patrick.net

Great comprehension Shirk.

I'll admit that this snippet is pretty silly (or even stupid), especially the part about china and first amendment rights.

But obviously his point (the context) is about job creation, not just because unemployment is high, but because technological advances are going to be a continued force of productivity and efficiency. Just because these are good things that we all like, doesn't mean that one can't observe their short to medium term impact on unemployment. He should have done a better job though, avoiding giving the dim bulbs anything to latch on to.

Funny that shirk, the guy who is more likely than anyone to attribute low comprehension to others, misunderstands what is being said here. Luddite ? He starts by saying he has an ipad.

"Neither party has the intelligence to withdraw from the Windmill-Chasing enterprise that is Afghanistan. That country hasn’t had an effective central government since Genghis Khan."

Completely correct. It is like a bad business plan that just keeps going without re-analysis.

zzyzzx says

I also think it’s a publicity stunt.

When it comes to politics, everything is a publicity stunt.

Don't worry Conservatives, you now have a strong candidate who will beat Obama: Gary Johnson. And when President Gary Johnson takes office, no more school. Your lazy 10 year old kids will have to get off the couch, stop playing Wii, and get an IT job!

JOHNSON: Back to unconstitutional. I think there are a lot of kids today, let’s say 13 year-olds, 10 year-olds, that have better knowledge of computers than a 70 year-old. And because of our child labor laws, you can’t pay one of those 10 year-olds, 13 year-olds for a few dollars an hour to help out the 70 year-old with their computer, their computer problems, which might exist if we didn’t have child labor laws.

KEYES: So it might be better to rein in some of those child labor laws, if I’m hearing you correctly?

JOHNSON: Well, by rein in, the unintended consequence of child labor laws is that we don’t have the entrepreneurial sense with our kids that perhaps existed when I was a 13 year-old, pitching papers and mowing lawns. If there weren’t any child labor laws and you could pay, I use the example of the kid fixing your computer for a couple dollars an hour, is that taking advantage of a child or is that giving a child a real motivation and an understanding of earning money and providing a good or a service? And then on the other side of that, besides child labor laws, there’s the whole notion of you retire and you can’t go back to work for the 75 year-old or the 80 year-old who still has contributions to make.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/21/gary-johnson-president-nullificationist-child-labor/

shrekgrinch says

More than you do..I am upfront and honest about what I believe and what my intentions are…so much so that many others on here have felt forced to mischaracterize me in other ways because I don’t really align with their demons how they need me to be. Others like you.

Oh, shrek...

You really don't understand do you...

...sigh, poor, poor shrek...

Whether or not you are being honest about your beliefs is totally and completely irrelevant. While you may actually believe the drivel you spout, you also may be a shill knowingly disseminating false information.

In either case your motivation and "true belief" is irrelevant. Here it is shrek, shield your eyes lest the truth bind you: The simple fact is that people oppose you because you are full of shit.

I know this might be hard for you to believe. It is possible for two people to look at the exact same data, and have a civil sane discussion yet still disagree on their interpretations.

The problem is that your "beliefs" often are based entirely from false and misleading sources, and you seem to have no interest in perusing truth.

I am a believer in free speech so you go ahead keep trying to tear America apart sowing division and lies, while I and others pursue solutions to make us safer and prosperous again.

shrekgrinch says

BTW, Liberals actually believe that high unemployment works in their favor most of the time. It has to do with their non-fact based ideology.

Mr. Strawman is back! Well done Shrek.

shrekgrinch says

That’s Luddite economic thinking right there. If we put more emphasis on the status quo at the detriment to the future, then most of us would still be working on a farm and you could get a job making bubby whips too. No, that is not an exaggeration.

Please don't pretend to be that clueless. Jackson did not say that he wishes ipads don't exist. He didn't say that with a choice between having the technology and not, that he would choose not. I do find it amazing that you are always bringing up other peoples comprehension.

shrekgrinch says

When they are not purposely lying, they actually do say what they believe. And many of them do believe this stuff.

Not necessarily. They may be tossing out ideas to see what gains traction, just as a good lawyer might when he's developing a prosecution or a defense.

