Muda69

Hmm, the common definition I see for the word "voluntary" is "done, given, or acting of one's own free will." I wonder how much "free will" an accused believes he or she actually has while being interviewed/pressed/grilled/given the third-degree by law enforcement and prosecutors.

So you disagree with this statement:

https://www.cato.org/events/coercive-plea-bargaining

https://mises.org/wire/social-security-terrible-investment Still, Social Security officials defended the program as comprehensive. They said it is more than just retirement income. “Rates of return on Social Security are complicated because these benefits include disability and survivors protection as well as CPI-indexed life annuities for retirees, something not offered in the commercial market,” according to Stephen Goss, Social Security chief actuary. “The value of such insurance protection,” he adds, “goes beyond just the average benefit payments, as indicated by the premiums charged for commercial insurance.” Goss argues that accumulation in private accounts “can vary widely based on timing and investment choices. As a result, serious proposals for providing some portion of Social Security protection in the form of individual accounts have generally provided some form of guaranteed return to eliminate the prospect that some individuals will have poor experience.” Social Security itself, of course, should never be confused with a real trust fund, or a real saving or investment program, as can be seen in the program's dicey trust fund accounting identified by economist Murray Rothbard about a half century ago: A Program in Trouble But beyond the debate over private accounts, almost everyone agrees on this: the current Social Security system is in the red—today more is paid out than is paid in, a deficit that is expected to get worse as people live longer and birthrates decline—and Congress must act over the next fifteen years. Benefits must either be reduced or taxes raised again, or the system’s two trust funds will reduce payments by about a quarter. The Social Security Trustees project that the retirement and disability funds, “will be depleted in 2035.” Goss, in a sentiment shared by Social Security critics, says, “Congress must act.” Social Security’s returns, taxes, and benefits have been much debated, especially over the last fifty years as the program has gone through numerous crises. Taxes have been raised and benefits cut several times. The problem of how to fund Social Security has persisted over decades. Both Presidents Carter and Reagan, in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively, signed Social Security reform packages that called for higher taxes and benefit cuts. Carter said his package would make the system “sound.” Reagan said his changes would “protect the financial integrity of Social Security.” Neither happened. William “Tip” O’Neill, a former speaker of the House of Representatives and a key player in the Social Security debates of the 1970s and 1980s, hardly touches on them in his book “Man of the House,” except to say how he and his allies prevented benefit cuts. They didn’t. And more are likely on the horizon. These failed Social Security solutions resulted in the shaky finances of the current system. However, sometimes in its history Social Security has been billions of dollars in the black. But that money was never used to shore up the program. Instead, Greszler says, the extra revenue "allowed governments to spend a lot more on other things.” Stealing from Peter to pay Paul, it's the way of the government. Social Security needs to end, and end now.

How Much More Should Trump Be Spending on You?: https://reason.com/2020/02/16/how-much-more-should-trump-be-spending-on-you/ As Parlapiano and Bui mention in their Times article, virtually all of the new spending since 2016 is being financed through borrowed money. We're spending $1,441 more per person while federal revenues have increased by just $125 per person. That explains why, despite booking the highest per person revenues in over 50 years, the national debt continues to grow. One thing both right-wing and left-wing economists agree on is that persistent, high levels of debt correlate strongly with reduced economic growth, which helps explain sluggish growth for all of the 21st century in the United States. As it happens, President Trump recently released his budget proposal for fiscal year 2021. The president's proposal isn't binding in any way. It's really just a suggestion to Congress and an announcement of his priorities. If he got his druthers, he would spend $4.83 trillion, up from an estimated $4.79 trillion this year and an actual $4.45 trillion in 2019 (see table S-1 in his proposal). As important, all of his Democratic challengers are promising even-bigger increases in spending over the coming years and it's likely that whoever ends up winning this fall, the federal budget for 2021 will be bigger than whatever exact amount we end up spending this year. Especially in an election year, we really should be talking about increases in federal spending and national debt and their relationship to economic growth. At the very least, we should be acknowledging what the Times has discovered, hiding right there in plain sight: We are spending far more per person than we were in 2016. And we should be asking everybody who wants to be president: What do we have to show for that extra $1,441? Personally I have nothing to show for that extra $.

