American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 7

Wild Walleye

06-16-10, 12:42

Many of the challenges that thwarted earlier conquests are not as relevant in the current conflict as they have been in the past. There are new, different challenges and there are some age-old difficulties.

The war in Afghanistan is not going well. Just Friday, the Times' Dexter Filkins reported that Karzai himself is said to doubt that the Americans can succeed and is reportedly working on brokering his own deal with the Taliban outside the auspices of NATO.Some of the age-old complexities include corruption, lack of infrastructure, both structural and economic. The confluence of rampant corruption and insufficient economic infrastructure manifests itself in the forms of crippling graft and enormous security exposure. Afghanistan is rife with corruption beginning with Karzai and his brothers and going throughout the government, security forces and contractors. Karzai is a tribal war lord and at least two of his six brothers (Mahmoud and Ahmed Wali) have been amassing huge wealth in this impoverished country during their brother's rule. Karzai was originally selected by tribal chieftains (Bonn 2001) and has been in power since. He was 'democratically' reelected in 2009 where he was unopposed in a runoff (opponent withdrew from the race)

The lack of commercial infrastructure is particularly evident in the transportation industry where there are not traditional means of distribution (I. E. Independent trucking, rail and other freight solutions) Much of the national distribution and shipping is handled by the Taliban. Therefore, Karzai depends on the Taliban in order to continue enriching himself and amassing power. So our ally is in bed with our enemy and our efforts to increase commerce for the benefit of the people are empowering our enemy. All of this is suboptimal, if victory is the desired outcome.

the United States involvement in Afghanistan was doomed yesterday, is doomed today and will be doomed tomorrow.

Listen to the people who should know I. E. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane or the Soviets.I agree and I disagree. If it was doomed from the start it is attributable to challenges not faced by those other empires you mention rather it is due to our leadership failing to bring about decisive victory within the constraints placed on it by our representative republic and the inherent unwillingness of a plurality of the American populace to see difficult tasks to completion.

If it is doomed today, it is due to a lack of leadership, moral clarity and creativity (to find a solution that fits with the above-mentioned dilemma) within the executive branch.

If it is doomed tomorrow, the blame lies with the American people because they have not demanded better candidates for elective office and they have not held our elected officials to a high enough standard.

Obama may have some goofy ideas about the role of government I. E. I'm from the government, I'm here to help.

However, Obama was supposed to be a clear thinker on other matters. What in the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? My dog rocky has enough sense to know we can either leave Afghanistan today or get our butts kicked out tomorrow.That adage about the govt coming to help always makes me laugh, although it is getting to the point where the little kernel of truth in it that makes it funny is becoming the totality of it and therefore makes it less funny. Unfortunately, the American people elected an unqualified inexperienced 'thinker' to hold the most important office. In this case, we have much less knowledge and experience in the man leading the war than any of the other empires you mentioned.

We will not be victorious unless we decide that victory is what we want and commit ourselves to that end via appropriate means.

Member #4112

06-16-10, 13:54

Obama's speech from the Oval Office last night was roundly denounced by both Democrats and Republicans – well with the exception of Harry Reid but for a guy who couldn't win dog catcher in his home state what has he got to lose at this point.

Instead of talking about how he will fix the Gulf problem the first 18 minutes of his speech was a prelude to his new pitch for Cap & Tax. Even the Democrats acknowledged it was the wrong speech at the wrong time. Obama doesn't have a clue about leadership – just how to campaign and it's not getting him anywhere with the public as his popularity hits new lows and Bush is given better marks for handling a crisis than Obama. Wow!

Obama touted how he will force BP to fund an account which will be administered by a "third party" to pay for the spill damage. Even his own legal experts (now I'm not counting Gibbs or Holder here) admit there is no basis in law for him to force BP to do what he proposes. From a PR standpoint BP may setup a separate fund to cover payment of damages but how and who administers it will not be up to Obama nor will BP need his approval to do so.

During his speech Obama was touting his new group of advisers – the head of which expertise is in super conductors – which the last time I checked didn't have a whole lot to do with oil production. Seems every time he gets a recommendation from folks in the field (like the Petroleum Engineers who studied the problem for him) he disregards or changes it – FYI the petroleum engineers who authored the report have officially protested how their recommendations were changed to suit Obama's agenda and have officially distanced themselves from the now basterdized report whose conclusion now is to shut down production in the Gulf.

Obama was talking about how he was making sure "whose as to kick" with all his meeting, well I got some oil patch friends down here who would be happy to accommodate him, they would start with Tony over at BP and finish with his.

Just trying to be helpful.

My 2 cents.

Doppelganger

Whiskas

06-16-10, 21:11

We will not be victorious unless we decide that victory is what we want and commit ourselves to that end via appropriate means.Now we are speaking! Problem is, how much financial, material and human resources will this war on terror will take, Is the US willing to pay the price? And if so for how long? I think Uncle Sam worst nightmare is not the Taliban but the budget and loss of popularity. A diplomatic or practical solution must be reached or american forces could find themselves in a quagmire like the one faced by the Spanish Empire in Flanders. Remember:

"There's three things needed to win a war: Money, money and more money."

-Napoleon

Schmoj

06-16-10, 21:39

Wild Walleye

06-17-10, 01:03

I doubt that victory was ever on the minds of the people who made the decision to start the war in Afghanistan (Bush and friends) Nor do I think it is the intention of the current administration (Obama and friends) Why? Because a prolonged, expensive war is very profitable for the "friends" mentioned above.The "military industrial complex" at it again. Look, politicians favor their benefactors but it is a bit of a stretch (at least for me) to believe that presidents of the US are prosecuting multiple wars, solely for the benefit of arms manufactures and their ilk.

Even if victory were possible, it probably would require such an extreme that it would not be palpatable to anyone (economically, morally, etc. Is palpatable a concept from Palpatine? It would require coming to grips with the fact that to get the result we want, we need to be willing to ruffle a few feathers. There are bad people out there. The best solution is to reduce the number of bad people.

Notice I said OUR leaders, not Obama nor Bush. I don't see that much difference between the two.You know Obama is toast when he loses guys like Schmoj.

how much financial, material and human resources will this war on terror will take, Is the US willing to pay the price?By pussyfooting around and trying to minimize collateral damage, we are necessitating a longer engagement. It doesn't take a lot of money when you get a couple of patriots that are willing to do what is necessary and a country that is willing to enable those folks to do what is necessary.

Schmoj

06-17-10, 01:31

The "military industrial complex" at it again. Look, politicians favor their benefactors but it is a bit of a stretch (at least for me) to believe that presidents of the US are prosecuting multiple wars, solely for the benefit of arms manufactures and their ilk.Explain why we are still there then? Are the US military leaders THAT incompetent?

Is palpatable a concept from Palpatine? It would require coming to grips with the fact that to get the result we want, we need to be willing to ruffle a few feathers. There are bad people out there. The best solution is to reduce the number of bad people. I'm not one of those that subscribes to the idea that the US is the World Police. Plus do you really reduce a situation like this to just good people and bad people. Seems a little simplistic, no?

You know Obama is toast when he loses guys like Schmoj.This is another one of your ASSumptions. I have never uttered one word of support for Obama. Just because someone disagrees with your Fox News talking points and Republican mantras doesn't mean they support Obama.

As I have said numerous times, as far as I am concerned Bush and Obama are the same thing.

By pussyfooting around and trying to minimize collateral damage, we are necessitating a longer engagement. It doesn't take a lot of money when you get a couple of patriots that are willing to do what is necessary and a country that is willing to enable those folks to do what is necessary.Not sure what you point here is. If that's all it takes, then why haven't they done that already?

Wild Walleye

06-17-10, 13:07

Explain why we are still there then? Are the US military leaders THAT incompetent?See prior post ". Leadership failing to bring about decisive victory within the constraints placed on it by our representative republic and the inherent unwillingness of a plurality of the American populace to see difficult tasks to completion."

Add to this that our legislative branch has, for sometime now (think late '60s) been expanding its powers into war management, annexing powers historically (and constitutionally) imbued into the Executive Branch. Through these powers, the legislature has done a great deal to reduce the effectiveness of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, prolonging our engagements and endangering our soldiers. Why have they done this? Personal greed, for the power more so than for fungible gain.

I'm not one of those that subscribes to the idea that the US is the World Police. Plus do you really reduce a situation like this to just good people and bad people. Seems a little simplistic, no?Why does the simplicity of the facts confuse you? I guess it is more interested when viewed through the prism of a conspiracy theory like the presidents are paying off their buddies by prosecuting and intentionally tanking two wars simultaneously.

This is another one of your ASSumptions. I have never uttered one word of support for Obama. Just because someone disagrees with your Fox News talking points and Republican mantras doesn't mean they support Obama.If you find my 'talking points' on Fox, it will be because they got them here rather than the other way around. I don't watch tv news or much tv for that matter.

As I have said numerous times, as far as I am concerned Bush and Obama are the same thing.That's like saying that a tranny and a masculine-looking chica are the same thing.

Not sure what you point here is. If that's all it takes, then why haven't they done that already?See prior post ". Leadership failing to bring about decisive victory within the constraints placed on it by our representative republic and the inherent unwillingness of a plurality of the American populace to see difficult tasks to completion."

The facts are that if we want to preserve our way of life, we have to be willing to stand up against threats, both foreign and domestic. We have to select leaders and legislators who combine integrity with true commitment to the Constitution and preserving our sovereignty and security. With that type of leadership, the defense of the American people and our way of life would be much less complicated.

It isn't too hard to figure out who are our greatest foreign threats are. They are armed hostiles seeking to kill friendlies. When you take up arms against the US, you should be dispatched. However, we complicate this process and handcuff the guys at the pointy end of the spear who are dealing with foreign threats. Other than a few drone attacks, we do not eliminate those known, foreign elements with the requisite prejudice. Either we take the fight to them or they will bring it to us. However, we can't beat the foreign threats unless the domestic ones can be kept at bay.

Domestically, we have a completely different game table and set of rules. Domestic threats dwarf those posed by violent, foreign extremists because they don't seek to destroy the US through massive collateral damage, rather they seek to destroy America from the inside out via systemic sabotage of our democratic and economic infrastructure with the ultimate goal of crippling our nation. Our greatest domestic threats have placed themselves above the law. Ironically, many of them make the bills that another of their ilk signs into laws. They are aided and abetted by a willingly complicit media.

The trail of destruction left by these threats is far too great to list here but a few 'highlights' are worth noting. There have been many significant, unauthorized exposure (leaks) of sensitive intelligence and homeland defense materials come out of members of congress and yet, when was the last time one of them was prosecuted for it? The cost of every aspect of your personal and professional life is artificially increasing via federal fiat. Businesses will not be able to function effectively due to overreaching regulation. The gulf oil spill is a perfect example of what I mean. Govt policies force oil companies to spend billions to go deep. One of them breaks and they are on the hook for more than $20B and the personal and environmental impact is enormous. If you let private enterprises invest $20B drilling onshore and near-shore, we'd go a long way towards reducing our dependence upon foreign oil (without spending any taxpayer money) with much less environmental risk. While everyone knows that high unemployment is killing our economy, the congress continues to pass legislation that increases the cost for companies to take on new employees while simultaneously extending benefits that act as incentives to keep those out of work from looking for work. Even worse is legislation that creates unknown, future liabilities which are difficult for companies to quantify and therefore force them to "stand still" lest they may unwittingly incur massive liabilities. An imperialist leader defies a plurality of the populace and forces trillions of dollars of unwanted government services on the people restricting their freedoms and pushing the country towards insolvency, threatening our currency, our economy and our national security.

All this without a whimper from the media.

These threats to our security and sovereignty are real. The battle ground is the public consciousness and the weapons are voting levers. For the first time in about 150 years, America is waking up to the threat. Let's hope the call to arms results in the selection of honest, intelligent patriotic leaders to replace as many of our domestic threats as possible, resigning them to the ash heap of history. This would be a ringing endorsement of American exceptionalism, a considerable step in correcting our national course and a fundamental improvement for our ability to prosecute a global offensive against the aforementioned foreign threats. After the chips fall, the media will try to tell us that it was a case of sleeping at the wheel as opposed to the insidious truth, something the public has already figured out.

Toymann

06-17-10, 18:41

Schmoj

06-17-10, 22:41

If he hasn't figured it out by now WW, HE NEVER WILL! Love your forthwith post brother. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

P. I do love you disecting these irritants on this thread. Keep up the good work!Geez Toymann, do you have a man crush on WW?

WW, I didn't really read all of your post. I don't really care enough to spend the time to read it in depth or respond, but I will say from what I did read, I think we would agree over a few beers, while we disagree in this particular venue.

I will say this, tranny or masculine woman, either way we are being raped and robbed. Well, actually you. I haven't lived in the US going on 6 years.

Anyway, hope you are enjoying the World Cup and the hotties of Buenos Aires.

Esten

06-19-10, 16:57

Obama's speech was good. He laid out what has happened, is happening and will happen, talked about MMS, and segued into an important reminder on the need for renewable energy. I was a little surprised on some of the poor reviews, but it appears much of that was expectations/hopes to hit a home run as in past speeches. But with the oil spewing and no near-term solution in sight, this is not an easy situation to hit a home run. Some of the criticism was trivial and pointless. My reaction to it was 'good speech' and a needed common sense check-in with the American people.

The 20 billion announcement was huge. I heard that number mentioned but thought it was high ball for negotiation purposes, but they got it. In an escrow account with independant oversight. Some Republicans said this was unconstitutional and claims should be addressed through the courts. Well we saw how quickly that process works with Exxon Valdez. What a joke! Obama did exactly the right thing in applying pressure and got an excellent result. Funds in the escrow account will get put to work far sooner than going through the courts. I was surprised BP even committed 100 million for unemployed oil workers (which I agree is not their responsibility). Obama made the case he was concerned about those workers and asked if BP could do something for them as a voluntary gesture. These steps from BP are in their own interest in terms of public relations value. Excellent outcome.

My favorite quote of the week, from Jimmy Kimmel:

"Rep. Joe Barton of Texas took it upon himself to apologize to BP CEO Tony Hayward for a political "shakedown." He later apologized for his apology and explained that he hadn't seen the news in two months, and didn't know that BP recently destroyed the ocean."

I am looking forward to seeing how well Costner's machines work.

Wild Walleye

06-20-10, 02:13

Obama's speech was good. My reaction to it was 'good speech' and a needed common sense check-in with the American people.Checking in with all the American people who have made 38+ loops in the last 18 months? America hates Obama. It is palpable. No one wants to hear him whine ("I can't suck it up with a straw") or preen ("so I can know whose ass to kick") His incompetence is extraordinary. Homer Simpson could do a better job.

The 20 billion announcement was huge. I heard that number mentioned but thought it was high ball for negotiation purposes, but they got it. In an escrow account with independant oversight. Some Republicans said this was unconstitutional and claims should be addressed through the courts. Well we saw how quickly that process works with Exxon Valdez. What a joke! Obama did exactly the right thing in applying pressure and got an excellent result. Funds in the escrow account will get put to work far sooner than going through the courts. I was surprised BP even committed 100 million for unemployed oil workers (which I agree is not their responsibility)Just like GM and Chrysler. Extra-constitutional. If Obama wants a fund, write a government check and seek recourse against BP through the appropriate avenues. There was no way BP could say "no" to the $20B or the $100mm "voluntary" donation.

The reason why those oil workers aren't getting paid is that Obama, who knows absolutely nothing about drilling for oil and has ignored all of the advice his oil experts have given him, is playing to his agenda. Their idle status has nothing to do with BP or this spill, other than it gave Obama an excuse to attack our carbon fuel industry. Remember, he wants gas to be $7-8/ gallon so that alternatives will be more viable. By the way, the guy "focused like a laser on jobs" is sending those US oil rig jobs to Brazil. Even though Obama idled them, since his extortion plot is getting them paid, he will count them towards his impressive tally of jobs that he "saved or created." In fact, since they are getting paid by a new source but haven't actually left the old employer, he counts them twice as the positions were both "saved" and "created."

Obama made the case he was concerned about those workers and asked if BP could do something for them as a voluntary gesture.Once again, nothing voluntary here. Obama has never made a case for anything other than voting for someone who is 'historic' (based only on the color of his skin which is an anathema to everything for which Dr. King stood) in spite of the fact that he had absolutely no experience. As Joe Biden stated (I paraphrase) he will be tested and we will be slow to respond but stick with us.

These steps from BP are in their own interest in terms of public relations value. Excellent outcome. Public relations has nothing to do with it. You're a measly $100B company going up against the US Govt in no-rules ultimate fighting. You have no choice but to comply. Obama has already shown us what he can do with GM and Chrysler.

I am looking forward to seeing how well Costner's machines work.Do you have any interest in how well Bobby Jindal's barges are working? The ones Obama's storm troopers halted? Or are you only interested in things dreamed up by denizens of the left?

Rev BS

06-20-10, 03:27

Wild Walleye,

Where were you when Joe Barton needed you?

Jackson

06-20-10, 14:28

Obama's speech was good. He laid out what has happened, is happening and will happen, talked about MMS, and segued into an important reminder on the need for renewable energy. I was a little surprised on some of the poor reviews, but it appears much of that was expectations / hopes to hit a home run as in past speeches. But with the oil spewing and no near-term solution in sight, this is not an easy situation to hit a home run. Some of the criticism was trivial and pointless. My reaction to it was 'good speech' and a needed common sense check-in with the American people.Esten,

68% of the country didn't even watch the President's first Oval Office address to the Nation. I think your boy is losing his mojo.

Anyway, what struck me most about the speach, and you'd think that I'd be used to this president's bald-face whoppers, was this:

"After all, oil is a finite resource," he said. The United States consumed more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but had less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, "and that's part of the reason why oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean. Because we are running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water."

Really? Mr. President, you need to call your own Minerals Management Service and get a second opinion.

We have abundant supplies of oil in this country, but they have all been put off limits by Democrats who are intent on forcing us to adhere to a flawed environmental premise.

We have plenty of oil! Potentially 85 billion barrels of oil offshore alone.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

06-20-10, 21:13

What Barton had to say about a "shakedown" was dead on, but if you really wish to see what is wrong in Washington / political hacks (Demacratic and Republican) Barton tucks his tail between his legs and renigs as soon as he finds out he will lose his place on the commission if he does not recant! No spine, no convictions, nada - just go with the flow.

It was a shakedown, pure and simple. But the oil is still flowing and Obama is still blowing smoke and the American people are not buying it anymore. November is not that far off and I hope those elected will stand for something other than getting re-elected. If that happens Esten you boy Obama will become an instant lame duck, the purse strings will be cut to fund his "healthcare" package and I hope it will be a long two years for him as he completes his ONLY term in office.

Canitasguy

06-20-10, 22:10

Mr. President, you need to call your own Minerals Management Service and get a second opinion. We have abundant supplies of oil in this country.Jackson's knowledge of drilling chicas may be legendary, but is more likely as exaggerated as his knowledge of untapped US energy resources.

Jackson considers MMA a credible source of data maybe because he sees nothing wrong about the Republican-appointed staff, many of whom were given protected "civil service" status during the Bush years, used to actually snort blow and fuck (literally) with oil industry representatives. That is fact! I admit Obama should have closed the place down the day after he took office.

No matter, as this blog has been turned into a closed circle jerk for J-man and his fellow Luddites to attack libruls and that darky in the White House.

Esten's cool and calm attempt to bring a little light into the dark murk of WW and other scribblers is futile.

As Barney Frank - my hero - once said: "It's like debating a dining room table."

Wild Walleye

06-20-10, 22:24

Wild Walleye,

Where were you when Joe Barton needed you?At Newport trying to hone my skills.

Wild Walleye

06-20-10, 22:32

If fiscal conservatism is both good policy (which we already know) and good politics (not to mention the enormous boost that the novice is giving every republican candidate)

Point of clarification, I am a republican not a Republican. The latter is a political affiliation while the former is an advocate of the republic, which I might point out is founded upon the Constitution (of course that includes the Bill of Rights) and related founding documents.

Rev BS

06-21-10, 00:13

At Newport trying to hone my skillsWith the soccer matches on, and the South Americans winning, you and Newport must be really humming.

Wild Walleye

06-21-10, 14:19

With the soccer matches on, and the South Americans winning, you and Newport must be really humming.I was at Catto's (my first ever visit there) years ago and Argentina was playing (I think against Paraguay in the Copa) The chicas wouldn't engage in discussions until halftime.

Wild Walleye

06-21-10, 14:27

Stan Da Man

06-21-10, 19:05

Just a quick FYI on who pays taxes in the US:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/68094

The table at the bottom tells you all you need to know. I believe this means that approximately 5.41% of US workers pay 68.9% of US taxes.Huh? Not sure about your numbers, at least if they're derived from that article. According to the table in the article you linked, the top 20% pay 68.9% of taxes. But, I believe those numbers are understated. And, the article tries to make the point that the "middle class" pays over half of taxes. They define middle class as those who make between $34,000 and $141,000 in annual income. I submit that this is a questionable proposition, at best.

A far more detailed analysis can be found here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The data in the first table here shows that in 2007 the top 1% pays just over 40% of all income taxes, and the top 5% accounts for over 60% of all income taxes. The problem with the data on the table you linked, and the discussion as well, is that the authors divided the quintiles into five "roughly equal" portions, but there's no indication of how "rough" the inequality was. That might explain, for example, several divergences:

Your article shows that the top 1% pay 28.1% of all taxes. Everything else I've seen (including on the link above) shows a much larger percentage of over 40% for this same top 1%.

The dollar cut-offs for income levels also is quite different. The link above shows that top 1% means AGI of $410,000 per year, and top 5% means AGI of $160,000 per year. The article you linked as the top 1% cutoff at $352,000. One possible source of discrepancy is that the discussion linked above uses AGI, while the article you linked doesn't indicate what it's measuring other than "income," so it may just be looking at W-2 income.

Here's the point: If the stuff linked above is accurate, then there's no way the "middle class" is paying over 50% of all taxes, at least not by the definition of that article. That's because the top 5% (over $160,000 AGI) is already paying over 60% of taxes. I've also seen the above numbers reported in a number of publications, including the WSJ and USA Today. That doesn't make them accurate. It may just mean that others have made the same mistake as I have, assuming it is a mistake.

Finally, if the point is that all this talk about "tax fairness" is a bunch of rubbish, well, then point well taken. All studies show that high income earners pay a far disproportionate measure of taxes under any measure, including: (a) proportion they earn compared to proportion of taxes paid (28% vs. Over 60%); or (be) proportion they pay historically, which has risen for the last 30 years. All of this puts the lie to all the Obama "tax fairness" bullsh*t, and all of the class warfare the left constantly attempts to foment.

Wild Walleye

06-21-10, 20:18

Sorry Stan:

Sorry for the sloppiness caused by my haste. I made a couple mistakes in my quick post. First, I should have mentioned that you should skip the article, it is bullsh*t and it intentionally skews the statistics to support its point of view. Second, 5.84% of US income earners pay 49.5% of total tax revenue. Since there are 116.9mm workers, that means that 2.02% of the population pays 49.5% of the total federal tax receipts. That means that 97.8% of the US population pays 50.5% taxes. 26.66% of income earners (10.05% of the population) pay the 68.9% of fed tax receipts, attributed to the top quintile.

The article gleefully highlights that an arbitrarily formed subset of Americans (created by grouping people from four of the five quintiles (very questionable quintiles) together) to comprise its middle class pay 50.5% of federal tax revenue, while ignoring who pays the other 49.5% and that 68% of the tax income comes from the 5th quintile alone and 85.4% comes from the top two quintiles. Therefore the bottom three quintiles combined pay 14.6%.

Further, according to this article, the middle class includes 72.5% of all US income earners; 92.8% of all US tax payers and strikingly 78.5% of the population included in the 5th quintile.

This is sheer lunacy and absolute junk statistic cherry picking.

Huh? Not sure about your numbers, at least if they're derived from that article. According to the table in the article you linked, the top 20% pay 68.9% of taxes.

One might be led to believe that. However, when it comes to distorting the US income distribution and who pays taxes, that assumption is incorrect. The 'quintiles' refer to five separate, arbitrary income brackets.

"The CBO divided the 116.9 million American households of 2007 into five roughly equal parts (quintiles) graded by income. The income range for the lowest quintile was $0 to $20,500; the second quintile, $20,500 to $34,300; the third quintile, $34,300 to $50,000; the fourth quintile, $50,000 to $74,700; and the fifth quintile, $74,700 and above."

But, I believe those numbers are understated. And, the article tries to make the point that the "middle class" pays over half of taxes. They define middle class as those who make between $34,000 and $141,000 in annual income. I submit that this is a questionable proposition, at best. You are absolutely correct (questionable practices) another set of frequently used quintiles is: ($0-$25k; $25k-$50k, $50k-$75k; $75k-$100k; and $100k and above) into which income earners are divided. Interesting that in the CBO numbers, the income ranges are not the same size, nor are they divided by equal populations. What methodology is given for how the quintiles were determined? I would bet that the former set selected because it can be better manipulated to support of the Agenda in Chief.

A far more detailed analysis can be found here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.htmlYes, much better source.

Finally, if the point is that all this talk about "tax fairness" is a bunch of rubbish, well, then point well taken. All studies show that high income earners pay a far disproportionate measure of taxes under any measure, including: (a) proportion they earn compared to proportion of taxes paid (28% vs. Over 60%); or (be) proportion they pay historically, which has risen for the last 30 years. All of this puts the lie to all the Obama "tax fairness" bullsh*t, and all of the class warfare the left constantly attempts to foment.Thanks for make excellent points in the wake of my woefully under articulated post.

Stan Da Man

06-21-10, 23:40

We're on the same page. Their use of quintiles and "income," with no indication of what they mean by that, is what throws everything off. I think you're right about the prefatory paragraph. And, I think the authors were really trying to make the point that it's not the upper income brackets that pay most of the taxes. Instead, they claim that it's the "middle class," but they can only get there with ill-defined quintiles. I agree with your main point. I just think your point is much stronger point than the author of that article depicts.

I hope to be down there some day when you and Miami Bob are around. We'd have some good conversations, even if we don't agree on everything. As matters stand, I've been mostly in Brazil lately -- not a bad consolation prize, but I do miss Buenos Aires a bit.

Enjoy reading your posts.

Esten

06-22-10, 22:56

68% of the country didn't even watch the President's first Oval Office address to the Nation. I think your boy is losing his mojo.

Anyway, what struck me most about the speach, and you'd think that I'd be used to this president's bald-face whoppers, was this:

"After all, oil is a finite resource," he said. The United States consumed more than 20 percent of the world's oil, but had less than 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, "and that's part of the reason why oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean. Because we are running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water."

Really? Mr. President, you need to call your own Minerals Management Service and get a second opinion.

We have abundant supplies of oil in this country, but they have all been put off limits by Democrats who are intent on forcing us to adhere to a flawed environmental premise.

We have plenty of oil! Potentially 85 billion barrels of oil offshore alone.Obama's not my 'boy', thanks.

As far as running out of places to drill, that's just what the oil companies themselves were saying today. They argued against the drilling moratorium because the world needs the oil that comes from deepwater drilling. There is wide agreement here.

Like many, I'm not convinced about global warming. But this shouldn't be considered the main point behind getting away from carbon. The main point is irrefutable: oil is a finite resource.

The GOP lacks the vision and sense of urgency to make serious inroads into renewable energy. They give lip service to it, but they are wedded to big oil. They say "let the free market take care of it" but that philosophy is hugely irresponsible with a finite resource like oil.

A US energy policy that does not put a major emphasis on getting out of oil into renewable is short-sighted, irresponsible and even dangerous IMO. In addition there is a huge opportunity for the US to become a leader and major economic player in renewable energy. Frankly this is a no-brainer. It shouldn't even be a political debate. We should see some significant developments on this in the next few years with Obama in office, unless the right puts up roadblocks for their political advantage.

El Queso

06-23-10, 00:42

As far as running out of places to drill, that's just what the oil companies themselves were saying today. They argued against the drilling moratorium because the world needs the oil that comes from deepwater drilling. There is wide agreement here.

Like many, I'm not convinced about global warming. But this shouldn't be considered the main point behind getting away from carbon. The main point is irrefutable: oil is a finite resource.That's actually most likely not true. I learned about this around three years ago by a Chevron petroleum engineer. For some reason, this news doesn't propogate. Oil company conspiracy (as some believe) or conspiracy of those who news like this would at least half destroy their whole green movement (the other half to be destroyed when enough people finally accept the fact that man-made global warming is horseshit)

BTW, as an aside, I used to work in the oilfield. Actually, I worked for the company, R & B Falcon, that built the Deepwater Horizon and its sister drillship the Deepwater Frontier in the late 90s. I visited both of those rigs shortly after they were built while they were in the shipyard getting additional work done. I have since worked in the oilfield in various capacities as a consultant - software, true, but much of my work has had to do with petroleum engineering situations.

I was talking with my engineer liason at Chevron one day, asking him what he thought we were going to do one day when we actually run out of oil. He chuckled and told me that was probably not going to happen. He told me (and my memory agrees) that we have been told ever since the early 70s by "green" organizations that we were only X years away from the point where we are producing less than the previous year because the world's reserves are dwindling.

Funny how that has never happened (much like global warming destroying everything - or was that global freezing - or was that the ozone layer falling apart? In fact, it's funny how oil reserves in many places seem to REPLENISH THEMSELVES! Hmmm. Could that be? Has El Queso gone off the deep end yet again (like he has, according to others, as relates to AIDs and global warming)

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

I don't really know anything about that particular website (just did a quick search) but they have a bunch of links and information related to the theory of the abiotic generation of oil, which is pretty much against anything most of the world believes. Now, most people think that the dinosaurs and the plantlife that was around at that time actually are the basis of the creation of oil "reserves" and therefore is a finite resource. We all know there is only so much biotic mass, after all, in those times some 150 million to 65 million years ago.

Like humans tend to do, they get one paradigm that seems to explain a lot, ignore the inconsistancies because they're inconvenient and don't relate to the HERE and NOW, until someone points out that reality doesn't behave like whatever theory we are talking about would have us believe.

Like the fact that oil reservoirs magically seem to replenish themselves after they have been pumped dry. Like the fact that the "science" that supports global warming has never been duplicated and doesn't actually follow what they measure in the real world. Etc.

So, if oil was a renewable resource, what else do we have to talk about to keep us from using the only known substance that gives us our transportation, power and fabrication abilities at a low cost, while NO OTHER ENERGY SOURCE we have experimented with can yet do so at anywhere near the cost?

Well, of course, global warming. Which is a load of hooey.

It should not be the reason to completely destroy the world economy because it would be the only way to assuage the consciences of those who think we are no better than animals, and are an evil that is destroying the world. In other words, the market cannot support "green" industry (as has been shown time and again) and the only way to get it going is to spend billions of dollars that no one has.

The GOP lacks the vision and sense of urgency to make serious inroads into renewable energy. They give lip service to it, but they are wedded to big oil. They say "let the free market take care of it" but that philosophy is hugely irresponsible with a finite resource like oil."Horse hockey", as the famous character Colonel Potter used to exclaim.

If oil isn't such a finite resource, then it's the liberals with their hand-wringing "we have to save the world" and "give everyone the money of the rich so no one has to work" philosophy (because "it's just not fair") that is destroying things.

The GOP is portrayed as evil, malignant and in bed with Big Oil.

Ever heard of George Soros? He's in bed pretty heavily with the Obama administration and he just invested nearly a billion dollars in Petrobras, the Basilian government-run oil company. Petrobras, who just happened to receive a nice guarantee of 2 billion dollars from the US government (Barack Obama's administration, not GW's) about the same time the same administration tried to shut down all deepwater drilling (500 feet or more - what a crock - deepwater isn't "deep" until you get over a couple of thousand feet) in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening to severly curtail US domestic drilling but for some reason happy to invest in Petrobras and have them continue to drill.

Yeah, those evil GOP guys. So in bed with Big Oil. Big Oil is just so evil.

A US energy policy that does not put a major emphasis on getting out of oil into renewable is short-sighted, irresponsible and even dangerous IMO. In addition there is a huge opportunity for the US to become a leader and major economic player in renewable energy. Frankly this is a no-brainer. It shouldn't even be a political debate. We should see some significant developments on this in the next few years with Obama in office, unless the right puts up roadblocks for their political advantage.If you want the US to be a leader in the future, try getting us into space. The Chinese are doing it, the Japanese are doing it, the Indians for christ's sake are doing it. We are sitting back and asking for rides now from Russia.

What is short-sighted is everyone thinking that the only way to advance is to "take care of all of our troubles here before we try to expand", for example. You want plentiful energy? Try power satellites that can actually collect as much or more sunlight and transmit them down to Earth in concentrated beams that would actually make solar collectors function at the level of a coal-burning electrical plant.

Give me a break - all of the politicians, but PARTICULARLY the "liberals" and "progressives", aren't able to think about that because they are so wrapped up in their own lies (people like Al Gore, for example) that they can't do what's really going to make a difference.

Had Obama spent 800 billion dollars on providing grants and incentives to develop a cheap space access sytem (as an example) we would be on the way to being the leaders of the freaking SOLAR SYSTEM, much less the world. Instead, he spent it on a bunch of crap that kept states and government agencies functioning when they couldn't afford to because they are inefficient and over-blown and the fact that that is not creating JOBS, but rather saving BUREAUCRACY is lied about by the wonderful Obama team.

Rev BS

06-23-10, 01:46

Maybe this is BS, but I would like to say it anyway.

We all like to live well, and everyone's standard of living well is quite diverse. From a personal perspective, I know that I need less of most basic consumer products as I get older. But still, I buy more than I really need in terms of food, clothes, gadgets, travel, etc. So why? One big reason is that we live in a consumer society, we are told that we need X products to be happier / successful via mass media. Remember, when you went to the supermarket for toilet paper and came back with 5 other products. The malls are packed to a frenzy most weekends not only in Europe and the US, but everywhere in the world. And now, if we stop buying, the world will come to an end.

Thanks for letting me rant. Don't take it too seriously, we are never going to run out of anything, even money.

Wild Walleye

06-23-10, 13:41

As far as running out of places to drill, that's just what the oil companies themselves were saying today. They argued against the drilling moratorium because the world needs the oil that comes from deepwater drilling. There is wide agreement here.Well then it is settled science. The world is running out of oil.

The fact that oil companies are running out of places to drill is because the US govt. Has put some of the world's largest reserves off limits to drilling. If we had access to our own onshore oil and gas reserves, we could eliminate our dependency on Arabian oil.

The main point is irrefutable: 'oil is a finite resource.'So is water.

The GOP lacks the vision and sense of urgency to make serious inroads into renewable energy. They give lip service to it, but they are wedded to big oil. They say "let the free market take care of it" but that philosophy is hugely irresponsible with a finite resource like oil.

A US energy policy that does not put a major emphasis on getting out of oil into renewable is short-sighted, irresponsible and even dangerous IMO. In addition there is a huge opportunity for the US to become a leader and major economic player in renewable energy. Frankly this is a no-brainer. It shouldn't even be a political debate. We should see some significant developments on this in the next few years with Obama in office, unless the right puts up roadblocks for their political advantage.Your opinion is based on an ill-formed premise. We are not running out of oil and we should not misappropriate billions of taxpayer dollars for nonviable technologies or solutions. When a viable solution comes around, the money will follow. Our "renewable energy policy" is to artificially restrict the availability of America's natural resources and deliberately drive the price of carbon fuels up via taxes and restrictive policies in order to make the price of renewables appear to reasonable.

Wild Walleye

06-23-10, 13:42

Why then is FIFA fixing matches to eliminate the US team from moving into the round of 16?

Wild Walleye

06-23-10, 16:49

The tar baby is Washington politics. Unfortunately, the general provides the perfect foil for the administrations attempt to create a distraction, designed to draw America's attention away from both his agenda and the colossal failure of his administration. There is not a single, objectionable quote directly attributed to the general in the RS article. It just happened to be a good opportunity for the administration to throw out this decoy.

They needed to create a scenario, the outcome of which they can completely control, whereby the President can show that he is in control, has great power and attempt to exhibit some leadership qualities. At the same time, they want people worried about the war in Afghanistan and not focused on his domestic agenda (health care debacle, possible executive order granting amnesty to more than 18 million illegals, nationalizing private assets and socializing the nation) and his nominee to the Supreme Court.

They know that the country is currently focused on his many weaknesses (incompetence, devout Marxism, inexperience, and lack of any leadership qualities) failures (ignoring the Constitution, not listening to the American public, breaking the law (Sestak, etc) silencing the EPA report that says the climate will COOL through 2030, etc.) And ongoing catastrophes (allowing the oil spill disaster to be much worse than need be (for the benefit of his personal agenda an to detriment of the entire nation) and his ongoing dismantling of the Constitution).