I think a strong sense of cognitive dissonance is a detriment to a politician.

shrekgrinch says

Just think of the many managers and executives at work you’ve come across….you shouldn’t have top think real hard on that, either. :)

Actually, nearly all of the managers I've worked with have been at least OK. It's possible that's because I work in manufacturing, and the system keeps a sharp watch on more objective measures as safety incidents, production and waste.

shrekgrinch says

Which is kinda weird since Apple is the liberal’s ‘nice’ corporation’, too. (all those donations to Dem candidates by Apple employees have a lot to do with that, I am sure)

Apple is currently in a strong financial position. They've been sharing, but have they been sharing enough?

Looks like we're going to break through $47 tomorrow. It's becoming a circus.

Kitco forums are pretty active right now. lol.

I'd have to agree that iPads (and similar technologies) will put publishers, libraries and some others out of business. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.

It looked like his next point was that the new jobs created by the destruction of those industries are largely outside the US. That I'm not sure I totally agree with, since a most of the high end jobs in design, marketing, and support are here, not to mention they're doing a lot more than replacing book & news printers.

Still, it's possible that he's right that the jobs being lost are not being replaced with equal or better US jobs on a net basis.

I'll have to give JJ Jr. a "meh", on this one. Never been a huge fan of him or his dad.

Darn. What can stop silver from rising like hot cake? This has to pop. May be when G/S ratio is close to its historical norm of 14 ~ 16?

Patrick should accept Bitcoin donations - I'll send some if he does :)

Although I am not big on either of the big 2 parties, I think McCain would also have intervened in Libya, so a vote for him would have been the same here (and possibly a venture into Iraq)...just saying.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Same thing.

I nominate Patrick for the next President of the US. Everyone gets a free house.

People need to understand that if we're going to have government spend $6T/yr we're going to have to tax something close to that.

I think Bachmann is a blithering moron but her math is reasonably solid in asserting that even if we taxed the top 2% @ 100% that would only cover about half of Federal spending.

Part of the problem is that people don't know the numbers. What percentage can tell you current DOD spending within $300B? I'd say maybe 10% -- and most of the answers would be ludicrous, off by a factor of 10 or something.

The Bush tax cuts were the utterly wrong thing to do but reversing them is very difficult, politically. People want their free lunch!

The previous Congress was too craven to dare let the Republicans run ads against them, saying the Dems raised taxes . . . they remember what happened in 1994, though not letting taxes go back up to 39.6% on the top bracket didn't save most of them anyway.

I think the Republicans have a perfectly fine grasp on reality. 95% of what's going on is just kabuki to mau-mau public opinion in the direction they want it to go. 20-25% of the Dems are silently with the Republicans on this.

We can't afford Medicare for the 80 million baby boomers aged 50-64 unless we cut benefits, raise premiums from 3% to 5% or whatever, or establish Japan-level cost controls (which service providers would hate and fight against most strongly).

Total income taxes are $1.1T this year, on $13T in income -- that's an 8% tax rate. Fed spending is $3T.

The core problem is the media not educating people, and people not caring enough to become educated.

People don't want to hear the truth, so they will avoid it.

If we changed the corporate tax to a 5% deferrable flat tax (to cover franchise overhead like the court system), we could look to personal income taxes to cover the $3T government.

Top 1% makes $1.6T, they pay 50% tax rate . . . $800B
Next 2-5% makes $1.2T, they pay 40% tax rate . . . $500B
Next 6-10% makes $900B, they pay 30% tax rate . . . $300B
Next 11-25% makes $1.8T, they pay 20% tax rate . . . $400B
Next 26-50% makes $1.6T, they pay 10% tax rate . . . $160B
Bottom 50% makes $1T, they pay 5% . . . $50B

Total revenue is $2.2T, $800B short!

$800B/yr deficits are probably sustainable given the increased monetary base. We really need to keep spending at $3T tho.

What does all this have to do with Obama's birth certificate?

what is with elephant in the roome like mortgage interest deduction 100 billions a year as for soc security did not contribute to this mess so we deal we it for 10 years from now.

