# Is David Frum the only almost-sane conservative left in the country?



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 25, 2011)

http://nymag.com/news/politics/conserva ... m-2011-11/

I got there from Paul Krugman's blog, of course:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/1 ... own-facts/


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 25, 2011)

It's almost funny that the big news story of the week - bigger than what's going on in the rest of the world, such as Egypt erupting again, the euro death watch... - is that a leading Republican candidate - Newt Gingrich <- another joke - comes out and makes a statement that isn't totally insane.

What?! You mean we're not going to throw out [I believe 12 million] illegal immigrants who have been here for decades?!

WHERE ARE YOUR CONSERVATIVE CREDENTIALS, SIR!


----------



## José Herring (Nov 25, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 25 said:


> It's almost funny that the big news story of the week - bigger than what's going on in the rest of the world, such as Egypt erupting again, the euro death watch... - is that a leading Republican candidate - Newt Gingrich <- another joke - comes out and makes a statement that isn't totally insane.
> 
> What?! You mean we're not going to throw out [I believe 12 million] illegal immigrants who have been here for decades?!
> 
> WHERE ARE YOUR CONSERVATIVE CREDENTIALS, SIR!



Newt has always been a libertarian more than a conservative. I'm surprised he's doing well at all in the primaries. Many of his social views are considered way liberal for that group. He's an old school republican. Harking back to the Jack Kemp and Bob Dole days. Back in the day when the party had at least some dignity.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 25, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 25 said:


> http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/
> 
> /



Dude is so right. White people are so scared. Obama is their worst nightmare. I can hardly believe the stuff that comes out of the mouths of lower class white people I know. They really do think that Obama is the anti-Christ and that he's creating some sort of socialism to hand out more money to non-whites. And, there is no reasoning with these people. This in spite of the hard evidence that black people are poorer than ever and that the Feds have deported more illegals than in any other period in history.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 25, 2011)

The white folks who voted for Obama aren't scared. He's in there because of us Independants.
I'm more worried about the corrpution ruining our reputation, and Eric Holders insane programs that have turned a friendly Oil producing allie into an untrusting partner now.
Obamas fine now that he's gone to the middle, even though that is left according the messengers of God..............ooops.........I meant the Evangelical infiltration of the GOP. Their money was given to Reagan back in the '80's and ever since then thier contribution remain equal to Wall Street and the defense lobbyists.
I am tired of the same old cock suckers lining their pockets and making a career off of dividing us.
Time for new blood, and Obama is fine by me. He definately made up for decades of my membership dues all in the first 3 years, plus he kills more enemies than Bush, he's bringing home our troops, and 600 Billion will be triggered in cuts to the Defense Industry which in all honesty will never hurt our defense. But it will take away our ability to police the world and bow to the Oil Shieks.
The Obama we are seeing now is the new and revised one that will change once he's re elected.
We'll have the pipeline, but infrastructure is where he needs to concentrate.
It was actually Congress that stole all of the stimulus money and totally ignored the American middle class in their self serving greedy allocations and sales of legislature.
Obama and a bunch of new freshmen would be better than a GOP President who wastes years un doing everything Obama did.
Keep Obama in there as he will act just like he did when the 2010 takeover happened. He'll give the tax breaks to the fat cats that are on the preffered list, others, well they didn't donate enough, their bad. Afterall they are all his buddies anyways, and this rhetoric is just the class warfare crap that divides people for polling purposes.
It'll be just fine.
Hillary would really light the fires though, and if Obamas ratings get much lower than the high 30's you can expect someone to challenge him.

Nice article though, thanks.


----------



## P.T. (Nov 25, 2011)

The whole racial thing is tiresome.

Half of the white population voted for Obama just like they always vote for the democrat.

The other half don't like him, just like they don't like any other democrat.
Do you really expect republicans to suddenly approve of a democrat simply because he is African American?
Where they racist when they didn't like Clinton?
But disliking this particular democrat has to be racist?

