"Those bills are higher because of Obama"
Is fuck no simple enough?
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'
Stephen J Gould
Not everything can be 'theoretically possible', otherwise the words have no meaning.
But it is "theoretically possible" that the planes were remotely controlled, just like it's "theoretically possible" somebody in the FBI knew of the entire plot but decided to let it happen anyway.
But to move beyond "theoretically possible" towards the realm of facts requires evidence, not just conspiracy theories.
My personal conspiracy theory is that elements within the
administration national security apparatus knew the hijackings were going to happen but chose to not bust the hijackers to see what happened
is always good for business. If so, the hijackers had bigger plans!
One explanation then for all the BS conspiracy theories floating around now is counter-intelligence to poison the well and cover their tracks.
Not that this would be necessary; then again why the FBI chose to ignore the field reports of middle easterners learning just the basics of how to fly commercial aircraft still is most curious . . .
"Fear of a less labor-intensive future scares people for two ill-conceived reasons. For one, they presume that money is the same as credit. "
grr. Let's not confuse money, credit, and capital.
What he's trying to say is that more robots mean more capital, and that is entirely true.
Being from Forbes, he forgets to analyze who is going to own this new capital, and its outputs, and the distribution of wealth in this post-scarcity society that is coming this century, or next.
Also, of course, what nobody understands is that housing and healthcare are our dominant life expenses, without tackling these two costs, we're not going to get anywhere.
In fact, the more we optimize our production, the more housing and healthcare providers extract from us, since they hold the whiphand on price discovery.
Productivity has doubled since 1960:
yet we're not working 20 hr weeks, we're just paying 2X for housing and healthcare.
Don't like the price, go live under an overpass, or die of cancer. The Freedom of a free market!
And pictures of the first plane
AND video of firemen on the street reacting to an odd plane flying where it shouldn't be, immediately prior to hitting the north tower.
At this point, I've just got to write off ~20% of the American public as totally, irretrievably idiotic.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Well done! Almost double the debt in only six years!
yes, it was 'well done', since that moderate increase in spending and continuation of the Bush tax cuts for another 2 years, plus the addition of the FICA tax credit (paid by increased general fund borrowing) has gotten us the recovery thus far out of the 2008 crash.
Let's not play stupid here, OK? You should now by now that the 2002-2007 good times was ENTIRELY created by the $14T CONSUMER CREDIT BUBBLE, nearly entirely courtesy of the housing boom/bubble.
Here . . . comes . . . the . . . chart!
That's a $7.4T gap between total borrowing and wages in 4Q08 . . . and what not enough people understand is that without all that borrowing we wouldn't have gotten that Bush-boom wage rise, such as it was, to begin with.
After 2008 there was a bit of stimulus spending, too:
is real (2009 dollars) per-capita Federal spending. Aside from the fact that Obama's first budget started in 4Q09, and spending has FALLEN since then ($11,500 to $11,200), one can readily see the bolus of spending of ARRA, but now we're back on track of the increase started after the GOP took over in 2001.
I stopped caring what Mish says a long, long time ago.
As for the debt:
is Federal Debt to GDP, less intergovernmental and Fed holdings.
Let's call this the 'bad' debt, though people seem to like buying it so I don't see what's so bad about it.
Shrug, I don't see the problem here.
that we need to make good on our interest payments on that debt
Payments on the debt return directly into the USD economy. They're not consumed in bonfires. This is the magic of government and fiat currency.
Should we desire to tighten the deficit further, I propose raising taxes on the 1%, who own 40% of the wealth in this country, including equities:
^ Lotta meat on that bone
"There is 5 months of supply NOW"
And then think how bugfuck crazy Austrians are.
The relevant question is, what would two people agree on and actually do.
Well for one Warren as VP wouldn't do shit unless and until Dr Paul keeled over.
Secondly, Paul in charge of the Executive would roll back the past 100 years of reforms and growth in federal power to regulate the economy and protect local minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
That kind of inquiry can make a real difference, rather than red team vs blue team, "go after" these people or those people.
Let's do both!
You mean the 1% or the 0.1% The former mostly works for their money
Questionable, actually, given we're talking 1 out of 100 households here.
In 2012 the 1% zone started at over $400,000.
Health is now 6% of the economy:
Median nurse pay was $60,000 in 2012.
You can't extract more from the public.
Who said "the public"?
Let's go after "the 1%", they have 40% of the money now.
