patrick.net

"I think you misunderstood me. It USED to be the case that men like Buckley were respected in the GOP. Not any more. Now if you don’t worship Sarah Palin and follow her every tweet and facebook post, you must be some kind of RINO traitor."

This is a huge strawman. I don't follow Sarah Palin's every tweet and facebook post and yet I am not considered a RINO traitor and I know several who don't even know what a tweet is. No problem.

There are many prominent, intelligent republicans out there who are not RINO's. One is R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. Another off the top of my head is Ann Coulter who writes several best selling books. There are many others who are not RINOs and I'm sure I could produce quite a reading list for you.

In any case, I find it amusing that the tea party and republicans in general are all portrayed as a bunch of trailer park hicks when the left's demographic and even new leadership is, well, not that terribly intellectual. Actor Danny Glover thinks that global warming caused the Haiti earthquake. And George Clooney thinks that if it wasn't for him, blacks would be forced to sit in the back of the movie theater (hint: Those are the among the BEST seats!) Most of the demographic that votes leftist now have little in common with western european values and thinking and don't read newspapers or if they do, they aren't in English.

Sorry, you totally missed the boat. Outside of NYC and the Bay Area and a few other havens, leftist elites are on the web in the Burbs driving hypocrite mobiles (cars) and are on the same social level as dungeons and dragon players.

"You don’t like dogma? Could have fooled me. And it’s completely wrong to boot. The VAST majority of spending goes to the Military, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security.
Tee hee"

Tell you what, I agree with you strictly speaking about the spending percentage wise. You forgot the national debt payments though.

And before you laugh at me, my main point is still there: You aren't going to get the Swedish paradise you dream about because all the money has already been spent by old socialist geezers that died long before you. The stuff I brought up is the "discretionary" spending that also is a total wash.

For each dollar you tax, it's spent twice and not on stuff YOU will want.

Enjoy living in downtown Detroit or as I like to refer to it: Sweden and France, 2030 ACE.

"I don’t think it’s any secret that white males hold the huge majority of wealth in the world. I think it would be kind of silly to use a Black or Hispanic in a cartoon about excessive wealth. Don’t you?"

I'm reminded of a cute line from Frasier where his brother Niles rages: "It's impossible for a wealthy white woman to get a fair shake in the legal system!"

Yeah, we all know how impovershed white women are. Those shopping malls where the majority of stores sell overpriced shoes and bags are there for these poor women to spend money to show how poor they are...

In answer to your question: Should cartoons about, say, genius scientists only feature white males since they also comprise the majority of them? No need for blacks or women to be portrayed, right? Or is racism and sexism only ok when the PC groups that it's ok to bash are featured?

At least with the old KKK racism, they weren't hypocrites. And more black men have been shoved into jails since the so-called civil rights movement and feminism and unwed motherhood than the Jim Crow days.

I think I answered your question and you didn't like the answer. I said it doesn't make sense to only portray whites as wealthy especially in a negative way when leftists think that positive views such as science should be inclusive of whites and minorities...

In answer to your question: "Why does the median white family have almost 9000% more wealth than the median black or Hispanic family?"

I presume you're referring to "non-home" wealth, yes? That's one of several reasons. Of course, this graph you show is unsourced and makes a rather stunning claim that the median/average black family only has something like $500 in the bank account at any time. That is amazing if true. Of course, one of the obvious answers (and not PC and therefore unthinkable as heresy) is that whites tend to be married and raise children in two parent famileis and wait until they go to school and get good jobs before having lots of children. Amazingly enough, many of these are probably religious whites who don't believe in abortion or birth control or even sex before marriage and did not receive extensive "sex education" in school. (Of course, Sarah Palin's daughter is hardly an example of this.)

I find it amusing how leftists like to catagorize whites as privileged and educated and, at the same time, look down upon non-leftist whites as a bunch of uneducated, trailer park hicks homeschooled to the 3rd grade level.