The general did the right thing, separate from the tar baby.

Damman

06-23-10, 22:31

It is over with. We are doomed. Did someone make this story up?

More than 1,200 prison inmates, including 241 serving life sentences, defrauded the government of $9.1 million in tax credits reserved for first-time homebuyers, according to a Treasury Department report released Wednesday.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-30-million-stolen-from-cnnm-2424087185.html?x=0

Exon123

06-24-10, 00:01

It is over with. We are doomed. Did someone make this story up?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-30-million-stolen-from-cnnm-2424087185.html?x=0The Dirty MotherFucking SockSuckers.

Exon

Esten

06-24-10, 01:32

Looking at one part of the whole can lead to misleading conclusions.

On taxes, big numbers are cited to demonstrate how much taxes the rich are paying. Yes, the rich pay a very large amount and percentage of US taxes. But they also receive a very large amount and percentage of US income. What matters is the net effect. Some math for fun:

50000 income X (0.25 tax rate) = 12500 (37500 after-tax)
1000000 income X (0.35 tax rate) = 350000 (650000 after-tax)

Even if we say that's fair because both earned their income, let's look at what happens when income increases. Assume a 10% increase over a couple years from salary and investments - the latter playing a much larger role for the rich guy.

0.10(50000) = 5000 X (0.25 tax rate) = 1250 (3750 increase after-tax)
0.10(1000000) = 100000 X (0.35 tax rate) = 35000 (65000 increase after- tax)

Any way you look at it, wealth keeps funneling up to the wealthiest. Dems would be happy to leave the rich alone if there wasn't such tremendous wealth inequality with millions living in poverty. This is about making things a little fairer, not creating conditions so that people don't have to work (another false claim from the right).

On oil, big numbers are cited to demonstrate how much oil we have. Yes, we have billions of barrels. But we consume billions of barrels. What matters is the net difference. I've seen a couple estimates that the world has hundreds of years of oil left, but most estimates are less than 100 years. Let's say we have 100 years left. I hope it isn't true, but what if it is. Then what? And what if we find 10 years from now we only have 10 years left? There is no reason we shouldn't start getting aggressive on renewable energy today, and plenty of reasons we should.

BTW Walleye, I wouldn't trust that cnsnews website. It's a right wing propaganda website with a sly name meant to trick people into thinking it's another well-known established news source.

Wild Walleye

06-24-10, 11:22

BTW Walleye, I wouldn't trust that cnsnews website. It's a right wing propaganda website with a sly name meant to trick people into thinking it's another well-known established news source.Agreed that it is not trust worthy. See my second post on the subject. However, the POV of that article is anything but right (politically or in terms of correctness)

Stan Da Man

06-24-10, 14:52

Looking at one part of the whole can lead to misleading conclusions.

On taxes, big numbers are cited to demonstrate how much taxes the rich are paying. Yes, the rich pay a very large amount and percentage of US taxes. But they also receive a very large amount and percentage of US income. What matters is the net effect. Some math for fun:

50000 income X (0.25 tax rate) = 12500 (37500 after-tax)

1000000 income X (0.35 tax rate) = 350000 (650000 after-tax)

Even if we say that's fair because both earned their income, let's look at what happens when income increases. Assume a 10% increase over a couple years from salary and investments - the latter playing a much larger role for the rich guy.

0.10(50000) = 5000 X (0.25 tax rate) = 1250 (3750 increase after-tax)

0.10(1000000) = 100000 X (0.35 tax rate) = 35000 (65000 increase after- tax)

Any way you look at it, wealth keeps funneling up to the wealthiest. Dems would be happy to leave the rich alone if there wasn't such tremendous wealth inequality with millions living in poverty. This is about making things a little fairer, not creating conditions so that people don't have to work (another false claim from the right) Phew! Do you really believe this stuff?

That post says more about you than anything else you've posted here. It's hard for me to fathom that people actually fall for this drivel, but there's the proof in all it's splendor. I would respond substantively, but I can see now that it wouldn't do any good. Wow. Just, wow.

El Queso

06-24-10, 15:42

And it cracks me up how liberals can talk about "all the millions of poor" in our country, the majority of which live as good or BETTER lives than Buenos Aire's middle class.

I still KNOW that in the US poor people have the hope of making a better life for themselves, much better than many nations on Earth, and particularly a better chance than in countries like Argentina (and just about any other third-world [or supposedly "developing"] country)

However, as socialist "beat up on the rich" policies continue to grab hold of the US under progressives in the States, it will equalize things, alright, much like has been done in these third world countries. It will equalize downward and the people in POWER will become the rich, and they will maintain their riches much easier than the current rich who are rich because of their own hard work (or the hard work of their ancestors, sure, in some cases)

There ain't no such thing as guaranteed equality and anyone who tries to convince anyone that there is is either a dupe of those who would have you believe that, or are those very persons who would absolutely love to determine who is more equal than others instead of letting markets and personal drive and responsibility determine that.

El Queso

06-24-10, 16:01

On oil, big numbers are cited to demonstrate how much oil we have. Yes, we have billions of barrels. But we consume billions of barrels. What matters is the net difference. I've seen a couple estimates that the world has hundreds of years of oil left, but most estimates are less than 100 years. Let's say we have 100 years left. I hope it isn't true, but what if it is. Then what? And what if we find 10 years from now we only have 10 years left? There is no reason we shouldn't start getting aggressive on renewable energy today, and plenty of reasons we should.Like many on the left, you want to keep ignoring facts that arise to demonstrate that the premise under which you and people who share your opinions on how the world works are untenable or downright false.

How do you explain that some oil reservoirs seem to refill themselves? How do you explain that we have never reached the point where we are producing less oil than in previous years as has been warned for decades by the "green" left? How do you explain that oil is being found deeper than biotic processes can possibly account for - more than twice as deep, actually?

The poor today live nearly like kings of 300-400 years ago. In the US at least. In the rest of the world (at least in undeveloped nations, I should say) they live like they always have - peasants with dirt floors, outhouses and wells for water. Sometimes without electricity and communications.

We're not running out of oil.

We're not affecting global climate with our relatively small emissions, compared to the much greater emissions the Earth itself puts out, in fact.

In fact, can you blame humanity for the large store of methane that exists in huge bubbles under the ocean floor and could be stirred up (with an earthquake, for example) and kill millions of people in one fell swoop?

You keep arguing the liberal, progressive talk points and such, but you never really seem to take into account the actual facts that show many of these stances to be false and untenable. I think if you stopped and did some research on your own on some of these issues, you would have a change of heart - you're obviously a pretty smart guy.

If we were not running out of oil, not affecting the global climate with our emissions, and the poor are getting richer (as has happened in the US since its inception) the liberals would have nothing to ***** about and use to try to gain power.

They would have no leverage with which to try to convince the masses of people that the world is about to end and only their stewardship can set things "aright."

I argued at one point with Wild Walleye about a year ago that Obama and his ilk were not evil and trying to bring down the US per se - they were just fighting for their beliefs, which were wrong, but that didn't make them bad people themselves.

Well, I was completely wrong.

They are lying, cheating and doing anything they can to ensure that their viewpoint prevails. At least the right is using tactics that exist within the law, but those on the left are twisting procedures and doing all mannaer of backroom deals to ensure that they get what THEY want, not what the people of the US want as a whole. It is an attempt at tyranny of the few over the masses.

It's the only way that in the US, once a proud nation that stood on the independence of its people and its workers, a minority of people can so twist things to convince others that the only way we can all get ahead is to let Big Brother control everything and decide what is fair and what is not, who deserves to have money and who does not.

Wild Walleye

06-24-10, 23:54

Because liberals are so much smarter than us knuckle-dragging neanderthals, I have paid homage (liberals, go to dictionary.com to figure out what this big word means) to liberalism in the following ways:

- Make sure that the leather in my shoes comes from orphan, terminally-ill cows.

- Only use mercury-laden compact florescent bulbs in my house.

- Everyday, I pack my kid's lunch in disposable styrofoam.

- I removed the catalytic converter from my gas guzzling, CO-spewing SUV,

- Intentionally under-inflated my tires by 15%

- mix a quart of oil into my gas tank with every other fill up.

- Bring plastic, disposable bags to the grocery store (in the commie town that banned plastic and makes me use toilet-paper thin paper bags) and throw them away after every use.

- Had my vas deferens surgically rerouted to shoot out my ass so as to avoid depositing my DNA on intern's dresses or masseuses pants (guess old save-the-earth Al likes the maduritas)

And lastly, I had my sense of humor surgically removed.

Esten

06-25-10, 00:30

One thing I've noticed repeatedly, is that folks on the right often seem to think they have some special appreciation of the truth, that is not evident in mainstream news/thinking. And when someone repeats an idea/position that has appeared many times in the media, that person is accused of blindly believing what they read and not understanding the real truth. Especially when the idea/position is simple and straightforward.

Sometimes this is true, but sometimes it isn't. Conventional wisdom is not always wrong. Simple explanations are not always wrong. To believe that these are always or even usually wrong is something I can only characterize as pathological. A psychological defect. I am sure there must be a name for this, but I can't find it.

What's important is critical thinking. No matter where the ideas come from or how simple or complex they are.

Phew! Do you really believe this stuff? That post says more about you than anything else you've posted here. It's hard for me to fathom that people actually fall for this drivel, but there's the proof in all it's splendor. I would respond substantively, but I can see now that it wouldn't do any good. Wow. Just, wow.I have that same reaction to things I read here on a regular basis! I guess I have a vague hope to get more critical thinking and sound reasoning from the other side here, though I have learned to keep my expectations low.

Now Stan you have said intelligent things here before, so I stopped to consider why you had this reaction to my post. You can't argue with the tax brackets or math, so I'm guessing you consider my example simplistic as a basis for my views on wealth inequality. If so, fair enough but I should have clarified I used that example only as an example. I'll agree there are innumerable examples of how income and taxes favor one group over another, and arguments can be made on both sides.

However I stand by my example as a simple yet accurate and illustrative example of how wealth grows faster in higher income brackets.

You should look up the Gini Coefficient. Here's the wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

It's a statistical parameter often used as a measure of inequality of income or wealth. In the plot you'll see the US has one of the highest Gini indices (highest income disparity) of all countries, and you'll see the trend has been going even higher over the last three decades.

I'd like to hear your argument why this is acceptable and should be left alone.

Like many on the left, you want to keep ignoring facts that arise to demonstrate that the premise under which you and people who share your opinions on how the world works are untenable or downright false.

How do you explain that some oil reservoirs seem to refill themselves? How do you explain that we have never reached the point where we are producing less oil than in previous years as has been warned for decades by the "green" left? How do you explain that oil is being found deeper than biotic processes can possibly account for - more than twice as deep, actually?

The poor today live nearly like kings of 300-400 years ago. In the US at least. In the rest of the world (at least in undeveloped nations, I should say) they live like they always have - peasants with dirt floors, outhouses and wells for water. Sometimes without electricity and communications.

We're not running out of oil.First let me get this out of the way: your suggestion that space travel would be a better investment than renewable energy is quite possibly the most ludicrous and foolhardy statement I have read yet. It is so ludicrous I am considering making it my first entry on a right wing hall of fame list.

Now at the same time you've made a very good point about oil. I'll agree we don't know everything about oil reserves and generation. I really hope there is some mechanism by which the earth can continue to provide significant oil resources for millenia. I believe this is possible. So I'll accept some criticism of the claim that we are running out of oil, and re-phrase my position as follows: "We don't have conclusive evidence that we are NOT running out of oil." This being the case, I still stand by everything I said about the importance of expanding renewable energy. If you believe your various points constitute some 'fact' I am ignoring about not running out of oil, obviously I disagree. I'm not some alarmist claiming the sky is falling. I just believe strongly given the information we have (and don't have) that significantly expanding renewable energy is the prudent thing to do for the world's future.

As far as Obama et al. Being bad people. Good grief! LOL. I do not agree with 100% of their views and actions. For example, you may be surprised to know (from what I know of it) I actually support Arizona's recent actions on immigration. But I agree with much of what Obama is doing and find it far superior to what the GOP has to offer. Obama et al. are showing some backbone against special interests, something this country needs more of.

Wild Walleye

06-25-10, 12:02

Tiny12

06-25-10, 22:42

However I stand by my example as a simple yet accurate and illustrative example of how wealth grows faster in higher income brackets.

You should look up the Gini Coefficient. Here's the wikipedia page: en. Wikipedia. Org / wiki / Gini_coefficient.

It's a statistical parameter often used as a measure of inequality of income or wealth. In the plot you'll see the US has one of the highest Gini indices (highest income disparity) of all countries, and you'll see the trend has been going even higher over the last three decades.

I'd like to hear your argument why this is acceptable and should be left alone.Look at MEDIAN (not average) measures of household income or GDP adjusted for purchasing power. By median I mean the 50th percentile level. Half the population is wealthier than the median and half is poorer. No large country comes anywhere close to the United States. Weeding out tiny places like Luxembourg and the Emirates, only Switzerland and Norway are better off. Switzerland isn't exactly a socialist paradise, and Norway is sitting on large oil and gas wealth. And they're both small, homogeneous countries.

Redistributionist, European-style policies would make the majority of Americans worse off. What you're espousing is cutting off your nose to spite your face -- it's a recipe to make the majority poorer, not just the rich.

The reason? In redistributing income, you're disproportionately taking money from successful businesses, and from individuals who save and invest. And channeling it toward personal consumption. As a result, you're taking away money the private sector needs to grow, to create new jobs, and to pay higher wages. In certain instances, but not all, you're taking money away from the people who work the hardest and the smartest. And you will encourage some people on the receiving end to not work as hard, or not work at all.

Rev BS

06-26-10, 02:45

Look at MEDIAN (not average) measures of household income or GDP adjusted for purchasing power. By median I mean the 50th percentile level. Half the population is wealthier than the median and half is poorer. No large country comes anywhere close to the United States. Weeding out tiny places like Luxembourg and the Emirates, only Switzerland and Norway are better off. Switzerland isn't exactly a socialist paradise, and Norway is sitting on large oil and gas wealth. And they're both small, homogeneous countries.

Redistributionist, European-style policies would make the majority of Americans worse off. What you're espousing is cutting off your nose to spite your face -- it's a recipe to make the majority poorer, not just the rich.

The reason? In redistributing income, you're disproportionately taking money from successful businesses, and from individuals who save and invest. And channeling it toward personal consumption. As a result, you're taking away money the private sector needs to grow, to create new jobs, and to pay higher wages. In certain instances, but not all, you're taking money away from the people who work the hardest and the smartest. And you will encourage some people on the receiving end to not work as hard, or not work at all.Great analysis, you hit a home run. Thanks.

El Queso

06-28-10, 16:38

First let me get this out of the way: your suggestion that space travel would be a better investment than renewable energy is quite possibly the most ludicrous and foolhardy statement I have read yet. It is so ludicrous I am considering making it my first entry on a right wing hall of fame list.Esten, first of all, I'm not a "right winger." You can put my "suggestion" related to space flight wherever you like, and I can assure you I actually have some suggestions related to that. :)

I'm a Libertarian who thinks even the Republicans spend too much and interfere too much in our lives. I just happen to be clinging to Republicans at the moment because they are absolutely digging in their heels and trying to stop Obama from completely destroying us with his idiocies.

My God, even socialistic-bent Europe is digging in its heels and saying "you have to stop spending" while Obama is saying "No! Spend More!"

Second, I was never suggesting that the government actually get involved in space flight - as a Libertarian the very idea is abhorrent. I would like to see the free market get to the point where business itself is putting us into space. The government would almost certainly screw things up completely if they got involved in space flight (look at NASA and the cost of the space shuttle per flight, etc)

What I WAS suggesting is that the 800 billion that Obama had intended to spend on idiocies like keeping civil workers employed (which contributes the very smallest amount to bettering our economy in the SHORT term and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the long term - worst of all of the things he could have done except give the money away overseas) would have been far better spent on ways to access space cheaply.

Of course, few seem to see the dual danger that allowing China and India to get into space represents. Few people seem to realize how being there first allows one to completely control access to space - that's just one thing. Any idea how easy it is to stop something that is trying to leave the Earth's surface - ANYWHERE on the Earth's surface - from orbit if you don't want someone coming up? Also, you don't need nuclear weapons and the attendant radiation dangers to create an explosion the size of an atomic bomb - just drop a large kinetic rock and it will do the same thing without all the "dirt."

Imagine our enemies getting there first - you think they will be all light and honey like the US almost certainly would (in relation) if it was there first?

But what REALLY cracks me up about your obviously ignorant comment about space being such a flight of fantasy (my words, but paraphrasing generously yours) is that you talk about pumping billions into IDIOTIC things like "renewable energy" which we don't even KNOW HOW TO DO (or believe me, we would already have done) Again, as though the government should just "take care of these things" because the government obviously knows better how to do things than private enterprise.

Of course, you miss the point that we could put huge solar collectors into orbit and beam the power down via tight microwave beams, equaling the output of any coal-burning plant or even nuclear plant. In tests, it has even been shown that cattle can graze among the collectors without harmful effects - we're talking no pollution even! We already KNOW HOW to do that, it's just very expensive to get into space, which is why private industry hasn't done it yet - it's not profitable yet.

But if we could beam down massive amounts of energy, easily convertible into electricity, would that not go a long way towards solving issues related to energy and pollution? Is that not better than spending money on crap that we really have no idea how to do "renewable energy?"

Just because Obama and the left say that we need renewable energy, it doesn't mean that we can just snap our fingers and have it - as competitive as companies are, if someone had an inkling of how to do it, believe me they would!

Unless you are a conspiracy theorist that honestly thinks that big oil is keeping all of that down.

You also miss the fact that if we had cheap access to space we (as in the US and whoever actually had cheap access to space) could actually re-establish manufacturing bases that have been lost over the last 70 years or so to other countries. High tech manufacturing, not stuff that's left over from the Industrial Revolution. Of course, you have no idea the kinds of things we could manufacture in space that would be cheaper, stronger, more pure, etc, because of the ability to manufacture in microgravity.

Imagine the actual JOBS (non-government, of course) that would be created by new industries! All the way from janitors, to teachers, to tradesmen, to scientists.

Why would you know something about any of this? No politician certainly ever talks about this stuff - it's over their heads! That goes for both Republicans and Democrats. Obama doesn't think about any of these things because he's not capable of being, for example, another John Kennedy who DID have some real visions of the future for the US.

Now at the same time you've made a very good point about oil. I'll agree we don't know everything about oil reserves and generation. I really hope there is some mechanism by which the earth can continue to provide significant oil resources for millenia. I believe this is possible. So I'll accept some criticism of the claim that we are running out of oil, and re-phrase my position as follows: "We don't have conclusive evidence that we are NOT running out of oil." This being the case, I still stand by everything I said about the importance of expanding renewable energy. If you believe your various points constitute some 'fact' I am ignoring about not running out of oil, obviously I disagree. I'm not some alarmist claiming the sky is falling. I just believe strongly given the information we have (and don't have) that significantly expanding renewable energy is the prudent thing to do for the world's future.Conclusive evidence that we are NOT running out of oil comes from people who are actually proving that WE ARE NOT RUNNING OUT OF OIL.

The oppoite (the FEAR) comes in the form of the alarmists who have been screaming this since the 70s and has never come to pass. It comes in the form of science that has been ignored since the 50s that oil doesn't seem to be made from compressed biotic matter from 65-100 million years ago.

In fact, this nonsense about us running our of oil and not having enough resources of our own seems very similar to me as the deliberate bending and twisting of data to make "facts" that are completely wrong about global warming. One of the biggest of those being Mann et al, who Gore loves to use, completely falsifying their data to come up with the Hocket Stick Hoax and trying to convince the entire world that 1999 was the hottest year ever known in the history of the world. Completely ignoring the fact that the same data he skewed and other data he ingored shows that between 1050 AD and 1350 AD was MUCH hotter than 1999 and the temperatures ahve started to recede since.

So your answer, JUST TO BE SAFE, is to get government involved and force private industry to come up with something they don't know how to do to combat a problem that doesn't exist except in the minds of those who stand to gain from the billions of dollars of money that the government would pump into something like that. That also, those industries that they want to start up, would never be able to move forward without government interference driving up the cost of how much we pay for oil and such now.

Go look at research on Tokamak fusion reactors and the controversy about how the government spends its money on that. Understand that for the last 40 or more years the government has continued to pump a few billion dollars a year into such idiotic research even though NO progress has been made because the government can't make the right decision about such things - they don't have the damned skills and knowledge to know how to make that decision.

They ahve also pretty much ensured that NO OTHER methods get any real money because they "know" that anything other than Tokamak research is a waste of money.

The Navy contracted a private company (run by a famous physisct named Robert Foward) to look into sustained fusion reaction and pumped a few tens of millions of dollars into it and got a fusion reaction that can actually be sustained more than a few microseconds! And yet the US government still gives grants to those working on Tokamak reactors instead of other technology because scientists who have a stake in the matter (via grants and reputation) have managed to convince the scientifically ignorant who hold the purse strings that we are still "very close" to a breakthrough using Tokamak reactors.

And also - I'm sure that many of the people in Europe in the mid-1400s laughed their asses off at Columbus when he wanted to find a route to India. But in reality, as they found out, you never really know what you're going to find until you do it, but even in his case, just finding a trade route to India would have been worth quite a deal.

To think that his pushing to get across the ocean lead to the European diaspora to the new world, the industrial revolution and the information revolution - yeah, what a short-sighted thinker with his flights of fancy.

And BTW - something you never responded to related to getting the poor lifted as well - more poor came to the new world for hope for a better way of life and did so WITH THEIR OWN WORK, not by the government "creating jobs" for them. As I mentioned previously, the poor int he US now live better in ways than the kings of Columbus' time as a direct result fo THEIR hard work and opportunity.

As far as Obama et al. Being bad people. Good grief! LOL. I do not agree with 100% of their views and actions. For example, you may be surprised to know (from what I know of it) I actually support Arizona's recent actions on immigration. But I agree with much of what Obama is doing and find it far superior to what the GOP has to offer. Obama et al. Are showing some backbone against special interests, something this country needs more of.You think Obama's backroom politics and forcing the nation into spending and things the nation as a whole does not want is a good thing. That's where we differ. You could never agree that the GOPs desire to have a more open, free market (essentially doing nothing) could ever be good because you believe that the government is necessary to control things. Yes, I understand, and the fact that Obama wouldn't compromise the slightest bit on the health bill and rammed it down our throats whether the country as a whole wanted it nor not is why I think he's "bad people."

George Bush NEVER did anything like what Obama has done to get passed far-sweeping legislation that a majority of the country didn't like. I don't like the way Bush managed the country under his leadership, but his was a far better manner than Obama's. He always worked to get a coalition, a compromise, whatever. Obama had NO INTENTION of listening to anything the GOP had to say because he knew he didn't have to. He wants to be another FDR - thinking FDR actually did us some favors. He wants his name to be remembered through the ages, not to do what the country itself thinks is the right thing - which in many cases is nothing.

If you like Chicago thugs and the way they do business - well, yes. There is a huge difference between us and the way we look at the world, and it's that very difference that is going to lead to another Civil War in the future of the US if it keeps going this way.

Esten

06-29-10, 00:15

Jackson

06-29-10, 00:55

There are many right wing talking heads like Sarah Palin who love to get on TV and say "Americans don't want blah blah blah." like they are speaking for everyone. LMAO!And we all know that no Liberal / Democrat would EVER employ such a disingenuous interview strategy themselves.

Now I'm ROTFLMAO!

Esten

06-29-10, 01:17

And we all know that no Liberal / Democrat would EVER employ such a disingenuous interview strategy themselves.

Now I'm ROTFLMAO!I request an official count of how often each side does this!

Esten

06-30-10, 00:16

Jackson

06-30-10, 00:36

I request an official count of how often each side does this!How about this: I'll stipulate that each side does it all the fucking time.

Now, Esten, will you stop injecting pointless smoke screens in the middle of your arguments?

El Queso

06-30-10, 14:47

El Queso,

Obama doesn't advocate spending based on just his own ideas, guidance on economic policy comes from economic advisers and experts. And it's all in the context of what is best for the country at this point in time - being which the longest recession in decades. Detractors seem to conveniently omit these significant points in their attacks. And while spending less than half of the $787 billion stimulus, including significant tax breaks, there is a lot of good that has come out of this spending. That being said, the signals we are getting are that stimulus spending will wind down this year with more austerity kicking in next year. This all sounds reasonable to me. Of course the administration recognizes the need to switch gears as the recovery kicks in. I know he hasn't spent all the money yet - and if in fact the economy is turning around why not stop? Why do we have to spend it all?

Those who detract from his stimulus DO NOT think that it is needed, so it's not like we're omitting a "fact" but rather an opinion. The bailouts of the banking system - maybe. Many of us are not convinced of that, even. Many of us think that we keep bailing out troubled institutions and are just setting ourselves up for an even worse fall than so far.

And what, exactly, HAS the stimulus done? Nothing really. It certainly has created no jobs so far - the Obama administration was touting how it "created" some 400K jobs last month and then we find out that all but about 40K of those jobs were government jobs saved by the stimulus, and also the employment of people for the 2010 Census! And those jobs will be gone soon!

Was is just yesterday that Biden said we were never going to recoup some 7 million jobs that were lost udring the recession?

How exactly has anyone other than a government agency or union shop benefitted fromt hat stimulus?

And you mention these words above particularly:

"...the signals we are getting are that stimulus spending will wind down this year with more austerity kicking in next year. This all sounds reasonable to me. Of course the administration recognizes the need to switch gears as the recovery kicks in."

How can you say that when over the last few days the Democrats are talking about another stimulus bill, though smaller to be sure, and Obama himself told the leaders of nations who have notoriuosly overspent on social programs that we must keep the spending up, while they are telling him - enough, we have to cut budgets and stop spending so much?

I understand that Obama himself doesn't come up with many of the ideas he actually implements. I understand that his advisers are telling him AND Congress (the Democratic side) what they should do. The problem is, Keynsian economics doesn't work. The advisers are giving bad advice and Obama and the Democrats are extending the problem because of it.

To a point you are correct we can't just snap our fingers and have renewable energy, which is why we should invest in research. But there are technologies available now (eg. Wind turbines) that can and should be expanded (and this country is in the very early stages of doing so) No I don't think big oil is keeping this down, just a lack of vision in the past from our leaders.

I would think if we had conclusive evidence we are not running out of oil, this would be well-known. This must be the world's best kept secret! Until it's proven, yes we should act to expand renewable energy based on what we do know (proven technologies) and what we don't (research) History provides many examples of how complacency preceeded disaster. I am not familiar with the Tokamak research but I agree we need to apply due diligence in allocating our research dollars.Esten, we have been told by the "greens" for decades that we will reach the point where we developed less oil X year than last, or the "Peak Oil" crisis. In the 70s that peak was sometime in the 90s! It never came.

Every year we hear about all of these scary stories how the world is dying, how we are going to alternately freeze and boil. How the seas are going to rise and swallow all coastal communities and all the freshwater in the world in the form of glaciers and polar ice caps is going to melt into the ocean and we will all die of thirst. Our crops won't grow. We will be killed by the sun.

None of that has come true. Even the ice caps are re-freezing as of the last year or two, back on a cycle of moving towards a cooler clime than over the last few hundred years.

The FACT is that the "green" people, who have infested the Democrats, are pushing their agenda with a bunch of lies and half-truths.

You are advocating that we "do something" because of political pressure that stretches back almost 40 years from a group that has its own agenda and has never really had a clue, other than being right that we should steward the environment better than we have. And we have - things are SIGNIFICANTLY cleaner than they were 40 years ago - in the States. But look at places like Argentina. It ain't so down here.

Your suggestion that government must get involved because free market can't point us where we need to go is absurd. If there were a market for it, it would happen. If the oil companies really thought, for example, that we were about to run out of oil, I guarantee you they would be pumping huge sums of money into research on how else to provide energy to the country - maybe not all, but the smart ones.

The oil companies don't say we're running out of oil - the "greens" do who have their own agenda for getting rid of oil companies because many of the "greens" are also socilistic who believe it is "fair" to distribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

A free market is STRONGER and will PRODUCE MORE IDEAS than ANYTHING the government can do. List some fo the disasters you talked about and I can almost guarantee you that behind them is some attempt to mess in things, interfering with the free market.

The US has not ever really had a free market, with the exception of early in its inception, before government stuck its hand in things and started handing out monopolies for things like the railroads, for example.

The Tokamak research is a PRIME example of the government really should stay as far away from anything technical as possible because although lawmakers may know the law (and that is often disputable) they rarely have ANY IDEA what they are talking about when it comes to science and engineering, and economics.

You are demonstrating 2 important misconceptions:

1. The misconception or implication that Dems don't value individual effort and think the government should create most jobs. This is totally false. Both parties recognize the private sector as the main driver of growth and jobs. The difference is that Dems simply put a greater value on addressing injustices and inequalities in a system that creates tremendous wealth (and thereby the means to address such issues) We see the role of the government here because the private sector cannot or has failed to address these issues.

2. The misconception that Obama is pursuing an agenda that the country 'as a whole' doesn't want. The fact is the country is split into three groups: those who think we are going in the wrong direction, those who think we are going in the right direction but not far enough, and the rest in the middle who are generally in agreement. Don't be misled by those who try to lump the discontent in the first two groups together.

There are many right wing talking heads like Sarah Palin who love to get on TV and say "Americans don't want blah blah blah." like they are speaking for everyone. LMAO!1. The big difference is that the left thinks people are incapable of making the decisions as to what should be done, and therefore think they do and they should control it. The people on the right think that people are motivated by personal self-interest and that they will always find a way to succeed if they are just left alone.

The left thinks that you have to take care of every person who supposedly can't take care of themselves, and that it is the government's job to do so. They think that THAT is what makes poor people richer. The right sees that everyone should work their asses off to get ahead and that a person makes opportunities for themselves.

Again, as I've stated a few times now, but you have ignored, what other system has ever raised so many people out of poverty int he history of the world? What country's poor live better than kings of the past in many ways and certainly live like middle class in other countries (Argentina being one of them)

Every time we screw around with things, we screw them up. Economics is more suited to Chaos theory than any kind of engineering.

2. Have you seen the massive polls that have come out in the last week? Including polls by NBC and many supposedly "mainstream" organizations? That say 60+% of the country's population think we are headed the wrong direction? Man, you are sheltering in the shade of bad information. The country as a whole does not like what Obama is trying to do. At every turn he is telling the country that HE knows better than we what we should be concentrating on, how what we are concentrating on should be done, and doing everything possible to downplay ANY suggestions from the "right."

What we have instead are people working with Obama like Nancy Pelosi who boldly said in front of everyone that they will pass health care, for example, whether they have to go over the fence, under the fence, parachute in, etc. Whether we like it or not.

Yeah, one big problem we have is that Progressive talking heads like her are not only talking and saying things that would damage the country if they had the power - THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THE POWER!

Obama is bad for the country and making things worse on a daily basis. I hope that come November we see a shift that makes him a lame duck before he completely destroys us.

El Queso

06-30-10, 14:59

On the tax issue - we all stipulate it isn't fair. Let's have a flat tax. Let's make it really fair. Or a federal sales tax. Anything that our glorious lawmakers have not set up to allow THEM, as part of the wealthiest class in America, to have exceptions to paying taxes.

I'm for it - is Obama?

Easy Go

06-30-10, 17:15

What makes people think that "simple" and "fair" mean the same thing? A reasonable definition of fair is "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice". Why does a flat 25% tax meets that definition any better than a sliding scale, a flat $5,000 per person, or a VAT? Taxes are a necessary evil but the abuses come in the form of targeted (i.e., special interest lobby) deductions and credits rather than the final method of tax calculation.

How exactly are lawmakers part of the wealthiest class in America? They make $174K per year which is good but far from great or wealthy. About like a mid-level manager in a large corporation. Good health care and pension benefits but I've got lots of friends that do better and none of them would be considered part of the wealthiest class in America.

And why do you think lawmakers have some special way of avoiding taxes? Obama paid 32% in federal income taxes in 2009.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/president-obama-2010-complete-return.pdf

Biden paid only paid 21% while I only paid 11%. But both Joe and I would have vastly preferred to pay Obama's 31% since 68% of $5.5M is 10x what Biden had left after taxes and 25x what I had.

Along with the elimination of the deduction of mortgage interest, state taxes, and health insurance premiums for businesses, I favor elimination of the expat $91K deduction and the deduction for foreign tax payments. It's hardly fair that I pay more so that they can pay less just because they choose to live someplace else.

Tiny12

06-30-10, 22:35

My tax example actually underestimates the rate at which wealth grows faster in higher income brackets, because it doesn't factor in the lower tax rates (15%) on capital gains and dividends. When you factor these in, with the wealthy having a much larger amount and percentage of their income taxed at lower rates, the upward concentration of wealth only accelerates further. No wonder the Bush tax cuts were widely criticized as a massive transfer of wealth to the rich.

Back in 2007, Warren Buffett said he pays less tax, as a percentage of his taxable income, than the people working in his office. To make his point, he said he would bet any Forbes 400 member $1 million (to charity) that the average federal tax rate paid by the Forbes 400 is less than the average rate of their secretaries.

Buffett also said that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation. And he explained he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: "I'm making $80 million a year – God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate."

That says something when even ultra wealthy people (Buffett's not the only one) disagree with the wealth inequality created by Republican taxation policies.Esten, Buffet's views on taxes are self serving. He likes the estate tax, because it enables him to buy out family-owned businesses, like Borsheim's and Nebraska Furniture Mart, at a discount, when the children have to sell to pay taxes.

Another example, Buffet, like you, thinks it's a good thing that the tax rate on dividends will be going up. Dividends received by individuals will go to 39.6% in 2011 and 43.4% in 2013. After you add in the corporation tax and state income tax, about 70% of income received by corporations and distributed to wealthy individuals will be paid in tax. This is asinine and is going to cause too much capital to be allocated to businesses that produce poor returns, instead of to the most productive parts of the economy. I don't think there's any point in explaining why to you, as apparently you believe the way to prosperity is to take money away from the most productive parts of the economy and redistribute it to reduce inequality. Anyway, Buffet doesn't care because (a) Berkshire Hathaway, as a corporation, will continue to get a tax deduction for 70% of the dividend income it receives and (b) Berkshire Hathaway predominately invests in companies that don't pay dividends.

Since Berkshire Hathaway doesn't pay a dividend, Buffet doesn't pay taxes. Maybe that's why his secretary pays at a higher rate.

What you say about billionaires and their secretaries may or may not be true. Billionaires who buy off Democrat and Republican politicians have lots of ways to manipulate the system. (And I'd argue they buy off more Democrats than Republicans.) But I damn well know that the successful small-to-medium size business owner, who's going to be paying 39.6% federal income tax plus 5% to 10% state income tax plus sales taxes plus property taxes plus employment taxes is paying a lot more in percentage terms than his secretary. And by bleeding him, you're hurting the people that work for him and his suppliers and his customers and ultimately the consumer. When he dies his estate will pay 55% of everything over $1 million. If you're in his shoes and you don't have the money or the desire to have an army of lawyers, accountants and politicians in your hind pocket, you're going to get screwed. In fact, maybe you're going to be motivated to sell what you've got and invest everything in tax free municipal bonds, like John Kerry's billionaire wife. She, indeed, does pay a much lower tax rate than you or me. But, hey, somebody's got to bail out California. And even right now, municipal bonds are a lot safer bet and a lot less work than a start-up business.

Tiny12

06-30-10, 22:53

Biden paid only paid 21% while I only paid 11%.... I favor elimination of the expat $91K deduction and the deduction for foreign tax payments. It's hardly fair that I pay more so that they can pay less just because they choose to live someplace else.Hardly fair? How is it fair that an American living and working in Argentina or Japan or wherever should pay tax twice? So I guess he should pay around 70% , while your rate should be 11%? That principal applied to American business, no credits or deductions for foreign taxes paid, would shut us out of world markets.

Easy Go

07-01-10, 01:27

All the percentages are the actual percentage of AGI paid as federal income tax. Since it's a sliding scale based on taxable income (AGI less deductions) I have a 25% marginal rate but only pay a total of 11%. I'd lose 25% of every extra dollar I earned but Obama's actual percentage is getting close to his marginal because his income was so much larger than mine.

My larger point is that that "fair" is an almost completely subjective judgment so it's impossible to have a real discussion based on "fairness". One person thinks a progressive system is fairer, another thinks that a flat percentage is fairer, while a third just thinks it would be fairer if he paid less because he chooses to live in Argentina. Nothing anybody can say will change their opinion about what is "fair". On the other hand, arguments based on transparency, ease of enforcement, efficiency, and economic incentives can be fact-based so actually have a chance to create consensus.

