patrick.net

part of the differing view is within the scope of "government provided services."
a solid border should be part of the basic service
supply of food, clothes, schools, housing, medical, legal and all other needs in life are not part of the basic service

There is absolutly ZERO logic behind a minimum wage. The entire concept of needing to set a minimum wage is fictional, and wholey progressive/liberal/socialist in design.

Bap33 says

The …. same … way … he …. has …. done…. with …. the … dollars…. he … made…. as….. plentifull …. as …… rain.

Tell me how many dollars he has created please.

I know you can't because you're just talking out your ass here.

Hint: It's not showing up in MZM

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=MZM&s[1][range]=10yrs

Bap33 says

supply of food, clothes, schools, housing, medical, legal and all other needs in life are not part of the basic service

There is absolutly ZERO logic behind a minimum wage. The entire concept of needing to set a minimum wage is fictional, and wholey progressive/liberal/socialist in design.

And that's where we differ. I believe everyone in this country deserves access to that which is necessary to become and remain a productive member of society, without regard of ability to pay.

If the free market could provide this, I'd be a free market fundamentalist. But it can't, so I'm not.

The logic behind the minimum wage is simply to prevent a race to the bottom wrt wages and working conditions, which is basically free market capitalism in a nutshell, given the imbalance of power between the individual worker and the corporate/industrial firm.

RayAmerica says

Kevin says

As it stands we can barely get 60 senators to all agree to even the most routine legislation.

What legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate? Maybe you’re thinking 67 votes are required for a change in Senate rules? Then again, who knows what you’re thinking.

Everything the senate does requires 60 votes, because you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. Surely you knew this already?

RayAmerica says

Attention Kevin: Democrats have a majority in both the House & Senate. What part of that is too difficult for you to understand?

Unlike Republicans, Democrats are not a united front who always vote for the official party line. Have you really not been paying attention to US politics for the last 20+ years?

The reality is that the majority of elected Democrats are still very much center-right, with a small minority who are left and far left. Republicans generally range from center-right to far right. As a result, the Republican right wing agenda is much easier to get through congress than even the watered down center left policies of the democrats.

Troy says

Bap33 says

The …. same … way … he …. has …. done…. with …. the … dollars…. he … made…. as….. plentifull …. as …… rain.

Tell me how many dollars he has created please.
I know you can’t because you’re just talking out your ass here.
Hint: It’s not showing up in MZM
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=MZM&s[1][range]=10yrs

dude, he has been handing out cash/credits like crazy. And the USD printing presses are going 24/7 (or were when last reported on here). So, what is your point again?

Troy says

I believe everyone in this country deserves access to that which is necessary to become and remain a productive member of society, without regard of ability to pay.

yes we disagree. There is no way for me to choose "what is necessary" for you, but I guess you and other left-minded people have the magic ability to know stuff like that. And if something of value is made easily accessed by someone who did not earn that access, the value of said item goes down. So, "ability to pay" is extreemly vital in a free republic. Your desire to have a car, is not a right. Your ability to earn the money to own a car is not a right. Your chance to work and earn a car is the only right you have. If someone can acess a goal without doing the required work the result is lack of desire.

RE: minimum wage. It is based on ZERO logic. If you suggest anything other than you misunderstood my point, I shall be forced to go stepbystep and expose your lack of thought on this subject. Trust me please. There is no logical basis for a minimum wage earned in America ... never has been, never will be. It is ridiculous.

Kevin says

Unlike Republicans, Democrats are not a united front who always vote for the official party line.

I would suggest the exact oposite is correct. liberals are willing to go with who/whatever it takes to get their stuff passed. A true "ends justifies the means" thing, in my opinion.

Troy says

The logic behind the minimum wage is simply to prevent a race to the bottom wrt wages and working conditions, which is basically free market capitalism in a nutshell, given the imbalance of power between the individual worker and the corporate/industrial firm.

Well said.

Bap, I'm sure you don't like unions, but can you appreciate that they were ever needed? They probably are needed in China now. The fact is that minimum wage is so low here that it's mostly symbolic. I had a job as a teen working for an animal hospital that payed minimum wage. But it's not like I had to support myself on that. That was 2.25 then. What is it now, 7.25 in most states ?

