  So taking away our guns will probably not change these numbers much.  If at all.  So the motive can’t be saving children’s lives.  In fact, one can make the argument that there is a greater killer of children out there than anything on the above list.  Abortion.

It’s hard to get numbers on abortions.  But if you check various sources the number appears to be over a million a year.  Wikipedia shows 1,313,000 abortions in 2000.  Including 2,232 (about 0.17% of all abortions in 2000) that were partial-birth abortions.  Whatever your politics on the abortion issue are one thing regarding partial-birth abortions is clear.  These are human lives.  For the ‘partial’ part of these abortions requires terminating the life of the fetus while the head is still inside of the mother.  For if they terminated the life of the fetus outside of the mother it would be murder according to the law.  And you can’t kill something that isn’t alive.  In fact, an accidental wrongful death of a pregnant woman often results in two charges of manslaughter.  One for the mother.  And one for the unborn fetus.  Assuming there was no spike in partial-birth abortions in 2000 one can assume that number is representative of all years.  Which is far more deaths than by motor vehicle accident let alone from firearms.  Yet President Obama wants gun control to save kids lives.  When he could save even more by simply revising his stance on partial-birth abortion.  Something he argued to keep when a state senator in Illinois.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Free Birth Control and Abortion on Demand creates a lot of Harm for Women

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 9th, 2014

Week in Review

According to the left an unborn fetus is nothing but a lump of cells that can be vacuumed out of a uterus anytime during a pregnancy.  It’s just no big deal.  An abortion.  Because ending a pregnancy is so trivial they can do them in abortion clinics that don’t meet the same certifications as hospitals or medical clinics.  So it would follow that if ending a pregnancy is no big deal that it must be no big deal for the woman getting an abortion, right?  Well, as it turns out it is a very big deal.  Such a big deal that a man is going to jail for tricking his girlfriend into getting pregnant.  A pregnancy she ended with a ‘no big deal’ abortion (see Man who sabotaged condoms guilty of sexual assault, top court rules by SEAN FINE posted 3/7/2014 on The Globe and Mail).

Men who sabotage condoms may turn an otherwise consensual act with a woman into sexual assault, and women who lie about using birth control have been left with some uncertainty about whether they, too, could face charges, under a Supreme Court ruling yesterday on deception before sex.

The court was unanimous that Craig Hutchinson of Nova Scotia was guilty of sexual assault for poking pin-sized holes in condoms because he hoped to keep his girlfriend from leaving him by getting her pregnant. His fraud carried such a risk of harm it nullified her consent, four of seven judges said. (She did become pregnant, but left him and had an abortion.) The risk to a woman who does not want to get pregnant is as serious in its way as the risk of HIV transmission from a partner who committed deception by failing to disclose their disease, the majority said.

“The concept of ‘harm’ does not encompass only bodily harm in the traditional sense of that term; it includes at least the sorts of profound changes in a woman’s body — changes that may be welcomed or changes that a woman may choose not to accept — resulting from pregnancy,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote, supported by Justice Marshall Rothstein and Justice Richard Wagner…

Peter Sankoff, a specialist in criminal law at the University of Alberta, said that psychological harm could in rare cases be a foundation for a future sexual assault claim by a man, say, whose condoms were sabotaged by a woman so she could have a baby. In a series of tweets, he said he knows many men who experienced an unwanted child, and as a result “spiralled downward” psychologically.

Others, including Michael Plaxton of the University of Saskatchewan law school, Sonia Lawrence of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School, and Luke Craggs, the lawyer for Mr. Hutchinson, disagreed, saying the court would limit charges to cases where there was bodily harm.

“My preliminary view is that the decision seems to have been carefully written such that women who lie about birth control don’t have the same jeopardy,” Mr. Craggs said in an interview. Mr. Hutchinson was found guilty at his trial and sentenced to 18 months in jail, but had been free on bail awaiting the Supreme Court ruling.

So if a woman poked holes into a condom there would be no crime.  Because it’s her body.  Even though it will change the man’s life greatly if she tricked him into having a baby with her.  For he must now provide financially for that child.  So her deception is okay while his deception is not.  So harm from deception is based on how the woman feels.  If she wants a baby and tricks her boyfriend that’s okay.  If she doesn’t want a baby and gets an abortion without telling her husband that’s okay, too.  And whatever the man wants, does or says is wrong.  Okay.  Got it.