I guess some people need to think along racial lines.
After all, we have been fed constant racial enmity for decades by our divide and rule government and media.
People won't rise up against a corrupt and incompetent government if they are too busy fighting amongst themselves.


----------



## rgames (Nov 25, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Nov 25 said:


> It's almost funny that the big news story of the week - bigger than what's going on in the rest of the world, such as Egypt erupting again, the euro death watch... - is that a leading Republican candidate - Newt Gingrich <- another joke - comes out and makes a statement that isn't totally insane.
> 
> What?! You mean we're not going to throw out [I believe 12 million] illegal immigrants who have been here for decades?!
> 
> WHERE ARE YOUR CONSERVATIVE CREDENTIALS, SIR!


Gingrich is too smart to be president.

I've always (mostly) liked him, starting from my days in GA when he was a rep, but he's not one to put up with BS, so he'd never be able to build enough of a support base to get anything done (kind of like Obama but for different reasons). Plus his personal is history is not "presidential". It's OK to have that kind of history but it's not OK for the public to know about it.

Sad, but true.

A perfect example: when that ValuJet plane crashed into the Everglades because of the oxygen canisters it was carrying as cargo, it was big new around GA because ValuJet was kind of a darling startup. When everyone started asking for increased regulation on how airlines manage their cargo, Gingrich (smartly) said that if we want to spend tax money on airline safety, we need to look at what will be the best use of those dollars. And spending money on cargo regulations ain't even close to the best use of those dollars if your goal is to improve airline safety. But the media-led emotional response dictated that was the good idea. Gingrich (rightly) disagreed and took a beating. Kind of like the whole hybrid car thing...

Like I said, he's too smart to be president.

I would love to see him as the nominee, though, if for no other reason than to see him crush Obama in some legitimate debates  Not that I don't like Obama, but I would like for the "Obama is a great speaker" fanboys to see his true colors against someone with some legitimate capability.

rgames

P.S. - in the end, no cargo carrying regulations were changed and we haven't seen any more oxygen-canister-induced accidents, have we? Unfortunately, smart people don't do well in politics... It's amazing Gingrich has had as much success as he has.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 25, 2011)

P.T. @ Fri Nov 25 said:


> The whole racial thing is tiresome.
> 
> Half of the white population voted for Obama just like they always vote for the democrat.
> 
> ...



It's the way they dislike him. Birtherism is a prime example of racism in disguise. The idea that he's not one of "us". Or as the Arizona McCain ad put it, "McCain, he's one of us". Read what you will into who "us" is.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 25, 2011)

^ Exactly.


----------



## rgames (Nov 25, 2011)

josejherring @ Fri Nov 25 said:


> Birtherism is a prime example of racism in disguise.


Let's not forget that there have been numerous "birther" debates in US history. All of the previous debates have, of course, concerned white candidates.

Regardless of whom it concerns the "birther" debate is silly. But it's not racist. It's politics (and, therefore, inherently silly).

Calling it a racial issue adds to the silliness. But that's what people like, right?

rgames


----------



## P.T. (Nov 25, 2011)

Since you bring up 'Birthers' and choose to use the media's derogatory term, I have to wonder if you have looked at the birth certificate in an objective manner, or looked at it at all.

I won't say that this is conclusive, but a number of document expersts have said it is suspicious at minimum.

Here is a fairly decent analysis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... eOfYwYyS_c


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 25, 2011)

No it's not silly, it's real. The racism is very real.

That doesn't mean every one of those teabag morons with no teeth and 80 collective IQ points is racist, but it's certainly a big part in the mix.