So an impartial jury is present when law enforcement and prosecutors are interviewing/pressing/grilling/third-degreeing a suspect for a plea bargain or confession?

https://mises.org/wire/coerced-confessions-how-plea-bargain-replaced-physical-torture Interesting how the accused is not trusted by police and prosecutors when claiming innocence but is suddenly the paragon of truthfulness when a confession, oftentimes under duress, is obtained. What kind of proof is that in regards to "innocent until proven guilty?"

I suggest you direct your comments to the author of said article, Ms. Dana Hunsinger Benbow: dbenbow@indystar.com

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/2020/02/13/wabash-football-player-searched-cte-laptop-then-took-his-own-life/4750427002/ What a sad, sad tragedy. And a story about the true risks of tackle football.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/14/us/hmong-men-hotel-refusals/index.html Sad, but something you can definitely see occurring in Marshall county...............

No. Racism or racist acts only flow one way, from a Caucasian individual to a non-Caucasian individual. Not vice-versa. At least that is what the SJW snowflakes say................

If the only way to beat China is to become like China, then we've already lost.: https://reason.com/2020/02/12/corporate-socialism-bill-barr-suggests-the-u-s-should-counter-china-by-buying-nokia-or-ericsson/#comments

? So every individual in the United States of America will be forced into "Medicare-for-All" and a subsequent mandatory psychological evaluation to determine their "mental fitness" in regards to owning a firearm?

So back-alley engineering/machine shops will make firearms. There are lots of engineers and machinists out there who believe in the 2nd Amendment. Now please give us your detailed plan on catching, screening, and treating people before they are allowed to own a firearm.

Hey Chief, you made the comment. Not I.

Mud is good. It helps build character.

That seems to be what you are saying with your "162 games" comment.

US Mandatory Spending Projected to Increase Over a Trillion Dollars by 2023: https://mises.org/wire/us-mandatory-spending-projected-increase-over-trillion-dollars-2023 Agreed. The federal government needs to be reduced in size, scope, and power by at least 25% across the board. That means defense, education, and federal entitlements just to name a few. Think about the country we are leaving for our children and grandchildren, because our electives officials in Washington sure aren't.

So Dante, apply your logic to other goods and services that people wanted and government tried to take away. How did that end? I'll tell you: A failed prohibition on alcohol, a failed "war on drugs", and back-alley abortions. Now tell me how government prohibiting certain individuals (aka in your quote "the people") from possessing a firearm will this time turn out any different.

The Good News Is That We Probably Won't Elect a Socialist. The Bad News Is That We Already Have, Many Times.: https://reason.com/2020/02/12/the-good-news-is-that-we-probably-wont-elect-a-socialist-the-bad-news-is-that-we-already-have-many-times/ Even atheists, long a group shunned by voters, did better, with 60 percent of respondents saying godlessness would be a problem (that's up from 45 percent in 2007). Worse still, Gallup notes that "last measured these attitudes, in 2019, the results were within a few percentage points of those found today." In fact, socialism seemed less a votekill back in 2016, when 47 percent of respondents said that they were willing to vote one in. Gallup Still, Bernie's persistence and strong showing have centrist Democratic commentators seeing red. "To nominate Sanders would be insane," writes Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, who contends: Yet among left-leaning Democrats, Sanders would represent nothing more than Democratic status quo. At Vox, Matthew Yglesias coos, "On the vast majority of issues, a Sanders administration would deliver pretty much the same policy outcomes as any other Democrat." The big exceptions, say Yglesias, are foreign policy and monetary policy, "where Sanders takes issue with an entrenched conventional wisdom that is deeply problematic." Despite Sanders beating President Donald Trump in the averages of most head-to-head polls, only diehard Bernie bros seem fully confident that Vermont's self-declared socialist would go on to beat the president in the fall election (even Yglesias discounts recent polls, agreeing "it's a reasonable concern" that Sanders' edge would withstand "the sure-to-come cavalcade of attack ads from Trump"). That's putting it mildly. Progressives can claim that, despite surveys such as the new Gallup one, Americans really want "socialism," but there's a reason that no one as explicitly left as Sanders has been nominated—much less won—the presidency. For libertarians, however, the reason gives cold comfort: Americans don't even need to leave the comfort of the Republican Party to get a spendthrift president who may not be a declared socialist but nonetheless grows the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. Leaving aside the question of whether a president's budget proposal has a chance of being enacted as is, spending under Trump has already skyrocketed and it will go even higher if he gets his 2021 spending plan approved. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute calculates that inflation-adjusted federal spending would climb by 10 percent (not including interest costs) during his first four years in office. Using an alternative method that only uses "actual budget amounts for the 2020 fiscal year" and compares them to ones from 2016, The New York Times' Alicia Parlapiano and Quoctrung Bui calculate that per-capita spending has increased by $1,441 under Trump. Americans may not want a socialist per se, especially one who promises to nationalize health care and create something approaching a single-payer system not only for K-12 education (we already effectively have that) but for higher education, too. But they seem totally ready to re-elect Donald Trump, whose approval rating has soared to as high as 50 percent in some recent polls.* And if it's not Trump or Sanders, it will be someone who goes along with spending more than what we are already spending, which is more than what we were spending a year ago. Uni-party to the max, and spending our country into oblivion.