I'm not totally unsympathetic to the problem of double taxation so I'm open to arguments about retaining foreign tax credits (although that the US should always take the hit hardly seems fair, ha! But I fail to see any reason that expats deserve a special deduction for not being in the country for 330 out of 365 days. Some minuscule percentage of my federal taxes pay for benefits that I directly receive so it's hard to see most of it as anything but the overhead of being an US citizen. People that don't want to pay are welcome to become citizens of another country and renounce their US citizenship.

The tax system works by taxing money when it flows from one taxable entity to another. I see nothing special about money flowing from companies to stockholders, e. G. Dividends that warrants special tax treatment. It's something that people consider when they choose to purchase a dividend paying stock.

Buffet's secretary pays at a higher rate because he's including FICA and Medicare in the calculation.

Tiny12

07-01-10, 12:39

The tax system works by taxing money when it flows from one taxable entity to another. I see nothing special about money flowing from companies to stockholders, e. g. dividends that warrants special tax treatment. It's something that people consider when they choose to purchase a dividend paying stock.Easy Go,

Take two corporations. It's the year 2013 and the tax rate on dividends has increased to 43.4%. Company A sells sand and gravel that's used for construction in the Detroit area. It's not growing, it's in a competitive business, there's overcapacity locally, and it produces, say a 6% return on equity. It does produce a lot of free cash flow, because it's not having to invest in new equipment.

Company B, also in Detroit, makes components for Iphones. It's growing and expected to continue to grow 20% per year and produces a 25% return on equity. But it requires a lot of cash to increase capacity.

So, how does money get from Company A to Company B? The best way is for A to pay dividends to owners who then invest in B. But A's shareholders, each of whom is in the maximum marginal tax bracket and who live in Michigan, will pay 48% tax on dividends they receive (43.4% federal rate + state income taxes). Maybe the owners manage Company A. Or maybe it's a professional manager who would like to empire-build -- regardless of whether Company A has good investment opportunities, if the professional manager can grow the company, his salary, his options, his profit sharing, etc. are likely to go up. In any event, Company A is going to retain the earnings in the business, instead of distributing to shareholders who could invest in more productive businesses.

Prior to the Bush tax cuts, U. S. Corporations paid among the lowest dividends in the world. Dividend yields were around 1% to 1.5%. That's during periods when P/E ratios were comparable to what they are now. Now dividend yields are higher, in the range of 2% to 3% , although still lower than much of the rest of the world.

If you look at the fastest growing economies in the world, in Asia, they have low taxes on dividends (0% to 10%) or they give tax credits to dividend payees for corporate income taxes, or they have much lower taxes on corporate income than we do. Or some combination of the preceding. I'm not saying this is THE reason for their faster growth. It is one of the reasons. To be fair, this isn't just true of Asian countries. Come 2011, the combined U.S. tax rate on corporations and dividends will be the highest or among the highest in the world. And, also to be fair, this isn't Obama's fault, as he favors a 20% tax on dividends. It's the Congressional Democrats, who have sworn that all the Bush tax cuts must expire for higher-income Americans.

On the issue of fairness, maybe you and I have different attitudes towards just exactly what a stock is. Your view may be that it's a piece of paper to be traded. And if the stock doesn't pay dividends, doesn't produce free cash flow, and never will, then I agree, it's a piece of paper. When I buy a stock, I'm buying part of a business. I expect to ultimately receive dividends, over many years, that will ultimately pay for my investment. I'm one of the owners of the business. I pay tax two times, once when my business receives the income and again when it pays dividends.

Easy Go

07-01-10, 16:58

When I buy a stock, I plan to sell it some day at a tidy profit and pay, at most, capital gain rates on the sale. Dividends are for suckers (and Exon) because historically they have higher interest rates (the last few years have been an aberration) and the company, not me, controls when I have to recognize income and pay taxes. The idea that a stock has to eventually pay dividends to have any value has a certain emotional and logical appeal but there's no sign it has any practical significance.

It's an interesting idea that dividends are the primary way that capital flows between businesses. Any data or studies that back that up or is it just an theoretical argument from an Econ 101 textbook?

Chief executives have huge egos. Do you really think that they pay dividends because they think stock owners have better investment ideas and opportunities than the brilliant man at the top? Companies pay dividends for lots of reasons but I'm skeptical that "enabling the efficient flow of capital to better business than mine" is high on the list.

Tiny12

07-01-10, 17:41

Easy Go,

I agree with most of what you wrote, if you're writing specifically about the U. S. It often makes more sense for a corporation to load up on debt, and pay tax-deductible interest expense, instead of issuing equity and distributing highly-taxed dividends. The market can be a giant shell game, with traders playing a game of musical chairs, looking for capital gains instead of investing long term in a business that produces or that will someday produce free cash flow and pay dividends. CEO's do have huge egos, and would love another excuse (like high taxes on dividends) to empire-build, instead of distributing part of the profits to shareholders. And dividends in the US aren't one of the primary means of reallocating capital, or at least they won't be after January 1, 2011 when the Bush tax cuts expire.

None of this is good, in my opinion.

Esten

07-02-10, 00:49

Hey guys there is too much here for me to respond to everything, plus I'm packing my luggage to leave on a long awaited mongering trip. Not to BA though. I visited BA this time of year a few years ago, and decided I didn't like the city as much in the cooler weather so now I only come down in the BA spring / summer.

It is good to see some more intelligent discussion lately, that has always been my hope and interest here. Fact is I've never really had a vigorous, extensive left vs. right debate before, not like this thread, and it has been enjoyable (and frustrating) and I've learned a few things.

Now, Esten, will you stop injecting pointless smoke screens in the middle of your arguments?Jackson you don't even say what you're referring to or why you think it's 'smoke'. I'll assume you are referring to the Warren Buffett anecdote. If 'smoke' means non-factual or off-topic, then you are just wrong. The topic was taxes and the wealthy. His Forbes 400 challenge is a great illustration of tax disparities between the very wealthy and the middle class. And the fact that some wealthy individuals like Buffett disagree with Republican taxation policies (which favor the rich) is absolutely relevant.

My dear Esten, do you really think he has shown backbone regarding special interests? If so, which ones? In my opinion, the blood of this president is imbued with special interest money, he cannot separate himself from it. I think he has shown resolve in his efforts to reform healthcare and his intentions to shift more of the tax burden back to the very wealthy, and there are certainly special interests who oppose those efforts. I could make a list (eg. insurance companies, big oil, etc) and I'm sure you can make a list you think he is supporting also, but I would add there is a difference between defending special interests and working with them to achieve broader goals for society.

The administration's recent support for Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas demonstrates they do not always side with unions.

And this story about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce planning an aggressive last ditch effort to kill the (Obama/Dem supported) financial reform bill, is very telling:

Business groups mount final push against reform bill
http://www.reuters.com/article/idINN0114430920100701

Esten

07-02-10, 04:58

I know he hasn't spent all the money yet - and if in fact the economy is turning around why not stop? Why do we have to spend it all?I surmise the economists believe the economy is showing signs of turning around, but a recovery is not firmly in place yet. And that until a recovery is clearly in place that some stimulus continues to be appropriate. It sounds plausible to me and I'm not going to second guess it.

And what, exactly, HAS the stimulus done? Please spend some time on recovery.gov. 682,370 jobs, numerous worthwhile projects and resultant expenditures flowing through the economy. You should read up on how the Republicans, while outwardly opposed to the stimulus bill, in private were relieved that it passed. And also read up on all the Republicans who praised the funding for various projects that were approved in their districts.

How can you say that when over the last few days the Democrats are talking about another stimulus bill, though smaller to be sure, and Obama himself told the leaders of nations who have notoriuosly overspent on social programs that we must keep the spending up, while they are telling him - enough, we have to cut budgets and stop spending so much?Also read what he said after the G20 about facing difficult decisions next year (on spending) and hoping that those hollering about deficits and debt will step up to join him. I wonder if the GOP will really live up to their rhetoric about cutting spending?

About oil and the environment, I said before I'm also not convinced about global warming. But I'm not going to take your word that we aren't running out of oil. And I don't think we can leave something like that to the free market, because most of the time in the free market, when something becomes cost prohibitive we have adequate alternatives, but in the case of oil, there is no guarantee we'll have made enough progress to continue our way of life without oil by the time we learn we only have 10 or 20 years of oil left. There are scenarios where it could get real ugly, why not plan to avoid that?

The big difference is that the left thinks people are incapable of making the decisions as to what should be done, and therefore think they do and they should control it. The people on the right think that people are motivated by personal self-interest and that they will always find a way to succeed if they are just left alone.Please stop repeating that bulls**t, it just isn't true. The left believes in addressing the abuses of free market capitalism and other issues that the private sector cannot. Aside from that, both left and right believe in the value of individual effort to succeed - that's the American way, not just the conservative way.

Again, as I've stated a few times now, but you have ignored, what other system has ever raised so many people out of poverty int he history of the world? What country's poor live better than kings of the past in many ways and certainly live like middle class in other countries (Argentina being one of them)I agree we have a remarkable system. But you know there are various quality of life metrics where the US falls behind many other countries. Dems believe we can and should address certain issues to make the country an even better place to live. Our system creates tremendous wealth but concentrates most of it in the top 5%. Dems think we just aren't getting the 'bang for our buck' in allowing wealth to be concentrated in such an extreme manner. More on this later, this in fact is the whole part of this debate that intrigues me the most, the laissez-faire attitude of the right that continuous and extreme wealth concentration is the best model for the country.

Have you seen the massive polls that have come out in the last week? Including polls by NBC and many supposedly "mainstream" organizations? That say 60+% of the country's population think we are headed the wrong direction? Man, you are sheltering in the shade of bad information. The country as a whole does not like what Obama is trying to do. At every turn he is telling the country that HE knows better than we what we should be concentrating on, how what we are concentrating on should be done, and doing everything possible to downplay ANY suggestions from the "right."That 60% has to be taken in the context of the recession and now the oil spill. Any president would be getting those numbers.

Can you tell me why the country 'as a whole' consistently has shown the following: Obama job approval > Democratic Party favorable rating > Republican Party favorable rating?

Esten

07-02-10, 05:21

I'm leaving for a 10-day trip to a city with numerous upscale night clubs filled with hot Colombian women. It's going to be a Golden Time.

Tiny you posted some great stuff. I don't believe prosperity comes from wealth redistribution, see my comments to El Queso. I agree with you about small and medium-size businesses. I am more concerned about the power and wealth held by large corporations and the top 5% wealthy. I have one main question for you:

Do you think there ever comes a point where allowing wealth to be concentrated with rich people is no longer in the best interest of society?

Tiny12

07-03-10, 14:47

I am more concerned about the power and wealth held by large corporations and the top 5% wealthy. I have one main question for you:

Do you think there ever comes a point where allowing wealth to be concentrated with rich people is no longer in the best interest of society? Yes, and it has nothing to do with the Gini coefficient. It's when a government, like Mexico's, allows certain individuals and businesses to have unfair competitive advantages, so that they're able to take advantage of the consumer. This is why wealth is so concentrated in Latin America. But the solution isn't taxes, it's making sure there's a level playing field for all competitors.

I'm a fan of the Singapore model. A good, appropriate education and good health care should be available for all. People should have savings for retirement. This should be accomplished efficiently, and preferentially by people paying for it themselves. If someone's not able, then the government and private charities should step in. Anyway, once that's done, the rest will take care of itself.

Higher taxes on capital and business profits would indeed take power and wealth away from the top 5%. It would instead put more wealth and power into the hands of the government, pension funds, institutions, and foreign central banks. (Aside: Lower levels of savings and investment here in the US, because of higher taxes on capital, means we'll run larger current account deficits, and more of our savings and investment will be held by countries like China, that are accumulating dollars.)

I'd rather see entrepeneurs and businessmen and individual investors control capital. They should live and die, figuratively speaking, based on how hard they work and the decisions they make. That's what creates the most efficient, vibrant economy.

If you want to tax Mercedes or $2 million houses or expensive cognac, fine. But taking capital away from those who have shown they're using it the most efficiently and channeling it to others is not a good idea.

Rev BS

07-05-10, 12:53

Wild Walleye

07-12-10, 13:20

I hope that when they relieve your sperm-build-up, it will reduce the swelling and pressure that is cutting off the circulation to your brain. Maybe then you will be better able to provide answers.

Your response to the the question, eloquently posed by none other than Wild Walleye was lacking, to cast it in a generous light.

"My dear Esten, do you really think he has shown backbone regarding special interests? If so, which ones? In my opinion, the blood of this president is imbued with special interest money, he cannot separate himself from it."

I think he has shown resolve in his efforts to reform healthcareIf you consider forcing extra-constitutional legislation (containing taxation without representation, a subject I seem to recall covering at some point during my educational travails) on the citizenry (a plurality of which opposed the legislation) as standing up to special interest (in this case, the minority in favor of 'health care reform') you are beyond hope.

and his intentions to shift more of the tax burden back to the very wealthy, and there are certainly special interests who oppose those efforts.Here, you are almost correct (again, without any knowledge or forethought of why you might actual be correct) If Obama continues his redistributive agenda, Tax payers will be a minority and you could make a case, albeit a specious one, that "tax payers" by being a minority and sharing a common legislative interest (I. E. their taxation) are a special interest. When Obama is finished, you may be correct.

I could make a list (eg. Insurance companies, big oil, etc) and I'm sure you can make a list you think he is supporting also, but I would add there is a difference between defending special interests and working with them to achieve broader goals for society.Of course there is. If being in bed with Big Oil (which Obama clearly is) the unions and other special interests helps him recast the US as a socialist utopia, it's okay with you. However, in your eyes, politicians, government officials and / or ordinary citizens doing anything that preserves or fosters the perpetuation of the US, its founding documents (i.e. the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc. And the rights both assumed and inured by and through them, is sublimation to special interests.

The administration's recent support for Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas demonstrates they do not always side with unions.You are a poorly read as you are poorly informed.

Obama backed Lincoln because she is the party establishment's candidate. Obama didn't go against the unions. The unions went against Lincoln and Obama's and the party's condidate. They bet big (north of $10mm) against Lincoln because she doesn't support "Card Check" legislation. No doubt having Walmart and Tyson's as two big constituents -- neither of which want to be destroyed by organized labor (a la GM, Chrysler, etc) -- helped her form her opinion on the subject.

And this story about the U. S. Chamber of Commerce planning an aggressive last ditch effort to kill the (Obama / Dem supported) financial reform bill, is very tellingThe current administration declared war on both small business and the US Chamber of Commerce. I would not consider USCoC opposition to anything this admin or congress proposes to be anything other than self defense.

You never responded to my questions about your new-found deity, in the form of Gini. Care to expound on Gini's virtues?

Hugs and kisses, enjoy Columbia.

Toymann

07-12-10, 13:49

If you consider forcing extra-constitutional legislation (containing taxation without representation, a subject I seem to recall covering at some point during my educational travails) on the citizenry (a plurality of which opposed the legislation) as standing up to special interest (in this case, the minority in favor of 'health care reform') you are beyond hope.When it comes to Esten's understanding of life in america RIGHT NOW, you have already figured him out thoroughly. LOL. Monger On WW. Toymann.

P. I agree that possibly a sperm build up has softened Esten's mind. We will see if his post Columbia monger trip arguements bring greater merit. If not, a build up might not be at the root of the problem. LOL.

Wild Walleye

07-12-10, 15:27

Sifting through Esten's posts is more tedious than tying on a 4x tippet at dusk.

Spent some time recently chasing trout (not the trouser variety)

Toymann

07-12-10, 16:32

Wild Walleye

07-12-10, 21:25

I really need to get you set up with an Argentine Dorado trip sometime soon. Once you get one of those yellow devils on your line you might never Chase after the skinny silver fish again. Tight Lines WW. Toymann.

P. I have included a photo of Rioman's April trophy from the Rio Parana just to wet your appitite. Eat your heart out Exon. LOL.

Pps. The other photo is a pacu that ended up on my line in April. DAMN GOOD EATING! Both fish are slighlty larger than 10 kilos.When you hook one of those mofo's, you'd better not have your line draped across your index finger (as a chaser of skinny silver fish might become accustomed to doing) learned that many moons ago hooking a 10lbs rainbow and being a little too casual with line maintenance.

Exon123

07-12-10, 22:55

I really need to get you set up with an Argentine Dorado trip sometime soon. Once you get one of those yellow devils on your line you might never Chase after the skinny silver fish again. Tight Lines WW. Toymann.

P. I have included a photo of Rioman's April trophy from the Rio Parana just to wet your appitite. Eat your heart out Exon. LOL.

Pps. The other photo is a pacu that ended up on my line in April. DAMN GOOD EATING! Both fish are slighlty larger than 10 kilos.That is a nice fish Toymann, did he bite Rioman?

Exon

Wild Walleye

07-13-10, 03:07

Used my #12 peyronies to catch this one.

Toymann

07-13-10, 03:26

Thats gotta go at least 50 kilos soakin wet. Must have been a hell of a fight on an eight weight dude. LOL.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Shane44

07-13-10, 08:58

Wild,

If you live long enough, I guess you see almost everything once. This bearded mackerel is a first for me. You got my day off to a great start.

Thanks!

Stan Da Man

07-13-10, 16:55

Wild,

If you live long enough, I guess you see almost everything once. This bearded mackerel is a first for me. You got my day off to a great start.

Thanks!I agree. There's not that much on the web anymore that will cause me to laugh out loud. That one did. Thanks, Stan

Wild Walleye

07-13-10, 17:47

I agree. There's not that much on the web anymore that will cause me to laugh out loud. That one did. Thanks, StanThat eye kind of follows you around the room.

Esten

07-15-10, 23:41

No sperm buildup here, though I'm recovering from massive sperm depletion. 10 chicas in 10 days. Some only one hour, most multi-hour and a couple TLN. It was hard work, but somebody's got to do it.

I didn't plan on posting here for awhile, frankly the quality of discussion from the right has been largely (though not entirely) underwhelming. But if others want to continue, I'm happy to chime in.

It's worth repeating, the left and right are not so different as it may appear. The left also recognizes the private sector as the engine of growth and prosperity, and the importance of free markets and individual effort. The fundamental difference as I see it, is that the left believes wealth has become inordinately concentrated in a small sector of society (large corporations and the top 5-10% wealthy) with the poor and middle class not adequately sharing in the prosperity.

Your response to the the question, eloquently posed by none other than Wild Walleye was lacking, to cast it in a generous light.

"My dear Esten, do you really think he has shown backbone regarding special interests? If so, which ones? In my opinion, the blood of this president is imbued with special interest money, he cannot separate himself from it." Gosh Walleye, you really tore apart my response. And to support your claim that the president is imbued with special interest money, you said... hang on... let me find it... oh yeah right. Nothing to support it. Nada. Zilch.

So, who's case is more lacking?

Today we see the USCoC and Wall Street special interests were unsuccessful in derailing financial reform. This will most likely help Dems and hurt Repubs in the fall. Recent USCoC actions are not helping their public image; they would be better served by replacing their leadership with individuals with a greater sense of patriotism and social responsibility.

Wall Street reform clears Congress.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E0MD20100715

"Wall Street deployed an army of lobbyists to fight the bill, but they were undermined by the industry's tone-deaf decision to award fat bonuses to executives only months after the government put up $700 billion in bailout funds."

I'll respond to Gini later. PS. Nice fish.

Giggles and shits,

Wild Walleye

07-16-10, 00:17

More bleating from a sheep.

It's worth repeating, the left and right are not so different as it may appear.You could not be more wrong (although you are extremely consistent in your wrong-ness (love those made-up words)

The left also recognizes the private sector as the engine of growth and prosperity, and the importance of free markets and individual effort. But in the same way that the stripper sees the monger as an ATM.

The fundamental difference as I see it, is that the left believes wealth has become inordinately concentrated in a small sector of society (large corporations and the top 5-10% wealthy)The left believes in lots of fantasies (e. G. Global warming, nuclear disarmament will make us safe, if we are nice to Iran they won't try to kill us, etc. Even if you were right, wouldn't that mean that wealth becomes concentrated amongst. Gee wilikers. Those who actually create and earn it?

with the poor and middle class not adequately sharing in the prosperity.Why would one person be entitled to the fruits of another's labor?

Gosh Walleye, you really tore apart my response. And to support your claim that the president is imbued with special interest money, you said. Hang on. Let me find it. Oh yeah right. Nothing to support it. Nada. Zilch.Sorry, I forgot you can't read, unless it is democrat talking points. I should have sent you an audio file.

So, who's case is more lacking?You asked, so I'd have to vote that your case sucks ass.

Today we see the USCoC and Wall Street special interests were unsuccessful in derailing financial reform.Please wow me with one "reform" in this legislation. Can you describe in detail any one function that the financial sector provides?

This will most likely help Dems and hurt Repubs in the fall.That's like taking it in the pooper from a giant tranny and hoping it turns out to be a real chica.

Recent USCoC actions are not helping their public image; they would be better served by replacing their leadership with individuals with a greater sense of patriotism and social responsibility.Maybe they could get some of those racist douche bags from the NAACP to come over and tell them how to get rid of all the crackers.

"Wall Street deployed an army of lobbyists to fight the bill, but they were undermined by the industry's tone-deaf decision to award fat bonuses to executives only months after the government put up $700 billion in bailout funds."That is one of the most idiotic quotes (made by someone other than you) that I have ever heard. It comes from the perspective that "Wall St" was wrong from the start and only spent $ on lobbyists to cover their evil doings and that they were only unsuccessful because of their public opinion gaffe of paying bonuses. This presumes that using lobbyists is bad and that those who employ them are bad and if they hadn't paid bonuses the legislation would have been defeated by the lobbying effort. In the news biz they use to tell you that you need to target (write) your story for audiences with an average comprehension level of an 8th grader. Nice to see that the press no longer needs to dumb down its stories for the ignorant masses. I wonder if Reuters takes this same approach to covering the SEIU or even the New Black Panthers. There are tens of thousands of businesses that never took tarp money or had their bonuses aired on the news that will suffer because of this legislation not to mention the fact that it will costs every last American more to effectuate any type of transaction.

I'll respond to Gini later.Don't waste your time.

PS. Nice fish.Only smart thing you said today.

Giggles and shits,Would be if the stakes weren't so high.

Esten

07-18-10, 15:26

More grunting from a pig.

Why would one person be entitled to the fruits of another's labor?News flash for Walleye:

The vast majority of labor and innovation comes from the poor and middle class.

Of course many of them would not have jobs were it not for the rich. But the rich wouldn't be making fortunes without them either. These are the same workers who receive 50% of total wages while the top decile receives the other 50%. Over the period 2002-2007, their incomes grew only 0.8% per year, while the top 1% captured two thirds of income growth.

So I ask also: Why are the top few % entitled to so much of the wealth generated by other's labor?

El Queso

07-19-10, 05:39

So I ask also: Why are the top few % entitled to so much of the wealth generated by other's labor?If the others whose labor generates the wealth are so worried about it - why don't they figure out how to make money themselves off of their labor?

What a fallacy to think that those who work for a company, and take no risks themselves, are "entitled" to more because they see the people who put up the money to start and run companies making fortunes. That's called free enterprise. Anyone is free at any time to cut out and start themselves up to try to be successful.

I worked through being a peon in my younger years, to a valued employee who contributed to other's success, to a middle-manager getting bonuses and stock options with people contributing their work to my success. Then I realized I could make more money if I went out and contracted those same services I was now managing to the types of people that employeed me, and I could do it cheaper than it would cost them to hire employees like me.

I have been successful and I have been busted. I have taken risks that paid off and I have taken risks that crippled me financially. They say that often successful businessmen fail a number of times before they hit it big.

When I hit it big, employ maybe hundreds or thousands of people - are they entitled to more because I, personally, am making a lot of money and am wealthy?

Bullshit.

They can get their money the same way I did.

If they can't, then thank god there are people out there who CAN make money and employ those who CAN'T.

That works for all walks of life. The constitution says we are all entitled to "life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness" as an inalienable right. That doesn't mean that if we aren't happy it's ok to take from those who are.

Men are created equally in terms of everyone coming from the union of a man and a woman and therefore being human and deserving as the same respect and opportunites but it ends there. EVERYONE is entitled to life and liberty, but to find happiness, you're on your own. At least according to OUR constitution. You aren't entitled to happiness, just the pursuit of it. That means that you, yourself, no one else, are responsible for finding that happiness.

If money and status and power and things provide you with happiness, you are free to pursue that all you want - but just because you want it and can't make it doesn't mean that you are entitled to it. If you aren't able to find it, you'd best find happiness elsewhere.

I'm not responsible to bring you happiness.

All of the "you" above was to a generic "you", not Esten, although being human, it includes Esten as well:)

Wild Walleye

07-19-10, 14:01

The vast majority of labor and innovation comes from the poor and middle class. As stated, that is complete bull. You are trying to intimate that the poor and middle class somehow account for the majority of GDP. You are also trying to fudge the line between labor and productivity. While I would be willing to agree that the vast majority of laborers come from the poor and middle classes, that is where it ends. As for innovation, I am afraid that you missed the mark here as well. Most innovation these days is created through investment by corporations. While individuals who come from the poor or middle classes may contribute to those innovations via work-for-hire relationships, they do not share the risk of the group writing the checks (including their pay checks) therefore they don't have the same interest in the upside.

Wild Walleye

07-19-10, 21:12

Of course many of them would not have jobs were it not for the rich. But the rich wouldn't be making fortunes without them either. These are the same workers who receive 50% of total wages while the top decile receives the other 50%. Over the period 2002-2007, their incomes grew only 0.8% per year, while the top 1% captured two thirds of income growth.

So I ask also: Why are the top few % entitled to so much of the wealth generated by other's labor?The left also refuses to recognize that contrary to what their finance partners (the unions) say, this is a services economy (services accounted for 76% of GDP in 2005) That is quite an evolution (can I use that term in this audience? From an economy dominated by subsistence farming, a little more than a century ago. This is why the SEIU has become so powerful.

Another fallacy that the left likes to hang its arguments on is labor. Labor is this, labor is that. This is because the left and the democrat party are bought and paid for by Big Labor (a cabal that makes the mafia and Big Oil look like pussies) If you want to see the purest example of profiting from the fruits of another's labor look at organized crime. I mean organized labor.

The fact of the matter is labor is labor. If it required much skill, it would be called "skilled labor" or if it required thinking, you can trade that blue collar for a white one. Unskilled labor is a commodity (one most people don't want)

While I do, sentimentally, miss some 'industry' I find it deliciously ironic that Labor has simultaneously accelerated our evolution to a services economy by pricing us out of the global manufacturing market, killed off many large employers (who employed union members) and shipped millions of would-be-union-dues-paying-member jobs to other countries.

What is even better is that the c*nts that love the unions for representing the little people over look the multi-million dollar pay packages that union execs receive and the billions spent on union infrastructure (seen the DC HQ lately) and lobbying (wonder who gets those gigs) These are the ones with whom you should take issue not with private citizens willing to risk their own assets to create jobs.

Rock Harders

07-21-10, 13:21

Mongers,

If this bill becomes law and is enacted nationwide, I will concur that the USA is becoming a Socialist nightmare and join the right-wing survivalist cause.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100721/us_time/08599200535800

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Wild Walleye

07-21-10, 13:27

Esten

07-21-10, 23:39

So you guys defend writing false evaluations and other forms of worker abuse? LOL

This bill sounds like common sense. If you treat your employees with respect and fairness you should have nothing to worry about.

Esten

07-22-10, 00:39

What a fallacy to think that those who work for a company, and take no risks themselves, are "entitled" to more because they see the people who put up the money to start and run companies making fortunes. That's called free enterprise. Anyone is free at any time to cut out and start themselves up to try to be successful.El Queso: We all agree on incentivizing and rewarding risk-taking and individual effort.

If your focus is on the business owner and the entrepreneur, your view is understandable. But if you are successful and start making a 7-figure salary, if you care about anything else in this world besides your own self-enrichment, you might consider sharing some of it with others who helped make it possible. Like the sales person who went out and aggresively won new accounts, the engineer who came up with an innovative idea to lower production costs, the graphic designer who worked weekends for two months to get promotional materials ready for a big trade show, etc. Or even the community which gave you a big tax break. The real fallacy is the successful businessman who thinks he did it all on his own.

If your focus is on improving society, then your view is narrow and problematic given today's economic realities. The fact is there just isn't room for everyone to run a successful business or move up the ladder in an existing one. And there are significant obstacles to success as well: access to affordable education or start-up capital, and increasingly large competitors that are increasingly hard to compete with in many areas. The (by far) largest segment of society will always be people who work for others. When this largest segment is receiving only a small piece of the economic pie (with many living from paycheck to paycheck, unable to afford good housing, healthcare or education, or worse unemployed) while a small segment enjoys almost all the pie, that's when some people start thinking there's something wrong with this picture.

There is plenty of room to foster risk-taking and entrepreneurial effort, and reward those who do when they succeed, without continuing on the path of extreme wealth inequality we see in the US today.

Jackson

07-22-10, 04:42

you might consider sharing some of it with others who helped make it possible.Estan, he did share. They got paid!

Like the sales person who went out and aggresively won new accounts.Paid!

, the engineer who came up with an innovative idea to lower production costs.They were paid!

the graphic designer who worked weekends for two months to get promotional materials ready for a big trade show, etc.They all got PAID, with employer-paid benefits and taxes piled on top!

The fact is there just isn't room for everyone to run a successful business or move up the ladder in an existing one.Classic "The pie is only so big" liberal thinking. The fact is that no one person's success crowds out another's success. We can ALL be successful, which would result in the creation of wealth, AKA a bigger pie.

And there are significant obstacles to success as well: access to affordable education or start-up capital.Yes, it's hard work, otherwise we'd see more people doing it instead of seeking the shelter of a structured job.

And increasingly large competitors that are increasingly hard to compete with in many areas.More liberal bullshit. The reality is that the single entrepreneur is the most efficient economic competitor known to man and can always dance circles around the big, lumbering companies.

The (by far) largest segment of society will always be people who work for others. When this largest segment is receiving only a small piece of the economic pie (with many living from paycheck to paycheck, unable to afford good housing, healthcare or education, or worse unemployed)They got paid! If they want the bigger rewards, then they need to put in the extra hours and take the risks.

while a small segment enjoys almost all the pie, that's when some people start thinking there's something wrong with this picture.Yea, thinking "if we band together we can commandeer this thing called 'democracy' and use it to force the producers to give us parasites some of the wealth that they have earned for themselves."

without continuing on the path of extreme wealth inequality we see in the US today.Once again, more liberal bullshit. The reality is that the wealth in the USA is spread much more evenly across all segments of our population than in any other country in the world.

Member #4112

07-22-10, 12:19

Esten, first of all there are very few risk takers out there and it has been my experience most people would rather follow than lead i.e. work for someone than strike out on their own and it has nothing to do with starting capital.

In my CPA practice I have often offered my employees 95% of what they generate in revenue less their expenses instead of a salary, guess what no takers. In many of the companies I have consulted for when asked for compensation models, where appropriate, I always provide the "eat what you kill" option in the mix with very few takers. The thing I hear most from non-skilled to skilled; blue collar to white collar; to professional employees with advanced degrees is "I need a dependable steady income and dependable benefits (health / retirement)". For the great majority of the folks I encounter no one is interested in riding the profits of the good times and digging into their savings / incurring more debt to cover expenses during the bad. Liberals are always ready to give away someone else's money when they appear to be making "to much" but are nowhere to be found when these same people are going bankrupt, total hypocrisy! Don't point to GM or Chrysler as examples of "helping out" those were nothing but political payoffs to the unions by the Obama administration at the expense of the bond and stock holders.

By the way, the current outrageous salaries and bonuses of some CEO's are due directly to liberals. Back in the late 60's and 70's the wonderful liberal thinkers of the time decided the American business leader was much too cautious and conservative (back then the CEO only made a few multiples of what the "average" employee of his company made and was more concerned with long term growth and stability of the company) so to motive him (the American business leader) these wonderful liberals decided to tie salary / bonuses / other financial perks to short term performance. Well it didn't take long for CEO's to figure out they could inflate earnings through short sighted business decisions as well as accounting chicanery (with the AICPA turning a blind eye) to greatly increase their income and from that point on it has continued to spiral out of control and still does (AIG paying bonus to the very folks who got them in the mess to start with, et al) Now that the liberals ideas have come back to bite them in the ass they complain about the very situtaion they created.

So Esten get a grip and try to gain a basic understanding of the human animal. Most folks just want to play it safe and complain about how they deserve more without doing a damn thing about it.

End of rant.

Doppleganger

Wild Walleye

07-22-10, 13:25

Esten, first of all there are very few risk takers out there and it has been my experience most people would rather follow than lead I. E. Work for someone than strike out on their own and it has nothing to do with starting capital.

In my CPA practice I have often offered my employees 95% of what they generate in revenue less their expenses instead of a salary, guess what no takers. In many of the companies I have consulted for when asked for compensation models, where appropriate, I always provide the "eat what you kill" option in the mix with very few takers. The thing I hear most from non-skilled to skilled; blue collar to white collar; to professional employees with advanced degrees is "I need a dependable steady income and dependable benefits (health / retirement)". For the great majority of the folks I encounter no one is interested in riding the profits of the good times and digging into their savings / incurring more debt to cover expenses during the bad."Eat what you kill" is all that I have known for 20 years. I have great years and I have had terrible years. I've been rich and I've been broke (twice) I have helped to build companies that employ hundreds of people and reached huge market valuations. I have never asked for help and it has never been offered to me. When I got wiped out, I stopped spending on superfluous stuff and worked harder. I created and I prospered. It is hell on the individual and even harder on the family.

The primary reason why the recovery hasn't shown up yet, is because our government is killing off the true risk takers, forcing them to sit on the sidelines or driving them to foreign markets to seek opportunity. In this current anti-business (particularly anti-small business) environment there has been so much additional regulation (I. E. cost) and uncertainty (I. E. risk=cost) added to the equation that it is difficult to start something new and even harder to finance it. The greatest constrictor on the flow of capital to new and growing businesses is risk. The worst kind of risk is undefined risk (I. E. we don't know what it is but, it is waiting for us down the road)

Because of the uncertainty created by our government, and for no other reason, the primary source of jobs in the usual recovery "small business" has been sidelined.

For example, within the 5,000+ pages of legislation (healthcare and financial reform) are hundreds of tax hikes (called different things) on businesses and individuals. They are discovering more ever day. No one really knows what is in there or what the effects will be. One example is the 1099 requirement for every expenditure over $600. I estimate that alone will require at least one additional clerical person for every 250 transactions (new computer, airline tickets, hotel bill, etc) to track all vendor usage, get the information (i.e. get AA's TIN, etc) fill out the forms and to ensure compliance. If I eat at La Chacrita 10 times at an average of $60 per visit (I know it doesn't cost that much) I now need their TIN. That new clerical person is going to cost me $35k plus benefits, insurance, etc. So my expenses go up by something like $50k for every $150k I spend (cost of goods sold) with no additional revenue coming in for the expenditure. If I make a gross margin of 33% and a profit margin of 20% , the additional expenditure means that I make no profit (i.e. I work for free) if I only do $250K in revenues. At $1 million in revenues the expenditure takes 25% of the profit that I would otherwise make. I am sure as hell not going to add other employees given the pay cut the government is forcing on me.

Why would any sane person with any business sense put such job killing provision on small business?

Another example, if I project that my new venture will make a 10% profit (i.e. the money the owners get to keep after everything else is paid for) once it gets up to speed (say in year 3) and I missed a few taxes or incorrectly modeled the impact of the legislation on my cash flow and I was only off by 10% , the owners (i.e. the ones who put up all the money) get nothing. Therefore, they (entrepreneurs and capital sources) wait or go somewhere else where the situation is more static.

Liberals are always ready to give away someone else's money when they appear to be making "to much" but are nowhere to be found when these same people are going bankrupt, total hypocrisy! During the past 20 years, bearing 100% of the risk, I have contributed to putting many people to work and other activities that benefit the economies (local & federal) In exchange, my cost of doing business is going up, my income taxes are going up, my cap-gain taxes are going up and my property taxes have tripled (in just 10 years). My existence does not cost the local or federal govt anything. I do not use or enjoy any government services that I don't specifically pay for via direct fees. As for enjoying national security and local services (fire, police, public works, schools) I am paying for them many times over through my taxes. I pay for everything I use and for lots of stuff others, many of whom don't deserve it, use too.

Member #4112

07-22-10, 15:18

WW, my post was for Esten, not for those of us who are the risk takers, and you must agree we are definitely the minority.