Troy says

People need to understand that if we’re going to have government spend $6T/yr we’re going to have to tax something close to that.

and cuts of at least $200 billion per year are absolutely necessary

Completely impossible, even though DOD spending has risen $300B since 2007.

We ~might~ be able to cut $20B/yr, this is the scale of the 1990s draw-down, which was traumatic enough.

$200B at $200,000 per job is a million jobs. There *has* to be some velocity-of-money effect with this, so more like five million jobs I would guess.

In your Monopoly analogy, the DOD is Community Chest full of "Collect $500" cards. . . it's what keeping the game going . . .

sure the mortgage interest deduction isn’t worth 100s of billions a year.

True, something less than $100B . . .

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/04/20/eliminate-mortgage-interest-tax-deduction/

As people should be aware now, my negative outlook on home values is informed by this difficult tax situation we're in.

Above I DOUBLED the Fed taxes FOR EVERYONE and that still left a $800B deficit! Just think what would happen to home value if every middle class household had to pay another $1000/mo in taxes!

(this is why cutting taxes in 2001-2003 was borderline suicidal -- I didn't understand it then [wish I had!] but I think it's very safe to say that land values and the tax level are inversely correlated, lower taxes and land values HAVE to go up).

So now we're in the same goddamn Japan trap -- can't raise taxes since that will destroy what's left of the housing debt market, which still has a $2T overhang in it:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=gx

man, that above graph is scary if you can read it!

Troy says

So now we’re in the same goddamn Japan trap — can’t raise taxes since that will destroy what’s left of the housing debt market, which still has a $2T overhang in it:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=gx

man, that above graph is scary if you can read it!

It would appear that about half of that overhang has been absorbed by the Fed.
http://serviciodeestudios.bbva.com/KETD/fbin/mult/110331_FedWatchEEUU_120_tcm348-252655.pdf?ts=2342011

I agree the gragh is scary, but I think that half of that gap has essentially been written off, or at least it's in some kind of limbo state.

Troy says

People need to understand that if we’re going to have government spend $6T/yr we’re going to have to tax something close to that.

Yep, this is where the rubber meets the road. However, most seem blissfully unaware of the situation. Troy I appreciate your tables and numbers, they really help to illustrate the problem.

An interesting "This American Life" episode about trying to fix financial messes:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/410/social-

What about the polls cited in this piece. Are they not valid ?

http://www.truth-out.org/yet-another-poll-shows-plutocracy-stupid-democracy-smart/1303408673?source=patrick.net

terriDeaner says

I’m tired of being told to hold my nose and either vote for the lesser of two evils

Usually things have to get worse before they get better. The people finally rejected Republicans in 2006 after 12 years of their bullshit. It wasn't the economy, I don't really know why the vote went the way it did in 2006. Iraq I guess.

Looking at the House vote numbers:

2006 (D) 42M (R) 36M
2008 (D) 65M (R) 52M
2010 (R) 45M (D) 39M

The D's lost 3M votes vs. 2006 and the R's picked up another 6M votes on top of that. This shift was under 8% of the 2008 vote, one out of twelve voters.

The 60M McCain voters who lost in 2008 were more driven to come back to the polls again in 2010 (to stop socialism and save medicare) I guess.

Don't think of your vote as a positive choice. Think of it as canceling out some idiot's choice.

The feeling is probably mutual : )

It's a matter of opinion. AM talk radio is not nonsense to me, as I often find the ideas reasonable. You can't just disregard something as nonsense just because you disagree with it. Perhaps you simply did not live back than, but nothing has changed on that spectrum.

What I do find unreasonable are people buying into fake political pretenses by politicians and union leaders; pretenses that they care about America and not just their own wallets.

Former republican here, who voted Reagan but recognized his flaws. He adjusted his policies based on results liked toning down the tax rollbacks after it wreaked obvious budget problems. I liked his big tent philosophy to conservatism and don't think that fits with the RINO purge philosophy of today.

I think it started before Rove. Go back to Kenneth Starr. The whole Monaca Lewinsky $60M investigation by the "independent counsel" impeachment showed very clearly to me that the Republican party was ceasing to be a party of ideas, and becoming a win-at-all-costs machine.