In addition, as I observed above, it logically doesn't make much sense that leftists like to think they are more educated, on average, than the evil, 'stupid' republicans and at the same time brag that they're more "diverse" in their electorate and made up of mostly non-whites. Hmmm... if whites are more educated on average and republicans tend to be more made up of whites wouldn't that mean that republicans would be... smarter?

PolishKnight says

I find it amusing how leftists like to catagorize whites as privileged and educated and, at the same time, look down upon non-leftist whites as a bunch of uneducated, trailer park hicks homeschooled to the 3rd grade level.

I find it amusing that you continue to use strawman arguments..

PolishKnight says

And before you laugh at me, my main point is still there: You aren’t going to get the Swedish paradise you dream about because all the money has already been spent by old socialist geezers that died long before you. The stuff I brought up is the “discretionary” spending that also is a total wash.

The military isn't discretionary spending?

PolishKnight says

intelligent Republicans.....Another off the top of my head is Ann Coulter who writes several best selling books.

I think you lost credibility right about here.

"Complaining about how the media portrays the richest race in the world is absurd in my opinion. It’s almost as stupid as complaining about the plight of the white male."

On the walk home I thought of something interesting... why didn't your graph include a comparison to... Asians? As we both know, they were subject to severe discrimination as well and also came in as poor immigrants. Surely, they're as bad off as blacks and Hispanics, right?

Regarding the stupidity of complaining about the plight of the white male. I don't understand that if white males are so overprivileged compared to everyone else that it's mostly white women spending all the time spending money and comprise something like 80% of all consumer spending. Surely, the poor women would all be at work for longer hours than men if they were so bad off, no? I noticed how you dodged that.

Ironically, as I also pointed out, Marxism used to be a philosophy held and beloved by working class white males. Did you know that most of the men in western Europe are white males? Oh, wait, not for long in France. :-) Yep, when whites males were no longer considered useful by the marxists in the states, they were cut loose by the left. It just took some time for Western Europe to catch up to the idea and are now looking the other way while women are shoved into burkas. Welcome to equality, ladies!

"I believe neocons are desperate to make it an issue because it’s one of the few areas they think they can score points with."

Yeah, and Obama's race (especially his half black portion) had NOTHING to do with his popularity among African American voters and white guilt exploiting leftist voters. Sure! But you do have a point that it's rather hard for leftists to sell the "we'll tax the rich and help you!" card to working, married, whites when the rest of the time they're bragging about how they're going to shaft whites in favor of their new demographic core.

It's rather amusing that a tactic used by the left to tear down the USA and with it, the major leader of capitalism in the world is now helping to undermine Western Europe.

You know, it's interesting that Lafayette, CA has this demographic makeup according to wiki: "The racial makeup of the city was 86.81% White, 0.55% Black or African American, 0.22% Native American, 8.23% Asian, 0.09% Pacific Islander, 0.81% from other races, and 3.30% from two or more races. 3.95% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race."

Gee, that isn't very diverse don't you think? Why don't you move here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_ca

I love how the left bashed Sarah Palin for having a daughter that, gasp, got pregnant out of wedlock! On the other hand, the typical lefty lives in as white a neighborhood as they can (including in the city) and will try to price blacks and hispanics out. Then they drive a car and run their A/C's and preach about the evils of global warming.

Finally regarding putting kids back in coal mines. I had a grandfather who was an FDR voter who worked in a coal mine as a child. Guess what, he was "rich" and must have been doing it for fun I suppose according to you. Oh, and all the Eastern Europeans (250 million or so living in poverty). Do they count as rich? How about letting THEM immigrate illegally as much as they like (and most of them would NOT vote Democrat.)

Yeah, good luck with that goal of making the world look like Sweden and your lily white neighborhood...

