patrick.net

P N Dr Lo R says

I have a low tolerance for BeBop, like 20's jazz much better.

You mean you'll take ragtime and the Charleston over In walked bud?

Reality says

Both Kennedy and Reagan would probably have tried freeing slaves through buy-out programs. What's interesting is that, both men having witnessed the horrors of war first-hand during WWII

Reagan saw the horrors of war first-hand? WTF? He made movies in NY and Ca.

bob2356 says

Reality
says

Both Kennedy and Reagan would probably have tried freeing slaves through
buy-out programs. What's interesting is that, both men having witnessed the
horrors of war first-hand during WWII

Reagan saw the horrors of war first-hand? WTF? He made movies in NY and
Ca.

FFS, Reagan got shell-shock from a shitty theatre sound system? Those dipshit right wingers will say anything to keep their (pretend)heroes on a pedastal.

Ole Patton wouldn't of bitch-slapped that coward, he'd have went for a full on taint-punch.

Lincoln was no abolitionist.

He was also a racist who wished after the war to send freed slaves out of the country.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

Two key facts-

1. He stated he would accept slavery if it kept the union together

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

2. The Emancipation Proclamation allowed non rebel states Kentucky and Delaware to keep their slaves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

bgamall4 says

Yeah, but he viewed the institution of slavery as being an evil institution. The article mentioned that.

Correct but being against slavery in itself hardly makes one an enlightened being!

bgamall4 says

AverageBear says

The former is fact, but the latter is opinion... How can you even argue? Democrats fought tooth and nail to keep racism going. To keep segregation going. To keep blacks uneducated as much as possible. To keep an unfair unbalanced education system to keep the black man down for a good 100 years.

I don't buy that. It is clear that the anti education party has always been the Republican Party.

There is an article on Dems and racism that covers Senate Leader Byrd's Klan days and some repulsive commentary from LBJ on why he passed the Civil Rights Legislation.

This is not the article but contains some material for consideration http://hnn.us/article/3554

Frankly both parties have their share of ignominious characters

bgamall4 says

CaptainShuddup says

You mean like Obama's crony Capitalism.

Compared to the Republican version, Captain, Obama's crony capitalism is crony light.

No, I'm afraid it's worse. Likely if we tally up by party you get somewhere even, and usually politicians break the promises they campaign with, but if we take the propositions on how to handle taxes, deductions, banks, the Fed etc. from Romney in the last election and compare it to the policies of Obama, your president is definitely worse. That doesn't mean that Romney could not have done a 180 on investigating the Fed, removing special tax deductions (such as mortgage) and so on, but it's all we have to compare at this junction.

mell says

bgamall4 says

CaptainShuddup says

You mean like Obama's crony Capitalism.

Compared to the Republican version, Captain, Obama's crony capitalism is crony light.

No, I'm afraid it's worse. Likely if we tally up by party you get somewhere even, and usually politicians break the promises they campaign with, but if we take the propositions on how to handle taxes, deductions, banks, the Fed etc. from Romney in the last election and compare it to the policies of Obama, your president is definitely worse. That doesn't mean that Romney could not have done a 180 on investigating the Fed, removing special tax deductions (such as mortgage) and so on, but it's all we have to compare at this junction.

Republicans fund/subsidize oil, big pharma, farms, military, boomer benefits and foreign countries

Dems fund and subsidize green energy, banking, auto, big pharma, farms, military, boomer benefits, foreign countries, education and welfare

Can hardly say one is "better" or "worse" than the other

Can see the republicans in 2016 running against Obama the way Obama ran against Bush in 2008 and 2012.

smaulgld says

Can see the republicans in 2016 running against Obama the way Obama ran against Bush in 2008 and 2012.

I'm assuming this is a joke - Obama didn't run against Bush in either of those elections.

smaulgld says

Republicans fund/subsidize oil, big pharma, farms, military, boomer benefits and foreign countries

Dems fund and subsidize green energy, banking, auto, big pharma, farms, military, boomer benefits, foreign countries, education and welfare

Can hardly say one is "better" or "worse" than the other

Agreed. Just from the perspective of addressing the tax/financial/FIRE sector issues, Romney's plan sounded better to me.