Bottom 2/3 of the property tax should remain as it is. Tax the top 1/3 more.
4% property tax on all property valuation over $500,000.
Million-dollar properties would get hit with a $20,000 tax bill, twice the current rate. Sounds about right.
Yup, life is a monopoly board, if you're making an orange salary don't try living on a green street! (Even if that's where your parents live!)
Thing is, housing doesn't have to be the life-draining expense on all 4 sides of the board that it currently is.
Our policy has been all wrong for a very long time ; e.g. the interest deduction just serves to boost prices higher.
The only way to solve this issue is to make the ugly half of the board more livable. There are good reasons why people want to live on the green and blue streets -- great public schools, leafy neighborhoods, safe to walk around at night, quality neighborhood retail, easy commutes to work. Big backyards. Etc etc
How to get that same quality of life on the rest of the board? One approach would be new concentration camps out on BLM land for say the bottom two quintiles of the population, all the black and hispanic street thugs and their families, like how we re-housed all those shifty Japanese 1942-45.
That would let the rest of country -- aka Volkgenossen -- be able to focus on improving our subpar communities without having to actually solve any of the social problems we face.
The pictures on TV two years ago showed that their civil war was a massive humanitarian crisis.
Assad has been on our bad guy list for a long, long time:
Ukraine isn't our fight though. The Soviet Union gave Ukraine its borders with Russia, Russia should have a free hand to adjust them to reflect present cultural divisions.
One thing weird about Ukraine is their rather violent hooligan subculture.
That's the closest you're going to get to pre-modern war, on video. I wonder if one side is pro-Russian in these battles, that would explain a lot.
I'm not going to pretend to understand these people. 1921-44 was a helluva time for them.
'45-90 wasn't so great, either.
I would vote for a Ron paul/Elizabeth Warren ticket.
yeah, that is something a confused person would say
Voting for one of the many Ds & Rs
I'm now at the 1968 Chicago convention in Nixonland. I was still pooping my diapers at the time so what I know about it is a couple of soundbites.
Seeing the utter fragmentation of the Democratic Party in 1968 over LBJ's war in one direction and racial integration in the other is fascinating, knowing what was on tap for them for the next 11 elections, 1968 - 2008.
Goddamn it was a close election, had Humphrey carried the racist south that went to Wallace + California (which preferred RFK over him of course), he'd have won.
But clearly there were more votes to HHH's right than to his left, that's the story of Nixonland and the next 9 elections.
1972 was of course an immense blow-out for Nixon, as the racist south finally made its transformation into the GOP column.
1976 was closer than it should have been with Ford losing by only 30 EVs -- EVs Carter, being a Southerner, temporarily won back the South for the Dems, the first Deep South president since the Civil War. Carter got 50.1% of the vote in the end.
Then Reagan came in, winning 50.8%, vs. Carter's 41% (John B Anderson drew off 6.6% of the electorate who didn't understand how our elections work)
Mondale won his home state, and 40% of the vote "blowout" isn't actually that big a margin, that's just 1 out of 10 voters away from winning. But close doesn't count in elections.
Dukakis, yeah. He made up half the gap but it wasn't enough, the country preferred more GOP in the boom time late 80s.
Bush appointed Souter and Thomas. Souter was a mistake, somehow Sununu fucked that vetting up completely.
Clinton could thank his win to "It's the Economy, Stupid" and Perot taking 18.9% of the electorate out of consideration, even more people who did not understand how our elections work.
Dole won the Bubba vote -- the South and Midwest -- in 1996, but it wasn't enough.
The idiot Bush won in 2000 thanks to around 500 Nader voters in FL not understanding how our elections work. Oh, the heartbreak!
Elections aren't popularity contests, there are no prizes for 2nd or 3rd.
As presently organized, they're Winner Takes All.
Even in the event a third party prevents an outright winner on election day, that would just throw the choice to the House, which is currently structured 36-14 in favor of the GOP.
So voting third party if the Dem candidate is to the left of you could result in the GOP winning.
If you're for some strange reason OK with that, knock yourself out.
Otherwise vote the lesser evil so that the greater evil doesn't take the office, por favor.
And if the GOP's candidate is to the left of you, feel free to split the conservative vote and vote your conscience. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Be as extreme as you want!
There is certainly a good-cop bad-cop routine going on, yes
But watch how far Warren or Sanders gets next year in the primaries.
It is possible to change the parties from within; just look what the movement conservatives did to the GOP.
