You guys spend way more time analyzing Palin, than you ever have examining the Democrats (party in power). Why is that?

His name is George Soros! Though I’m sure Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright have some degree of input.

Glynnis, I don’t know where you’ve been for the past DECADE, but…

If there is one thing that we have learned throughout the entire span of human civilization, it is this:

If someone says they going to kill the Jews, you gotta believe ‘em

Iran said they want to wipe Israel off the map. If the leader of the Iran says that…why can’t Liberals believe he means it?

Watching the effect that Palin has on deranged liberal woman like Glynnis offers much amusement!

exiledtruther said:
His name is George Soros! Though I’m sure Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright have some degree of input.

I suggest you be more concerned with this woman who seems to be increasingly unstable and erratic as he “dislike” numbers seem to be growing into a critical mass. My concern is no longer that she might threaten our nation, but rather than as she pulls the wagon into a tighter and tighter circle her smaller band of nincompoop believers will also become more and more erratic. That seems to be happening.

You no we had an election in 2008 which vetted the Ayres, Wright and Soros issues. It’s time to shut up about them, Michelle-in-Utah. You lost. Story over. Whines are superfluous.

I thought the 2008 election also vetted the Drop Out Governor of Alaska who cost the Republican ticket Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana and a couple of percentage points in the popular voting. Your insane screams seem to have drown that out. Fortunately, the ever self-destructive lunatic has reminded us all of why she was so resolutely rejected. Be mindful of that. DOGA is now beyond redemption. Save yourself before you start howling at the moon as well.

exiledtruther said:
Watching the effect that Palin has on deranged liberal woman like Glynnis offers much amusement!

How very 2007-2008, Michelle-in-Utah. Come on aboard, the train is pulling out and gaining speed. Drop the luggage. It’s not as important as catching the train.

exiledtruther said:
Watching the effect that Palin has on deranged liberal woman like Glynnis offers much amusement!

I have to say, Glynnis, Michelle-in-Utah really had to stretch to get that slur out. You should give her extra credit.

NO ONE bettered interfere with my right to kill my baby, least of all some hick that chose to have her son with Downs Syndrome.

ps, King it’s KNOW, not NO. Man having been an English professor, you’d think you would KNOW that.

exiledtruther said:
NO ONE bettered interfere with my right to kill my baby, least of all some hick that chose to have her son with Downs Syndrome. ps, King it’s KNOW, not NO. Man having been an English professor, you’d think you would KNOW that.

Boy, you got me on that typo, Michelle-in-Utah. Thanks and congratulations. Sorry all.

I don’t understand your first paragraph. Just gratuitous bitterness?

Yep. Instead of worrying about the guy actually in office, let’s worry about a woman with very little popularity who has no chance of ever winning public office. Makes much more sense.

Antony Dupuy said:
If there is one thing that we have learned throughout the entire span of human civilization, it is this:
If someone says they are going to kill the Jews, you gotta believe ‘em

There is no logical, rational, or realistic argument to this point.

writer said:
Yep. Instead of worrying about the guy actually in office, let’s worry about a woman with very little popularity who has no chance of ever winning public office. Makes much more sense.

Just more lefty obfuscation. Part of the playbook, “pay no attention to the impending disaster, pay attention to what I tell you”.

Andy Lamb said:
There is no logical, rational, or realistic argument to this point.

Yeah, you’re right. Nobody ever really persecuted the Jews.

/sarc

Latin2 said:
Iran said they want to wipe Israel off the map. If the leader of the Iran says that…why can’t Liberals believe he means it?

Half-governor Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska. If the leader of Alaska says that…. why can’t Liberals believe she means it?

Poor Glynnis, she has gone off the deep end. There is nothing controversial in these remarks by Palin.
You have to look at the brain of someone that thinks they are.

The polls that claim that Palin is very unpopular are phony.
Palin has shown over and over that she is far smarter than Glynnis and all the other left-wing femi-Nazis.

Marla Louise said:
Half-governor Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska. If the leader of Alaska says that…. why can’t Liberals believe she means it?

Do you know that you can see Russia from Alaska? Amazing that you find something wrong with that statement. Can you see those guys in the white coats coming for you from your house?

What??? Sarah Palin isn’t liked by the majority of American people???? I am shocked, shocked I tell you! Seriously all Democrats hope that this woman stays in the public eye, like she is currently. She is the best motivator to get out the Dem vote, much better than anyone in the Democratic Party. Keep up the great work Sister Sarah!

gordonbloyershow said:
Do you know that you can see Russia from Alaska? Amazing that you find something wrong with that statement. Can you see those guys in the white coats coming for you from your house?

As a proud resident of the People’s Republic of Austin, I can attest that I can see Texas in all directions. I don’t find what DOGA said in the least implausible.

From the Alaskan island of Little Diomede, you can see the Russian island of Big Diomede.

hahahahahaha, Palin calling somebody naive and stubborn? The woman who doesn’t know jack sh*t about the Korean war? The woman who constantly berates the “media” everytime she does something stupid? Somebody’s pulling HIS strings, pretty funny words coming from Pinocchio himself. The only reason Palin isn’t as moronic as she was 2 years ago is because somebody is “pulling her strings”.

Repubs— Please please please nominate Sarah Palin! She would be the right’s equivalent of George McGovern.

How to guarantee a 2nd Obama term? See “Palin, Sarah”

The media love(d) Obama and it destroyed them and him. Is it Obama alone that has the Democrats in so much trouble politically? Hardly. It is the efforts by the media to wash him clean and prop up the sham (s).

You did this to yourselves. So, no, it isn’t George Soros that is the puppetmaster. It was you, the media. And it is over. Not even George Soros cash can save you.

Also, was it determined if George Soros campaign funding considered foreign or domestic? Obama said foreign cash was bad. Is Soros an American Citizen?

Latin2 said:
Iran said they want to wipe Israel off the map. If the leader of the Iran says that…why can’t Liberals believe he means it?

OK, I got the flippant answer off my chest. Let me try to answer your question as a real question.

First, I would point out that it is not a matter of Liberals not believing something and non-Liberals believing someone else. You have a mix of leaders from left to right that evaluate those statement at many different levels.

Second, the country of Iran has never said anything like this (countries say things very infrequently, and then through a lot of diplomatic double talk). Instead, it has been said by Iranian politicians. Now I’m sure you don’t believe everything that American politicians say, nor do you think every statement made by American politicians (especially ‘liberal’ politicians) represents the policies of the United States. In addition, politicians, Iranian or American, like to be bombastic for their electorate. I think we both agree that one must take political statements with huge grains of salt. So I must ask why do you think anyone should categorically believe every statement made by an Iranian politician, and think such statements represents his countries policies?

It’s almost as if you with your question you are implying conservative politicians can only process international relationships at the simplest, most superficial level. Personally, I think you are wrong. Our conservative leaders are just as capable of understanding this complexity as our liberal leaders.

Does this mean that I do not think Iran is not a threat to world stability? Of course not! I’m just saying it’s much more complex than the simple evaluation you made.

Glynnis, you can retract your claws now.

writer said:
From the Alaskan island of Little Diomede, you can see the Russian island of Big Diomede.

Sort of like seeing Kansas City, Kansas, from Kansas City, Missouri, or Nuevo Laredo, Tamulipas, Republic of México, from Laredo, Texas, USA? Is that what you’re suggesting, Kumquat?

That explains so muy.

But King, the Diomede islands are only two miles apart. It’s a geographic fact. If you choose to find something funny in it, be my guest.

VRWC Destruction Machine said:
Glynnis, you can retract your claws now.

attack the messenger

Marla Louise said:
Half-governor Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska. If the leader of Alaska says that…. why can’t Liberals believe she means it?

Look where the 50% US Senator got us. Obama probably thought moving into the White House would allow him on the job training and he would get a neat paper hat.

Please. Someone was pulling Sarah Palin’s strings during 2008 campaign.

Funny how unhinged she’s become now that she doesn’t have someone controlling her every word.

mibwilso said:
Please. Someone was pulling Sarah Palin’s strings during 2008 campaign.

Funny how unhinged she’s become now that she doesn’t have someone controlling her every word.

Somebody still IS!!

VRWC Destruction Machine said:
Look where the 50% US Senator got us. Obama probably thought moving into the White House would allow him on the job training and he would get a neat paper hat.

That 50% senator didn’t quit because the pressure got to him.

Good news: this website (======= w w w – ashionshops – u s =======) we has been updated and add products and many things they abandoned their increases are welcome to visit our website. Accept cash or credit card payments, free transport. You can try oh, will make you satisfied.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
attack the messenger

It’s more like make fun of the messenger.

America’s worst nightmare –

Election 2012
Republican nominee for President – Sarah Palin
Democratic nominee for President – Barack Obama

The extreme left squares off against the extreme right. A sensible, moderate 3rd party candidate would pose a serious threat to win. I see it as extremely unlikely that Palin ends up as the GOP nominee, whether she runs or not.

gordonbloyershow said:
Do you know that you can see Russia from Alaska? Amazing that you find something wrong with that statement. Can you see those guys in the white coats coming for you from your house?

From your other postings, it seems you do not believe anything said by our President and most American leaders and politicians.

From this post, it seems you do believe everything said by Iranian leaders and politicians.

What exactly does that say about you? Do you really have more respect for a Theocracy than a Democracy?

Marla

VRWC Destruction Machine said:
It’s more like make fun of the messenger.

Because you can’t combat the actual substance of the article

Andy Lamb said:
America’s worst nightmare –

Election 2012
Republican nominee for President – Sarah Palin
Democratic nominee for President – Barack Obama

The extreme left squares off against the extreme right. A sensible, moderate 3rd party candidate would pose a serious threat to win. I see it as extremely unlikely that Palin ends up as the GOP nominee, whether she runs or not.

Please explain to me how Obama is extreme left because so far no conservative has been able to do so. And I implore you not to use the “takeover of the auto industry” excuse.

Andy Lamb said:
America’s worst nightmare –

Election 2012
Republican nominee for President – Sarah Palin
Democratic nominee for President – Barack Obama

The extreme left squares off against the extreme right. A sensible, moderate 3rd party candidate would pose a serious threat to win. I see it as extremely unlikely that Palin ends up as the GOP nominee, whether she runs or not.

I do commend you though for at least acknowledging that Palin is a part of the extreme right.

I remember when Reagan was elected, the left went nuts, believing he was going to push the nuclear button, but in the case of a guy in Iran who’s _clearly_ insane, who has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, they poo-poo the idea as being paranoid. Why is that, Glynnis? I know you’re very young, but you presumably are college educated. Being the case, why do you refuse to see what’s right in front of your face, simply because a conservative said it?

Marla Louise said:
Half-governor Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska. If the leader of Alaska says that…. why can’t Liberals believe she means it?

Maybe you should spend less time getting your news from Saturday Night Live, and then you wouldn’t look like such a spaz.

If that woman chooses to run against Obama, the media will smear her like nothing you’ve ever seen.

I’m talking about Hillary Clinton.

writer said:
If that woman chooses to run against Obama, the media will smear her like nothing you’ve ever seen. I’m talking about Hillary Clinton.

That old canard again, Kumquat. Really, you ought to go back to roving gangs of African-Americans chasing you.

Hillary! was the annointed favorite of the media until her flawed strategy and her temper tantrum resulted in her implosion. Even you know that, Kumquat. And, your faux concern for Hillary! is simply shrill. You’d be whining about her is she had won.

No, no, King! I’m agreeing with Father Pfleger. That white woman has no business running. BTW, I see you got over your outrage against people who make light of other people being assaulted.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Please explain to me how Obama is extreme left because so far no conservative has been able to do so. And I implore you not to use the “takeover of the auto industry” excuse.

Each year, the National Journal rates US Senators conservative/liberal leanings based on their Senate voting records. In 2007, his last year as a US Senator, Obama was rated as the most liberal of all 100 US Senators – again, not based on opinion but based on voting record. Not surprisingly, Jim DeMint was rated as the most conservative, thus these two represent the most extreme liberal and conservative views of all Senators –

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm#results

Other facts – Obama joined a small, liberal bloc of Senators in 2005 to attempt to filibuster the nomination of Sam Alito to the US Supreme Court. To try to filibuster a nominee to the Supreme Court based only on ideology is an extreme move. Obama adamantly opposed the Welfare Reform Act passed in 1996 by WJ Clinton. Obama has spoken on many occasions about his vision for single payer, government run, one option health care in the US. This is not what was passed, or even what the initial health care legislation called for, but that is only because wholesale overhaul would never pass or work. Instead, a move toward single payer, government run, one option health care has to be done incrementally. Obama himself has said this, I have heard him say it in pre-2007 speeches. If you’d like, I can provide links to him saying it.

Obama’s position on Alito represented the extreme left view. His vision for welfare and health care represents the extreme left view. His voting record in the Senate represented the extreme left view. My comment on Obama was based on these facts.

Sarah, EVERYBODY answers to somebody. But ultimately each person answers to their inner self. Their worth and their purpose is not fashioned by men, but formed within. Maybe he answers to someone that you know little about. President Obama has a task, a mission, and playing favorites may be smart but not always wise. Who do you answer to Sarah?

qwjhejkqwe said:
Good news: this website (======= w w w – ashionshops – u s =======) we has been updated and add products and many things they abandoned their increases are welcome to visit our website. Accept cash or credit card payments, free transport. You can try oh, will make you satisfied.

What up , Q ? How you go ? No increases of product ? Free transport ? …You a smooth talker , Q .

President Obama issued a waiver loosening Tiananmen arms sanctions for C-130 military transports for China a day after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to an imprisoned Chinese dissident who dedicated the prize this past weekend to the victims of the 1989 crackdown.

Chinese state-run news media on Monday hailed the White House waiver announcement as a sign Washington is moving to lift the 11-year-old arms embargo…

“A very courageous Chinese citizen just received the Nobel Prize, and his wife has been placed under house arrest — announcing this waiver now makes a mockery of any administration pretense of supporting human rights, regardless of the expedient environmental fig-leaf justification,” Mr. Timperlake said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/11/obama-loosens-sanctions-on-c-130s-to-china/

Way to go asshole. And some people have the nerve to criticize Sarah Palin. Please.

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration gave corporate giant General Electric—the parent company of NBC–$24.9 million in grants from the $787-billion economic “stimulus” law President Barack Obama signed in February 2009, according to records posted by the administration at Recovery.gov.

Despite getting $24.9 million from U.S. taxpayers, GE decreased its U.S.-based employees by 18,000 in 2009, according to the company’s 2009 annual report.

According to Standard & Poor’s, GE took in $156 billion in revenue in 2009….

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-gave-general-electr

More wasted stimulus money.

I don’t necessarily believe she isn’t liked, just that people don’t see her as a viable candidate. I don’t dislike Obama as a person, but I sure dislike him as a President.

Marla Louise said:
Half-governor Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska. If the leader of Alaska says that…. why can’t Liberals believe she means it?

She never said “I can see Russia From Alaska”. Didn’t happen.
You’re a liar.

Big US cities could be squeezed by unfunded public pensions as they and counties face a $574 billion funding gap, a study to be released on Tuesday shows.
——————————————————————————–

The gap at the municipal level would be in addition to $3,000 billion in unfunded liabilities already estimated for state-run pensions, according to research from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and the University of Rochester.

“What is yet to be seen is how this burden will be distributed between state and local governments and whether the federal government will be called upon for bail-outs,” said Joshua Rauh of the Kellogg School.

The financial demands of unfunded pension promises come as state and local governments grapple with years of falling tax revenue related to the recession.

The combination has raised concern that defaults, which are historically rare in the $2,800 billion municipal bond market where local governments obtain money, could now rise.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39626759

What would Chairman Obamao do? Oh right. Funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into cities so that union members don’t lose their jobs. What a first rate idea!

Azarkhan said:
President Obama issued a waiver loosening Tiananmen arms sanctions for C-130 military transports for China a day after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to an imprisoned Chinese dissident who dedicated the prize this past weekend to the victims of the 1989 crackdown. Chinese state-run news media on Monday hailed the White House waiver announcement as a sign Washington is moving to lift the 11-year-old arms embargo… “A very courageous Chinese citizen just received the Nobel Prize, and his wife has been placed under house arrest — announcing this waiver now makes a mockery of any administration pretense of supporting human rights, regardless of the expedient environmental fig-leaf justification,” Mr. Timperlake said. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/11/obama-loosens-sanctions-on-c-130s-to-china/ Way to go asshole. And some people have the nerve to criticize Sarah Palin. Please.

From that article-

“China also set off alarms among governments in the region in August by announcing it has planted a Chinese flag on the floor of the South China Sea, using a mini-submarine”

I’m sorry, I know it’s a serious issue, but that just came off funny to me. It reminds me of Duck Dodgers and Marvin the Martian on Planet X.

Haimerej said:
a Chinese flag on the floor of the South China Sea

Actually the Chinese are deadly serious. They intend to establish hegemony in East Asia and the eastern Pacific and drive the US out. The goal is not only military superiority over the US, but to also get a grip on the natural resources in the area, specifically oil.

Azarkhan said:
Big US cities could be squeezed by unfunded public pensions as they and counties face a $574 billion funding gap, a study to be released on Tuesday shows.——————————————————————————– The gap at the municipal level would be in addition to $3,000 billion in unfunded liabilities already estimated for state-run pensions, according to research from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and the University of Rochester. “What is yet to be seen is how this burden will be distributed between state and local governments and whether the federal government will be called upon for bail-outs,” said Joshua Rauh of the Kellogg School. The financial demands of unfunded pension promises come as state and local governments grapple with years of falling tax revenue related to the recession. The combination has raised concern that defaults, which are historically rare in the $2,800 billion municipal bond market where local governments obtain money, could now rise. http://www.cnbc.com/id/39626759 What would Chairman Obamao do? Oh right. Funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into cities so that union members don’t lose their jobs. What a first rate idea!

Turn on the printing presses and prepare for inflation. That’s the only way out of all these unfunded pension liabilities if we’re not going to cut spending, which doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen.

Dave Richards said:
She never said “I can see Russia From Alaska”. Didn’t happen.
You’re a liar.

After Tina Fey used that in a SNL sketch, it’s amazing how many stupid libs ran with it. To this day, there are still political retards who think she actually said this, as Marla Louise clearly demonstrate.

Haimerej said:
Turn on the printing presses and prepare for inflation. That’s the only way out of all these unfunded pension liabilities if we’re not going to cut spending, which doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen.

Actually, there’s another way: WWIII. And with the economic / political landscape of the planet being what it is, don’t by surprised by anything.

Azarkhan said:
Actually the Chinese are deadly serious. They intend to establish hegemony in East Asia and the eastern Pacific and drive the US out. The goal is not only military superiority over the US, but to also get a grip on the natural resources in the area, specifically oil.

I know, which is why I felt a little bad about my comment. But judging from other threads, it seems there’s a lot of hostility on here this morning. I thought a little Looney Tunes reference might lighten the mood.

One of the points in that article, “We should not be encouraging the Chinese to have long-range air-lift capabilities for their military,” should be taken very seriously.

MOSCOW, Oct 10 (Reuters) – Russia will increase naval patrols in the Arctic Ocean to defend its interests against nations such as China seeking a share of the area’s mineral wealth, the navy commander was quoted as saying on Monday….

But in a rare public warning about China from Russia’s top military brass, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky warned that China had already joined the scramble for a piece of “the Arctic pie”.

“We are observing the penetration of a host of states which… are advancing their interests very intensively, in every possible way, in particular China,” Vysotsky was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE6931GL20101004

As long as Obama is President, I don’t think the US has to worry. I’m sure Obama’s “bend over and grease up” strategy vis-a-vis the Chinese Communists will pay dividends…somehow, somewhere, sometime.

Azarkhan said:
(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration gave corporate giant General Electric—the parent company of NBC–$24.9 million in grants from the $787-billion economic “stimulus” law President Barack Obama signed in February 2009, according to records posted by the administration at Recovery.gov.
Despite getting $24.9 million from U.S. taxpayers, GE decreased its U.S.-based employees by 18,000 in 2009, according to the company’s 2009 annual report.
According to Standard & Poor’s, GE took in $156 billion in revenue in 2009….
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-gave-general-electr

Just after Obama’s inauguration, GE CEO Jeff Immelt wrote that “this government will be a regulator; and also a key partner. GE’s broad technical portfolio positions us as a natural partner as the role of government increases.” It was not too long after that Obama named Immelt to his 16 member Economic Advisory Board. GE and Immelt have spent millions of dollars in lobbying efforts to push for the passage of Obama’s cap and trade proposal. GE is the world’s largest wind turbine generator manufacturer and stands to make billions of dollars from cap and trade.
Under Obama’s plan, GE would take in billions of dollars from government contracts in wind energy. All carbon emission related energy would be subject to carbon taxes. Any oil related, natural gas related, gasoline, diesel, and any other manufacturer that uses any petro-based component will be subject to carbon tax.
According to a known climatologist named Dr. S. Fred Singer, cap and trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any real scientific justification.” GE also happens to own NBC, MSNBC and CNBC, primary pushers of climate change propoganda.
That General Electric is benefiting from government stimulus grant money should surprise no one.

