patrick.net

This pyramic structure is accurate. It's a club and guess what? YOU AREN"T IN IT: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=290806174270662&set=a.199728590045088.51088.100000238443011&type=1&theater

underwaterman says

Thank you for proving my point. You hit all 3: lack of intelligent discussion, loss of civility, and ad-hominem attack.

you hit all three and are also a hypocrite. so i win. moron.

Nomograph says

propitup1 says

Patrick's site has become far too leftist for my taste also.

This is a real estate discussion forum, not MoveOn.org. What you see here is simply a random slice of mostly Americans.

If you think the Patrick.net is too "leftist" for you taste, then obviously America is too "leftist" for you also.

Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery -- Jane Austen

Doc,
pretty big jump you make here. The first part is 100% right on, but the second parts makes a serious inference that relection of PatNet Posters matches the GenPop, and I would humbly disagree. There may be a zillion reason why, but the fact remains that this whole cyber place is tilted left, and PatNet is left of center of America by a large portion of any scale. In my humble opinion.

American media is too left
American Marines are not.

Patrick what I am trying to point out is the liberal political commentary discredits the news element.
Right now the site has the real estate news and the liberal political agenda. If you don't subscribe to the political agenda of your site, then you are apt to reject or question the adgenda of the news side of the blog.

If you think I am wrong about this, I would like to point out the ratings of CNN, and the major tv stations and news papers, like the Los Angeles Times. Despite their claims to be fair and balanced, Their viewers and ratings have plummeted in recent years because most viewers find their political agenda far too burdensome and one sided.

Fox ratings remains extremely high, but they are quite open and do not hide their Republican/ conservative leanings. Fox's audience are people who already subscribe to Republican/conservative thought. Your site has a much more varied readership.

You might make the stance that Patrick.net should become the liberal website that talks about real estate news and liberal views, but if that is the case people who don't buy into the liberal agenda will just turn this site off. I haven't turned off your site, but It is obvious that Patrick and most on this blog are big San Francisco liberals.

Patrick what I am trying to say is that I like many Americans only watch CNN when I want to see what the liberal point of view is, and this has marginalized CNN. Furthermore almost nobody in LA (including myself) will purchase an LA times newspaper.

propitup1 says

Fox ratings remains extremely high, but they are quite open and do not hide their Republican/ conservative leanings

?? Last I checked, their slogan was "fair and balanced". Did it change to "Heavily biased to the right?"

elliemae says

The cool thing is that Patrick supports all of this free speech.

NOT the best of this thread. I vote this as the best line of the whole Forum.

"Eloquent Ellie"

underwaterman says

I respect Patrick and his mission a great deal and to see him pulled down to where he is name calling in his own forum ("asshole" above) is a sign to me something is seriously wrong here. A quick observation at the level of discussion leads me back to the theme of the loss of civility and a forum culture gone awry.

The "asshole" comment was a first for me, and is a deliberate attempt to populate the Outside forum with uncivil discussion.

The idea is that the forum can be split into an uncivil area (the Outside forum) and a civil area (all the other forums).

All internet forum culture suffers from a lack of civility. If I can't stop it, at least maybe I can give it a place to flourish which is separate and contained.

Get it? Maybe it won't work, but it's worth a shot, and that's why I deliberately insulted that asshole. Oops! ;-)

Really ? The outside wasn't an after thought ?

I don't see "outside" working. The fact is that even when people are involved in relatively civil discussion in writing (without all the clues that come from body language etc. , and without the physical presence which usually adds to the politeness) it's easy to read more insult than intended in to what is written. I'm assuming most people have learned that with emails.

If you open up a place for people to let loose with personal attacks, what possible good can that do ?

Probably about as much as when people take things outside in the real world. Except in this case, its for fake verbal battles. Also people may end up saying things that only harms their ability to enjoy the regular forums.

On the bright side, people probably won't be using it much. IT might be good just for saying, "let's take this outside" (and quickly getting something off your chest) but it seems to me the ignore button is better.

