patrick.net

In the bottom half of the article it says: "There’s a big difference, however, between finding a job and earning a decent wage as an artist. The study found that stable, salaried jobs in the arts are rare — 63 percent of arts alumni were self-employed. Nearly 60 percent of working artists said they hold at least two jobs; 18 percent are working three or more jobs." Sure, but self-employed doesn't mean well paid. " Very few of those surveyed were satisfied with the income they were making: only 12 percent of graphic designers or illustrators said they were happy with their pay, while 13 percent of writers, authors or editors were content. Even for web designers, which are in high demand, only 24 percent said they were satisfied. The survey found that 60 percent of working artists made less than $40,000 in 2008. " If you pick the Debt & Earnings tab at the SNAAP website, you'll see a salary of around 30k/yr looks pretty typical. http://snaap.iub.edu/snaapshot/index.cfm

did you post every single link from the fiscaltimes you could find? Couldn't you just put them all into the same thread?

shrekgrinch says

What seals? Show me the seals? What? Can’t? Wow! How convenient.
Do we EVEN know that Seal Team 6 even exists?
As for other ‘countless people’ they are all politicians. I’d like to see some retiring general say whether it is all true or not, myself.

There was a Pakistani talking about it on twitter as it happened. He heard the helicopter and the gunfire. Or was he in on the hoax too?

I'm not surprised at all. There are a lot of houses and fences out there that need painting.

RayAmerica says

I’m not surprised at all. There are a lot of houses and fences out there that need painting.

I was thinking that a lot of these Starving Art Grads were asking you if you wanted fries with that.

shrek, we already know they were wrong about talking up the economy for the "Summery of Recovery", and that's largely why the Dems got tossed out of the House and lost big in the Senate last November.

Old news is old.

I lean towards the opinion that they really didn't understand the importance of the credit bubble to the general economy, 2003-2007, and without getting that bubble going again (not that THAT is a good idea) we're not going to be able to get the employment numbers we had during the Bush Boom.

This graph:

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

charts the credit bubble (blue, year-on-year growth in household and business credit) vs. the stimulus (red, Y-O-Y growth in government spending) vs. Y-O-Y growth in personal consumption.

We've recovered somewhat, but we are just running to stand still now.

Consumer debt: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT is still an immense burden.

There has been some job recovery:

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

but things go so fucked under Bush's watch that it's buried by how bad the Bush team made things for Obama.

to illustrate this, here's M-O-M change in employment since 2005:

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

notice that the job market is growing at the same rate it was during Bush's 2nd term.

Given the $1T+ deficits we're running:

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

this is neither good nor bad. It is what it is. Of course, trying to reduce the deficit spending will just send this economy back to the 1Q09 days, if we're lucky.

In this graph, you can see the mortgage credit bubble, red, being replaced by the deficit spending (blue), as the monetary injection via home debt went from $1.8T/yr in 2006 to negative $300B/yr in 2010, while the deficit went from $500B to $1.5T+:

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

I find it striking that nobody in the entire world right now is using the St Louis Fed's graphing facility but me.

Another graph:

makes it clear that Biden's optimistic numbers were taking advantage of the census hiring boom since the dotted red lin is ex-census jobs.

Eyeballing that chart, we're going to be needing 15 more months of the current hiring rate to get back to the worst of the Tech recession.

Yeah.

Then look at company earnings and figure out if people are working more or less by the earnings of many companies. Their spending habits are a pretty good indication of what is going on.

Companies have been reporting for the last 18 months their results, and they're not heading down, they are recovering. Look at other figures, and figure out where the markets are heading. If you're unwilling to believe the government numbers, start digging into the financials of companies and figure out what is going on.

pkennedy says

Companies have been reporting for the last 18 months their results, and they’re not heading down, they are recovering.

The national debt today is $14.3T. 18 months ago it was $12T. $2.3T of new government debt, $1.5T per year.

That's enough to support THIRTY MILLION $50K/yr McJobs.

We've just substituted one "stimulus" for another, though a falling dollar is probably necessary now to bring some job growth back.

shrekgrinch says

All politicians are bad at this…but this particular crowd displays total incompetence.

The mistakes have been piling up since NAFTA, MFN with China, really.

The 2009 response was about right and I'm overall happy with the interventions and ideas that were floated.

The 2010 election shut all that down now and the nation is in a holding pattern until 2013.

The only "incompetence" thus far has been presenting an insufficiently pessimistic front to the people.