The Real Royal King said:
That explains so muy.

Just want to remind you to NEVER try to put down other people for spelling, grammar or a typo. Next you should work on all your lies.

Marla Louise said:
From your other postings, it seems you do not believe anything said by our President and most American leaders and politicians.
From this post, it seems you do believe everything said by Iranian leaders and politicians.
What exactly does that say about you? Do you really have more respect for a Theocracy than a Democracy?
Marla

It seems you have no idea what you are talking about. When someone says they hate America and they fund putting bombs on women and children to kill women and children I would give them the benifit of the doubt that when they say they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth they mean it.
I don’t think we should wait to see if they were just bluffing.

Dave Richards said:
She never said “I can see Russia From Alaska”. Didn’t happen.
You’re a liar.

She did say it and there was nothing wrong with it when she said it.
Mary Louise didn’t know that you can see Russia from Alaska. Most libs never look beyond their own nose.

Mr.Papshmer said:
After Tina Fey used that in a SNL sketch, it’s amazing how many stupid libs ran with it. To this day, there are still political retards who think she actually said this, as Marla Louise clearly demonstrate.

Tina Fey changed the quote from “Alaska” to from my house. That is the lie.

Mr.Papshmer said:
After Tina Fey used that in a SNL sketch, it’s amazing how many stupid libs ran with it. To this day, there are still political retards who think she actually said this, as Marla Louise clearly demonstrate.

oh really? Did you say retard?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk

“You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska”

You people can’t even get the easiest of facts straight.

gordonbloyershow said:
It seems you have no idea what you are talking about. When someone says they hate America and they fund putting bombs on women and children to kill women and children I would give them the benifit of the doubt that when they say they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth they mean it.I don’t think we should wait to see if they were just bluffing.

Marla Louise said:
From your other postings, it seems you do not believe anything said by our President and most American leaders and politicians. From this post, it seems you do believe everything said by Iranian leaders and politicians. What exactly does that say about you? Do you really have more respect for a Theocracy than a Democracy? Marla

She totally nailed your fear-mongering hack-ass…keep backpedaling, might help you get rid of that fat ass.

Andy Lamb said:
Just after Obama’s inauguration, GE CEO Jeff Immelt wrote that “this government will be a regulator; and also a key partner…

July 23, 2010
New filings by lobbying firms and big businesses show that the most entrenched special interests — the companies and industries that spend the most on lobbying — are Obama’s allies, both in the policies they favor and the politicians they finance.

General Electric once again spent more money on lobbying than any other company — $8.3 million last quarter (Pacific Gas & Electric reported $18.2 million in quarterly spending, but almost all of that was dedicated to opposing a state-level ballot measure in California). GE is also one of the two companies, together with Google, that is most in sync with the Obama administration….

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Numbers-show-Obama-favors-lobbyists-1002863-99062599.html#ixzz12ACxZvrp

Of course, General Electric’s lobbying interests don’t include the advocacy work of the news and opinion departments of both NBC and MS-NBC, who remain steadfast allies of the administration.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/24/the-presidents-very-special-special-interests/

Other then Bill Clinton, I can’t think of a bigger liar or hypocrite then Pres Obama.

Azarkhan said:
July 23, 2010New filings by lobbying firms and big businesses show that the most entrenched special interests — the companies and industries that spend the most on lobbying — are Obama’s allies, both in the policies they favor and the politicians they finance. General Electric once again spent more money on lobbying than any other company — $8.3 million last quarter (Pacific Gas & Electric reported $18.2 million in quarterly spending, but almost all of that was dedicated to opposing a state-level ballot measure in California). GE is also one of the two companies, together with Google, that is most in sync with the Obama administration…. Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Numbers-show-Obama-favors-lobbyists-1002863-99062599.html#ixzz12ACxZvrp Of course, General Electric’s lobbying interests don’t include the advocacy work of the news and opinion departments of both NBC and MS-NBC, who remain steadfast allies of the administration. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/24/the-presidents-very-special-special-interests/ Other then Bill Clinton, I can’t think of a bigger liar or hypocrite then Pres Obama.

But Azarkhan! Only Republican’s bow to special interests!

Everyone should watch the excellent BBC documentary “The Power of Nightmares” to understand why the people writing Sarah Palin’s talking points are trying to drill this message into your head:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727#

Mr B said:
Also, was it determined if George Soros campaign funding considered foreign or domestic? Obama said foreign cash was bad. Is Soros an American Citizen?

Soros has been an American citizen for 40 years. I never even heard his name until I started reading it over and over again as the “conservative” boogeyman. Do you have any idea how many billionaire thieves who don’t give a damn about America are as we speak bankrolling pro-corporate anti-American candidates and legislation, who all happen to be your fellow “conservatives”? To hear your hysterics, you’d think George Soros was the only billionaire in the U.S.

Haimerej said:
But Azarkhan! Only Republican’s bow to special interests!

I know, right? I think Obama also wanted to sell nights in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House, but, oh, that was already done by Clinton.

Azarkhan said:
President Obama issued a waiver loosening Tiananmen arms sanctions for C-130 military transports for China a day after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to an imprisoned Chinese dissident who dedicated the prize this past weekend to the victims of the 1989 crackdown.

Chinese state-run news media on Monday hailed the White House waiver announcement as a sign Washington is moving to lift the 11-year-old arms embargo…

“A very courageous Chinese citizen just received the Nobel Prize, and his wife has been placed under house arrest — announcing this waiver now makes a mockery of any administration pretense of supporting human rights, regardless of the expedient environmental fig-leaf justification,” Mr. Timperlake said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/11/obama-loosens-sanctions-on-c-130s-to-china/

Way to go asshole. And some people have the nerve to criticize Sarah Palin. Please.

When you excerpt a story online you should excerpt the relevant parts, especially if the relevant parts CONTRADICT the deceptive headline. Just trying to help you with online etiquette.

Does anybody remember during the ’08 campaign when Sen. McCain embarrassed himself with the “We’re all Georgians now” thing? His adviser, Randy Sheunemann, is and remains a paid lobbyist for the Eastern European nation of Georgia, among others. He’s now one of the principal advisers to Palin, so God only knows who’s pulling her strings, but whoever it is doesn’t have America’s best interests at heart.

whytee said:
Soros has been an American citizen for 40 years. I never even heard his name until I started reading it over and over again as the “conservative” boogeyman. Do you have any idea how many billionaire thieves who don’t give a damn about America are as we speak bankrolling pro-corporate anti-American candidates and legislation, who all happen to be your fellow “conservatives”? To hear your hysterics, you’d think George Soros was the only billionaire in the U.S.

I applaud your fight against ignorance. It is an on-going struggle with the Tea Party sort.

Haimerej said:
Turn on the printing presses and prepare for inflation. That’s the only way out of all these unfunded pension liabilities if we’re not going to cut spending, which doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen.

It’s just a race to the bottom with you guys, isn’t it? Think of it: here are all these huge multinational corporations with their corporate headquarters in tax-shelter countries, that do their banking in off-shore tax shelters and that import all their labor from third world slave-labor countries. They pay little to no taxes here, and have used their excess billions to fund think tanks and shadowy political action committees to fabricate propaganda that will inspire all of you to want to hand yet more of the American treasury to them. And in turn you carry water for them, against what’s ultimately best for the USA, best for our economy, and best for your children and grandchildren (unless you’re a foreign national).

People’s pensions and social security are theirs. It belongs to them, not the traders on Wall St., not the corporations that want to starve the government to get more and more tax handouts.

People’s pensions are what they live on, and all that money gets plugged back into the US economy, unlike the billions the damn thieves in corporate America who are writing the talking points you believe whole-hog.

gordonbloyershow said:
Just want to remind you to NEVER try to put down other people for spelling, grammar or a typo. Next you should work on all your lies.

But, Marceaux, I mean Blower, you will recall I said, in pertinent part:

Sort of like seeing … Nuevo Laredo, Tamulipas, Republic of México, from Laredo, Texas, USA?

Then I said:

That explains so muy.

Thanks Tex-Mex. “Muy” in this context meaning much.

I take it you’re not bi-lingual? I’m not either. I am a polyglot.

whytee said:
When you excerpt a story online you should excerpt the relevant parts, especially if the relevant parts CONTRADICT the deceptive headline. Just trying to help you with online etiquette.

Please. Show the contradiction.

Haimerej said:
Please. Show the contradiction.

LOL. I was thinking the same thing. Plus, unlike most leftist a-holes who post here, I give the link so anyone can read the article.

The Real Royal King said:
But, Marceaux, I mean Blower, you will recall I said, in pertinent part: Sort of like seeing … Nuevo Laredo, Tamulipas, Republic of México, from Laredo, Texas, USA? Then I said: That explains so muy. Thanks Tex-Mex. “Muy” in this context meaning much. I take it you’re not bi-lingual? I’m not either. I am a polyglot.

Doesn’t “muy” mean, “very”? Like, “muy bueno” is “very good,”

The Real Royal King said:
I applaud your fight against ignorance. It is an on-going struggle with the Tea Party sort.

If I were an advertising agency and people spouted the slogans my writers came up with the way so many people seem willing to spout those the big monopoly corporations and business groups cook up, I’d be on cloud nine. Some of these people are like an advertisers’ dream, but there are real people underneath that, and if you’re being advertised chocolate and you’re actually sold dog poop, you’ll get wise to the con eventually … won’t you?

Azarkhan said:
LOL. I was thinking the same thing. Plus, unlike most leftist a-holes who post here, I give the link so anyone can read the article.

I don’t like link spams in general, especially to newspapers owned and run by the crazy Reverend Sun Myung Moon, but if you read further down in the piece, you’ll see what I mean.

The Real Royal King said:
I applaud your fight against ignorance

Ignoramus, first heal thyself.

whytee said:
especially to newspapers owned and run by the crazy Reverend Sun Myung Moon,

Wow. Another lame excuse from another lame leftist. You’re dismissed.

Oh great, nice spin Sister Sarah, it’s OUR fault if you don’t run for president.. Don’t worry, we don’t want any of your ignorant nonsense.
This will allow you more time for money grubbing.

Haimerej said:
Doesn’t “muy” mean, “very”? Like, “muy bueno” is “very good,”

Indeed, it may. Probably, it is use most often in that context. In fact, I can’t think of a sentence in which I would use”muy” for “much” in actual Spanish.

Azarkhan said:
Wow. Another lame excuse from another lame leftist. You’re dismissed.

Does grandpa feel better now? All you need to do is read the piece YOU linked to, see how it doesn’t have the effect you were looking for if you read beyond the deceptive headline, and justify your use of it or back down.

whytee said:
It’s just a race to the bottom with you guys, isn’t it?

We’re not the ones giving public unions pension programs that are better than what the private sector gets and can’t be paid for.

whytee said:
Think of it: here are all these huge multinational corporations with their corporate headquarters in tax-shelter countries, that do their banking in off-shore tax shelters and that import all their labor from third world slave-labor countries. They pay little to no taxes here, and have used their excess billions to fund think tanks and shadowy political action committees to fabricate propaganda that will inspire all of you to want to hand yet more of the American treasury to them. And in turn you carry water for them, against what’s ultimately best for the USA, best for our economy, and best for your children and grandchildren (unless you’re a foreign national).

WTF are you talking about? I’m not carrying water for corporations. I merely pointed out the FACT that when government is faced with insurmountable deficits, the only way to overcome them is to inflate the money supply. That’s economics.

whytee said:
People’s pensions and social security are theirs. It belongs to them

Tell that to Congress, they’re the ones who raid Social Security.

whytee said:
, not the traders on Wall St., not the corporations that want to starve the government to get more and more tax handouts.

How does starving the government get you more handouts? This isn’t very coherent here.

whytee said:
People’s pensions are what they live on, and all that money gets plugged back into the US economy, unlike the billions the damn thieves in corporate America who are writing the talking points you believe whole-hog.

Blah blah blah

Nothing of what you’ve said changes the fact that we have literally trillions of dollars worth of unfunded pension liabilities in this country. At some point, we’re going to have to pay the piper. If we don’t address overspending and the weak economy, we could fall into a trap where we’d never be able to pay off just the interest. The only way to get out of those circumstances is to inflate the money supply, which is a de facto decrease of the debt. Why do you think the Fed’s been perpetuating inflation since 1945? There is nothing in history that says money must always inflate, in fact there was a period of 20+ years in the late 1800′s to early 1900′s in which the economy sustained an annual 4% growth rate for GDP in the midst of deflation.

whytee said:
I don’t like link spams in general, especially to newspapers owned and run by the crazy Reverend Sun Myung Moon, but if you read further down in the piece, you’ll see what I mean.

No need to link spam. It’s called, “copy & paste.”

Haimerej said:
We’re not the ones giving public unions pension programs that are better than what the private sector gets and can’t be paid for.

Exactly, you want a race to the bottom. Public pensions decline and private sector savings decline further. Also, they ARE paid for. The people who will be punished did their years and paid into it.

Haimerej said:
WTF are you talking about? I’m not carrying water for corporations. I merely pointed out the FACT that when government is faced with insurmountable deficits, the only way to overcome them is to inflate the money supply. That’s economics.

Not true. What about revenue generation? What about looking at the kinds of solutions that kept the economy growing and the middle class expanding for 50 years? I agree that inflating the money supply is a huge mistake, but when you consider that wages have been flat for 40 years while thanks to jerryrigging the tax code, the top 1/10th of 1% richest families have quadrupled their wealth over the same period, I’d say there are a lot of unexplored and virtually un-talked-about ways of increasing revenue rather than cutting benefits and thereby making the economy nosedive even harder (pension money gets spent in the real economy and recirculates back into the money supply; corporate and billionaire wealth does not — it generally goes into Cayman Islands accounts).

Haimerej said:
Tell that to Congress, they’re the ones who raid Social Security.

I agree, and will never understand why the right idolizes Ronald Reagan since this one among the scars of his legacy.

Haimerej said:
How does starving the government get you more handouts? This isn’t very coherent here.

Maybe I wasn’t that coherent but there’s an old practice called “starving the beast.” It’s cutting taxes on their friends (the very rich and big corporations), spending and spending, mostly on corporate giveaways like Medicare Part D (which was a giveaways to the pharmaceutical companies), the CFMA and GLBA (giveaways to the financial services industry) and two wars in which trillions got sunk into crony corporations like Halliburton, Bechtel and Blackwater. Then, once the damage is done, instead of unraveling what was done to create this irregular math problem of tax cuts and increased corporate giveaways, they say: NOW you have to reduce the deficit by cutting spending. But not their spending. They want to cut spending on the most vulnerable. And that’s a technique that’s been repeated and repeated throughout contemporary history.

Haimerej said:
Blah blah blah

Not “blah blah blah” — reality. When people get their full pensions, they spend it in the real economy. They don’t sock it away in Cayman Island accounts like those at the top who benefit from tax giveaways.

Haimerej said:
Nothing of what you’ve said changes the fact that we have literally trillions of dollars worth of unfunded pension liabilities in this country. At some point, we’re going to have to pay the piper. If we don’t address overspending and the weak economy, we could fall into a trap where we’d never be able to pay off just the interest.

But how do you address the weak economy? By taking more spending power out of it? Or by restoring taxes on those who’ve unfairly dodged them since Reagan, Bush I & Bush II?

Haimerej said:
The only way to get out of those circumstances is to inflate the money supply, which is a de facto decrease of the debt. Why do you think the Fed’s been perpetuating inflation since 1945? There is nothing in history that says money must always inflate, in fact there was a period of 20+ years in the late 1800’s to early 1900’s in which the economy sustained an annual 4% growth rate for GDP in the midst of deflation.

I’m not a fan of the Fed. I think it has a role to play but it has gone way too far for way too long. It’s a private entity controlled by private corporations that has an unelected management role in our government, so I don’t disagree with you on the above.

Haimerej said:
No need to link spam. It’s called, “copy & paste.”

I think it’s better for discourse when people just use their own words instead of copying and pasting everything. The internet has too many “instant experts” who have only the meagerest, most superficial understanding of what they’re copying and pasting, especially with such polarized content.

Goodbye Harry Reid:

Spokesperson Jarrod Agen has just released Sharron Angle’s stunning third-quarter fundraising results to Battle ‘10. Angle raised $14 million in the most recent cycle.

Agen called this “one of the most successful single quarters of fundraising in the nation’s history for a U.S. Senate campaign.”

“This is a testament to the hatred of Harry Reid, the nation’s disapproval of President Obama, and the unprecedented grassroots support for Sharron Angle,” said Agen. “Harry Reid is losing this race, he knows it, and he is just going to get more desperate over the final three weeks.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/249481/angle-campaign-reports-raising-14-million-third-quarter-elizabeth-crum

Dave Richards said:
liar

Dave Richards said:
She never said “I can see Russia From Alaska”. Didn’t happen.
You’re a liar.

“They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.” – Sara Palin to ABC News, 9/11/2008

Azarkhan said:
“This is a testament to the hatred of Harry Reid, the nation’s disapproval of President Obama, and the unprecedented grassroots support for Sharron Angle,” said Agen. http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/249481/angle-campaign-reports-raising-14-million-third-quarter-elizabeth-crum

This is a testament to the figure at which a candidate sells out. Nevada will have a rude awakening if Angle is elected and suddenly they’ve got radioactive waste in their back yards and no more social security checks.

And the reason I have a similar response in this thread as I do in the other is because you link-spammed exactly the same thing in both.

Since the Russian owned island is visible from the Alaskan owned island, I’m failing to see the hilarity. Oh, well. Humor is subjective.

SpineCrusher said:
oh really? Did you say retard?

I stand corrected, I’m so used to people using that retarded Tina Fey routine. That said, do you dispute her actual quote, that you can see Russia from Alaskan land?

gordonbloyershow said:
She did say it and there was nothing wrong with it when she said it.
Mary Louise didn’t know that you can see Russia from Alaska. Most libs never look beyond their own nose.

Sigh, I have never said you cannot see Russia from Alaska, yet you seem to easily attribute it to me. But you don’t seem to worry about facts much do you?

Actually, the idiocy of Palin’s statement was not whether one can see Russia or not from Alaska, but instead that doing so somehow gave her foreign policy experience. That is what everyone makes fun of.

Speaking of facts, can you also provide any facts regarding to your denigration of Libertarians? Or is that claim also a bunch of BS?

Marla

whytee said:
Exactly, you want a race to the bottom. Public pensions decline and private sector savings decline further. Also, they ARE paid for. The people who will be punished did their years and paid into it.

No, they’re not paid for. That’s what, “unfunded” in “unfunded pension liabilities” means.

whytee said:
Not true. What about revenue generation? What about looking at the kinds of solutions that kept the economy growing and the middle class expanding for 50 years? I agree that inflating the money supply is a huge mistake, but when you consider that wages have been flat for 40 years while thanks to jerryrigging the tax code, the top 1/10th of 1% richest families have quadrupled their wealth over the same period, I’d say there are a lot of unexplored and virtually un-talked-about ways of increasing revenue rather than cutting benefits and thereby making the economy nosedive even harder (pension money gets spent in the real economy and recirculates back into the money supply; corporate and billionaire wealth does not — it generally goes into Cayman Islands accounts).

I think the key word is, “insurmountable.” Yes, you can always raise taxes, but in many cases our liabilities are so high you wouldn’t be able to raise them high enough. Taxing the rich only goes so far.

whytee said:
I agree, and will never understand why the right idolizes Ronald Reagan since this one among the scars of his legacy.

They like him for other things.

whytee said:
Maybe I wasn’t that coherent but there’s an old practice called “starving the beast.” It’s cutting taxes on their friends (the very rich and big corporations), spending and spending, mostly on corporate giveaways like Medicare Part D (which was a giveaways to the pharmaceutical companies), the CFMA and GLBA (giveaways to the financial services industry) and two wars in which trillions got sunk into crony corporations like Halliburton, Bechtel and Blackwater. Then, once the damage is done, instead of unraveling what was done to create this irregular math problem of tax cuts and increased corporate giveaways, they say: NOW you have to reduce the deficit by cutting spending. But not their spending. They want to cut spending on the most vulnerable. And that’s a technique that’s been repeated and repeated throughout contemporary history.

