patrick.net

Patrick may have decreased the number of current links on the main page having to do with nursing homes and increased the topical often political ones. But since there are many regulars who toss around political arguments on the misc. forum, and because what he posts is informative (if biased) and reflects his point of view, I think it's great.

It's one of the main reasons I like the site. (I know - I'm one of the commie lefties. Ha)

Personally I agree with others above who have pointed out that what counts as leftist these days would have been very moderate in the days when the US was still ruled by a government that represented the people.

These are amazing times and strange times. Scary times. I say props to Patrick for for using the site to help inform the majority who are in the middle, relatively independent and open to learning where we are and what is at stake.

There is a huge amount of money and power that will be directed to preventing us from proper reforms. I fear the 1% might rather take us to world war 3 than to allow for example publicly funded elections. Our only hope is that a growing gradual movement that unifies us, rather than the usual divide and conquer can take shape and become a political force.

It's going to be tough though since the powerful who control the media have so many highly refined ways to distract us, and because so many of us are such fricking dim bulbs.

Ps: Patrick thanks for this awesome link to Chris Hedges talking about occupy Wall Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?source=patrick.net&v=uz5RxhahHK0

Perhaps We Agree says

I'm a bit taken aback by statements like this coming from the owner of a media channel I read. Among other things, I question the need to use what seems to me to be significant hyperbole

Yes, it is too much, but the idea is to point out there is now a separate forum (called "Outside") where such insults are perfectly acceptable.

If he's going to call me a Stalinist without justification, I'm going to call him an asshole. And we should take it Outside.

Patrick's site has become far too leftist for my taste also. I like the real estate news, but the Anti Republican anti Tea Party stuff is lame.

What the leftist political propaganda does is pigeon hole Patrick as just another "San Francisco liberal", and then one takes the whole web site far less serious.
Patrick you need to know that the political stuff really detracts from your web site.

Nomograph says

if you think the Patrick.net is too "leftist" for you taste, then obviously America is too "leftist" for you also

Damn right.

Next thing you know some radical right winger might suggest some seditious cost controls at public universities.

eteall says

screwed up and hit the "take it outside" link on his post by accident mods, please ignore, thanks

underwaterman says

Where are all the people that discuss the pros and cons of an opinion instead of ad hominem personal attacks?

Most people on the internet period do not want to discuss facts. They only want to spout opinions and then get offended when you disagree with them since their opinions are at least in part based on personal beliefs, feelings, and experience. So they often end up taking any disagreement as personal.

This is also very common if not the norm IRL too. People in general aren't really very good and debate or discussing beliefs or facts.

Particularly if they're irrational to begin with. You can't reason at all with those people.

That is why Mick is getting called out as asshole for instance.

If he's going to call me a Stalinist without justification, I'm going to call him an asshole.

Patrick, Once again, I don't know where you want to take the site, but from my perspective this is now showing petulance. I tend to prefer media channels where the owners and commentators take the high ground. Name calling ad hominem attacks don't move the dialog along in a productive way. Further, calling him an "asshole" is completely unrelated to the discussion. Yes, calling you "Ron Paulish" or "Stalinist" rather than explaining why he thinks some of your positions are like those of Ron Paul or Stalin is at best crude and minimally productive dialog, but at least those were somewhat related to the overall discussion.

underwaterman says

Another comment on your forums, I only tend to come here once and awhile because the level of discussions in my opinion is terrible. The loss of civility and intelligence is evident.

stop being a hypocrite and get off your high horse. saying there's a lack of intelligence is just as bad as an ad-hominen attack. get lost moron.

According to ZH, I'm part of the 1%. So it's a good thing I'm not involved in the protests: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/who-are-1

A few of you have alluded to "following the rules". What are the rules?
Go to college and get a degree?
When you're out of a job, beg the gov't for assistance?