Tatupu,
I am not sure about Fox news, but I do think it is fair to say that Hannity, O'reilly and Glen Beck do offer the Conservative / Republican view point.

TMAC54 says

NOT the best of this thread. I vote this as the best line of the whole Forum.
"Eloquent Ellie"

I'd dare say that many, many people have said lines that are worthy of "best of." Not so sure that any of mine rate.

But thank you - and it's one cute kiddy/kitty pic.

propitup1 says

Tatupu,
I am not sure about Fox news, but I do think it is fair to say that Hannity, O'reilly and Glen Beck do offer the Conservative / Republican view point.

Agreed--they definitely do. My point is that if you ask them--they will profess to be "independent" and not Republican. Just as FOX news professes to be "fair and balanced".

yep all hope for reason went out the window when the extreme right tried to force that bullshit to be taught along side evolution.

Eneg says

I don't have a degree. I chose to drop out of college after a year and a half, because I didn't believe that $40,000+ debt was justifiable when I lived in a country that permitted me to succeed without a degree. Was I right or was I wrong? I would say I'm right since I'm now part of the 1%

You're entire post is nothing but "BOOTSTRAPS HOOOOAAAAAH" nonsense and fallacious "Just World" nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

If you made it great, but guess what as you note you're part of the 1%.

This makes your experience an exception to what not only the common man/woman has been able to accomplish but even an exception to the vast overwhelming majority of highly intelligent and hard working people out there.

Now you don't judge a system based on outliers and exceptions, you end up with a skewed and incorrect view if you do. You base your judgements on how the majority or ideally the vast overwhelming majority fare, or in this case the so called 99%. I know its more like 90-80% but whatever, that is a nitpick that ignores the meat of the issue.

That issue is of course that people in general are getting poorer while working just as hard or even harder than their parents, which is where the "I did the right things why am I not getting rewarded?" talk comes in which you're attempting to twist for your own benefit.

I mean its well known unemployment and underemployment are very high and that wages have been stagnating or dropping for the last few decades while costs have risen, sometimes quite a bit. Like on gas, or homes, or healthcare.

Yet you say the problem is they're not looking for jobs hard enough or something? Or that they need to create their own job?! Are you kidding? With what are they supposed to do that with hmmm? Some bootstraps and duct tape perhaps? You know most small businesses fail and its difficult to get financing even if your idea is good right now and you're willing to work 12-16hr shifts non-stop right?

underwaterman says

Creating that space to me is giving implicit approval of the behavior.

But that behavior exists irregardless of whether that space exists or not, which is why Patrick is trying to put it "Outside" so to speak.

This is a people problem not a technological one, you're not going to solve it with technology.

OK, I'd love an animated picture of a house on fire.

Sorry Patrick. Couldn't find a house on fire

All I could find was this "REDNECK FIRE ALARM"

there is enough political jargon every where you look. This was one site that I thought was a great resource for information unbiased by to politics.

I'd like to share a short point with you, if you'll allow.

No matter what the operation, whether a non-profit website or a business, the most successful ones will have 1 object and they will be specialized in that objective.

This website used to be a RE website, which made it very unique to so much other political BS that's available on the internet. When politics and RE information are commingled into one site, the primary objective of the site loses its impact and even though your number of emails and visitors is on a climb, your efficacy has become reduce and will continue to be reduced.

Regards.

The best thing to do is to create a similar website to patrick.net, but dedicate it to politics and keep this original patrick.net website committed to it's original intent, RE.

Patrick,

I saw this discussion, read it all, and just want to implore you to keep doing what you're doing exactly as you've been doing it. Please don't censor yourself or be influenced by the original poster's request to bias the site one way or the other. I love that you take free speech seriously and let everyone talk, but I hope you ignore the people who want your site to reflect their biases, too. They can get their own site. This is your site. The outside room may help mitigate posters acting like congresspeople, but I hope your front page link quality stays right where it is. I know you go find these links yourself and this site takes a good deal of time and thoughtfulness to put together, and I've appreciated it for years.