I’m completely against corporate giveaways. IIRC, Halliburton won bidding wars and provided a service, like Bechtel and Blackwater as well. Those aren’t exactly “giveaways.” Also, the money that you say was given away to those groups still isn’t enough to cover the liabilities. Politicians over promised public sector employees.

whytee said:
Not “blah blah blah” — reality. When people get their full pensions, they spend it in the real economy. They don’t sock it away in Cayman Island accounts like those at the top who benefit from tax giveaways.

I said blah blah blah because none of what you said addressed the actual problem of unfunded pension liabilities. These programs need to be reformed. Do you know how to become a millionaire in California? Work for the state and then retire. That’s obscene.

whytee said:
But how do you address the weak economy? By taking more spending power out of it? Or by restoring taxes on those who’ve unfairly dodged them since Reagan, Bush I & Bush II?

You address the weak economy by bringing a level of certainty back to the marketplace. Companies are sitting on trillions in capital but are hesitant to expand because they don’t know what their tax obligations will be. You’d be a fool to expand your business right now without knowing the costs. Most of Obama’s big initiatives involve raising the cost of doing business. He needs to either get them done or let them die, it’s the uncertainty either way that’s keeping people on the sidelines.

whytee said:
I’m not a fan of the Fed. I think it has a role to play but it has gone way too far for way too long. It’s a private entity controlled by private corporations that has an unelected management role in our government, so I don’t disagree with you on the above.

My only problem with them is this concept that we must always inflate our money. They treat deflation like a boogie man when it has it’s positives and negatives just like inflation does. This devotion to inflation screws people who save their money and hurts poor people who can barely afford the necessities. Here recently they started talking about more quantitative easing because they say inflation is too slow, at 1.4%.

Being a community organizer gives one much more experience in foreign policy.

whytee said:
I think it’s better for discourse when people just use their own words instead of copying and pasting everything. The internet has too many “instant experts” who have only the meagerest, most superficial understanding of what they’re copying and pasting, especially with such polarized content.

Agreed, but when you’re talking about something said in a specific article, it’s helpful to point it out.

Marla Louise said:
Actually, the idiocy of Palin’s statement was not whether one can see Russia or not from Alaska, but instead that doing so somehow gave her foreign policy experience. That is what everyone makes fun of.

Then you don’t get out much. Alaska and eastern Russia are very entwined, especially regarding the fishing industry. As a Washington resident, I know this, as Alaskans think of Washington as South Alaska for the most part, is the home of most of their fishing fleet, and their ferry link to the lower forty eight. Her comment isn’t nearly as outrageous as many libs would have you believe.

Mr.Papshmer said:
I stand corrected, I’m so used to people using that retarded Tina Fey routine. That said, do you dispute her actual quote, that you can see Russia from Alaskan land?

Palin’s claim is disengenuous at best and completely laughable. In the context of the conversation, her being able to see Russia from Alaska outlined her experience with international politics/policies.

However, as you look into the place where you can “see Russia from Alaska” you will see there is absolutely no international politiking occuring between the two islands.

The population of Little Diomede is 146 people, who receive little state services.

After World War II the native population of Big Diomede was forced off the Island to the mainland in order to avoid contacts across the border. Today it has no permanent population but it is the site of a Russian weather station.

She is deranged, that the only way you can explain away her making the comment in the first place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk

And how much international experience did Obama have before taking office? Just oodles.

Haimerej said:
No, they’re not paid for. That’s what, “unfunded” in “unfunded pension liabilities” means.

I think the key word is, “insurmountable.” Yes, you can always raise taxes, but in many cases our liabilities are so high you wouldn’t be able to raise them high enough. Taxing the rich only goes so far.

The fact that they’re unfunded does not mean that their recipients did not fund them. This demonization of public sector workers in general — not by you necessarily but in the media proper — seems to me like a smoke & mirrors-style distraction from some of the larger issues. So, while you think it’s an insurmountable problem, I see it as a component of a math problem that can be solved through a variety of revenue systems, including proper corporate taxation and closing loopholes, increasing the top marginal tax rate, and instituting a stet tax on trades. That would go a long way toward funding pensions and other costs.

That’s my pie-in-the-sky solution. They’re not even talking about that ANYWHERE in the media. On the other hand, they’re sure talking about pensions everywhere, including supposedly “leftist” programs.

Haimerej said:
They like him for other things.

I think Reagan was a likable person, but the dark forces he fronted for cannot be forgiven. He instituted the highest tax hike in HISTORY–66% on small businesses– while precipitously dropping taxes for his friends — the rich — from 72% to 36%, and lowering the cap on the social security tax such that the middle and working classes ended up paying a tax on all their income, while the rich only paid in during, say, the first week of their taxable income.

Haimerej said:
I said blah blah blah because none of what you said addressed the actual problem of unfunded pension liabilities. These programs need to be reformed. Do you know how to become a millionaire in California? Work for the state and then retire. That’s obscene.

Prove it. That is a complete myth. I live in California, by the way. But speaking of California, how about closing the Prop 13 loophole for corporations? How about doing what every other oil producing state in the union does and impose an extraction tax on the oil companies?

Haimerej said:
You address the weak economy by bringing a level of certainty back to the marketplace. Companies are sitting on trillions in capital but are hesitant to expand because they don’t know what their tax obligations will be. You’d be a fool to expand your business right now without knowing the costs. Most of Obama’s big initiatives involve raising the cost of doing business. He needs to either get them done or let them die, it’s the uncertainty either way that’s keeping people on the sidelines.

NO. They’re sitting on trillions because they’re making it hand over fist through the Fed’s discount window, generating mini bubbles and crashes (check out what’s happening with corn as we speak) and producing nothing. Since no conditions were imposed on it by the government, the big banks have no reason to invest in the US economy, especially if their predatory loan/fraudulent foreclosure racket is being investigated.

Haimerej said:
My only problem with them is this concept that we must always inflate our money. They treat deflation like a boogie man when it has it’s positives and negatives just like inflation does. This devotion to inflation screws people who save their money and hurts poor people who can barely afford the necessities. Here recently they started talking about more quantitative easing because they say inflation is too slow, at 1.4%.

I’m not really an expert on this, but I agree.

However, in this whole idiotic war of words with China about its currency manipulation, I think we should just do what China does, what India does, what many countries in Europe and South America do, and raise tariffs on goods and services produced in slave labor countries. But talk about a subject that is UTTERLY he-who-must-not-be-named on TV: it’s tariffs.

My bad. I meant to say oodles and oodles.

writer said:
Yep. Instead of worrying about the guy actually in office, let’s worry about a woman with very little popularity who has no chance of ever winning public office. Makes much more sense.

A few of us can think about two issues at once.

whytee said:
The fact that they’re unfunded does not mean that their recipients did not fund them.

Their part, not the entirety of what they’re to receive.

whytee said:
This demonization of public sector workers in general — not by you necessarily but in the media proper — seems to me like a smoke & mirrors-style distraction from some of the larger issues. So, while you think it’s an insurmountable problem, I see it as a component of a math problem that can be solved through a variety of revenue systems, including proper corporate taxation and closing loopholes, increasing the top marginal tax rate, and instituting a stet tax on trades. That would go a long way toward funding pensions and other costs. That’s my pie-in-the-sky solution. They’re not even talking about that ANYWHERE in the media. On the other hand, they’re sure talking about pensions everywhere, including supposedly “leftist” programs

Or you could rework the contracts with the unions, cut spending in other areas, etc. There are a variety of ways to address the problem. But if we don’t address spending, we’ll fall into the trap I mentioned above in which the only solution is inflation.

whytee said:
I think Reagan was a likable person, but the dark forces he fronted for cannot be forgiven. He instituted the highest tax hike in HISTORY–66% on small businesses– while precipitously dropping taxes for his friends — the rich — from 72% to 36%, and lowering the cap on the social security tax such that the middle and working classes ended up paying a tax on all their income, while the rich only paid in during, say, the first week of their taxable income.

If it was all so horrible, why did the economy react so well?

whytee said:
Prove it. That is a complete myth. I live in California, by the way. But speaking of California, how about closing the Prop 13 loophole for corporations? How about doing what every other oil producing state in the union does and impose an extraction tax on the oil companies?

http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/files/2010/10/Californiacenterforpublicpolicy.pdf

“The $1 million to $2 million in annuity value that more than a million non-public safety
employees in California will receive through their pension programs in their middle fifties to
early sixties similarly makes most California public employees de facto millionaires by their
middle to late fifties.”

whytee said:
NO. They’re sitting on trillions because they’re making it hand over fist through the Fed’s discount window, generating mini bubbles and crashes (check out what’s happening with corn as we speak) and producing nothing. Since no conditions were imposed on it by the government, the big banks have no reason to invest in the US economy, especially if their predatory loan/fraudulent foreclosure racket is being investigated.

I wasn’t talking about banks. I mentioned, “companies” sitting on that capital. There are alot of small businesses that are sitting on capital for the reason I mentioned above. Small businesses are the job makers. Here’s an article-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/14/AR2010071405960.html

It specifically mentions, “nonfinancial companies” sitting on that cash.

whytee said:
I’m not really an expert on this, but I agree. However, in this whole idiotic war of words with China about its currency manipulation, I think we should just do what China does, what India does, what many countries in Europe and South America do, and raise tariffs on goods and services produced in slave labor countries. But talk about a subject that is UTTERLY he-who-must-not-be-named on TV: it’s tariffs.

That’s an idea. I really haven’t given it much thought.

Man, I’ve been screwing up those quotes. Sorry bout that.

SpineCrusher said:
Palin’s claim is disengenuous at best

SpineCrusher said:
you will see there is absolutely no international politiking occuring between the two islands.

Jesus, talk about disingenuous. There’s no politicking going on between Patos and Tumbos Islands, either, but that doesn’t mean there’s no relations between Washington State and British Columbia.

Turns out Palin is only interested in running for President if the country convinces her they are willing to go rogue along with her.

This is hardly new news Glynnis, she has made this statement numerous times; you remarking on it is quite surprising.

I love how Sarah gets the lefties all riled up; it is too funny to watch.

Look, this Glynnis McKnuckle, the genius writer of this article, is an ex Huffington Post smear artist and a paid Democratic spin person. This site is a grey Democratic spin site run by Democratic operatives in another skin.Glynnis has made a living for most of her adult life pushing the far left themes. And she is paid to do so. This site and its owners are paid Democratic advisors and spin artists.

If you think you will find truthful and fair commentary on the next President of the Unites States, Sarah Palin, on this pretend not to be full on Democratic spin, then you are living in a bizarro world.

Haimerej said:
Their part, not the entirety of what they’re to receive.

So, if you spent your life paying into an insurance policy under the understanding that you’d get a certain amount of benefit and then that benefit got drastically reduced, you wouldn’t feel like you’d been screwed?

Haimerej said:
Or you could rework the contracts with the unions, cut spending in other areas, etc. There are a variety of ways to address the problem. But if we don’t address spending, we’ll fall into the trap I mentioned above in which the only solution is inflation.

I’m not against cutting spending broadly speaking, but why rework contracts with unions and further depress wages, which–economy wide–have been flat for 30 years? Why not lift everyone up rather than constantly trying to strip away hard-fought benefits?

Haimerej said:
http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/files/2010/10/Californiacenterforpublicpolicy.pdf

“The $1 million to $2 million in annuity value that more than a million non-public safety
employees in California will receive through their pension programs in their middle fifties to
early sixties similarly makes most California public employees de facto millionaires by their
middle to late fifties.”

Does this California Center for Public Policy have the documentation to back up this screed? It’s a right wing think tank run by a longtime Republican/big business operative. I’d like to see some proof. I know public sector retirees; they’re not millionaires by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr.Papshmer said:
Jesus, talk about disingenuous. There’s no politicking going on between Patos and Tumbos Islands, either, but that doesn’t mean there’s no relations between Washington State and British Columbia.

How does comparing relations between Washington/BC and another set of islands fit into the context of the discussion? We were dicussing Palin’s using the term “can see Russia from Alaska” as evidence of her international policy experience.

You just changed the topic and spit out an non sequitur….sounds like a conservative to me.

Con-fu$king-fused is what you are.

Check please!

This – from a homely backwoods right-wing hillbilly.

Thanks for fixing my quoting mistakes. I’ll try harder now. ;)

whytee said:
So, if you spent your life paying into an insurance policy under the understanding that you’d get a certain amount of benefit and then that benefit got drastically reduced, you wouldn’t feel like you’d been screwed?

It doesn’t matter what you feel like, you are being screwed. It’s not the first, nor will it be the last time that happens to people. This should be a lesson in why it’s not wise to trust the government to live up to it’s promises. The Native Americans learned that a long time ago. Politicians will tell you literally anything to get elected. They seem to think they don’t have to operate in the real world because they can just print more money.

whytee said:
I’m not against cutting spending broadly speaking, but why rework contracts with unions and further depress wages, which–economy wide–have been flat for 30 years? Why not lift everyone up rather than constantly trying to strip away hard-fought benefits?

I’ve been trying to find support for your statements about wages. I can’t seem to find anything saying that they haven’t changed in 40 years. Now you’re mentioning 30, so I’ll modify my search. I’m not optimistic though.

I will point out that your desire to not renegotiate pension plans and other terms of the union contracts that are causing fiscal problems are part of the reason wages may not have changed much in relation to inflation. Large deficits in which the government uses inflation to get under control hurts everybody. Since most people oppose entitlement cuts, the most obvious place to cut is the bureaucracy.

whytee said:
Does this California Center for Public Policy have the documentation to back up this screed? It’s a right wing think tank run by a longtime Republican/big business operative. I’d like to see some proof. I know public sector retirees; they’re not millionaires by any stretch of the imagination.

Here’s another source-

http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2010/06/09/millionaire-government-workers/27979/

I think you’re expecting them to have a million dollars in their bank account. That’s not what we’re saying. As the opening sentence of that article says-

“Suppose that, preparing for retirement, you had $2 million stashed away in investments. Would you be a “millionaire”? Of course you would be.”

As mentioned by the CCPP paper, it’s “annuity value” we’re talking about. The people you know may have over a million dollars in total value of their retirements, though they don’t have a million sitting in the bank.

Haimerej said:
It doesn’t matter what you feel like, you are being screwed. It’s not the first, nor will it be the last time that happens to people. This should be a lesson in why it’s not wise to trust the government to live up to it’s promises. The Native Americans learned that a long time ago. Politicians will tell you literally anything to get elected. They seem to think they don’t have to operate in the real world because they can just print more money.

It happens in the private sector as well. Companies make promises about retirement and then can’t live up to them.

writer said:
My bad. I meant to say oodles and oodles.

I love those but they have too much salt.

Haimerej said:
Thanks for fixing my quoting mistakes. I’ll try harder now. ;)

Not a problem. I wish there were an easier way. :)

Haimerej said:
It doesn’t matter what you feel like, you are being screwed. It’s not the first, nor will it be the last time that happens to people. This should be a lesson in why it’s not wise to trust the government to live up to it’s promises. The Native Americans learned that a long time ago. Politicians will tell you literally anything to get elected. They seem to think they don’t have to operate in the real world because they can just print more money.

So, the government screws people and massacred the Native Americans therefore, what? We should just give up on bringing any kind of integrity to the process?

The system we’ve chosen to govern these United States is a perpetual work in progress. You can’t just set it up one way and then expect it to run itself. Individuals–people–in virtually every area of public life are corruptible. Government is a system of laws set up in a brilliant way, but various turning points in history (particularly involving corporations, their operating principles, laws that govern them, and the “personhood” they’ve taken without the frailty and lifespan of true persons) have perverted the system. The ship needs to be righted, at least for a while. You don’t right the ship by saying “who needs government.” That’s how things work in Zimbabwe, not here. The early Americans didn’t fight the Revolutionary War and work so hard to hammer out a system just so it could all be thrown out for “smaller government” and corporate rule.

Anyway, back to the subject, I differ from you in my opinion of this. I think pensions are a critical component of a civilized society and should be protected.

Haimerej said:
I’ve been trying to find support for your statements about wages. I can’t seem to find anything saying that they haven’t changed in 40 years. Now you’re mentioning 30, so I’ll modify my search. I’m not optimistic though.

You will find that while productivity has risen, wages have been flat.

Haimerej said:
I will point out that your desire to not renegotiate pension plans and other terms of the union contracts that are causing fiscal problems are part of the reason wages may not have changed much in relation to inflation. Large deficits in which the government uses inflation to get under control hurts everybody. Since most people oppose entitlement cuts, the most obvious place to cut is the bureaucracy.

I’m not a fan of inefficient bureaucracy, but I’m also a supporter of unions. When the US economy was thriving and the middle class was growing, and more and more people could afford to send their kids to college and live in a decent home, unionization was at about 40%. It’s now at about 7%. And the California Center for Public Policy and its ilk want to eradicate even that. Fiscal problems are caused by taking the math problem of revenue and spending, and letting special interest groups — like corporations and the very rich — cut themselves out of the revenue part of the equation. They still use the infrastructure. They still rely on taxpayer-paid roads, teachers, firemen, police, courts, etc.; so they’re taking money out of the spending half of the equation, they’re just reducing their payments into it to the degree that it becomes lopsided, and then they go after entitlements, and, alas, pensions. I’m saying that while there’s always room for shaping up inefficiencies, you CANNOT put this imbalance on the shoulders of spending alone. You have to look at revenue, and who’s been shirking their public responsibilities.

Haimerej said:
Here’s another source-

http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2010/06/09/millionaire-government-workers/27979/

… that uses the exact same rubric.

Here’s an alternate study from Rutgers University: http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/99678639_Public_worker_pay_not_causing_budget_crisis__study_says.html

We can both post competing links till the cows come home. The fact is that if you look around with your eyes, you’ll see that the rubric the big business think tank came up with has some very fuzzy math.

Haimerej said:
I think you’re expecting them to have a million dollars in their bank account. That’s not what we’re saying. As the opening sentence of that article says-

“Suppose that, preparing for retirement, you had $2 million stashed away in investments. Would you be a “millionaire”? Of course you would be.”

As mentioned by the CCPP paper, it’s “annuity value” we’re talking about. The people you know may have over a million dollars in total value of their retirements, though they don’t have a million sitting in the bank.

Exactly. Do you think that headline was supposed to be interpreted that way? Or do you think the shock value of painting the picture of the million dollar check did the job the think tank intended?

CosmosDan said:
It happens in the private sector as well. Companies make promises about retirement and then can’t live up to them.

Which is why I prefer letting people be responsible for their own retirements.

Haimerej said:
Which is why I prefer letting people be responsible for their own retirements.

So the stock market can suck all its value out of it through a bubble cycle? The big banks have been lobbying heavily for that for eons, but I can’t believe anyone in their right mind, who knows anything at all about how things work in the Wall St. economy, would want that.

exiledtruther said:
His name is George Soros! Though I’m sure Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright have some degree of input.

The Real Royal King says:
You no we had an election in 2008 which vetted the Ayres, Wright and Soros issues.

You know, King, if Glenn Beck says it –and he does over and over and over, programming his beliefs into his minions like truther here — then they will believe it no matter what the actual facts. Actual facts and Glenn Beck have a passing relationship. He passes on them more times than not to “prove” his arguments.

So are many examples of this. Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Gingrich, Backmann, Broun and DeMint are all deceitful reactionaries seeking to lead this country back to some distant past.

Has anyone ever wondered why Beck is unique in this group for not hating gays? Gay marriage is the one progressive position Beck takes. Ever wonder why?

A few of us can think about two issues at once.

Bad Wolf, pity you’re not one of them.

whytee said:
Not a problem. I wish there were an easier way. :)

Edit function. We need it.

whytee said:
So, the government screws people and massacred the Native Americans therefore, what? We should just give up on bringing any kind of integrity to the process?

Hehehe no. I’m just pointing out that it’s historical record leads one to conclude that it can’t be fixed. It’s corrupt by it’s very nature, which is why Libertarian’s such as myself want to see it limited. The smaller it is, the less damage it will do.

whytee said:
The system we’ve chosen to govern these United States is a perpetual work in progress. You can’t just set it up one way and then expect it to run itself. Individuals–people–in virtually every area of public life are corruptible. Government is a system of laws set up in a brilliant way, but various turning points in history (particularly involving corporations, their operating principles, laws that govern them, and the “personhood” they’ve taken without the frailty and lifespan of true persons) have perverted the system. The ship needs to be righted, at least for a while. You don’t right the ship by saying “who needs government.” That’s how things work in Zimbabwe, not here. The early Americans didn’t fight the Revolutionary War and work so hard to hammer out a system just so it could all be thrown out for “smaller government” and corporate rule.

I’ll disagree on their view of smaller government, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what they wanted. The problem is special interests of all kinds lying in bed with government. The government, IMO, should be limited to protecting citizens from fraud. In my dream world, that’s the only part of the economy it would concern itself with.

whytee said:
Anyway, back to the subject, I differ from you in my opinion of this. I think pensions are a critical component of a civilized society and should be protected.