Vicente writes: "I think you lost credibility right about here. [Ann Coulter]"

From wikipedia:

"While attending Cornell University, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review,[4] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women's fraternity.[5] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984 with a B.A. in history, and received her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1988, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of the Michigan Law Review.[6] At Michigan, Coulter founded a local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[7]
After law school, Coulter served as a law clerk, in Kansas City, for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[8] After a short time working in New York City in private practice, where she specialized in corporate law, Coulter left to work for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994. She handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan and helped craft legislation designed to expedite the deportation of aliens convicted of felonies.[9] She later became a litigator with the Center for Individual Rights.[10]"

Hmmm, not bad for an oppressed white woman whom you all say had no chance since only white males are rich and successful due to sexism and racism, right?

I love it when dogmas collide.

"Because I don’t care. You do. That’s the point."

Translation: "lalalalala! I can't hear you. lalala!"

"The race issue in 2010 is 90% right wing fanatics complaining about the race issue."

Interesting you don't have a graph to support that statistic. :-)

Hmmm, could you please show me where in the, say, immigration debate for example, that it's 90% of the right pointing out that it's because of hispanics when they oppose illegal immigration versus the groups and advocates for amnesty pointing out that their hispanic special interest group wants the law to look the other way because they share a common race or that it's "racism" to oppose illegal immigration because that's automatically racism against hispanics.

Yeah, it's "right wing fanatics" that are the ones playing the race card all the time demanding preferential treatment.

Oh, wait, 90% is awful close to the percentage of people in your neighborhood who are white. :-)

PolishKnight says

[Ann Coulter bio] Hmmm, not bad for an oppressed white woman whom you all say had no chance since only white males are rich and successful due to sexism and racism, right?

Ummm, what? Did I say anything about oppression, sexism, or racism?

Sober up before posting.

"Also I did not generalize that white males are the richest group on earth. I stated a statistical fact that white families in America are richer by a factor of 43 than other minorities."

You said, and I quote: "I don’t think it’s any secret that white males hold the huge majority of wealth in the world."

I didn't even need a fancy graph. Any reader can see you were generalizing about whites, period, on a worldwide scale and you're now lying about it. But do go blue in the face with a bombastic denial. Tons of fun!

In addition, you also lumped in Asians with "other minorities" and when called on it, you said you "didn't care." That's ok, when a religious fundie is confronted with such a hole they will say "It doesn't matter. Only You care! You're wrong, I'm right." At least they're honest they believe in a RELIGION.

Tell you what, every time you see a white face in your neighborhood, think to yourself how much you love being around them rather than minorities. Now that I put that thought into your head, I know you'll be thinking of this observation several times a day. Cognitive dissonance, get ready, set, go!

Ok Vicente, are you admitting then that white women are not oppressed and in any way deserve special privileges considering the benefits they have enjoyed via inheritance, special protections, and sexism that they continue to embrace?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Tatupu asks: "The military isn’t discretionary spending?"

Try closing down bases and research in Boston and other blue state districts. (Or putting up windmills off of Martha's vineyard... :-)

Dogma vs reality.

PolishKnight says

A simple yes or no will suffice.

http://lateralaction.com/articles/black-and-white-thinking/

"Race? Who cares."

You're absolutely right. So the explanation then for the lesser earnings/savings of blacks and hispanics (but not Asians since that would ruin your theory) can't be due to race then. Got it. Oh, and we can discuss immigration law without the left bringing up the minor fact that most illegals are hispanic. Sure...

And your living in an almost mostly white area is a "personal attack" after you claimed "I’m all about reality." So you're all about reality except when it comes to... LIVING in reality!

Silly me. I'm not afraid of a personal attack based upon the fact that I earn a living, support a spouse and ultimately family, won't have children running around committing crimes or expecting the state to pick up the tab for daycare because I'm a "single parent by choice" or don't want to be the "sole financial breadwinner", and generally will be a neighbor that YOU want to move next to if you can't find a job in lala 86% white liberal land.