I've been reading your site for years and have really loved the infographics and quantitative analyses I find daily. On fora, I never know what interests may be astroturfing, but I have come to trust that you're not. I've appreciated the way you haven't caved to animated ads and I realize that may hurt in revenue. I know you don't need to be told this but you're doing this right. Thank you. Please stay the course. All the people here are here because of what you've accomplished as a communicator--not because you acted the way they wanted you to act or communicated the messages they wished you'd communicate.

ashkon says

This was one site that I thought was a great resource for information unbiased by to politics.

Pretty much all his housing articles and info. have nothing to do with politics. The forums themselves have lots of political discussions in them but that is true everywhere you go.

I agree with everything everyone says since my original post.

But, I still suggest specializing in an area and sticking with it, identifying yourself to that one subject. Gradually, over many years of dedication to that subject, you will be the primary source of information in that area. Think of the influence you would have on public opinion then!

Your name would be synonymous to quality information about about RE, and other relevant topics.

You could also have a 2nd website that, again, specializes in a niche orientation, which would then develop to become synonymous with good pure political information, regarding either side of politics.

That is if efficacy is of any importance.

tts says

ashkon says

This was one site that I thought was a great resource for information unbiased by to politics.

Pretty much all his housing articles and info. have nothing to do with politics. The forums themselves have lots of political discussions in them but that is true everywhere you go.

ashkon says

I still suggest specializing in an area and sticking with it

For me, the value of the site has been Patrick's identification of facts about the real estate market. Starting quite a few years ago I was skeptical (as evidently was Patrick and others) about the information being provided by the mediastream media and even from "official" sources. Especially at the time, I suspected that the MSM was merely parroting cherry-picked "facts" offered up by such organizations as the NAR, and that the MSM was not doing much fact checking much less true investigative journalism. In the beginning, Patrick's job was difficult as there seemed to be a lot of spin from the NAR and others, but occasionally there was an underlying data point that suggested that some of the information was spin. I appreciated Patrick's occasional reasoned arguments, but it was the identification of facts that was the important part for me. Back then, there was little "politics" or ideology on the main part of the site.

So where to from here? There are several other areas that I am skeptical that I'm getting the full factual picture from the mainstream media. Perhaps, Patrick, you'd be interested in broadening to one or more of these other areas:

1. The Dollar. Like the supply and demand for RE, it's difficult to get an accurate picture of the supply and demand for the U.S. Dollar. What exactly is the Fed doing? How does that interact with the U.S. Treasury? How does that impact taxpayers? What's the interaction with foreign currencies? What "games" are Wall Street and others up to. Lots of other *factual* questions.
2. Healthcare. Where does the money go? What percentage of the money "in" goes to doctors? How much do they pay for malpractice insurance? Why when I go to a doctor can't (really!) the providers tell me in advance how much the services will cost including what my insurance company will have to pay, as opposed to just my co-pay. In this regard, why is it so unlike any other product or service I buy. For medicare and medicaid, what percentage of the money "in" goes to doctors. Do people in Canada and the U.K. really have it "better?" Do many Canadians really come to the U.S. for medical services when they can? Do others worldwide?
3. Entitlement programs. Lots of factual questions here.
4. Unions. How much are union members paid? What do their pensions look like? For that matter, are the MSM numbers of median household income accurate? I read those numbers now and think of similar data that used to be provided for RE. Is there really a difference between states that have right-to-work laws and those that don't?
5. Individual vs. Government Activities and Rights. Lots of factual questions here. E.g. can individuals and small businesses really do a better more efficient job than large corporations or the government? In the short term? In the long term? Comparing countries, what are the quality of life differences? Is that a factor in immigration/emigration?
Etc.
Etc.

This is the type of information that I would find useful.