I guess you're right that it's fictional in the sense that nobody could reasonably get away with paying less than that. But hey, they would eventually try. Especially at times like these.

Bap33 says

And the USD printing presses are going 24/7 (or were when last reported on here). So, what is your point again?

My point is your pulling unfounded assertions out your ass.

I gave you MZM, which is one measure of the money supply. What you are failing to understand is that this economy is a CREDIT economy not a cash economy.

And access to credit has been severely limited since 2008 compared to the fun bubble times of 1998-2008.

Now, I do need to remind myself that I am not a macroeconomist and I too am talking out my ass on all this.

But I simply don't see any wild "money printing" or suchlike going on, just a coordinated attempt by the Fed, Treasury, and Congress to figure out how to keep the shiny side up and the rubber on the road while the global economy is undergoing massive credit contraction and follow-on balance-sheet recession(s).

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT

And if something of value is made easily accessed by someone who did not earn that access, the value of said item goes down.

The cost of health care goods and services, education, shelter, and local transportation SHOULD GO DOWN. We should not be trying to support prices in these sectors, quite the opposite. After that I think people should be left to their own devices, but these basics are best provided with state coordination.

You can't point to any real-world society operating under your desired policies. Only some works of fiction. This should be telling you something.

Note that my position isn't that all this stuff should be free to the end-user. My preferred policy is basically Norway and/or Canada -- high taxes and high government services, cradle-to-grave.

What happens in a low-tax, low-service regime is, AFAICT, massive rent-seeking and inflation of land values, enriching no one but rentiers and otherwise unproductive leechfucks.

I am pro-labor. I have always been pro-union, because there is an apprintiship in a union so a young person can learn a trade completely. I earned my union carpentry card on the outside, and was a teamster, a shop steward, a chief steward, and negotiator on the public side. But, I was not what most stewards are. I was tought by journeyman that DEMANDED the absolute best in agility, ability, atitude, desire, ect. ect. Never late, never sick, never tired. The pride was very strong and based on the fact that union trained workers had a standard abilities that was matched to their pay .... we cost more because we were the best .... the absolute best. Maybe not what you expected, but I understand your reasoning.

The bottom would be found just as natural as the top is ... given the chance. Minimum wage is part of the creeping crawling infestation of socialism(you know what I mean) in America.

Troy says

And if something of value is made easily accessed by someone who did not earn that access, the value of said item goes down.
The cost of health care goods and services, education, shelter, and local transportation SHOULD GO DOWN. We should not be trying to support prices in these sectors, quite the opposite. After that I think people should be left to their own devices, but these basics are best provided with state coordination.

ok, I think we agree on most of your point (taken from my ass). But, I mentioned "value", and you mentioned "cost". Do you see how we are looking at different issues? Cost is a market condition, value is a mental condition. If everyone had gold, gold is worth dirt.

You say there is no printing..... did they stop making new money recently? If so, I am wrong, and suprized. If the entire bailout/tarp/$8K house buying handout/ stuff was all credit based, then I see what you mean. And we mostly agree (again, plucked gently from my ass) (not comfortable with so much attention on my ass - by the way.)

What was happening in the bubble was people were borrowing money against rising asset values. Banks didn't print this money to lend out, they tap somebody's savings or 90% of someone's checking account balance to hand this money out as a loan.

People selling these assets would also bank the proceeds. This is all pretty complicated but what happens is people think they have a lot of wealth due to big savings accounts and bank balances, plus all the untapped home appreciation they might still have. Like the Social Security Trust Fund, our savings are not kept in a lock box. It's all lent out again to somebody else.

The Fed was indeed backstopping this with expanding its balance sheet, pushing new money into the market.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/AMBNS?cid=124

to support all the increased flow of dollars around the world etc. (The People's Bank of China was a large part of this monetary activity since they were literally confiscating their exporters' USD balances and returning this cash to us in the form of Treasury purchases and GSE bond buys).

But *our* Treasury itself can't (normally) print, it can only borrow. (Technically the Treasury can print, but it can't print Federal Reserve Notes, only US Notes.)

What the Fed has done is take on a lot of illiquid assets onto its balance sheet, preserving the liquidity of the system so worthy borrowers can still get credit from the money center banks. If they hadn't have done this everything would have just collapsed into a big ball of cross-defaults and serial blow-ups reminiscent of the ending of FIght Club.