And it's exploited by the Koch suckers et al.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 25, 2011)

FWIW the racist who started the whole birther topic was called out by Axelrod and other Obama handlers and embarrassed publicly with the help of Corporate Media Parrots.
His name was Bill Clinton, you know one of those white racists from the south.
So racism is a great tool when you have no experience and need a defensive mechanism. Doesn;t matter who you use it against, as it usually silences whoever its being applied to.
But that old Liberal trick won;t work this time, and I still think Obama is going to win, just because he has the paybacks from all of the bailouts, the Unions, the Banks, the Media, and many white racists like me.
But I really would enjoy watching Gingrich crush him on any topic.
Obama is just a lawyer from Chicago, had free education, never had to work, and had Real Estate given to him as he was being groomed for the top slot of the Corporation.
Against somebody who actually helped create a surplus, and passed several budgets, made programs for welfare recipients to recieve training and become productive members of society, he doesn;t stand a chance.
He would be wise to not even have debates and create a crisis with Iran or somewhere so he won;t be embarrassed by such a knowledgable scoundrel as Gingrich.

That would be like Tiger Woods playing against a parapalegic in Golf....

Racism is just a tool to use and those who think it's real, must be segregated in their neighborhoods and jobs. Too bad really.
When children play together and then you see adults using race as a way to get an advantage, not realizing the damage done to children and the innocent, it's sickening.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 25, 2011)

Tony Blankley is not completely nuts.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 25, 2011)

P.T. @ Fri Nov 25 said:


> Since you bring up 'Birthers' and choose to use the media's derogatory term, I have to wonder if you have looked at the birth certificate in an objective manner, or looked at it at all.
> 
> I won't say that this is conclusive, but a number of document expersts have said it is suspicious at minimum.
> 
> ...



Dear Lord


----------



## P.T. (Nov 25, 2011)

josejherring @ Fri Nov 25 said:


> P.T. @ Fri Nov 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Since you bring up 'Birthers' and choose to use the media's derogatory term, I have to wonder if you have looked at the birth certificate in an objective manner, or looked at it at all.
> ...



So, did you watch it?

And, if you did, how can that be your honest response?

Maybe you can explain.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 25, 2011)

P.T. @ Fri Nov 25 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Nov 25 said:
> 
> 
> > P.T. @ Fri Nov 25 said:
> ...



Lord have mercy.

An explanation would be like trying to convince a 3 year old there's no Santa. Why bother. Just let them be in their ignorant bliss. The difference between a birther and a 3 year old is that sooner or later the 3 year old will grow up and gain wisdom. I hold out no such hope for the Orly Taitz followers, nor for the "conservative" movement in general.


----------



## P.T. (Nov 25, 2011)

josejherring @ Fri Nov 25 said:


> P.T. @ Fri Nov 25 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Fri Nov 25 said:
> ...



In other words, you've got nothing.


----------



## rgames (Nov 26, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 26 said:


> No it's not silly, it's real. The racism is very real.



Was it racist when Democrats brought it up against McCain? He was born on a Navy base in Central America, so not one of the united states as required by the US Constitution.

Was it racist when they brought it up against Al Gore? He was born in D.C. Again, not a state in the United States.

Was it racist when they brought it up against Barry Goldwater? He was born in the Arizona territory before it was a state. So, again, not a state in the United States.

Shall I go on?

Last I checked, these guys were all white. In fact, of all the "birther" arguments in the US, how many have involved a non-white? I'll bet big dollars that Obama is the first. So where's your basis for the racist tie?

People have been making "birther" arguments for all of American history but when they do it against Obama it's racism? Please. That's complete baloney fabricated in the liberal blogosphere to get you riled up. Seems it might have worked...

It's a silly political move. But it's not racism. Quit tossing the race card. You're pandering to the same lunacy that you're supposedly fighting. Stop it!

rgames


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Nov 26, 2011)

Why are intelligent people still debating where Obama was born? Isn't the US sinking? Aren't there 1,000,000 things that are more important to think about? Or maybe things aren't as bad as I think. :roll:


----------



## midphase (Nov 26, 2011)

USA is about to be in a war against Pakistan...I guess that would be more important!