Perhaps We Agree says

o where to from here? There are several other areas that I am skeptical that I'm getting the full factual picture from the mainstream media. Perhaps, Patrick, you'd be interested in broadening to one or more of these other areas:

1. The Dollar. Like the supply and demand for RE, it's difficult to get an accurate picture of the supply and demand for the U.S. Dollar. What exactly is the Fed doing? How does that interact with the U.S. Treasury? How does that impact taxpayers? What's the interaction with foreign currencies? What "games" are Wall Street and others up to. Lots of other *factual* questions.
[2-5 omitted]

So basically your solution to get the politics off the site is to add more political subjects? That seems highly disingenuous. Your questions have an ideological slant.

LarryPatrickMaloney says

I've been a fan of patrick.net, since 2006 or 2007? The early days.

I thought patrick.net's been around since 2005. I could be thinking of the housing bubble blog, though. That's been around since 2004. Either way though, you're comment makes me feel old. 2004 doesn't seem that long ago. Damn it, the 1990s don't seem that long ago.

LarryPatrickMaloney says

Every day, it's 70-80% of left leaning, political rhetoric.

If this site seems left leaning to you, it might be that you are tilted to the right. Try standing straight.

I know what leftist politics sounds like. And I haven't heard any communists or smelly hippies -- and I hate hippies like Eric Cartman does. But if you think that watching PBS and reading newspapers and nonfictional books is "left leaning", then well what can we do?

LarryPatrickMaloney says

I have seen a tragic downturn in the quantity, and quality of real estate postings over the past few months.

The housing bubble is continually deflating. As such its getting less news coverage as time goes on. It still gets a lot of press, but not like in 2007. As the housing bubble deflates to nothing, this site has been moving into other, but related, areas such as politics and economics in general. This is a good thing because it means that this site will survive past the housing burst. It's called "patrick.net", not "housingbubbleblog.org" so there's no reason it must die with the end of the bust.

My dirty secret (shhhh) is that I'm actually quite the little capitalist, but little capitalists like me and you have no chance against the big ones who defeat the free market every day and get bailouts when they fail in their rigged market anyway. Their secret? Lobbyists!

Likewise. I'm a capitalist, not a corporatist as Ron Paul would say. I believe in the free market, but my definition of the free market is the common-sense one. A free market is one that is not ridged by anyone. I.e., the market itself is free, not necessarily the players in it. I don't care who ridges the market, government or corporations, the result is the same. A ridged market is grossly inefficient and stifles innovation. It is the greatest evil in our economy.

LarryPatrickMaloney says

The true populist road, leads back to the constitution, and people like Ron Paul.

Please don't insult Ron Paul by calling him a populist. He's a libertarian. To a large extent, so am I except that I believe in game theory and the concept of public property. So I call myself a "rationalist" instead. But there is a lot of overlap between my politics and Libertarianism. Populism is completely incompatible with Libertarianism though.

Also, if you take the extreme left and the extreme right and bend the graph around a circle (like the hue dimension of the HSB space), you'll see that the extreme left and extreme right are closer to each other than either is the center. Nazism and communism, although supposed opposites, have much in common when put in practice. Neither can tolerate questioning of their ideas.

In contrast, most American are close to the center but those in the right extreme now view the center as if it were leftist because they themselves have moved so far to the right.

Hey Patrick, Bug report

If I enter an image tag like <image src="..."/> instead of <image src="..."> then the src attribute is dropped on submission.

I frequently make this mistake because I have such a strong preference for XHMTL strict over HTML. I have to keep forcing myself to drop the ending slash.

Dan8267 says

you'll see that the extreme left and extreme right are closer to each other than either is the center

Exactly. In some ways, this is why the Teabaggers are far more like Occupy Wall Street than either will admit.

But it's also a great example of something else I said -- Ron Paul is more libertarian, but is also more right on many issues than most Republicans.

