Surprise, The New York Times thinks Denmark, the land of the drunk, mean and discriminatory, is just wonderful!

Here, lying through its teeth, as usual:

'[Hillary] also said, “We are not Denmark.” Nope. Not by any stretch. Denmark has a slightly higher tax load on its citizens than the United States. But it also has budget surpluses, universal health care, shorter working hours, and was recently rated by Forbes magazine as the best country in the world for business.'

Hm, the same place as this:

"Yeah yeah, I’m being too harsh. Every country has problems, Denmark’s are just different from the ones I grew up used to. Overall, Denmark is quiet, introverted and socialist, my three favorite things. Also, if I ever want to spend a weekend being drunk, mean and discriminatory, at least now I know where to go."

The Danes lately excel at being in hock, in addition to being drunk, mean and discriminatory:

"Danish households owe their creditors 321 percent of disposable incomes, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That’s the highest ratio in the world and a level that’s prompted warnings from both the OECD and the International Monetary Fund to rein in borrowing. Danish authorities have argued that households aren’t at risk thanks to high pension and household equity levels."

Denmark has the top tax rate in the OECD in 2014, 60.4%, ahead of Sweden (56.9%), Portugal (56.5%), and France (54.5%). The rate for the US is listed at 46.3%.

Denmark's top tax rate is 30% higher than in the US. That's what The New York Times means by "slightly higher".

Denmark not coincidentally is a global frontrunner in depression and mental illness. It consumes 84 antidepressant doses per day per 1000 of population, second only to Iceland (101 doses).

Bernie Sanders call your office: The poor have higher incomes in the US in real terms in most cases

Bernie Sanders' debate claims about poor US children are eviscerated here by an adherent of Austrian economics:

"Thus, the fact that the US has higher poverty rates says very little about the actual living standards of the poor. The poor have higher incomes in the US in real terms in most cases. The countries that should really give us concern are the countries that have high levels of poverty and low median incomes. ...  Greece, Mexico, Israel, Spain, Italy, Ireland, UK, and Portugal -- are the ones that have the least to offer the poor."

Obamacare's been fabulous . . . for investors in healthcare company stocks

Story here:

"Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act took effect two years ago in the rockiest of rollouts, American health-care companies outperformed every industry in the U.S. Taken together, they are the best collection of stocks among worldwide peers."

Profiteering off of human misery is standard operating procedure in the United States of Crony Capitalism.

Bush W-2 employment 2004-07 narrowly beats Obama's 2011-14

Bush gains in W-2 employment:

2004 1.7 million

2005 2.2 million

2006 2.3 million

2007 1.7 million

total  7.9 million

Obama gains in W-2 employment:

2011 1.0 million

2012 2.2 million

2013 2.2 million

2014 2.4 million

total  7.8 million

The first six years of Bush:    5.8 million

The first six years of Obama: 2.8 million

Rush Limbaugh thinks the 46 million on food stamps are the U-3 "counted" unemployed, many of whom actually can and do work

Yesterday, here:

"Today, there are 46 million Americans unemployed, and 94 million not working. Now, these 46 million people, these are the counted unemployed. This is the U-3 number. The counted unemployed represent 14% of the population."

Limbaugh somehow gets this convoluted mess from here, which he cites but which clearly states the 46 million are those on food stamps, not the U-3 "counted" unemployed:

"The reason you don’t see huge lines of people waiting in soup lines during this Greater Depression is because the government has figured out how to disguise suffering through modern technology. During the height of the Great Depression in 1933, there were 12.8 million Americans unemployed. These were the men pictured in the soup lines. Today, there are 46 million Americans in an electronic soup kitchen line, as their food is distributed through EBT cards (with that angel of mercy JP Morgan reaping billions in profits by processing the transactions). These 46 million people represent 14% of the U.S. population." 

In the latest Employment Situation Summary from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for September, those actually counted as unemployed are listed at 7.915 million (2.5% of the population) and the not counted as unemployed at 1.9 million:

"In September, the unemployment rate held at 5.1 percent, and the number of unemployed persons (7.9 million) changed little. Over the year, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons were down by 0.8 percentage point and 1.3 million, respectively. (See table A-1.) . . . In September, 1.9 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by 305,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)"

U-3 is not a number in millions as Limbaugh says but a rate, the percentage of the labor force which is unemployed (7.915 million / 156.715 million), namely 5.1%.

Limbaugh doesn't understand that lots of employed people get food stamps. Individuals grossing up to $15,312 annually can still qualify for assistance.

Almost 49 million individuals made up to but not more than $15,000 annually in 2014.