Of course, when Carter tried that in '77 he was pilloried as a defeatest who didn't understand American Exceptionalism, the exact same bullshit conservatives sling at Obama.

People worried about a weaker dollar don't understand that it's been the strong dollar that has hollowed us out.

But the primary mistake -- incompetence if you will -- since Reaganism swept the country has been seeing the top 5% collect an ever-increasing share of the national income.

This top 5% isn't really doing the work any more, their money is -- compounding interest is a beautiful thing.

And the stimulus was too small, and too much of it was a concession to the right for tax cuts. A large infrastructure investment would've produced bigger gains.

^ yeah but its' tough to go from the full-on stupidity that was 2001-2006 to smart policy.

We can extemporize and apply ameliorative patches, but to actually fix things is not something we can really do, for as you say we were not in FDR '36 or LBJ '64 territory in 2009 WRT Congressional majorities.

We only had a filibuster-proof Senate for less than 2 months in 2009, between Franken finally being seated in July and kennedy's death in August.

I don't think the administration expected so much pushback from the Republicans over one of their own conservative initiatives (PPACA).

But I don't think it was "incompetence" for the admin to get that through over the Republican dead bodies in 2009-2010.

The bullshitters here say PPACA distracted government from fixing the economy, but of course this completely cuts across their parallel bullshit narrative that the government can't do anything positive.

The actual solution needs to be cutting the DOD 50%, capping Medicare cost inflation (which is many times more than the natural demographic increase) via a stricter single-payer system, and raising taxes on everyone to start actually paying for government again.

Problem with raising taxes of course is that millions of households have dialed in their housing expense based on their nice Bush tax cuts. Remove the tax cuts and you really stress everyone's budgets. Medicare is the third-rail still as the previous election demonstrated. Can't cut hundreds of billions out of the DOD with unemployment so high, either. BRAC in the 1990s was like a $15B cut IIRC.

So, there really is no solution. Hence my sig.

Nomograph says

Is it too late for RayAMerica and shrekgrinch to get a refund on their pre-paid copies? Will this tome of knowledge even see the light of day?

No one has been able to offer an explanation as to why Obama spent over $2 million in legal fees in order to fight the "release" of his long form birth certificate. If he had it all along, why on earth did he fight it?

shrekgrinch says

And then, as Ray pointed out, there was the matter of Obama spending $2 million in legals fees to fight this. What gives? And who paid that $2 million…the taxpayer?

No, that was not to fight the birthers. And NO the taxpayer did not pay for it. Obama for America paid for it out of campaign contributions of $750M. McCain also had lots of legal fees associated with the campaign at $1.3M.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/12/donald-trump/donald-trump-claims-obama-has-spent-2-million-lega/

Why do you continue to repeat bullshit over an over even after it's been show to be false. Have you no integrity at all?

ding ding ding

MarkInSF says

No, that was not to fight the birthers. And NO the taxpayer did not pay for it. Obama for America paid for it out of campaign contributions of $750M.

What exactly did Obama's NOT releasing the long form birth certificate have to do with the campaign?

RayAmerica says

MarkInSF says

No, that was not to fight the birthers. And NO the taxpayer did not pay for it. Obama for America paid for it out of campaign contributions of $750M.

What exactly did Obama’s NOT releasing the long form birth certificate have to do with the campaign?

It doesn't. Defending against frivolous lawsuits claiming ineligibly does. They didn't even require much defense. The plaintiffs were laughed right out of court.

In any event the $2M figure was for all legal fees. The amount spent defending against the birthers was almost certainly negligible.

Of course I expect Shreck will not admit he's wrong, and will likely repeat this lie again. It's just the kind of person he is.

"Racist enforcement of civil and voter rights laws at the Justice Dept (letting those Black Panthers off the hook), list goes on."

I agree. Bush was a complete racist for not prosecuting the New Black Panthers. We should demand answers from Bush!

http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/07/12/bush-doj-decided-new-black-panthers-no-major-case/

Death panels! I can see death panels from my house!

HousingWatcher says

Death panels! I can see death panels from my house!

I love the smell of death panels in the morning.

Tenouncetrout says

TOT Grabs popcorn and lawn chair.

Buttered? shrekgrinch says

Which is it, folks? Was $2M spent or not? Even when you gang up on the Truth, you all can’t get your shit straight.

Ya caught 'em, ya little troll! They don't all think alike! They think for themselves - a concept you might not be able to comprehend. I doubt that you care about the subject as much as you like being contrary. In fact, the subjects of your posts are pretty much interchangeable - you can copy & paste your threads at this point.