Dan8267 says

I believe in the free market, but my definition of the free market is the common-sense one. A free market is one that is not ridged by anyone. I.e., the market itself is free, not necessarily the players in it. I don't care who ridges the market, government or corporations, the result is the same. A ridged market is grossly inefficient and stifles innovation. It is the greatest evil in our economy.

This is one of those things a lot of libertarian types screw up. The question is how do you make a "free market"? Libertarians NEVER have an answer to this. They just say "well, if you would open your mind and embrace our philosophy, it would just happen." It's bullshit.

A " free market" can mean different things to different people. To some libertarians, it essentially means anarcho-capitalism (no regulation whatsoever), but that's basically feudalism and leads to monopolies and oligopolies. On the other side, people say government also creates monopolies and oligopolies.

That means the real answer is likely somewhere in the middle. Even the Heritage Foundation acknowledges this by having a multi-part test for free markets:
http://www.heritage.org/Index/ranking
http://www.heritage.org/Index/explore

Some amount of government regulation is required to ensure that markets are free. For example, the government sometimes must engage in anti-trust action, which anarcho-capitalism necessarily creates. The government must also use the rule of law to prevent mafias and gangs that would result under anarcho-capitalism. The government can create distortions, but the government can also repair distortions that anarcho-capitalism creates.

Dan8267 says

Hey Patrick, Bug report

If I enter an image tag like instead of then the src attribute is dropped on submission.

I frequently make this mistake because I have such a strong preference for XHMTL strict over HTML. I have to keep forcing myself to drop the ending slash.

Thanks for telling me!

You can actually just enter the image url without any tag, and as long as the URL starts with http: and ends with one of gif|jpg|jpeg|png|bmp then the tag will be put in automatically and it will show up as an image.

You could also use the "Upload Image" function, which should be pretty easy.

I definitely need some better way to let people edit than typing in HTML, but it never makes it to the top of things that need to be done.

In a way, what we all clamor for is objectivity. I think that, since the country has been dominated by right-wing rhetoric and economic philosophy (and convinced that it works, despite the evidence to the contrary) it's difficult to settle on what objective really means.

Elsewhere, we mentioned the Laffer curve. If one can objectively view the curve as highlighting that there is a point at which taxation becomes self-defeating (taxing at 100% is a given) or too low to support Government services (0% here) then objectively we can determine that the correct amount is somewhere in between.

The Right infers that we are taxed too heavily, no matter where we are at on that curve which is objectively false. Can the Right be rational enough to admit this obvious fact?

Conversely, I don't believe that the Left inherently believes in dogma regarding taxation. If we could have a magic fairy wand that produces revenue without taxation, the Democrats would support that as well (if for not other reason, to secure their place with wealthy donors) As of now, that magic only exists on the right---which makes the Democrats the de facto "tax and spend" party.

This is just one example of where there is little room for discussion with the republican right. There is no tax rate low enough to be deemed too low, and that's not math or economics--it's ideological fantasy.

So, what should objective Patrick do? To "compromise" would inherently mean agreeing with their dogma that we're on the other side of the curve than reality dictates.

If corporate tax rates were objectively too high, I'd support lowering them. If income taxes were too high, I'd say to lower them as well. I'm not opposed to temporary tax cuts to stave off the depression.

Would the Right ever agree to a tax increase---even a modest one? Even if the goal was to stop a meltdown?

How can you work together when one participant denies the very framework within which we argue?

I can testify that this site appears to be partially designed to persuade the general public to sympathize with the Third Way party, also known as communitarianism (first documented in the UN's own literature). It's Fabian socialism, with a UN Agenda 21 focus. This party is neither left or right, as there are factions on both sides that are aligned with it. Niki Raapana has documented and researched the Third Way party extensively.

The goal of this party is to establish social, religious, economic, political, consumption and agricultural changes worldwide, on behalf of the central bankers who are financially supporting this (they also originally created it).

This post will be sure to either be banned outright, or vehemently attacked for telling the truth. The Fabian socialists believe that the ends justify the means -- lying, ridicule, and manipulation are typical methods to achieve what they believe are truly worthy goals.