I’m all for pensions if you want them. I just think relying on the government to give them to you is misguided. It causes all kinds of problems when the bill comes due. Politicians aren’t exactly responsible with tax dollars.

whytee said:
You will find that while productivity has risen, wages have been flat.

Where?

whytee said:
I’m not a fan of inefficient bureaucracy, but I’m also a supporter of unions.

I have to say, your juxtaposition of these two shows me you know that unions can cause workers and the work environment to become inefficient.

whytee said:
When the US economy was thriving and the middle class was growing, and more and more people could afford to send their kids to college and live in a decent home, unionization was at about 40%. It’s now at about 7%.

Do you think it’s telling that unionization has shrunk in the private sector as it’s grown in the public sector? The private sector is unforgiving if your business is in the red. Government doesn’t have that problem, they can just inflate the currency and pay off their debts (screwing everyone else over in the process).

whytee said:
And the California Center for Public Policy and its ilk want to eradicate even that. Fiscal problems are caused by taking the math problem of revenue and spending, and letting special interest groups — like corporations and the very rich — cut themselves out of the revenue part of the equation. They still use the infrastructure. They still rely on taxpayer-paid roads, teachers, firemen, police, courts, etc.;

Maybe not teachers.

whytee said:
so they’re taking money out of the spending half of the equation, they’re just reducing their payments into it to the degree that it becomes lopsided, and then they go after entitlements, and, alas, pensions. I’m saying that while there’s always room for shaping up inefficiencies, you CANNOT put this imbalance on the shoulders of spending alone. You have to look at revenue, and who’s been shirking their public responsibilities.

There are no deficits if there is no spending. Deficits are and always will be a problem of spending. I would hesitate in saying that rich people are shirking their public responsibilities as far as revenue is concerned. How can you say that when half the people in the country are receiving more money from the government than they’re putting in? Rich people pay more than their fair share. IIRC, something like 40% of what the government takes in comes from the top 2%.

To me, what you’re describing is a utopian ideal in which the government provides for all. Well, we simply CAN’T do that. We don’t have enough money to do it. No one is entitled to the things you’re talking about. If you want to get technical, you could argue that the rich are already providing more than they should to some people. Having pulled myself up from official poverty, I am familiar with alot of people who take advantage of government handouts. I tell you, most people I’ve known at my economic level have no one to blame but themselves for their predicament. Many of them couldn’t hold down jobs because they had bad attitudes tied directly to the entitlement mentality. They get offended when their bosses tell them to do their jobs. Sometimes they just don’t feel like going to work so they call in sick. Then they get shocked when they’re fired. I am living proof to myself that hard work and being responsible will take you out of poverty in this country. The only people I’ve known that couldn’t get out of it were not good workers and were irresponsible people.

whytee said:
… that uses the exact same rubric. Here’s an alternate study from Rutgers University: http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/99678639_Public_worker_pay_not_causing_budget_crisis__study_says.html We can both post competing links till the cows come home. The fact is that if you look around with your eyes, you’ll see that the rubric the big business think tank came up with has some very fuzzy math.

Could you explain what’s wrong with their math? Also, that link is from New Jersey. We’re talking about California.

whytee said:
Exactly. Do you think that headline was supposed to be interpreted that way? Or do you think the shock value of painting the picture of the million dollar check did the job the think tank intended?

Headlines are meant to grab attention. If the extent of your research on a subject is to read the headlines of articles, then you’re doing yourself a disservice.

SpineCrusher said:
Con-fu$king-fused is what you are.

Sorry it went over your head, homes. You’d tried to use two god forsaken islands’ lack of interaction in the Bearing Straights as some sort of indicator of Alaska and Russia’s (supposed) lack of international relations, and therefore (supposed) proof that Palin is a nitwit. Sorry, son, but you’re the nitwit here.

whytee said:
So the stock market can suck all its value out of it through a bubble cycle? The big banks have been lobbying heavily for that for eons, but I can’t believe anyone in their right mind, who knows anything at all about how things work in the Wall St. economy, would want that.

Eh, make it optional.

Personally, I’d rather have the money in my paycheck. I’m preparing for my own retirement as we speak (I’m 28 y/o). If all goes accordingly (and at this point it’s just about my willingness to stick to the plan), I’ll be fine by the time I’m 40.

The problem the half-term nit-wit has is that she actually says what’s on her “mind,” and the tea-baggers open wide, flap around a bit and bleat for more.

Haimerej said:
Eh, make it optional. Personally, I’d rather have the money in my paycheck. I’m preparing for my own retirement as we speak (I’m 28 y/o). If all goes accordingly (and at this point it’s just about my willingness to stick to the plan), I’ll be fine by the time I’m 40.

I’m always amazed at stuff that get thumbs down.

I guess someone doesn’t approve of my fiscal responsibility in my personal life.

Oh well. I’ll be back Thursday. Good evening.

Fran Drescher for President, she’s getting her own talk show too.
Sarah knows what she is talking about when she talks about being quite naive.
And Armageddon would be a definite thing if she were elected.

But hey, let’s fire all the politicians that are being funded by special interest so special interest can buy the new idiots cheaper. Perhaps that might save the taxpayer all that expense that is pass on to them as consumers.

As with McShame, with the Palinites we again scrape the very bottom of the gene pool.

Palin Queen of the wackos, has just now found out that “nukes bad, go boom” I’m so glad we have her to explain this to us! Also, we really need a brain trust, with foreign policy background and is good at one-liners to call Obama “naive”.

Palin says:
You know I was about laughed out of town for bringing to light what I called ‘death panels’…I called it like I saw it and people didn’t like it.

Maybe they laughed at her because there was no such thing as a death panel, it wasn’t taken out of the plan, IT WAS NEVER IN THE PLAN ,IT WAS NOT TRUE! It was a bagger lie and she ran with it! What can we learn from this clown, nothing, but we love her so much. God bless you Sarah!

Haimerej said:
Edit function. We need it.

True fact.

Haimerej said:
Hehehe no. I’m just pointing out that it’s historical record leads one to conclude that it can’t be fixed. It’s corrupt by it’s very nature, which is why Libertarian’s such as myself want to see it limited. The smaller it is, the less damage it will do.

There are some things I agree with you Libertarians about. Eliminating key elements of government is not one of them. That said, the manipulation of tax policy by the increasingly massive and trans-national corporations with their accessories in government has hurt this country more than anyone in the mainstream will ever acknowledge. This is actually a “big government” issue, yet curiously, other than Ron Paul–when pressed–not a single politician, not a single Tea Partier, not a single “conservative” ever addresses it. Corporate welfare is a disease and this country is on life-support from it. I wish instead of attacking public institutions, pensions and entitlements, Libertarians would take a long, hard look at corporate subsidies and welfare. And, no, the flat tax is not the solution.

Back to the subject, with the situation the way it is vis a vis profoundly powerful corporations who do not have the best interest of these United States at heart, who–if not the government–can prevent them from abusing this country and the people in it? (If you want examples of this, I’ve got a very long list). Be honest.

Haimerej said:
I’ll disagree on their view of smaller government, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what they wanted. The problem is special interests of all kinds lying in bed with government. The government, IMO, should be limited to protecting citizens from fraud. In my dream world, that’s the only part of the economy it would concern itself with.

The thing is, how do you protect citizens from fraud without a powerful government? You’re still talking about individual representatives, many of whom can be bought. Look at the beginning of the mortgage-backed securities bubble. Eliot Spitzer and attorneys general from all 50 states wanted to stop predatory lending and were shut down by the Bush administration. The most epic fraud was being committed and a) Bush et al were happy because their friends on Wall St. were making it hand over fist, and b) the media was asleep at the switch. I watched this happen in slow motion. I was aware of what was happening but everyone around me thought all of a sudden it was Christmas and banks were just giving money away. You couldn’t turn on the radio or TV without hearing some pusher trying to get people into jumbo loans. This was a well-organized fraudulent racket, and it couldn’t have happened without both demand and complicity at the top.

And please don’t say this proves that government doesn’t work–this proves that “conservative” ideology doesn’t work. It all started with Phil Gramm and deregulation and descended from there. If we’d kept the Depression Era legislation on the books and enforced the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, this wouldn’t have happened.

So, if you expect a pared down government to stop fraud on that level in a privatized world in which everything is about self-interest and not the good of society as a whole, I’d love to hear how enforcement of any kind of anti-fraud measures would be possible.

Haimerej said:
I’m all for pensions if you want them. I just think relying on the government to give them to you is misguided. It causes all kinds of problems when the bill comes due. Politicians aren’t exactly responsible with tax dollars.

Each of the top hedge fund managers a billion dollars a year. One of the reasons they can pay themselves so much is the above-mentioned mortgage-backed securities bubble. That same bubble stole about 1/3 of the wealth of most Americans with an invested retirement fund and from invested pensions. It’s one of the reasons the money is partially gone when the bill comes due, and that’s partly politicians (of the “conservative” variety) and partly the obscene greed on Wall St. That billion dollars a year per hedge fund manager didn’t come out of thin air. And because five banks control 50% of the wealth in this country, they can basically write whatever legislation they want to favor them. If it were up to me, they would be regulated to within an inch of their greedy hides.

Haimerej said:
Where?

Carrying on our tradition of link spamming, here’s a chart showing the growing gap between wages and productivity from the mid-’70s till ’04. I’m sure the trends would continue if I could find data between here and now, but I know from reports that wages haven’t made any great gains in the last six years. And, of course, now that the Tea Party wants to end the minimum wage, the future could be even more bleak.

Haimerej said:
I have to say, your juxtaposition of these two shows me you know that unions can cause workers and the work environment to become inefficient.

Any combination of human beings can be inefficient. But Unions are democratic; corporations are dictatorships. Do you believe that non-unionized corporations are not inefficient and have no unnecessary bureaucracy?

Haimerej said:
Do you think it’s telling that unionization has shrunk in the private sector as it’s grown in the public sector? The private sector is unforgiving if your business is in the red. Government doesn’t have that problem, they can just inflate the currency and pay off their debts (screwing everyone else over in the process).

No, that’s not why. There has been a systematic war on unions for 100 years. As unionization helped build a solid middle class, that degree of financial comfort and stability had the unfortunate side effect of creating some selfishness and short-sighted nihilism among the baby boom generation, who found their way to the free market ideology that spread through the lands like a cancer. And since unions were the hated voice of the worker (in opposition to the saintly rights of the individual/corporation to make money), they’ve been demonized and hacked and slashed over the years. Because this generation doesn’t remember what working conditions were like before unions. All they need is a trip to China to get a preview of what could happen if unions go away forever.

Haimerej said:
Maybe not teachers.

So if you have a business and you want to hire a staff, how many of those people you plan to hire will have gone to public schools? Yes, teachers. Taxpayers pay for them, they educate a generation that grows up and gets hired by businesses. That’s infrastructure, sunny jim.

Haimerej said:
There are no deficits if there is no spending. Deficits are and always will be a problem of spending.

That’s how things work in Zimbabwe, or Colorado Springs, Colorado. That’s not how things work in the United States. Spending is necessary for a civilized society. I’m not a fan of deficits either, but where were all of you when Bush signed Medicare Part D, cut taxes on his friends the elite and started two wars where TRILLIONS of dollars have gone missing? Deficit spending is essential in a recession as deep and toxic as this one. We can’t all hope that Mark Zuckerberg will give the rest of his billions away to all the schools in the country, as awesome as that would be. Besides, there’s only one of him, only one Bill Gates, only one Warren Buffet. There are far more Lloyd Blankfeins, Jamie Dimons and Vikram Pandits.

Haimerej said:
I would hesitate in saying that rich people are shirking their public responsibilities as far as revenue is concerned. How can you say that when half the people in the country are receiving more money from the government than they’re putting in? Rich people pay more than their fair share. IIRC, something like 40% of what the government takes in comes from the top 2%.

Right, but if you look at the percentage of their income that they pay comparable to the percentage of income that the middle and working classes pay, you’ll see the real disparity. Also, take a look at another interesting chart showing that the top 1% have seen their incomes TRIPLE in the Bush years, while everyone else’s stay mostly flat. http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//6-25-10inc-f1.jpg

Haimerej said:
To me, what you’re describing is a utopian ideal in which the government provides for all.

As opposed to your utopian ideal where private business always does the right thing without any regulations being imposed on it? I think we’re both idealists to a degree when the truth is, there is no ideal set-up.

Haimerej said:
Well, we simply CAN’T do that. We don’t have enough money to do it. No one is entitled to the things you’re talking about. If you want to get technical, you could argue that the rich are already providing more than they should to some people. Having pulled myself up from official poverty, I am familiar with alot of people who take advantage of government handouts. I tell you, most people I’ve known at my economic level have no one to blame but themselves for their predicament. Many of them couldn’t hold down jobs because they had bad attitudes tied directly to the entitlement mentality. They get offended when their bosses tell them to do their jobs. Sometimes they just don’t feel like going to work so they call in sick. Then they get shocked when they’re fired. I am living proof to myself that hard work and being responsible will take you out of poverty in this country. The only people I’ve known that couldn’t get out of it were not good workers and were irresponsible people.

I’ve seen people exactly like those you describe promoted. It’s a stereotype that’s used to justify the strong’s primacy and marginalization of the weak. I too started out dirt poor and worked my way up to a decent life. But I did not lose my connection to the people that society pretends doesn’t exist. You start out poor, you have be extraordinary in some way to get out. Regular people who are born rich can have perfectly great lives, but if you’re ordinary and born in poverty, the cycle just repeats itself. I’ve volunteered in both private and public schools; I’ve seen kids who are brilliant but will either be washed away by their own dire circumstances or somehow find the extraordinary strength, perseverance or talent to get out; and I’ve seen utterly ordinary students whose education has opened up a whole different world for them to access, whose entry to private universities and good livings are assured in spite of their lack of strength, perseverance or talent.

I am for lifting everyone up so that can all live in a fair country where your ideals are possible. You know, under deregulation and Bush shenanigans, we now have almost the worst upward mobility in the industrialized world? So, if a version of you was 10 today, there’s far less chance you would make it. Maybe it was “liberal” public policies that were around when you were a kid that helped you get where you are. I know when I was a kid going to public school, they were a lot better funded, better supported and less federally regulated (thanks to George Bush and his brother’s testing company and the odious No Child Left Behind) than they are today.

Haimerej said:
Could you explain what’s wrong with their math? Also, that link is from New Jersey. We’re talking about California.

Now we’re talking about California, but before we were talking generally, and I think New Jersey is certainly analogous. Maybe their pensions didn’t get as much stolen from them by Wall St. as ours?

Haimerej said:
Headlines are meant to grab attention. If the extent of your research on a subject is to read the headlines of articles, then you’re doing yourself a disservice.

I wasn’t trying to suggest I was only reading the headline; I’m saying that headline, that framing, is intended to have a very targeted effect. That’s marketing.

Haimerej said:
Eh, make it optional.

Personally, I’d rather have the money in my paycheck. I’m preparing for my own retirement as we speak (I’m 28 y/o). If all goes accordingly (and at this point it’s just about my willingness to stick to the plan), I’ll be fine by the time I’m 40.

If it’s a pooling of resources, it can’t be optional. And if you’re preparing your own retirement, beware of Wall St. Unless it’s re-regulated, the last crash is nothing compared to what’s coming. I too am preparing to some day retire, and my paltry savings are not allowed within sniffing distance of those thieves.

Haimerej said:
I’m always amazed at stuff that get thumbs down.

I guess someone doesn’t approve of my fiscal responsibility in my personal life.

Oh well. I’ll be back Thursday. Good evening.

I didn’t realize you were gone. Well, later! Nice chatting with you. :)

Here’s the wages/productivity chart, d’oh! http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/02/business/03cov1.graphic.gif

Palin is a coward. She will only talk to friendly right-wing “news” organizations like Noosemax – who will make sure anything she says that’s particularly stupid will be excised before publication.

She says that if the Iranians obtained nuclear weapons it could lead to “Armegeddon.” Hardly an original thought and a scenario not exclusive to Iran. She offers no solution – which may be just as well.

Palin: “You know I was about laughed out of town for bringing to light what I called ‘death panels’…I called it like I saw it and people didn’t like it. ”

She was “laughed out of town” BEFORE making this ludicrous assertion. People “didn’t like” her for conjuring up this imaginary threat; i.e., lying.

Palin calls Obama naive and stubborn. Granted, he’s naive if he thinks the Republicants in Congress will cooperate with him in any way that helps our citizens. He’s stubborn about ending tax giveaways to wealthy people who don’t need them (and wouldn’t likely use them to help our economy, anyway). That kind of “stubborn” I can appreciate.

A president can be swayed by many factors, but no one can truly “pull his strings.” If anything, Palin has again exposed her OWN naivete and intellectual shallowness.

“Iran said they want to wipe Israel off the map.”

Much of that rhetorical bombast is for domestic Iranian consumption – not unlike our own neocon “saber-rattlers” – like Palin.

“Watching the effect that Palin has on deranged liberal woman like Glynnis offers much amusement!”

Glyniss seems perfectly rational. YOU, on the other hand. . . .

“NO ONE bettered interfere with my right to kill my baby, least of all some hick that chose to have her son with Downs Syndrome.”

Such decisions must remain between a woman and her doctor. Liberals strongly support this. Neocon extremists do not.

” . . . a woman with very little popularity who has no chance of ever winning public office.”

She has imposed herself into the political sphere. Like her or not – I vote “not” – she must be dealt with.

“Poor Glynnis, she has gone off the deep end. ”

Poor gordumb. He’s stuck in the shallow end. He can’t argue against the message so he’s stoning the messenger. He calls polls “phony” but offers no proof. He thinks (so to speak) that if he TALKS like Rush Wimpbag (“femi-Nazis”) he can BE Rush Wimpbag.

“The media love(d) Obama . . . ”

Media like Fox “News”?

VR: “Glynnis, you can retract your claws now.”

VR can retrieve his “marbles” . . . if any.

“Funny how unhinged [Palin]’s become now that she doesn’t have someone controlling her every word.”

I remember news reports that hubby Todd was pulling her strings, making decisions for her on matters of governance while she was in office. Disturbing, if true.

“[M]ake fun of the messenger.”

Nobody’s laughing. It’s fair to criticize or lampoon the media on matters of fact or style – but undeserved personal snipes are inappropriate.

It’s absurd to call Obama “extreme left.” TRUE lefties, even some fairly moderate ones, have complained about his over-accommodation of the neocons.

I’ve noted many times that the righties here seldom take on the substance of articles that are critical of – or even just non-complimentary of – right-wing persons or stances. Intellectual honesty is not highly prized by some folks here.

“If that woman chooses to run against Obama, the media will smear her like nothing you’ve ever seen.

I’m talking about Hillary Clinton.”

You’re also talking about Fox “News” and the entire right-wing “smear machine.” How long before they accuse HER of being a secret Muslim?

“That white woman has no business running.”

Why bring race into this? If it’s a feeble attempt at humor, it ain’t funny.

The National Journal’s “most liberal” rating is subjective: what exactly constitutes a “liberal” vote in Congress depends on the legislation at hand. Obama was criticized from the left for voting “conservatively” for the NSA wiretapping law, for example. Even so, Obama’s rating is not much higher than Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden and some others. Obama’s brand of liberalism is a far cry from the “extremist’ label you seek to plaster on him.

Opposing Alito was a matter of ALITO’S ideology, not so much Obama’s. Time has proven Obama correct. The extreme-right Supreme Court has ignored “stare decisis” (settled law) despite promises to the contrary. They are far more activist – and destructive – than even the most liberal prior court.

Obama is criticized for sending C-130s to China but would doubtless be condemned for any attempts to put limits on unfettered free trade with that country. (Neocons suddenly remembered that China is Communist after Bush left office.) The cited Washington Times – owned by “God” – has been a relentless neocon “sewage plant” of right-wing bilge disguised as reportage.

“The Obama administration gave corporate giant General Electric—the parent company of NBC–$24.9 million in grants ”

They also gave billions in unneeded tax giveaways to the weathy in an effort to get support from obstinate Republicants for the stimulus bill. If Repubs weren’t so beholden to their corporate masters, we could use stimulus $$$ where it is most needed, not as bribery for greedy corporations and rich individuals.

CNS – formerly Conservative News Service – gives scant details on the grant, its purpose or potential merits. That would be actual NEWS and not worthy of such an impartial entity. Sheesh.

“Soros has been an American citizen for 40 years. I never even heard his name until I started reading it over and over again as the “conservative” boogeyman. Do you have any idea how many billionaire thieves who don’t give a damn about America are as we speak bankrolling pro-corporate anti-American candidates and legislation, who all happen to be your fellow “conservatives”? To hear your hysterics, you’d think George Soros was the only billionaire in the U.S.”