Lord have mercy indeed!


----------



## José Herring (Nov 26, 2011)

P.T. @ Fri Nov 25 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Nov 25 said:
> 
> 
> > P.T. @ Fri Nov 25 said:
> ...



In very precise words, I wouldn't spend 2 seconds of my time debating the issue with morons.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 26, 2011)

chimuelo @ Fri Nov 25 said:


> That would be like Tiger Woods playing against a parapalegic in Golf....



he soon will be himself if he goes on swinging the way he does. I don't like gingrich.

the reason obama got voted in was because he said change is coming to morons on the internet. most of these were white kids with their collective heads up their ass. like most kids from any generation. well change came the day Lehman Brothers went under make no mistake. and there have been many changes since.

no one gives a damn about color. all anyone really wants in real life are friends and they mostly dont care what color they are.


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Nov 26, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Nov 26 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 26 said:
> 
> 
> > No it's not silly, it's real. The racism is very real.
> ...







To say that the "Birther" arguments where the same for McCain and Gore is just TOTAL nonsense....


----------



## José Herring (Nov 26, 2011)

Jimbo 88 @ Sat Nov 26 said:


> rgames @ Sat Nov 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 26 said:
> ...



Exactly, and its the persistent amount of hatred that's level at this president that only the very racist or dimwitted would even think that it's not, in part, based on the fact that some white people just can't stand the idea of a president they view as "unAmerican" or to put it more bluntly, non-white.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 26, 2011)

I couldn't find a yawning Emoticon for the exciting topic of birthing. Too bad as it is old hat, and pointless tit for tat DC girly men games.

And I'd like to ad to the list of decent Republicans who happens to be a true Journalist and her Daddy had a great Club here back in the Rat Pack days.
Her name is Judith Miller, and as a true journalist instead of these professors and stenographers who take their orders from Corporate headquarters, she investigated the bull shit Yellow Uranium story where Valerie Plame was pulled into the Cheney game and exposed as a CIA operative, or analyst.
Being a Republican you'd think Judith Miller would have shined the story, but she broke the news about how the Cheney team was out to destroy her and her husband for not going along with the pre emptive Iraq War strategy cooked up by Bush Sr./Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeldt and the entire adminstration along with the Joint Cheifs, who all were promoted handsomely. Also like to add the NYTimes had a major part in backing the Cheney/Bush story and helped sway as many folks as possible.
But you know they only report the truth........... :mrgreen: 

When Forced into court on the basis of National Security, Judith Miller was asked to expose her informant and as a real journalist who stood by her oathe, she said go to hell, and went to jail instead.
Why is it that most of our women have more Balls than these pussies we keep sending to DC. I can't see Romney, Kerry or John Edwards ever acting with any courage or bravery. And these back stabbing rat bastards are who we have represent us, it's just shameful to continue seeing their wealth increase at our expense.

She is a great person with vast knowledge of the false parties, and false media. Instead of being an angry red faced finatic, she politely and calmy discusses topics and never loses her cool and resorts to name calling, or racial nonsense we hear from the Plantation owners of the DNC, like Quacksine Waters and others who make a living off of the fear of race. 
Without using racism, I doubt they could even be re elected as they scare their consituents into voting them back and offer free Food Stamps as long as you stay home and remain unproductive.

The largest Plantation owners in history are the Black Leaders in the DNC. I actually played many Gospel revivals outdoors and was the only white guy for miles, and you know what, I never was called a colorful metaphor/cracker, and was treated with extreme hospitality.
It was Fontella Bass and Luther Ingram I worked with, and even the radical Gil Scot Herron...

This entire race crap comes from the leaders of the DNC and the GOP.
They have many Sheep who need their divine guidance to get along in life.
I say get rid of every last one these dirtbags and start a party called the common sense progressives.
Just people who want to unite and help each other instead of this slavery and divisive crap these wealthy jack offs have used for the last 10 years.