That these goals were outlined and are financially backed by unelected central bankers does not appear to phase them in any way.

Dan8267 says

A free market is one that is not ridged by anyone.

ridged --> rigged

For some reason I have a crossed neuron in my brain that always substitutes ridged for rigged. Don't know why. Hopefully, my comment was clear anyway.

You could also use the "Upload Image" function, which should be pretty easy.

True, but why waste your disk space copying an image you can just as well link to? Plus it keeps your bandwidth costs down since the web browser gets the image, which is much larger than all the text in a thread, from a different server.

I definitely need some better way to let people edit than typing in HTML, but it never makes it to the top of things that need to be done.

Here's what I would do. Put a row of small buttons right above the text area control for things like bold/italics, escaping HTML tags, and other common functions.

For anchor and image tags, you could reuse the text box next to the "Browse..." button and change the "Upload Image" button to a hyperlink control labeled "Upload or link image or page shown on left". When that hyperlink is pressed, determine if the text entered refers to a local file or a non-file URL. Then either upload as before or append the appropriate HTML text to the text area.

Here's a mockup.

Before

After

corntrollio says

Exactly. In some ways, this is why the Teabaggers are far more like Occupy Wall Street than either will admit.

what is your derogatory expression for the lefty loon anti-American dirty pinko deviant hippies blocking the workers and businesses on Wall Street?

Tim Chesterson says

I can testify that this site appears to be partially designed to persuade the general public to sympathize with the Third Way party, also known as communitarianism (first documented in the UN's own literature). It's Fabian socialism, with a UN Agenda 21 focus. This party is neither left or right, as there are factions on both sides that are aligned with it. Niki Raapana has documented and researched the Third Way party extensively.

WTF? I'm pretty sure that most people here have no idea what you are talking about. Communitarianism? Shit, even I had to Google that one. I'm pretty sure I haven't heard of it, so I'm also pretty sure I'm not advocating it, whatever it is.

And Fabian socialism? What's that? Socialism by this guy?

By the way, I hope that gets more female readers for Patrick. Here's an equally gratuitous picture for the guys.

Really, that picture just made me say WTF again. What's with that chair? I know, "what chair?" But seriously, that's a freaky chair. Who would buy such a thing. I just stumbled on the image when I typed in Fabio into Google image search and found this page.

Italian designer Fabio Novembre has created the Chaise Him and Her chairs, the most comfortable sheet of molded plastic that’s constructed to be a fine piece of ass. An essential piece of furniture for any man’s residence.

Yeah, a man who doesn't want a girlfriend. Seriously, that chair has to be chick repellant.

Bap33 says

corntrollio says

Exactly. In some ways, this is why the Teabaggers are far more like Occupy Wall Street than either will admit.

what is your derogatory expression for the lefty loon anti-American dirty pinko deviant hippies blocking the workers and businesses on Wall Street?

Wallbaggers

as long as you are taking feedback:

Please please do NOT make your site like the Irvine housing blog: Distracting pictures, cartoons, mixed with dumb lyric/poems, and videos. It makes the articles absolutely impossible to read and most of them are not funny and terribly corny.

I'm sure the author have some really insightful things to day, but everytime I click on the link, I can't bare to finish the article.

I'm fairly right leaning. I think Patrick hits the nail on the head... over and over again. We love you Patrick!

underwaterman says

There is a website I use already for this:

http://dollarcollapse.com

Thanks. Seems to have a slant and possibly a little more exaggeration than I'd like, but otherwise it does seem like the old patrick.net oriented to the U.S. Dollar rather than real estate. Now I just need sites covering the other topics I listed above. Ideally, they'd have facts that the MSM isn't covering, with occasional reasoned argument.