Have you ever had an original thought? I mean, one that's not politically motivated that you're repeating to anonymous people on the interwebs?

yawn.

shrekgrinch says

See, I and others now get to have fun with this for like…FOREVER while also knowing that Osama is most likely dead long before Obambi was even in the Senate. This is like a perpetual Missing Birth Certificate, really. It is the best of both worlds.

Please continue. I LOVE when the wingnuts continue their conspiracy theories. It all but ensures that no Republican will win in November...

Shrek, what's your evidence that Obama spent $2M fighting birthers? You're the one making the outrageous claim. Back it up for once.

"Cynthia Tucker is worse than the entire Washington Post. She’s a total shill for Obama and a de-facto member of the race-baiting industry."

Why? Because she is black? Come on, we know you would not have made that statement if she was white.

"Fact is, civil servant lawyers in the DOJ peg this one all on Holder, not Bush. And most civil servants are life long liberal-leaning Dems, too."

Actually, most, if not all, of the complaining came from one civil service DOJ lawyer by the name of J. Christian Adams. Some facts about Mr. Adams:

Adams is a long-time right-wing activist, who is known for filing an ethics complaint against Hugh Rodham that was subsequently dismissed, served as a Bush poll watcher in Florida 2004, and reportedly volunteered for a Republican group that trains lawyers to fight "racially tinged battles over voting rights";
Adams was hired to the Justice Department in 2005 by Bradley Schlozman, who was found by the Department of Justice Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to have improperly considered political affiliation when hiring career attorneys -- the former head of the DOJ voting rights section reportedly said that Adams was "exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman";

Before coming to the Justice Department, Adams volunteered with the National Republican Lawyers Association, an offshoot of the Republican National Committee that trains lawyers to fight on the front lines of often racially tinged battles over voting rights.

"In 2004, Adams served as a Bush campaign poll watcher in Florida, where he was critical of a black couple for not accepting a provisional ballot in early voting after officials said they had no record of the couple's change of address forms, according to Bloomberg News. Democratic poll watchers had advised voters not to accept provisional ballots because of the risk they could be discounted under Florida law, Bloomberg reported."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007070020

I think tatupu assumed everyone EXCEPT you was bright enough to figure out which November the elections would actually be held in, therefore adding the word NEXT was not needed. He was right.

Since I'm new to this birther argument is there someone out there who can explain what the constitution says about eligability requirements to be president?

Okay, I unignored Shrek to read this, whcih isn't as easy as it used to be (thanks Patrick !!)

shrekgrinch says

No, as things stand all I’ve done is proven that I know what a luddite is and what ludditism stands for more than you do….and you’ve proven that you rather would stick to your fantasies of what you want it to mean so you can brainwash the little kiddies in school.

shrekgrinch says

Luddites don’t protest the existance of technology…only certifiable ignoramuses who otherwise should know that in order to really be qualified to teach our children believe that.

shrekgrinch says

marcus says

or even that it will displace publishing

Uh…YES…he makes that point. He mentions publishing obviously in the context of traditional PRINT publishing, not e-publishing…but I gather your poor comprehension skills didn’t pick that up, eh?

Unlike Shrek, if I were wrong, I would admit it. I would encourage everyone who hasn't seen the video to check it out, and let us know what you think.

I see Jackson pointing out that jobs in the printing world will be displaced by digital media. Something that everyone agrees is true (including Shrek). I do not see him lamenting this, or protesting it, he only points out the fact, in the context of requesting that the government invest more in the support of new technologies and policies that support the creation of jobs. (arguing whether this is an appropriate role for govt, is independent of whether Jackson is a luddite or not).

If someone says in essence, this technology is displacing jobs, we need to emphasize creating jobs, this is not the message of a luddite. Jackson is a little intense about it, but that's just sort of punctuation or emphasis of his opinion of the degree to which jobs will be displaced from publishing.

A truly intelligent person will admit when they are wrong. This is something I have never seen Shrek do.

Douglas says

what the constitution says about eligability requirements to be president?

must be a "natural-born citizen", i.e. holding US citizenship at birth. Becoming a US citizen later (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger) technically makes you ineligible to be president.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp

for one discussion of the can of worms this is. If Obama was not born on "American soil" then he would not be a US citizen at birth because his mother was too young to pass on citizenship under the law at that time.