https://reason.com/2020/02/12/illinois-bill-would-ban-adults-from-pumping-their-own-gas/ 68 people are talking about this Increasing safety is the best justification for Lilly's bill. It's still not a very good one. According to a study from the National Fire Protection Association, there were 5,000 gas station fires per year between 2004 and 2008, which resulted in an average of two deaths a year and $20 million in property damage. That seems like a pretty small risk given that there were 117,000 gas stations in the country at the time. The number of gas station fires has also fallen dramatically since 1980, the NFPA notes, even as self-service has become more common. There's also not much reason to assume that a gas station attendant who's responsible for filling up multiple cars at once is going to be more careful than individual motorists. While drivers in the states that still mandate full-service like to talk up the convenience of not having to get out of their car, the fact that the practice doesn't persist when it's not mandated is proof enough that people are not willing to pay the costs of this higher level of service. The Illinois Policy Institute, a think tank, notes that motorists in that state are already paying the third-highest gas taxes in the country. Self-service stations can also create convenience in other ways. The fewer staff members needed to man the pumps mean businesses can reassign employees to manning registers, making food, or performing other tasks their customers value more. Lower operating costs at self-service gas stations might also mean gas stations can afford to stay open later or operate in more remote locations, where business is slower. Oregon's legalization of self-service pumps in rural counties was all about increasing service levels in remote areas of the state where it wasn't economical to have a gas station attendant on hand 24 hours a day. Lilly's desire to create jobs is also a poor justification for either banning self-service gas stations or mandating staffing levels. The more consumers have to pay for a service they don't want, the less money they have to spend on other things that they do want. Higher staffing costs leave gas stations with less money to pay vendors or reinvest in their businesses. The effect is to make the economy poorer and less productive. That's not a win for capital, labor, or consumers. The one silver lining in Illinois' proposal is how much people hate it. In Oregon and New Jersey, motorists have strong negative reactions to rolling back their state's full-service mandates. Illinois residents are clearly having the opposite reaction. This demonstrates the small-c conservativism of many voters; once people have the right to do something, they are not eager to lose it. Yet another government "solution" looking for a problem.

That is the ultimate goal, yes. Are you going to answer my question or not?

Yes, and include seeding. Will make regular season games actually mean something. But is it possible to make 9?

https://reason.com/2020/02/11/finger-gun-school-tredyffrin-valley-forge-down-syndrome/ Lawmakers and policy architects frequently suffer from failures of imagination: They presume their laws and policies will be followed in exactly the manner they intend. But the officials who carry out and enforce said policies do not always exercise good judgment. Instead, they over-comply with the policy and follow it to the letter, which produces absurd results like these. Margot's situation is a good reminder that unthinking public panic about safety in schools—divorced from any actual danger that is statistically significant—has a cost: It drives bad policy that promotes overcriminalization and invites law enforcement to intervene unnecessarily in disputes between students and teachers. Kids who make mistakes should face proportionate punishment—like a timeout, in Margot's case. Police State.