New Renter says

I'm assuming this is a joke - Obama didn't run against Bush in either of those elections.

sure seems that way, after all, Bush came up during the elections, more times than
the other two chaps... fact is even today, Obama mentions Bush to justify reasons
for not doing anything to fix the problems...

smaulgld says

Republicans fund/subsidize oil, big pharma, farms, military, boomer benefits and foreign countries

there are no subsidies for big oil... deference of mining costs to future revenue stream is a normal Accounting practice even in other industries including software.

certainly can rid of foreign aid !

bgamall4 says

smaulgld says

Correct but being against slavery in itself hardly makes one an enlightened being!

Well, Lincoln's comments were pragmatism taken to the extreme if you ask me. But pragmatism can be important in world affairs.

agree just pointing out Lincoln was more a ruthless politician than a saintly magnanimous being

bgamall4 says

smaulgld says

Dems fund and subsidize green energy, banking, auto, big pharma, farms, military, boomer benefits, foreign countries, education and welfare

Except that in the 2010 election, the banksters turned on Obama and funded the Tea Party and their leaders like Eric Cantor. He received more hedge fund funding than anyone in Washington DC. That is fact.

both parties take tons of money from special interests and dole it out once elected

upisdown says

FFS, Reagan got shell-shock from a shitty theatre sound system? Those dipshit right wingers will say anything to keep their (pretend)heroes on a pedastal.

Ole Patton wouldn't of bitch-slapped that coward, he'd have went for a full on taint-punch.

I never said he was a coward. He was classified limited duty for being nearsighted and ineligible for overseas duty. He applied for a waiver but was refused. Nothing sinister or underhanded, it's all public record unlike what exactly Bush did during Vietnam.

bgamall4 says

smaulgld says

Frankly both parties have their share of ignominious characters

Only one party committed the False Flag of 9/11. That trumps everything: http://www.amazon.com/False-Murdering-Neocon-Crazies-ebook/dp/B00DVDJQGW/

Which party was responsible for the false flag of 12/7/1941? WWII trumps the Iraq war.

bgamall4 says

False flag describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Do you actually believe the Japanese attacked pearl harbor? Wow, next you'll tell me men actually landed on the moon.

See the false flag worked perfectly. You were fooled. Those were neocon industrialists flying the planes cleverly disguised as japanese, buck teeth, thick glasses and all. This is all fully documented at conspiracynutcase.com.

bgamall4 says

smaulgld says

both parties take tons of money from special interests and dole it out once elected

But compared to the Democrats the Tea Party made out as the hedge funds wanted certain exemptions from Dodd-Frank.

This is a bogus claim. In another thread you asserted that one of the tea-party candidates wife's was with or had a big account with Goldman Sachs and now you seem to have generalized this to level ridiculous ;) Almost all politicians have ties to big money and profit from insider connections, but fact is that the tea-party opposed the bailouts and any hikes in the debt ceiling and whatever one may think of this the high net-worth clients would have suffered significantly if those policies would have been implemented. So it makes zero sense to tie a small block like that to "big hedge funds", the big players have long been comfy in bed with the big dominating wings of both major parties (or the one major party if you want to look at it this way) and that's why the US has embark on this disastrous monetary path.

CaptainShuddup says

should be made to watch Atlas Shrugged.

I prefer this version:

bgamall4 says

mell says

This is a bogus claim. In another thread you asserted that one of the tea-party candidates wife's was with or had a big account with Goldman Sachs and now you seem to have generalized this to level ridiculous ;)

No, I have sources. http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-cantor-hedge-funds-man-in-washington-2011-7

and:

http://www.amazon.com/Dirty-Republicans-Gary-Anderson-ebook/dp/B005ISP0Y0/

Eric Cantor has nothing to do with the tea-party, even if he took a tough stance on debt. He is a seasoned insider and likes government intrusion where it benefits his causes. There are equal ties in both major parties, ever looked at Pelosi's insider trading history and investigations into those? They are all dirty, and the current administration is steadily keeping the crony-capitalist path. No room whatsoever to wiggle out of.

bob2356 says

Do you actually believe the Japanese attacked pearl harbor? Wow, next you'll
tell me men actually landed on the moon.

See the false flag worked perfectly. You were fooled. Those were neocon
industrialists flying the planes cleverly disguised as japanese, buck teeth,
thick glasses and all. This is all fully documented at
conspiracynutcase.com.

lol--you believe the "official story" of planes bombing at Pearl Harbor??? There is no way those ships could have been sunk by torpedos. The USS Utah wasn't even hit! Are you telling me that a simple fire alone could have sunk it??