Small business is the engine that truly will produce the jobs and growth to fuel any recovery and the Obama administration is totally anti business and it shows in the legislation already passed and that which is proposed. Even the economists are saying the Fed is doing too much and is the reason the economy is not on the road to recovery. Check the new jobless claims files this week.

You are quite correct about the new legislation creating a complete new world of reporting requirements which translates into more insensitive record keeping and reporting to the Fed. As you so aptly point out translates into additional costs for the business owner further reducing any profit generated from operations.

My point is risk takers are in the minority and liberals wish to punish risk takers by transferring what they have rightfully earned to those which have earned nothing.

Doppelganger

Wild Walleye

07-22-10, 15:58

WW, my post was for Esten, not for those of us who are the risk takers and you must agree we are definitely the minority.

Small business is the engine that truly will produce the jobs and growth to fuel any recovery and the Obama administration is totally anti business and it shows in the legislation already passed and that which is proposed. Even the economists are saying the Fed is doing too much and is the reason the economy is not on the road to recovery. Check the new jobless claims files this week.

You are quite correct about the new legislation creating a complete new world of reporting requirements which translates into more insensitive record keeping and reporting to the Fed. As you so aptly point out translates into additional costs for the business owner further reducing any profit generated from operations.

My point is risk takers are in the minority and liberals wish to punish risk takers by transferring what they have rightfully earned to those which have earned nothing.

DoppelgangerI was agreeing that: 1) we are a small minority that power a huge chunk of the economy and 2) they (the left) is doing everything it can to destroy us (and U. S.)

The question that still remains is, who will pay for all this when we're all gone?

Stan Da Man

07-22-10, 18:05

Save your key strokes, guys. He will never get it. His comments are so far off the mark that no amount of persuasion or debate will make any difference. Simply put: He's lost.

I guarantee you he's never started a business and never will. He may claim otherwise, but comments like that cannot possibly emanate from someone who has started a business -- unless perhaps it was a complete and total failure from the get-go. There's an old saying: Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. I'm not saying he's a teacher. But I am saying he's not among those who "can." Having never had the experience of taking the risks associated with starting an enterprise, he'll never get it. It's all just hypothetical. That's abundantly apparent from his posts.

I do have to disagree a bit on another issue: The new 1099 requirements shouldn't add much extra clerical expense. Any small business using even slightly sophisticated accounting software, e. G. Quickbooks, can easily track how much they pay vendors. Credit card transactions might be a bit more difficult, but they always have been. At the end of the year, you simply load your 1099s and push a button. You do need to get more TINs from vendors, but once you enter that info, it's pretty much a breeze. You may jam up your printer and the mailing expense and weight of these things (for mail carriers) will be significant, but they're not that hard to process.

The real question with the new requirements is "why?" The only real answer is that government doesn't trust businesses. It's a silly, unnecessary requirement characteristic of this administration, which also suffers from a paucity of "doers" and an overemphasis on academics, professional politicians and socialists in sheep's clothing. At base, that's one of the chief problems as I see it. These folks are making regulations for areas in which they have utterly no experience, from the perspective that all business is partially or wholly evil, and they're really making a grand mess of things. It will take decades to undo the carnage.

At the beginning, I was willing to give Obama a chance and posted comments to that effect here. But, there's a point where you need to stop giving second, third and fourth chances. Simply put, I was wrong and I'm no longer willing to entertain that this administration has the best interests of all American people at heart. Folks can call that being closed-minded, but if you don't learn from experience, then you're a fool. At this point, only fools can claim that this administration has the country on the right track. Unfortunately, polls show that 44% of the country are fools. Still, there's reason for hope: About 20% of the country has figured it out over the past year, and that number increases each month. Esten, I'm afraid, will never be amongst them, not with what he's passing off as logic here.

Member #4112

07-22-10, 18:10

Stan Da Man

07-22-10, 23:27

Stan, it's not the 1099 so much since those expenses are easly to track and any accounting system worth its salt will take care of it, it is the reporting requirements for the healthcare BS that is going to drive everyone nuts. They still have not figured out exactly what the want - still waiting for the rules to be rendered.I agree with that. The health care legislation is the largest government debacle of anyone's lifetime. As someone who runs a company that employs between 800-2000 people, depending on the time of year, this legislation likely will force us to drop health care coverage. We pay at least 80% of the health insurance tab and 100% of the dental for any who want it. We pay 90% of health care coverage for some, and 100% for others. We didn't do this because we were forced to by the government. And, contrary to Esten's perverted logic, folks who are making money do, in fact, give back without government compulsion.

Separate and apart from recordkeeping requirements, however, the new health care laws will make it far more expensive for us to provide coverage, so we'll eventually have to dump it and pay the fine. Eventually, everyone will look to the government as the providers of health care manna, which was the Democrats' true intention in passing this legislation. They wanted to build a new dependency. But, as anyone who looks at the disasters surrounding government-funded pensions around the country can attest, eventually the costs will spiral out of control and the entire system will collapse under its own weight. The truth is, there is no free lunch. The government's effort to legislate away this basic fact of life will only mean that we pay far more later for the supposedly "free lunch."

Wild Walleye

07-22-10, 23:47

Stan, it's not the 1099 so much since those expenses are easly to track and any accounting system worth its salt will take care of it, it is the reporting requirements for the healthcare BS that is going to drive everyone nuts. They still have not figured out exactly what the want - still waiting for the rules to be rendered.

WW, well for me, I intend to take my money off shore when I retire, move to BA and live the quite life surrounded by beautiful women, quietly passing away with a big smile on my face at 110 after a session with a 19 year old chica.The 1099 headache will be bigger than you think. I use quick books and have no doubt that if I enter every non-EFT transaction by hand, I will be able to track them. However, I will have single days when I could trigger 30-50 1099s and I can be working on behalf of 10 different companies. I will then need to get 30-50 TINs, I will then have to physically enter the info and there will be a need for human oversight, therefore it's a clerical position not an accounting one.

I presented the 1099 issue as an example of the stuff that is hidden in the legislation. Put them all together and kiss your profits goodbye.

The surface reason for the 1099 stuff, as I stated before, is to enable the IRS to model all of our businesses in order to let the government control our businesses and tax us to death. One more step to Orwell's vision.

However, there is a pattern in the administration's behavior (abetted by congress): 1) the 1099 issue, 2) the tax on buying and selling gold coins (contained in the health care legislation) 3) the 2000 or so dealerships Obama forced GM and Chrysler to close were primarily in rural, white, red state areas (the Inspector General's report is scathing on the racism shown by the Obama Admin in this process) and 4) the lack of a response to the gulf oil spill.

These all disproportionately impact voters who didn't support Obama in the last election: Small business owners, self-made individuals, conservatives, and red state citizens (a significant majority of whom happen to be Caucasian) The good thing is that America is sick of this Marxist and will go along way to making up for the colossal mistake of electing him, come November.

Easy Go

07-23-10, 01:28

Esten

07-23-10, 02:19

;)

So many points and put-downs, so little time. Where to start.

I agree people who run businesses have the best ideas, views and experience - to create and grow successful businesses where success is defined as profit and return to the investor or risk-taker. And of course many companies do 'give back' - to some extent. This is commendable. I was simply taking issue with this notion that workers should not share at all in a company's financial successes.

But this discussion on what's best for business, is not the same discussion as how to improve society. It sounds like some of you think its the same discussion. It's a related discussion but not identical. You need to include the failures of the private sector not just the successes.

You can try and marginalize me and imply I do not have proper credentials for the discussion, but the fact is there are millions of Americans who share my views, including among them successful and wealthy businessmen.

Toymann

07-23-10, 02:21

This post by easygo is without question one of the stupidiest posts I have ever read. What a dope! It is obvious that this fella is NOT an employer in the US. What idiot would ask about employee retention with double digit unemployment! Not sure what planet EasyGo lives on but it's NOT earth. Duh. WAKE UP! It's not 1995 anymore! Health benefits don't drive retention in this current market. Dropping health benefits in small business is absolutely a reality in lieu of obamanations socilaist policies. Currently, an employee who performs their job at a level so incompetent that they are terminated can enjoy 65% of their colbra paid for 15 months by their previous employer (pre-obama was 0%) Do the math and wonder why small business is considering dropping health care as a benefit. Thanks Obama for again disinsentivizing small business for offering healthcare. The addition of looming national government run healthcare was just the cherry on the sundae. At the end of the day, small business drives the american economy EasyGo. Obama has done everything he can to inhibit small business since the clown took office. As my previous posts have indicated, novemeber is just around the corner. Get ready for real change EasyGo and stop proving to all of us you are a fool. Better you remain silent and at least make us wonder if you might be an idiot. LOL.

Happy Mongering All. Toyman

Esten

07-23-10, 03:04

One more.

Estan, he did share. They got paid!So you are implying the level of pay is irrelevant? That risk-taking is the only thing worthy of being rewarded?

Classic "The pie is only so big" liberal thinking. The fact is that no one person's success crowds out another's success. We can ALL be successful, which would result in the creation of wealth, AKA a bigger pie.Untrue. There is a limit on demand and hence on supply. And many sectors of the economy are basically closed to competition without substantial startup capital (eg. molding/manufacturing industries). True one could raise venture capital if they had some brilliant new idea, but existing industries have so prolifically protected their IP through patents that that's a long shot.

If you want to talk about bullshit, this "create a bigger pie" argument is a huge pile. We've already seen what happens when the pie gets bigger - the wealthy take almost the whole thing, the middle class gets a small slice and the poor get a few crumbs. In fact there is data showing that real income growth was actually NEGATIVE for the poorest 20% over the past three decades. Look it up.

More liberal bullshit. The reality is that the single entrepreneur is the most efficient economic competitor known to man and can always dance circles around the big, lumbering companies.Not in all or even most cases, see above.

Yea, thinking "if we band together we can commandeer this thing called 'democracy' and use it to force the producers to give us parasites some of the wealth that they have earned for themselves."I would say the most economically significant parasites today are the rich elite who are squeezing the American workforce in their quest for ever-increasing profits and accumulation of wealth. Especially the ones who don't do any real work but merely live off investments.

Once again, more liberal bullshit. The reality is that the wealth in the USA is spread much more evenly across all segments of our population than in any other country in the world.Jackson I challenge you to provide the evidence for this. All the analyses I have seen show the exact opposite. Here's my evidence, please post yours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Wild Walleye

07-23-10, 12:50

So you are implying the level of pay is irrelevant? That risk-taking is the only thing worthy of being rewarded? The appropriate compensation package is determined by the broader market taking into account many factors including the value contributed to the operation via the particular skill set in question and local supply and demand for those skills.

Untrue. There is a limit on demand and hence on supply.The world is flat, damn it!

My dear Esten, we all know that the pie is fixed in size and cannot grow. As part of the ruling class, we must convince the plebes that the pie can get bigger so that they: 1) will leave our piece alone, 2) do all the shit work we don't want to do, and 3) accept a lower wage today with the promise of upside participation tomorrow. If you would be so kind as to keep this information to yourself and refrain from disseminating it to the masses, we of the ruling class would be eternally grateful.

Just a couple questions, because supply and demand are finite and inexorably limited, how did GDP grow from $223.2 billion in 1945 to $14.3 trillion in 2009? Similarly, US household net worth inexplicably grew from $666.5B to $59.52T during that same period. I don't get it, if the pie can't grow, where did all this wealth come from?

Also, as a side note, while the rich have been getting richer, Esten would like us to believe that the poor are getting poorer. However, from 1975 to 2007, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line in nominal terms only increased from 12.3% to 12.5% (during a period when the US population grew 42%)

Interestingly, during that same period, the percentage of people living below the poverty line represented by Caucasians (you know, crackers, white devils, whitie, etc) increased by 8.25% while the percentage represented by blacks dropped 21.7%. Therefore, using Esten's logic, the black population is prospering at the expense of Latinos! Let's get 'em!

And many sectors of the economy are basically closed to competition without substantial startup capital (eg. Molding / manufacturing industries)You are an f-ing moron bleating out information based on absolutely nothing but hot air that flies out of your ass. It may be difficult to compete in molding because of productivity and technological advancements. However, in the US alone, there are more than 3,000 third-party (I. E. They products for other companies) electronic manufacturers. All but a handful of these companies are small to medium size businesses started by entrepreneurs with little or no external start-up capital.

True one could raise venture capital if they had some brilliant new idea, but existing industries have so prolifically protected their IP through patents that that's a long shot.Again, talking out your ass. Most venture investments today are service and process oriented (remember the part about our service economy? There still is plenty of investment in proprietary tech, particularly in the bio space, which is chasing innovation. If new, proprietary innovation could not be protected to ensure that the inventor is able to recoup his investment and make a profit (if a market for his widget ever develops) there would be no innovation. Maybe if the VCs sought out some of your poor, innovators they could cut them in on the action and get them to invent some cool new stuff.

If you want to talk about bullshit, this "create a bigger pie" argument is a huge pile.Got it. Thanks for explaining away the growth in net worth and GDP in such a succinct manner.

We've already seen what happens when the pie gets bigger - the wealthy take almost the whole thing, the middle class gets a small slice and the poor get a few crumbs.I am getting dizzy! First you tell me the pie can't get bigger. Now you tell me it can get bigger but that the wealthy take all the money. The numbers show that massive growth over the past 60 years or so has been matched by new jobs that have more than kept pace with the growth in the economy and the population. During this time, I thought workers have been protected by the govt and the unions, but you tell me that they have been enslaved to work without just compensation. This is so unfair! They should at least be recognized as indentured servants instead of working class!

In fact there is data showing that real income growth was actually NEGATIVE for the poorest 20% over the past three decades. Look it up.You look it up. Put a couple of legit numbers and calculations in with all of your bull shit (I don't think links to Gini count)

Not in all or even most cases, see above. Above erroneous citation was obliterated, try again.

I would say the most economically significant parasites today are the rich elite who are squeezing the American workforce in their quest for ever-increasing profits and accumulation of wealth.I would say look in the mirror. I am not suggesting that you are a parasite living directly off the host (I. E. Working Americans) rather you and people that think like you are facilitating and enabling the expansion of the entitlement class and accelerating its drain on America, its people and its economy. The problem with too many parasites is that they will eventually kill the host. Then the maggots move in and strip the carcass clean leaving nothing, not even compost to grow something new.

Especially the ones who don't do any real work but merely live off investments.With names like Kennedy, Kerry, Gore. Sound like you are describing congress and liberal elites.

Jackson I challenge you to provide the evidence for this. All the analyses I have seen show the exact opposite.You see what you want to see. You are living in an alternate reality, which is entirely your right to do so. Please enjoy it.

Here's my evidence, please post yours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.htmlPlease extol use with Gini's virtues. He was definitely a left-wing loon, however, for some reason I don't think he'd be a fan of our current president (hint: he (Obama) doesn't look too arian to me, if you know what I mean)

Canitasguy

07-23-10, 18:57

You are an f-ing moron bleating out information based on absolutely nothing but hot air that flies out of your ass. WW - as they say, if the shoe fits!

Ad hominem attacks are the intellectual midgets last resort when faced with cogent insights that puts their own imaginary truths to the test.

Why anyone still posts on this thread is truly a mystery.

Tiny12

07-24-10, 00:03

If you want to talk about bullshit, this "create a bigger pie" argument is a huge pile. We've already seen what happens when the pie gets bigger - the wealthy take almost the whole thing, the middle class gets a small slice and the poor get a few crumbs. In fact there is data showing that real income growth was actually NEGATIVE for the poorest 20% over the past three decades. Look it up.Esten, I responded to this earlier: http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?p=410528#post410528

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by two Swedish economists that came to conclusions that are the opposite of yours. I can't link to it because it's only available to subscribers.

Like some others here on the other side of the debate from you, I have problems with the Gini coefficient. But I'd point out the following. Some of the most dynamic economies with the highest growth rates have higher Gini coefficients than the USA. For example, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia. These countries, like the United States, are creating wealth for all. Countries in Western Europe with low GDP growth rates and high unemployment have low Gini coefficients. And Japan's growth stagnated as the Gini coefficient decreased.

Yes, you can make everyone equal. And everyone will become poorer. This experiment has already been tried, in places like the Soviet Union and Cuba and Sweden. It didn't work.

Esten

07-24-10, 02:30

Walleye is the repeated name calling really necessary? I could keep responding in kind, but it would just become a childish exchange. It reflects poorly on you.

I still hope to hear back from Jackson. I enjoy my exchanges with him more, as he makes a better effort to counter/debate the points without resorting to personal attacks.

My dear Esten, we all know that the pie is fixed in size and cannot grow.You take it too literally so I need to spell it out the long way. Of course supply and demand grow over time. But the case Jackson made was that no one person's success crowds out another's success. This is so obviously untrue that I wonder if Jackson is just baiting me to have a good laugh when I object! Once-successful businesses are put out of business all the time by competitors competing for the same customers. As one example nearby, a family-owned pizza joint closed recently when another pizza company (part of a large national chain) opened up across the street. So much for the little guy dancing circles around the big, lumbering companies.

You can't have millions of Americans go and start millions of new businesses and all be profitable. The demand just isn't there. It's a path for a small fraction of the population. It's not a broad-based solution to addressing issues stemming from extreme wealth inequality.

Also, as a side note, while the rich have been getting richer, Esten would like us to believe that the poor are getting poorer. However, from 1975 to 2007, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line in nominal terms only increased from 12.3% to 12.5% (during a period when the US population grew 42%) I am glad to see you quoting actual data. But how ironic the data actually proves my point. You gotta be kidding me! This is too funny! That trend is the wrong direction. As the population keeps increasing a greater % of the population will live in poverty.

You are an f-ing moron bleating out information based on absolutely nothing but hot air that flies out of your ass. It may be difficult to compete in molding because of productivity and technological advancements. However, in the US alone, there are more than 3,000 third-party (I. E. They products for other companies) electronic manufacturers. All but a handful of these companies are small to medium size businesses started by entrepreneurs with little or no external start-up capital. Now I'm dizzy. You call me a moron yet you agree with me (on molding)(does that make you a moron too?). I'm sure there are examples in manufacturing that are not too prohibitive in terms of startup capital. I didn't mean all. But there are plenty of areas in manufacturing that require millions to get off the ground. My point is that realistic opportunities for starting a business with little startup capital (or not being fenced-out by patent protection) are limited to only certain areas. I'm not saying there aren't opportunities. It's not worth debating.

You look it up. Put a couple of legit numbers and calculations in with all of your bull shit (I don't think links to Gini count)The Gini coefficient is a statistical parameter. And you're trying to attack the guy and imply his numbers aren't correct. ROTFLMAO! On the basis of what - thin air? Your attempts to discredit Gini are really comical. Forget about him if you want, there are other sources that show the same thing. I posted one which you ignored. I'll extend my challenge to you as well Walleye - put up your evidence (not your opinion) that the US doesn't have significant wealth inequality compared to other countries (especially developed countries).

You mentioned some Democrats. Well Democrats are the ones most likely to address this issue (to some extent anyways) by raising taxes on investment income.

BTW you guys have surely heard the recent chatter about keeping tax rates on capital gains and dividends at 20%. I would benefit from this, but I'm not too crazy about it. But surely you guys must have something positive to say about this.

Esten

07-24-10, 03:20

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by two Swedish economists that came to conclusions that are the opposite of yours. I can't link to it because it's only available to subscribers.

Like some others here on the other side of the debate from you, I have problems with the Gini coefficient. But I'd point out the following. Some of the most dynamic economies with the highest growth rates have higher Gini coefficients than the U. S. -- for example, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia. These countries, like the United States, are creating wealth for all. Countries in Western Europe with low GDP growth rates and high unemployment have low Gini coefficients. And Japan's growth stagnated as the Gini coefficient decreased. I found and read the WSJ article you mentioned. There are some good points in there. Dems are not so big government as the right media makes them out to be (I'm sure I'll get some howling here from others) The big item is health care, but I don't think there is a strong case that countries with government run health care have weaker economies or lower quality of life metrics than the US.

The Gini coefficient undoubtably has limitations but it seems to be used by many in both government and academia. But there are other sources demonstrating economic inequality if you prefer. For example see US Census Bureau data, 1979-2005, first barchart here:

http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm

I'm not sure about correlation between Gini and unemployment. The Wikipedia pages show that Australia, Canada, Japan and most Western Europe countries have lower unemployment and lower Gini coefficients than the US.

Yes, you can make everyone equal. And everyone will become poorer. This experiment has already been tried, in places like the Soviet Union and Cuba and Sweden. It didn't work.Dems aren't trying to make everyone equal. Not even close.

Wild Walleye

07-24-10, 13:28

Walleye is the repeated name calling really necessary? I could keep responding in kind, but it would just become a childish exchange. It reflects poorly on you.How does that saying go? If the shoe fits. If the latter argument were true, the current president would not be BHO.

I still hope to hear back from Jackson. I enjoy my exchanges with him more, as he makes a better effort to counter / debate the points without resorting to personal attacks.But Alinsky tells me to atack the messenger.

You take it too literally so I need to spell it out the long way. Of course supply and demand grow over time.Perhaps you just made a poor argument.

But the case Jackson made was that no one person's success crowds out another's success. This is so obviously untrue that I wonder if Jackson is just baiting me to have a good laugh when I object! Once-successful businesses are put out of business all the time by competitors competing for the same customers. As one example nearby, a family-owned pizza joint closed recently when another pizza company (part of a large national chain) opened up across the street. So much for the little guy dancing circles around the big, lumbering companies.Just because some big competitor comes to town doesn't mean you can't expand into new products or services or an entirely new business. Just because you opened up a pizza parlor on the corner of Lost and Disoriented doesn't mean you have a birthright to all pizza transactions in the neighborhood.

You can't have millions of Americans go and start millions of new businesses and all be profitable. The demand just isn't there.The demand is infinite if you deliver the correct goods and services. If everyone opens up a pizza parlor, they will fail.

It's a path for a small fraction of the population. It's not a broad-based solution to addressing issues stemming from extreme wealth inequality.If small business and newly-started small businesses are the key to jobs in a recovery, I guess then it would be the path for the population. If entrepreneurial ventures are responsible, in large part, for solving unemployment, I would venture (no pun intended) that it is a broad-based solution for addressing: unemployment, poverty and distribution of wealth.

I am glad to see you quoting actual data. But how ironic the data actually proves my point. You gotta be kidding me! This is too funny! That trend is the wrong direction. As the population keeps increasing a greater % of the population will live in poverty.You probably shouldn't have skipped math class to get high all the time. If the percentage in poverty is slightly down over the period of time, then, the percentage is down. What is striking is that despite a huge increase in population, including many low and no-income types, the overall percentage has not increased.

Now I'm dizzy. You call me a moron yet you agree with me (on molding) does that make you a moron too?If the shoe fits, I will gladly wear it. However, your point is that big, scary, evil monopolstic ghost ships (cause appearantly they don't have any employees who receive salaries, benefits, etc) have taken over industries (including molding) without out there being any benefit to society. That is clearly wrong. Is it better to have a Wal-mart employing 300 people or 20 mom and pop stores employing 3 people each? As for molding, I clearly stated that the realities of the industry have changed, those that can't compete have themselves to blame.

I'm sure there are examples in manufacturing that are not too prohibitive in terms of startup capital.Again, showing your ignorance. The electronic manufacturers to whom I alluded generally range in size from 60-120K sqft of manufacturing floor space with 3-10 million dollars worth of equipment within the facility and generate from $15 to $60 million in revenues per year and employ 50-200 people.

I didn't mean all. But there are plenty of areas in manufacturing that require millions to get off the ground.It all starts with one client, working out of one's garage. There are 3,000 examples of this in the above-mentioned sector.

My point is that realistic opportunities for starting a business with little startup capital (or not being fenced-out by patent protection) are limited to only certain areas. I'm not saying there aren't opportunities. It's not worth debating.Your point is that you want a turn-key, fully-operational, no-risk venture where you can sit in a Herman Miller chair, stare out the window and not worry about performance. Of course that isn't worth debating.

The Gini coefficient is a statistical parameter. And you're trying to attack the guy and imply his numbers aren't correct.Yes.

He was a chief propagandist for fascism. "Gini was also a leading fascist theorist and ideologue who wrote The Scientific Basis of Fascism in 1927. Gini was a proponent of the concept of organicism and applied it to nations."

Of course he can be trusted to be completely objective in his research and recommendations. Just like wacko leftists can be trusted to provide honest data and analysis about the status of the global climate situation.

ROTFLMAO!Don't hurt yourself.

On the basis of what - thin air? Your attempts to discredit Gini are really comical.I quite agree. Fascists during the 20th century were just a hoot. Particularly those guys in the brown shirts with their ovens and showers.

Forget about him if you wantEven if I could, I suspect that there are a few who can't forget the legacy of more than 10 million innocents killed by fascists during the last century.

there are other sources that show the same thing.Garbage in, garbage out. If it is based on Gini, it is crap, in my opinion.

I posted one which you ignored. I'll extend my challenge to you as well Walleye - put up your evidence (not your opinion) that the US doesn't have significant wealth inequality compared to other countries (especially developed countries) Because the US has more wealthy people, trying to force an apples to apples comparison is great fodder for the left.

You mentioned some Democrats. Well Democrats are the ones most likely to address this issue (to some extent anyways) by raising taxes on investment income.Some are now waffling on this stating that it will decrease tax revenue. More anti-business, anti-growth legislation. Rah, rah! Let's kill the engine.

BTW you guys have surely heard the recent chatter about keeping tax rates on capital gains and dividends at 20%. I would benefit from this, but I'm not too crazy about it. But surely you guys must have something positive to say about this.See above comment. That would be good. Better if it were eliminated all together because every cent of a capital gain has already been taxed multiple times. Repeal the cap gains tax today, good bye jobless recovery, hello second term for Obama. Oops, on second thought, let's keep the Obamalaise going for a while longer.

Tiny12

07-24-10, 17:24

The Gini coefficient undoubtably has limitations but it seems to be used by many in both government and academia. But there are other sources demonstrating economic inequality if you prefer. For example see US Census Bureau data, 1979-2005, first barchart here:

http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm

I'm not sure about correlation between Gini and unemployment. The Wikipedia pages show that Australia, Canada, Japan and most Western Europe countries have lower unemployment and lower Gini coefficients than the US.

Dems aren't trying to make everyone equal. Not even close.Esten, You'd make a good politician. At present the US is recovering from a recession, and unemployment benefits in the US are more generous than they've been historically. If you look back over the last 20 or 30 years, back to Reagan, unemployment in the US has been much lower than in Australia, Canada or Western Europe. You're right about Japan. Please note that when I mentioned Japan, I didn't include it in the same category with Western Europe, regarding unemployment.

Among the ways you can go about improving income equality are (1) higher taxes on ordinary income that would discourage over-achievers from working harder and small businesses from taking risks, (2) higher taxes on capital gains and dividends and interest that would reduce savings and investment, and (3) overly generous unemployment benefits. I think there's a strong correlation between "3" and the rate of unemployment. The correlation between measures of income inequality and unemployment would be weaker.

I think each side accuses the other of extremes. I did this to you when I brought up Cuba and the Soviet Union. Most people on my side of the issue don't think people should do without education, health care or food because they don't have money. Look, for example, what Jackson has done with his time and money to support the less fortunate in Argentina. And, contrary to what you've been writing, I suspect Walleye et al are free market types, that believe much more strongly than most democrat politicians (and the majority of republicans) that there should be competition among businesses.

Regarding your link, I don't think you get my point. I'm not arguing about whether statistical measures indicate there's more inequality in the US versus, say Europe. I am arguing that the average middle class or lower middle class American is better off than his counterpart in Europe, and I believe statistics of MEDIAN income adjusted for purchasing power support that. Someone at the 50th percentile of income in the US is more likely to have a larger house, a nicer car(s), air conditioning, etc.

Easy Go

07-24-10, 19:21

Someone at the 50th percentile of income in the US is more likely to have a larger house, a nicer car (s) air conditioning, etc."

Along with a big mortgage, a car loan, a student loan, and more credit card debt that mostly exist (for better and worse) due to government policies designed to make credit both cheap and widely available. The leverage of the "credit society" means that when things are good, they are very good, but when things are bad, they are really, really bad.

It also helps that prices are significantly lower in the USA because of government policies like free trade and a relatively light (compared to other countries) government footprint in most business activities.

Wild Walleye

07-24-10, 19:51

Sure the stock market has improved, but how can it be a 'recovery' with no new jobs, millions on unemployment, crippling national debt and a dour outlook for the future?

Why hasn't the recovery kicked in? The Fed has added more than $3T to the money supply and artificially held rates low. There is more than $1T in excess reserves at the Fed and more than $2T sitting on the sidelines on corporate cash. That is $3T that could be investing in jobs. Why isn't it being deployed? Can't Obama just order them to give it all to Acorn? Why don't these holders of capital put it to work?

Uncertainty. Uncertainty regarding fiscal policy, regulation and taxation. All of which Obama has control over and all of which he feigned moderation whilst on the campaign trail. He forced healthcare against the will of a majority of Americans. Between just two bills there are more than 5,000 pages, hundreds of new regulations and hundreds of new taxes. No one knows the full extent of this. Therefore they are uncertain. Therefore they sit on cash.

Tiny12

07-24-10, 21:24

Easy Go, I agree. Too much debt and current account deficits have boosted our standard of living, and that's not good.

Member #4112

07-24-10, 22:33

Esten, yea lets tax the heck out of all those capital gains so we punish all those fat cats. Last time I checked it was investments from retirement funds that had the biggest chunk of the market, so let's just tax the heck out of all those folks that are retired and planned their retirement around their investments of their money since most did not count on Social Security – I know I'm not and I am only a very few years away from pulling the plug. While you are at it that will have the unintended consequence of drying up investment capital for new companies as well as any expansion of existing companies, why invest if the government is going to take a big chunk of it.

Easy Go, yea it was really tough when the school loan programs, banks and credit card companies came along and FORCED folks to sign those loan agreements and then twisted their arm to make all those ancillary purchases of other goods! What the hell happened to personal responsibility? Don't give me the BS about the school loans, mortgages, loans and credit cards, nobody held a gun to their head they did it of their own free will, got in a jam and don't want to accept responsibility and look for someone else to blame.

I put myself through my undergrad and both post grad programs, no loans. The work I did while in my undergrad program in a college town where the minimum wage then was less than half of what it is now included cleaning chemistry & biology labs, caring for lab rats and pigs, literally shoveling shit out cow barns and the list goes on. (Shoveling shit got me prepared for what I see on this board and from liberals)

Too many people are looking for someone to blame and not taking responsibility for their own actions. We have bred two generations of them with Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" - welfare and Medicaid.

Those who can do, those who can't complain.

Easy Go

07-25-10, 01:02

I must have missed the part where I said something about predatory lending or made excuses for over-extended borrowers.

The availability of cheap and easy credit has been a fact of life for the last 30+ years and has enabled many people to have a higher material standard of living than in countries where credit was scarce and expensive. On the downside, when something bad happens like higher than expected unemployment, a sudden tightening or increase in the cost of credit, or an unexpected and dramatic loss in value of the assets securing the loan, a heavily leverage society is going to have more severe problems than a lightly leveraged society.

As a society, the USA made a choice (through elected government) to be highly leveraged and now we are dealing with the consequences. Not surprisingly, groups are trying to use the political process to minimize the consequences, (e. G. Higher taxes, foreclosures, bankruptcies, loss of political power, that specific groups will suffer. Is this a surprise to anyone?

El Queso

07-25-10, 20:24

But getting back to personal responsibility - this is something that I think is the key difference between the Right and the Left. It's a big reason why we get taxed so heavily, whether we want it or not. Health care, retirement (SocSec) welfare, etc. Meddling in schools to the point where we are now paying more for administration costs than where the money RIGHTLY belongs - in the teachers' pockets. And so on.

There was a time when there was no welfare. You worked and fed yourself or you had problems. There were thousands of societies and charities, funded by rich people and middle class people, out of the goodness of their hearts, to help people who did not have food to eat. People either saved for their retirement, or knew that their kids were going to help them out.

My folks and their families, both sides, were poor as hell. We're talking the '20s through the '50s. They were TOO FREAKING PROUD to accept a DIME from anyone else because they knew their own self-worth and they busted their asses doing whatever it took to make ends meet and provide for their family.

Now, if you don't have a job, or you don't have enough money, the government steps in and forces income redistribution. It takes away the person's individual responsibility to provide for himself. It takes away the heart-felt responsiblity to help those less fortunate that many rich would help with in the past - who the hell wants to contribute MORE to charities when the government is taking their money and redistributing it at gunpoint and giving it to people who have become professional at living off the government teat.

I too worked my way through college without any student loans. I worked offshore as a roustabout during two summers through an intern program at Tenneco, working twelve hours a day two weeks on and two weeks off in the middle of the Gulf Of Mexico. I also worked a job while in school, and when the summer job program at Tenneco got cut back and I couldn't do that any more, I worked three freaking jobs (busboy, game packager and car oil changer) during the school year to make enough money to live and go to school.

I barely made enough money to make ends meet. I remember when macaroni and cheese was 4 boxes for $1 (not Kraft - it was always the store brand) and a five pound bag of potatoes cost a dollar. I could eat for a week for about $4!

Now, I'm not nearly rich and have had some bad times recently due to the recession. But that doesn't stop me. Although I have paid unemployment taxes, I am too damned proud to take unemployment - I work harder than I have previously because I know THAT's the way to recover my losses, not accepting something from the government. I am not necessarily disparaging unemployment benefits 100% - but I was laid off in the past during a recession and NEVER had to take unemployment benefits for TWO FREAKING YEARS.

How many of those people who are unemployed and asking for benefits haven't taken the necessary steps to find something to get them by? Are they too proud to work at McDonalds or WalMart (or wherever) even if they need to work two jobs to make ends meet? Are they too proud to cut yards or offer some other services that could help make ends meet? After all, there is a limit on how much unemployment pays, no matter what your salary was. Most of the time, it doesn't really come close to covering your entire salary anyway and these people find ways to live off of unemployment. Why can't they get off their asses and find something to live off of while they recuperate?

The answer is because the US citizenry is becoming ignorantly spoiled and falsely proud.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that stops people from putting effort out to get what they want out of life. In the past, yes, there were big roadblocks for many, including minorities. But let's face it - no matter how much the NAACP wants to rail on about racial problems, legally the ability to discriminate doesn't exist any more and there are ways to fight it when it does happen. Minorities can work just as hard as I worked when I had no money, but they are so used to feeling sorry for themselves because the government (and those in power on the left, panhandling to those who put them in power) tells them that's their situation.

We are promised the right to a PURSUIT of happiness, not happiness itself. But people on the Left want to make sure that the government GIVES people happiness, not the right to pursue it.

El Queso

07-25-10, 20:37

Related to a recovery - those who believe it, just go ahead and keep listening to the current administration's outright lies about that and it will make you all feel better, I'm sure.

I run a business (that is just me, now!), and I can state without doubt that a recovery where it matters, in the private sector with small businesses providing services, and medium and large businesses who need those services, that THERE AIN'T NO RECOVERY happenning yet.

Almost no one is willing to spend money on services, to hire people to replace those they have laid off, etc. Credit is still extremely tight (or non-existent) and everyone is freaked out about the future. Obama and his folk are so freaking clueless about the real business community. They are much more concerned about saving union jobs than those jobs that are much more numeric - non-union. Even to the point where the deal with GM was so union-beneficial that it should make most people choke. The burden they are placing on those who will pay for these programs is tremendous and those who actually own or manage businesses don't know, literally, whether to piss or go broke.

Instead of giving tax cuts (which is so evil! We can't give those fat cats a break! Even though many [maybe most] of those "fat cats" are people like me! They are pumping money into government programs and keeping police and firemen and administrators who produce NO WEALTH and HIRE NO PEOPLE. Yeah, that makes sense.

Obama and the Democrats are suffering from personal pride and are NOT doing what is good for the country. He had in mind all of these things he was going to do for the people of the country when he ran for president, and yes, a recession hit and he had to take care of that. So instead of concentrating on what could help the country, he worries about health care and immigration reform and making sure that those who backed him are taken care of. He wants nothing more than to be able to step back and say "see, I made an impact on the country."

What he has done with placing stimulus money into the government (paying it to government employees and projects rather than providing tax cuts for those who would actually employ people) and worrying about everything EXCEPT getting the economy on track, is like me worrying about how I'm going to go out and buy a brand new sports car and keep the maid employed at the same time I'm filing bankruptcy.

El Queso

07-25-10, 20:44

As a society, the USA made a choice (through elected government) to be highly leveraged and now we are dealing with the consequences. Not surprisingly, groups are trying to use the political process to minimize the consequences, (e. G. Higher taxes, foreclosures, bankruptcies, loss of political power, that specific groups will suffer. Is this a surprise to anyone?I understand some of what you're saying on this point. I think the point you're missing, though, is that although the elected officials that society put into place made it easier to get credit, and therefore to abuse it, the reality is the people still have the choice as to whether they want to overextend themselves.