Everything can be explained with that CMDEBT chart:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT

2000-2007 was the unsustainable crazy times. What's left now for the PTB is just trying to keep that curve from falling under $10T where it belongs IMO. $4T of debt going bad over the remainder of this decade would be quite a shock to the system, but without aggressive and continued intervention that's where we're headed.

日本へようこす。Welcome to Japan.

I've got about 500 hours of work to do in the next ~20 days so this is going to be my sign-off.

Bap33 says

Kevin says

Unlike Republicans, Democrats are not a united front who always vote for the official party line.

I would suggest the exact oposite is correct. liberals are willing to go with who/whatever it takes to get their stuff passed. A true “ends justifies the means” thing, in my opinion.

No, you're wrong, and you have it backwards. The Democrats do go with "who/whatever it takes" -- to win elections that have "D" next to them (The Lindsay Graham nonsense should have tipped you off here, really). This results in people who have very little "party loyalty" beyond getting re elected.

ok, I see your point.

Troy says

People selling these assets would also bank the proceeds. This is all pretty complicated but what happens is people think they have a lot of wealth due to big savings accounts and bank balances, plus all the untapped home appreciation they might still have. Like the Social Security Trust Fund, our savings are not kept in a lock box. It’s all lent out again to somebody else.

You left out the part about buying lots of imported goods. A lot of money went overseas, not into the bank.

Kevin says

Everything the senate does requires 60 votes, because you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. Surely you knew this already?

Obviously, you don't have a clue and aren't ashamed to prove it. "Everything" does not require 60 votes. Almost everything the Senate passes requires only a simple majority (51 votes). Filibusters are typically reserved for MAJOR legislation and are in fact, in relative terms, rarely used. You've probably seen "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" a few too many times. I'm guessing you also slept through your 7th. grade civics class.

The filibuster might have been rarely used in YOUR civics class text, whenever that was.
In 1939 there were zero uses of it. In the 1950's only one per Congress.

However we're over 100 uses of it since January 2009. The Party of No does not hesitate
to reach for it on anything and everything. I'd actually like to see a return to the Mr. Smith
version where they had to talk themselves hoarse. Right now all they have to do is indicate
intent and it has the same effect.

Under socialism there is no incentive to deliver ones best when others will be enjoying the fruits of your labor, without any labor of their own. The result is that the producers are demoralized and productivity decreases. The result? Everyone gets less.

In other words socialism spreads misery - for the common good.

didn't Jamestown prove that fact already?

Honest Abe says

Under socialism there is no incentive to deliver ones best when others will be enjoying the fruits of your labor, without any labor of their own. The result is that the producers are demoralized and productivity decreases. The result? Everyone gets less.
In other words socialism spreads misery - for the common good.

For someone so badly informed that they believe that wealth redistribution is socialism, you make a lot of claims about what it does or doesn't do.

Kevin, where does the money come from for things like food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid, education, etc? Taxes? One group pays, others recieve. Is that not wealth redistribution?

When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great. But when government owns the means of production (businesses) the reward is eliminated and replaced with low quality socialistic equality. Who will then put out a great effort to succeed? Example - a tenured teacher makes the same whether she busts her hump and does a great job - or puts in zero effort and does a losey job. That wouldn't happen if pay were based on results...would it?

The end result with socialism? Everyone gets less...for the common good, of course.

Honest Abe says

When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great.

Seems we have left something out.... hmmm is it that greater reward part? Yes definitely seems missing in this equation if 30 years of rising productivity has left middle class wages entirely stagnant. Probably should have put that reward stuff in a contract instead of leaving it implied. Otherwise you'd just have to admit the middle class has been fooled into equating a Red Queen's race with progress.

Vicente, yes, I left out the word opportunity. Government doesn't own us, yet, and neither does our employer. Any one of those middle class wage earners, anyone for that matter, has the opportunity to succeed, and millions do. No one forces people to stay at their low paying, boring job. Some people get sick and tired of stagnant wages, bad working conditions, obnoxious co-workers, a long commute and do something about it. Some go to trade schools, some open businesses, some go to law school at night.

Thats the beautiful thing about opportunity - its still available to everyone. Well until government owns the means of production, ie: socialism, thats when opportunity ends and the dream of succeeding dies.