And answer me this--why did noone test the wreckage of ANY of the ships for explosives??? That in and of itself is VERY suspicious.

CaptainShuddup says

P N Dr Lo R says

I have a low tolerance for BeBop, like 20's jazz much better.

You mean you'll take ragtime and the Charleston over In walked bud?

I would take Potato Head blues over Salt Peanuts

Bebop artists did have better names, Theonious, Dizzy, Bird

http://www.youtube.com/embed/EfGZB78R7uw

http://www.youtube.com/embed/gg1Wl-NmzWg

Lots of women back then wandering over to borrow food items, loaded in a metaphor.

http://youtu.be/MpqYKMhFZPY

http://youtu.be/meuwKhPGItk

CaptainShuddup says

You mean you'll take ragtime and the Charleston over In walked bud?

Yes, every time!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4asJkhS3Rk

Question for Randians.

In her political economy, how would the enforcement of private property be handled?

Obviously, as in the the Constitution, private property is allowed, or not challenged. However, would you have a Patent Office? And federal agents to enforce and monitor property rights?

Or, if you adhere to her strict views, wouldn't life be more like the Wild West where individuals fight individuals to secure and maintain property?

John Bailo says

Or, if you adhere to her strict views, wouldn't life be more like the Wild West where individuals fight individuals to secure and maintain property?

It would be like Arbitration today. The Private Po-po would intervene on the side of the largest donor or customer.

Or, it would be like roving mercenary bands in France during the Hundred Year's war.

Or both.

John Bailo says

Question for Randians.

In her political economy, how would the enforcement of private property be handled?

Obviously, as in the the Constitution, private property is allowed, or not challenged. However, would you have a Patent Office? And federal agents to enforce and monitor property rights?

Or, if you adhere to her strict views, wouldn't life be more like the Wild West where individuals fight individuals to secure and maintain property?

I think most modern libertarians beleive the core function of government is the protection of its citizens and their property. This is a very limited role and one provided for in the constitution.

Not too many people advocating anarchy.

dodgerfanjohn says

I think most modern libertarians beleive the core function of government is the protection of its citizens and their property.

So, what kind of taxes would you advocate for enforcement of this "core function"? And how far would enforcement extend?

For example if a person owned 1000 acres of land and 10 patents, would he pay the same tax as a person living in an apartment and working as a consultant, but owning no property, either physical or intellectual?

As for the FPP, as a left-libertarian I'd like to think the libertopia would work.

But not without geolibertarian principles of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism

Bellingham Bill says

Imagine a world where we only had to pay for the cost -- depreciation and maintenance -- of the fixed improvements -- as a basis. We could certainly get by on a lot less income!

I'm sure we can crate a static...or stagnant society...where clothing and computers last a lifetime. However, the downside is that progress will take that much longer. Is it better that we not have to work as hard and not spend as much money, and keep our IBM ATs for thirty years? Or have to turn over hardware every 3 years but end up with an XBox One and a smart phone for the same cost (paid several times over).

Money introduces the problem of people gaming the control of money, since money is the claimcheck on wealth, both present and future supply.

LLs would like to "force wages higher" as they know they will take every penny of this increase eventually.

Without some profit there can be no production, since the surplus increment is how we actually trade in a non-barter economy.

We can certainly agree that all that matters is that the flows balance out in the end, that money income balance money outgo.

But there are two sides to this equation! We can increase the incomes, and/or reduce the outgoes.

And our two biggest outgoes are housing and health.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=oZb

$4T/yr, and that probably doesn't count gov't health spending.

smaulgld says

Republicans fund/subsidize oil, big pharma, farms, military, boomer benefits and foreign countries

Dems fund and subsidize green energy, banking, auto, big pharma, farms, military, boomer benefits, foreign countries, education and welfare

Can hardly say one is "better" or "worse" than the other

I can. I'll take the Dems, please.

smaulgld says

Can see the republicans in 2016 running against Obama the way Obama ran against Bush in 2008 and 2012.

Problem with that strategy: most people believe in the concepts espoused by Obama. GOP would be forced to campaign on unpopular bullshit, like "Hope we can gut Social Security!". "Let's Change the system to a more despotic one!!"

Also, God hates fags and negros. Finally, a President who says it!