The responsibility lies in the individual to NOT become overextended and seek credit only for what they can afford. That IS a societal condition brought about, at least in part, due to the example fo the government itself that can never seem to control its spending, no matter who is in power.

It's just that the left always abuses it more than the right, in my opinion. Obama is the worst ever, creating vastly expensive programs like health care, that are already costing WAY more than they anticipated (publicly at least - they're not stupid, they just lie real convincingly to people that are gullible)

People talka boutt he amount of money that Bush spent on the war over 6-7 years of his administration - but it's DWARFED by what Obama has done in the first year and a half of his presidency, at a time when our economy is weak and we absolutely cannot afford it.

Examples like those help show people the WRONG way to manage their finances. You can't spend your way out of debt and into successfullness.

Easy Go

07-25-10, 22:41

I'm not missing any point. Many people are overly optimistic about their financial future so they make, in hindsight, a bad decision about credit. If lenders want to ignore that reality because they think they can charge a high enough risk premium or lay the risk off on somebody else, I don't have much sympathy for any of them on a macro basis. Borrowers and lenders have been making bad decisions about credit for thousands of years. Why is there suddenly because the US government runs deficits or because Obama is President?

Why does a solution that says all we need to do is embrace personal responsibility sound so ineffectual?

How do you propose to enforce personal responsibility on private parties entering into a private contract? Do we need increased government regulation to ensure everyone is acting responsibly? Or should we remove the government entirely from lending and hope it won't trigger a depression?

Why do you think it's somehow worse to spend a trillion dollars on things in the USA, aka stimulus program, rather than a trillion dollars fighting a futile war in Iraq?

It is what it is. Whining about the current bozo in charge is not going to change anything.

El Queso

07-25-10, 23:38

First, Bush never spent anywhere near the amount of money on the wars that Obama spent on stimulus or indebted us to in the future with his completely nutty plans at a time when we simply can't afford to be spending more. Also, I'm not happy with at least part of what Bush did and how he did it.

Second, I wouldn't have had a problem with a stimulus that actually stimulated something. Again, keeping government functioning at outrageous levels of spending via keeping state governments in cash and their employees with job DOES NOT in any way shape or form stimulate the economy. At best it keeps THOSE people employed, but it does not, in any fashion, CREATE jobs.

It's just like those idiots in the White house crowing over having created 400K jobs, when it turned out that yeah, the government did create those jobs, but to what effect? Those jobs were almost all census workers and when the census taking is done they will be out of work again!

Third, the government should not have butted its nose into things and made credit easier to get in the 90s and the 2000s, true, but the people or companies who went out and put themselves into debt, or the companies (around the world) who contributed to the debt crisis are the ones responsible! It is called personal responsibility - as corporations are considered an entity under most laws, corporations fall under that naming as well.

I have been one of those who over-extended credit in the past because it was so easy to get, and I learned my lesson the first time - apparently many can't do that, but that is THEIR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. Had they not done so, they would be much, much better off now when there problems.

BTW - I knew a couple of people who were helping bring people in and writing unbelieveable loans for people who couldn't afford mortgages in the early 2000s. They lied and cheated to get people those loans. Why? Because Fannie May and Freddie Mac made it so easy to get a loan, practically on someone's say-so. It was real easy to cheat the system. Yeah, government screwed up to begin with, and it should not have butted in, but those people who committed fraud or could barely get loans to begin with are the ones responsible because they should never have extended themselves like that.

In a twist of irony, one of those I knew who was preapring those loans lost his house himself in 2004 because he couldn't afford it. Had he hung on a little longer, there would be no doubt he would have lost it in this crisis.

Fourth, when you have a government that is increasingly making decisions for people, and telling them that it's not their fault, but that they are victims of those fat cats that made the mess to begin with (such an over-simplification as well) you tend to get a society that has given up its rights to the government, to be fed like a bunch of little kids, completely without any personal responsibility.

Fifth, whining about the current bozo that is in charge is what everyone SHOULD be doing. Otherwise, they will become Argentinos, where everyone is a giant pussy waiting to get fucked.

It's real easy to sit back and say that it is the government's fault that everyone was so far in debt, including businesses. In reality, it was not the government's fault that others overextended theselves, had no cash on hand, had no means of weathering a bad economy. But those people who point to the government and say "you made this mess by making credit too easy" are not looking in the right direction, completely.

Of course, that's just another example of where government should butt the hell out. It helps prove the point of conservative fiscal policies, even if not everyone in the country can afford to buy their own house. That's a personal problem, not a governmental problem. Let them rent - I did for a decade before I saved up enough money to buy my first house.

And maybe it's the cart before the horse - maybe we DID elect people who not only made credit too easy, but also can't control their own spending. We have Democrats saying we have to spend our way out of debt, even now. For fuck's sake, the socialist-leaning countries of Europe had to tell our government ENOUGH SPENDING! We have to decrease spending!

The solution that says we have to take personal responsibility is the only one that will really work in the end. Otherwise, everyone will depend on the government to make decisions for them and make everything alright. Of course, to start that sentiment, the government actually has to control itself and do the right thing by the MAJORITY of the taxpayers, not a minority of taxpayers who live increasingly off the government teat and blame all their woes on "fat cats" who, in the myopic view of those said minority of people, have too much money.

Easy Go

07-26-10, 00:32

Iraq and Afganistan have already gone over 1.05B in current spending. That doesn't include the hundreds of billions that are going to be paid for disability and health care costs over the next 50 years. We know how effective that's been.

The "stimulus" (which covers all kinds of things) put a trillion dollars of demand into the USA economy. AFAIK, the intent was never to create permanent jobs. It was to keep the economy sinking into depression. The depression didn't happen (or at least hasn't happened yet) but we will never know if the stimulus was the difference or not.

Any solution that is based on expecting a major change in human behavior is a pipe dream not a solution.

But this is pretty boring so I'm going to go back to reading the writings of TL. He's much more amusing.

Wild Walleye

07-26-10, 12:25

Iraq and Afganistan have already gone over 1.05B in current spending. That doesn't include the hundreds of billions that are going to be paid for disability and health care costs over the next 50 years. We know how effective that's been.As a Keynesian, you should be a proponent of this government spending. Most of the money spent on Iraq and Afgan (excluding direct foreign aid, which is a horse of a different color) goes to US soldiers, contractors and US manufacturers (for both products and ongoing maintenance) while a minority of it goes to non-US parties. Therefore, the Keynesian Multiplier, so beloved by this administration (and so thoroughly debunked by this continuing recession) should apply to those dollars staying in US hands or being spent by non-US groups on American goods and services.

The "stimulus" (which covers all kinds of things) put a trillion dollars of demand into the USA economy. AFAIK, the intent was never to create permanent jobs. It was to keep the economy sinking into depression. The depression didn't happen (or at least hasn't happened yet) but we will never know if the stimulus was the difference or not.The stimulus was sold to the American publis as a permanent fix to what was ailing us. When the rare pundit would point out that it was primarily focused on temporary jobs, he / she would be shouted down. When more than $250 million of that stimulus money was targeted for ACORN, you get an idea of what it really was. It was $800B+ of political payoffs. All of the "stuff" that the congress (primarily the left because they were in charge) could not get through during the previous eight years. We do in fact know that the stimulus has failed, thus far.

Any solution that is based on expecting a major change in human behavior is a pipe dream not a solution.That didn't stop the fascists in Europe or the Communists in Eastern Europe and Asia (some of whom still think that they can do it)

But this is pretty boring so I'm going to go back to reading the writings of TL. He's much more amusing.Agreed

Canitasguy

07-26-10, 13:14

First, Bush never spent anywhere near the amount of money on the wars that Obama spent on stimulus.El Queso - how well did you do in math when you were in high school?

W's Afghanistan and Iraq great adventures will cost over $3 trillion including years of medical bills for wounded troops and interests cost on the money W borrowed from the Chinese to pay for the wars, according to independent economic analyses.

And $282 Billion (one third of the $789 billion Obama stimulus spending) went to giving US taxpayers the biggest tax cut in US history!

Aren't tax cuts what you and Wild W are all about?

But hey what do facts have to do with the debates on this site?

Precious little!

Member #4112

07-26-10, 14:14

Boy Queso, the macaroni story takes me back, in the day Kraft was 19 Cents a box and with that and a loaf of bread, butter, garlic salt I was set for the week. A single box lasted 1 to 2 days. But enough of that.

1. Personal responsibility is the key, the Dem's deny it the Rep's expound on it, nuf said!

2. As far as Obama, they sold the American public the "Stimulus" package saying if we did nothing unemployment would reach 8.5% but with it unemployment would not go above 7% - Wow I think we should have just "done nothing" and stopped at 8.5% unemployment. FYI the Obama administration is now saying well 9.5% isn't so bad, high unemployment will be around for a while so just get use to it.

3. Remember the "Obama HealthCare Plan", he crowed about and the guy he appointed to run Medicare who worships the British plan as the do all and end all of "great healthcare for the masses" with the added bonus of income redistribution? Well check out the new British PM, he is admitting the system is a failure and is seeking to decentralize it and hand over decision making to the physicians and not the bureaucrats, many of whom will not lose their jobs. (sob)

4. What is this BS of paid unemployment for 2 YEARS! What a total disincentive to work, just lay back and collect a check from Uncle Obama, collect food stamps ect. Folks won't get serious about looking for any job until the bucks run out. I have known many over the years when I would ask why don't you get a job at McDonalds ect, answer was – why should I get a job making minimum wage where I have to show up and work when I can lay on my ass and get almost as much from unemployment? Wow what a work ethic!

5. If you want to fix the economy do away with all the unfunded mandates / sacred cows of Welfare and Medicaid, keep Social Security and Medicare since we have been paying taxes for these benefits our entire working lives and cut out all the BS giveaways from both programs and pare them down to only US citizens and only those who paid in. If you read the original docs that is the way it was written. Maybe raise the age to some to offset long life expectancies and the surge of baby boomers. Ever since the Dems pulled the SS fund into the general budget back in the 50's Social Security has developed into the greatest Ponzi scheme every dreamed of – dwarfing old Barny's pitiful attempt.

6. A recent study published in the Houston Chronicle which is a real lefty newspaper showed people making over $250K were paying over 70% of the taxes, "middle income" i.e. under $250 were paying 28% and the "low income" were paying less than 1%. If that isn't income redistribution what is and you have to consider the Chronicle cherry picked the best study they could find. Most studies show closer to upper 80% of taxes paid by the folks over $250K.

Obama and his crew don't have a clue, just a bunch of wild ideas that work in fantasy land not the real world. None have run a business, made a payroll or worried about debt or market share. All they know is the Fed can print all the money they need. Budgets – living within your means are for state governments who can't print money or the "little people", not for them.

End of rant today, got to get back to work so I can pay the bills.

Doppelganer

Wild Walleye

07-26-10, 14:50

Member #4112

07-26-10, 14:52

Naw - hot dogs were to pricy for me - those were reserved for the "fat cats"

Wild Walleye

07-26-10, 15:23

Naw - hot dogs were to pricy for me - those were reserved for the "fat cats"That's why I said live it up, I wasn't a high-roller.

Stan Da Man

07-27-10, 03:49

Stan,

Can you talk a little about why your current benefit package includes health insurance? It's a hugely expensive benefit (a good plan for 2000 people can easily be $20M / year) so I assume you have some underlying business reason to offer it.

If you drop the benefit, what effect, if any, do you expect the change to have on your ability to recruit and retain employees?

Are there specific provisions in the reform package that will force you to drop it or is your current thinking based on a belief that the package as a whole will increase premiums to an unaffordable level?

If premium costs are the issue, what were you thinking about the future of your health benefit prior to the reform package? Most companies were already seeing 8-12% on-going annual increases in premiums so your costs were already tracking to double every 5-8 years. At what point were health care costs going to overwhelm you anyway?

If you drop employer health care insurance for your employees, what will you do with the savings? Fund a health reimbursement plan? Increase wages to partially offset the the cost that your employees will pay to get health insurance on the open market? Create or improve another benefit, e. G. 401K match? Take it to the bottom line? What about the following year when you could have expected premiums to increase by 8%? Will you start to factor health care inflation into raises?

It seems to me that if there was an effective market for individual health insurance, we would all be better off than under the current system where employees are limited to the options provided by their employer. I suspect at this point, most companies would prefer to be out of the health insurance benefit business but realize that it would leave their employees without a viable alternative and themselves at a serious disadvantage in attracting and retaining employees.Sorry for the delayed response on this. I've been traveling a bit. I was in Brazil last week and just got back to the States.

As for why we provided coverage in the first place, that's relatively straightforward. Contrary to popular belief from some sectors on this board, employers aren't simply vipers who want to utterly maximize every nickel they can wring out of their employees. We initially provided benefits when our company became large enough to be included as a "small group" employer, with enough theoretical participation that the rates were not exorbitant. It takes most employers some time to get there. We had always wanted to provide insurance to employees as a benefit but, until your business reaches a certain size, it is difficult or impossible to offer a group plan. (Individual plans can be much cheaper, but you have issues with testing and pre-existing conditions, and they're not all that practical. Qualifying for "small group" has become a bit easier in recent years, but it wasn't when we began looking at the issue.

We're now a much larger organization, but we're still considered "small group" by the insurance industry. That has a number of consequences. Among them, you don't get to see what health care events led to their rate increases, giving you no real insight into cost increases. It seems like the finish line for becoming "large group" gets moved a bit further away every year by the industry, so you never quite get there. Even for a company that was growing 50% a year (and 30% the past two years) we never quite got there.

Today, we offer health insurance as much out of a desire to provide this benefit as we do for competitive reasons. Simply put, if you're bidding on large contracts in the service sector, your prospective clients expect you to offer health insurance to your employees, at least in our line of work. Among other reasons, clients believe it is a good employee retention tool. They are right, to a certain extent. That's not why we did it originally, but it is one of the factors we would have considered if we thought about dropping coverage before ObamaCare.

As to why ObamaCare might prompt us to eventually drop health care coverage, you have to consider the same two issues: (a) we want employees to have the option to get subsidized health insurance; and (b) for competitive reasons, it was a good idea. Now, consider those two issues after ObamaCare goes into effect. If we drop coverage, employees will still have the option of getting coverage. We don't have to provide it. We can just pay the penalty. According to our esteemed members of Congress, our employees will still get the same, high-quality coverage whether we provide it or not.

So after ObamaCare, the issue really is one of cost. Whether we provide it or not, employees will get health insurance. At that point, it's a much easier analysis. If you believe it will be cheaper to provide employer-subsidized health care, then you do it. If not, then let the taxpayers pick up the tab and just pay the penalty. So, there's the rub: Do you believe that insurance company plans will be cheaper after ObamaCare than the penalty.

Here's one glimmer of what the big boys think: http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/index.htm Yep, you guessed it. The smart money thinks it might be cheaper just to pay the penalty. There is additional evidence that this already is true under RomneyCare, the precursor to ObamaCare, and companies in Massachussetts already are dumping their employees on the state tit.

But what hasn't been discussed yet is how the analysis plays out for small businesses. If big businesses -- who are either large group or self-insured -- are considering dropping coverage because it may be cheaper to pay the penalty, then there will be no question that this will be true for small businesses. As mentioned above, we're "small group." As such, we pay the highest premiums for group coverage out there. We have no leverage. If big companies with all the leverage are debating whether they can save money by paying the penalty -- and some of these companies have taken billions in charges already due to expected increases under ObamaCare -- then there is little doubt that this will be true for smaller companies.

As for what we'll do with the savings, I can't say at this point. It's all fairly theoretical. We already provide 100% dental. We already have a 401k. As a small employer, we pay through the nose for that, as well. (Again, no economies of scale, so we get fee'd to death and stuck with the annual audit tab. We already provide a 401k match and have continued to do so in these lean times. We don't have to do so for competitive reasons. Most of our competitors either don't have a 401k, or dropped their match two years ago. We continue to do so because we're making money and want to give back. I know that sounds silly. But, believe it or not, I'm hoping that just one former employee will remember me when he or she is retired at 70 years old and cashes that 401k check. That's really all that sort of thing comes down to.

But, the thing that galls any small business owner is the notion that "government provides" anything, or that government imposes anything where it has no business sticking its nose. So, truthfully, if the penalty cost is close to, or less than, our health care cost, we likely will dump coverage. There's no reason for us to provide it. Obama can provide it -- or at least claim to provide it after he picks our pockets.

At any rate, you asked so I thought I'd offer a response. I'm sure there are some who think that ObamaCare will actually reduce or rein in health care costs. I have absolutely no confidence in government to make this so, and in particular I have every confidence that this administration will actually make things far worse.

Wild Walleye

07-27-10, 11:41

Here's one glimmer of what the big boys think: http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/index.htm Yep, you guessed it. The smart money thinks it might be cheaper just to pay the penalty. This is not a mistake. It is to drive the entire nation onto the public option. If you make it a no-brainer for companies to drop coverage, then the idiots in the WH and Congress will say "See! It isn't working! The greedy employers and even greedier insurance companies aren't taking care of the people! We must take over 100%!"

Once a couple of big guys go (I. E. Drop coverage) look out below!

But what hasn't been discussed yet is how the analysis plays out for small businesses.If you are a small business, there is a target painted on your forehead by this administration and congress. Small companies will be forced to either dump coverage, go broke or layoff employees. One move is to fire everyone and rehire as independent contractors. However, this would not be a safe move (considering the enforcement attitude in govt) unless you can structure it to really meet the independent contractor test (IRS guidelines) the alternative is to outsource you employees so that you have none (my goal)

As for what we'll do with the savings, I can't say at this point. It's all fairly theoretical. and on the federal level it is a fairy tale. Remember being told that we had to do this to save money? The GAO has already come out and said that Obamacare will be a net cost of at least $50B over the near-term and even more over the long-term.

We already provide 100% dental. We already have a 401k. As a small employer, we pay through the nose for that, as well. (Again, no economies of scale, so we get fee'd to death and stuck with the annual audit tab. We already provide a 401k match and have continued to do so in these lean times. We don't have to do so for competitive reasons. Most of our competitors either don't have a 401k, or dropped their match two years ago. We continue to do so because we're making money and want to give back. I know that sounds silly. But, believe it or not, I'm hoping that just one former employee will remember me when he or she is retired at 70 years old and cashes that 401k check. That's really all that sort of thing comes down to.OK, what is wrong with this picture? Stan wants to do right by his people and the govt is stacking every possible obstacle in his way.

But, the thing that galls any small business owner is the notion that "government provides" anything, or that government imposes anything where it has no business sticking its nose. So, truthfully, if the penalty cost is close to, or less than, our health care cost, we likely will dump coverage. There's no reason for us to provide it. Obama can provide it -- or at least claim to provide it after he picks our pockets.Yep. Govt is telling you to screw your workers. Your alternative is to screw yourself (which they will do as well) and go broke.

I'm sure there are some who think that ObamaCare will actually reduce or rein in health care costs.I am sure there are some that believe in the tooth fairy and that the chica they just paid really is in love with them.

I have absolutely no confidence in government to make this so, and in particular I have every confidence that this administration will actually make things far worse.Apparently, the GAO and and overwhelming majority of the populace agree. We'll see in November if they really do.

Member #4112

07-27-10, 12:56

If you love the service you get from the USPS (FYI they are now going for another rate increase and are thinking about doing away with Saturday delivery) love the "savings" Medicare and Medicaid have brought you (in the first ten years of Medicaid and Medicare the costs were over 500% greater than projectd) and love the way Social Security is working (since the 50's the greatest Ponzi scheme in town) then you are going to just love ObamaCare – based on the British model which is now discredited by the new PM. Can anyone show me a program the Government runs that is both successful and cost effective?

What is coming for the small business owners (you know the ones who really create the jobs in any recovery) – the Obama administration is going to grab them by the heels, turn them upside down and shake every penny they can get out of them. There is no question it will be cheaper to pay the fine than pay for employee healthcare insurance. I'm spending $112K per year for healthcare now and since the fine currently appears to be tax deductible I really will have no choice – is a cost benefit no brainer. Any "savings" will be eaten up by additional reporting requirements for businesses to comply with the new statute – probably to the IRS since they are seeded the enforcement duties under the law.

I have been in meetings with clients and their healthcare providers and the picture is grim. The Aetna representative said if ObamaCare takes effect as written in a few years the Public Option will occur by default as all the private insurers go broke. They will be unable to make a profit and will continue to incur losses under the current rules. They will be forced to accept a shrinking pool of patients, which are sicker and cost more to care for while the IRS tracks down those who don't carry the required coverage and force payments from them when they find them (a process with will take months if not more likely years) and the fines they collect from business won't cover the costs of service. In the mean time insurance carriers are paying for healthcare costs NOW. Don't believe me – check out Harry Reid's comments in Vegas this last weekend – it's the dirty little secret along with the cuts in payments to physicians nobody wants to talk about. In Texas, primary care physicians are either dropping out of the Medicare program altogether or limiting the number of patient's they will take. They are not being hard hearted; they just want to survive since every Medicare patient they see is at a loss in most cases (costs more to see the patient than they are reimbursed for the care)

Regarding 401(k) when I started ours we did a 100% match which dwindled over the years. I now doing a 3% Safe Harbor match to eliminate some of the testing required by IRS for our plan. I just love the way the IRS tells you how much of YOUR PROFITS you HAVE to contribute to your employees to put back any of YOUR PROFITS for your own retirement!

End of Rant for today, got to get back to work and pay the bills!

Doppelganger

Easy Go

07-28-10, 00:02

Thanks Stan. It's useful to see your perspective as a CEO.

I don't think it is at all silly to want to be known as a company that is a good place to work and I don't see where any US company can do that today without offering a health insurance plan. However, if you could get out of the health insurance business without effecting your company reputation or the good will of your current and future employees, you'd want to look at the financial implications of making that change. Correct?

As far as the companies discussed in the CNN article, any company that didn't look at the financial implications and options created by the reform package would be remiss. But it's a long way from looking at alternatives to actually making changes. However, if the exchanges prove to be a success and companies think that they can transition at little to no cost (nobody is going to say "drop") from an employer-based to exchange-based benefit without taking a reputation hit with customers and employees, they are going to do it. If the exchanges are successful and the financial penalties are low enough, employers would be silly not to change. I happen to think that's a good thing as I believe employer-sponsored health insurance is a major market distortion in the USA. It's also worth noting that all the companies in the article have large union work forces so the companies are always looking for a bargaining chip.

Of course, if the penalties are sufficiently high, employers will not drop plans and the exchanges will remain relatively trivial players. They might help you out as they are supposed to provide small business with the opportunity to participate in larger risk pools.

My personal belief is that the reforms are insufficient to do anything to stop health care inflation that will overwhelm us in 10-20 years. Stopping that will require hard choices that no politician can make and keep his job until the problem is still so obvious and severe that can't be ignored. Although I think that examples like California and public pension plans show that we are capable of inaction even when faced with pretty big problems.

Stan Da Man

07-28-10, 17:02

My personal belief is that the reforms are insufficient to do anything to stop health care inflation that will overwhelm us in 10-20 years. Stopping that will require hard choices that no politician can make and keep his job until the problem is still so obvious and severe that can't be ignored. Although I think that examples like California and public pension plans show that we are capable of inaction even when faced with pretty big problems.Absolutely true, where California is concerned. The problem and the dynamic are plain for all to see. There is a Democrat-controlled legislature in California and there has been for a long, long time. Their primary constituency and primary contributors are the public sector unions.

So, when it comes to negotiating government contracts with these unions, there is an obvious conflict of interest. It may not be a conflict in the traditional sense, but it is plain as the nose on your face: The foxes are guarding the hen house. There is no incentive for Democrat lawmakers to "get tough" with their biggest constituency, so they've been giving away the store for decades. This process plays out on the state, county and municipal level. It's now at the breaking point. But, who's going to put their foot down? Certainly not Democrat lawmakers.

Study after study has shown that public employees are compensated higher and have richer benefits packages than their private sector counterparts. They also aren't subject to the same free-market pressures -- when the entity is not successful, there are consequences, such as layoffs. Public sector employees are largely insulated from that.

Anyone who has dealt with government, especially in California, knows that employees are largely incompetent. This doesn't mean they are inherently bad people. But, the system that is in place, largely because of union rules and unaccountability, fosters incompetence. When you run a company, you feel personally responsible for the bottom line. Even if you don't feel directly responsible, pressures will be brought to bear on middle and lower level managers when the entity is failing. Generally, the same is not true on the public sector side. There's no one who feels directly responsible. To the extent senior managers have any interest, it is in protecting their budget and expanding their head count. Unfortunately, for most of these folks, that's how they measure status and that's how they massage their egos.

Until this system breaks, there will be no good solution. California is in a particularly acute dilemma. Democrats' traditional response to these issues is to simply raise taxes. But, that's not really a viable option at this point since state and local taxes already are among the highest in the nation. So, it can't raise taxes without driving away wealthy individuals and businesses. Many who could go already have left. That erodes the tax base further. It's credit is impaired. And, it's not willing to make the long-term structural changes that are necessary (e. G. Pension reform) because the legislature is controlled by Democrats. It will break, eventually. The biggest problem for California is that it does not have the traditional private sector option of filing for bankruptcy. States can't do that. (The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution forbids it. The only option, ultimately, will be to sell off some of the state's assets -- buildings, parks, etc. -- and pare back from there.

I threw this question out on this board a while back and got no response, probably because it was at the end of a long e-mail like this. But, I'll try one more time:

What purpose do public sector unions serve?

Historically, unions arose to give workers the ability to collectively bargain against capitalists and large conglomerates. It was a way of evening the bargaining power.

Why is this necessary for public sector workers? They are negotiating with. us! Citizens are a far cry from the powerful railroads, mining companies, capitalists and conglomerates that originally spawned labor unions.

My solution: Ban all public sector unions. Period. If the voters believe that workers deserve better pay and benefits packages, they can elect politicians who will give them that. There is no need for a union. I'm not naive enough to believe that this will ever happen in my lifetime. But, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan: Public sector unions cannot solve the problem; public sector unions are the problem. Or, to paraphrase Shakespeare: First, let's kill all the lawyers; then, let's get the unions.

Easy Go

07-28-10, 17:50

I've known that those two references were going to force you to invest all that time writing an anti-Democratic and anti-union screed, I wouldn't have mentioned them as they were tangential to my post. Are you done discussing health care or are unions just a hot-button topic for you?

I suppose that pointing out that Republicans and Democrats have equal blame for California's political problems but most of the blame actually resides with the initiative system which created an impossible gap between spending and revenues. Voters want programs but don't want to pay for them. Of course, both those "wants" have been shaped by heavy investments by special interests in initiatives they favor.

We have no common ground for the union discussion as my view is that unions are a fact of life so figuring out how to live with them is far effective than either blaming them for everything or hoping they will go away. Poor management results in poor unions whether it's the DMV or United Airlines and we don't have much hope of fixing either.

There's a number of reasons that government is a good career financially but it mostly comes down to government and private pension plans and benefits have historically favored long-service employees and, due to civil service laws created to curb huge abuses in government hiring and firing, there are lots of long service employees. Plus, politicians prefer to give away the future if it avoids pain the present so they tend to sweeten pension benefits to avoid having to address current wage issues. Inflation-adjusted pensions are a sweet, sweet deal. Of course, there is a significant downside to being a government employee in that you have to work for the government which is not generally a very satisfying place to work.

Wild Walleye

07-28-10, 19:29

I'd known that those two references were going to force you to invest all that time writing an anti-Democratic and anti-union screed, I wouldn't have mentioned them as they were tangential to my post. Are you done discussing health care or are unions just a hot-button topic for you?You don't see the point that many years ago (30+) unions morphed from organized labor (I. E. Give employees strength in numbers) to organized crime (use labor pool, voting pool, union funds to extort third parties)

I suppose that pointing out that Republicans and Democrats have equal blame for California's political problemsI can point out to you that the sun rises in the West. That doesn't make it so.

[ but most of the blame actually resides with the initiative system which created an impossible gap between spending and revenues. Voters want programs but don't want to pay for them. Of course, both those "wants" have been shaped by heavy investments by special interests in initiatives they favor.

Poor management results in poor unions whether it's the DMV or United Airlines and we don't have much hope of fixing either.Creating government-made, sanctioned and encouraged anomalies in the labor market results in private industries being destroyed by payments to people who have long since left their employ.

There's a number of reasons that government is a good career financially but it mostly comes down to government and private pension plans and benefits have historically favored long-service employees and, due to civil service laws created to curb huge abuses in government hiring and firing, there are lots of long service employees. Plus, politicians prefer to give away the future if it avoids pain the present so they tend to sweeten pension benefits to avoid having to address current wage issues. Inflation-adjusted pensions are a sweet, sweet deal.

Exactly, artificially high compensation for the skills required and job performed with no little or no accountability.

[quote=}Of course, there is a significant downside to being a government employee in that you have to work for the government which is not generally a very satisfying place to work.[/QUOTE]The over-compensation helps. Plus, for many govt employees, it is a great place to work. They get paid relatively high wages and have to do little more than they would if they collected welfare.

Easy Go

07-28-10, 20:40

Maybe those government jobs are not as secure as one thinks.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/28/news/economy/local_governments_budget_doom.fortune/

"But sales tax, personal income tax, and corporate income tax (by itself 80% of states' general fund revenue) revenues have fallen off a cliff. As a result, states and municipalities have had to take very drastic measures -- including laying off over 200,000 state and local government employees since June 2009"

The story goes on to say that it's estimated that 900,000 private sector employees are also expected to lose their jobs because of fall in revenues.

Wild Walleye

07-28-10, 20:54

I was referring to federal govt jobs. State, muni and other local jobs are subject to the whim of DC and local revenues (tougher for them to steal from citizens than it is for the feds)

Stan Da Man

07-28-10, 23:47

Hi Easy:

Yep, I doubt you and I will agree on unions then. It is a hot button issue for me, because they serve no purpose in the public sector, in my opinion, and they are destroying state governments, particularly California. I was hoping you would answer my question as to why they are needed. The only thing you cite is civil service rules designed to "curb huge abuses in government hiring and firing." I'm not quite sure what this means, unless you are referring to patronage. But, of course, this really has nothing to do with unions. Civil service rules can exist entirely apart from unions and, indeed, they began long before government workers were unionized. So, why do you believe public sector unions are necessary? Or, do you just accept them as a fact of life without questioning their utility? That's what most folks have done, which is part of the reason we are where we are today in my opinion.

As to public sector layoffs, there undoubtedly have been some recently with Obama-provided state manna expiring. But, such layoffs pale in comparison to the private sector. For example, between December 2007 and December 2009, the private sector lost more than 7.3 million jobs, yet the number of government jobs actually increased by about 100,000. http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary So, the 200,000 lost that you cite puts them down by 100,000. That's really telling if relativity matters.

This report cites a wide variety of sources to establish that public sector employees are overcompensated, unproductive, over-pensioned and fully aware that they are working the system at taxpayer expense.

Take, for example, your idea that government work is not particularly satisfactory. You may not have meant to imply it, but the suggestion is that it may take more compensation to attract folks willing to work in this unsatisfying line of work. But, as set forth in the report cited above, if that were true then one would expect to find that the job-quit rate in the public sector approaches or even exceeds that of the private sector. But, it's not so. The job-quit rate is 1/3 of the private sector -- suggesting that public sector employees are very satisfied, whether it's because they're overpaid, not forced to work hard, have job security, can't find a job anywhere else because they're worthless, or all of these.

There's still more, which is just illustrative of my point vis-a-vis California:

* "In 2007 the average annual salary of a California state government employee was $53,958, nearly 32 percent greater than the average private sector worker ($40,991)"

* "In California, even as the state struggled with the recession, plummeting revenues, and record budget deficits, and Gov. Schwarzenegger issued a supposed hiring freeze, the state continued to hire more workers. Incredibly, the state has added over 13,000 employees since the onset of the economic recession in 2008 and continued hiring even during the worst of the recession."

As to public sector workers on the whole:

* "As of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to $27.42 an hour for private industry workers-a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits."

* "Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis illustrate that average state and local government compensation has been increasing at a faster rate than average private sector compensation over the past 30 years."

* "According to the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National Compensation Survey, private-sector employees worked an average of 2,050 hours in 2008, 12 percent more than the 1,825 hours worked by the average public-sector employee."

My point, which I don't think you challenge too much, is that the system for compensating public sector employees is broken. My further point -- and I think you disagree with me here -- is that the biggest culprits are unions and their patrons, which are Democrat lawmakers. You can make a facile statement such as "Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for California's mess," but if you've been paying attention at all here, you know that's not true. Democrats have largely had their way with tax increases, even if Republicans were finally able to put their foot down this last budget -- which still resulted in further "temporary" tax hikes. The Legislature's got to live within its means, and the initiative process is part of that. But, historically, it is Democrats who have been responsible for excessive spending, not Republicans. There just aren't any two ways about it. Dems and their union buddies have done more to destroy California's future than any other party, special interest or initiative, individually or collectively, no pun intended.

I could cite example after example of public sector pension and compensation abuse by individuals. In my line of work, we happen to see a lot of it. And, I don't really blame the individuals for taking advantage of what's available. But, it's a system that has been installed by Democrats and the unions that fund their machine. They have been kicking the can down the road for years. There's nothing Republicans can do about that. Democrats have had the numbers in California for decades. But, the chickens are coming home to roost. Unfortunately, I expect we'll hear a lot more 'Republicans and Democrats are equally at fault' rhetoric when that time comes, especially from Democrats who know better.

By the way, I thought I had talked about health care already. If you think I need to say more, I'm willing. But, I think I'm already boring folks to death as it is.

Stan Da Man

07-29-10, 00:02

By the way, you probably already have the impression that I'm a Republican-loving, Democrat-hating monger. That's not quite true. At the federal level, the Republicans had their chance to run a tight ship (2000-2004) yet they utterly blew it. They essentially destroyed the party by thumbing their collective noses at what it was supposed to stand for.

As further evidence, I posted long ago that, if I had voted this last election, it would have been for Obama. I've since posted that this would have been a mistake, given what I now know about him. But, I've got no fixed hatred for Democrats per se other than they planks they traditionally embrace and the dependent-class politics they traditionally play. Obama said he was different. I believed him. I was wrong. I definitely am a fiscal conservative, but I don't always side with Republicans.

Nevertheless, in California, there's no need to have any regard for Republicans. Democrats have controlled the purse strings for decades. It's their mess. There's not really any plausible, straight-faced argument that can be made to the contrary, at least in my opinion.

Easy Go

07-29-10, 01:21

So you don't hate Democrats, just everything that they stand for?:-)

I doubt there is much correlation between either the political party in control or the presence of unions that is highly correlated with the degree to which public sector salaries, pension benefits, and management are screwed up. Public sector employees have a low quit rate because they value stability and quitting isn't something that they do lightly.

My comment on the downside of public jobs was unrelated to the question of appropriate compensation and benefits. It was more about why I went into the private sector rather than the public sector. My time in the military opened the door to federal service for me early in life but I found it to be a soul-killing environment. Not surprisingly, it's not something unique to government work but I've never regretted my choice.

It happens that I know a lot about California as I lived there most of my life. I could have retired there but even ten years ago it was clear that the state was broken beyond repair. I visit friends and family there frequently and have seen nothing to make me regret my decision to retire elsewhere.

Stan Da Man

07-29-10, 02:38

I doubt there is much correlation between either the political party in control or the presence of unions that is highly correlated with the degree to which public sector salaries, pension benefits, and management are screwed up. You might think that, but you might want to look a little closer. Look at traditional red state / blue states and the degree to which their budgets are messed up. Big blue states like California and New York are seriously, seriously messed up. Big red states such as Texas and Arizona are not. There are degrees for all of this. But, by and large, there's your correlation: In traditionally blue states with big Democrat and union machines, the budgets are broken beyond repair. In traditionally red states without union and Democrat control, there are problems, but generally nothing near as bad as the blue state mess.

I commend you on your retirement decision. Things are going to get a lot worse for California before they get better.

Esten

07-30-10, 00:18

However, from 1975 to 2007, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line in nominal terms only increased from 12.3% to 12.5% (during a period when the US population grew 42%)
If the percentage in poverty is slightly down over the period of time, then, the percentage is down. Beyond confusing up from down, what is remarkable is that anyone would actually see these poverty rates as any kind of success or achievement. Even if we call it flat, what that means is we made no progress at all in reducing poverty in the past three decades. We had an economic expansion and created a lot of wealth, but most of it went to the top few percent. That the poverty rates did not improve is an absolute failure.