I know exaqctly where the race game starts and why, they don;t fool me, and I always enjoy embarrassing anyone who lowers themselves to thinking like one of our " leaders " or the overpaid Media Parrots....


----------



## Udo (Nov 26, 2011)

midphase @ Sun Nov 27 said:


> USA is about to be in a war against Pakistan...I guess that would be more important!
> 
> Lord have mercy indeed!


And Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of military conflict between Pakistan and the US, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said. But then, his future as President looks rather shaky when the US departs and he'll need Pakistani help to bring the Taliban to peace talks.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2011)

> Tony Blankley is not completely nuts.



Not completely - he claims to be opposed to crony capitalism - but 99% of what he says is fundamentally nuts. And he's certainly an ideologue, which is to say that he puts his bullshit before reality.

I'm not a fan of his. Note that Frum was fired from the Heritage Foundation while Blankly is still a fellow there. That alone says a lot.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2011)

[Nick, do you really want to argue with Richard Ames again? He's always wrong, and he'll just repeat himself over and over and throw up irrelevant crap - like he did here.

Yeah Nick, but he's just sufficiently annoying that I want to smack the f out of his slow pitch. I can't help it.

Okay, but be prepared for this to be a fundamentally miserable experience - you know his response is going to be to repeat the same thing again.]

Hey Richard. The difference between all that other "he did it too" irrelevant crap and the teabag morons is that WE HAVE A BLACK PRESIDENT AND THAT MAKES MANY OF THEM UNCOMFORTABLE.

Duh.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2011)

Kays, good point. I don't think we're quite ready to go to war with Pakistan, but it's pretty obvious that the real story behind this strange and horrible episode hasn't come out yet. And they're already pissed at us for killing Bin Laden on their property.


----------



## rgames (Nov 26, 2011)

Jimbo 88 @ Sat Nov 26 said:


> To say that the "Birther" arguments where the same for McCain and Gore is just TOTAL nonsense....


Why?


----------



## rgames (Nov 26, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 26 said:


> [Nick, do you really want to argue with Richard Ames again? He's always wrong, and he'll just repeat himself over and over and throw up irrelevant crap - like he did here.
> 
> Yeah Nick, but he's just sufficiently annoying that I want to smack the f out of his slow pitch. I can't help it.
> 
> ...



I don't follow what you're getting at.

You find me annoying because you know I'm right and you hate admitting it 

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 26, 2011)

True. You are always right.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 26, 2011)

The Maureen Dowd / Janine Garafolo crowd might believe the race card games, and a few thousand rednecks, but it's typical divisive baloney.

Millions of White people are still in their houses because of the safety net Obama provided, so this racial nonsense is just more tiresome Liberal speak. As usual when the point in the argument has been lost, racism and name calling Bill Maher style is what replaces that.

Rednecks like Hank Williams Jr. are just into anyone who thinks and looks like them. I guess Clinton falls into that category since he is a racist according to the Liberals in 2009. But in Hank Williams world their numbers are few, but OMG a comment from such a small minority of people will get all the attention in the world as the Media Parrots now can drag in various Professors of Sociology and Anthropolgy and have them comment on politics as well. They seem to know as much about politics as the wealthy elites we send there. ... o-[][]-o 

Humor about Conservatives and Liberals is truly hypocritical and hilarious. It's a Vegas passtime with all comedians that come here.
Now that I think about it Janine Garafolo bombed so bad here she had her contracts cancelled but in usual Vegas style was still paid.
Same with Rondstadt when she stopped singing and started acting like she was running for Governeor. She was literally escorted and booed from the stage. Again, she was cancelled and paid.
So maybe they do that on purpose since they are washed up and need some attention. But once you get booted from Vegas, not too many people want to take a chance on losing their money. Thankfully the Casinos have plenty of extra cash laying around thanks to the evil CEOs who know how to spend and invest.