CL says

smaulgld says

Can see the republicans in 2016 running against Obama the way Obama ran against Bush in 2008 and 2012.

Problem with that strategy: most people believe in the concepts espoused by Obama. GOP would be forced to campaign on unpopular bullshit, like "Hope we can gut Social Security!". "Let's Change the system to a more despotic one!!"

Also, God hates fags and negros. Finally, a President who says it!

I think what the Smaulgldnator is saying that I don't think the Liberal usual red herring will be the narrative and talking point that the Republicans will have to defend or even acknowledge.
And if that's the game Hillary is going run, then She'll find that game's played out! After decades of talk, bullshit and the Liberals talking about how much better their way, and their politics are, all social engineering bullshit, with out one ounce of policy, logistics or planning. It will be a long fucking time before the voting public buys that shit again.

God don't hate Fags, just the lying ones.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/26/us/new-jersey-gay-waitress-tip/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

Bellingham Bill says

The core problem is not the tax code per se, it is the flows out of working people to bloodsucking parasites who have locked up natural monopolies, largely in land and natural resources. These operators are the ones getting something for nothing and thus impoverishing others.

Your worship of Georgism is more than a century out of date. The study of economics has long figured out that the choke hold, i.e. Economic Rent, is not land rent per se, but any and all monopolistic market power. There are plenty places in this world where owners of land have to bid for the co-operation of owners of big combine harvesters so the land can be productive. Even in the US, millions of acres of land is left untilled for the lack of big combine harvesters.

When there are enough disparate property owners in the same market competing against each, Economic Rent gets competed away. Your hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on rent was not thrown away; they kept you away from millions of dollars in hotel bills and hundreds of thousands of dollars of mortgage payment renting money. In most cases, the only Economic Rent in a rent payment is that part that gets passed onto the city or town as property tax. The service from the city/town bureaucrats is actually priced monopolistically, unlike those provided by "landlords" competing against each other. if the landlords take out mortgages, then the interest payment is also paid to an oligopolistic banking cartel under central banking.

The utter lack of market power among private property owners is all the more obvious in areas like the SFBA, where rent is often lower than the mortgage payment. Why do you think the owner of the property has to be content with a rent payment that doesn't even cover his mortgage+tax+water bills? Because of competition and lack of Economic Rent.

Like I said Atlas Shrugged

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/27/irs-pushes-to-rein-in-tax-exempt-political-groups/?intcmp=latestnews

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/27/administration-announces-new-delay-in-online-enrollment-for-small-businesses/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/26/administration-accused-giving-unions-special-treatment-with-exemption-from/

What did Dagney call them... Oh yeah Political Creeps.

I'm confused. Wouldn't wealth be inherently INCREASING nearly constantly?

If the goal of an economic system serves not only to force people to work and contribute, and share in the earnings of the society, etc, but also to move the entire society forward?

You work for cures for diseases, labor saving devices, access to food or goods, convenience, flying, telephony, computers and big data. Thse are growing "wealth" aren't they?

convenience? Define "convenience" when everyone is carrying the same goods and service, that was ultimately manufactured by the same company?

CaptainShuddup says

I think what the Smaulgldnator is saying that I don't think the Liberal usual red herring will be the narrative and talking point that the Republicans will have to defend or even acknowledge.

That's where you're wrong. What they don't believe in is "compassionate conservatism". Talk about a played out meme!

The ideals of the Democratic/Left haven't been so aligned with public sentiment in my lifetime. The GOP might win an election or two here and there but not the WH. They are philosophically and demographically doomed unless and until they become like the Democrats, at least on social issues.

They won't, so they won't win. If they dump the redneck racists their voting blocs are too small to win. Unless they dump the rednecks, they can't win over other ethnicities except for a handful of blind sycophants.

Bellingham Bill says

Instead of buying $80B/mo of MBS, the Fed could also fund $80B/mo of new construction on a break-even basis

At $200k per unit, that'd be 400,000 units, 5M a year.

Yowza. Not going to happen of course, because giving real wealth to the masses is socialism and we can't have that.

What good would ghost cities like those in China do for us?

Reality is more complicated than just building 400,000 units. Someone, many someones, have to decide where those units will be built or rehabbed. They have to be in areas where people want to live, and at cost that local people can afford, in order for those units to be occupied. Otherwise, you'd just create a field day for drug addled copper thieves.