Of note, poverty rates steadily increased under Bush. The 2008 number was 13.2%.

Esten

07-30-10, 00:39

Among the ways you can go about improving income equality are (1) higher taxes on ordinary income that would discourage over-achievers from working harder and small businesses from taking risks, (2) higher taxes on capital gains and dividends and interest that would reduce savings and investment, and (3) overly generous unemployment benefits. I think there's a strong correlation between "3" and the rate of unemployment. The correlation between measures of income inequality and unemployment would be weaker.Historical evidence demonstrates you can implement moderate, targeted tax increases without overly discouraging hard work, risk-taking, investment and economic growth. I agree with your correlation, and I don't support generous unemployment benefits in general. I do think the current benefit extensions make sense at this point in time, but its temporary.

I think each side accuses the other of extremes. I agree!

Regarding your link, I don't think you get my point. I'm not arguing about whether statistical measures indicate there's more inequality in the US versus, say Europe. I am arguing that the average middle class or lower middle class American is better off than his counterpart in Europe, and I believe statistics of MEDIAN income adjusted for purchasing power support that. Someone at the 50th percentile of income in the US is more likely to have a larger house, a nicer car (s) air conditioning, etc.I agree! (more or less). And if you are content with that metric and see no need to address other issues within the US, you are welcome to support the status quo. Others don't feel the same way.

Wild Walleye

07-30-10, 12:48

Beyond confusing up from down, what is remarkable is that anyone would actually see these poverty rates as any kind of success or achievement. Even if we call it flat, what that means is we made no progress at all in reducing poverty in the past three decades. We had an economic expansion and created a lot of wealth, but most of it went to the top few percent. That the poverty rates did not improve is an absolute failure.

Of note, poverty rates steadily increased under Bush. The 2008 number was 13.2%.Yes, you are correct, the percentage was up a statistically insignificant amount. My error, I was typing too quickly and thinking too slowly. That doesn't change the premise. The striking point is that the rate did not rise during a period of extreme population expansion. When a country's population grows by 42% what to you think the socioeconomic profile of the 42% is? All rich people from other countries? The average rich person, living comfortably in his / her home country was not a likely emigre during this period of time. I wonder why they made that law in AZ? To keep rich Mexicans from coming into their state to help create new jobs and lift the standard of living for the entire state?

Exon123

07-31-10, 12:12

http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/07/29/fbi-wants-to-see-your-google-searches/

Exon

Wild Walleye

08-01-10, 16:18

http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/07/29/fbi-wants-to-see-your-google-searches/

ExonIs much easier than you think. I worked on a project designed to do just that. The question is whether or not the "looker" is above the law, or not.

If you have seen movies such as "Enemy of the State" and similar movies and you think "gee, it's a good thing they can't really do that." You're mistaken.

Wild Walleye

08-02-10, 19:43

Exon123

08-02-10, 23:21

John Conyers wife goes to jail for bribery.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/monica-conyers-wife-to-jo_n_494305.html

There all Crooks.

Exon

Schmoj

08-02-10, 23:27

John Conyers wife go to jail for bribery.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/monica-conyers-wife-to-jo_n_494305.html

There all Crooks.

ExonYou do this on purpose, don't you.

Stan Da Man

08-03-10, 00:55

When you take into consideration the charges handed down by the house ethics panel today, this is a great video:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/53643&start=2987&end=3062

What sayeth the gentle gander from California?The current ethics charges couldn't happen to a nicer lady. Maxine Waters stands for nothing if not for double standards. The other video that's great to review, which was posted by someone in this thread a while back, is her statements at the hearings on reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where she tried to browbeat all Republicans for daring to suggest that the fine people running those GSEs should be questioned in any way, shape or form. She basically inferred that they were racist for attempting any reform because 'if it ain't broke, why the hell are you trying to fix it?' She really is an abomination.

I agree that most of these politicians are crooks or at least are feathering their own nests in ways that are of questionable legality. But, much like the left loves to regale when some conservative politician gets involved in a sex scandal, the holier-than-thou, arrogant, soak-the-rich liberals deserve everything they get and more when they're caught lining their pockets.

The real sad truth is that both Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel could be convicted by their peers for multiple ethics violations, yet they likely would get re-elected by their constituents (anyone remember Marion Berry)

That's the left in America: They will stand on principle until they get caught. The same can frequently be said about right wing politicians, but at least they're not playing sanctimonious, class-based, populist politics, so they're not nearly as grating.

Here's my prediction: Dems will begin to call Republicans racists for not agreeing to go "light" on these two pillars of the Congressional Black Caucus. You watch. They will throw the race card out there when the time comes and they believe it serves their purpose.

Exon123

08-03-10, 01:49

You do this on purpose, don't you.Yep, I keep telling everybody, there All CockSuckers.

Exon

Schmoj

08-03-10, 02:28

Yep, I keep telling everybody, there All CockSuckers.

ExonActually, I meant the egregious grammatical errors, but you point is well taken.:-)

Wild Walleye

08-03-10, 11:21

They will throw the race card out there when the time comes and they believe it serves their purpose.They are claiming that the House Ethics Panel is racist for going after these two pillars. Considering that Rangel thought that he was so far above the law that he referred himself to the panel for review, I don't think that race played a role, in his case. I bet Duke Cunningham wishes that they had focused on house members of color during his troubles.

Unfortunately, both Rangel and Waters will only get slaps on the wrist, if anything. The best we can hope for is that they are publicly humiliated through the process, since the ruling class (except Republicans like Cunningham) never really get punished.

El Alamo

08-03-10, 16:06

Many wonder why the economic recovery is struggling. The following was written by someone on a chat site.

The only sector of the economy that can produce long lasting employment to abate the current economic condition is the private sector. Without tax cuts, without investment incentives, and with limited government understanding of how economies work and thrive we are all in for a long period of concern or at least until many on both sides of the aisle are replaced with those who have a business or economic background, running businesses, starting them up, making payrolls and the like.

Whoever wrote this has cut through the bullshit of 'I'm from the government. I'm here to help"

Every attermpt by the government to involve itself in the economy is actually another shovel of dirt digging a deeper grave for our economy.

Esten

08-04-10, 00:25

The only sector of the economy that can produce long lasting employment to abate the current economic condition is the private sector. Without tax cuts, without investment incentives, and with limited government understanding of how economies work and thrive we are all in for a long period of concern or at least until many on both sides of the aisle are replaced with those who have a business or economic background, running businesses, starting them up, making payrolls and the like.

Whoever wrote this has cut through the bullshit of 'I'm from the government. I'm here to help"Big businesses are posting great profits and sitting on record piles of cash. In many cases they are giving large sums to "shareholders" (ie. mostly rich folks) through buybacks and dividends. So arguing more tax cuts for them is laughable.

At the same time, these companies have laid off millions while the banks have limited credit to small business. These are major factors underlying the high unemployment rate. The "uncertainty" argument has some merit but that only goes so far.

So, the people only blaming the government are in fact helping the rich elite by diverting attention away from the problems they cause. That's right where they want you to be.

Small business is different and should get help. The small business bill in Congress now (that is unfortunately getting held up) would provide funds that could be used to leverage up to $300 billion in small business loans. But since government doesn't understand business and can only make things worse, I suppose you believe this bill is a bad idea? LOL.

Every attermpt by the government to involve itself in the economy is actually another shovel of dirt digging a deeper grave for our economy.I recall the government recently stepped in and saved the country from another depression. With the bailout and stimulus, markets have recovered significant ground, and we've gone from negative to positive GDP growth which has exceeded that seen following the previous two recessions. Only the ignorant and foolish believe the above quoted statement.

Esten

08-04-10, 00:51

Meant to respond to this earlier.

Esten, yea lets tax the heck out of all those capital gains so we punish all those fat cats. Last time I checked it was investments from retirement funds that had the biggest chunk of the market, Do you have data showing what % of dividend-paying stock is owned by retirement funds? I have been having some trouble finding good data on this. When broken out by individuals the data I have found shows the vast majority of ownership by the richest 10%.

In any event, capital gains taxes should be tied to income (inclusive of the capital gains). If income is high then the tax rate should be high. We shouldn't be giving tax breaks to the wealthy. If income is low (often the case for retirees) then a tax break is appropriate.

Esten

08-04-10, 01:20

Tracking Poll Finds Health Reform Law Gaining In Popularity.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/June/30/health-reform-tracking-poll.aspx

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8084.cfm

Member #4112

08-04-10, 12:14

Esten, did you happen to check the results of Prop C in Missouri? I think it was ¾ of the voters approved the prop which directly refutes the primary premise of ObamaCare – your required to purchase health insurance or be fined (sorry I forgot Obama calls it a "fine" as his attorneys argue it is a TAX in court) for failing to purchase same.

I am always ROTFLMAF as you continue to argue what a great job Obama / Dems in Congress have done to "save" the country. See my earlier post citing Obama & the Democrats claims in 2008 that unemployment would go as high as 8.5% if they did not pass the "Stimulus" package. Guess we would have been better off doing nothing since unemployment went up to 10% after they passed it. Could their numbers be wrong - naw couldn't be.

Just in case you have not noticed, the Obama Administration is not making noises about how the current rate of unemployment and stagnant business growth are the new "normal". Perhaps you missed that.

On a side note, Obama really did a great job punishing the folks who got us into this (I. E. AIG and BOA to name a few) man I bet those guys wimpered all the way to the bank with their multi-million dollar bonus checks paid with bail out money. Nothing like "punishing" failure. Hey, can I get in line for some of that "punishment"?

Many companies are sitting on their cash and or buying back stock in the current environment, they are not willing to start hiring or expansion projects until they know what the tax situation and regulatory environment will be. While you may not approve or agree with their strategy, it is the smart move under the prevailing conditions.

Wild Walleye

08-04-10, 12:33

Just in case you have not noticed, the Obama Administration is not making noises about how the current rate of unemployment and stagnant business growth are the new "normal". Obama himself is now taking the high ground defending his courageous, bold, decisive destructive agenda by saying "it could be worse."

Virginia (via legal route) and MO (via legislative route) are indicative of the new political reality which is the people aren't going to sit idly by and let Obama, Pelosi and Reid continue to destroy the country. The November elections will be yet another step towards correcting the mistake that the American people made in 2008. Hopefully, the lesson will be learned and the knowledge retained that when you are talking about the most important job in the world, you should be careful with your vote.

Wild Walleye

08-04-10, 12:46

Tracking Poll Finds Health Reform Law Gaining In Popularity.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/June/30/health-reform-tracking-poll.aspx

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8084.cfmI have a bridge in Brooklyn for you. They have been dead wrong on healthcare for 10+ years. Here are for polls to contradict Kaiser's findings, including those NeoCons at Pew (that is a joke, BTW).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

Kaiser has been deliberately obfuscating the truth on public opinion regarding healthcare reform for as long as I can remember. For example:

"The February Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds the public still split on health care reform legislation, with 43 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed. However, the poll also finds that majorities of Americans of all political leanings support several provisions in the health reform proposals in Congress and most attribute delays in passing the legislation to political gamesmanship rather than policy disagreements."

The "tie" runs counter to all major polls. However, the wording of the last part of the statement tells it all. From Kaiser's perspective passage is a surety and therefore, the "delays" are but window dressing.

Wild Walleye

08-04-10, 13:18

Since you haven't thus far.

Big businesses are posting great profits and sitting on record piles of cash. In many cases they are giving large sums to "shareholders" (ie. Mostly rich folks) through buybacks and dividends. Why use scare quotes for "shareholders?" What does it matter if the shareholders are rich folks? They own the company. The fact that companies elect to dividend the owners' ownership interests back to the owners in the form of cash is what companies do when they have excess cash on hand which cannot be reinvested by the company with a risk-adjusted return commensurate with the collective expectations of it shareholders. Most operating companies are not money management firms. Therefore, they return the cash to the shareholder who can make his / her own investment decisions. The fact that companies are returning more cash to shareholders, in this particular environment, would seem to indicate that the increased risk causes them to believe that they should return the capital to the shareholders rather than invest the money on their behalf in the face of significantly higher and unknown risks.

So arguing more tax cuts for them is laughable.My dear Esten, it is your circular logic that is laughable. You support the administration and all of its policies which have resulted in this new environment of increased risk, and you also support increasing direct costs on these entities during a time of economic uncertainty. While erecting these massive obstacles to success, you expect them to voluntarily increase or maintain headcount, with no promise of increased revenue to offset the massive risk and cost that they must overcome. That, my friend is laughable. Reminds me of the story of a scorpion and a horse trying to cross a river.

At the same time, these companies have laid off millions while the banks have limited credit to small business. These are major factors underlying the high unemployment rate. The "uncertainty" argument has some merit but that only goes so far. Small businesses do not borrow to increase payroll. Uncertainty, cost and risk (might be a little redundant with the first two) go all the way.

So, the people only blaming the government are in fact helping the rich elite by diverting attention away from the problems they cause. That's right where they want you to be. The only place they would rather have us be is completely dependent upon them for survival and politically aligned with you (I think I threw up in my mouth a little just contemplating that last one)

Small business is different and should get help.Small business, in general, doesn't want or need help. What it needs is for the government to get the f*** out of the way.

The small business bill in Congress now (that is unfortunately getting held up) would provide funds that could be used to leverage up to $300 billion in small business loans.All legislation by this congress should be held up and / or terminated. The SBA process is a f-ing nightmare. The $300B is only going to come out of the very private sector that it is purportedly going to help. "Hello Mr. Small Business, I am from the govt may I please have $100? It's mandatory." "Oh, don't worry, I'll be back next week with a check for you in the amount of $25. Can you believe that? You sure are lucky we are here to help poor shlubs like you!"

But since government doesn't understand business and can only make things worse, I suppose you believe this bill is a bad idea? LOL.Now you're catching on. I'll let you guess about what I think of this legislation.

I recall the government recently stepped in and saved the country from another depression.I must have missed this. Perhaps you could cite some real economists (not political hacks) who support this statement.

With the bailout and stimulus,Again, I must have been traveling, as I am not aware of this.

markets have recovered significant ground,Just helping those rich f***ers you were complaining about.

and we've gone from negative to positive GDP growth which has exceeded that seen following the previous two recessions.Please cite facts and figures to go with your fantasy. The fact that the Labor Dept places unemployment at 16.5% (and then dresses it up to 9.5% by marginalizing more than 10 million unemployed and underemployed Americans) does not seem to cast a good light on your utopia.

Only the ignorant and foolish believe the above quoted statement.The quote you reference was El Alamo's (quotes of quotes get deleted by the software): "Every attermpt [sic] by the government to involve itself in the economy is actually another shovel of dirt digging a deeper grave for our economy."

You already think that I am ignorant and foolish, so why mess with a good thing. While the statement is presented as an absolute ("Every"), I might present the notion starting with "nearly every..."

"Stupid is as stupid does"

Punter 127

08-04-10, 19:42

Oh shit.

Tracking Poll Finds Health Reform Law Gaining In Popularity. They held another type of poll in Missouri on Tuesday, and We will see more polls like this in November....... More "oh shit's" coming I suspect.

By JOHN FUND.

Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected a key tenet of ObamaCare, as 71% supported a ballot proposition yesterday to prohibit penalizing people who fail to procure health insurance. The measure carried all but two of the state's 115 counties. It even managed to win 42% of the vote in the black-majority city of St. Louis. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704017904575409360128023930.html

Who to believe?

Wild Walleye

08-04-10, 19:49

They held another type of poll in Missouri on Tuesday, and We will see more polls like this in November. More "oh shit's" coming I suspect.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704017904575409360128023930.html

Who to believe?A good metaphor for that referendum would be the wood chipper in the movie Fargo. And Obama care is Carl's body.

Esten

08-05-10, 02:33

Glad to see the posts on Prop C, I expected no less.

Prop C only asked about one part of HCR not the entire package. And its the unpleasant part that makes the whole thing work. Not too surprising this particular component isn't popular. If the question had been about insurance denials for pre-existing conditions we all know what those results would have been. Further, the results were skewed by heavy Republican turnout for Senate primaries.

In short, it means little. Unskewed polls on the entire reform package are far more meaningful.

PS. It's always entertaining to see Walleye attempt to discredit anything and anyone who disagrees with his world view. First Gini, now the Kaiser Family Foundation...

Toymann

08-05-10, 04:21

"Obamacare is gaining popularity". IALOTFLMAO!

Punter. Stop the crazyness! Do you even live in america?

Suggest you pocket your crazy point of view for another 75 days or so. In novemeber you will all be banished to the "what if we'd done things differently" catagory. Just remember who told ya first!

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Punter 127

08-05-10, 07:14

Prop C only asked about one part of HCR not the entire package. And its the unpleasant part that makes the whole thing work. Not too surprising this particular component isn't popular. If the question had been about insurance denials for pre-existing conditions we all know what those results would have been. Further, the results were skewed by heavy Republican turnout for Senate primaries.That's mostly speculation and smoke blowing on your part, but lets take a look at the numbers.
The secret inside the primary numbers is: It got lots of Democratic votes.

Here's how we know:

(And these numbers are courtesy the Missouri Secretary of State's website.

PROPOSITION-C.

Yes 667,680 No 271,102

Republicans cast a lot more primary ballots (perhaps because Prop-C). For the sake of argument, let's say every GOP primary voter was a Yes.

TOTAL REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTES CAST: 577,615

Subtract the Republicans from the "yeses"...and you have 90,065 "yeses" that came from non-Republicans.

The Liberal Party primary had 3,502 ballots cast. The Constitution Party had 1,883. And if all those folks also voted "yes" (even though it seems unlikely)...and subtracted that from the non-Republican "yes" votes...that leaves...84,680 non-Republican, non-Liberal, non-Constitutional "yeses".

Who's left? Democrats. Only Democrats.

There is a little mathematical guess work here I grant you, but it is overwhelmingly likely that tens of thousands of Democrats voted "yes" on Prop-C, joining Republicans in handing a Missouri rebuke to the healthcare law and it's Democratic champions in Washington.Now since we're speculating I suggest that these voters were not only voting against health care but more likely displaying dissatisfaction with the Obama administration as a whole. IMHO.

In short, it means little. Unskewed polls on the entire reform package are far more meaningful. Personally I think the polls that have voters casting ballots are the best polls of all! (More of these coming soon.)

Punter. Stop the crazyness! Do you even live in america? LOL, I still have a USA "official" address, I'm just not there very often. Oh and I have a USA birth certificate and I'm even willing to produce it!

Esten

08-05-10, 11:14

"Obamacare is gaining popularity". IALOTFLMAO!

Punter. Stop the crazyness! Do you even live in america?Toymann is evidently confusing me with Punter, who was actually arguing against this view. Right after he warned us about the effects of "smokin too much sh*t" !

LOL! Too much!

Member #4112

08-05-10, 11:54

Missouri:

No matter how you cut it ObamaCare is a loser with the public. Esten, to say the Missouri Prop C outcome was a vote on an unpopular part of ObamaCare is disingenuous on your part as the "unpopular part" is the core of ObamaCare. Even Obama admits it is unworkable without the mandate for all to purchase healthcare or be fined. Sort of like saying well you can buy a $100 million life insurance policy but they rejected the "unpopular part" about having to die to collect it – can't have one without the other. Same thing with ObamaCare, you can't have all the little goodies even in theory without the "unpopular part" and it's not going to work.

Polls:

Well I would guess that anyone on this board who took a statistics course in either their undergrad or grad program can tell you polls can be made to say what you want depending on how the questions are framed and how the sample is selected. Most polling, with a few exceptions, is total BS due to those taking the poll having agendas they are looking to support. While there are some relatively reliable polling sources out there, the major media sources are not among them.

Democrats:

As the House Democrats are called back to Washington to pass "Stimulus II" yet another spending program to payoff teacher's unions since they did not get enough money from Stimulus I it begs the question will the Democrats really pass another spending bill just before the mid-term elections? You would think with the public weary of unsupportable spending, looming tax increases, and the disaffection of the independent voters from their party the Democrats might be a bit gun shy at this point regarding more spending.

With the number of Democrats either falling in the primaries or trailing in their own polls against their Republican opponents, I look for the lame duck session of Congress after the mid- terms to be a blood bath and orgy of Democratic spending before they leave office in January. I can only pray I am wrong.

Obama:

Well with Obama declaring "it could have been worse" and now trying to shape the notion our current economy is the new "normal", I would think these are both pretty flimsy arguments but it is all they have to run with. Obama is banking on the economy and unemployment to improve before 2012 as it appears he is seeing the reality of what the mid-terms are about to serve up, limiting the damage he can do in the next two years.

Jimmy Carter is probably down on his knees every night thanking God for Obama as his presidency will replace Jimmy's as the greatest failure on record.

El Alamo

08-05-10, 19:08

I wish Obama well. However, it seems obvious that Obama's plan for governmental micro management of the economy is a plan that is destroying the economy.

But what do you expect from someone who has never managed even a popsicle stand and has never had to make payroll for employees.

The government is a parasite that saps vigor and strength from the economy.

The upcoming elections should be a tidal wave that repudiates governments attempts to burden the economy with bueracratic nonsense.

The private sector, which has produced the wealth we now enjoy, needs to be able to prosper without unneeded and unproductive government interference.

Of course, someone (tal vez Senor Esten) who is determined to have an economy as productive as the economy of Cuba may argue for more government interference.

PeterLong

08-06-10, 10:58

For me personally, it seems like it's politics as usual. Lots of decisions are being fueled by greed and along party lines, regardless of who is president or what is best for the country.

IMO, the sooner the US get's off foreign dependence of oil and create alternative energy, the faster the economy will begin to rebound.

Also, Americans need to live within their means. I believe many of us gringos living in Argentina will agree, people here generally have a lot less and appear to be happier.

Wild Walleye

08-06-10, 12:05

For me personally, it seems like it's politics as usual. Lots of decisions are being fueled by greed and along party lines, regardless of who is president or what is best for the country.Politicians are human and can succumb to: avarice (Rangel, Waters, Cunningham) debauchery (Frank, Kennedy) wrath (Pelosi, Franken) lust (Kennedy, Edwards, and lots of others from both parties) gluttony (Kennedy (he was a frequent flier on this program) and acedia (almost the entire US Congress) which has resulted in sloth (in terms of our economic, moral and military conditions)

IMO, the sooner the US get's off foreign dependence of oil and create alternative energy, the faster the economy will begin to rebound.If we were free to harvest oil from US territories, we'd already be energy independent (and the BP spill never would have taken place because Deep Horizon never would have been deployed) Blame here lies squarely with Congress (mostly passed Congresses) that as individuals and groups have succumbed to one or more of the above mentioned conditions.

Also, Americans need to live within their means. I believe many of us gringos living in Argentina will agree, people here generally have a lot less and appear to be happier.Equilibrium is a dot on a chart that gets passed at 75mph (in both directions) The correct balance of leverage (cost:availability) has not been achieved. Blame here lies squarely with Congress (mostly passed Congresses) that as individuals and groups have succumbed to one or more of the above mentioned conditions.

PeterLong

08-06-10, 19:57

Equilibrium is a dot on a chart that gets passed at 75mph (in both directions) The correct balance of leverage (cost:availability) has not been achieved. Blame here lies squarely with Congress (mostly passed Congresses) that as individuals and groups have succumbed to one or more of the above mentioned conditions.W², I have to respectfully disagree. People should be held responsible for living outside their means. No one forced them to buy big houses, SUV's and plasma screen TV's. Sure, credit was easily available, but it's is the person's responsibility to do the homework and determine if their purchase (s) are affordable.

El Alamo

08-07-10, 09:48

Member #4112

08-07-10, 11:11

PeterLong is making the same argument I made in an earlier post regarding responsible spending by consumers. Sure credit companies were making credit easy and Fanny and Freddie were giving loans to anyone with the same address for more than three months but it is the individual who is ultimately responsible. They spent as if there were no tomorrow and now tomorrow is here and it is looking pretty ugly.

Government almost by it's definition is the most irresponsible spending entity in existence. Nearly $2 Million to study ants, millions for salmon "ladders" for streams that haven't seen a salmon in over 50 years along the California coast, millions for signs to tell the people they are driving on infrastructure improvements paid for by the "Stimulus" package. I can't even begin to list the pork spending the "Stimulus" has gone for.

Of course Obama is really setting a great example, Michelle and Sasha vacation in Spain (can't do it I the trashy old USA) with a few (30 or 40) friends. Michelle flew over on the same US Air Force aircraft used by Biden at an operational cost of $117,000/ hour according to published records but will reimburse the government for the airfare at the rate of a First Class ticket to Spain which was quoted at $7,400. Lets see that's 8 hours at $117K per hour less the two First Class tickets of $14,800 - man what a deal. The Prez also said they would reimburse the government for their individual expenses but won't disclose how much that will be. They won't even tell anyone how many or how much all the Secret Service agents cost as well as support staff ect which they are not reimbursing the government for.

Sure, everyone needs a vacation, but we elected him not her or the kids so what's up with this little junket, not to mention all the parties and mini-vacations the Prez has already taken.

Isn't this the same President who scolded the country saying that during hard times it was irresponsible for families to blow a bunch of cash in Vegas? Guess that only goes for the Little People not the Elites.

Wild Walleye

08-07-10, 12:07

Dopple and Peter:

You both missed my point. I do not discount the roll of personal responsibility in all of this. My comment was that when "priced" correctly, the risks and rewards are properly balanced and help to dictate behavior of both the borrower and lender. There will always be bad actors and / or poor decision making, even in rational markets. However, in the absence of proper pricing and with a govt-sponsored abdication of personal responsibility, you get what we have here.

If the pain inflicted (deterrence) for racking up too much debt was commensurate with certain societal norms, people would have less debt.

Canitasguy

08-07-10, 14:08

After reading here over several years, it strikes me that collectively you all could apply as a group and get hired as the core economics faculty at Arizona State or some similarly disreputable institute of mis-education!

I wonder how many of you even know Alan Greenspan has admitted King Laissez-Faire Economics has no clothes. He now goes so far as to acknowledge that tax cuts for the rich cause deficits, not economic growth. But I bet half the contributors here to whom the man was once a hero now say he must be suffering from early alzheimers.

Despite your cumulative elusive handle of either macro or microeconomics, I'll give credit where its due, you do know how to practice blogging onanism with great energy! I bet you feel spent after each time you share your essence with your fellow mongers.

Esten deserves credit for trying to face down all the oh-so certain free-marketers who dominate contributors to the forum, but if all of the mercantilist commenters here were professional economists and responsible for guiding decision makers at the Fed, or Treasury or in big Corporate boardrooms, there isn't a chica in BA who would be making a living. The world economy would be on its ass and all the guru mongers would be sitting hard on the ground trying to wiggle around enough to grab their own asses. Also, having made so many bad bets, they wouldn't have much disposable income to buy any ass.

I know personally you are all great guys, but as for your opinions you are "always sure, but seldom right".

Esten

08-08-10, 16:52

I don't know how many billions or trillions of dollars were spent on pork barrel projects intended to stimulate the economy. However, the number of projects that actually benefited the economy can probably be written on the back of a postage stamp. The rest of the money was spent on bueracratic nonsense and unneeded government employees whose contribution the economy was less than zero.If you don't know a simple fact like whether it was billions or trillions, then you haven't been reading the news carefully, which means you probably don't know how the money was spent. You should spend some time on the website which tracks the stimulus money, recovery.gov. You'll see plenty of worthwhile projects and 3/4 million jobs directly saved or created last quarter. A report last month put the total impact of the stimulus at about 3 million jobs. That report also noted it will help encourage $280 billion of investment by private industry and local governments.

If you think Republicans wouldn't have passed a stimulus if they had won the election, you are fooling yourself. There absolutely would have been a stimulus in 2009 no matter who was in power. All sorts of Republicans actually praised the stimulus money their districts received.

Had those trillions of dollars been allocated to tax cuts and tax incentives to the private sector I would bet the ranch that we would not have the dismal, almost depressing, unemployment statistics we enjoy today and our national debt could be written at a single setting without your pen running out of inkIt was billions not trillions. And I think you would lose your ranch. It is questionable how much tax cuts would have impacted unemployment in this recession. But there's no question it would have reduced tax revenues, adding further to the debt.

Take a look at Figure 1 in the link below. The Bush tax cuts, wars, and economic downturn account for almost all the projected deficit in the next 10 years. TARP, Fannie, Freddie and stimulus account for only a small fraction.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

El Alamo's post demonstrates just the kind of ignorance and deception that Republicans are counting on in the fall elections. The more Dems educate the public on the facts, the better they will do.

El Alamo

08-08-10, 19:23

Esten,

Thanks for your reply. I have changed my position.

The Democrats will undoubtedly increase their majorities in the upcoming election. In fact, it is highly probable that the Republicans will not elect a single candidate. It will be a Democratic landslide and, of course, long before the election the unemployment rate will return to less than 4%, and with a little more pork from Big Brother, unemployment may disappear completely.

Thanks for enligtening me. You have made my day,

I am requesting an absentee ballot from your district so I can vote early and often for Senor Esten. This should guarantee that the national debt will never be able to be written at a single setting without your pen running out of ink.

Toymann

08-08-10, 19:48

I also have seen the light as well. Please disregard all my previous posts related to November. What was I thinking?

IALOTFLMAO!

Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Esten.

Thanks for your reply. I have changed my position.

The Democrats will undoubtedly increase their majorities in the upcoming election. The Republicans may not elect a single candidate. It will be a Democratic landslide and, of course, long before the election the unemployment rate will return to less than 4% gracias a Big Brother.

Punter 127

08-08-10, 22:22

Esten,

Thanks for your reply. I have changed my position.

The Democrats will undoubtedly increase their majorities in the upcoming election. In fact, it is highly probable that the Republicans will not elect a single candidate. It will be a Democratic landslide and, of course, long before the election the unemployment rate will return to less than 4% , and with a little more pork from Big Brother, unemployment may disappear completely.

Thanks for enligtening me. You have made my day,

I am requesting an absentee ballot from your district so I can vote early and often for Senor Esten. This should guarantee that the national debt will never be able to be written at a single setting without your pen running out of ink.Praise the lord!

Happy Day have returned!

Please pass the Kool-Aid.

Spend Baby Spend!

Esten

08-08-10, 23:54

Spend Baby Spend!More spending on tap next week thanks to Speaker Pelosi! $26 billion in state aid. No worries, the rich will help pay for it!

Thanks for enligtening me. You have made my day,Anytime. That's what I'm here for.

But seriously, the party in power (Dems) will lose seats consistent with history. The real question is, how many? From what we've been hearing from the right about the 'American people', the 'worst president ever', and the pendulum swinging back, it should be a total wipeout. In this context I would regard anything less than Republicans retaking both chambers as a complete failure.

I also have seen the light as well. Please disregard all my previous posts related to November. What was I thinking?Hang on you can't do that! I want to know what you are going to buy me if Republicans don't retake both the House and Senate. I mean you aren't going to lose, so, just for fun. Maybe an all expenses paid night at Madahos?

Toymann

08-09-10, 04:07

Hang on you can't do that! I want to know what you are going to buy me if Republicans don't retake both the House and Senate. I mean you aren't going to lose, so, just for fun. Maybe an all expenses paid night at Madahos?I am up for a little Madahos victory dance. Here is my terms. If the House and Senate stay Democrat then I get to treat you to an evening at Madahos. If the reverse occurs and the Republicans sweep then it's on like donkey kong at Madahos on YOU. If the house and congress split then its a draw and no harm, no Madahos. A very fair bet from my perspective as both the House and Senate are currently in your camp Esten. I throw down the guantlet at your feet. Only a pussy Democrat would run away from such a fair offer. Now we'll see if ya have the stomach for it fella. The ball is now in your court dude. Fight or flight the choice is yours.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Rev BS

08-09-10, 08:46

I am up for a little madahos victory dance. Here is my terms. If the house and senate stay democrat then I get to treat you to an evening at Madahos. If the reverse occurs and the republicans sweep then it's on like donkey kong at madahos on YOU. If the house and congress split then its a draw and no harm no madahos. A very fair bet from my perspective as both the house and senate are currently in your camp Esten. I throw down the guantlet at your feet. Only a pussy democrat would run away from such a fair offer. Now we'll see if ya have the stomach for it fella. The ball is now in your court dude. Fight or flight the choice is yours. Happy Mongering All. ToymannAs I see it, you have been crowing about a sweep, why are you straddling the line now?

Punter 127

08-09-10, 09:18

More spending on tap next week thanks to Speaker Pelosi! $26 billion in state aid. No worries, the rich will help pay for it! I'm not so sure that $an Fran Nan can "get'er done", but if she does it will just be another nail in the Democrats/incumbents coffin. (May all those blood sucking parasites RIP)

There's a groundswell of discontent with this administration and especially congress, and I think you're going to feel the earth move in November. If I'm right, and there's a good chance I am, Queen Nancy won't be Queen next year.

I do admit that two months of a lame duck Congress with her and Reid at the helm is very scary thought.

Wild Walleye

08-09-10, 12:10

The left is now trying to frame the November elections in a new context. This would have anything less than the Republicans taking control of both houses as a Republican failure and an indication of how the country is behind BHO and his agenda. This is a winning argument just like the response to our disasterously high unemployment rate "it could be worse."

Control of the House has been in play for some time now. All 435 seats are up for election, of those 37 sitting members are retiring (eliminating for the most part House incumbency from those races) According to polling, there are 32 seats that are "toss ups" at the moment, with 201 and 202 "safe seats" for the Republicans and Democrats, respectively. Most of you guys can count and see that the House is clearly in play. Republican victory is not a sure thing.

The Senate is a different story altogether. Only 37 seats are up for election, of which only 8 are "toss ups." The Republicans and Democrats have 43 and 49 "safe seats," respectively. In order to regain the Senate, the Republicans need to win all 8 of those.

Even considering the national mood, Republicans winning control of both houses is a stretch. That said, the polling is likely missing a significant portion of the "Anger Vote" (my term) which I expect to be out in force, come November. This group includes Republicans that stayed home in 2008, as well as Democrats, Republicans and Independents that are truly pissed about the current state of the Nation. They are going to the polls to punish the people that they believe are responsible.

However, American voters have always been quick to criticize Congress and then reelect their local losers to both houses.

As always, winning in Washington can be a mixed bag. If the Republicans win either or both houses, in 2012, BHO will be blaming Republican-caused gridlock for all of the woes of the country. However, if the voters deliver one or both houses to the Republicans it will be a repudiation of BHO and his policies, above and beyond the usual off-year election bias against the party that controls the executive branch.

Therefore, I believe that most voters realize that regardless of whether the Republicans win one or both houses, they can't pass legislation without the signature of the Commie in Chief. Therefore, by voting for Republicans they are embracing gridlock (it was pretty good for Clinton) and a cessation of the CIC's agenda. We'll see in 2012 if the voters will remember how they felt in mid 2010.

By the way, the $26B package that Nancy is trying to get through is a give-way for local teachers and their union (or maybe it is the other way around) This is truly obscene since these people are paid by local governments and the Federal Govt payoff is clearly a bribe.

Member #4112

08-09-10, 13:08

WW it is even worse than an open bribe to the teachers unions (noticed they have dropped the police and firefighters from the claim now) since there are no cuts in other spending to offset the "Stimulus II" bill it only adds to the debt.

States are prohibited from running deficits and cannot print their own money so the Obama Administration is going to do it for them. I am sure it will be "targeted" spending again, meaning the Blue States get it and the Red States get the finger again!

WW you are forgetting another important component of the upcoming mid-term elections beyond the "Angry" folks, motivation of the Republican and Democrat party bases. The Republican, Independent, and Conservative Democrat's can't wait to get to the polls to vote and are highly motivated, while the Democrat base for the most part is apathetic about the upcoming elections. Mid-term elections are usually low turnout affairs and this year the folks motivated to vote are against the current agenda pushed by Washington.

Esten, you are always hot to ask for documentation, where is the backup for all these "saved" jobs. What a BS hedge to claim "Saved Jobs", every time someone looks into these supposed "Saved" jobs they find more shenanigans than a barrel full of monkeys. I loved the one where they saved over a thousand jobs at one company – yea they didn't do anything but give a group of employees a raise and then called them "Saved" jobs. Didn't the White House take down the "Saved Jobs" web site after so many embarrassments resulted from the postings?

Wild Walleye

08-09-10, 16:28

WW you are forgetting another important component of the upcoming mid-term elections beyond the "Angry" folks, motivation of the Republican and Democrat party bases. The Republican, Independent, and Conservative Democrat's can't wait to get to the polls to vote and are highly motivated, while the Democrat base for the most part is apathetic about the upcoming elections. Mid-term elections are usually low turnout affairs and this year the folks motivated to vote are against the current agenda pushed by Washington.Excellent point, many will stay home because of mood and lack of presidential selection on ballot.