Oh, and FYI, I walk to work and take public transportation. Not just fancy metro but a bus. I WALK THE WALK.

PolishKnight says

Vicente has argued that conservatives, presumably mostly whites, are uneducated and “morons” (that kind of wording used almost all the time by tolerant, open minded, non-dogmatic followers of the leftist faith, er, truth)

Could you show me that quote? I went back and looked and couldn't find it.

PolishKnight says

Tatupu asks: “The military isn’t discretionary spending?”
Try closing down bases and research in Boston and other blue state districts. (Or putting up windmills off of Martha’s vineyard…
Dogma vs reality.

There is lots of discretionary spending that is difficult to cut. In fact, it's pretty hard to cut any spending these days. But doesn't change the fact that it's discretionary.

PolishKnight says

Obama spends that much on rich white male bankers every few months or so

I'm reading up on 1920s Germany right now so this struck me as interesting. Substitute "jewish" for "white male" in the above and your clowncar ideology would be fully exposed for what it is, rabble-rousing bullshit.

You're very big on arguments, and small on solutions.

“Also I did not generalize that white males are the richest group on earth. I stated a statistical fact that white families in America are richer by a factor of 43 than other minorities.”
You said, and I quote: “I don’t think it’s any secret that white males hold the huge majority of wealth in the world.” "

"You might call it a generalization, but I call it a fact. Do you dispute it?"

You left out Asians which certainly are not poorer by a factor of 43.

Do you dispute the fact that Asians are not Black or Hispanic?

You're now a double liar.

It's a beautiful day in the white hypocrite neighborhood,
a beautiful day in the white hypocrite neighborhood,
won't you be my,
won't you be my,
won't you be my neighbor (if you're Asian or white.)

Bap33 says

Troy Troy Troy … must you attack personally? As I said, the media has not held Barry and the leftisits to any firm public scrutiny. I just gave a few easy examples. The Arizona situation is a particularly disgusting act by Lord Barry and Co. If ‘ol GeeDub or Ahhnuld had done something like that when Gavin and the Deviant Army pulled their junk in Frisco, man oh man, the media would have went nutz-o (say “nutz-o” like Fonzie for the full effect). The liberal bias in media is too obvious to ignore. No need to attack me personally though, I aint in the media.

Bap, G-Dub and crew did pull stunts like that. One stunt that particularly sticks in my mind would/will likely be pulled by Obama n' co. as well. Ashcroft v Oregon on Assisted sucide and pot laws. It will be interesting if CA legalizes it to see Bammer's reaction. Gotta support the drug war, gives daddy gov. lots of cash and power.

Your gripes about the senate being unfair/unequal dhmartens amuse me. I'm sure Wyoming or Vermont or Delaware et. al would be so keen to be dragged around endlessly dancing to the tunes of New York, Texas and California.

"What ever shall I do?
Are you going to answer ANY of the questions put to you or are you just going to keep flinging out new ones?"

Yes and yes.

I answered your question: "“You might call it a generalization, but I call it a fact. Do you dispute it?”"

I disputed it but if you want a yes or no answer, the answer is yes. Asians are considered a minority and are not considered white. Happy?

"Ann Coulter is a dime-store pundit interchangeable with any of a dozen others, which has nothing to do with sex or whatever else you are on about now."

Do you have a law degree and graduate cum laude from major universities?

theoakman says

During that 2008 time period, there were about 15 posters on this website calling it a double top and posting technical charts detailing a crash down to $300. You never hear from them anymore, yet they do still post on these forums. You won’t find them showing their face on this thread.

I called a double top around 1100 or so. Shoulda listened to my brain - because all the fundamentals support(ed) higher prices.

Can't completely knock me though - I went in really heavy on physical when it was well under 1000. Always a strong fan of the PM's - just got uneasy when it got to that level..... Now 1100 screams buy.

I still believe homes/cars/certain goods will deflate. It seems we are having it both ways, but I'm not in the hyperinflation camp yet.