Are those the rules?
I don't have a degree. I chose to drop out of college after a year and a half, because I didn't believe that $40,000+ debt was justifiable when I lived in a country that permitted me to succeed without a degree. Was I right or was I wrong? I would say I'm right since I'm now part of the 1%.

I did not know that Gov't assistance was available to everyone; I thought it was only available to those that made under a certain amount of money in their previous job. I know better now; but I was last laid off in 2008 (in my mid-30s) and didn't know that I could get gov't assistance.

The "rules" I grew up with, thanks to my parents, were simple:
If you don't have a job, then you go find one.
If you can't find a job, then you create one. (Meaning you talk someone into creating it for you or else you start a business)

My current job requires a PhD. Yet, I have no degree.

The "rules" are those that you choose to follow. If you don't agree with the "rules" (as I did not), then create your own. You're free to succeed and you're free to fail. That is capitalism. I've been fired; I've been laid off. I got back up and moved forward anyway. When I was last laid off in 2008 (right when everything was starting to hit home and post-Lehman) it took me 2 days to find a new job. 2 days. Not because I have a degree (which I do not) and not because I have connections (I knew no one at the new company I went to work for). But simply because my parents taught me to watch out for and take care of myself. Make wise decisions. Go find your way and find it well. That kind of advice, while very simplistic, applies to every aspect of your life: criminal record, driving record, resume, positions, attitude, you name it.

Don't tell me Obama is a great leader because he fights for the 99%. No he doesn't. He fights for the 1% while making believe otherwise. Don't tell me any other leader fights for the 99%. It's impossible to fight for the 99% when you're deep in the 1%. I don't just mean deep in the pockets of the 1%, I mean you're deeply part of the 1%. How much are each of these people worth? That makes none of them part of the 99%. You're not going to voluntarily fight for those that oppose the amount of money you have; but if it'll get you re-elected, then you'll happily lie about it.

Obama
Biden
Boehner
Pelosi
Reid
Perry
Paul

They are all part of the 1%. Don't believe their lies. Instead vote for who you think is best qualified to make the right decisions for the country, not for the 99% they claim to support, because then you're just stuck following in another liar's speech.

Perhaps We Agree says

Further, calling him an "asshole" is completely unrelated to the discussion.

I'm trying to encourage use of the "Outside" forum where people can be as hostile as they want. It was a deliberate provocation to get him to use the Take It Outside link. Didn't work though!

Larry Patrick Baloney say

If Patrick doesn't mend his ways, this site will not remain a haven for real estate watchers, and will pass away.

It's been at least six years since patnet became popular - and it hasn't jumped the shark yet. That's because Patrick posts links to topical articles, provides us with a forum to spew whatever info we'd like, and rarely censors us.

There are funny comments, stupid comments, interesting comments, and - yes, some very offensive comments. Some of those have been deleted, many have not.

The cool thing is that Patrick supports all of this free speech. He hasn't given any ground rules, other than the "be nice" thing (which is recent - there have been some posters who've been unbelievably nasty up until now).

Mr. Baloney, might I invite you to continue posting scintillating comments? But if you truly believe that this place is doomed, feel free to jump ship.

LarryPatrickMaloney says

I have seen a tragic downturn in the quantity, and quality of real estate postings over the past few months.
Every day, it's 70-80% of left leaning, political rhetoric.

He's posting links to articles in the news. Perhaps your problem is with the media.

underwaterman says

Thank you for proving my point. You hit all 3: lack of intelligent discussion, loss of civility, and ad-hominem attack.

You are pretty funny. How about you post something intelligent to the forums and improve the debate? Instead of insulting the rest of the forum?

This pyramic structure is accurate. It's a club and guess what? YOU AREN"T IN IT: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=290806174270662&set=a.199728590045088.51088.100000238443011&type=1&theater

underwaterman says

Thank you for proving my point. You hit all 3: lack of intelligent discussion, loss of civility, and ad-hominem attack.

you hit all three and are also a hypocrite. so i win. moron.