Which reminds me, back to reading Nixonland!
Also, tactically, the GOP doesn't want to give Obama any legislative victories like legalizing millions of future voters. If they're going to bite this bullet, they want a Republican president to get the credit, just like Reagan does now for the 1986 legalization.
completely silent when Obama is passing executive order on illegal immigrants
Obama's constitutionally questionable action* doesn't offend me since it's something I believe Congress should have done, but can't given the general Tea Party bullshit going on now that is limiting Congress' legislative ability to just renaming post offices.
By 'heightening the contradictions' within the ruling GOP caucus, we'll get forward movement on this sooner rather than later.
* It's the President's role to execute the will of congress, not make up its own policies
That sums up quite a bit.
I am not a fan of illegal immigration, but that ship has already arrived.
We can't deport millions of people here already. Legalize them like Reagan did in the 1980s.
Reagan is Obama's biggest hero anyway.
Going forward, we need conservatives to follow the rule of law and stop hiring illegals.
If they do that, we won't need to build walls on our south border, at least not to stop new immigrants from sneaking in.
I believe the Declaration of Independence's "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" applies to all people, not just Americans, and that means people should still be able to immigrate here.
But all rights are circumscribed by others' rights, and part of that is people who come here have to be willing to fit in to our way of life, or back you go.
Plus we can't just have open borders with 6.7B other people on this planet, there must be order, and restrictions.
you are not a demagogue and a partisan hack when you support Obama's amnesty on illegal immigrants
I'm conflicted about it. There's too many hispanic immigrants in California not acculturated enough already.
But I understand the politics of it
and philosophically I believe every person has a human right to live and work where they want.
As a socialist I call for multi-trillion public investments in making this country a better place to live, learn, and work for everyone who comes here.
We spent $2T -- TWO FUCKING TRILLION DOLLARS -- installing Shiites and ISIS in the mideast over the past 10 years, we should have used that money here at home.
I am sure you would have said the same when more women started joining the workforce.
Non sequitur. We were talking about why country club republicans like immigration, not me.
But as for me, I do believe we really need to crack down on the employment of illegals. If an employer hires one, THEY BOTH should be deported.
So it is atrocious when a republican loves immigrants. But it is great and humane if a democrat loves immigrants.
It's self-serving for Bush and the traditional mainstreet / Chamber of Commerce / Country Club GOP to love immigrants.
More workers, more renters for them to prey on. They just dump the problem in the middle classes neighborhoods, since only gardeners and UPS drivers can enter their gated neighborhoods.
It's a matter of self sacrifice for middle class liberals to accept the human right of immigrants to come here for a better life. And thus has it always been so, even back when we had more land than we knew what to do with, since capital was at a premium then, so immigrants were often strike-breakers and otherwise directly competed with us natives.
My tree goes back to a 'Hessian' deserter from the British Army (a certain Stegler) so I can say that :)
Landlords are happy too
were from a wealthy background, then
not particularly. I got into PCs relatively late vs the rich kids, I saw the occasional Apple II or TRS-80 in the late 70s (even stopping into a Radio Shack occasionally).
My mom sent me to a fun little computer course at the Naval Postgraduate School ca. 1980, courtesy of
but there were no computers in my life other than that and a friend's VCS in the 70s.
I was a geek in high school in a relatively rural district with nothing to geek on until a math teacher dusted off a 4K TRS-80 Model I with cassette interface that was sitting unused in a back room. Screwed with that my freshman and sophomore years until the school bought a full of lab of Apple IIe's the summer of '83.
Friend of a friend had a C-64, but that didn't really impress me all that much, other than as a glorified VCS.
So I really lucked into computers in the early 80s. Parents had a mortgage and a $1000+ present like a //e or Mac was certainly out of the question. In retrospect I should have gotten a part-time job when I was 16, but with no car getting to work after school would have been problematic (we were out in the country a bit)
I had a paper route for two years in junior high and blew every dollar I got at the 7/11, school food concession stand, or arcade, sigh.
More children means more doctors, more engineers, more scientists
doctors sure, since more people means more demand for this labor-intensive service
demand in engineering and science is orthogonal to how many people are in our slums.
Bangladesh is not a major center of engineering.
And did you also notice the number of poor white students absent from you classes?
no, since all white people look the same unless you can see what car they drive, etc.
one guy did bring a Discman to the computer labs, so he clearly wasn't poor, that cost $250 in 1985, over $500 in 2013 dollars.