Impregnating a woman against her will is wrong.  No one is going to argue in defense of that.  But if that woman gets an abortion where is the harm?  Unless abortions are a big deal.  And are very traumatic to a woman.  Or can cause some long-term health problems (say increase the incidence of breast cancer from interrupting the hormonal changes going on in her body).  Or leave her with an emotional scar years later when she thinks about the child that she aborted.  If these are real harms then wouldn’t all abortions be harmful?  If so then there should be no abortions at all.  And if a woman doesn’t want a child then she shouldn’t have sex.  That would ensure no harm would ever befall a woman caused by an unwanted pregnancy.  And she could never commit a potential crime by lying about being on the pill.

People used to be like that.  Responsible.  But providing free birth control and abortion on demand sure has changed that.  And opened up women to all sorts of harm.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Abortion and White Supremacy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 27th, 2014

Politics 101

Slavery made the South more like an Old World Aristocracy than a New World Meritocracy

Democrats don’t like people of color.  Never have.  The Democrat Party’s lineage goes back to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party.  Thomas Jefferson was one of our Founding Fathers who, as the Democrats love to remind us, owned slaves.  In fact, the Democratic-Republican Party was the party of the planter elite.  And of slavery.  While the opposition party, the Federalists, whose members included George Washington, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, preferred manufacturing and commerce for the future of the United States.  Not just plantations and slavery.

It was these southern planters who made the Three-Fifths Compromise necessary.  Slaves couldn’t vote.  So the North didn’t want to count them in determining the number of representatives a state had in the House of Representatives.  The planter elite did not like this.  As the anti-slave North had more free people and would end up controlling the government.  Possibly passing anti-slave legislation.  Well, without the southern states there would be no United States.  So they compromised and counted some of their slaves.  Giving the planter elite greater power in the new federal government than their population would otherwise have allowed.  And to seal the deal they agreed not to discuss the issue of slavery again for 20 years.

The minority power in the South, the planter elite, who were Democratic-Republicans, brought a lot of slaves to the United States during that 20 year moratorium on the slavery issue.  Swelling the slave population in the South.  But once the 20 years were up Congress banned the slave trade.  So from that point forward all slaves would have to be born on U.S. soil.  But the minority power in the South had built their little fiefdoms by then.  Owning large estates.  With their lands worked by their large slaveholdings.  Making the South more like an Old World aristocracy than a New World meritocracy.  And the planter elite liked having so much power vested in so few of their hands.  From having their few numbers control the federal government.  To their absolute control of so many human lives on their plantations.  They were an elite few.  A superior people.  And they liked it.

The South used the Power of the Federal Government to Suppress States’ Rights in the North with the Fugitive Slave Act

Over time as the north pursued the dreams of Washington, Adams and Hamilton immigration began to swell the population in the industrial North.  Leading to the South losing their control over the House of Representatives.  And threatening their elitism.  By then the Democratic-Republican Party had become the Democrat Party.  Which pushed to protect the institution of slavery.  To protect their southern aristocracy.  And their elevated status as a superior people.  They used the power of the federal government where they could.  Such as passing the Fugitive Slave Act to force free states against their will to return free blacks in their states to slavery.  Then they argued that their states’ rights were at risk with all of the North’s abolition talk.  Where the North might one day do what the South did to them.  Use the federal government to force a state to do something against their will.  Such as they did with the Fugitive Slave Act.

Their fight for the Senate led to further compromises to keep the union together while accommodating the planter elite.  The Missouri Compromise (1820) had prohibited slavery in the new territory in the Louisiana Territory above approximately the southern border of Missouri (but permitted it within the borders of Missouri).  Each state gets two senators.  So with the House lost the Democrats needed more of the new states from the Louisiana Territory entered into the Union as slave states.  Even those above the southern border of Missouri. Which they did with the Kansas–Nebraska Act.  Which repealed the Missouri Compromise and replaced it with popular sovereignty.  Where the people would chose whether they wanted to be a slave state or a free state.  Setting off a mad rush by both sides to get to these territories so they could vote the slave status of these new states their way.  Leading to a bloody civil war in Kansas.

Then another blow fell to the southern aristocracy.  Abraham Lincoln.  With the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln the southern aristocracy lost not only the House of Representatives but the presidency as well.  Worse, the Republicans were an anti-slavery party.  So even if they were somehow able to hold onto the Senate the Republicans in power would challenge the planter elite’s supremacy.  Break up their fiefdoms.  And challenge their power.  Something this elite few were willing to fight to prevent.  Well, they were willing to have others fight for them.  To maintain the social order in the South.  Leading to cries about states’ rights.  And an over-powerful federal government.  Despite their having used the power of the federal government to suppress states’ rights in the North with the Fugitive Slave Act.

