I am not suggesting we hide behind our borders, just that we stop invading nations, bombing them, doing drone attacks, and otherwise making war on them for no better reasons than ... they are mean and said bad things about us and someday could conquer the whole region!

That's not really true. American soldiers didn't kill 300,000 people in those places.

and have threated to kill Americans inside America.

You advocated leaving Saudi and Kuwait (Bahrain too?) even though our military presence in those countries don't constitute an invasion, bombing, droning, or otherwise making war on them.

I only skimmed the last few pages. Did Bitter Mouse ever get around to explaining how subtracting a billion dollars from Warren Buffett's and Laurene Powell Jobs' bank accounts via taxation will do anything whatsoever re: "income inequality"?

I thought the whole "income inequality" movement was geared toward putting more money in the pockets of the lower and middle classes. All Bitter Mouse seems to care about is reducing, on paper, wealth inequality.

Not that you would understand.

Then what would it be?

An occupy and civilize mission.

The main reason is that politics in those places are neo-primitive.

That's their fault, not ours.

There is very little upside in having armed forces in kuwait or Saudi Arabia. For a variety of reasons even our mere presence pisses folks off and we get basically nothing for it.

most notably ensuring the extraction and movement of a good chunk of the world's hydrocarbons

Then what would it be?

An occupy and civilize mission.

So it is your opinion that Saudi Arabia would not pump oil and sell it on the world's market without US troops in country? That Iraq would not sell oil? That Iran would not sell oil? Really?

Unmarried girls from poor families, they found, were more likely to give birth in states with large income gaps between the poorest households and the middle class—what researchers call “lower-tail” inequality. Combined with other evidence, such as ethnographic research, this pattern led them to conclude that many young women simply choose to have children early once they feel their career prospects are dim. They look at the economic ladder and decide the climb is impossible. So they look for personal fulfillment through a baby instead.

Today, Kearney and Levine are out with a new working paper that shows how the “despair theory” might apply to young men. This time, the issue is high school graduation. It finds that boys from low-socioeconomic-status families are more likely to drop out in states with larger gaps between the poor and the middle class, as shown on the far left of the graph below. That trend holds even once they control for things that might influence completion, such as racial segregation or public investment in schools.

As the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and ongoing Iranian interference in Iraq have demonstrated, walking away and leaving the security in the region to others is asking for trouble.

Unmarried girls from poor families, they found, were more likely to give birth in states with large income gaps between the poorest households and the middle class—what researchers call “lower-tail” inequality. Combined with other evidence, such as ethnographic research, this pattern led them to conclude that many young women simply choose to have children early once they feel their career prospects are dim. They look at the economic ladder and decide the climb is impossible. So they look for personal fulfillment through a baby instead.

Today, Kearney and Levine are out with a new working paper that shows how the “despair theory” might apply to young men. This time, the issue is high school graduation. It finds that boys from low-socioeconomic-status families are more likely to drop out in states with larger gaps between the poor and the middle class, as shown on the far left of the graph below. That trend holds even once they control for things that might influence completion, such as racial segregation or public investment in schools.

Unmarried girls from poor families, they found, were more likely to give birth in states with large income gaps between the poorest households and the middle class—what researchers call “lower-tail” inequality. Combined with other evidence, such as ethnographic research, this pattern led them to conclude that many young women simply choose to have children early once they feel their career prospects are dim. They look at the economic ladder and decide the climb is impossible. So they look for personal fulfillment through a baby instead.

Wasn't one of OBL's initial problems with the US our troops on sacred soil? Sure it is a dumb reason to attack us (or contribute towards a reason to attack), but still.

This is an argument that poor people need better pay and job opportunities so they'll have more money; not an argument that rich people having more money is hurting poor people.

Unmarried girls from poor families, they found, were more likely to give birth in states with large income gaps between the poorest households and the middle class—what researchers call “lower-tail” inequality. Combined with other evidence, such as ethnographic research, this pattern led them to conclude that many young women simply choose to have children early once they feel their career prospects are dim. They look at the economic ladder and decide the climb is impossible. So they look for personal fulfillment through a baby instead.

Today, Kearney and Levine are out with a new working paper that shows how the “despair theory” might apply to young men. This time, the issue is high school graduation. It finds that boys from low-socioeconomic-status families are more likely to drop out in states with larger gaps between the poor and the middle class, as shown on the far left of the graph below. That trend holds even once they control for things that might influence completion, such as racial segregation or public investment in schools.

It is an example of how income inequality has many pernicious effects, beyond even the having less money part of it.

It's an example that outcomes for poor people suck compared to outcomes for middle class or rich people.