Troy enters the twilight zone: "I’m reading up on 1920s Germany right now so this struck me as interesting. Substitute “jewish” for “white male” in the above and your clowncar ideology would be fully exposed for what it is, rabble-rousing bullshit.
You’re very big on arguments, and small on solutions."

Er, if such a substitution were made... it would illustrate that it's the LEFT bashing white males in a manner similar to the way the Jews were bashed as "privileged" and "rich" in the 1920's including quotas and discrimination against white males/Jews to level the playing field. Indeed, the same style of discrimination used against Jews IN THE STATES are now being used against white males. Congratulations, you totally shot yourself in the foot, pardon the pun.

And YOU brought it up. Not me!

PolishKnight says

“Ann Coulter is a dime-store pundit interchangeable with any of a dozen others, which has nothing to do with sex or whatever else you are on about now.”
Do you have a law degree and graduate cum laude from major universities?

I can trot out a long list of people with law degrees and "cum laude" credentials that I don't think you'd respect one bit. "Cum laude" doesn't impress me particularly up or down. As my Daddy said however cum laude is better than O-Laude! I'm not much of an "honors" elitist, but I do wonder why wasn't she summa cum laude considering it was just a HISTORY B.A. at Cornell? What's YOUR bio look like? Should I worship you too? Will you be my facebook friend?

"I can trot out a long list of people with law degrees and “cum laude” credentials that I don’t think you’d respect one bit. “Cum laude” doesn’t impress me particularly up or down. As my Daddy said however cum laude is better than O-Laude! I’m not much of an “honors” elitist, but I do wonder why wasn’t she summa cum laude considering it was just a HISTORY B.A. at Cornell? What’s YOUR bio look like? Should I worship you too? Will you be my facebook friend?"

Translation, your answer is "no."

In regards to your first assertion "I can trot out a long list of people with law degrees and “cum laude” credentials that I don’t think you’d respect one bit." Try me. I can disagree with people and even find their positions deplorable but I can acknowledge their successes. I could even hang out with them for a beer (especially Hillary! Scarfing down kielbalsa in PA? _I_ voted for her in the open primary!)

Gentlemen, It's been a pleasure discussing things with you (really) and I don't know if you feel the same for me (or will admit it) Fine. You're all invited for vodka and tea if you ever want to visit (I'm a tea partier who really has a high standard for tea. The good stuff from Russia and Turkey). Anyways, nothing personal.

I have to go for a day and may not get back to this for a few days or so. I haven't "run away". I will get back to it and after seeing a few dozen responses, indicate which ones I want to respond to so I don't get people mixed up or make too many errors (when it happens, my opposition doesn't seem too forgiving. :-) )

Take care and have a good weekend.

thunder .... no problem. GM will do exactly what it has done so far in its "pay back." They'll use TARP money. Honestly, Americans are probably the dumbest people on earth when it comes to politicians, big business and the banksters. I think the CEO was deserving of his $9 million salary, being that he's done such an amazing job. LOL

Nomograph says

it’s the inevitable end of unregulated free markets.

No it is the inevitable end of the centralization of political/economic power (FED, corporations, Federal Government all have too much power).

Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. — Mayer Amsched Rothchild

MarkInSF says

We look at rising gold and bond prices and see no conflict at all

This happening in a so called "flight to quality" crisis situation might not be a conflict, or unusual. But I find it to be quite strange, and very contradictory.

marcus says

MarkInSF says

We look at rising gold and bond prices and see no conflict at all

This happening in a so called “flight to quality” crisis situation might not be a conflict, or unusual. But I find it to be quite strange, and very contradictory.

It is a move to quality, but it's just not a panic. Just preference for preserving wealth as opposed to risking it for further gain.