Democrats see Benefits for Blacks as a Necessary Evil to keep them in Power

Most southerners were poor farmers.  Who owned no slaves.  Yet they rose to fight for states’ rights.  And to protect the South from northern aggression.  At least, that was what the planter elite had them believe.  Who sent many of these poor farmers to their deaths in the American Civil War.  When it was over approximately 8.6% of the South’s population was dead.  By comparison World War II killed approximately 405,399 Americans.  However, if we had suffered the same death rate as the South did in the American Civil War our World War II dead would have totaled over 12 million.  This is what the southern aristocracy was willing to—and did—sacrifice to maintain their power and privilege.  Their supremacy over other people.  Especially over their black slaves.

Such a feeling of superiority allows you to do some pretty horrible things.  Just review the history of Nazi Germany to see some of the atrocities a ‘master race’ can do.  In the post-war South the Democrats did not lose with grace.  They resented the martial law in the South after the war.  And they hated Republican rule.  Protecting their former slaves.  Even allowing them to run for government office.  It was all too much for the fallen southern aristocracy.  To remind people of the proper order of southern society they formed the KKK.  And unleashed a terror across the South.  Killing their former slaves.  And Republicans.  To codify their white supremacy the Democrats turned to the legislature.  And passed laws to segregate the ‘inferior blacks’ from their superior selves.  Jim Crowe Laws.  Separate but equal.  With the emphasis on ‘separate’.  In time pressure grew against the southern Democrats.  But they held strong in Congress.  Fighting against any civil rights legislation.  Including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Where Democrat Senator Robert Byrd (and former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK) filibustered against the Civil Rights Act for 14 hours and 13 minutes.  To keep the blacks segregated from their superior selves.

Things are a lot better these days.  But Democrat feelings of superiority die hard.  Even though they would have us believe they like blacks today.  Despite their past hatred of blacks.  And their seething anger of having lost them from their plantations.  But they found a way to ‘get them back on the plantation’.  By making them dependent on government.  In exchange for their vote.  Which keeps them in power.  Back where they believe they belong.  And are entitled to be.  Because they are a superior people.  So benefits for blacks are a necessary evil to Democrats.  For they still don’t like them.  As evidenced by where they live.  Where some of the richest Democrats (such as Nancy Pelosi) live in the whitest of neighborhoods.  And their apparent racial purification of society.  Through the guise of women’s rights.  The most important thing to women, according to Democrats, is abortion.  And they do their best to make abortion readily available.  Especially to women of color.  Like in New York City.  And Mississippi.  Where black women are having far more abortions than white women.  Making America whiter.  More like the neighborhood where Nancy Pelosi lives.  And more like the color Democrats have fought to keep America since the Three-Fifths Compromise.  The Fugitive Slave Act.  Popular Sovereignty.  The KKK.  And Jim Crowe Laws.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Guns, Butter and Abortion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 24th, 2014

Economics 101

Democrats will cut Defense but not Entitlements because fewer People in Defense vote Democrat

A cornerstone of the Obama presidency is social justice.  Primarily through redistribution of wealth.  Raising taxes to fund a growing welfare state.  To help those not lucky enough to have won life’s lottery.  Such as expanding the food stamp program (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).  Which has grown over 70% under President Obama.

Of course, this costs money.  A lot of it.  Added on top of an already costly welfare state.  Driven by entitlement spending.  Social Security.  And Medicare.  The biggest portions of federal spending.  And it only keeps growing.  Making the welfare state unsustainable without entitlement reform.  But the politicians won’t touch entitlements.  The third rail of politics.  Because they’re afraid of losing votes in the next election.  So they’d rather the country implode instead of reforming entitlements.  And hope that implosion comes after they’re dead and buried.  For as long as they get to enjoy their lives they could give a rat’s behind about future generations.

But they will touch defense spending.  And often do when they are looking for more money for the welfare state.  Even now.  The Obama administration is proposing spending cuts in defense spending.  That will shrink the size of the military.  And cut pay and benefits for some of the lowest paid people in the country.  The people who go in harm’s way for their country.  They won’t touch entitlement spending because it may hurt people that typically vote Democrat.  But they have no problem doing just that to those who wear a uniform to serve their country.  Who don’t always vote Democrat.  Just so they can have a generous welfare state like the European social democracies they so admire have.  Who can have them because they don’t have large defense budgets.  For the United States has been protecting them since World War II.