Impossible to parse.

OK, but what's the policy prescription?

Why not? If you believe the poor are so disadvantaged, give you estate away to charity upon your death.

Do you contribute to charity personally? The rules of the game don't require it, but we generally look down on people of means who don't do it.

Why not? If you believe the poor are so disadvantaged, give you estate away to charity upon your death.

Well, why don't you hold Hillary and Bill to that standard?

Didn't mean to imply anything negative about your personal giving.

It's not leadership or principled behavior either.

I have never voted for a Clinton in a primary and don't expect to in 2016 but will surely vote for her in the general barring some truly unexpected development

With the advantage of incumbency, Bill Clinton's path to renomination by the Democratic Party was uneventful. At the 1996 Democratic National Convention, Clinton and incumbent Vice President Al Gore were renominated with token opposition. Incarcerated fringe candidate Lyndon LaRouche won a few Arkansas delegates who were barred from the convention. Jimmy Griffin, former Mayor of Buffalo, New York, mounted a brief campaign but withdrew after a poor showing in the New Hampshire primary. Former Pennsylvania governor Bob Casey contemplated a challenge to Clinton, but health problems forced Casey to abandon a bid.

Playing the game by the rules in place is not hypocrisy, IMO.

Why not? If you believe the poor are so disadvantaged, give you estate away to charity upon your death.

Instead, the public’s disapproval of Obamacare considered as a whole points to Americans’ broader relationship with the government, and our unwillingness to trust that it can accomplish what it sets out to do.

One political scientist, Vanderbilt University’s Marc Hetherington, has been doing work on political trust since before the Obama presidency. His 2006 book “Why Trust Matters” managed to anticipate the country’s response to the 2010 health care law surprisingly well. In it, Hetherington investigated why American public policy has moved rightward since the 1960s even though public opinion hasn’t become markedly more conservative. His answer: There’s been a decline in our trust in government.

What you should do is stop believing liberal politicians care at all about redressing inequality or helping the poor and working class. They care about new sources of revenue to use to but votes.

This is an argument that poor people need better pay and job opportunities so they'll have more money; not an argument that rich people having more money is hurting poor people.

Change "wealthy" to "middle-class and upper-middle-class" and you're right. There is zero chance Clinton would pass new taxes that hit the actually wealthy. Neither Bill Clinton nor Obama got rid of the absurd carried-interest exemption, which they could each have done with the stroke of a pen.

1. There's no reason to believe that the Clintons would avoid new tax rules for the wealthy if they were passed.

Instead, the public’s disapproval of Obamacare considered as a whole points to Americans’ broader relationship with the government, and our unwillingness to trust that it can accomplish what it sets out to do.

To the extent that trust in government is blind and passive, it's a sign of poor cultural health.

If you could achieve a political consensus that could return us to 1970's level of income inequality, by normal policy means (i.e. taxes, tariffs, spending, subsidies, etc., nothing grossly immoral) but you had to agree to outlaw abortion to get the votes, would you do it? I'll even throw in Universal Health Care, Canada style.

If you could achieve a political consensus that could return us to 1970's level of income inequality, by normal policy means (i.e. taxes, tariffs, spending, subsidies, etc., nothing grossly immoral) but you had to agree to outlaw abortion to get the votes, would you do it? I'll even throw in Universal Health Care, Canada style.

As if abortion rights haven't been nullified in 85% of US counties.

1. There's no reason to believe that the Clintons would avoid new tax rules for the wealthy if they were passed.

If you could achieve a political consensus that could return us to 1970's level of income inequality, by normal policy means (i.e. taxes, tariffs, spending, subsidies, etc., nothing grossly immoral) but you had to agree to outlaw abortion to get the votes, would you do it? I'll even throw in Universal Health Care, Canada style.

You can't deny abortion rights without affecting women's potential for earning and for financial independence.

If you could achieve a political consensus that could return us to 1970's level of income inequality, by normal policy means (i.e. taxes, tariffs, spending, subsidies, etc., nothing grossly immoral) but you had to agree to outlaw abortion to get the votes, would you do it? I'll even throw in Universal Health Care, Canada style.

For starters, here's Scott Walker.

Mitt Romney would be, and I would favor him to beat Hillary Clinton.

A big piece is the fairly mysterious decline in teenage sexual activity and pregnancy rates

Mitt Romney would be, and I would favor him to beat Hillary Clinton.

as a boring moderate, I plead for these parties to at least come up with somebody new - not 2 people who lost to the current President

#justsayin

Their whole reason for involvement with the Republican Party is their critique of Democratic stances on economic issues.