In Vegas when you lose, your out. On Wall Street when you lose, you call Nancy Pelosi, Beohner or Geitner. They'll be happy to give you a bail out for campaign donations and insider IPO tips.

No wonder they need more taxes, more taxes, pass this bill, pass this bill, get the rich guys, etc. But wait until we get the Caymens and Antigua accounts straightened out, then pass the law so the upper middle class really is the target, not the politicians................ooops...................I meant the Wall Street Fat Cat CEO's. They are the same afterall.

I think lots of folks are really blind too, Obama is a mulit racial guy, I am a multi racial guy, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, and most white folks have crossbred into other ethnicities.
So when I hear this type of nonsense, it just confirms my suspicions about the tactics used by the " leaders " of our society.

This is why we are never going to have an honest Government until new freshmen ban together and take money out of the equation.

Who here believes this will ever happen....... =o


----------



## rgames (Nov 26, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Nov 26 said:


> True. You are always right.



Step #1 of 12!


----------



## midphase (Nov 27, 2011)

I think he meant it as in "right wing"


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 27, 2011)

:lol: 

Love the jabwork.
All you lefty and righty guys are going to be glad after 2012 when career elites who have fleeced us for decades are gone.
When they leave the whole concept they profit from, that rebuilds other nations instead of ours will go right out the window with them.

Having Hillary as a Vice President would really cinch a win for Obama.
The old fool Biden is going to be a problem, especially after they release the news about his brothers hedge fund, and how the Obama adminstration won't close the Caymen Islands loopholes.

Having Holder and Biden resign would be a winning move, lets hope they have the foresight to see again as they did in 2008.
Some folks want Geitner to step down, but he is the Federal Reserves choice, not Soros, AFL-CIO or Obama.
Hell Obama didn;t even know anybody when he got to DC, but had many czar positions to fill for Georgy Boy, Andy Stern and Trumpka.

As the Health Care bill gets re worked by the Supreme Court and the States, the Unions and various elites exempted from the plan will continue seeing 13 checks in our pensions, and added benefits.
I will see 13 checks as the fiscal year ended in October, but my notice states the 13 checks and uncollecrted vacation pay will be available. 2012 will surely see unlimited vision as we saw with the unlimited Dental.

That's why I chuckle at the Unions protesting at Wall Street where are Western States Pension Funds are vested.......
Bless their hearts though.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2011)

What you don't understand, Chim, is that we liberals get together and crack jokes about people who think they're above the liberal-conservative divide.

It's completely hilarious.


----------



## rgames (Nov 27, 2011)

midphase @ Sun Nov 27 said:


> I think he meant it as in "right wing"



HA! That makes a lot more sense.

Touche frere Nick!


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 27, 2011)

I'm use to being joked about, especially since I am my own boss which is suppose to make me evil and rich, and then an AFL-CIO member.
So I get it from all " sides ."...
I live in a world of hypocracy. 
After you perform for the DNC party one month then the GOP another month, go to monthly Union Hall meetings, and then sit at the Commerce meeting for contractors, this is why I have such a strong opinion as I see whole enchilada, and am proud to say, i'll take their money and shake hands, but don;t buy any of the Bull Puckey they're selling.

I am therefore Chimdependant..................Ankyu.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 28, 2011)

As a liberal leaning type, I will say this: both arch-liberals and arch-conservatives make me tired. Ideologies are not automatic logic dispensers, nor is the struggle for ideological primacy a recipe for moving forward, as we are sadly seeing in Congress.

The idea that anyone in these debates would actually concede a point is almost unfathomable to me.

And Chim's conspiracies just leave me ....well....wondering how long he was actually IN the CIA :wink:


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 28, 2011)

First wifes' Father was the President of the Iron Workers, then became a Union Delegate, then a State representative, and I'll leave the trail there. So I am quite familiar with the money exchange and how both sides hang together so they can continue their facade of representing the people, and guiding us through the difficulties in life.