People can’t pay Taxes to fund a Welfare State without a Job that Provides an Income to Tax

If you watch television you’ve probably heard New York State’s commercials to attract new businesses to New York.  Where the state is promising that businesses will be “100% tax-free for 10 years.  No income tax, business, corporate, state or local taxes, sales and property taxes, or franchise fees.”  Which is a clear admission from the state with the second highest tax burden in the country that high taxes hurt business.

The tax burden is so great in New York that some businesses have moved their operations out of state.  And people with vacation homes in New York who only visit them a couple of weeks out of the year are selling them.  As the state is taxing their incomes as if they are permanent New York residents.  But despite these high taxes New York has suffered great budget deficits.

New York City is a Democrat city.  Their high taxes pay for a large welfare state.  A large public sector.  And the enormous costs of their public sector benefits.  In particular, health care and pension costs.  But their high tax rates have shrunk the tax base.  Because people can pack up and move out of state.  Just as businesses can.  Which is why they are doing a 180-degree turn on taxes.  In a desperate attempt to get businesses to come to New York.  For even if these businesses aren’t paying taxes their employees will.  Income taxes.  Sales taxes.  Property taxes.  Liquor taxes.  Cigarette taxes.  Etc.  None of which they can pay if there are no jobs to give them an income the state can tax.

The Number of Abortions is having a Direct Impact on the Economy and Tax Revenue

New York City released its SUMMARY OF VITAL STATISTICS 2012 THE CITY OF NEW YORK PREGNANCY OUTCOMES this month.  In it you can find why New York City, New York State and the federal government are having such a difficult time paying for their welfare states.  It’s because of liberal Democrat policies.  Not on the spending side of the equation.  But on the revenue side of the equation.

In 2012 there were 73,815 abortions.  Which are future taxpayers that weren’t allowed to be born.  That’s right, before anyone pays the high tax rates of a welfare state they have to be born first.  And when they are not born that’s future tax revenue the government cannot collect.  If we look at a 20 year period (about a generation) and assume 73,815 abortions each of those 20 years that’s 1,476,300 people that never will pay taxes.  If they earned on average $30,000 each that’s $44,289,000,000 of economic activity they never created.  And at a New York State tax rate of 11.7% that’s $5,181,813,000 in lost tax revenue for the state.

But it gets worse.  If you divide this number by two you get the total number of couples (a man and a woman) that could have started a family.  If each couple had 3 children this lost generation could have brought in another 2,214,450 taxpayers into New York City.  Adding them to their parent’s generation and assuming a median family income of $53,046 (an older generation established in their career earning more and a younger generation just starting their career earning less) brings the total lost economic activity for these two generations of possible New Yorkers to $195,779,524,500.  And lost tax revenue for the state of $22,906,204,367.  So the number of abortions is having a direct impact on the economy.  And tax revenue.  Making it necessary to cut guns to pay for more butter.  Whereas if these taxpayers were born we could have both our guns and butter.  And live in a world made safe by the most powerful military in the world.  Peace through strength.  The Ronald Reagan way.  And not a world where our enemies are constantly testing our resolve.  The Jimmy Carter and President Obama way.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New York City Abortions changing the Color of the City

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrat’s most sacred issue is abortion.  Any attempts to restrict abortion and the left immediately starts bleating that the Republicans have a war on women.   As if the only thing women care about is having an abortion.  But could there be another reason behind their defense of abortion rights?  Perhaps.

New York City (NYC) requires that all abortions are reported.  They just released a report summarizing abortions in 2012 (see SUMMARY OF VITAL STATISTICS 2012 THE CITY OF NEW YORK PREGNANCY OUTCOMES released in February 2014).

All pregnancy outcomes, whether a live birth or a spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy, are required by law to be reported to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  This report compiles the information reported about these events to monitor the health of women and their infants in New York City.  For additional tables, technical notes and samples of NYC certificates of birth, please see the Bureau of Vital Statistics website at www.nyc.gov/vitalstats.

In Table 1. Pregnancy Outcomes, Pregnancy Outcome Rates*, and Pregnancy Rates* by Mother’s Age Group, Racial/Ethnic Group, and Borough of Residence, New York City, 2012 we see the information summarized here.