Soros does not benefit personally from his philanthropic and political endeavors – unlike right-wing vultures like the Koch brothers and Richard Mellon Scaife who hide behind “astroturf” groups like the Koch-funded FreedomWorks. They delude unaware people into working against their own best interests.

“Being a community organizer gives one much more experience in foreign policy.”

No, but being in the Senate and dealing with foreign policy issues DOES.

Being “half-governor” of Alaska gives one experience in shooting animals from helicopters.

“Glynnis McKnuckle, the genius writer of this article”

“This site and its owners are paid Democratic advisors and spin artists.”

Please cite anything that is factually untrue in this story.

Please cite the source of your allegations of “paid Democratic advisors” currently on this site.

Please explain why you find it necessary to insult the article’s author. Nothing she wrote is demonstrably false or misleading.

Multiple “thumbs up” to whytee for thoughtful and thorough posts. Haimerej made a good effort, too.

whytee said:
I wish instead of attacking public institutions, pensions and entitlements, Libertarians would take a long, hard look at corporate subsidies and welfare.

Please do not confuse Libertarians with conservative Tea Partiers or want-to-be Librarians like Rand Paul (who seems to have learned nothing from his father).

Libertarianism is NOT “every man for them-self” as some conservatives seem to think!

I’ve been a life long Libertarian ever since I read Rand and Heinlein in Junior High. Libertarianism, at it’s core, is about maximizing the personal freedoms of all people. The open market (as opposed to the unfettered market) is recognized to be a major tool for achieving those freedoms, which is why Libertarians support the open market. In the 50′s when Rand was doing most of her writing, the threat to individual freedom was definitely was the government, but times have changed. Today Libertarians realize that the biggest threat to our freedoms and the open market is not government but instead big money and big corporations. (IMPORTANT: An open market is quite different than a corporate controlled unfettered market.)

Marla

Marla Louise said:
Please do not confuse Libertarians with conservative Tea Partiers or want-to-be Librarians like Rand Paul (who seems to have learned nothing from his father).

Ooops, that should be ‘Libertarians’, not ‘Librarians’ :-)

Sarah Palin: Obama Is ‘Quite Naive And Stubborn’; Someone Is ‘Pulling His Strings’

Was there EVER any doubt?

The Real Royal King said:
I am a polyglot.

Όχι, εσείς είναι απλά ψεύτης και ένας ψευδο διάνοια

jrcmi, don’t use too many facts and stop telling the truth, because the tea party doesn’t understand facts or truth!

You got it right!

Marla Louise said:
Please do not confuse Libertarians with conservative Tea Partiers or want-to-be Librarians like Rand Paul (who seems to have learned nothing from his father).

Libertarianism is NOT “every man for them-self” as some conservatives seem to think!

I’ve been a life long Libertarian ever since I read Rand and Heinlein in Junior High. Libertarianism, at it’s core, is about maximizing the personal freedoms of all people. The open market (as opposed to the unfettered market) is recognized to be a major tool for achieving those freedoms, which is why Libertarians support the open market. In the 50’s when Rand was doing most of her writing, the threat to individual freedom was definitely was the government, but times have changed. Today Libertarians realize that the biggest threat to our freedoms and the open market is not government but instead big money and big corporations. (IMPORTANT: An open market is quite different than a corporate controlled unfettered market.)

Marla

Maria, I appreciate the distinction but I’m not sure that all who call themselves Libertarians understand the distinction as you do.

But even as you define an open market, there is still a massive potential for corporate abuse of a society and unsustainable financial iniquities. I’m curious if there has ever been a successful Libertarian society? I mean, given human nature, even if a true open market were to be established, wouldn’t the greedy “bad apples” find a way to rig the system as they do in almost every political system, especially one in which survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle? I mean, how would a Libertarian government deal with a situation like that? How would it enforce whatever rules against fraud it enacted? With the opportunity to grow as massive as possible, how would any kind of law enforcement agency take on that kind of power? Wouldn’t the people at the helm of that agency be corruptible? And wouldn’t those living within the Libertarian society be just as susceptible to propaganda as it is under our current system, such that those calling themselves Libertarians without understanding the esoteric fine points, would see nothing wrong with corporate rigging? I’m amazed at the number of “conservatives” who deny there’s anything wrong with the Chamber of Commerce taking foreign money and simultaneously spending millions to manipulate the US elections simply because it’s “their side” doing it.

It is big business Sarah, they are pulling everyone’s strings with money. Hitler was buying everyone with money, if we had not done him in when we did. America would not be the same place it is today. Google Hitlers Lake, you will see what I mean.
The stock market has become the most inflationary segment of our economy. Stop the gambling-trading and get back to supporting companies that produce merchandise and flood the poverty stricken world with the necessities that they need include food with a long shelf life similar to can goods and packaged dried foods. If you remember the horrible attack on the Twin Towers, it was really directed at the stock market, big business better get their act together and get back to the straight and narrow blessed Capitalism we all remember form the 1920’s thru the 1950’s. Gangsters with white shirts, ties and pens are proving to be more deadly than the gangsters of the 1920’s with guns and no brains.

The gambling side of Wall Street is probably the biggest cause of inflation, more so than working class wage increases which are continually under attack. During the recent economic contraction, they were responsible for the birth of the Tea Party
The Tea Party saber rattling has fanned the fires of political thought during our election cycle.
The Tea Party is the results of many unsatisfied citizens, unhappy with the way the wealthy class carrying their feeling of inflated worth on their shirt sleeve flaunting it openly, furiously and continually without regard for any other citizens on the face of the earth. This is a boil that has come to a head, revealed by the near economic collapse showing gross neglect in business dealings by experts in the field of finance and money handling, who advocate less regulation and more honor systems, which in hind sight proved to be one of the main contributors to this financial debacle. While profits soared and over productivity was quite visible, financial experts did nothing but lose their honor. However, the tax payers, (the payers of last resort) picked up the pieces to save our precious system.
The Tea Party contains people from all walks of life with shared main points of interest, being honest, sincere, hard working, with and up front in your face approach. This would probably also represent what all three political parties claim for their selves. Human nature being as it is, many in the Tea Party probably have hopes of guiding some influence towards a few of their favored politicians that represent their personal interest, rather than the interest of all citizens.
It’s doubtful the Tea Party will amount to anything more than a wake-up call for more transparency during a time when people are thinking politics. Biggest wasteful spending is inflation in the stock market, not in working class wages which is the most beneficial circulation of money.

She is without doubt one of the biggest morons to ever have such a role in the right-wing

She is completely unable to have any sort of discussion on a serious issue b/c she is too stupid to put any arguments together

Is someone paying Glynnis to write this re-hashed Liberal attack jiberish? If so, they need a giant refund!

Palin is clueless to a fault that she is still beauty queen who can’t get her act together. She is exceptionally uneducated and led by her fundamentalist religious anti-humanist values. While Governor of Alaska she allowed her husband to act as a representative of the state. What kind of hillbilly low life is she one might ask. Because of her irreverence for her office, she cast it aside to get rid of serious allegations of misconduct.

Palin was just on Fox and said that today: somewhere in the world the sun will shine, somewhere it will rain and someone might drive a car! Wow, man, she is so in touch with the current state! She might be right! God Bless Sarah, pass the grape drink!

whytee said:
True fact.

As opposed to the false kind? :P

whytee said:
There are some things I agree with you Libertarians about. Eliminating key elements of government is not one of them. That said, the manipulation of tax policy by the increasingly massive and trans-national corporations with their accessories in government has hurt this country more than anyone in the mainstream will ever acknowledge. This is actually a “big government” issue, yet curiously, other than Ron Paul–when pressed–not a single politician, not a single Tea Partier, not a single “conservative” ever addresses it. Corporate welfare is a disease and this country is on life-support from it. I wish instead of attacking public institutions, pensions and entitlements, Libertarians would take a long, hard look at corporate subsidies and welfare. And, no, the flat tax is not the solution.

Have you looked into the FairTax? I admit I haven’t done much research into it, but from what I’ve heard it sounds pretty good. IIRC, something like 22% of what we pay for any given product is tax. The Fair Tax would eliminate that and replace it with a 23% sales tax. Yes, it’s 1% higher, but we wouldn’t have all the other taxes hitting our paychecks. I like the idea of eliminating business, income, and other taxes and implementing a tax based solely upon consumption. I believe the elimination of those other forms of taxes would attract investment. Foreign businesses would come to this country in droves if they could operate tax free. That would create scores of jobs and wealth.

whytee said:
Back to the subject, with the situation the way it is vis a vis profoundly powerful corporations who do not have the best interest of these United States at heart, who–if not the government–can prevent them from abusing this country and the people in it? (If you want examples of this, I’ve got a very long list). Be honest.

Define abuse.

whytee said:
The thing is, how do you protect citizens from fraud without a powerful government?

The Judicial system. Passing laws meant to prevent something never actually prevent it. Attempting to preempt fraud by adding costly regulations only hurts the smaller businesses and startups. Those big, evil corporations you mentioned above are, in many cases, supportive of new, costly regulations. They’ve already got theirs and they can absord higher costs. It’s the smaller banks and businesses that these regulations hurt the most. It’s an effective tool corporations have used for a long time to keep out competition. Monopolies are created by the government through regulation. Most cases involve companies that took advantage of unregulated markets to become industry leaders and then support burdensome regulation that they can afford but which severely limits the ability for startups in their industry to get a strong enough foothold to compete on their level. That’s why special interests should be kept out of Washington.

whytee said:
You’re still talking about individual representatives, many of whom can be bought. Look at the beginning of the mortgage-backed securities bubble. Eliot Spitzer and attorneys general from all 50 states wanted to stop predatory lending and were shut down by the Bush administration.

From what I’ve seen, opposition to the OCC was centered around laws that were wanting to stop high fees involved with predatory lending, not subprime lending itself. While I’m not endorsing the action of the OCC, I hesitate to say that this action alone caused the bubble. Subprime loans are risky by their nature. They don’t require predatory practices to go into default. I’m eagerly awaiting the result of investigations under way into the causes of all these foreclosures.

whytee said:
The most epic fraud was being committed and a) Bush et al were happy because their friends on Wall St. were making it hand over fist, and b) the media was asleep at the switch. I watched this happen in slow motion. I was aware of what was happening but everyone around me thought all of a sudden it was Christmas and banks were just giving money away. You couldn’t turn on the radio or TV without hearing some pusher trying to get people into jumbo loans. This was a well-organized fraudulent racket, and it couldn’t have happened without both demand and complicity at the top.

This is my take on the issue- Yes, banks are run by greedy people. They want to make money. Due to that, why would something like the subprime boom happen? Historically, they should have known (and most likely did know) that these kinds of loans shouldn’t be made. So why did they do it to begin with? You cannot ignore the government’s role in this. Fannie and Freddie own over half the mortgages in the US. You can’t be that involved in the housing industry and not be a part of the collapse. Barney Frank said in 2003, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping make housing more affordable, … they have a mission that this Congress has given them.” Former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae Edward Pinto recently came out and said Fannie and Freddie were “routinely misrepresent[ing] the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A.” back in the 1990′s.

whytee said:
And please don’t say this proves that government doesn’t work–this proves that “conservative” ideology doesn’t work. It all started with Phil Gramm and deregulation and descended from there. If we’d kept the Depression Era legislation on the books and enforced the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, this wouldn’t have happened.

I’ll let Gramm defend himself-

“…if GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass-Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified…Moreover, GLB didn’t deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB.”

and President Clinton, who signed the bill-

“I don’t see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill…. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I’d be glad to look at the evidence.”

whytee said:
So, if you expect a pared down government to stop fraud on that level in a privatized world in which everything is about self-interest and not the good of society as a whole, I’d love to hear how enforcement of any kind of anti-fraud measures would be possible.

You can’t “stop fraud” even with those measures in place. That’s the point. When someone committs fraud, it’s already happened. The hope is that the judicial system will punish them.

whytee said:
Carrying on our tradition of link spamming, here’s a chart showing the growing gap between wages and productivity from the mid-’70s till ‘04. I’m sure the trends would continue if I could find data between here and now, but I know from reports that wages haven’t made any great gains in the last six years. And, of course, now that the Tea Party wants to end the minimum wage, the future could be even more bleak.

I think that may be misleading. Our standard of living has improved since the 1970′s. When dealing with averages, there are many variables like population growth and an increase in unskilled labor. One explanation for higher productivity could be the decrease in union representation in the private sector. Most people are familiar with stories of union members refusing to do work that’s not in their job description. Most people I know in the working world scoff at that kind of attitude. The essence of teamwork is doing what is necessary to benefit the team and get the job done.

whytee said:
Any combination of human beings can be inefficient. But Unions are democratic; corporations are dictatorships. Do you believe that non-unionized corporations are not inefficient and have no unnecessary bureaucracy?

Of course not. However, non-unionized companies don’t have to deal with the aforementioned, “That’s not in my job description” style of work. There’s no such thing as 100% efficiency, but I would bet that non-union vs union efficiency favors the former.

I think one thing I’m starting to notice in your arguments is your focus on corporations. Corporations make up a small percent of businesses in our economy. Yes, they represent a large portion of the wealth, but passing laws that regulate business doesn’t affect only the largest ones.

whytee said:
No, that’s not why. There has been a systematic war on unions for 100 years. As unionization helped build a solid middle class, that degree of financial comfort and stability had the unfortunate side effect of creating some selfishness and short-sighted nihilism among the baby boom generation, who found their way to the free market ideology that spread through the lands like a cancer. And since unions were the hated voice of the worker (in opposition to the saintly rights of the individual/corporation to make money), they’ve been demonized and hacked and slashed over the years. Because this generation doesn’t remember what working conditions were like before unions. All they need is a trip to China to get a preview of what could happen if unions go away forever.

I disagree. We don’t have China conditions in 93% of the private sector which isn’t unionized. Our culture wouldn’t tolerate it, and I hesitate to give unions the kind of credit you’re giving them. Most of the better conditions we have in the workplace were put there through the market force of competition and not the demands of unions. Employers found that good work conditions attract better workers. Even healthcare benefits started as a recruitment tool, not a union demand.

whytee said:
So if you have a business and you want to hire a staff, how many of those people you plan to hire will have gone to public schools? Yes, teachers. Taxpayers pay for them, they educate a generation that grows up and gets hired by businesses. That’s infrastructure, sunny jim.

Ah… touche.

whytee said:
That’s how things work in Zimbabwe, or Colorado Springs, Colorado. That’s not how things work in the United States. Spending is necessary for a civilized society. I’m not a fan of deficits either, but where were all of you when Bush signed Medicare Part D, cut taxes on his friends the elite and started two wars where TRILLIONS of dollars have gone missing?

Personally? I was in a stoned haze. What were you doing? I think that’s kind of a red herring. It’s being used by alot people to say that Obama’s opposition is racist in nature. “Why didn’t all these people oppose Bush’s spending??” Well, I think much of the opposition to spending policies is a result of the recession, which is causing people to take a new look at fiscal responsibility. The Tea Parties were getting going before Bush left office, around the time of TARP.

whytee said:
Deficit spending is essential in a recession as deep and toxic as this one. We can’t all hope that Mark Zuckerberg will give the rest of his billions away to all the schools in the country, as awesome as that would be. Besides, there’s only one of him, only one Bill Gates, only one Warren Buffet. There are far more Lloyd Blankfeins, Jamie Dimons and Vikram Pandits.

I’m not so sure about that. The country survived for quite a long time before this idea crept in with Keynes. There are many people who believe the deficit spending of FDR prolonged the Great Depression. Unemployment was around 15% when Pearl Harbor happened. There is a much stronger argument for WWII ending the Depression than for FDR’s fiscal policies.

whytee said:
Right, but if you look at the percentage of their income that they pay comparable to the percentage of income that the middle and working classes pay, you’ll see the real disparity.

“Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data. That’s true whether it comes to their federal income taxes or their total federal taxes.”

Source- http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3151

whytee said:
Also, take a look at another interesting chart showing that the top 1% have seen their incomes TRIPLE in the Bush years, while everyone else’s stay mostly flat. http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//6-25-10inc-f1.jpg

That’s another misleading chart. That’s simply a percent of change in what they pay. The lower income brackets never really paid much to begin with (if anything at all), so obviously it wouldn’t change very much. Because the tax rates were higher on the wealthier, cutting their taxes will obviously show a higher % of change in their income.

whytee said:
As opposed to your utopian ideal where private business always does the right thing without any regulations being imposed on it? I think we’re both idealists to a degree when the truth is, there is no ideal set-up.

Sure, we’re both idealists, but what you’re presenting is the strawman about the Libertarian POV. No one believes they will always do the right thing, hence the necessity for laws that punish wrong doing. The argument from a Libertarian perspective is that costly regulations meant to prevent wrongdoing are more detrimental to the people who don’t already have the capital to meet the financial obligations they impose.

whytee said:
I’ve seen people exactly like those you describe promoted.

Then those companies will soon be going under.

whytee said:
It’s a stereotype that’s used to justify the strong’s primacy and marginalization of the weak. I too started out dirt poor and worked my way up to a decent life. But I did not lose my connection to the people that society pretends doesn’t exist.

Who might that be?

whytee said:
You start out poor, you have be extraordinary in some way to get out. Regular people who are born rich can have perfectly great lives, but if you’re ordinary and born in poverty, the cycle just repeats itself. I’ve volunteered in both private and public schools; I’ve seen kids who are brilliant but will either be washed away by their own dire circumstances or somehow find the extraordinary strength, perseverance or talent to get out; and I’ve seen utterly ordinary students whose education has opened up a whole different world for them to access, whose entry to private universities and good livings are assured in spite of their lack of strength, perseverance or talent.

I disagree with the idea that you have to be extraordinary. You simply have to have discipline and use resources available to everyone, like the library. I’m not college educated, I’ve learned what I know through my own study. As of right now, my family and I are just above the official poverty line in our state. But my wife and I have excellent credit scores and have recently bought a sizable chunk of land in which we’re placing our future hopes in. We did this by, as Dave Ramsey says, “living like no one else so later we can live like no one else.” (oh, and for my pride’s sake, we came to that conclusion before I ever knew who Ramsey was, but I’ve become a fan of his).

whytee said:
I am for lifting everyone up so that can all live in a fair country where your ideals are possible.

So, what is “fair”? I really hate that word because most of the time it’s used, it’s meaningless. It’s usually used by people who aren’t happy with their lot in life and are envious of others’. Yes, some people are born into money. You might consider that unfair. Well, at some point someone in their family did what is necessary to earn that wealth. Do they not have the right to leave that to their heirs? At what point does that begin? I like to give things to my daughter. She didn’t “earn” them through any kind of action. She’s simply my daughter. I love her and like to give her things that improve her standard of living. I should be able to do that, in fact I should be able to leave all I’ve worked for in my life to whoever I want. It’s my decision.

whytee said:
You know, under deregulation and Bush shenanigans, we now have almost the worst upward mobility in the industrialized world? So, if a version of you was 10 today, there’s far less chance you would make it. Maybe it was “liberal” public policies that were around when you were a kid that helped you get where you are.

I hated school and did very poorly. Barely graduated in fact. I was suspended so much that I basically missed an entire year. In order to graduate on time, I took several courses through correspondence my senior year. My school record is hardly responsible for what I’ve accomplished in my life. I learned discipline in the military.

whytee said:
I know when I was a kid going to public school, they were a lot better funded, better supported and less federally regulated (thanks to George Bush and his brother’s testing company and the odious No Child Left Behind) than they are today.

I thought you were all for regulation?

whytee said:
Now we’re talking about California, but before we were talking generally, and I think New Jersey is certainly analogous. Maybe their pensions didn’t get as much stolen from them by Wall St. as ours?

Okay, but I specifically brought up Cali when I said you could retire a millionaire, you said prove it, I showed the data, you questioned it, I gave another source, you posted a source to counter it, and here we are.

whytee said:
I wasn’t trying to suggest I was only reading the headline; I’m saying that headline, that framing, is intended to have a very targeted effect. That’s marketing.

Right. That doesn’t take away from the points that were made about the pensions though.

whytee said:
If it’s a pooling of resources, it can’t be optional.

But it shouldn’t be a pooling of resources. That benefits those that didn’t earn it, the essence of being “unfair.” ;)

whytee said:
And if you’re preparing your own retirement, beware of Wall St.

Screw Wall St. It’s a sucker’s game. Always has been, always will be. There are exceptions to the rule, for sure. But the only people that usually make money are the ones who already have it.

whytee said:
Unless it’s re-regulated, the last crash is nothing compared to what’s coming. I too am preparing to some day retire, and my paltry savings are not allowed within sniffing distance of those thieves.