Around 1986, president Reagan granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

To date, it's been noted that president Obama has broken a record deporting illegal immigrants.

Who is the conservative and who is the liberal?

Are all politicians hybrids?

And is it a requirement?

Has it always been so?

Troy says

Don’t think of your vote as a positive choice. Think of it as canceling out some idiot’s choice.

This seems like a poor sort of democracy, representative or otherwise. I'd rather stick to my convictions.

terriDeaner says

I’d rather stick to my convictions.

Whatever works for you.

Up in Canada the left vote is divided between two left parties, and this strengthens the conservatives, actually putting a conservative in as head of government.

In Florida in 2000, Gore needed 538 votes to carry the state and thus win the presidency. I'm sure from among Nader's 97,000 votes we could find 538 people who wish they could change their vote, especially now.

Same thing in NH in 2000, btw.

More recently, on the other side, for the California A.G. race the Dem won a close race, with ~75,000 votes to spare over the Republican. It was a 6-way race, and the other 4 candidates all polled more than this 75,000.

If 20% of the libertarians and American Independents had voted for the Republican instead, he'd had won.

Instead they've got a real lefty running the state's legal system, sucks to be them, LOL.

This seems like a poor sort of democracy, representative or otherwise.

Only intellectual children or people who don't understand basic math vote "their convictions". There IS no fix for this basic reality of political systems, EVERY election approach is flawed in some way.

Instant-run-off and other forms might solve voter preference problems, but they don't solve the split-faction problem (aka "hung parliament") that I think all Westminster governments are suffering with now.

Troy says

Only intellectual children or people who don’t understand basic math vote “their convictions”. There IS no fix for this basic reality of political systems, EVERY election approach is flawed in some way.

Has this line of personal attack worked on anyone else you've tried to convince to vote your way? It doesn't impress me.

terriDeaner says

Has this line of personal attack worked on anyone else you’ve tried to convince to vote your way?

Wouldn't know, but I really don't give a shit what you do. No candidate is going to lose by 1 vote.

Troy says

Wouldn’t know, but I really don’t give a shit what you do. No candidate is going to lose by 1 vote.

Agreed. My vote is my choice. So don't take it so personally, eh!

Troy says

Up in Canada the left vote is divided between two left parties, and this strengthens the conservatives, actually putting a conservative in as head of government.

Anyhow, it's more like 5 or so lefty parties: liberals, NDP, greens, socialists/communists/etc., and the bloc quebecois, which is not so much liberal as 'quebec-nationalistic' and non-conservative. Still, Harper, the conservative, only maintained power for ~5 years (2006-2011). He fell to a vote of no confidence this year, courtesy of the liberal party:

The Fall of the House of Harper: Liberal non-confidence motion passes
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/Enough+enough+Ignatieff+introduces+confidence+motion/4503169/story.html

It's worth noting that he nearly got pounded out a year or two before this happened. So although the multi-party system has its flaws, it can function, and it's really not just the figurative equivalent of a dog turd rolled in tinsel and oatmeal.

I consider myself a conservative, but I am a liberal too. I would like to see our democracy preserved. If this were a democracy we would scale back our military involvement all over the world.

The term conservative has nothing to do with the republican party as we know it today, NOTHING !

At this point, raising taxes on the rich, would be conservative. Nobody can argue that.

Having a health system that works for the people, rather than for big business, would be conservative - even in terms of how it effects businesses in general.

terriDeaner says

He fell to a vote of no confidence this year, courtesy of the liberal party:

He's not out of the picture yet. No confidence just means they have to have an election, and if anything Harper will come back stronger this time around.

terriDeaner says

So don’t take it so personally, eh!

I take the green-voting morons who gave Bush Florida and NH "personally".

People who don't understand how things work are really really annoying.

I piss everyone off since I have voted Republican, Democrat, Independent and Green Party (US elections, I have no voting rights in Japan). Things which have turned me off to the Republican Party is their getting the US involved in costly and unjustifid wars, their unquestioning support of a overburdening military budget and general hypocrisy of wanting to cut the budget (among a number of other things).