Nomograph says

propitup1 says

Patrick's site has become far too leftist for my taste also.

This is a real estate discussion forum, not MoveOn.org. What you see here is simply a random slice of mostly Americans.

If you think the Patrick.net is too "leftist" for you taste, then obviously America is too "leftist" for you also.

Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery -- Jane Austen

Doc,
pretty big jump you make here. The first part is 100% right on, but the second parts makes a serious inference that relection of PatNet Posters matches the GenPop, and I would humbly disagree. There may be a zillion reason why, but the fact remains that this whole cyber place is tilted left, and PatNet is left of center of America by a large portion of any scale. In my humble opinion.

American media is too left
American Marines are not.

Patrick what I am trying to point out is the liberal political commentary discredits the news element.
Right now the site has the real estate news and the liberal political agenda. If you don't subscribe to the political agenda of your site, then you are apt to reject or question the adgenda of the news side of the blog.

If you think I am wrong about this, I would like to point out the ratings of CNN, and the major tv stations and news papers, like the Los Angeles Times. Despite their claims to be fair and balanced, Their viewers and ratings have plummeted in recent years because most viewers find their political agenda far too burdensome and one sided.

Fox ratings remains extremely high, but they are quite open and do not hide their Republican/ conservative leanings. Fox's audience are people who already subscribe to Republican/conservative thought. Your site has a much more varied readership.

You might make the stance that Patrick.net should become the liberal website that talks about real estate news and liberal views, but if that is the case people who don't buy into the liberal agenda will just turn this site off. I haven't turned off your site, but It is obvious that Patrick and most on this blog are big San Francisco liberals.

Patrick what I am trying to say is that I like many Americans only watch CNN when I want to see what the liberal point of view is, and this has marginalized CNN. Furthermore almost nobody in LA (including myself) will purchase an LA times newspaper.

propitup1 says

Fox ratings remains extremely high, but they are quite open and do not hide their Republican/ conservative leanings

?? Last I checked, their slogan was "fair and balanced". Did it change to "Heavily biased to the right?"

elliemae says

The cool thing is that Patrick supports all of this free speech.

NOT the best of this thread. I vote this as the best line of the whole Forum.

"Eloquent Ellie"

underwaterman says

I respect Patrick and his mission a great deal and to see him pulled down to where he is name calling in his own forum ("asshole" above) is a sign to me something is seriously wrong here. A quick observation at the level of discussion leads me back to the theme of the loss of civility and a forum culture gone awry.

The "asshole" comment was a first for me, and is a deliberate attempt to populate the Outside forum with uncivil discussion.

The idea is that the forum can be split into an uncivil area (the Outside forum) and a civil area (all the other forums).

All internet forum culture suffers from a lack of civility. If I can't stop it, at least maybe I can give it a place to flourish which is separate and contained.

Get it? Maybe it won't work, but it's worth a shot, and that's why I deliberately insulted that asshole. Oops! ;-)

Really ? The outside wasn't an after thought ?

I don't see "outside" working. The fact is that even when people are involved in relatively civil discussion in writing (without all the clues that come from body language etc. , and without the physical presence which usually adds to the politeness) it's easy to read more insult than intended in to what is written. I'm assuming most people have learned that with emails.

If you open up a place for people to let loose with personal attacks, what possible good can that do ?

Probably about as much as when people take things outside in the real world. Except in this case, its for fake verbal battles. Also people may end up saying things that only harms their ability to enjoy the regular forums.

On the bright side, people probably won't be using it much. IT might be good just for saying, "let's take this outside" (and quickly getting something off your chest) but it seems to me the ignore button is better.

Tatupu,
I am not sure about Fox news, but I do think it is fair to say that Hannity, O'reilly and Glen Beck do offer the Conservative / Republican view point.

TMAC54 says

NOT the best of this thread. I vote this as the best line of the whole Forum.
"Eloquent Ellie"

I'd dare say that many, many people have said lines that are worthy of "best of." Not so sure that any of mine rate.

But thank you - and it's one cute kiddy/kitty pic.

propitup1 says

Tatupu,
I am not sure about Fox news, but I do think it is fair to say that Hannity, O'reilly and Glen Beck do offer the Conservative / Republican view point.

Agreed--they definitely do. My point is that if you ask them--they will profess to be "independent" and not Republican. Just as FOX news professes to be "fair and balanced".

yep all hope for reason went out the window when the extreme right tried to force that bullshit to be taught along side evolution.

Eneg says

I don't have a degree. I chose to drop out of college after a year and a half, because I didn't believe that $40,000+ debt was justifiable when I lived in a country that permitted me to succeed without a degree. Was I right or was I wrong? I would say I'm right since I'm now part of the 1%

You're entire post is nothing but "BOOTSTRAPS HOOOOAAAAAH" nonsense and fallacious "Just World" nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

If you made it great, but guess what as you note you're part of the 1%.

This makes your experience an exception to what not only the common man/woman has been able to accomplish but even an exception to the vast overwhelming majority of highly intelligent and hard working people out there.

Now you don't judge a system based on outliers and exceptions, you end up with a skewed and incorrect view if you do. You base your judgements on how the majority or ideally the vast overwhelming majority fare, or in this case the so called 99%. I know its more like 90-80% but whatever, that is a nitpick that ignores the meat of the issue.

That issue is of course that people in general are getting poorer while working just as hard or even harder than their parents, which is where the "I did the right things why am I not getting rewarded?" talk comes in which you're attempting to twist for your own benefit.

I mean its well known unemployment and underemployment are very high and that wages have been stagnating or dropping for the last few decades while costs have risen, sometimes quite a bit. Like on gas, or homes, or healthcare.

Yet you say the problem is they're not looking for jobs hard enough or something? Or that they need to create their own job?! Are you kidding? With what are they supposed to do that with hmmm? Some bootstraps and duct tape perhaps? You know most small businesses fail and its difficult to get financing even if your idea is good right now and you're willing to work 12-16hr shifts non-stop right?

underwaterman says

Creating that space to me is giving implicit approval of the behavior.

But that behavior exists irregardless of whether that space exists or not, which is why Patrick is trying to put it "Outside" so to speak.

This is a people problem not a technological one, you're not going to solve it with technology.

OK, I'd love an animated picture of a house on fire.

Sorry Patrick. Couldn't find a house on fire

All I could find was this "REDNECK FIRE ALARM"

there is enough political jargon every where you look. This was one site that I thought was a great resource for information unbiased by to politics.

I'd like to share a short point with you, if you'll allow.

No matter what the operation, whether a non-profit website or a business, the most successful ones will have 1 object and they will be specialized in that objective.

This website used to be a RE website, which made it very unique to so much other political BS that's available on the internet. When politics and RE information are commingled into one site, the primary objective of the site loses its impact and even though your number of emails and visitors is on a climb, your efficacy has become reduce and will continue to be reduced.

Regards.

The best thing to do is to create a similar website to patrick.net, but dedicate it to politics and keep this original patrick.net website committed to it's original intent, RE.

Patrick,

I saw this discussion, read it all, and just want to implore you to keep doing what you're doing exactly as you've been doing it. Please don't censor yourself or be influenced by the original poster's request to bias the site one way or the other. I love that you take free speech seriously and let everyone talk, but I hope you ignore the people who want your site to reflect their biases, too. They can get their own site. This is your site. The outside room may help mitigate posters acting like congresspeople, but I hope your front page link quality stays right where it is. I know you go find these links yourself and this site takes a good deal of time and thoughtfulness to put together, and I've appreciated it for years.

I've been reading your site for years and have really loved the infographics and quantitative analyses I find daily. On fora, I never know what interests may be astroturfing, but I have come to trust that you're not. I've appreciated the way you haven't caved to animated ads and I realize that may hurt in revenue. I know you don't need to be told this but you're doing this right. Thank you. Please stay the course. All the people here are here because of what you've accomplished as a communicator--not because you acted the way they wanted you to act or communicated the messages they wished you'd communicate.

ashkon says

This was one site that I thought was a great resource for information unbiased by to politics.

Pretty much all his housing articles and info. have nothing to do with politics. The forums themselves have lots of political discussions in them but that is true everywhere you go.

I agree with everything everyone says since my original post.

But, I still suggest specializing in an area and sticking with it, identifying yourself to that one subject. Gradually, over many years of dedication to that subject, you will be the primary source of information in that area. Think of the influence you would have on public opinion then!

Your name would be synonymous to quality information about about RE, and other relevant topics.

You could also have a 2nd website that, again, specializes in a niche orientation, which would then develop to become synonymous with good pure political information, regarding either side of politics.

That is if efficacy is of any importance.

tts says

ashkon says

This was one site that I thought was a great resource for information unbiased by to politics.

Pretty much all his housing articles and info. have nothing to do with politics. The forums themselves have lots of political discussions in them but that is true everywhere you go.

ashkon says

I still suggest specializing in an area and sticking with it

For me, the value of the site has been Patrick's identification of facts about the real estate market. Starting quite a few years ago I was skeptical (as evidently was Patrick and others) about the information being provided by the mediastream media and even from "official" sources. Especially at the time, I suspected that the MSM was merely parroting cherry-picked "facts" offered up by such organizations as the NAR, and that the MSM was not doing much fact checking much less true investigative journalism. In the beginning, Patrick's job was difficult as there seemed to be a lot of spin from the NAR and others, but occasionally there was an underlying data point that suggested that some of the information was spin. I appreciated Patrick's occasional reasoned arguments, but it was the identification of facts that was the important part for me. Back then, there was little "politics" or ideology on the main part of the site.

So where to from here? There are several other areas that I am skeptical that I'm getting the full factual picture from the mainstream media. Perhaps, Patrick, you'd be interested in broadening to one or more of these other areas:

1. The Dollar. Like the supply and demand for RE, it's difficult to get an accurate picture of the supply and demand for the U.S. Dollar. What exactly is the Fed doing? How does that interact with the U.S. Treasury? How does that impact taxpayers? What's the interaction with foreign currencies? What "games" are Wall Street and others up to. Lots of other *factual* questions.
2. Healthcare. Where does the money go? What percentage of the money "in" goes to doctors? How much do they pay for malpractice insurance? Why when I go to a doctor can't (really!) the providers tell me in advance how much the services will cost including what my insurance company will have to pay, as opposed to just my co-pay. In this regard, why is it so unlike any other product or service I buy. For medicare and medicaid, what percentage of the money "in" goes to doctors. Do people in Canada and the U.K. really have it "better?" Do many Canadians really come to the U.S. for medical services when they can? Do others worldwide?
3. Entitlement programs. Lots of factual questions here.
4. Unions. How much are union members paid? What do their pensions look like? For that matter, are the MSM numbers of median household income accurate? I read those numbers now and think of similar data that used to be provided for RE. Is there really a difference between states that have right-to-work laws and those that don't?
5. Individual vs. Government Activities and Rights. Lots of factual questions here. E.g. can individuals and small businesses really do a better more efficient job than large corporations or the government? In the short term? In the long term? Comparing countries, what are the quality of life differences? Is that a factor in immigration/emigration?
Etc.
Etc.

This is the type of information that I would find useful.

Perhaps We Agree says

o where to from here? There are several other areas that I am skeptical that I'm getting the full factual picture from the mainstream media. Perhaps, Patrick, you'd be interested in broadening to one or more of these other areas:

1. The Dollar. Like the supply and demand for RE, it's difficult to get an accurate picture of the supply and demand for the U.S. Dollar. What exactly is the Fed doing? How does that interact with the U.S. Treasury? How does that impact taxpayers? What's the interaction with foreign currencies? What "games" are Wall Street and others up to. Lots of other *factual* questions.
[2-5 omitted]

So basically your solution to get the politics off the site is to add more political subjects? That seems highly disingenuous. Your questions have an ideological slant.

LarryPatrickMaloney says

I've been a fan of patrick.net, since 2006 or 2007? The early days.

I thought patrick.net's been around since 2005. I could be thinking of the housing bubble blog, though. That's been around since 2004. Either way though, you're comment makes me feel old. 2004 doesn't seem that long ago. Damn it, the 1990s don't seem that long ago.

LarryPatrickMaloney says

Every day, it's 70-80% of left leaning, political rhetoric.

If this site seems left leaning to you, it might be that you are tilted to the right. Try standing straight.

I know what leftist politics sounds like. And I haven't heard any communists or smelly hippies -- and I hate hippies like Eric Cartman does. But if you think that watching PBS and reading newspapers and nonfictional books is "left leaning", then well what can we do?

LarryPatrickMaloney says

I have seen a tragic downturn in the quantity, and quality of real estate postings over the past few months.

The housing bubble is continually deflating. As such its getting less news coverage as time goes on. It still gets a lot of press, but not like in 2007. As the housing bubble deflates to nothing, this site has been moving into other, but related, areas such as politics and economics in general. This is a good thing because it means that this site will survive past the housing burst. It's called "patrick.net", not "housingbubbleblog.org" so there's no reason it must die with the end of the bust.

My dirty secret (shhhh) is that I'm actually quite the little capitalist, but little capitalists like me and you have no chance against the big ones who defeat the free market every day and get bailouts when they fail in their rigged market anyway. Their secret? Lobbyists!

Likewise. I'm a capitalist, not a corporatist as Ron Paul would say. I believe in the free market, but my definition of the free market is the common-sense one. A free market is one that is not ridged by anyone. I.e., the market itself is free, not necessarily the players in it. I don't care who ridges the market, government or corporations, the result is the same. A ridged market is grossly inefficient and stifles innovation. It is the greatest evil in our economy.

LarryPatrickMaloney says

The true populist road, leads back to the constitution, and people like Ron Paul.

Please don't insult Ron Paul by calling him a populist. He's a libertarian. To a large extent, so am I except that I believe in game theory and the concept of public property. So I call myself a "rationalist" instead. But there is a lot of overlap between my politics and Libertarianism. Populism is completely incompatible with Libertarianism though.

Also, if you take the extreme left and the extreme right and bend the graph around a circle (like the hue dimension of the HSB space), you'll see that the extreme left and extreme right are closer to each other than either is the center. Nazism and communism, although supposed opposites, have much in common when put in practice. Neither can tolerate questioning of their ideas.

In contrast, most American are close to the center but those in the right extreme now view the center as if it were leftist because they themselves have moved so far to the right.

Hey Patrick, Bug report

If I enter an image tag like <image src="..."/> instead of <image src="..."> then the src attribute is dropped on submission.

I frequently make this mistake because I have such a strong preference for XHMTL strict over HTML. I have to keep forcing myself to drop the ending slash.

Dan8267 says

you'll see that the extreme left and extreme right are closer to each other than either is the center

Exactly. In some ways, this is why the Teabaggers are far more like Occupy Wall Street than either will admit.

But it's also a great example of something else I said -- Ron Paul is more libertarian, but is also more right on many issues than most Republicans.

Dan8267 says

I believe in the free market, but my definition of the free market is the common-sense one. A free market is one that is not ridged by anyone. I.e., the market itself is free, not necessarily the players in it. I don't care who ridges the market, government or corporations, the result is the same. A ridged market is grossly inefficient and stifles innovation. It is the greatest evil in our economy.

This is one of those things a lot of libertarian types screw up. The question is how do you make a "free market"? Libertarians NEVER have an answer to this. They just say "well, if you would open your mind and embrace our philosophy, it would just happen." It's bullshit.

A " free market" can mean different things to different people. To some libertarians, it essentially means anarcho-capitalism (no regulation whatsoever), but that's basically feudalism and leads to monopolies and oligopolies. On the other side, people say government also creates monopolies and oligopolies.

That means the real answer is likely somewhere in the middle. Even the Heritage Foundation acknowledges this by having a multi-part test for free markets:
http://www.heritage.org/Index/ranking
http://www.heritage.org/Index/explore

Some amount of government regulation is required to ensure that markets are free. For example, the government sometimes must engage in anti-trust action, which anarcho-capitalism necessarily creates. The government must also use the rule of law to prevent mafias and gangs that would result under anarcho-capitalism. The government can create distortions, but the government can also repair distortions that anarcho-capitalism creates.

Dan8267 says

Hey Patrick, Bug report

If I enter an image tag like instead of then the src attribute is dropped on submission.

I frequently make this mistake because I have such a strong preference for XHMTL strict over HTML. I have to keep forcing myself to drop the ending slash.

Thanks for telling me!

You can actually just enter the image url without any tag, and as long as the URL starts with http: and ends with one of gif|jpg|jpeg|png|bmp then the tag will be put in automatically and it will show up as an image.

You could also use the "Upload Image" function, which should be pretty easy.

I definitely need some better way to let people edit than typing in HTML, but it never makes it to the top of things that need to be done.

In a way, what we all clamor for is objectivity. I think that, since the country has been dominated by right-wing rhetoric and economic philosophy (and convinced that it works, despite the evidence to the contrary) it's difficult to settle on what objective really means.

Elsewhere, we mentioned the Laffer curve. If one can objectively view the curve as highlighting that there is a point at which taxation becomes self-defeating (taxing at 100% is a given) or too low to support Government services (0% here) then objectively we can determine that the correct amount is somewhere in between.

The Right infers that we are taxed too heavily, no matter where we are at on that curve which is objectively false. Can the Right be rational enough to admit this obvious fact?

Conversely, I don't believe that the Left inherently believes in dogma regarding taxation. If we could have a magic fairy wand that produces revenue without taxation, the Democrats would support that as well (if for not other reason, to secure their place with wealthy donors) As of now, that magic only exists on the right---which makes the Democrats the de facto "tax and spend" party.

This is just one example of where there is little room for discussion with the republican right. There is no tax rate low enough to be deemed too low, and that's not math or economics--it's ideological fantasy.

So, what should objective Patrick do? To "compromise" would inherently mean agreeing with their dogma that we're on the other side of the curve than reality dictates.

If corporate tax rates were objectively too high, I'd support lowering them. If income taxes were too high, I'd say to lower them as well. I'm not opposed to temporary tax cuts to stave off the depression.

Would the Right ever agree to a tax increase---even a modest one? Even if the goal was to stop a meltdown?

How can you work together when one participant denies the very framework within which we argue?

I can testify that this site appears to be partially designed to persuade the general public to sympathize with the Third Way party, also known as communitarianism (first documented in the UN's own literature). It's Fabian socialism, with a UN Agenda 21 focus. This party is neither left or right, as there are factions on both sides that are aligned with it. Niki Raapana has documented and researched the Third Way party extensively.

The goal of this party is to establish social, religious, economic, political, consumption and agricultural changes worldwide, on behalf of the central bankers who are financially supporting this (they also originally created it).

This post will be sure to either be banned outright, or vehemently attacked for telling the truth. The Fabian socialists believe that the ends justify the means -- lying, ridicule, and manipulation are typical methods to achieve what they believe are truly worthy goals.

That these goals were outlined and are financially backed by unelected central bankers does not appear to phase them in any way.