Esten, you are always hot to ask for documentation, where is the backup for all these "saved" jobs. What a BS hedge to claim "Saved Jobs", every time someone looks into these supposed "Saved" jobs they find more shenanigans than a barrel full of monkeys.Thank you, I forgot to call Esten on this flatulent expulsion. Even Democrats (the normal ones not the left wing loonies) are uncomfortable with the fictitious statistic of "saved or created." So, without Obamanomics, there would be another 3-4 million unemployed? Wow, I didn't realize that the brilliance of BHO spared us form unemployment of more than 12%. Please find at least one reputable economist to back you on this one.

Stan Da Man

08-09-10, 19:28

Thank you, I forgot to call Esten on this flatulent expulsion. Even Democrats (the normal ones not the left wing loonies) are uncomfortable with the fictitious statistic of "saved or created." So, without Obamanomics, there would be another 3-4 million unemployed? Wow, I didn't realize that the brilliance of BHO spared us form unemployment of more than 12%. Please find at least one reputable economist to back you on this one.Cut the Dems some slack. They're just taking a page out of the Kirchners' handbook on inflation -- if you don't like the numbers, fudge; if you still don't like the numbers, change the rules. So, the unemployment numbers consistently have been revised upward after the initial reports (the fudge) resulting in new rules to include jobs "created or saved." A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind, or something like that.

Always remember: It's okay for liberals to do this. Just ask Daily KOS about their polls. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/dailykos_poll_fraud.html

What do you expect these folks to do? They don't have the facts on their side, and sticking to the facts makes for a rather dull discussion anyway.

Member #4112

08-09-10, 20:02

WW & Stan, I almost forgot the really good example of this, in June Obama was trumpeting the creation of 63,000 jobs, but on Friday they had to revise that number down a "little" like to 35,000. Wow you only over counted by 45% surly that is within the margin of error or considered by this administration as not a material event.

I think Fox was the only one to report it and none of the main stream media. I even went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website to check and sure enough it was true. These guys are great at "fudging" (can you really call 45% fudging?) the numbers up then quietly correcting them a month later hoping no one notices.

WW regarding your bet with Esten, hey since he has been beating the drum about "normal" losses during the mid terms I think your offer is fair. You win if the Republicans take both houses, Esten wins if they don't take both houses and it's a tie if they only take the House.

Just my 2 cents big guy.

Will be down in Oct. For a week, if you are in town let get a drink.

Rev BS

08-09-10, 22:59

Excellent point, many will stay home because of mood and lack of presidential selection on ballot.

Thank you, I forgot to call Esten on this flatulent expulsion. Even Democrats (the normal ones not the left wing loonies) are uncomfortable with the fictitious statistic of "saved or created." So, without Obamanomics, there would be another 3-4 million unemployed? Wow, I didn't realize that the brilliance of BHO spared us form unemployment of more than 12%. Please find at least one reputable economist to back you on this one.I know that you like to beat up on Obama and Esten, but what makes you think that the joblessness would be any better under any administration. The world economy is a different landscape now, and the good ole USA is not competitive and dominant in many areas anymore. Most Americans are in denial, and the politicians are not willing to risk their position by telling like it is.

So while you and Esten are provoking and entertaining each other, gridlock is the name of the the game in the Capitol. Naturally, things have to get worse before it get better.

Esten

08-10-10, 00:48

With Toymann's counter-bet terms and Walleye's admission, we see their confidence in the magnitude of Republican wins is not as strong as prior posts would have you believe.

That didn't take long!

Even considering the national mood, Republicans winning control of both houses is a stretch.Kudos for stating that. But it begs the question, with all the rhetoric about socialism destroying the country, shouldn't Republicans be winning across the board? Dems just implemented a huge liberal agenda "against the will of the people". If that is true, why would anyone vote for them?

By the way, the $26B package that Nancy is trying to get through is a give-way for local teachers and their union (or maybe it is the other way around) This is truly obscene since these people are paid by local governments and the Federal Govt payoff is clearly a bribe. Just distributing back the bribe that Republicans gave the rich.

Even Democrats (the normal ones not the left wing loonies) are uncomfortable with the fictitious statistic of "saved or created." So, without Obamanomics, there would be another 3-4 million unemployed? Wow, I didn't realize that the brilliance of BHO spared us form unemployment of more than 12%. Please find at least one reputable economist to back you on this one. Nigel Gault, chief U. S. Economist at IHS Global Insight.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics.

Alan Blinder, Professor of Economics, Princeton University.

Their numbers don't match exactly but are in the ballpark of those in the official CEA report (not Walleye's exaggerated numbers). Although if you add in TARP the numbers go up even more.

Zandi: Financial rescue and stimulus responsible for saving or creating 8.5 million jobs.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/zandi_financial_rescue_and_sti.html

How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf

Speaking of "facts", do you guys have any to refute the CEA numbers? Do post.

Esten

08-10-10, 01:51

I am up for a little Madahos victory dance. Here is my terms. If the House and Senate stay Democrat then I get to treat you to an evening at Madahos. If the reverse occurs and the Republicans sweep then it's on like donkey kong at Madahos on YOU. If the house and congress split then its a draw and no harm, no Madahos. A very fair bet from my perspective as both the House and Senate are currently in your camp Esten. I throw down the guantlet at your feet. Only a pussy Democrat would run away from such a fair offer. Now we'll see if ya have the stomach for it fella. The ball is now in your court dude. Fight or flight the choice is yours.LOL. There's no additional risk for me beyond what I was ready to accept - I pay if Republicans win both chambers.

But you substantially cut your risk. Instead of paying if Republicans don't win both chambers, you now only pay if Republicans don't win any chamber. If you had real conviction you would accept the wager I proposed. I think you wussed out.

Toymann

08-10-10, 06:21

Just for the record I have never given a sweep much thought but now am curious. I have always said that in Novemeber the Congress will switch from 60-40 to most likely 40-60, or at least the dems are history. That said, sadly we will be in a holding pattern for two years till Obomanation gets the boot and recovery has a chance to begin. Kinda sad reality really. I am being a gentleman by allowing my boy an out if the house doesn't switch. That said, if I make the double it will be an expensive night for Esten at Madahos as I have expensive tastes. LOL. As you all know, the congress change has already been conceeded by even the most crazy liberals on this board by their silence. Only time will tell, but never confuse my benelovance with weakness. I was just giving my ***** Esten a shot to gracefully retreat from an expensive evening at Madahos. That said, "lets get it on buddy". I return in October but also return in April. Right now I'm looking for a killer evening at Madahos in April 2011. Let the games begin. LOL.

Happy Mongering All,

Toymann.

PS. Majority is a majority dude. That means that if both the Senate and the House change to Republican I'm good. That said, it doesn't equate to 60-40, just 51-49 or the equivalent number in the house. You are currently sitting with both in your favour dude. If both go Republican buddy it will be quite historic indeed. Why would such a shift occur if your boy Obomanation had game with America. Lets see what transpires in Novemeber. Good luck dude. Let the better man reap the Madahos pussy!

El Alamo

08-10-10, 08:00

While the rest of the world seems to be in some sort of economic recovery, the United States is faced with the double wammy of a lousy economy and no pussy.

The lousy economy doesn't bother me so much. The no pussy is a deal breaker.

We need political candidates who will stand up for what we really need - the granting of unlimited visas to all babes in Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Columbia etc. who want to live in the United States and agree to charge South American rates.

Rev BS

08-10-10, 08:05

Just for the record I have never given a sweep much thought but now am curious. I have always said that in novemeber the congress will switch from 60-40 to most likely 40-60, or at least the dems are history. That said, sadly we will be in a holding pattern for two years till Obomanation gets the boot and recovery has a chance to begin. Kinda sad reality really. I am being a gentleman by allowing my boy an out if the house doesn't switch. That said, if I make the double it will be an expensive night for Esten at Madahos as I have expensive tastes. LOL. As you all know, the congress change has already been conceeded by even the most crazy liberals on this board by their silence. Only time will tell, but never confuse my benelovance with weakness. I was just giving my ***** Esten a shot to gracefully retreat from an expensive evening at Madahos. That said, "lets get it on buddy". I return in October but also return in April. Right now I'm looking for a killer evening at Madahos in April 2011. Let the games begin. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

PS. Majority is a majority dude. That means that if both house and congress change to republican I'm good. That said, it doesn't equate to 60-40, just 51-49 or the equivalent number in the house. You are currently sitting with both in your favour dude. If both go republican buddy it will be quite historic indeed. Why would such a shift occur if your boy Obomanation had game with America. Lets see what transpires in Novemeber. Good luck dude. Let the better man reap the Madahos pussy!Make the trip switch from October to November. Then, you and Esten can sit and hold hands in El Alamo while the votes come through from CNN / Fox. I might come just to watch the event. Unfortunately, it's going to be a tie.

Member #4112

08-10-10, 10:55

Esten, you have been stating for some time the mid- terms will be within the normal range regarding Dem's losing seats in both houses and not the water shed of 1994 or worse. So why don't you back off your criticism of WW since you are just as guilty. I think the bet is fair as I earlier outlined.

Black Shirt, you hit the nail on the head, we don't have any politicians who are willing to make the tough choices and cause the economic pain necessary to get the economy on the right track or cut back the "entitlement" and other give away programs that are bleeding us dry. What the hell are taxpayers doing financing the home loan industry (Freddie / Fannie) or in the auto business (Chrysler / GM) They all want to patch it over and let the next guy deal with the realities, I think we are quickly coming to the end of this luxury and it is going to be bad. Regan did it but it took nearly two years of pain to get us out of Jimmy Carter's "stag-flation" the Dem's left him.

El Alamo, naw you don't want to bring all those fine girls from Argentina to the States, in two years they just morph into American girls and you are right back where you started. I have known several airline pilots and a few regular Joes who have done that to their regret just a couple of years after getting them here. After that it is like the old Eddie Murphy skit where the African wife he got out of the boonies comes in and says "Eddie, I get HALF Eddie, HALF!"

Enjoy and Monger On Guys!

El Alamo

08-11-10, 13:18

I don't know where the thread on the U. S. Economy is but if I could invest in anything it would be in the U. S. Government aka Big Brother. No matter what it keeps growing. Unprecendented deficits, unbelievable operational inefficiencies don't seem to bother it. A workforce which specializes in 4 hour coffee breaks, 16 weeks a year of vacation, 20 weeks a year of sick leave and a fully funded retirement at twice your last salary can not slow down this train wreck. The fact that it can't even manufacture a safety pin without losing money is of no concern. It just keeps growing.

Somebody tell me what stock exchange handles this monstosity which is able to defy every economic norm we have come to rely on. I'm ready to invest everything I have in it (whoops, probably already have with the predatory tax structures they are putting in place)

El Queso

08-11-10, 20:23

I just thought I would put this out here, a discussion a little different from the economic situation.

I was watching Glenn Beck yesterday. Yeah, I know - anyone with a liberal bent (even a small one) will most likely immediately start saying what a quack / scare monger / idiot / racist Beck is. Maybe even some conservatives would have problems with him.

However, he has some very good points (when he's not all involved about talking about his relationship with "GOD" at least - I don't like that part of him) about economy and the people with whom Obama has surrounded himself (but that's actually another discussion) One would have to actually watch him to understand, as badly as he is vilified by the "mainstream" press, and those who are openly far to the left as well.

Yesterday he had a short segment at the end of his show related to the mosque that is being proposed in Mahattan a few blocks away from "Ground Zero." He was talking to a comedian who was proposing building an Islamic-friendly gay bar next door to the mosque (I think the discussion was tongue-in-cheek, but the comedian seemed pretty serious even as he was laughing) Personally, I found the concept quite hilarious, particularly some of the names they were bandying about as to what to call the bar. Such as "Jihot" or "Grind Zero." I can't remember all of them, but they were extremely funny. I was seriously laughing out loud in my office.

At that point, my sister-in-law, who is 14 (almost 15) and from Paraguay, asked me what was so funny. So I began to explain the whole controversy related to building the mosque. The first words out of my mouth were no more than "there is a group of Muslims who want to build a mosque a few blocks from where the Twin Towers (as they call them in Spanish) fell" and she interrupted me.

"What!" she said. "Are they nuts? Can't they see how insulting that would be?"

She said it so quickly I was amazed. She caught the gist of the matter in just a few seconds. She doesn't have a lot of background about Muslims themselves, no prejudices against them or anything like that. She knew about the World Trade Center and all, understood that radical Muslims hijacked and flew the planes that crashed into the towers, but she understands very well that not all Muslims are terrorists who would do such a thing.

I explained that the mayor of NYC (among many others) are supporting that proposal, as painful as it is for most Americans (and how very much more dear it is for New Yorkers - I saw poll results that said 65% of New Yorkers oppose this! I think it was only 18% or so that supported it and the rest were undecided) She just couldn't understand how anyone would 1) as a Muslim want to build something so controversial so close to such a horrible disaster that would basically stick in so many people's craws and 2) how ANYONE in New York, much less anywhere in the US, would say that allowing them to build it there would be an appropriate example of "tolerance."

Just the other day, I was walking home with her from picking her up at school and we passed a magazine stand. She saw the Times picture of that beautiful woman who now lacks nose and ears because she ran away from her abusive family. I explained to her that in extremist Muslim countries this falls under normal behavior towards women.

She was shocked.

She's seen some pretty crappy stuff in Paraguay in the way "macho" men treat women, and it is pretty bad at times related to some of the things we are used to in more "civilized" countries, but this Times article "took the cake," so to speak.

Now, I'm not laying the call for tolerance directly at the feet of Obama and and his administration. I'm not even saying anyone can legally do anything to stop these idiots from going ahead and building this mosque and recreational center where they are planning on doing it.

Obama, as with most things that are uncomfortable with him (I don't know what he actually thinks about this) stated (or the statement came out of his press office at least) that basically it's a "local" issue and he shouldn't get involved.

To me, that kind of flies in the face of other things he has butted into on a local scale, from the cops (one of whom was black) who supposedly mistreated that black professor (Obama calling the cops' actions stupid) to the federal government getting so involved in Arizona making a law that allows local law enforcement to ask the immigration status of someone involved in illegal activity (which Obama comes out on and says now an Hispanic can't even take his son to have ice cream without worrying about being molested)

Legally, we do all have a right to rent and occupy buildings if we are complying with existing laws. Absolutely. However, to me, the fact that this Islamic organization is intending to go ahead with this no matter how people feel about this, and are complaining that the US is not open and tolerant enough to opposing views, just goes to show that they really don't give a shit (this particular group at least) what others think and have no intention themselves of being tolerant to others' feelings.

I understand that they were planning this before 9/11 actually occured. But what kind of excuse is that? Again, on Beck today, I learned there are 57 MILLION SQUARE FEET of open non-residencial rental space available on Manhattan.

Can they really not find a decent location in all of that space that would be far enough away from Ground Zero to make more comfortable the people who are still hurting from that cowardly, shitty attack on civilians?

That alone should tell you something about the people who are going forward with it (or trying to) and should also say something about "tolerance" American-style. Those particular Muslims are probably laughing their asses off as they watch us tear ourselves apart, still, over that national disaster that took place almost 9 years ago now.

Even a 14-year-old girl, raised in a different country, can see how harmful the actions of those particular Muslims are and how idiotic are the Americans who not only don't object to it, but actually support it as a show of "tolerance."

Stan Da Man

08-11-10, 21:17

Count me an idiot. I don't think the question has anything to do with how many more rentable square feet exist elsewhere in New York. The question is: Why should they have to go anywhere else.

How about this question in the 1950s:

"How come them black folks have to drink out of our drinking fountain or sit in our bus seats. Can't they see how offensive that is to whites? Why don't they just use their drinking fountains and their buses?"

OK, I realize that blacks, in general, weren't responsible for perpetrating a significant act of violence on whites in any particular place, so perhaps the analogy is a bit strained.

So, how about this:

"How come all those Catholic folks have to build their churches in [pick any country in Mexico or Latin America]? Don't they realize how offensive that is to us natives, thousands of whom they made "convert to Catholicism" before executing so they would be saved?"

Is it different because the Spaniards kicked the indigenous folks' asses, so they can do what they want? Is it different because it happened a long time ago. Maybe. But it's no less offensive to them.

At any rate, I could care less what church, temple, mosque or house of worship they want to put up there. If they've got the funds and it's not illegal, let them do what they want. My only objection is that it shouldn't be tax-free.

I haven't been following the mosque debate. It really doesn't interest me much. I understand that people may object based on decorum, but what society governs itself on decorum? It's not really any different than when the Ku Klux Klan applies for a permit to hold a peaceful march. They have their First Amendment rights, too, regardless of whether some Klansmen in the past were vile, despicable and abominable people, and even if some existing Klansmen also fall into that category. What is the lawful right of assembly if it just means that the "right" except when the majority doesn't like it?

Rock Harders

08-11-10, 23:08

Mongers,

I've got to say I agree with Stan Da Man on this. As a native of the NY area who knew several people who didn't wake up to see the sun shine on September 12th I can tell you that I believe this religious group (or any other sanctioned and recognized religious group) should be able to put a church or associated facility wherever it is legally permitted by current law. Application of the law is supposed to be blind to religious affiliation. If the Mormons and Scientologists can get sanctioning as a legitimate religious organization (they are both cults) and put their churches wherever they want then the Muslims should be able to as well. Nobody seems to complain about Saint Patrick's Cathedral even though priests directly employed with the Catholic Church arguably ruined many more lives over the years through being child touchers and fear mongers than the 9/11 hijackers did with their bombings. In my opinion, Islam is a terrible religion that was created and maintained as a mechanism for controlling women and political power through pure brutality and savage coercion. To be even more stark, I think those people in the Middle East (and any other group that doesn't respect basic human and gender rights) are a bunch of completely brainwashed animals. However, if they are in the USA legally, and our government has recognized their religion, they have the same right to located their church where legally permitted as any other group.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Jackson

08-11-10, 23:50

Guys,

Please wake up!

Muslims have a long history of building mosques on conquered lands, and when built, that's exactly what this mosque will represent to the radical Muslim world.

We cannot let them have such a perfect propaganda and recruitment tool.

They can build their proposed mosque anywhere else, but not in south Manhattan.

Thanks,

Jackson

Schmoj

08-12-10, 00:23

El Queso

08-12-10, 00:36

I stated that of course the Islamic group has every right UNDER US LAWS to put up a mosque near Ground Zero. We can't do anything about it if they choose to go forward because they are not doing anyhting against the law - I fully understand that. But that was not the point I was trying to make.

In fact, I did err by even mentioning Obama's and the mayor's stand on this - they really should not be making a comment against this because there isn't anything they can do no matter how they feel - it is not against the law and rightfully they should not offend others standing against something that is not against the law.

I simply think it says a lot of the Islamic religion (or perhaps only this particular groups, and groups like them) that they won't even consider listening to the uproar and the serious feelings of being so close to a place where muslims killed thousands of non-combatant people and destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of property in one fell swoop.

A question - how many Islamic countries under Sharia Law would allow a christian organization to build a church, or even practice their religion - ANYWHERE? Here is one article among many I found when I did a search on the topic:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/07/survey-how-easy-to-build-a-christian-church-in-a-muslim-country/

Yes, these particular muslims want to build bridges (their own words, stated many times in this debate by themselves) by ignoring the outcry and arrogantly proceeding with theor plans. Sure.

I think we have a right to be intolerant of something like the proposed mosque. Hell, if we had a country similar to those who practiced Sharia law, these guys might be put to death. I think just protesting their plans is pretty damned civilized. I think it shows a lack of civilization and understanding that they are not thinking about moving to another site less sensitive.

As far as Stan's examples - well, first of all, although the Klan has a right to peaceful assembly - how do you think a church who is primarily made up of black members would feel about the clan renting space next door, or a couple of doors down? You think there wouldn't be a pretty big uproar about that, legal or not? How many Democratic or liberal activists would get involved to have them move it as an affront to race relations?

Second of all, the Catholic Church actually listened to the people who went up in arms against the church when the church wanted to put some kind of church edifice (I don't remember what it was) near one of the concentration camps in Germany or Poland (don't remember which camp it was) from World War II and the church backed down and apologized for upsetting sensiblities and did not try to go forward with their plans. WWII is a scar quite a bit older than 9/11/2001, but the Catholic Church seems to be able to learn and change over time (except when it comes to pedophile priests, it seems!

Third of all, the Catholic Church committed a whole slew of violent idiocies in the past, not only in Latin America. As did the Protestant churches. The history of Europe during and after the Reformation in particular is filled with incredible religious idiocies that caused the deaths of countless people over a couple of hundred years.

However, yes, the distance of time makes a pretty big difference. Ask the people of Latin America now, descended mostly from a mix of the original natives and Europeans (mostly Spanish and Portuguese) how they feel about the Catholic Church. I think they will not have a problem having a church right next to, say, Chichen-Itza which was an old Mayan temple.

The funny thing is, the examples you picked, Stan, seem to be examples from things that happened in the past, and which most people now acknowledge were atrocities or at least bad things that happened, well in the past, and most agree that things that bother the sensibilities of others should definitely be taken into account.

Maybe in a couple of decades many people would not be so sensitive about this particular site. Depending on how many more acts of terrorism are committed on US soil by Islamic extremists in those intervening decades, of course.

The comedian I mentioned tried to contact the organization behind the mosque proposal via email regarding his proposal for a gay bar next door. When he received no reply, he Tweeted them and they answered something to the effect of "of course you are free to place whatever you would like next to the proposed building, but such an act would not help to contribute to communication, understanding and building bridges."

Huh. But of course, what that Islamic organization is proposing wouldn't really do that either would it? Is that really what they are about, as they say - communication and building bridges? They sure have a strange way of going about it.

I am a complete non-religionist. I hate to use the word "atheist" because it may have anti-religion connotations, and that is not what I'm about. What people want to do on their own time in their own places, I'm happy with as long as they don't push it on me. That goes for anything, not just religions.

However, I think religion in general has done so much damage in this world. In this day and age, all religions should be doing everything they can to not not impinge on the sensibilities of those of other religions and those who don't even want to be involved in religion, or shoulod take into account a public outcry when they plan something.

Esten

08-12-10, 00:44

Sounds good Toymann. The wager itself was actually secondary to me, I was more interested to test your confidence in a Republican sweep. But since we are both good with the defined terms, the bet is on and the mid-terms will now be even more interesting. With a majority as you defined it. We may have to define some more terms on the evening down the road... I don't want you ordering bottles of champagne and taking out 2 dancers TLN! As I'm sure you don't want me doing either.

I won't be down until November after the elections. Not sure about first half 2011. If you win I'll try to find someway to leave the Madahos funds with someone / somewhere when I am down in November (I don't suppose Madahos has "gift certificates" haha...). And if I win you should plan on trying to get the funds for me to use on my November trip. If possible. We'll figure it all out when we get there...

Esten

08-12-10, 01:26

As far as the mosque, I'm with El Queso on this. Although I will qualify that it depends on the exact layout, which I'm not clear on. If the mosque is going to be in clear view of Ground Zero visitors, I don't agree with it. If not then I'm OK with it.

Just because something is legal (and should remain legal) doesn't mean it is right or appropriate in all instances.

Ground Zero is a place of American identity and national unity. I think for many people going to Ground Zero, a mosque in view nearby is just going to be a small but definate interference to the reflection they came there for. I don't think there should be any religious reminders there, but in this instance a mosque would be particularly inappropriate in my opinion.

Schmoj

08-12-10, 02:03

Ground Zero is a place of American identity and national unity. I think for many people going to Ground Zero, a mosque in view nearby is just going to be a small but definate interference to the reflection they came there for. I don't think there should be any religious reminders there, but in this instance a mosque would be particularly inappropriate in my opinion.You guys realize they aren't "building" a mosque, right? They are installing an "islamic culture center" in a site formerly occupied by a Burlington Coat Factory. It's two blocks away from the WTC site. There is currently another "islamic culture center" another two blocks away that predates the WTC. Should that be torn down also?

I agree with El Alamo about the detrimental aspects of all religions. And I agree about sensitivity regarding Ground Zero. But give me a fucking break. Are you all so sensitive that installing a mosque two blocks away is so threatening?

Esten

08-12-10, 02:13

If it's two blocks away out of sight I'm OK with it. I tried searching articles to find out the exact location but couldn't find the info, a lot of articles are discussing this without mentioning this detail.

Dccpa

08-12-10, 10:45

Toymann,

I am curious as to how you think the Republicans will take the Senate? I don't believe there are enough Democratic Senators up for reelection to realistically expect the Senate to turn over. I agree about the House turning Republican.

Toymann

08-12-10, 14:17

Wild Walleye

08-12-10, 15:21

Dccpa

08-12-10, 15:48

The latest polls I looked at did not show enough Democratic Senate candidates in the toss-up category, but it is a long time until the election. Even a 51-49 Rep Senate, would not guarantee control. The two Rep Senators from Maine often vote with the Dems. 55-45 Dem-Rep is a very possible scenario and that should definitely be enough Rep votes to stop the evasion of Senate rules. But does it really matter what happens in the Senate? Even if the Reps take control of the Senate, they would not have enough support to override a Presidential veto.

For me, a large changeover in the House and a solid Rep majority could lead to stalemate. I am very comfortable with that outcome, especially if the new House members are Tea Party people with a Libertarian philosophy. I would expect they will give Dems a lot of hell and Reps some hell too. Then in 2012, Americans can decide in which direction they want the country to go.

Member #4112

08-12-10, 16:51

There are currently 37 seats in the Senate up for reelection in the 2010 cycle and of those 13 seats are considered to be in "battleground states". Recent polling by Public Opinion Strategies in the 13 battleground states, not generic polling do you prefer Dem or Repub but polling with the Dem and Repub candidate's names, show a 47% to 39% preference for the Repub candidate. Among independents the numbers really start to spread with Repub candidates holding a 47% to 25% lead over the Dem candidate.

More telling is in one or two states with primaries this week, the LOSING Repub candidate received more votes than the WINNING Dem candidate. As I recall and I could be wrong but in most or all of the primary races the Repub turnout was significantly greater than the Dem turnout. As stated earlier mid-term elections are usually low turnout affairs. If these trends continue the Dems are going to be in a peck of trouble with low turnout of their base and the disaffection of the independent voting bloc. The Repub base by contrast is highly motivated.

Jackson

08-12-10, 17:57

There is already another mosque / islamic cultural center two blocks away that has been there for 40 years. Should that one be torn down?Schmoj,

That's not a valid comparison, and you know it.

The answer is "No", because the existing mosque was built BEFORE 9/11.

The new proposed mosque will be built AFTER 9/11, and thus it will be built in CELEBRATION OF the most successful Islamic-motivated attack against the American people in US history.

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

Stan Da Man

08-12-10, 18:34

It will take a sweep I think but I believe that it could end up 51-49 at the end of the day. Please advise if I am not correct. My early posts related to breaking the 60-40 advantage the dems had and thus no more of this ability to force bullshit legislation down our throats (like healthcare) My bet with Esten was made purely for sport without much research. I hope that there exists at least a theoretical chance of a senate majority or I made a stupid bet. If the best that can happen is 50-50 maybe I can get my opponent to conceed the ties to me since Esten currently has the majority in both House and Senate. If Esten is a sportsman he will conceed me the ties in the case of a 50-50 split in the senate. Please advise as to what the best possible outcome would be based on the seats up for re-election please. Happy Mongering All. ToymannHere is a pretty thorough article discussing how Republicans could re-take the Senate, including each of the races that are up for grabs. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704875004575375122374132154.html?KEYWORDS=republicans++eye++toss-up++51-49++senate

The article is three weeks old, which is ancient where politics are concerned, but that should also give you some idea of how much things could change before the election. Two months ago, about half the "in play" Democrat seats were considered "safe," but they no longer are.

The print edition of the WSJ also had a discussion of the 4 seats currently held by Republicans that could be up for grabs. To re-take the Senate, Republicans would have to hold onto all of their own "in-play" seats and take all but one of the Democrat seats that are considered "in play."

In terms of your bet, Republicans taking control of the Senate is easily the longest shot. It's theoretically possible, but not likely. When Esten was trying to get you to agree that a split would result in a loss for you, he was just baiting you. Or, he doesn't know much about it, either. Anyone who's been following it knows that retaking the Senate is a very long shot and, therefore, it would be a longshot to bet on a Republican sweep of both houses.

That said, it's also unlikely (but not a longshot) that Democrats will retain control of both houses. Esten got the better of the bet, but you've got the trend in your favor. As I said, however, there is a long, long time before this election. If the economy worsens, your odds improve; if it gets better, your odds decline. If Obama and Dems propose more of their cockamamie legislation before the election, you will win hands down. But, there's slim chance of that. Dems have been outright idiotic up to this point in managing their control of both houses and the executive branch, but they're not insane. Then again, I was more confident in that last statement two months ago than I am now. Should be interesting.

Schmoj

08-12-10, 19:32

That's not a valid comparison, and you know it.

The answer is "No", because the existing mosque was built BEFORE 9/11.

I wasn't necessarily comparing, just curious what you thought.

The new proposed mosque will be built AFTER 9/11, and thus it will be built in CELEBRATION OF the most successful Islamic-motivated attack against the American people in US history.That's how YOU may choose to interpret it, but what are you basing that conclusion on? My guess is not much other than the hysteria surrounding it.

Get it?Oh, I get it. But, the it I get is probably not what you intend.

Toymann

08-12-10, 19:32

That said, it's also unlikely (but not a longshot) that Democrats will retain control of both houses. Esten got the better of the bet, but you've got the trend in your favor. As I said, however, there is a long, long time before this election. If the economy worsens, your odds improve; if it gets better, your odds decline. If Obama and Dems propose more of their cockamamie legislation before the election, you will win hands down. But, there's slim chance of that. Dems have been outright idiotic up to this point in managing their control of both houses and the executive branch, but they're not insane. Then again, I was more confident in that last statement two months ago than I am now. Should be interesting.Stan, you are the Man!

Very informative information from you and the preceeding posts. I thought that it was possible if the GOP swept the close races. I also am counting on more crazy legistlation from the democrats as THEY JUST can't HELP THEMSELVES! Obomanation will continue to inflict his crazy social agenda on america without even the slightest concern for the real issues that are on americans minds these days (economy, immigration, etc. His newest brainchild, the great arizona lawsuit, should keep the heat up quite nicely with 80% of americans that solidly believe this is just a crazy frivolous lawsuit designed by the new dictator forcing his minions to see things HIS way. For whatever reason Obomination continues his hell-bent rush to eclipse Carter as Americas WORST President. Sadly, from my perspective, gridlock can't come soon enough so we can halt the socializing of america. I still am holding out optomistic hope that Esten will be funding a little Toymann madahos pussy in 2011. The democrats these days are overachieving at historic levels and thats what I am counting on to carry Toymann to a huge upset pussy victory in November. Happy Mongering All.

Toymann

Wild Walleye

08-13-10, 13:21

There is a little too much noise flying around on this one.

The funny thing is to hear the left crying "freedom of religion" on behalf of the people that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 while at the same time they are tearing down Nativity Scenes, erected on public property, trying to get "In God We Trust" removed from our currency and eliminating all mentions of God from US History.

If you want to say that we are not at war with Islam and that it is a "fringe element" that has "hijacked" (such irony in that choice of words) the religion then you are saying that we must either: pre-judge muslims and their organizations and separate them into good and bad lots (maybe we could use the golden egg machines from Willie Wonka's Chocolate Factory) or wait for the bad ones to attack us in order to classify them as bad (although you also want to set the bad ones in Camp-Gitmo free (anywhere but your hometown)

The facts are clear for those willing to look for them. We have been in a war with radical islamacists for more than 30 years, although we have only "engaged" intermittently. These attacks are by in large supported by Islamic nationalities and do not represent a "lunatic fringe."

1979: US Embassy in Tehran

1982: hostages in Lebanon

1983: US Embassy in Beirut (63 dead, 17 Americans (several CIA) military barracks (241 Marines KIA) US Embassy Kuwait City.

1984: East Beirut US Embassy Annex (24 dead, 2 Marines)

1985: Madrid resto, Beirut TWA Flight 847, Med Sea Achille Lauro, Rome airport bombins, Vienna airport bombing.

1986: Athens TWA flight 840, West Berlin disco bombing.

1988: Lockerbie: Pan-Am 103 (270 dead)

1993: WTC attack #1 (6 dead, 1,040 injured)

1995: Riyadh US Military HQ (5 dead)

1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Kobar Towers bombing (19 American servicemen dead, hundreds of wounded)

1998: US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

2000: Yemen Cole bombing (17 USN dead)

2001: NYC, Arlington, VA, Shanksville, PA (2,992 dead)

2002: Karachi Pakistan American Consulate bombing (12 dead)

2003: Riyadh housing compound bombing.

2004: Kohbar, Saudi Arabia oil company attack; Riyadh Paul Johnson Jr execution; Jeddah US consulate.

2005: Amman, Jordan hotel attacks.

2006: Damascus, Syria American Embassy attack (foiled)

2007: Athens embassy attack,.

There are at least a dozen other examples but I got tired of listing them.

When Muslims defeat an enemy, they build a Mosque at one of the key sites of the vanquished society or the site of an epic battle. Feisal's Cordoba House is intended to be just such a symbol of victory over the infidels. Allowing this project to go forward is not an act of religious tolerance, it is an act of political weakness. The Catholic church has tried to curry favor and tolerance with Islam for 250 years (mosque in Rome) but has seen no benefit for its efforts. Why should we expect a different result?

Feisal is an anti-American demagogue who has the right to say what he wants (he and his ilk get more latitude on this than we do) however, that does not mean that we should roll over on every issue that gets cloaked in religious cloth. Zoning is a local issue. I am sure that if a Catholic group wanted to build a cathedral on that site, it would be blocked by the left. If Wal-mart wanted to locate a store there, the left would stop that too. Why is this American-hating Imam getting special treatment?

There is an interesting wrinkle may have arisen regarding the ownership of one half of the site. It seems that while the group behind Cordoba House owns one of the two buildings, it only leases (very long-term lease) the other from Con Ed (local power company) While the group is trying to exercise its purchase option on that part of the property (Con Ed has to value the property and Soho Properties has to agree to pay the amount) any deal will have to go through the Public Service Commission. While Con Ed must abide by its contract, it doesn't have to make things any easier for Soho Properties. I would expect that the pressure on both Con Ed and the PSC will be quite extreme. I am not sure if the decision by the PSC will come before the Nov. Elections (doubt it) The PSC is controlled by the Gov of NY.

A further thought, while Ground Zero is often described as the WTC, the entire area was engulfed in the battle and the aftermath. Go watch the videos of people running up the avenues while the South Tower was collapsing. Do you really think that two blocks makes it OK? Would two blocks from ground zero in Hiroshima be a good location for a US Air and Space museum? Why not give Feisal a prime location 2 blocks from the power station in Chernobyl? He can have it rent free and we (US taxpayers) can foot the bill to fly in all of his Islamascist buddies.

Toymann

08-13-10, 14:10

Hate to say it but this thread has improved since Papa Sidney retired. I couldn't agree more with your post WW. Anyone who doesn't understand what the world-wide muslim agenda is JUST DOESN'T GET IT! I really never understand why we can't just go ahead and say these things out loud in america. The mormon church supposedly does not support polygomy but toleration isn't any different than quiet support. Just read the recent book "Under the banner of God" and you'll get the idea.

Wise words WW. Keep up the good work.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Rock Harders

08-13-10, 14:37

Mongers,

Before this thread morphs completely into an anti-Muslim hate group, how about we examine this interesting list that WW posted here. The 1979 Tehran Embassy incident? The Iranians were more or less justified in this action as a result of US support for the Shah and his repressive and tortuous actions (remember the CIA ousted a somewhat democratic government in the 50's in favor of the Shah because the Shah was anti-communist) The other incidents are almost all directly associated with the unconditional US support of Israel against the Palestinians. Some of the latter incidents could also be associated with the US sanctions against Iraq in the 90's (which helped starve about 2 million children to death) The Muslims have legitimate gripes in terms of their feelings toward US Foreign Policy. If the US finally put its foot down and ordered Israel to give the Palestinians a workable state or risk getting cut off, and pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I would be willing to bet that alot of the fuel that fires the Muslim hate / distrust toward the US would be extinguished. As I stated in an earlier post, I have no respect for the Muslim religion and I think those people live like animals in general, but the fact is unless you are going to slaughter them all (not an option) the US needs to accept the fact that they can't change or control these nation / states and stop wasting its money and resources on these unwinnable wars. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is ever going to be a real, governable country.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Member #4112

08-13-10, 15:46

HR we did not go into either Afghanistan or Iraqi until AFTER 9/11, by the way they killed more people on 9/11 than died 1n the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and all of the 9/11 victims were civilians not military combatants. The war between the Muslim religion and Christians has been going on for a lot longer than the dates listed by WW.