Don’t rely on savings. My grandfather told me what his father told him, “You’ll never get ahead in life working for someone else. You have to find a way to make money in your sleep.” For him, that was cattle. I mentioned above that I’ve recently bought land. I did alot of research and have found a market in which demand is higher than supply. I hesitate to mention exactly what that is (don’t need the competition hehe), but suffice to say that an initial investment of less than $10,000 and some good old fashioned sweat equity can lead to an annual return of $50k in a bad year and up to $250k in the most optimum. I’ve never even sniffed the former and wouldn’t know what to do with myself if I had the latter.

Haimerej said:
Have you looked into the FairTax? I admit I haven’t done much research into it, but from what I’ve heard it sounds pretty good. IIRC, something like 22% of what we pay for any given product is tax. The Fair Tax would eliminate that and replace it with a 23% sales tax. Yes, it’s 1% higher, but we wouldn’t have all the other taxes hitting our paychecks. I like the idea of eliminating business, income, and other taxes and implementing a tax based solely upon consumption. I believe the elimination of those other forms of taxes would attract investment. Foreign businesses would come to this country in droves if they could operate tax free. That would create scores of jobs and wealth.

Could not disagree more. The Fair Tax is a scam to put more of the burden on the working and middle classes, and then poor. If you’ve got means, it’s about the easiest kind of tax to dodge.

Haimerej said:
Define abuse.

Take a look at what happened in Pinochet’s Chile, where free market ideology had free reign, and report back to me.

Haimerej said:
The Judicial system. Passing laws meant to prevent something never actually prevent it. Attempting to preempt fraud by adding costly regulations only hurts the smaller businesses and startups. Those big, evil corporations you mentioned above are, in many cases, supportive of new, costly regulations. They’ve already got theirs and they can absord higher costs. It’s the smaller banks and businesses that these regulations hurt the most. It’s an effective tool corporations have used for a long time to keep out competition. Monopolies are created by the government through regulation.

Whoa there! Hold on a minute. So, when Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, small competing businesses didn’t get sucked up by huge ones? Big corporations didn’t have mergers to make even bigger corporations? And when Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act, the media didn’t get absorbed into five companies? You’ll have to explain that one because that dog don’t hunt. Also, on the earlier point, what hurts small businesses and startups is big corporations. Look what happened to Main St. when WalMart moved in.

Haimerej said:
Most cases involve companies that took advantage of unregulated markets to become industry leaders and then support burdensome regulation that they can afford but which severely limits the ability for startups in their industry to get a strong enough foothold to compete on their level. That’s why special interests should be kept out of Washington.

My interpretation of what you’re talking about is completely different. The kinds of regulations you’re talking about are a straw man for the kinds of regulations that protect a society from predatory monopoly capitalism. You know, like the regulations that are supposed to make sure the food you buy isn’t tainted, the water in your river isn’t toxic, that you’re not being scammed by banks, stuff like that. In the old days, before Reagan, we had competition in the marketplace. Now, as the good kind of regulations have been stripped by hiding behind a disguise of the bad kinds of regulations, our safety and security is vastly more threatened. Our communities are fragmented. Etc. etc.

Haimerej said:
From what I’ve seen, opposition to the OCC was centered around laws that were wanting to stop high fees involved with predatory lending, not subprime lending itself. While I’m not endorsing the action of the OCC, I hesitate to say that this action alone caused the bubble. Subprime loans are risky by their nature. They don’t require predatory practices to go into default. I’m eagerly awaiting the result of investigations under way into the causes of all these foreclosures.

You can read about it from the horse’s mouth. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

In my view, this is a case of supply and demand. The demand came directly from Wall St. and these sophisticated financial instruments which required a huge amount of mortgages to traunch. To feed that demand, scam artists of every stripe snapped into action to generate a vast supply of subprime mortgages. So, there were two components, but the one at the top–on Wall St.–was the one with the power to get legislation written to legalize their scam and direct the corridors of power to let them get their massive payout. The one at the bottom–on Main St, where people were steered toward these subprime mortgages and victimized by a parade of fraudsters–was the supply. Elliot Spitzer was working on stemming the supply, but Wall St. wouldn’t have it. And George Bush and the OCC acted accordingly.

Haimerej said:
This is my take on the issue- Yes, banks are run by greedy people. They want to make money. Due to that, why would something like the subprime boom happen? Historically, they should have known (and most likely did know) that these kinds of loans shouldn’t be made. So why did they do it to begin with? You cannot ignore the government’s role in this.

Do you understand that hedge funds and big banks were doing with these mortgages? Do you realize how they were making money off of them? And not just a little money, a LOT of money. The total “value” of these derivatives are something like THREE TIMES the GDP of the Earth. What they did was take, say, 10 high risk subprime morgages to every one non-risky prime mortgage … then cut them all into little slivers and then miss those slivers together into traunches, so maybe it’s a ratio of 10:1 bad mortgages to good, or 7:3 or whatever, but usually 10:1. Then, the rating agencies WHOM THEY PAY THE SALARIES OF rate these traunches AAA. They get sold to investors all over the world. Meanwhile, the voracious beast is being fed by predatory lenders like Countrywide, who would go up to grandma’s house, scam the crap out of her to get her to leverage her house (even when the house was paid off or in a secure mortgage) without disclosing any of the small print of this loan. This latter part of the equation is what Spitzer et al were trying to stop. Do you see? It’s a two-part equation.

Haimerej said:
Fannie and Freddie own over half the mortgages in the US. You can’t be that involved in the housing industry and not be a part of the collapse.

Do you understand why Freddie and Fannie own these mortgages? Fannie and Freddie don’t actually lend directly to people. Did you realize that? They’re like the permanent bailout agency for big banks. They buy mortgages from the actual lenders. They had incredibly strict anti-subprime standards until they were pressured by the Bush Administration to accept them. Even then, they had a ratio of prime to subprime they had to maintain. It was once a purely government agency. The trouble started when it was partially privatized. Fannie & Freddie were pressured to get in on the scam because the big banks needed a dumping ground for their garbage. Fannie & Freddie are part of the equation, but hardly the cause.

Haimerej said:
Barney Frank said in 2003, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping make housing more affordable, … they have a mission that this Congress has given them.” Former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae Edward Pinto recently came out and said Fannie and Freddie were “routinely misrepresent[ing] the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A.” back in the 1990’s.

So, yeah. What about the banks that were producing these mortgages? That line of argument is ridiculous. That’s why I want Pecora Hearings on this. The idiotic mainstream news has not reported this story accurately and I don’t think anyone understands what happened unless you spent months studying it from a vast array of non-politicized sources, which I did. The right wing sources love this talking point, but facts show that Fannie/Freddie was a component of the disaster BUT NOT THE CAUSE. It’s like saying that only the people who acquired mortgages in Florida caused the crash. It’s not true. All it takes is a little research and you’ll see.

Haimerej said:
I’ll let Gramm defend himself-
“…if GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass-Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified…Moreover, GLB didn’t deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB.”

Hilarious. OK, I’ll deconstruct it for you.

GRAMM: “…if GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass-Steagall requirements to begin with.”
That’s nonsensical. The crisis began here because these derivatives originated here. Increased globalization brought many global investors into this scam, from which they’re still feeling the pain. Europe also has steep collateral requirements (which Bush & Paulson in a secret meeting with Goldman Sachs) dropped precipitously to allow this scam to move forward. European countries are also not afraid to temporarily nationalize banks in situations like this, clean house, and get the economy going again. This country is the only one that protects these huge banks when they screw up this epically. You should start reading the Financial Times (ft.com) if you want to learn about this stuff.

GRAMM: “Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified…”

Oh really? You mean, the Bush Administration didn’t give Lehman the death sentence while allowing the JP Morgan rescue/merger? This is a flat-out lie. You need to look into this one. It has nothing to do with failure or success — the government CHOSE JP Morgan to save because they were competition to the big banks. Do you realize that 50% of all the wealth in this country is in the hands of the five biggest banks? JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, B of A … I can’t remember the other two. By the way, I’m writing this response off the top of my head without googling, so if I get something slightly off, that’s why.

GRAMM: “Moreover, GLB didn’t deregulate anything.”

This is a lie. The Glass Steagall Act put up a wall between investment banks and regular lending/savings banks. Investment banks couldn’t sell insurance, couldn’t loan, etc. That wall was put up because these same conditions led to the Great Depression. GLB deregulated that extremely critical regulation. Check out what AIG is doing if you don’t think this is a big deregulation deal. Gramm is lying (not surprising).

GRAMM: “It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB.”

Do you watch that show about Atlantic City with Steve Buscemi. Well, on that show, the local crime boss has installed his brother as chief of police, and it’s a small police force, very small. This is what Gramm is talking about above when you look at what happened following GLB. The force policing white collar crime and fraud was reduced and put on the payroll of the criminals. Also, in his quote, he doesn’t talk about the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which was another huge blow to the people on behalf of the big banks. Look into that one.

GRAMM: “I don’t see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill…. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I’d be glad to look at the evidence.”
That’s like saying, it’s a good thing the mass murderer chopped up his victims because it made it easier to load the pieces into the truck. He’s a disgusting pig. Deregulation works great for billionaires. They have nothing to worry about. They knew Paulson would bail them out with our money. They never sweat a single drop over this. We’ve all been taken for a trillion-dollar scam.

You’re for deregulation — this is what you get when you roll back regulations designed to prevent EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED from happening again. Notice how the mainstream never talks about Gramm? Barney Frank is your boogeyman, yet the real man behind the curtain gets completely ignored by you guys. Like he never existed. Well, he did, and he was backed by a GOP-controlled Congress. And his wife was waiting in the wings to use the loophole HE PUSHED through Congress to take part in the ENRON scheme. And when he left the Senate, he fled to UBS, a foreign bank, where he was richly rewarded.

Haimerej said:
and President Clinton, who signed the bill-

He was a free marketer President (who I think is beginning to rethink drinking that Ayn Rand kool aid). He also signed the Telecommunications Act. He also signed NAFTA. That’s when I became a registered Independent. In some ways he was a great President, and certainly vastly better than Reagan or Bush, but he was drinking that free market kool aid, and it was a huge mistake.

Haimerej said:
You can’t “stop fraud” even with those measures in place. That’s the point. When someone committs fraud, it’s already happened. The hope is that the judicial system will punish them.

Oh please. So, if Spitzer and the other attorneys general were able to stop all the predatory lending going on and cut off the supply of these out of control “financial weapons of mass destruction” as Warren Buffet called them, you don’t think a LOT of fraud would have been prevented between 2002 and 2007?

I’m going to try to do the rest of your comments later. I have to duck away for a minute.

Haimerej said:
I think that may be misleading. Our standard of living has improved since the 1970’s. When dealing with averages, there are many variables like population growth and an increase in unskilled labor. One explanation for higher productivity could be the decrease in union representation in the private sector. Most people are familiar with stories of union members refusing to do work that’s not in their job description. Most people I know in the working world scoff at that kind of attitude. The essence of teamwork is doing what is necessary to benefit the team and get the job done.

I think that’s an unfair characterization of union workers. There are plenty of non-union workers who do exactly the same thing. I’ve worked with enough of them. I would argue that the increase in productivity is tied to unemployment — people being afraid to lose their jobs, doing more for less, etc. I know someone right now who is not in a union and is expected to work overtime without pay, and only allowed to take half of her guaranteed vacation time. If she doesn’t comply, she loses her job. This is a widespread and growing phenomenon. I know someone else who was part of a class action lawsuit by a group of workers who worked without breaks during regular hours and then worked overtime with no overtime pay. This is so customary in these times of off-shoring that unless such a lawsuit takes place, people just get used to that kind of employee abuse. This is why I think unions need to return back from the brink. A country’s success is not just weighed on the wealth of its millionaires but on the “blessings of liberty” enjoyed by its people.

But in any case, the facts speak for themselves. Productivity represents demand. Wages represent supply. When the supply is limited, wages go up. When you have an oversupply (because, say, millions of jobs have been shipped overseas, as have been successively for decades, reaching a peak during the Bush Administration), wages go flat.

Haimerej said:
Of course not. However, non-unionized companies don’t have to deal with the aforementioned, “That’s not in my job description” style of work. There’s no such thing as 100% efficiency, but I would bet that non-union vs union efficiency favors the former.

The thing is, in this economy–thanks to 30 years of Reaganomics–everyone except the top 1%–is afraid for their financial future. If this characterization were ever true (which, maybe there were cases back in the peak of unionization in the ’40s), it definitely isn’t now. Greenspan famously said that he ran the Fed in a way that would intentionally generate wage insecurity for workers. Think about that for a minute. He used his power at the Fed to strike fear in the hearts of workers. You talk about efficiency, but efficiency for whom? Are the CEO and the shareholders the only people that matter? I think workers can be more efficient if they have the benefits a union gives them. Workers that get used up and discarded may be efficient for the CEOs, but not for the workers themselves or the society in which they live.

Haimerej said:
I think one thing I’m starting to notice in your arguments is your focus on corporations. Corporations make up a small percent of businesses in our economy. Yes, they represent a large portion of the wealth, but passing laws that regulate business doesn’t affect only the largest ones.

There’s a history of corporations in this country that you should look into. The rise of monopoly capitalism is something I was closely because I think it’s the rot in our system. I don’t even think it’s Republican vs. Democrat. I think it’s the powerful vs. everybody else, and the powerful are unquenchable. You may think that’s good, but there’s such a thing as severe excess, and it’s a syndrome that haunts all the failed societies throughout history. A recent study was done that when Americans were asked what they believed the wealth distribution was in this country, they chose the chart representing Sweden — a socialist democracy — because Sweden has more or less equal groupings of rich and every other income bracket. The truth is that America has the highest disparity between the rich and everyone else of any industrialized country. We’re like a banana republic and don’t even know it. That’s was Friedman/Supply Side/Reaganomics have done to this country. We used to look a lot more like Sweden. I blame the corporations and those who head them. They’re stateless now — since they can move their headquarters overseas, don’t have to pay taxes here, hire a workforce overseas and sell to the burgeoning markets in India and Asia. They have what I call short-sighted nihilism. The greed of those at the top is helping to destroy the country that afforded them the opportunity to live the lives they have. I find them sickening in every way. Not every corporation is bad. Some are quite conscientious in not lobbying Congress, not putting their thumb on the political scale, etc., but as all competition gets absorbed into a handful of leviathans, that is not boding well for the health of the nation. BTW, you should watch that documentary “The Corporation” — it does a psychological profile of corporations. It’s incredibly fascinating.

Haimerej said:
I disagree. We don’t have China conditions in 93% of the private sector which isn’t unionized. Our culture wouldn’t tolerate it, and I hesitate to give unions the kind of credit you’re giving them. Most of the better conditions we have in the workplace were put there through the market force of competition and not the demands of unions. Employers found that good work conditions attract better workers. Even healthcare benefits started as a recruitment tool, not a union demand.

WHAT????? You can’t make up your own version of history. The history of labor is not taught in this country (deliberately, btw, because that road of knowledge was closed after Reagan), but there’s no excuse for you to argue from a place of ignorance. You cannot be serious. So, please, read a little bit about it before opining. I’ll wait…

As far as my point about China, when people on the right spout the talking points of the big corporate PR firms, they says things like “we have to off-shore to stay competitive.” My question to them is, are we competing to see who will eat the most $#!&? Because by forcing American workers to compete with Chinese workers who make 50 cents an hour and have abysmal working conditions is what’s happening here. The competition is to see how low big business can drive labor, how high they can skyrocket unemployment, so yes, the American worker WILL stand for it if he wants to feed his family. We are competing with a communist dictatorship and third world countries for jobs because we have allowed companies selling goods and services in America unfettered free trade with these slave/child labor countries. The whole point of this exercise is to turn us into China, and we’re getting there. So maybe now, today, the American work force won’t stand for it, but let’s see how high these policies can get unemployment and then recheck that.

Haimerej said:
Ah… touche.

I think it’s worth meditating on this point. Not many seem to take this into consideration in these arguments.

Haimerej said:
Personally? I was in a stoned haze. What were you doing? I think that’s kind of a red herring. It’s being used by alot people to say that Obama’s opposition is racist in nature. “Why didn’t all these people oppose Bush’s spending??” Well, I think much of the opposition to spending policies is a result of the recession, which is causing people to take a new look at fiscal responsibility. The Tea Parties were getting going before Bush left office, around the time of TARP.

I was opposed to all of it and screamed and gnashed my teeth and argued endlessly on the internet and protested at demonstrations… but it made no difference. Anyway, I’m older than you, so you can be forgiven. But you see the hypocrisy of that argument, right? Not everyone who believes as you do is as young as you. Everybody I knew on the right side of the spectrum had a big smile during those years. You criticized the wars, you were unAmerican. You criticized Medicare Part D (which was essentially a giveaway to the big pharmaceutical corporations and left a donut hole for seniors to have to pay for prescriptions out of pocket), and you hated grandma. You criticized the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires (during TWO WARS … the only time in US history when taxes were lowered at wartime) and you were a communist.

As far as people suddenly getting wise to fiscal responsibility, it’s completely deliberate and has nothing to do with racism. Bush got to be both the Santa Claus of lower taxes and the Santa Claus of spending programs. This is a long hallowed tradition on the right. It’s called the “two santa claus theory” and was developed by a GOP ideologues named Jude Wannisky. The “two santa claus theory” was developed because Republicans were always getting hammered when Democrats would come into office and have all these great spending programs to “promote the general welfare,” as it were. Wannisky discovered the GOP could be both the party of low taxes and generous spending because when the tide inevitably turned, they could then scream about the deficit and make the Democrats cut the kind of spending the right wanted to cut, not the kind of spending they themselves created. Here it is from the horse’s mouth: http://wallstreetpit.com/26546-jude-wanniski-taxes-and-a-two-santa-theory

On your second point, the LAST thing we should be doing in a recession is making deficit reduction the top priority. You cannot get blood from a stone. The way to reduce the deficit is to increase the tax base; the only way to increase the tax base is to create an environment where jobs can be created; jobs are created through demand for goods and services; the only way people have the money to demand goods and services (must add here that there’s no credit to artificially expand consumer spending) is if they have money in their pockets. Ergo, stimulus spending (a stupid name if ever there was one — Democrats are terrible at marketing even their good ideas) is far more important at this crucial juncture than reducing the deficit because even extreme austerity will not make a dent. People need to be working. If they’re working, collecting a paycheck, they’re paying taxes, not collecting unemployment. I’m also a firm believer in raising the top marginal tax rate (for people making more than $3 million a year) closer to where it stood for 50 years (in the 90% range, then in the 70% range) until Reagan cut it by 2/3s, and closing corporate tax loopholes so the billionaires at the top can no longer get a free ride on our backs. Do that, and that would help the deficit quite a bit.

Haimerej said:
I’m not so sure about that. The country survived for quite a long time before this idea crept in with Keynes. There are many people who believe the deficit spending of FDR prolonged the Great Depression. Unemployment was around 15% when Pearl Harbor happened. There is a much stronger argument for WWII ending the Depression than for FDR’s fiscal policies.

People who believe that FDR’s deficit spending prolonged the Great Depression are wrong. FDR came into office a fiscal conservative. His fiscally conservative policies prolonged the Depression. As soon as he understood the reality of what was happening, he created programs that brought hope back to people and life back to the economy. WWII did not end the Depression. Everything manufactured for WW II did not come back to this country in terms of wealth. Weapons, vehicles, etc. were destroyed. An economy grows when money is recirculated into an economy to help it grow. Sure people have jobs, but people knew how to sacrifice back then. There was rationing and patriotic sacrifice everywhere you looked. People were already coming out of the Depression when WW II started. Yes, unemployment may have still been high but it was no where near the poverty and desperation that Republican deregulation created.

Haimerej said:
“Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data. That’s true whether it comes to their federal income taxes or their total federal taxes.”

That’s another misleading chart. That’s simply a percent of change in what they pay. The lower income brackets never really paid much to begin with (if anything at all), so obviously it wouldn’t change very much. Because the tax rates were higher on the wealthier, cutting their taxes will obviously show a higher % of change in their income.

They’re paying taxes on a HIGHER percentage of their income. If you make $400,000 a year, you’re paying social security for the entire year. If you make $500,000 a year, you’re only paying it for a couple of months. You see what I mean? If you rent, you’re not getting a tax break for owning a home. You see what I mean? There are lots of ways the poorer you are, the more money you’re paying in taxes relative to your own total earnings.

Haimerej said:
Sure, we’re both idealists, but what you’re presenting is the strawman about the Libertarian POV. No one believes they will always do the right thing, hence the necessity for laws that punish wrong doing. The argument from a Libertarian perspective is that costly regulations meant to prevent wrongdoing are more detrimental to the people who don’t already have the capital to meet the financial obligations they impose.