So if the birthers can prove Obama was born in Kenya, they'll make Sarah Palin president. Or something.

Nomograph says

He might want to check out for a while and ignore politics completely

A ha aha aha ha a aha ha! You told a funny.

I'll repeat what I said before:

marcus says

Jackson is not protesting the existence of the technology, or even that it will displace publishing. You really are even far more of a fool than I ever realized.

If he were a Luddite, Jackson would probably be suggesting that congress should somehow act to block or prevent the negative impact that digital technologies are having and will have on publishing. This is not his message.

Is Jackson observing that digital technology will drastically impact publishing?
or
Is he observing it and protesting it?

I say it's very clear that he is making the observation only, but also talking about China's manufacturing edge, and ultimately it is in the context of saying that he thinks congress needs to address policies that affect job creation.

(edited)

Especially if O’Biden resorts to price controls a la Jimmy Carter did with gasoline

typically stunning un-understanding of economic history by our conservative friend here.

"The era of price controls is most remembered for long lines at gas stations. The controls were put in place by the Nixon and Ford administrations in reaction to a jump in fuel prices caused by cuts in production by the newly formed international oil cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries."

. . .

"By the Iranian oil crisis in 1979, the controls had grown unsustainable as oil prices escalated in global markets. With lines forming once again and fistfights breaking out at the pump, President Carter quickly waived most of the controls on oil and gas prices to make more fuel available."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/15/20060515-122820-6110r

How does it feel to be continually 100% wrong on everything, Shrek? Seriously, your brain must be made out of antimatter or something.

John McCain was not born in the U.S. Why did the birthers totally ingore that?

HousingWatcher says

Why did the birthers totally ingore that?

because we are supposed to get citizenship through our parents, and both his parents were certainly bona-fide Americans.

But the statutes in force when he was born left a gap for people born overseas. This was corrected the year after he was born, making him a citizen, but the (admittedly "academic") question remains whether McCain is a "natural born citizen".

Arguably, Congress would be abusing its powers to make Schwarzenegger a "natural born citizen" and thus eligible to run for President. Or perhaps not.

Troy got it right. Article II of the constitution is clear about a natural born citizen. we get it through our parents. Both parents must be natural born citizens. No matter where you are born. This disqualifies Obama entirely. The only reason these law suits are being thrown out of court is because you must file in state court to have standing, not federal court. That is why 15 states are now voting on legislation to require candidates to prove their eligibilty prior to accessing the ballot. Our lame congress has the requirement of enforcing federal law. Good Luck with that

One has to wonder how an un-named author was able to delete the reference wikipedia had to natural born citizen but it happened.

you must now go to an archive as of last week to find the definition. wayback.com has it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen.

please advise?

Without FHA loans(3.5 % down) that house drops 30%more.

Douglas says

Troy got it right. Article II of the constitution is clear about a natural born citizen. we get it through our parents. Both parents must be natural born citizens. No matter where you are born.

Is that what you meant to say? That is, in order to be a natural born citizen, both your parents need to be natural born citizens ? I think that would mean that technically only native American can be natural born citizens. Think about it. (even native Americans, have ancestors that immigrated here, but for the sake of argument we can say they were always here.)

shrekgrinch says

Especially if O’Biden resorts to price controls a la Jimmy Carter did with gasoline to ‘deal with’ the inflation that is already upon us

Holy crap. I just called you on this lie a week or so ago. And here you are posting it again!

http://patrick.net/?p=688789#comment-733608

Douglas says

we get it through our parents. Both parents must be natural born citizens.

Whoops! There goes Trump! You should really go away, re-think your argument here, and come back under another name.

ie. Cut your losses, 'cuz what you're writing now just doesn't make any sense.

The law in 1961 was clear -- anyone born in the US was a "natural born citizen".

If you can prove Obama was not born in Hawaii, he will have bigger problems than this Constitutional BS.

Douglas says

Troy got it right. Article II of the constitution is clear about a natural born citizen. we get it through our parents. Both parents must be natural born citizens. No matter where you are born. This disqualifies Obama entirely.

Um, Douglas, your interpretation of the Constitution is really super cute. Might I point out that nowhere in the 61 words dedicated to presidential criteria does it say that the parents must be natural born citizens. It merely says that the dude, or dudette, who becomes President must be a natural born citizen of the USA - unless he or she is 224 or older... In that case, they'd still meet the age requirement, because there's a minimum age requirement but not a maximum. FYI.

Wikipedia say

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.