Honest Abe says

Is that not wealth redistribution?

that is wealth distribution.

But wealth distribution isn't socialism.

Please learn at least the most basic principals of socialism before you make claims about what it is or isn't.

Why not argue with real facts instead of bullshit rhetoric? I mean, there are perfectly rational and logical reasons to argue against government ownership and other reasons to argue against taxes. There are also reasons to argue for them. Why not try researching some of these arguments rather than spouting off at the mouth?

Socialsim is the public ownership of the means of production and allocation of resources. AND, Karl Marx said socialism is the transition to communism. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". Thats clearly wealth redistribution.

So how would a socialist government OBTAIN the public ownership of the means of production (AKA businesses and factories)? Would the government buy them? With what money? Taxpayer money? Take from one group and give to another...AKA wealth redistribution. OR would the government just steal them (AKA nationalize them)? Take from one group and give to another...AKA wealth redistribution.

I don't know, any way I slice it socialism is wealth redistribution.

And stop swearing, it makes you sound like an uneducated idiot with a limited vocabulary.

Honest Abe says

So how would a socialist government OBTAIN the public ownership of the means of production

Generally speaking, "socialist governments" just take over industries that they want to own. Why would they pay for them?

Honest Abe says

And stop swearing, it makes you sound like an uneducated idiot with a limited vocabulary.

Shit like that coming from some motherfucker who has a posting history consisting of fuck all except for bullshit parroted from AM radio? I'm hurt.

Kevin,
I am guilty of using "socialist" as a catch-all phrase for things like how our Gov can take money by threat of law from one citizen and hand it (or the goods/services it puchaces) to another person (citizen or not) and the Gov arbitrarily decides if this person is deemed worthy of getting the wealth that has been taken from the citizen (WEALTH in this case is just a word that includes money, goods, and services). What would be the better title to give such a government action vs socialism? Serious question, not an arguement on my part.

If the people handing over the money were able to set guidleines, for example the taking of a drug test to make sure welfare was not funding drug dealers, that would be an improvement.

Bap33 says

Kevin,

I am guilty of using “socialist” as a catch-all phrase for things like how our Gov can take money by treat of law from one citizen and hand it (or the goods/services it puchaces) to another person (citizen or not) and the Gov arbitrarily decides if this person is deemed worthy of getting the wealth that has been taken from the citizen (WEALTH in this case is just a word that includes money, goods, and services).

Dick Cheney? Blackwater ring any bells? Or perhaps you mean only things like sending food & medicine to Haiti? Yes you need a better definition than "taking citizen money and spending it somewhere I don't like."

I changed "treat" to "threat" .. sorry for that.

no, I do not need any better definition, I just need to know what to call it when Gov does it, if not socialism, then I would just like to know the correct term is.

Since you asked, I never said the Gov had permission to send tax money to any other nation .. ever. The Red Cross would get more money if American people paid less taxes and were given breaks to give to such causes, and The Red Cross would do pleanty to help -- without any politico bullpoop. (and liberal politicos HATE not controlling and getting the credit for handouts). America spends billions on helping stupid people stay alive, so they (the stupid people) don't feel the need throw off the crappy Gov that is holding them down. Haiti showed the world what happens when only bad people have the power and the weapons --- jungle rule.

Bap33 says

Kevin,
I am guilty of using “socialist” as a catch-all phrase for things like how our Gov can take money by threat of law from one citizen and hand it (or the goods/services it puchaces) to another person (citizen or not) and the Gov arbitrarily decides if this person is deemed worthy of ge

The normal term that is used for such a system is "society".

People form societies in order to mutually benefit one another. Some people contribute more than others, and that's OK as long as the society is more beneficial than the lack of society would be.

What you seem willfully ignorant of is that these systems that you rail against were the choice of the people. The people want medicare. The people want social security. Sad as it is, the people also want ridiculous levels of military spending. There aren't any superhuman government goons stealing money from hard working people and using it for themselves.

Individual programs and systems have names. Some of these names are "taxation", "law enforcement", and, yes "socialism".

But you label everything that is done by the government on behalf of the people as "socialism", which is false. You have misused the term so much that it is meaningless. You could substitute any other word and it would be equally meaningless.