 NYC Live Births and Abortions R1

According to the U.S. census the demographic breakouts are approximately non-Hispanic white (63%), Hispanic (16.9%), non-Hispanic black (13.1%) and Asian and Pacific Islander (5.3%).  Which agrees with the order of the percentage of live births in the table above.  But things are different on the abortion side.  Where non-Hispanic blacks top the list of abortions.  With Hispanics a close second.  While non-Hispanic whites only come in third.   Despite their making up the largest percentage of the population.

If you look at the ratio of live births to abortions we see some startling statistics.  For every Asian and Pacific Islander abortion there were 4.71 live births.  For every non-Hispanic white abortion there were 4.03 live births.  But for every Hispanic abortion there were only 1.60 live births.  While for every non-Hispanic black abortion there were only 0.79 live births.  Or for every 10 abortions there were approximately 8 live births.  Meaning that more non-Hispanic black women are having abortions than having a live birth.

So what does this tell us about abortions?  That non-Hispanic blacks are more likely to have an abortion than any other group in NYC.  With Hispanics a close second.  Interesting.  For Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks typically vote Democrat.  As the Democrats constantly tell them that Republicans hate them.  Even though Republicans oppose abortion.  So if Republicans had their way there would be more black and Hispanics babies being born.  Which would suggest that it’s not the Republicans that don’t like blacks and Hispanics.  But the Democrats.  Because keeping abortion legal is making NYC whiter.

For the sake of argument let’s change the title from ‘Abortions” to ‘Infant Mortality’ in the table above.  What do you think people would be saying then?  Probably not what they’re saying now about these abortion numbers.  Which is nothing.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Knowledge + Experience + Reason = Republican Votes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 13th, 2014

Politics 101

The Democrat Party is the Cool Uncle that buys Booze and Cigarettes for his Nieces and Nephews

People characterize the Republicans as being a bunch of old fogies.  Out of touch.  Who don’t have a clue about the world today.  Unlike their children do.  Who are wise beyond their years.  For they know there is nothing really bad with underage drinking and smoking.  Smoking marijuana.  Or doing other drugs.  And there is nothing wrong with casual sex.  Sexting.  Or nude selfies.

This is why the children of old fogies like the Democrat Party.  Because the Democrats get them.  Unlike their parents.  Their parents tell them they shouldn’t stay out late, drink, smoke, do drugs or have sex.  While the Democrats decriminalize marijuana and work to decriminalize other drugs.  Provide free birth control.  And abortion without parental notification.  Making the Democrat Party the cool uncle that buys booze and cigarettes for his nieces and nephews.  So is it any wonder that the youth vote goes Democrat?

The ironic thing, though, is that these old fogies were once young themselves.  And some were pretty wild in their youth, too.  But once they became parents things changed.  For when it’s their daughter they don’t want her being objectified.  Encouraged to explore her sexuality by having so much casual sex that she catches a sexually transmitted disease or gets pregnant.  Especially if they did in their youth.  Which is the last thing they want for their little girl.  Who is and will forever remain their little girl.

Keynesian Economics conditioned People to accept that Government knows Best

This is the rule.  Not the exception.  As kids grow up fighting their parents they reach a point in life where they realize that their parents were right all along.  That if they had only spent more time on their homework and less time partying things would have turned out better.  Life may have been less fun in the short-run but much better in the long-run.  They’d had an earlier start in their career.  A career with better pay and benefits.  They could have bought a house sooner.  Met someone to marry and start a family with sooner.  Instead of finding themselves at 25 buried under student loan debt for a degree that can’t get them a job.  And a decade or so of hooking up having conditioned men to shun any serious commitment.  Leading their daughters to turn to serial dating and online dating.  As they struggle to find someone else who has grown up, too.

This is what the old fogies know.  That their kids don’t.  You get wiser with age.  Thanks to education.  And experience.  Two things the young just don’t have.  And never will.  Because by the time they grow wise from education and experience they are no longer kids.  But well on their way to ‘old fogery’.  Which is, of course, a problem for the Democrat Party.  For a wise voting public will not help them win elections.  As their Keynesian economic policies have nothing but a long record of failure.  Giving us the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, the dot-com recession and the Great Recession.  To name a few bad economic times Keynesian economics have given us.  Things older people know from education and experience.  But the kids voting Democrat don’t.