More importantly there is also the commodity aspect, which is fairly independent of USD deflationary forces. Almost all commodities have gotten dearer in the last 10 years as booming economies like China consume more of them with little new supplies. Gold? BFD. Copper and oil, which are generally not hoarded for speculative purposes, are around 4X what they were ten years ago, much like gold. Agricultural commodities up 2X.

Good day to you too, good sir.

Just a few more pennies now! This should make for a nice weekend!

MarkInSF says

just preference for preserving wealth as opposed to risking it for further gain.

Maybe you don't understand bonds. They are long term, and there is a huge risk of loss if and when interest rates go up (and or when much inflation occurs).

marcus says

Maybe you don’t understand bonds. They are long term, and there is a huge risk of loss if and when interest rates go up (and or when much inflation occurs).

Yes and no. You only lose if you try to sell on the secondary market. You're guaranteed the stated return on the bond.

tatupu70 says

Yes and no. You only lose if you try to sell on the secondary market. You’re guaranteed the stated return on the bond.

Say it's five years down the road, inflation is kicking in and long term rates are up to 8%. You either sell at a massive loss, or yes, you hold on to the bonds in the current environment willing to continue receiving your 3.73% for the next 25 years. This is a loss either way.

You can quibble about semantics, and argue that it's only an opportunity loss. I say it's a real loss. Referring to my last comment, if you had been in cash instead of bonds, you would then be able to lock in an additional 4.25% for those 25 years. If you think of the difference in present value terms at that time, it is a huge loss.

Again, bonds and gold are saying two different things about the dollar. A good point was made about desirability of gold in Asia, maybe independent of the value of the dollar against other currencies. Seems like a lot of that value is factored in at this point.

Counting on a bubble ? Okay. I do think bonds are probably overvalued ( and may become more overvalued before a big downtrend ), and I understand the premise about gold. IT probably should be a part of everyones portfolio. Maybe that fact is enough to cause a bubble. I just don't know. I guess I can see that at some time it will happen. Maybe a decent chance it does in my life time.

I agree with Mark--bonds are saying something about global uncertainty. People want a safe place to put their money. And I agree with you that most aren't going to keep them for 30 years. Probably they will sell them at a slight discount as things improve everywhere.

The "bailout" was never intended to do anything more than payback union members for their support for Democrats. To think otherwise is just plain silly.

The taxpayer pumped some 30B to save GM and in exchange essentially got 60% ownership. Then there is a fair amount already repaid and a fair amount as preferred shares which carries an interest that the government is collecting. The union in exchange for pension relief got a bunch and the bondholder got converted to ownership as well. Existing shareholder got wiped out since they got diluted from the union, the fed and bondholders.

Structurally, GM does not have the cripping long term debt from bondholders anymore and the pension obligations are much more managable since they too are converted to shares. Instead of Pontiac, Saturn, Geo and many repeatable brand stretching their resource, the new GM will have a luxury class, a mid class and an entry class, like every other car manufacturer. So besides long term debt obligations, their business is focused on their profitable brands as well and dump the excessive brands like they should have years ago. It's not dead going forward, the demand for vechicle will be significantly above 2009 base.

Techincally, $ per share is a horrible measure of value. If there is 1,000 share outstanding, the 134 = 13,400. A more appropriate measure is total market cap and % ownership, here 50Billion market cap is 30 billion equity to the government and considered the breaking point to the extent they can sell the position at that price and above.

Ford motor company has a 43B market cap, I don't see why GM can't make more money than Ford and deserve a higher market cap given their long term debt obligations and renewed focus can put them in a position ahead of Ford.

The CEO did an excellent job to put this company back in the profitability path. I have no issues saving GM as they just need to restructure their debt (which they did converting preferred/bond holder in the commons), other long term such as pension obligations (which they did), focus on profitable brands (which they did) and rewrite some bad contracts (which they did). Now they need find a top seller. (which will be easier to accomplish now that they can invest their resource in 3 brands instead of 20)

In 20 years, you'll be glad we still have GM, Ford and Crystler.