The unemployed in Sept. 2015 numbered 7.9 million

U-3 is a percentage

Why Trump is doomed

Ed Rogers, here:

"Clinton can talk about the issues, and Trump can’t."

Democrat debate audience gave Hillary just 17 votes out of 233, coming in third behind Sanders the overwhelming winner and O'Malley

From the story here:

"Not everybody voted, but when it was all over, Bernie was the big winner, with 139 votes. O'Malley came in second with 67 votes."

Democrats win by circling the wagons while Republicans stage circular firing squads

Bernie Sanders rallied around Hillary Clinton tonight over her e-mail problems, admitting it wasn't in his political interests to do so. The two of them almost made love on stage. The crowd went nuts.

Democrats understand the principle: don't help your enemies, help your friends.

The Democrat debate was all about fixing America after two failed terms of a Democrat president

If you don't think FOX and the WSJ are polling to undo Trump then you probably don't believe that Bush and Ayotte planted Batchelder in Trump's audience

Story here.

Only the Rupert Murdoch owned polls show Trump and Carson neck and neck, otherwise Trump averages +8.75 and the libertarian IBD poll is clearly a lying outlier

Conservative news sarcasm alert: 97% of those 94.6 million not in the labor force aren't lazy bums after all

They're the 92 million who are in high school, college, and graduate school full-time, or who are raising the kids at home, or are disabled, or are over 65 years of age, retired and drawing Social Security.

Just 3% don't fit into any of those categories, or about 2.8 million people, that's it.

These are the  truly "marginally attached" who aren't counted as unemployed.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says about them:

"These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey."

The BLS estimates they number 1.9 million in September. This analysis puts them about a million higher than that. Both can't be right but the margin of error is only 1%.

The government's estimate is close enough, I'd say.

Trump's success teaches that Republican voters are not libertarian ideologues

So says John Reid, here:

'Yet if the Trump’s enduring success has taught us anything [it] is that Republican voters are not libertarian ideologues. He recognizes that politics is about “Who, whom?”'

Rush Limbaugh sticks up for the traditional family against National Review and Kevin Williamson

And Williamson is stung by it, here.

Rush is right. National Review used to be a conservative magazine. Now it's a libertarian one:

"This all took place [says Williamson] in the context of a discussion of Mississippi governor Phil Bryant’s boneheaded remarks about working mothers. It was conventional-wisdom stuff — that children do better when the mother is at home rather than working outside it — and, as is very often the case, the conventional wisdom is wrong here."

Not alienating potential voters is more important to libertarians than defending what is right.  

Conservative news sarcasm alert: 2% of those 94.6 million lazy bums not in the labor force who eat but don't work pursue graduate degrees full-time

Young "journalist" recently making $5,600 a month actually believes it's cheaper to eat out

Seen here:

'Technology has had a hand in widening the wealth gap and eliminating much of the middle-class since this industry shift began decades ago. But with the other hand, tech scoops up and delivers old promises of middle-class life and delivers them to the new poor. It’s cheaper to eat out, to shop, to entertain yourself, and to obtain consumer technology that makes all those things even more convenient, even on just $21,000 a year. A knowledge economy is sometimes referred to as “an economics of abundance, not scarcity.” It’s really an economics of scarcity with the appearance of abundance.'

Uh huh. She spends more time tweeting (14x/day) than researching, thinking or cooking, otherwise she'd know a single person can eat like a king three times a day for less than $3,500 a year simply by shunning food prepared in restaurants, fast food eateries and delicatessens and cooking entirely for oneself at home. Alcohol and toilet paper included. At $12.75 twice a day it costs $9,300 a year to eat out, once a day over $4,600. And you have to use the public sandpaper.

Spending a minimum of 22% of income on food for just one meal a day is crazy, and way too close to the housing component which should never exceed 28-32% of income.

Kids these days.

It's Trump, Carson, CRUZ and Rubio in latest CBS poll, Trump firmly in lead with 23.7% in Real Clear Politics poll average

The Detroit News calls the libertarian Freedom Caucus "brats", wants Boehner back at least temporarily

Here:

"Too many House Republicans have taken their eyes off the prize. Rather than craft a patient strategy to position themselves as the party of adult leadership in a broken Washington, they have become battling brats intent on mounting quixotic fights they can’t win in the interest of proving their conservative cred."

The Freedom Caucus is doing what libertarians customarily do to Republicans in election contests

Keep them from getting elected, and advance Democrats to power. It's their reason for existing.

When are Republicans finally going to say enough is enough and throw them out?

Conservative news sarcasm alert: 13% of those 94.6 million lazy bums not in the labor force who eat but don't work stay home to raise the kids

10.4 million mothers and 2 million fathers stayed home to raise kids in 2012