Socialism is a system wherein the means of production are owned by the government. It is nothing more and nothing less. Medicare is a socialist insurance program, one that most people support. The post office is a socialist enterprise, one created by our very constitution.

Taxes are not socialism. Government regulation is not socialism.

ok, thanks

kEViN, says: "Generally speaking 'socialistic governments' JUST TAKE industries they want to own, why would they want to pay for them".

Right, the government would just steal the industries ( the means of production) they wanted. Is that socialism, tyranny, or both?

Tyranny is oppressive power exerted by government, abuse of authority, takes power or exerts control without constitutional authority.

I know, I know...your're going to defend the government regardless of what it does, lib's always do. Theft, torture, murder - anything goes as long as its the government doing it, right?

The liberal motto: "IN GOVERNMENT WE TRUST". Lib's say: Forget personal responsibility, the public is too dumb or incapable to taking care of itrself, ONLY GOVERNMENT IS CAPABLE OF TAKING CARE OF YOU. Give us more and more of your money because you don't know how to spend it...WE know how to spend it better than you. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, put your trust in governmnet, comrade.

Abe ... your post sums it up very well. Liberals love big government. Why that is I have never been able to understand. I have spoken in the past with numerous people that lived under the old Iron Curtain, including quite a few that lived under the good old USSR. Every single one of them have said (paraphrasing) "... what is wrong with America? They are creating the very thing here that we left behind." What people like Kevin can't understand is that government control expands incrementally and that government never gives up power they have obtained, unless by force. Perhaps this election will shake enough of these pseudo socialists in both parties to wake up. We can only hope.

Ray, you and Abe are committing the fallacy -- ie. intellectual dishonesty -- of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

There is a continuum of policy between 18th century laissez faire and the totalitarian cult of personality of the DPRK.

EVERY "progressive" and "liberal" policy initiative fixated in law came about due to responses to real-world failures in free market capitalism.

You can't find the libertarian non-socialist utopia existing on this globe. And in the past it never existed either. America in its glory days, and England in its industrial revolution was built on the backs of repressed labor, and progressivism and socialism was the response.

New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Germany and many other countries offer middle-way examples of superior systems producing superior social outcomes to the Austrian bullshit you and Dishonest Abe post here 24/7.

Now, if Americans reject the Democrats this election and complete the job in 2012, I sincerely hope you guys get what you wish. I'll be several time zones away with the popcorn, watching the economy collapse into something that makes Hooverism look like the feel-good 90s.

IF it were possible to put a negative amount of time into considering what you are saying ( regarding their false dilemma), Ray and Abe would do it.

I just think they, and the entire republican side, are entirely knowingly full of shit.

In this environment, the biggest bullshitters win I guess.

A good example of this is the Dem's health care reform bill. It's very similar to Chafee's 1993 proposed plan:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

Some of the co-sponsors of the 1993 proposed legislation:

Sen Bennett, Robert F. [UT]
Sen Bond, Christopher S. [MO]
Sen Dole, Robert J. [KS]
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA]
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT]
Sen Hatfield, Mark O. [OR]
Sen Simpson, Alan K. [WY]
Sen Stevens, Ted [AK]

Real bunch of Marxists there.

Troy, Marcus & kEViN: blah - blah - blah - blah - blah. Mindless support of the government no matter what. I USED TO BE A dumbo-crat, until I came to my senses. I matured, began to read a lot, educated myself, and then totally rejected liberalism.

See, there's hope for you too (notice that word HOPE, hahaha).

Honest Abe says

Mindless support of the government no matter what.

actually I am a left-libertarian. Which basically means I go with what empirically works best.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html

Democrats don't appeal to me much at all, I think they've fucked things up pretty badly since 1950 or so.

Problem is the present Republicans are an order of magnitude worse. The latent theocratic and plutocratic urges are going to be the destruction of this nation (at least as a place I want to live and raise a family). We already got a heavy dose of this poison, 2001-2006. That the American people want more of this is not going to end well for them.

Oh well. It was a good run.

I think a better name for you would have been:

NAPALMINTHEMORNING

or perhaps

MADMAX

marcus says

I think a better name for you would have been:
NAPALMINTHEMORNING
or perhaps
MADMAX

No shit. ;)

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Total triumph of FREEDOM is at hand.

I am down with your vision, I even bring my own outfit to the party: