patrick.net

Troy says

What I actually think, and I apologize if I can’t word it clearly enough for you to understand, is that he has to cater to the pro-military sentiment in military states like FL (much Navy presence), NC (XVIII Airborne), VA (Navy/Marines), CO (Air Force) .

If it isn't because of POLITICS, please explain in detail why Obama has "to cater to the pro-military sentiment in military states like FL ... NC ... VA ... CO???"

Troy says

Why should these people give him a chance? They oppose his policy preferences with every fiber of their being.

Why exactly does Obama, who controls the House & Senate, need the (your words) "40% nut ball right?"

RayAmerica says

Troy says

What I actually think, and I apologize if I can’t word it clearly enough for you to understand, is that he has to cater to the pro-military sentiment in military states like FL (much Navy presence), NC (XVIII Airborne), VA (Navy/Marines), CO (Air Force) .

If it isn’t because of POLITICS, please explain in detail why Obama has “to cater to the pro-military sentiment in military states like FL … NC … VA … CO???”

It's politics, but not politics "playing with soldiers' lives". Obama was elected on expanding our military's mission in Afghanistan. That's what our military wants, they don't want to be stabbed in the back again like what Nixon and Kissinger did to them in 1972.

The politics of this situation is simply a sizable portion of this country wants to see our present nation-building commitment to Afghanistan continued. That's not "playing with soldiers lives", that's just national security policy.

The politics emerges from the fact that the anti-war left has nowhere else to go on the national level. They can either support the moderate course in Afghanistan or see somebody like Palin take over.

RayAmerica says

Why exactly does Obama, who controls the House & Senate, need the (your words) “40% nut ball right?”

I thought I addressed this above:

Obama doesn’t have a chance with the 40% nutball right, but he does have to rely on keeping the very pro-military states

Obama's strategy, AFAICT, is to be a better (moderate) Republican than Republicans in areas he can. This is similar if not identical to the Clinton strategy of triangulation on the 90s Republicans.

If you are a moderate Republican who is getting shit done, then the real Republicans are forced further to the right, which normally marginalizes them by repelling the moderate center of this country (who are largely "low information" voters who can't find their ass with a map).

nice

Troy says

The politics of this situation is simply a sizable portion of this country wants to see our present nation-building commitment to Afghanistan continued.

What source do you have to back up this claim? One other question; when did we become a democracy? I thought we were a representative republic. I didn't know the President needed a plebiscite from the people in order to act on any issue. He certainly didn't get one when he rammed ObamaCare down our collective throats.

RayAmerica says

Troy says

Why should these people give him a chance? They oppose his policy preferences with every fiber of their being.

Why exactly does Obama, who controls the House & Senate, need the (your words) “40% nut ball right?”

Controls the house and senate? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

If Obama actually controlled the house and senate, we'd probably have single payer health care and the wars would be over already.

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

Where have you been the last 2 years?

wait .. if Barry made gold rain from the sky that would make gold worth zero. The .... same ... way ... he .... has .... done.... with .... the ... dollars.... he ... made.... as..... plentifull .... as ...... rain.

and now we shall sing .... "If allll the rain drops were lemon drops and gum drops, OH what world this would beeee ...... standing outside with my mouth open wide ... aht ah aht aht ah aht aht aht ah aht aht ..." (if you got kids that watched Barney, you know you are singing now )

Kevin says

f Obama actually controlled the house and senate, we’d probably have single payer health care and the wars would be over already.

cough^cough^cop-out^cough^cough

Bap33 says

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

Then how come when I went to buy shoes at DSW, it seems like I get more shoes for my dollars than I did ten or twenty years ago ?

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.

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

Oh, and also, my landlord lowered my rent 60$. He was raising it until 2007 or 2008. I was really pissed about the last couple increases after the crash started. So how does that work ? Dollar is worthless, but my rent is actually decreasing ?

RE:Shoes
Maybe it's because we now have China and Mexico are building your shoes and getting them here cheaply, in part due to NAFTA and off-shore exodus to avoid minimum wages and taxation that supports welfare? I'm only guessing.

My workboots have went up from $19 in 1988 to $40 today. Same basic design over the years, from K-mart. They live about 6months to 1 year and need replacing. I have no complaints. I tried an expensive pair of RedWings. They did live longer (finally just stunk so bad I tossed them), but they cost $100+, were not the right color of yellow/brown that I like to wear, and the sole pattern was too agressive so it carried rocks into my pickup. Hate that.

Yes, correct except..

Bap33 says

exodus to avoid minimum wages and taxation that supports welfare

Our standard of living is way higher here. I know you don't think that if we didn't have minimum wage that there would be people here that would work in shoe factories for $170/month ? OH wait, if we didn't have our taxes or welfare, then we would have people here that would work in factories for $170/month?

I guess it's the fault of liberal policies that we are so much richer than china per capita that for them a step up economically is below the pay of our lettuce pickers. Capitalism is the best economic model, but not on a global scale, that doesn't work?

By the way, as has been discussed much here lately, it's our military that costs us, not welfare. That's the true reason that our government can't provide us with the same kinds of government services that other developed nations receive.

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.