Fabian socialism comes from the Fabian society that helped create the labor party in the UK after WW 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

Personally I find that it is hard to detach any argument that talks about the economy without eventually talking about politics (and vice versa)

I can disagree with someone but I'm mature enough to agree to disagree. Sometimes there can be discussions where agreements are made between those that otherwise would be at each others necks.

For a number of years I was (kinda still am) on one board and I argued with this socialist. We both agreed that the EU would fail...that was around 2002. we didn't know at the time how correct we were.

Dan makes a good point in that it is generally accepted we had a housing bubble and it burst (granted everyone here knew beforehand)

CL says

If we could have a magic fairy wand that produces revenue without taxation, the Democrats would support that as well (if for not other reason, to secure their place with wealthy donors)

Technically there is...just deficit spending. If government spending was only dependent on tax revenue (and thus the federal must tax and spend like states and local governments) then a deficit wouldn't logically exist. If there was a gold standard then a debt ceiling is not able to exist.

the ultimate problem I see with taxes is this...who exactly has to pay?

Sales taxes are regressive and hurt more of the poor. But those can be avoided by shopping online. There are ways around needing a credit card/debit to shop online. Coinstar allows the purchase of gift certificates and there are many merchants that sell gift cards in stores which you can buy with cash. Taxes on specific items can lead to underground markets for them. NYC has the highest taxes on tobacco and it is more profitable to smuggle in than narcotics!

Income taxes are progressive which means you pay a higher percentage (granted it is marginal) than those that make less. But eventually with wealth you cross a rubicon and money starts to work for you (investments). So income taxes really do not make a difference. Capital gains taxes are the larger aspect but even then if someone has "enough" then they don't have to sell their investments or work. We do not have a direct tax on wealth except the estate taxes but those can be avoided with estate planning.

Meanwhile with companies they can simply not must move but incorporate in other countries so that makes it much harder to tax them or at least their income. When the DoJ went after microsoft in the late 90's there were rumors they'd just drive up to Vancouver (just a few hours on I-5N anyway)

Those on the left want government to provide goods/services to people because they feel if the market does not provide that people are missing things that are needed say healthcare and shelter etc. But the problem with this is that if such things are provided it can create a system of dependency. When Clinton changed welfare there were those that were against it but they never specifically stated when someone should get off of it.

On the right they support various subsidies that frankly have little payoff. If a business cannot survive on their own then it should frankly just close or get bought out. Ethanol from corn does not make real sense.

Meanwhile government has largely replaced religions and families as a support system.

If we had more of a closed environment then I think liberals might have a better chance but it is hard to argue for them now.Technology and globalization I believe have eroded many of their arguments.

There is a more cynical view which frankly just looks at the battle and not the end results. Simple Hegelian dialectic would show that tension would tend to build bases from the conflict and from there you have support. The less difference someone has with another in office the less of a reason to vote for them.

mdovell says

Technically there is...just deficit spending. If government spending was only dependent on tax revenue (and thus the federal must tax and spend like states and local governments) then a deficit wouldn't logically exist.

But nobody on what passes for "the left" in America thinks that deficit spending pays for itself, yet as far as I can tell, the entire right, without exception, believes that tax cuts do.

The left is acknowledging that things are not good, and that our choices are between bad and worse. The right believes that if we only recede more, the recession solve itself.

Further, the attack abortion rights, unions, environmental laws, promote corporations as people, money-as-speech political contributions, etc.

Rationally, unless one is a willing pawn, these items have very little to do with healing a broken economy, but are simply a right-wing wishlist masquerading as such.

It's okay to have a different philosophy, but one must call bullshit on their own party when the party practices bullshit, n'est-ce pas?

Patrick and his website have made and saved me much $money$ in helping me make my own informed Real Estate decisions. Instead of being an 'upside down' statistic, let's just say I am much better off. Thanks Patrick!

CL says

But nobody on what passes for "the left" in America thinks that deficit spending pays for itself, yet as far as I can tell, the entire right, without exception, believes that tax cuts do.

The Repubilcans for the past 30 years have believed that deficit spending is good.