patrick.net

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.

CL says

The GOP might win an election or two here and there but not the WH.

Without "Guns, Gays and God," and lets not forget racism, the GOP as we know it would not exist.

I tried, but the duck doesn't get it. Hope someone else was enlightened.

Reality says

Your "hoarder" concept is silly. If those condos cost $300k each to build (including land cost), with 10% return being the threshold required for the particular investor . . . if and when inflation hits 10%, he'd need to have $6000/mo rent into in order to justify his investment instead of just leaving the land empty or buying and storing commodities or speculate in stocks instead.

Agreed. While there is no doubt crafty talented landlords can make a goods living and achieve somewhat financial independence by renting out and managing housing, it is still a job, and not an easy one and all of that stuff has to be maintained, insured and cared for, which is anything but free. Just buying land and sitting on it is not a winning proposition. Then there is always cannibal anarchy where you have to pay to secure your land as well ;)

CL says

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.

I somewhat agree with this. Unless they shift more towards Libertarianism - at least in social, civil liberties and privacy issues - I don't see them winning the WH. Unless this administration screws up completely, which is not out of the question given the trajectory they are on.

CL says

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

That's where you're wrong, Obama got to where he is today by running on Hope and change in a time he dupe them into believing he(democrats) would give it to them. That's not what people got. The republicans had to take the fight to the Liberal narrative in 2008, because like the gullible voting public they thought you might have something, and they had to defend them selves against them.

This time they'll just bust a gut laughing at the hilarious sight of Kettle Black pointing his finger at Harry Potts, the man chastising the man. It will look similar to Buffet, Gates and Bloomberg playing who's the biggest "1%" 'er.

Just take a puff and put it down, it's a played out fag.

mell says

I somewhat agree with this. Unless they shift more towards Libertarianism - at least in social, civil liberties and privacy issues - I don't see them winning the WH. Unless this administration screws up completely, which is not out of the question given the trajectory they are on.

I wonder if that's even true. I think the electorate would respond to the message again even if Obama has a prolonged slump. It might shave some points off but their message will resonate for another cycle or two, even if Obama's successor disappoints.

The public doesn't want the GOP package.

Even if you look at these weird off-year elections, the electorate has moved leftward. De Blasio, Christie (as the "liberal" Republican), an open Socialist in Seattle, and even McAuliffe in Virgina (which, while close might not have been as close had he not been such a neophyte and DLC centrist Democrat). Off-year elections favor the GOP and they even did poorly there.
CaptainShuddup says

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

Flights throughout the US, indoor plumbing, buying goods from home or work with a few clicks, practically free video phone calls, not having to hunt and skin your own animals, every imaginable good or service you're willing to pay for...etc.

CaptainShuddup says

hat's where you're wrong, Obama got to where he is today by running on Hope and change in a time he dupe them into believing he(democrats) would give it to them. That's not what people got.

Some will be less than impressed, but what will the GOP message be? Death and despair doesn't sell well, and they are in a mental state of attacking without offering their own solutions. People do not gravitate towards that. A large percentage of Obama voters will blame Congressional inaction for stymieing Obama's agenda and reward the Dems with another term. Many others will assume, rightly or wrongly, that this time will be different.

Disappointed Dems will not become GOP voters. And nearly every attack the GOP makes creates MORE Democratic voters. A large number of Hispanics support ACA, as do other immigrant-based communities. The white vote is shrinking, and even there, white younger voters are not trending conservative.

It would take an awful lot to change that trajectory. If so, it would likely be a one-term throwaway tantrum against the incumbent.

CL says

Flights throughout the US, indoor plumbing, buying goods from home or work with a few clicks, practically free video phone calls, not having to hunt and skin your own animals, every imaginable good or service you're willing to pay for...etc.

We had all that before this hocus pocus economy dig deeper my friend.

CL says

Some will be less than impressed, but what will the GOP message be? Death and despair doesn't sell well, and they are in a mental state of attacking without offering their own solutions. People do not gravitate towards that. A large percentage of Obama voters will blame Congressional inaction for stymieing Obama's agenda and reward the Dems with another term. Many others will assume, rightly or wrongly, that this time will be different.

Disappointed Dems will not become GOP voters. And nearly every attack the GOP makes creates MORE Democratic voters. A large number of Hispanics support ACA, as do other immigrant-based communities. The white vote is shrinking, and even there, white younger voters are not trending conservative.

It would take an awful lot to change that trajectory. If so, it would likely be a one-term throwaway tantrum against the incumbent.

Good keep it up, I love the message. In a post where you asked the question about what will the narrative be, you went into a hyperboyle with out once mentioning real living wage jobs, with adult hours, and economic policy.

The problems in America isn't race, the borders or expanding ACA, that shit should have superficial affairs in the mist of real legislation, real legeslation that moves a country forward to not only social agendas but prosperity. People aren't interested in being on the bottom of a Socialist Utopia, it means they do all the work while the Liberal elite sit on their asses and debate the worth of the those lower on the rung of that society. But they will never have opportunity, the Libs have proven that loud and clear with clear precise definition of what the Ameican family value or the net human worth really is. You could die in withered heep for all Liberals care, it's numbers, statistics and Liberal political feathers.

As long as you can pat your selves on the backs that 100,000 poor people who never had insurance gets insurance, and you can feel smug and proud because you finally beat those conservative chirstian bastards. Then it was all worth it, even if 10,000,000 people who don't qualify for subsidies and either can't afford the premiums, or refuse to pay them and take their chances, or even that untold millions who once had insurance through their job and never once had to worry about, will also be forced into that pool of people who have to make a choice.

Just like this administration sweeps and hides all important numbers under the rug while the champion the miniscule they did help.

Housing numbers
Stopped tracking inflation it doesn't even exist
GDP
Unemployement numbers.

There's not one honest number coming out of Washington, and every official photo of the President is the product of Media Graphics and Photography team.

If you go to USHEALTHCARE.GOV and poke your finger on the screen it will rip like rice paper.
It's a win.

CaptainShuddup says

People aren't interested in being on the bottom of a Socialist Utopia, it means they do all the work while the Liberal elite sit on their asses and debate the worth of the those lower on the rung of that society. But they will never have opportunity, the Libs have proven that loud and clear with clear precise definition of what the Ameican family value or the net human worth really is. You could die in withered heep for all Liberals care, it's numbers, statistics and Liberal political feathers.

No bullshit right wing extremist retardation here folks. Nothing to see, just move along. Another nutjob getting creative with his hatred and ignorance.