I’m really curious if there are any good examples of this working.

I don’t know if your brand of Libertarian is the same as the Chicago School brand of economics, but something like what you’re talking about — a stripping away of regulations, lower taxes, cutting spending, privatizing — WAS tried. In Chile. I think I referenced Pinochet’s Chile above. If you don’t know the history, read this: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

Haimerej said:
Then those companies will soon be going under.

That’s not true. Because the people that act that way are in management because they have friends in high places. It happens all the time.

Haimerej said:
Who might that be?

People who don’t have lobbyists or anyone looking out for them in politics. John Edwards was a creep but he was right about there being “two Americas.”

Haimerej said:
I disagree with the idea that you have to be extraordinary. You simply have to have discipline and use resources available to everyone, like the library. I’m not college educated, I’ve learned what I know through my own study. As of right now, my family and I are just above the official poverty line in our state. But my wife and I have excellent credit scores and have recently bought a sizable chunk of land in which we’re placing our future hopes in. We did this by, as Dave Ramsey says, “living like no one else so later we can live like no one else.” (oh, and for my pride’s sake, we came to that conclusion before I ever knew who Ramsey was, but I’ve become a fan of his).

I think that’s great. You don’t think you’re extraordinary, but you are. You’re extraordinarily driven and smart. My brother’s the same way. He has a successful contracting business but he almost didn’t make it out of his teenage years. Our father wasn’t around, no money, lived on other people’s charity sometimes, but my brother came back from the brink, broke with all of his burnout friends, and went to work with my grandpa in construction. It was like that movie Gran Torino. Now, my brother is a right winger who thinks because he did it anybody who doesn’t do it is a freeloader. But that’s not true. Two of his friends from teenage years are dead. Not everybody has the strength to rise above their circumstances. And it’s even worse now than when I was growing up. I volunteer in public schools and see what these kids are dealing with.

Haimerej said:
So, what is “fair”? I really hate that word because most of the time it’s used, it’s meaningless. It’s usually used by people who aren’t happy with their lot in life and are envious of others’. Yes, some people are born into money. You might consider that unfair. Well, at some point someone in their family did what is necessary to earn that wealth. Do they not have the right to leave that to their heirs? At what point does that begin? I like to give things to my daughter. She didn’t “earn” them through any kind of action. She’s simply my daughter. I love her and like to give her things that improve her standard of living. I should be able to do that, in fact I should be able to leave all I’ve worked for in my life to whoever I want. It’s my decision.

I have nothing against everything you described. I have nothing against people with money, either that they worked for or inherited. What I have a problem with is when people use that money to suppress and take advantage of those without money. I don’t think anything you said above is wrong, but I would argue that if you’re talking about the inheritance tax, it doesn’t affect you. The inheritance tax (what the PR firms working for the right call the “death tax”) only affects 1/10th of 1% of the population in any kind of significant way. But there aren’t enough millionaires and billionaires to make it look like the nation’s against it, so they use PR to make you take it on as your cause. I think you benefit more from having the inheritance tax than you do without it.

In Revolutionary times, there were no millionaires in the Colonies. Every millionaire fled to England or France when the war started. The people who got together and tried to figure out how society worked wanted to find ways to guard against dynastic wealth, which was what oppressed them vis a vis England. One thing they did was that corporations had to, as the first item on their charter, serve the common good. They also couldn’t live longer than their founder. Both these regulations got rolled back over the years. I don’t think they envisioned the kind of world we’re living in.

I think one of the ironies of the whole Tea Party narrative is that the tea party itself was not about being taxed the way we understand it. It’s about domestic industry. The colonists were not allowed to provide for themselves. They were not allowed to make finished clothes here. Finished goods had to be imported from England. Only raw materials could be exported. When the colonists began to make and sell their own tea, the East India Tea Company (which was basically the British crown) dropped all taxes on its imported tea, while the Crown itself raised taxes for colonists on homegrown tea. That was taxation without representation. It was used to manipulate the market. That’s why they dumped all the imported tea in the harbor. It wasn’t about being taxed alone; it was about being able to have a domestic manufacturing base. I don’t know how I got on that tangent .. it’s late…

Haimerej said:
I hated school and did very poorly. Barely graduated in fact. I was suspended so much that I basically missed an entire year. In order to graduate on time, I took several courses through correspondence my senior year. My school record is hardly responsible for what I’ve accomplished in my life. I learned discipline in the military.

Well, I think schools have been sliding downhill since Reagan because of lack of funding, with the topper being the obscene No Child Left Behind. I have a son and a daughter, and my daughter has done much better in school than my son. I think our public schools are conducted–because of NCLB–in a way that’s completely boring and incomprehensible for boys. But it’s interesting that you mention the military — it’s a public, taxpayer-funded program. And hopefully you’re benefiting from the GI Bill, and can get your socialist health care at the VA. My dad’s a veteran and loves the VA. I don’t hear a lot of complaints about that big, sprawling Federal program of the military. The government CAN do things right. I just wish people didn’t buy that awful Reagan line, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ F him.

Haimerej said:
Okay, but I specifically brought up Cali when I said you could retire a millionaire, you said prove it, I showed the data, you questioned it, I gave another source, you posted a source to counter it, and here we are.

Right. That doesn’t take away from the points that were made about the pensions though.

OK, well, I still think it’s totally crazy and wrong to go after pensions.

I’m going to respond to your other note now…

Haimerej said:
But it shouldn’t be a pooling of resources. That benefits those that didn’t earn it, the essence of being “unfair.” ;)

I think we’re a “we society,” not a “me society.” If there’s poverty and suffering in my world, it affects me, my children, my community. I’m not religious but I think the things Jesus says about the poor are incredibly resonant. “As you have done it unto the least of these my brethren you have done it unto me.” I think that the elderly, widows and orphans, and the disabled should be able to have dignity. I think it’s important for our society as a whole. Considering what a rich country this is, I think it’s disgraceful that we have so many homeless and those in poverty. I know where you’re coming from with this hostility towards freeloaders and fraudsters. Believe me, I think they’re vile. But here’s the thing: it’s an incredibly useful image for those who are trying to get rid of these programs. It’s not representative of people as a whole. There are bad apples in every echelon of life. I think most people would prefer to be productive and earn their own way, but not everybody can, especially in this environment.

Haimerej said:
Screw Wall St. It’s a sucker’s game. Always has been, always will be. There are exceptions to the rule, for sure. But the only people that usually make money are the ones who already have it.

We’re totally on the same page. They produce nothing, and yet earn something like 23% of total earnings in the US. That’s just wrong.

Haimerej said:
Don’t rely on savings. My grandfather told me what his father told him, “You’ll never get ahead in life working for someone else. You have to find a way to make money in your sleep.” For him, that was cattle. I mentioned above that I’ve recently bought land. I did alot of research and have found a market in which demand is higher than supply. I hesitate to mention exactly what that is (don’t need the competition hehe), but suffice to say that an initial investment of less than $10,000 and some good old fashioned sweat equity can lead to an annual return of $50k in a bad year and up to $250k in the most optimum. I’ve never even sniffed the former and wouldn’t know what to do with myself if I had the latter.

That’s really great. You granddad’s advice was good. And I wish you the best of luck. I just hope it’s not storing nuclear waste or anything potentially life-threatening! :)

ps. I apologize for some of the ranting and raving above. I get very worked up when I think about this stuff. :)

Oof. This: “If you make $400,000 a year, you’re paying social security for the entire year. If you make $500,000 a year, you’re only paying it for a couple of months”

is supposed to be this: “If you make $40,000 a year, you’re paying social security for the entire year. If you make $500,000 a year, you’re only paying it for a couple of months.

whytee said:
Could not disagree more. The Fair Tax is a scam to put more of the burden on the working and middle classes, and then poor. If you’ve got means, it’s about the easiest kind of tax to dodge.

It’s a consumption based tax. The only way to dodge it would be to not buy anything.

whytee said:
Take a look at what happened in Pinochet’s Chile, where free market ideology had free reign, and report back to me.

You mean undermining the dictatorship and turning it into one of the strongest economies in South America? Because that’s what it did.

whytee said:
Whoa there! Hold on a minute. So, when Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, small competing businesses didn’t get sucked up by huge ones? Big corporations didn’t have mergers to make even bigger corporations? And when Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act, the media didn’t get absorbed into five companies? You’ll have to explain that one because that dog don’t hunt. Also, on the earlier point, what hurts small businesses and startups is big corporations. Look what happened to Main St. when WalMart moved in.

I was responding to the question of how you protect citizens from fraud. I was pointing to costly regulations meant to protect consumers having a negative impact on business, for example- “the U.S. Small Business Administration has placed the cost of federal regulations at $1.75 trillion in 2008. The average cost to small businesses is $10,600 per employee, the group said.” If you think $10 grand per employee doesn’t effect small businesses, then you’re mistaken.

As far as anti-trust laws, passing laws meant to protect businesses from “unfair” competition isn’t helpful to consumers. Mergers and buyouts don’t negatively affect business and in many cases they are actually beneficial to the marketplace. Generally, the people who get bought out are given just compensation.

whytee said:
My interpretation of what you’re talking about is completely different. The kinds of regulations you’re talking about are a straw man for the kinds of regulations that protect a society from predatory monopoly capitalism. You know, like the regulations that are supposed to make sure the food you buy isn’t tainted, the water in your river isn’t toxic, that you’re not being scammed by banks, stuff like that. In the old days, before Reagan, we had competition in the marketplace. Now, as the good kind of regulations have been stripped by hiding behind a disguise of the bad kinds of regulations, our safety and security is vastly more threatened. Our communities are fragmented. Etc. etc.

The kinds of laws I was talking about are the ones in which government enforces monopolistic practices, like the nine examples in this article-

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0419/6308070a.html

whytee said:
You can read about it from the horse’s mouth. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html
In my view, this is a case of supply and demand. The demand came directly from Wall St. and these sophisticated financial instruments which required a huge amount of mortgages to traunch. To feed that demand, scam artists of every stripe snapped into action to generate a vast supply of subprime mortgages. So, there were two components, but the one at the top–on Wall St.–was the one with the power to get legislation written to legalize their scam and direct the corridors of power to let them get their massive payout. The one at the bottom–on Main St, where people were steered toward these subprime mortgages and victimized by a parade of fraudsters–was the supply. Elliot Spitzer was working on stemming the supply, but Wall St. wouldn’t have it. And George Bush and the OCC acted accordingly.

The demand in the market was largely driven by Fannie and Freddie. They were being directed to help increase home ownership to low income families and were buying up subprime loans at a high rate. Banks responded to that demand buy increasing the supply. If there was no demand for it, the banks wouldn’t have been so aggressive in their lending practices. Mortgage backed securities worked for a while due to the low volume of subprime loans. The only reason it got bad enough to tank our economy was due to the higher % of total mortgages that were subprime, which was largely fueled by the demand of the GSE’s.

whytee said:
Do you understand that hedge funds and big banks were doing with these mortgages? Do you realize how they were making money off of them? And not just a little money, a LOT of money. The total “value” of these derivatives are something like THREE TIMES the GDP of the Earth. What they did was take, say, 10 high risk subprime morgages to every one non-risky prime mortgage … then cut them all into little slivers and then miss those slivers together into traunches, so maybe it’s a ratio of 10:1 bad mortgages to good, or 7:3 or whatever, but usually 10:1. Then, the rating agencies WHOM THEY PAY THE SALARIES OF rate these traunches AAA. They get sold to investors all over the world. Meanwhile, the voracious beast is being fed by predatory lenders like Countrywide, who would go up to grandma’s house, scam the crap out of her to get her to leverage her house (even when the house was paid off or in a secure mortgage) without disclosing any of the small print of this loan. This latter part of the equation is what Spitzer et al were trying to stop. Do you see? It’s a two-part equation.

I understand that completely, which is why I said that the GSE’s were driving the demand in the marketplace. The banks wouldn’t have securitized them if there was no demand for it. The GSE’s were buying them up. Before they did that, these were a small part of the market.

whytee said:
So, yeah. What about the banks that were producing these mortgages?

They were supplying the demand created by the GSE’s.

whytee said:
That line of argument is ridiculous. That’s why I want Pecora Hearings on this. The idiotic mainstream news has not reported this story accurately and I don’t think anyone understands what happened unless you spent months studying it from a vast array of non-politicized sources, which I did. The right wing sources love this talking point, but facts show that Fannie/Freddie was a component of the disaster BUT NOT THE CAUSE. It’s like saying that only the people who acquired mortgages in Florida caused the crash. It’s not true. All it takes is a little research and you’ll see.

The cause was the amount of total mortgages in the market that were subprime, which wouldn’t have reached the level it did without the demand created by the GSE’s. The banks were simply doing what they do- making money. If they didn’t have a buyer for these MBS’s, they wouldn’t have driven the supply to the level they did.

whytee said:
That’s nonsensical. The crisis began here because these derivatives originated here. Increased globalization brought many global investors into this scam, from which they’re still feeling the pain. Europe also has steep collateral requirements (which Bush & Paulson in a secret meeting with Goldman Sachs) dropped precipitously to allow this scam to move forward. European countries are also not afraid to temporarily nationalize banks in situations like this, clean house, and get the economy going again. This country is the only one that protects these huge banks when they screw up this epically. You should start reading the Financial Times (ft.com) if you want to learn about this stuff.

Derivatives actually originated in Japan in the ’80′s and were treated as what they are- extremely risky investments. They were part of what collapsed the oldest bank in England, Barings, in the early 1990′s. It wasn’t until the demand for them increased in our market(again, driven in large part by GSE’s) that they grew to be such a large part of the marketplace.

whytee said:
Oh really? You mean, the Bush Administration didn’t give Lehman the death sentence while allowing the JP Morgan rescue/merger? This is a flat-out lie. You need to look into this one. It has nothing to do with failure or success — the government CHOSE JP Morgan to save because they were competition to the big banks. Do you realize that 50% of all the wealth in this country is in the hands of the five biggest banks? JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, B of A … I can’t remember the other two. By the way, I’m writing this response off the top of my head without googling, so if I get something slightly off, that’s why.

Well, FactCheck.org disagrees with the notion that the act had any role in the crisis. Quoting them- “The truth is, however, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been.”

Lehman tanked because it was strictly an investment bank. Everything I’ve seen shows that allowing these banks to diversify lessened the blow on them.

whytee said:
This is a lie. The Glass Steagall Act put up a wall between investment banks and regular lending/savings banks. Investment banks couldn’t sell insurance, couldn’t loan, etc. That wall was put up because these same conditions led to the Great Depression. GLB deregulated that extremely critical regulation. Check out what AIG is doing if you don’t think this is a big deregulation deal. Gramm is lying (not surprising).

If Gramm is lying, then so is a whole host of economists ranging from the left to the right.

whytee said:
Do you watch that show about Atlantic City with Steve Buscemi. Well, on that show, the local crime boss has installed his brother as chief of police, and it’s a small police force, very small. This is what Gramm is talking about above when you look at what happened following GLB. The force policing white collar crime and fraud was reduced and put on the payroll of the criminals. Also, in his quote, he doesn’t talk about the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which was another huge blow to the people on behalf of the big banks. Look into that one.

I will. I’ll also concede the point that the wall between investment banks and lending/savings banks being taken down can be detrimental, as that was how Nick Leeson was able to break Barings. He worked for Barings Securities, hid his losses from the main bank and reported massive profits. He dug into their capital under the guise of paying margin calls. By the time he was done, he had dug a hole that was something like upwards of 900 million pounds, IIRC. They sold for $1. You should look into that. I read the book called, “The Collapse of Barings: Panic, ignorance and greed.” They made a shitty movie starring Ewan MacGregor that I don’t recommend. It was based on Leeson’s account. Of course, in his eyes he was a victim.

whytee said:
You’re for deregulation — this is what you get when you roll back regulations designed to prevent EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED from happening again. Notice how the mainstream never talks about Gramm? Barney Frank is your boogeyman, yet the real man behind the curtain gets completely ignored by you guys. Like he never existed. Well, he did, and he was backed by a GOP-controlled Congress. And his wife was waiting in the wings to use the loophole HE PUSHED through Congress to take part in the ENRON scheme. And when he left the Senate, he fled to UBS, a foreign bank, where he was richly rewarded.

I don’t think derivatives are necessarily bad in themselves. The bad thing about them is when they became such a large share of the market, which wouldn’t have happened without the demand.

whytee said:
Oh please. So, if Spitzer and the other attorneys general were able to stop all the predatory lending going on and cut off the supply of these out of control “financial weapons of mass destruction” as Warren Buffet called them, you don’t think a LOT of fraud would have been prevented between 2002 and 2007?

I’m not so sure that this was all driven by fraud. Again, they weren’t opposed to subprime lending. Spitzer can write about it after the fact and play the role of the hero being shut down by the evil GOP, but if you look into the groups opposing it at the time in 2003, they were still supportive of subprime lending. They were mainly railing against exorbitant fees, not the sub prime loans themselves or even ARM’s. We’ll have to wait and see how much fraud contributed to default in these loans, but I don’t see it as a crucial factor in sub-prime loans defaulting. The very reason they’re sub-prime is due to the high risk of default.

I’m getting tired. I’ll respond to the rest tomorrow.

I appreciate your kind words about my grandfather. I assure you my venture isn’t in the nuclear waste industry. However, the profit margins for such a venture might…. lol just kidding.

whytee said:
I think that’s an unfair characterization of union workers. There are plenty of non-union workers who do exactly the same thing. I’ve worked with enough of them. I would argue that the increase in productivity is tied to unemployment — people being afraid to lose their jobs, doing more for less, etc. I know someone right now who is not in a union and is expected to work overtime without pay, and only allowed to take half of her guaranteed vacation time. If she doesn’t comply, she loses her job.

If it’s necessary to do that in order for the company to stay afloat, I don’t see that as a problem in itself. I think everyone in a company should understand that sometimes you have to make sacrifices for the good of the company. We don’t know that she’s the only person making such sacrifices.

whytee said:
This is a widespread and growing phenomenon. I know someone else who was part of a class action lawsuit by a group of workers who worked without breaks during regular hours and then worked overtime with no overtime pay. This is so customary in these times of off-shoring that unless such a lawsuit takes place, people just get used to that kind of employee abuse. This is why I think unions need to return back from the brink. A country’s success is not just weighed on the wealth of its millionaires but on the “blessings of liberty” enjoyed by its people.

I would call those, “the blessings of successful business.” The only reason unions were able to make the demands on the companies they made were due to the success of the companies themselves. If the companies couldn’t afford to pay for the benefits to begin with, these points would all be moot.

whytee said:
But in any case, the facts speak for themselves. Productivity represents demand. Wages represent supply. When the supply is limited, wages go up. When you have an oversupply (because, say, millions of jobs have been shipped overseas, as have been successively for decades, reaching a peak during the Bush Administration), wages go flat.

Aren’t wages related to productivity and the business being solvent? Isn’t higher productivity a good thing?

whytee said:
On your second point, the LAST thing we should be doing in a recession is making deficit reduction the top priority. You cannot get blood from a stone. The way to reduce the deficit is to increase the tax base; the only way to increase the tax base is to create an environment where jobs can be created; jobs are created through demand for goods and services; the only way people have the money to demand goods and services (must add here that there’s no credit to artificially expand consumer spending) is if they have money in their pockets. Ergo, stimulus spending (a stupid name if ever there was one — Democrats are terrible at marketing even their good ideas) is far more important at this crucial juncture than reducing the deficit because even extreme austerity will not make a dent. People need to be working. If they’re working, collecting a paycheck, they’re paying taxes, not collecting unemployment. I’m also a firm believer in raising the top marginal tax rate (for people making more than $3 million a year) closer to where it stood for 50 years (in the 90% range, then in the 70% range) until Reagan cut it by 2/3s, and closing corporate tax loopholes so the billionaires at the top can no longer get a free ride on our backs. Do that, and that would help the deficit quite a bit.

whytee said:
On your second point, the LAST thing we should be doing in a recession is making deficit reduction the top priority. You cannot get blood from a stone. The way to reduce the deficit is to increase the tax base; the only way to increase the tax base is to create an environment where jobs can be created; jobs are created through demand for goods and services; the only way people have the money to demand goods and services (must add here that there’s no credit to artificially expand consumer spending) is if they have money in their pockets. Ergo, stimulus spending (a stupid name if ever there was one — Democrats are terrible at marketing even their good ideas) is far more important at this crucial juncture than reducing the deficit because even extreme austerity will not make a dent. People need to be working. If they’re working, collecting a paycheck, they’re paying taxes, not collecting unemployment. I’m also a firm believer in raising the top marginal tax rate (for people making more than $3 million a year) closer to where it stood for 50 years (in the 90% range, then in the 70% range) until Reagan cut it by 2/3s, and closing corporate tax loopholes so the billionaires at the top can no longer get a free ride on our backs. Do that, and that would help the deficit quite a bit.

whytee said:
The thing is, in this economy–thanks to 30 years of Reaganomics–everyone except the top 1%–is afraid for their financial future. If this characterization were ever true (which, maybe there were cases back in the peak of unionization in the ’40s), it definitely isn’t now. Greenspan famously said that he ran the Fed in a way that would intentionally generate wage insecurity for workers. Think about that for a minute. He used his power at the Fed to strike fear in the hearts of workers. You talk about efficiency, but efficiency for whom? Are the CEO and the shareholders the only people that matter? I think workers can be more efficient if they have the benefits a union gives them. Workers that get used up and discarded may be efficient for the CEOs, but not for the workers themselves or the society in which they live.