Keynesian economics ushered in the era of Big Government.  And did something the Socialists could not.  Conditioned people to accept that government knows best.  Especially young people.  Uneducated and inexperienced young people.  Despite the Democrats’ horrible record concerning things economic.  Because of this record the Democrats use lies and deceit to attack free market capitalism.  That economic system that worked better than any other.  To get people who knew no better to mistrust free market capitalism.  And ask for the government to fetter unfettered capitalism.  To make the world a fairer place.

The Democrats use Public Education to teach our Kids to Distrust Capitalism and to Trust Government

It sounds good to the inexperienced and uneducated.  Because it feels good to think in terms of fairness.  And if there is one thing the young have are emotions.  They like to use their hearts.  Not their brains.  As they are idealistic and naïve.  Unlike those old fogies who are realists.  They can’t be fooled or swayed by the Democrat lies because they have learned and experienced a lot in their long lives.  And heard the same old Democrat lies all through those long lives.  Which is why the Democrats work so hard on the youth vote.  The War on Women, their lax drug attitudes, birth control, abortion, gay rights…all of these are to get the young to think in terms of fairness.  To tug on their heartstrings.  To get them emotional.  And keep them emotional.  As well as ignorant.

The more ignorant people are the easier it is to lie to them.  Anyone who knows the history of Western Civilization will understand how life became better for people as we moved closer to free market capitalism.  Anyone who knows classical economics will understand how thrift, savings, free trade, sound money, etc., made America the number one economy in the world.  While the Keynesian policies of today are threatening to knock America out of that number one spot.  People who understand these things are not going to vote Democrat.  Which is why the Democrats work hard to keep people from learning these things.  By constantly lying about them.  And not teaching them in the institutions they control.  Our public schools.  And our institutions of higher education.

The Republican equation for winning votes is a difficult equation.  Knowledge + Experience + Reason = Republican Votes.  It’s difficult because the Democrats have long controlled public education.  Thanks to their friends in the teacher unions.  And their friends running our institutions of higher education.  Which spend more time teaching our kids to distrust capitalism.  And to trust government.  To feel more.  And think less.  To live for today.  And not worry about tomorrow.  Making it very difficult for the Republicans to get young voters to vote for them.  As they are unknowledgeable (thanks to our public schools), inexperienced (because they are young) and prefer emotion over reason (because feeling is more fun than thinking).  Which is why old fogies (the knowledgeable, experienced and thinking) vote Republican and the youth vote does not.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Democrats Lie to Women about the Gender Pay Gap to get them to Vote Democrat

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 2nd, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats tell women that Republicans have a war on women.  They, after all, don’t want to pay for their birth control.  They don’t want to allow them to have an abortion.  And they defend businesses that only pay women 77 cents to every dollar a man earns.  Yes, Republicans may prefer seeing women as something other than sexual objects.  Preferring they marry, raise a family and live happily ever after.  Instead of just being sexual play things.  While Democrats tell women that the only thing important to them at election time is birth control and abortion.  But that gender pay gap is simply not true (see Gender Pay Gap: When You’ve Lost Slate… by Walter Olson posted 1/30/2014 on Cato).

White House speechwriters couldn’t resist sticking an applause line into President Obama’s State of the Union speech about how women supposedly earn only 77 cents to every dollar a man earns in America. Even more depressing, it drew some of the night’s biggest applause. But as almost everyone familiar with the numbers has had reason to know for years and years, it simply isn’t true. Most, if not all, of the gap melts away once you factor in variables such as hours worked, choice of occupation, and midcareer family interruption, among others.

The big applause can only mean one of two things.  Either that those applauding are very ignorant of the facts they are debating.  Not a good quality in a representative of the people.  Or that they are lying about the facts.  Which is also not a good quality in a representative of the people.  So which is it?  Well, let’s see.  Are there any examples of Democrats lying to get something they want?  Why, yes there is. The lie of the year.  When President Obama said if you like your health insurance you can keep it.  Period.  It turns out that Obamacare wouldn’t work if people kept the health insurance they liked.  So they wrote the law to make it impossible for that to happen.

So there is a history of telling big lies.  Lies so big that they win the title of lie of the year.  So one would have to conclude that they are knowingly lying about the gender pay gap.  But why?  Because women are 50% of the electorate.  That’s why.  And if they don’t scare or anger them into voting Democrat they may just vote based on the facts.  And vote Republican.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries