patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

The perfect example is right here on these boards where many voters voted for Obama because of his opposition to the Patriot Act, Gitmo and American boots on foreign lands. After coming to power Obama realized his intentions are just not feasible, leaving a very disappointed voter in its wake.

And STILL defend him even AFTER he failed to deliver on virtually every promise he made while campaigning..

That's a sign of a die hard party supporter. Works for repub too.
That's why I like being an independent. I can go by the issues and not by political affiliations.

Call it Crazy says

Because midterm elections are more a referendum on the White House occupant than anything else

Cook can be foolish sometimes. If Midterms are referendums on the White House occupant, then wouldn't it stand to reason that Americans NEVER approve of the resident in the Whitehouse--the one they just elected or re-elected?

If I recall, when Clinton and the Ds gained seats in 1998 it was the first time that had occurred since FDR. Of course, he was also the first Democrat re-elected since FDR too. We could just as easily posit that 2nd term midterms always go the opposite of the President's party, unless it's a Democrat.

The sun rising is a referendum on Obama.

Call it Crazy says

I think what they were getting at is that only the informed people or pissed off people are the ones who turn out for midterms... I suspect it's more the pissed off ones who are unhappy with the direction of the previous 2 years, which is why you get the change of parties...

The bulk of the voting "sheep" could care less for midterms, as long as they have the newest iThingy....

I went to school on that post

indigenous says

Reducing welfare - F sort of depends on what you classify as welfare, LOTS more people getting government handouts of one type or another, the man is a walking disaster.

I carefully explained this before. The growth in welfare recipients is primarily a cause and effect of an economy that shifted from solid, middle class jobs at factories and entry level white collar jobs to jobs at big box stores and fast food chains- the largest employers of Americans at this point. As seen these companies pay so little that a huge percentage of those workers are on welfare by necessity.

So ask yourselves: Which party has been against raising the minimum wage steadfast from day one? There you go... blame the President and "Lefties" all you want. The real reason is exactly as I mentioned above.

edvard2 says

I carefully explained this before.

No matter how carefully you explain it, does not make it correct. You mutts want a sound byte explanation, unfortunately there are a more moving parts than that.

It has to do with advances in technology, demographics, mercantilism, and most of all not allowing the market to clear. (this includes welfare at both ends of the spectrum)

Well, one thing you can safely say about Obama and his legacy, it's all his fault.

Ceffer says

Well, one thing you can safely say about Obama and his legacy, it's all his fault.

That is not what Obama says?

edvard2 says

indigenous says

Reducing welfare - F sort of depends on what you classify as welfare, LOTS more people getting government handouts of one type or another, the man is a walking disaster.

I carefully explained this before. The growth in welfare recipients is primarily a cause and effect of an economy that shifted from solid, middle class jobs at factories and entry level white collar jobs to jobs at big box stores and fast food chains- the largest employers of Americans at this point. As seen these companies pay so little that a huge percentage of those workers are on welfare by necessity.

So ask yourselves: Which party has been against raising the minimum wage steadfast from day one? There you go... blame the President and "Lefties" all you want. The real reason is exactly as I mentioned above.

What's wrong with allowing costs of living, to realign with wages? Why are demsheep so hell bent on keeping everything so expensive? A simpler solution would be to allow housing costs to find their level, rather than subsidizing landlords and exhorbitant rents. Everyone knows that any raise in minimum wage will be instantly swallowed by rising rents

errc says

What's wrong with allowing costs of living, to realign with wages? Why are demsheep so hell bent on keeping everything so expensive? A simpler solution would be to allow housing costs to find their level, rather than subsidizing landlords and exhorbitant rents. Everyone knows that any raise in minimum wage will be instantly swallowed by rising rents

Nothing wrong, except It needs to be done at the individual level called "living within your means"
We need to realize money is limited, we can't have everything in life.

errc says

Why are demsheep so hell bent on keeping everything so expensive?

Who are "dem sheep" ???

Strategist says

We need to realize money is limited, we can't have everything in life.

... Says the guy who thinks his house value should go up 50% just because it's there.

indigenous says

No matter how carefully you explain it, does not make it correct. You mutts want a sound byte explanation, unfortunately there are a more moving parts than that.

It has to do with advances in technology, demographics, mercantilism, and most of all not allowing the market to clear. (this includes welfare at both ends of the spectrum)

I didn't even have to "carefully" explain it. Its super easy to see where that conclusion came from. So if you want to spend 2 seconds, look up what the largest employers in the country are. Then after that look at what those companies pay and how little they provide in profits and wages. Then look up the percentage of those employees on welfare. Great. Big. Duh.errc says

What's wrong with allowing costs of living, to realign with wages? Why are demsheep so hell bent on keeping everything so expensive

Why is the GOP and their eager and loyal subjects so hell-bent on racing to the bottom? Why is is that any and all suggestions made in which to perhaps improve the situation for the working, middle, and even the wealth classes are instantly berrated by the GOP with their bullshit reasons- that everything will get more expensive? So the answer is to keep everyone on such low wages they have to accept welfare? I mean- if this supposed Conservative utopia is all about keeping wages low and the populace impoverished then maybe they should go live in X number of 3rd world countries where people are really poor. Maybe then they would be realllly happy...

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

We need to realize money is limited, we can't have everything in life.

... Says the guy who thinks his house value should go up 50% just because it's there.

Because it's undervalued. Just ask the Chinese.

Strategist says

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

We need to realize money is limited, we can't have everything in life.

... Says the guy who thinks his house value should go up 50% just because it's there.

Because it's undervalued. Just ask the Chinese.

You say "It needs to be done at the individual level called "living within your means""

Except you support policies that are guarantied to get the opposite results.

Chinese people bringing large sums in the US leads to higher dollar/yuan and bigger trade deficit with China, through less savings in the US.

Bigger mortgages is the opposite of living within your means.

edvard2 says

I didn't even have to "carefully" explain it. Its super easy to see where that conclusion came from. So if you want to spend 2 seconds, look up what the largest employers in the country are. Then after that look at what those companies pay and how little they provide in profits and wages. Then look up the percentage of those employees on welfare. Great. Big. Duh.

A mere symptom

edvard2 says

Why is the GOP and their eager and loyal subjects so hell-bent on racing to the bottom? Why is is that any and all suggestions made in which to perhaps improve the situation for the working, middle, and even the wealth classes are instantly berrated by the GOP with their bullshit reasons- that everything will get more expensive? So the answer is to keep everyone on such low wages they have to accept welfare? I mean- if this supposed Conservative utopia is all about keeping wages low and the populace impoverished then maybe they should go live in X number of 3rd world countries where people are really poor. Maybe then they would be realllly happy...

It just is NOT the way the economy works, I'm not stating opinions just the facts.

indigenous says

It just is NOT the way the economy works, I'm not stating opinions just the facts.

Yup, hate to burst yer bubble, but I've pretty much easily and handily explained how the economy works. In reality you should be thanking me for helping you understand that economics as viewed through the glasses of your typical GOP cheerleader isn't all that it was cracked up to be. If anything, the GOP's keen ability to continually wreck the economy should be clear evidence enough of this.

But in any regard I will take your short answers as a sign that you don't have anything meaningful to add to the debate seeing as how I already more or less settled it anyway. But thanks for trying.

I think moderation in structuring society is the key. For example, pushing wages down combined with outlawing abortion will result in slums that resemble those of san paolo, brazil. On the other hand, I also don't agree with what they do in norway with their 385 euro annual household de facto tax to own a television that is used to fund public broadcasting.

Heraclitusstudent says

You say "It needs to be done at the individual level called "living within your means""

I sure do.

Heraclitusstudent says

Except you support policies that are guarantied to get the opposite results.

Chinese people bringing large sums in the US leads to higher dollar/yuan and bigger trade deficit with China, through less savings in the US.

What are you talking about. That's our dollars coming back home. You purchased made in China crap with US dollars didn't you?

Heraclitusstudent says

Bigger mortgages is the opposite of living within your means.

Please refer back to the first sentence above.

Strategist says

That's our dollars coming back home. You purchased made in China crap with US dollars didn't you?

Yup, but I'm also a big saver.

Chinese buying assets mean there is a change in net foreign assets between the US and China. This can happen only if, outside of these real-estate transactions, the US are running an account deficit with China, meaning the US consume more than they produce.
i.e. In other words the US don't save, and sell real-estate to finance their way of life.

Did you say you studied economics?

Strategist says

Heraclitusstudent says

Bigger mortgages is the opposite of living within your means.

Please refer back to the first sentence above.

The current account is also the sum of accounts in the economy. If a lot of people take a big mortgage, that pushes down the national account.

This is the opposite of "living within one means".

Heraclitusstudent says

This can happen only if, outside of these real-estate transactions, the US are running an account deficit with China, meaning the US consume more than they produce.

Not necessarily, eg. 1
We buy $1 million worth of red wine from France.
France buys $1 million worth of toys from China.
China buys $1million worth of American property.
Because international trade takes place with US dollars, that money can come from anywhere. We do not NEED to have a current account deficit with the Chinese.

eg 2.
We do not have a current account surplus with China, yet an American can go to Shanghai and buy an apartment there. We do not need a surplus to buy their property, and they have, but don't need to have, a current account surplus with us to buy American property.

Heraclitusstudent says

meaning the US consume more than they produce.

i.e. In other words the US don't save, and sell real-estate to finance their way of life.

And even more Treasury Bonds.
Us Americans don't know how to save. We are spoilt rotten. :(

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

Heraclitusstudent says

Bigger mortgages is the opposite of living within your means.

Please refer back to the first sentence above.

The current account is also the sum of accounts in the economy. If a lot of people take a big mortgage, that pushes down the national account.

This is the opposite of "living within one means".

Man, you confuse the heck out of me.

Strategist says

that money can come from anywhere. We do not NEED to have a current account deficit with the Chinese.

Humm... If these are Chinese buyers by definition the money comes from China.

A current account deficit with China by itself doesn't prove the US doesn't have a larger overall surplus with the rest of the world, unfortunately I doubt the US balance of accounts with the rest of the world looks much better than that with China.

Strategist says

they have, but don't need to have, a current account surplus with us to buy American property.

While individuals can do whatever, in aggregate if Chinese are buying US assets, it means these dollars are coming from somewhere.

Yeah... maybe Americans are buying Chinese assets en-masse, or the Chinese are selling other US assets, but to be practical: we know where these dollars are coming from: trade.
i.e. Americans consuming more than they produce.

edvard2 says

But in any regard I will take your short answers as a sign that you don't have anything meaningful to add to the debate seeing as how I already more or less settled it anyway. But thanks for trying.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with D or R it is just basic economics, no matter what the policy is.