Efficiency benefits everyone in a company. An efficient worker is a productive worker. A productive worker can garner higher wages.

whytee said:
WHAT????? You can’t make up your own version of history. The history of labor is not taught in this country (deliberately, btw, because that road of knowledge was closed after Reagan), but there’s no excuse for you to argue from a place of ignorance. You cannot be serious. So, please, read a little bit about it before opining. I’ll wait…

I’m not making that up.

“Prior to World War II, very few American companies provided health insurance for their employees, and less than half of the U.S. population was covered by health insurance. During the war, however, as soldiers went to serve overseas, there was a shortage of workers back home. The combination of a reduced supply of workers, a booming economy, and rationing of scarce consumer goods led the government to impose price and wage freezes to try to limit inflation. Since employers were not allowed to increase wages to attract new workers, they began offering fringe benefits such as health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers.”

Source-

http://medicine.jrank.org/pages/561/Employee-Health-Insurance-history-economic-theory-employer-provided-health-insurance.html#ixzz12SMHwxRU

Yes, there were some industries that treated their workers poorly and union’s were instrumental in improving those conditions. I think they accomplished their goals and are no longer necessary, sort of like Title 10 of the Civil Rights Act. I don’t see a business that discriminates based on race surviving in this country anymore, just like I don’t see an industry that pays skilled workers wages that you can’t live off of lasting either.

whytee said:
As far as my point about China, when people on the right spout the talking points of the big corporate PR firms, they says things like “we have to off-shore to stay competitive.” My question to them is, are we competing to see who will eat the most $#!&? Because by forcing American workers to compete with Chinese workers who make 50 cents an hour and have abysmal working conditions is what’s happening here. The competition is to see how low big business can drive labor, how high they can skyrocket unemployment, so yes, the American worker WILL stand for it if he wants to feed his family. We are competing with a communist dictatorship and third world countries for jobs because we have allowed companies selling goods and services in America unfettered free trade with these slave/child labor countries. The whole point of this exercise is to turn us into China, and we’re getting there. So maybe now, today, the American work force won’t stand for it, but let’s see how high these policies can get unemployment and then recheck that.

Burdensome regulation on American industries like manufacturing just further helps China. China’s been manipulating the market by inflating the yuan. Maybe we should impose a tariff on their goods, but that might cause them to dump our debt. China’s a major problem in the global marketplace. Our best bet for dealing with them would be to first dig ourselves out of our debt hole. As long as they basically own us like they do, there’s nothing we can really do about it. If we could get our debt under control, we’d have a better bargaining chip to deal with China. Right now they hold all the cards.

whytee said:
I think it’s worth meditating on this point. Not many seem to take this into consideration in these arguments.

Well, I think education in our country is a major problem. I also believe unionization is a major contributor to that problem. When you can’t deal with teacher’s performance on an individual basis and their pay structure is based upon time and not ability, then there’s a problem.

Hmm… that didn’t come out right.

I’ll get to the rest next Monday. Have a good weekend.

Haimerej said:
It’s a consumption based tax. The only way to dodge it would be to not buy anything.

Right. Because the very rich are confined to only buying things from their local WalMart. Sorry for the sarcasm but I think you’re grossly underestimating what people can do with ample resources.

Haimerej said:
You mean undermining the dictatorship and turning it into one of the strongest economies in South America? Because that’s what it did.

I doubt the Chileans suffering through 53% unemployment after their “shock treatment” took effect would agree.

Haimerej said:
I was responding to the question of how you protect citizens from fraud. I was pointing to costly regulations meant to protect consumers having a negative impact on business, for example- “the U.S. Small Business Administration has placed the cost of federal regulations at $1.75 trillion in 2008. The average cost to small businesses is $10,600 per employee, the group said.” If you think $10 grand per employee doesn’t effect small businesses, then you’re mistaken.

I agree that that’s an abuse of governmental power and is flat out wrong. But what the big industries do is paint all regulations with a broad brush to lump in the good kinds of regulations that keep the public safe and free from having to pay for externalities big business downshifts to the taxpayers, which, if you think about it, is quite a bit. When people get sick from air, water or soil pollution, they have to pay the costs, not the businesses that created it. When people lose time from corporate sprawl development, or when municipalities have to pay for their infrastructure, that’s less outfits like KB Homes have to figure into their balance sheets. So, I agree that the kinds of regulations designed to squeeze out small business (like the agricultural industry is so fond of doing) is bad, but deregulation has also brought us the BP oil disaster, the Big Branch mine disaster, ENRON, the Wall St. meltdown, etc. That’s what the lobbyists working the monopolies are pushing for. Less costs to them mean more destruction to our world and way of life, and that’s the way they love it.

Haimerej said:
As far as anti-trust laws, passing laws meant to protect businesses from “unfair” competition isn’t helpful to consumers. Mergers and buyouts don’t negatively affect business and in many cases they are actually beneficial to the marketplace. Generally, the people who get bought out are given just compensation.

Wow. That’s just a stunning collection of statements. I don’t want to live in a world where there’s one oil company that gets to fix the price, and one media company that gets to define the news, and one food company that produces food in the cheapest, most disgusting, inhumane, polluting and unhealthy way, but that’s the logical endpoint of your philosophy. I liked radio better when there were strict ownership laws for radio stations, so there was competition and diversity in what was available. Now, 95% of the stations in this country are owned by a handful of corporate networks, so it’s all pretty much the same or cut from the same cloth. I liked being able to buy something whereby the dollars I spent went into the regional economy rather than the black hole of monopolies that ship jobs to China, pay their CEOs and shareholders billions that get socked away in shell accounts, bribe their way into government subsidies for their off-shoring and importation costs, and dominate the market, raising the entry bar so high that small business is locked out. But that’s just me, I guess.

Haimerej said:
The kinds of laws I was talking about are the ones in which government enforces monopolistic practices, like the nine examples in this article-

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0419/6308070a.html

Point ceded but with the caveat above.

Haimerej said:
The demand in the market was largely driven by Fannie and Freddie. They were being directed to help increase home ownership to low income families and were buying up subprime loans at a high rate. Banks responded to that demand buy increasing the supply. If there was no demand for it, the banks wouldn’t have been so aggressive in their lending practices. Mortgage backed securities worked for a while due to the low volume of subprime loans. The only reason it got bad enough to tank our economy was due to the higher % of total mortgages that were subprime, which was largely fueled by the demand of the GSE’s.

Well, look, this is precisely why the American people desperately need Pecora-style hearings on the meltdown, so fictions like the above get relegated to 2012 conspiracy territory. This alternate narrative was dreamed up by sophisticated Wall St. PR firms and think tanks to blame poor black people and democrats for a scam that falls squarely at the feet of the “masters of the universe” on Wall St. and the corrupt “free market” a-holes in Congress (Phil Gramm et al) and the Clinton Rubinites in charge of fiscal policy, and of course that Ayn Rand devotee Alan Greenspan, who is truly a villain in this and has even admitted as such before Congress. Anyone who talks seriously about this subject doesn’t seem to go for the GSE/CRA BS. But feel free to continue to believe in it. Since there’s been no legitimate inquiry into the meltdown, I can see how it has taken hold on the right. But if you’re interested (which you probably aren’t), there’s a phenomenal documentary on a person on the Clinton team desperately waving the red flag who was shut down, on PBS’s Frontline. I strongly recommend you watch the whole thing: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

Haimerej said:
I understand that completely, which is why I said that the GSE’s were driving the demand in the marketplace. The banks wouldn’t have securitized them if there was no demand for it. The GSE’s were buying them up. Before they did that, these were a small part of the market.

They were supplying the demand created by the GSE’s.

The cause was the amount of total mortgages in the market that were subprime, which wouldn’t have reached the level it did without the demand created by the GSE’s. The banks were simply doing what they do- making money. If they didn’t have a buyer for these MBS’s, they wouldn’t have driven the supply to the level they did.

This has been thoroughly debunked, but as I said, since there’s been no sunlight for this horror, almost everyone on the right believes the Wall St. think tank-created talking points, so one point goes to Wall St for a successful con.

Haimerej said:
Derivatives actually originated in Japan in the ’80’s and were treated as what they are- extremely risky investments. They were part of what collapsed the oldest bank in England, Barings, in the early 1990’s. It wasn’t until the demand for them increased in our market(again, driven in large part by GSE’s) that they grew to be such a large part of the marketplace.

Substitute hedge funds and big banks for GSEs and you’ve got a point.

Haimerej said:
Well, FactCheck.org disagrees with the notion that the act had any role in the crisis. Quoting them- “The truth is, however, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been.”

Economists from the right to the right, you mean.

Haimerej said:
Lehman tanked because it was strictly an investment bank. Everything I’ve seen shows that allowing these banks to diversify lessened the blow on them.

Lessen the blow to them? They created the blow, especially Goldman Sachs. At the time of the bailout, my feeling was that the govt should buy the mortgages and pension funds outright and let the banks tank, all of them. Anyway, you probably dismiss him at a commie, but Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone has done some incredible reporting about the esoterica of all this and he hasn’t been sued by the extremely litigious industry he’s covering, so I think his reporting is pretty sound.

Haimerej said:
If Gramm is lying, then so is a whole host of economists ranging from the left to the right.

Again, from the right to the right. Gramm IS lying.

Haimerej said:
I will. I’ll also concede the point that the wall between investment banks and lending/savings banks being taken down can be detrimental

So much for the veracity of Gramm and Fact-check’s fact-checking prowess.

Haimerej said:
as that was how Nick Leeson was able to break Barings. He worked for Barings Securities, hid his losses from the main bank and reported massive profits. He dug into their capital under the guise of paying margin calls. By the time he was done, he had dug a hole that was something like upwards of 900 million pounds, IIRC. They sold for $1. You should look into that. I read the book called, “The Collapse of Barings: Panic, ignorance and greed.” They made a shitty movie starring Ewan MacGregor that I don’t recommend. It was based on Leeson’s account. Of course, in his eyes he was a victim.

Interesting. It’s a very depressing subject and the only reason I delved into it was because the news just didn’t make sense as reported. I really loathe Wall St. types. It used to play a productive role in the economy, but I think those days are gone. .

Haimerej said:
I don’t think derivatives are necessarily bad in themselves. The bad thing about them is when they became such a large share of the market, which wouldn’t have happened without the demand.

I think the bad thing about them is when they’re allowed to operate in the dark with little to no regulation and above the heads of the bare bones regulators. Bring it all out into open with a legitimate white collar crime task force who won;t let them take a $#!& without being watched and they might actually serve a purpose. Or not. But thanks to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act by your friend Phil Gramm and the GOP controlled congress (and the by then Lewinsky-plagued President), they were allowed to multiply like maggots in the dark. You should look up the total “value” of the CDOs and CDSs out there. It’s staggering. I always forget whether it’s mark-to-market or not mark-to-market, but whatever it is, they’re artificially preserving the value of these instruments when in reality they’ve taken a huge dive.

Haimerej said:
I’m not so sure that this was all driven by fraud. Again, they weren’t opposed to subprime lending. Spitzer can write about it after the fact and play the role of the hero being shut down by the evil GOP, but if you look into the groups opposing it at the time in 2003, they were still supportive of subprime lending. They were mainly railing against exorbitant fees, not the sub prime loans themselves or even ARM’s. We’ll have to wait and see how much fraud contributed to default in these loans, but I don’t see it as a crucial factor in sub-prime loans defaulting. The very reason they’re sub-prime is due to the high risk of default.

You mean, even with what’s going on now with foreclosures you really believe it was legit? There’s SUCH a vast wealth of anecdotal and statistical evidence that pretty much guarantees a LOT of fraud going on in steering people to loans. I remember reading statistics of the number of credit worthy borrowers (especially those who were old or minorities) being steered to subprime loans. You might be surprise. But if you do look into this and realize that it’s factual, I hope you will reconsider your sources of information that have been peddling the full complement of Wall St. think tank generated talking points.

Eliot Spitzer WAS a hero. No matter what you think about his prostitution scandal, you have to admire someone who has the stones to take on these huge banks. Everyone else — and I mean EVERYONE ELSE (well, except for a very small number of awesome people in Congress) — seems to tremble in their boots at the thought of getting on their bad side.

Haimerej said:
If it’s necessary to do that in order for the company to stay afloat, I don’t see that as a problem in itself. I think everyone in a company should understand that sometimes you have to make sacrifices for the good of the company. We don’t know that she’s the only person making such sacrifices.

It’s a fortune 500 company. It’s not for the good of the company, it’s for the convenience of the executive she works for.

Haimerej said:
I would call those, “the blessings of successful business.” The only reason unions were able to make the demands on the companies they made were due to the success of the companies themselves. If the companies couldn’t afford to pay for the benefits to begin with, these points would all be moot.

Well, you look at the rise in CEO pay relative to worker pay and you see how the bar defining “successful” has shifted. I think successful in today’s terms means that, like United Healthcare CEO Stephen Hemsley, who paid himself $1 billion dollars two years ago by using despicable practices on his customers, has been warped to an obscene degree. Obviously a business should strive for success, but at what cost? One thing I do not understand is how is a company considered an American company if it bases its headquarters overseas and produces its goods and services overseas. That’s the formula for MAXIMUM profit, but what does that do to the country that allowed that company to reach that level of success? I guess what I’m saying — and I have no illusions about you agreeing with this — is what’s the point, from our perspective? Why should we as a society support a business like that that gives nothing back except cheap and substandard goods and services? I think two things are at the root of this: #1 Reagan lowering the top marginal income tax such that instead of investing profits back into the company, CEOs decided only to enrich themselves; and #2 I don’t know the exact timeline of this, but at some point, CEOs and shareholders could pay themselves with stock. This creates incredibly short-sighted thinking. I’m wildly against leveraged buyouts but these play into that short-sighted maximum-profit mentality. In my world, these issues would be addressed through reinstating the laws that prevented them.

You might be interested in something called the Powell Memo, probably not, but it was written by a Supreme Court Judge and Chamber of Commerce (I think) type about how to change society to make it more business friendly. I think those people have succeeded, but I think their wild success has been in some ways incredibly destructive to the country and to the quality of life of its people.

Haimerej said:
Aren’t wages related to productivity and the business being solvent? Isn’t higher productivity a good thing?

Of course it’s a good thing, but up until the Reagan era and beyond, wages basically kept pace with productivity. Once the “free market” ideology took hold, productivity continued to rise while wages remained flat.

Haimerej said:
Efficiency benefits everyone in a company. An efficient worker is a productive worker. A productive worker can garner higher wages.

I’m not arguing against efficiency or productivity, but I think there’s value in the workforce. I think the workers are part of the value of a company. Henry Ford wanted to pay his workers well because that would allow them to buy his cars. That’s the essence of my philosophy.

Haimerej said:
I’m not making that up.

“Prior to World War II, very few American companies provided health insurance for their employees, and less than half of the U.S. population was covered by health insurance. During the war, however, as soldiers went to serve overseas, there was a shortage of workers back home. The combination of a reduced supply of workers, a booming economy, and rationing of scarce consumer goods led the government to impose price and wage freezes to try to limit inflation. Since employers were not allowed to increase wages to attract new workers, they began offering fringe benefits such as health insurance as a way to attract and keep workers.”

Source-

http://medicine.jrank.org/pages/561/Employee-Health-Insurance-history-economic-theory-employer-provided-health-insurance.html#ixzz12SMHwxRU

WOW! Really? REALLY??? I can’t even believe that incredibly ridiculous theory. There’s a rich history of the labor movement in this country that began long before World War II, and what you describe in the link from “medicine.jrank.org” is a tiny, minuscule fraction of the big picture. Reagan, as soon as he got into office, began changing textbooks to eliminate certain subjects, the labor movement being one (this goes along with the strategy outlined in the Powell memo, which you should google). It’s possible you have never been exposed to this incredible human story. I strongly recommend you read A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, but I’m pretty sure you won’t. As today, the labor unions have been marginalized and demonized by the ruling and gilded classes and their followers since the beginning, so there’s a lot of tarnishing of anyone who speaks up for them.

Haimerej said:
Yes, there were some industries that treated their workers poorly and union’s were instrumental in improving those conditions. I think they accomplished their goals and are no longer necessary, sort of like Title 10 of the Civil Rights Act. I don’t see a business that discriminates based on race surviving in this country anymore, just like I don’t see an industry that pays skilled workers wages that you can’t live off of lasting either.

I think you’re dreaming. There are documented cases of massive race discrimination that still thrives today. White people just don’t experience it so we don’t think about it, but it’s there. Maybe not in ordering a drink from a bar, but try renting an apartment or going out for a job. Also, if you think unions have “accomplished their goals and are no longer necessary,” just brace yourself and take a good long look at what workers go through in China–that’s who big business wants you to compete with. It’s a race to the bottom for wages and working conditions because both those things make their bonus pay that much fatter. Unions–even at just 7% unionization– are a thin blue line separating us from that scenario. Corporations have a “voice” they express with their excess millions and billions. What voice does a single worker have. And don’t tell me the courts because it’s prohibitively expensive and most corporations have an army of lawyers that can crush any single person like a bug. Only the collective voice of the people has the power to put on any kind of real fight.

Do you see what’s happening in France right now? the students are joining the union protests because those are the jobs they will inherit and as Sarkozy tries to raise the retirement age and cut back their benefits, the students see a grim future. I admire their pluck.

Haimerej said:
Burdensome regulation on American industries like manufacturing just further helps China. China’s been manipulating the market by inflating the yuan. Maybe we should impose a tariff on their goods, but that might cause them to dump our debt. China’s a major problem in the global marketplace. Our best bet for dealing with them would be to first dig ourselves out of our debt hole. As long as they basically own us like they do, there’s nothing we can really do about it. If we could get our debt under control, we’d have a better bargaining chip to deal with China. Right now they hold all the cards.

YES! AGREE (except the very first line)! But here’s the deal: all of this sturm and drang about currency manipulation makes the Chinese laugh. Can you imagine another country telling the U.S. to do the same? And with China’s position in terms of our debt, the Chinese finance people themselves say it’s unfortunate but the dollar is really the safest bet globally. So, they’re kind of stuck.

But I’m 100% for tariffs. I’m completely opposed to free trade. It’s been incredibly destructive to our economy but a boon to the CEOs and shareholders of these huge multinational corporations. I think the meme that tariffs would skyrocket prices is BS in light of the steep inflation of CEO pay. And if that did happen, I think it would make the American market much more competitive because homegrown industries could compete with the monopolies.

You know, China, India, many countries in South America and Europe all have tariffs on imported goods. There was just a big article in the Financial Times about the outsize number of Fortune 500 companies in Germany — and in Germany, corporations are required BY LAW to have an equal proportion of workers on their boards. There’s an interesting history of Germany rebuilding after World War II. The Americans that helped them write their constitution were liberals, so they have things like that and universal health care etc. And they’re thriving.

Haimerej said:
Well, I think education in our country is a major problem. I also believe unionization is a major contributor to that problem. When you can’t deal with teacher’s performance on an individual basis and their pay structure is based upon time and not ability, then there’s a problem.

It’s a very complicated issue, but this recent rush to blame teachers and teachers’ unions is missing the forest for the trees. There is no problem in rich districts. I know because I volunteer in a lot of public schools and the teachers in the poor neighborhoods are every bit as good or better than the teachers in the rich neighborhoods and at the private schools. The problem is money and how it’s organized in the public school system. Teachers are paid for $#!& generally, administrators are paid too much, NCLB was idiotic and UNFUNDED. If it were up to me to change things, I would do what the right wingers are always asking for and would give local districts control of their schools without testing or federal mandates, but fund them equally, not according to property tax revenue (I live in California, and saw the decline of schools after Prop 13 firsthand) but equally across the board, and lower the administrator to teacher ration, and give schools resources to diversify their curriculum if they so chose.

Anyway, I thank you for your civil and lucid conversation, but I really do hope you will look deeper into the Wall St. meltdown and the history of unions. :)