After Obama's grand Muslim apology tour under your premise they should have gone WOW and ceased all hostilities. You seem to think that if we just make nice they will leave us to go our own way, study history right up to today my friend that is not the way they work. They have not changed in centuries – they are still stuck in the 5th Century while the rest of the world has moved on. Hell they are killing more fellow Muslims in the name of Allah than Christians but they are equal opportunity murders and will get around to us in the end.

As far as giving the poor Palestinians a homeland, again check history. When the UN partitioned Palestine in 1949 the Jews and the Palestinians had separate self governed homelands from what was originally Palestine (Note Jordan and Lebanon got sizeable chunks of what was Palestine under British rule per the partition agreement) The Arabs wanted none of that, they wanted it all and to destroy Israel in the bargain. What they got after the 1949 war was less than what they started with under the partition agreement.

In every war since when the Arabs try to destroy Israel they only lose more land with each military defeat. While you are reading you might come across the little fact Arafat walked away from a peace deal which established a self ruled Palestinian homeland because he didn't want half he wanted it all including Israel. Don't you remember the "land for peace" deals – the Israelis gave up the land but they didn't get the promised peace.

Get a grip Big Guy - it's still the jungle out there under the thin veneer of "civilization"

Toymann

08-13-10, 15:47

If the US finally put its foot down and ordered Israel to give the Palestinians a workable state or risk getting cut off, and pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, I would be willing to bet that alot of the fuel that fires the Muslim hate / distrust toward the US would be extinguished. I am a big fan of many of your posts Rock but you are in outer space on this one dude. It's not about US foriegn policy that makes these folks crazy buddy. It has absolutley nothing to do with this. THEY HATE DEMOCRACY! Thats the end of the story and the US is the poster child for an affluent democratic society.

You must have forgotten just a few years back when Al Queda published their world-wide hit list. It included just to name a few Canada, Australia, France, Germany, etc. Etc. Etc. Guesse that horrible Canadian foreign policy must have just sent them over the edge! IALOTFLMAO. It has never been about just american politics Rock! Ever! This shit has been going on for hundreds of years dude. It has always been about lifestyle and society values that differ from the "Muslim Way".

Suggest you do a bit of history review before you start talking about Iraq and Afganastan. This battle was taking place long before America even had a foreign policy. I think you are mixing your personal feelings about historical US policy decisions (which I agree have not always been great) with an issue that has been around long before the US began playing the role of world-wide policeman.

Happy Mongering All.

Toymann

Wild Walleye

08-13-10, 15:54

Mongers,

Before this thread morphs completely into an anti-Muslim hate group,I'd be willing to bet that I have more Muslim friends (from Lebanon, Eqypt, Tanzania, UAE, Saudi, Qatar, NYC, etc) than most AP members. My post was not "hate" language or anything of the sort. It was a statement of fact. Facts I discuss / debate freely with my Muslim friends. Sometimes the facts are messy. While the percentage of Muslims committed to Islamic Revolution is relatively small, their numbers are large and they represent a real threat. How do you propose going forward?

how about we examine this interesting list that WW posted here.Please do, that was the purpose for making the quote.

The 1979 Tehran Embassy incident? The Iranians were more or less justified in this action as a result of US support for the Shah and his repressive and tortuous actionsThe "incident" to which you refer was an armed invasion of US sovereign territory, which is clearly an act of war (unless your president is a dickless pussy) If that was "more or less justified" than we would have been more or less justified in delivering an asymmetrical response freeing our sovereign territory and vanquishing our attacker (sort of the object of "justified" war)

(remember the CIA ousted a somewhat democratic government in the 50's in favor of the Shah because the Shah was anti-communist)Pahlavi (the Shah) was also Pro-American, something we used to look for in our friends. He was the Emperor of Iran from 1941 until 1979 when he was deposed by the Islamic Revolution. In the early '50s, Mosaddaq (Prime Minister) was committed to nationalizing the Iranian oil industry (and with it US and UK interests in the form of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) and had in fact led Parliament to vote to nationalize the industry. Additionally, the US and UK were concerned that a Mosaddaq administration would be controlled by the communists. "Operation Ajax" was a CIA-executed effort to force Mosaddaq from office and prevent him being elected President. The first coup attempt failed and the Shah, briefly, went into exile. He returned in '53, when the second coup was successful. We helped the "lesser of two evils" achieve power. Mosaddaq was quite popular but he was no fan of human rights or democracy. Between '53 and '79 our embassy staff grew to about 1,000 personnel (that's a big embassy) Eleven months before the Embassy was taken over, it was attacked with rocks and bullets. In the wake of that attack, the staff was reduced to 60. The US and the Shah were steadfast in their opposition to the Islamic Revolution and Communism, which traveled hand in hand.

The other incidents are almost all directly associated with the unconditional US support of Israel against the Palestinians.Since at least '79, Iran has unconditionally supported Russia, would that have justified the US in attacking Iran, prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain?

Some of the latter incidents could also be associated with the US sanctions against Iraq in the 90's (which helped starve about 2 million children to death) Then Cuba should also be free to attack us. US sanctions didn't kill anyone in Iraq. If anyone starved, it was due to Saddam diverting humanitarian aid not any perceived lack of international aid, of which there was not shortage despite the US sanctions.

The Muslims have legitimate gripes in terms of their feelings toward US Foreign Policy.Add the Jews to the list as this Administration has thrown them out.

If the US finally put its foot down and ordered Israel to give the Palestinians a workable state or risk getting cut off,How is the US going to ensure that Israel won't be attacked if they drop their pants?

and pulled out of IraqWhy, is this in the best interest of US national security? But BHO says he has already brought 90K soldiers home from Iraq (didn't bother to mention that he was counting those rotated home and replaced with other soldiers)

and AfghanistanWhy, is this in the best interest of US national security? I thought BHO said that this was the "good" war?

I would be willing to bet that alot of the fuel that fires the Muslim hate / distrust toward the US would be extinguished.I'll take that bet. 250 years of Vatican efforts toward this end returned bupkiss.

As I stated in an earlier post, I have no respect for the Muslim religion and I think those people live like animals in general, Err, me be confused. Me thought you no want Muslim hate group here.

but the fact is unless you are going to slaughter them all (not an option) the US needs to accept the fact that they can't change or control these nation / states and stop wasting its money and resources on these unwinnable wars.We need not accept anything that materially degrades our national security or undermines our sovereignty. We need to reestablish the understanding that if you take up arms against the USA, you will be dead. Find enough bad guys, dispatch them with extreme prejudice and the threat will decline. Contrary to liberal babble, this will make recruitment for terror more difficult.

We as a country need to grow a pair!

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is ever going to be a real, governable country. Conventional wisdom may be on your side. If we cut and run on both, the human toll on innocents will be enormous.

El Alamo

08-13-10, 17:14

Barrack Obama seems to be a nice enough guy. Unfortuneately he is sadled with his wife Michele. Vacations in Spain, the Florida Panhandle and Nantucket, all in a 2 week period.

Ronald Reagon had Nancy, Bill Clinton had Hillary and Obama has Michele.

God help Obama, especially if he is forced to perform his husbandry duties with Michele.

Exon123

08-13-10, 20:42

Jackpot

08-13-10, 21:47

Yo Rock,

Right on man for telling like it is. I worked in the middle east for a year and heard incredible stories of how the Israelies mistreated and abused the Palestinians. Its still going on today! And the USA supports it and seems to think that Islam will bend to the yoke of "our democracy".

One of my best Jewish friends went to Israel for a year in 1981. Upon his return, when asked what he thought of the whole Palestinian / Israeli. Shiteree, he replied, "they deserve each other".

We've backed loser dictators before and paid the price dearly. Netanyahu is just another, using our big stick to the disadvantage of our country and Obbie seems to be in his pocket ala Clinton and the bush baby.

We reap what we sow.

I DO agree though, there should be no mosque within 5 miles of the 9/11 site.

Jackpot

Rock Harders

08-13-10, 22:45

Mongers,

It would be nice if the Wild Walleyes, Toyman's, Jackson's and similar Fox News Robots of the forum would actually step outside the upper-middle age American right wing box they dwell in and view world history and events objectively from an international perspective. If they did, they would see what the rest of the world sees: that the US often engages in short-sighted, counterproductive Foreign Policy that has come back to haunt it again and again. One of these such policies is the United States' unlimited support of Israel; the US backs a small country of several million in their heinous actions against essentially the will of the entire world (the UN General Assembly votes about 180-3 to condemn Israeli behavior) This is the single most important factor that generates Muslim hatred toward the US. Instead of forcing a solution to the Palestinian situation, the US does nothing (except block action against Israel) and spits in the face of 100 million Muslims in the Middle East. Why does the US unconditionally support Israel? They have no natural resources, produce nothing the US wants or needs (they trade in diamonds) and cause the US far more problems than their friendship is worth. The primary reason for this is that the some upper echelons of the US government and financial system (which are deeply intertwined) are controlled and influenced by Jews. It is in THEIR interests, but not those of the USA, to keep supporting Israel. The less important factor, but one sold to the Jesus Sheep who inhabit the South and Midwest of the USA, is that in order for the Christ to return, Israel must be alive and well in control of the "Holy Land".

WW, do a little light research and you will in fact see that two million Iraqi children DID in fact starve to death as a result of the US sanctions during the 90's. Yes, Saddam Hussein's regime manipulated the Oil for Food Program to bolster their personal wealth; the US knew about that, and the children starving to death, and decided the political gains from maintaining the sanctions outweighed two million children starving to death. WW, in your opinion, is keeping Saddam Hussein "corralled" worth two million children starving to death? The Muslim world also knew about this (what do you think Al-Jazeera was broadcasting every night? And were disgusted that the US (who claim to be such great humanitarians) would allow this to happen.

The US government should know by now that any sanctions they implement always crush the poorest and most helpless citizens of the "enemy" country they are trying to punish. The despots who control the regime always find a way to keep their bellies full and their Ferraris full of 100 Octane gasoline (see any current or past dictatorship the US has levied sanctions against)

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Toymann

08-14-10, 00:40

It would be nice if the Wild Walleyes, Toyman's, Jackson's and similar Fox News Robots of the forum would actually step outside the upper-middle age American right wing box they dwell in and view world history and events objectively from an international perspective. If they did, they would see what the rest of the world sees:support Israel? Your obsession with Israel is obvious Rock. What you have totally missed here is that we were discussing Muslim terrorism. Unless you live under a rock (LOL) this is a world issue that effects all democratic countries. The acts of muslim terrorism have been felt worldwide recently, as well as for hundreds of years. Not sure what your education level is Rock but from were I stand it appears obvious to me that high school must have been a stretch for you as your ignorance to the issues here are now apparent for everyone to see.

"Better you keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".

For the record Rock, I was raised and educated in Canada and have a pretty good grasp on the non-american perspective. Stop mixing your obsession with Isreal into a discussion on muslim extremist world-wide terrorism. Just because you don't like my spin on the current president doesn't mean I am some Fox news clone. Stop being so shallow and attempt to expand your views outside of your limited world-wide perspective.

Happy Mongering All,

Toymann

Rock Harders

08-14-10, 01:49

Toyman,

You are 100% right. I grew up in a trailer park in Arkansas, my daddy was a failed NASCAR driver, and I failed out of vocational school where I was learning how to retread tires. I only speak English and even that is a stretch. Currently I subside on my $8 AR per hour job at a car wash in La Boca. I am only in Argentina because I am running from the Country Sheriff back in Arkansas for cooking up Crank.

Or, maybe the reality is I have a degree in International Relations, administer a multinational corporation, speak three languages, and have more relevant international travel and contacts than you ever will at less than half your age.

Yes, we are talking about Muslim hatred and terrorism toward the USA; it is impossible to have an intelligent debate about this without examining its primary source: the US government's uncompromising support of Israel's disgraceful behavior and treatment of the Palestinians. The secondary sources of this, of course, are the US government's support of despotic governments in the Middle East and the current US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The US government will never be able to convince the Muslim world that they are not enemies while the Israel-Palestine situation remains unresolved and the US wages war and occupies two Muslim countries.

No, I am not anti-Semite. The Holocaust certainly happened, millions were slaughtered, and it was among the great human tragedies. I am not a fan of the Israeli government, which has refused to give the Palestinians an independent state and has treated them like chattel. What I want to see is the US government to stop fucking its own citizens over via its counterproductive foreign policy that results in a nearly permanent state of war that keeps the makers of bombs, bullets, and bodybags (and all war material) rolling in taxpayer dollars.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Toymann

08-14-10, 02:58

Toyman-

Or, maybe the reality is I have a degree in International Relations, administer a multinational corporation, speak three languages, and have more relevant international travel and contacts than you ever will at less than half your age. It must be so cool to be so successful, educated and worldly at the tender age of 24 years. I am glad you have not let your limited education (international relations degree) or your limited life experiences (24 years) hinder your position on world affairs or acting as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to america's role in the muslim extremist position. You are truely enlightened at such a young age. Who ever said "experience is the great teacher" must have been an idiot such as myself.

I will close our discussion with only two questions for you.

First, is afganastan an american or NATO sanctioned action?

Second, did muslim terrorism exist before 1776?

No need to respond, as us old fools already know the answer to both. Please don't sell yourself short, as having lived 10 years in the southern US states both your presentation and current academic arguements would be very well recieved in arkansaw. You might want to take a visit there as I am guessing you would be treated like family. I will leave you with one of my favourite non-american quotes.

" If you are not a liberal in your twenties then you have NO heart. If you are STILL a liberal in your thirties you have No brain"

Monger On Dude. Toymann.

P. S. I only speak two languages fluently but my spanish is getting better every year. You don't want to compare passports or educational background with me brother. Not even for a skinny second, but I will forgive your ignorance as just the normal problems associated with youth and lack of life experiences.

P.P.S Those US 90's Iraq sanctions you speak of (that killed all those children!) were again Nato sanctions Rock. As you have been quoting NATO votes when it suits your agenda, I just thought I'd let a few facts get in the way of your emotional liberal arguement. Oops, forgive me as you were only a young child in the 90's. Don't let the details ever disuade your cause dude. It's all good!

Dccpa

08-14-10, 12:03

Rock, I am guessing the truth is somewhere in between what you posted. But it definitely sounds like you are from the Fort Smith area of Arkansas. As far as international corporations, anyone can hire someone off of oDesk and claim to be an international corporation.

Dccpa

08-14-10, 12:31

His support for the Mosque shows he is truly out of touch with mainstream America. I had no doubts that Obama supported the Mosque, but I did not think he was foolish enough to make the support public. I suspect he is trying to look Presidential in order to boost his sagging poll numbers. But what he has done is finish off Democrats in the fall. I still think the Senate is not winnable for the Reps, but Obama is trying his best to give it to the them. Now every Rep candidate can protest against the Mosque and use the issue to paint Dems as the extremist party. As Jackson or someone else stated, due to it proximity to the WTC site the Mosque is the height of insensitivity to most Americans.

Barring anything greatly positive for Dems in the next 3 months, they are now headed for massive losses this fall.

Sysco234

08-14-10, 13:01

I have to admit I am struggling with the Mosque topic. My gut reaction is that this is a huge slap in the face and I dislike it greatly. That said, one of the things that makes America great, and is despised in the extreme Islamic community, is the incredible freedom we give people in this country. If we start selectively restricting those freedoms it's an example of hipocracy they can point to. There is nothing more frustrating then watching people who have disdain for personal freedoms use our own laws against us but then nobody said equality and freedom was easy. Personally, I think the most insulting thing we could do is to just ignore the whole thing.

Sysco

Toymann

08-14-10, 13:07

Concise and clear perspective brother. I feel exactly the same way on this issue. Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad. Free speech and religious expression is truely at the heart of democracy. It appears you may not be from arkansaw.

Monger on dude,

Toymann

I have to admit I am struggling with the Mosque topic. My gut reaction is that this is a huge slap in the face and I dislike it greatly. That said, one of the things that makes America great, and is despised in the extreme Islamic community, is the incredible freedom we give people in this country. If we start selectively restricting those freedoms it's an example of hipocracy they can point to. There is nothing more frustrating then watching people who have disdain for personal freedoms use our own laws against us but then nobody said equality and freedom was easy. Personally, I think the most insulting thing we could do is to just ignore the whole thing.

Sysco

Argento

08-14-10, 14:26

Not being either a US or Canadian citizen but following the discussion with interest, Rock Harder appears to me to reduce the Israel argument down to 'what do they offer to the US?' The world decided on the establishment of the modern state of Israel, not the US. However without the support of the US it would have ceased to exist. Obviously Rock Harder's study of International Relations puts little emphasis on principles and the policies that naturally follow those principles and instead would only support the existence of countries that can offer material succour to the US.

How sad is that?

Argento

Rock Harders

08-14-10, 15:10

Mongers,

Nowhere have I ever made the argument that Israel should not exist. What I have repeatedly argued here is that Israel should be forced to give the Palestinians a workable state, and the Palestinians lack of a state and their poor treatment at the hands of the Israelis is the primary cause of Muslim hatred toward the US (for unconditionally supporting Israel's actions and non-actions)

Principles and US foreign policy? Surely you must be joking. The US has supported some of the most vile, murderous regimes the world has ever seen. The US doesn't not care how despotic a particular leader or regime is as long as his policies don't conflict with US economic interests. US foreign policy is driven almost entirely with the goal of maintaining and furthering the US economic empire (or what is left of it) The fact of the matter is that foreign policy the world over (not just the US) is entirely about pragmatism and not principles.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Tatshea Travel

08-14-10, 16:49

Hello Rock Harder,

You know I'm a great fan of your posts and reports about Cocodrillo and night life in B.A. But I have some problems in following you here.

IMHO this "wrong and vile" foreign policies US had been leading, according to you, in my opinion are the main responsibles of us all staying here, enjoying the life we lead and in fact I don't think they are wrong at all.

So like the sayings says don't spit to heaven because.

Ha, ha!

Hope you don't get this words wrong and am always a great fan of your reports about night life in B. A.

RubDub

08-14-10, 18:09

If you eliminate US foreign policy, then you eliminate the need for the State Department and the Defense Department. Maybe then the reasoning and requirements for declaring war or establishing sanctions against another governing body goes away. An actual semblance of World Peace anyone?

But what would that cost? Our National Security? Why are we so wrapped up in prioritizing our National Security and ensuring that it is on the tip of our tongues to discuss, report on or even debate in the first place? Why is the National Security of the United States of America SO important? It's an incredible forethought for any US citizen and rightfully so.

It's important, because we are constantly under attack in some way shape or form. We are constantly a target. The peace, prosperity and SAFETY is Priority #1 of any US public servant that he / she has been elected to represent. They know that and us as responsible voting citizens know it and demand it. As long as this world has crazed dictating lunatics, extremist religious factions and selfish and corrupt foreign governments, then we absolutely MUST defend our homeland at all costs, even if that includes being pre-emptive in our actions.

But then again, WHY are they ATTACKING US? Could it be our FUCKING FOREIGN POLICY! This administration's, the last one's. How many administrations do you want to go back to place adequate blame? In my humble opinion, I can find fault going back at least 50 years. It's not a Republican or Democrat issue. It's a "the US is obligated to butt in in everyone else's business because we have taken the role of the World Police Officer and refuse to give that role up in any way shape or form" type of an issue. If you let the world go rogue, then you have no World Peace, right?

It's an endless hopeless circle. If you eliminated the need for either US foreign policy or the need to maintain US National Security, then we might actually stop some of the senselessness by breaking the cycle. But, that would never make any common sense, would it? At least not in my lifetime.

Wonderful.

I don't fight for "respect" or impose will. I don't NEED somebody else's respect. I don't NEED somebody else to agree with my idealogy. That's the mentality of a bully. I ensure I protect my right to think and say and do whatever the fuck I want, and if threatened, I'll kill an opposing soldier for that right. That's the mentality of a free, proud and liberated man. The US Constitution bleeds this at its core. In my opinion, that mentality has been tainted, twisted and murdered by countless political, socialogical and religious factors. Oh, and of course, greed.

To me, its unfortunate that the bully mentality has a firm grasp in government today (and not just in the US) and its not letting go anytime soon.

Rev BS

08-14-10, 21:53

Mongers-

Nowhere have I ever made the argument that Israel should not exist. What I have repeatedly argued here is that Israel should be forced to give the Palestinians a workable state, and the Palestinians lack of a state and their poor treatment at the hands of the Israelis is the primary cause of Muslim hatred toward the US (for unconditionally supporting Israel's actions and non-actions)

Principles and US foreign policy? Surely you must be joking. The US has supported some of the most vile, murderous regimes the world has ever seen. The US doesn't not care how despotic a particular leader or regime is as long as his policies don't conflict with US economic interests. US foreign policy is driven almost entirely with the goal of maintaining and furthering the US economic empire (or what is left of it) The fact of the matter is that foreign policy the world over (not just the US) is entirely about pragmatism and not principles.

Suerte,

Rock HardersThere, clear as crystal, is the US foreign policy in it's historical basic core. We don't have to apologizie for that, but we do have to accept the consequences of our policies. We are still the world's richest and powerful country, but at the present time, we are stuck in the mud, and we are responsible for our own quagmire.

Really nothing to be bickering on the board, at least to the level of personal insults.

One thought, had Germany been forced to give up a portion of it's territory for the Jews, the world landscape would not be as harsh as it is right now.

Tiny12

08-15-10, 01:11

WW, do a little light research and you will in fact see that two million Iraqi children DID in fact starve to death as a result of the US sanctions during the 90's. Yes, Saddam Hussein's regime manipulated the Oil for Food Program to bolster their personal wealth; the US knew about that, and the children starving to death, and decided the political gains from maintaining the sanctions outweighed two million children starving to death. WW, in your opinion, is keeping Saddam Hussein "corralled" worth two million children starving to death? The Muslim world also knew about this (what do you think Al-Jazeera was broadcasting every night? And were disgusted that the US (who claim to be such great humanitarians) would allow this to happen.

The US government should know by now that any sanctions they implement always crush the poorest and most helpless citizens of the "enemy" country they are trying to punish. The despots who control the regime always find a way to keep their bellies full and their Ferraris full of 100 Octane gasoline (see any current or past dictatorship the US has levied sanctions against) The issue isn't so simple or one sided. And I don't think the considerations were primarily political. Clinton thought he was doing the right thing, trying to force Saddam Hussein out and keep him corralled with sanctions. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al also thought (incorrectly) that they were doing the right thing, bringing democracy to the Middle East and ending the suffering of the Iraqi people, by invading Iraq.

My problem at the time was that they were trying to do it with my tax dollars. In the group I hang out and work with, I'm the only white male that thought going into Iraq was a stupid idea at the time of the invasion. But I did think there was one justification and only one justification -- based exactly on what you describe above. A lot of people were dying because of sanctions. And the western powers did have a strong case that sanctions were preventing Saddam from starting another war or developing weapons of mass destruction. So what do you do? Allow hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's (your estimate of 2 million is way overstated) to die through sanctions? Or put people in other countries at risk by allowing the Hitler of the Middle East to accumulate the resources to rearm? Or the third option, invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein?

I also disagree strongly with your statement that it's economics that drives American foreign policy. I wish you were right, but you're not. Think about it, how can you believe that and also believe what you write about Israel? Aren't those two positions contradictory?

Dccpa

08-15-10, 01:30

Reading Wikipedia is not doing light research, it is looking at the opinion of someone with an extremely liberal slant.

Starvation of Iraqi children assuredly happened during the 1990s and it was assuredly the fault of Sadam Hussein. Do not take this post as support for the war, because I believe it was a huge mistake and waste of lives and money. However, Sadam was able to sell oil, including illegally through UN personnel, and the money was there to feed the people. He chose to spend the money on other things. Sadam also killed many Kurds just for pleasure. A friend of mine worked in the "no fly" zone and he told me of some of Sadam's tricks. One trick was to fly in helicopters conveying supposed stores of foods in containers. As the Kurds gathered, the containers would open and acid would pour out. Many were killed and others were maimed. Yet you don't hear about this as it does not fit the agenda of the Wikipedia posters.

Did the light research show how many Shia and Kurd children died under Sadam Hussein before the sanctions? It was lot. Maim, torture and kill was SOP for the Sunni under Sadam.

Member #4112

08-15-10, 12:37

Toymann

08-15-10, 12:46

HR you are always crying about the poor Palestinians and their "homeland". They had a homeland under the 1949 United Nations (not US) mandated partition of then British ruled Palestine. The Palestinians threw it away by trying to destroy Israel.

Arafat walked away from a deal to give the Palestinians their own self governed homeland yet a second time.

The Palestinians don't have a homeland now because they refuse to live alongside Israel and not the other way around.

Twice the Palestinians have had the opportunity to have a self governed homeland and on both occasions have thrown it away because they wanted it ALL.

Perhaps it would be best for you to move to Gaza and help Hamas, I'm sure they could use the help on their rocket crews.A factual arguement like yours is just falling on deaf ears Doppelganger. As I told Rock before, never let the facts get in the way of a good liberal ranting and raving. In a decade or so once the fog of youth has cleared Rock will use that high powered education to better use and become more objective in his reasoning. LOL.

In the mean time I understand that Rock will be taking up the native Argentine indians plight in an attempt to return what is rightfully their's. Once Argentina has been returned to Guarani rule Rock will focus on returning Canada to Inuit (eskimo) control as well. WTF, they were both there first! Time to set things right don't ya know.

Happy Mongering All.

Toymann

Rock Harders

08-15-10, 16:16

Mongers,

The issue under discussion here is Muslim hatred toward the United States and its causes. It is completely irrelevant whether or not the Palestinians deserve a homeland or whether they had what they wanted and blew it. The fact of the matter is that the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Palestinians current status IS the primary cause of Muslim hatred toward the US and has been for 50 years, and will continue to be so until the conflict is resolved.

To the poster who commented that US unconditional support for Israel is not in the United States' economic interests and therefore that US foreign policy is not entirely driven by such; you are absolutely right, supporting Israel is NOT in the economic interests of the US and is a complete aberration. As I mentioned in an early post, the US supports Israel as a result of intense lobbying by the disproportionally powerful Jewish influences within the highest sectors of finance and government. Supporting Israel unconditionally is in THEIR interests, NOT in those of the US.

As for the Iraqi sanctions, the US knew through experience that sanctions do not work as intended against dictatorships because the said dictator can usually re-allocate resources as he chooses to keep himself and the inner circle surrounding him dining on caviar, drinking Dom and zipping around in their European sports cars while those the regime deems unimportant starve to death. Again, whether you are in favor of the sanctions or not is actually irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that the sanctions, which did result in mass starvation of children, WERE a major (although secondary) cause of Muslim hatred toward the US in the late 90's and early 2000's.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Rock Harders

08-15-10, 17:54

Desmond,

How about you leave the American politics thread to posters who can actually properly read and understand English. You are better off lurking in the Cocodrilo thread waiting for my next report about barebacking chicas.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Esten

08-16-10, 23:02

I am sure he could shed some light on the Middle East situation

Jackson

08-22-10, 14:58

I've heard this account in the past, but I thought that this version posted on the USASexGuide.info was one of the best worded versions I've read, and so I thought it was worth repeating here.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.Could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there is a test coming up. The mid-term election in 2010!

-----------------------------------------------

As the late Adrian Rogers said, "You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Punter 127

08-23-10, 09:00

It's worth repeating

I've heard this account in the past, but I thought that this version posted on the USASexGuide. Info was one of the best worded versions I've read, and so I thought it was worth repeating here.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a be. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.Could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there is a test coming up. The mid-term election in 2010!

-----------------------------------------------

As the late Adrian Rogers said, "You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."What part of “It's Bush's Fault” don't you understand?

Stan Da Man

08-23-10, 12:22

The first few paragraphs from this Brett Stephens WSJ opinion piece, excerpted below, provide good examples of why the words "moderate" and "Muslim" frequently don't go together, even though the media tries to make it so. I still support their right to build a mosque two blocks from the former WTC, but these examples might be an ominous warning as to who the newest "moderate Muslim" imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, really is:

Items of interest in the news media's coverage of "moderate Muslims":

• The New York Times, Oct. 19, 2001: "Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Virginia, one of the nation's largest. Is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West."

• NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Dec. 9, 2004: "It's the TV industry's newest experiment, 'Bridges TV,' billing itself the 'American-Muslim lifestyle network,' featuring movies, documentaries, cartoons. It's the brainchild of Aasiya Hassan, an architect, and her husband, Muzzamil Hassan, a banker, who are disturbed that negative images of Muslims seem to dominate TV, especially since 9/11."

• Boston Globe editorial, Aug. 4, 2010: "The simple fact is there's nothing threatening about the proposed Islamic center, which is being spearheaded by Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the most respected moderate Muslim leaders in the country."

See where this is going?

Most readers probably know of Awlaki as the U. S.-born imam who presided over the mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers. Awlaki also served as theological mentor to Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hassan, would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad. President Obama has authorized the military to assassinate Awlaki, now thought to be living in Yemen.

As for Bridges TV, the saccharine story told by Brian Williams and reporter Ron Allen (complete with scenes of the family's domestic bliss in their modest home in Buffalo, N. Y. Came to an abrupt end in February 2009, when Mr. Hassan beheaded his wife after she had filed for divorce, evicted him from their home, and won an order of protection. Last week, Mr. Hassan's attorney defended her client on the grounds that he was, of all things, a "battered spouse."

Now we have the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque, opponents of which are being widely branded as bigots. As, no doubt, some of them are: There are bigots in any crowd.

Then again, is it bigoted to oppose bigots? Consider an interesting historical antecedent. In 1993, a controversy similar to the current one unfolded when residents of a Washington, D. C. Suburb sought to use zoning laws to shut down the local mosque, ostensibly on grounds that it was a traffic nuisance. "Worshipers of many faiths said closing the popular mosque would amount to discrimination against one of the area's fastest growing religions," the Washington Times reported at the time.

The mosque in question? None other than the Dar al-Hijra, later to be known as the "9/11 mosque." So were the petitioners who sought to shut it down bigots? Or is it that they got a whiff of its extremism, and didn't like the smell? "We are appalled at the ill will and friction," the paper quoted one Sylvia Johnson, "who said mosque-goers have yelled at her and blocked her driveway."

Westy

08-23-10, 13:06

What part of “It's Bush's Fault” don't you understand? I don't understand what "Bush's Fault" had to do with Jackson's story.

I do understand your remark as an irrelevant and gratuitous slap in the face for our host.

Rev BS

08-23-10, 16:57

I don't understand what "Bush's Fault" had to do with Jackson's story.

I do understand your remark as an irrelevant and gratuitous slap in the face for our host.My take is that this was an "inside joke" comment.

But to take the issue of the cultural center or mosque near Ground Zero, it is the myopic fear of Americans that are on display here. There was hatred and fear of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor in 1941. Today, we buy Toyotas and Sonys, gobble up sushi without feeling guilty and think of of the Japanese as one the great cultures and one of our strongest allies. I am not saying that this is the scenerio that will play out in the immediate future with the Muslim nations. But the populations of the Muslim world suffers from a lack of exposure and education, and they are manupilated by emotion. But it seems we are suffering some of the same symtoms, too.

IMHO, 99.9% of American Muslims love America for the same reasons you do. So, the neighborhood is changing! But change is inevitable, and nobody, even the righteous mullah Newt Gringrich, is going to be able to stop history. And so the fear, anger and disgust come from the changing of America that we once knew. The Marlboro Man has come and gone. What is important is, know thyselves.

Stan Da Man

08-23-10, 17:59

Personally, I think it's just fine for folks to say that the mosque should be built somewhere else, as long as they acknowledge the legality of building it there. Whether it's a good idea or not is another story. My own opinion is that I don't particularly care. I understand folks are worked up. But, as long as people acknowledge that they have the right to build wherever they want (zoning laws aside) then it should be perfectly legitimate to also express the opinion that it shouldn't be built there, even if it is legal.

But, I'll try to stir the pot on a similar issue: Profiling. This is one I don't understand. At what point do we, as a nation, say: At airports, it is perfectly legitimate to profile Muslims and Muslim-looking passengers?

To me, it's the same issue as when I walk down the street and a homeless guy is asking for a handout to buy food. When I was younger, I gave when I could. Having seen that most of them blow the money on drugs or booze, I rarely give anything any more. Perhaps the next guy asking me for money because he's hungry will be sincere and legit. But, he's lost the right to have me respect him because his peers have abused the privilege. In other words, rightly or wrongly, I judge him based on my experience with his peers.

Now, I understand that profiling has added depth. There's race and religion involved, and there's government action at issue rather than a private citizen choosing not to give. But, why can't we, as a nation say: This religion has been responsible for the majority of the terrorist acts and attempted terrorist acts on our soil, so they have lost the right to be viewed equally under the law, at least where profiling is concerned? True, the result will be that many completely benign Muslims might be subjected to extra screening. But, if they're looking for anyone to blame for this, it shouldn't be airport screeners or the U. S. Government. Just like the homeless guy, they have their peers to thank for these consequences. And, just like the homeless situation, we shouldn't have to go through the anti-profiling charade of searching "at random" when we know that the real threat comes from a discrete group.

Like Black Shirt, I believe that most Muslims living in America love this country. But, I might crank the percentage down to 99% rather than 99.9%. The problem is that the remaining 1% (or some fraction thereof) are psychopaths who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are capable of heinous acts in the name of their religion. I believe this will only get worse in the future. So, why can't we acknowledge this reality and stop pretending that profiling is random and based only on non-religious and non-racial factors?

To sum up what may appear to be contradictory views: I believe that any religion ought to have the right to build a house of worship near ground zero. Personally, I would tax any religion that does so, but that's another discussion. But, in terms of equal treatment, my own view is that we are entitled to take Muslim identity into account when we try to protect ourselves -- I. E. That Muslims have forfeited the right to be treated equally in this regard, if only based on hard-learned lessons.

Member #4112

08-23-10, 20:46

So I guess it would be OK for the Japanese to put one of their religious shrines next to Pearl Harbor, or how about a New Black Panther recruiting station next to Gettysburg, or a Neo Nazi headquarters near Auschwitz?

The point I am trying to make is there are places which deserve reverence due to their standing in history; it is not a matter of "legal" but a matter of respect for what occurred there.

FYI, I understand the unions in New York state / city are attempting to unite behind a "no build" pledge. Last time I checked New York was a very union state and I don't think you can compel a company to do a job they are not interested in.

Esten

08-24-10, 01:07

What part of “It's Bush's Fault” don't you understand? Punter's response was out of line, but that college economics class story is totally illogical.

If everyone were equal, there would be no more "haves" and "have-nots". Crime would disappear and everyone would get along. People would be more productive because their jobs would be less stressful and more enjoyable. Health care costs would go down and productivity up, growing the "pie" and increasing prosperity for everyone.

It really is that simple!

Westy

08-24-10, 01:21

Punter's response was out of line, but that college economics class story is totally illogical.

If everyone were equal, there would be no more "haves" and "have-nots". Crime would disappear and everyone would get along. People would be more productive because their jobs would be less stressful and more enjoyable. Health care costs would go down and productivity up, growing the "pie" and increasing prosperity for everyone.

It really is that simple!It's even simpler - consider this: If you wouldn't benefit (as in "get a better grade") from your work - if you wouldn't get any more for yourself from working your @ss off, than you would from sitting on said @ss - would that have an effect on your personal motivation? If all your labors were going to "The Greater Good" and you'd get neither profit nor penalty from your labors or your lack of it - would you bust your buns anyways, or would you coast?

The students in that story DID coast. They blamed others for not working, rather than getting their own rear in gear. They EARNED their failing grades.

Are you an angel, that you would "bust your buns anyways" with no chance of personal profit? Or do you take proper pride in EARNING what you've got, and figure (as men and animals and even plants figure) that you worked hard for it and you deserve it?

History, ethology, even physiology shows that a living creature will put forth effort to gain a reward or to avoid a penalty (pain). If there's no reward to be gotten, no penalty to be avoided, creatures from planaria to Homo sapiens will slack off and not give a fuck. "Crime would disappear" because nobody would have anything to steal. "People would get along" because they'd have no energy to do otherwise. But "the pie" would disappear because nobody would bother to make it.

This is the underlying reason why the "Worker's Paradise" of the Soviet Union and Communism International collapsed - because we need bread for our tummies, and the tummies of our mates and children; and "Glory To The Motherland" is an insufficient substitute. It does us no good, does our personal genetic-future survival no good, if we and our children die but The State survives. That, sadly, is the repeated and repeated result of "Equality of Results" - also stated as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (and the worker carries more and more slackers till he's buried under their weight and put in his grave).