He made a fortune installing Video Poker games and Slot Machines in the Midwest when it was illegal still, and cares so much about the people I have to still take care of his daughter at the expense of angering my second wife.
So I have little use for these " servants of the people. "
He is basically like the rest of the crowd who ensures their particular needs are met, their wealth is first and most important, and then show up and vote as instructed on occasion.

This isn't top secret information, but things like the IPCC that claims taxes will save the Planet are exempt from the Freedom Of Information Act. Wow, that's nice, just like the Pentagon and Federal Reserve. ( Top Secret, National Security..... :mrgreen: )

Their latest slough of released emails, and other Julian Assange classified documents should proove even more corruption and crimes committed by our noble leaders,

But even with all of this information available and documented, people don't really care. They are so hypnotized by their favorite elites that the truth is of no consequence. They want their team to win.
Guys like me, just want our money that was taken over the years, and continued favors from the current administration as he is the best Union President one could ask for.

Here some recent festivities the elites are nervous about.
And the Media is silent...............Well considering who pays them, it's nothing new.

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/11/ ... media.html


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 28, 2011)

Larry, have I mentioned that it's only the Republicans who are struggling for ideological primacy in Congress, not both parties?

The Democratic party as a whole is more conservative than I am, and this is not necessarily to their credit, but they have been willing to compromise over all kinds of issues. It's the radical right that has paralyzed our politics and made our country ungovernable.

I can't think of any arch liberals in Congress, for that matter. Maybe Dennis Kucinich could fit into that category since he's an idealist, but I wouldn't call any of the other more liberal Democrats "arch."


----------



## José Herring (Nov 28, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Nov 27 said:


> What you don't understand, Chim, is that we liberals get together and crack jokes about people who think they're above the liberal-conservative divide.
> 
> It's completely hilarious.



Jokes on you then. The idea that there's only two sides is hilarious to me. I get together with people at parties and make jokes about liberals and conservatives :lol: I got one liberal little ditty from Boston so mad at me that she refused to talk to me the entire party. Gave me scowling looks. But, if you confront a zealot with reason they go crazy. And, it's funny. I agreed with her on 99% of the issue, but because I disagreed on 1 issue then in her mind I became "one of them".

Weird thing is that the left always talks about the zealot right. And quite honestly, I have a lot of friends that are strongly conservative and I have found that they are more accepting of different points of view than people on the zealot left. All you have to mention to a liberal is that you don't believe the government can solve the problems of poverty, has tried and has utterly failed, and all of a sudden your a conservative. Well maybe I am. Who knows. I hate conservatives, but to many of my liberal friends I'm a right winger.

So I should just go on record to state that government is a God damn mess. Always has been, always will be. As long as they think there's only two sides to an issue, left and right, then it will continue to be a mess. That type of thinking is too simplistic to solve any problems. And, people that identify as either liberal or conservative just can't think around the issues without seeing them through some sort of ideological filter. All of man's political ideologies have failed so utterly that I can't believe people still cling to them. Kind of like a child that in spite of all reason to the contrary holds out hope that there is a Santa Claus just because he's afraid not to believe.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 28, 2011)

josejherring @ Mon Nov 28 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Nov 27 said:
> 
> 
> > What you don't understand, Chim, is that we liberals get together and crack jokes about people who think they're above the liberal-conservative divide.
> ...



Very elegant re-statement of my position, Jose :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 28, 2011)

Except that I was just winding up Chim - not at all serious.

But I am serious about the radical right exclusively having polarized our politics by pushing such a radical agenda. And I think it's the *image* of being reasonable and moderate you guys like, not that you really believe the answers to everything are half way to what you know to be dead wrong.

That assumption is a total delusion, which by definition is closed-minded! I'm not going to kid myself and pretend that a party that believes all kinds of horrible things is just adopting an alternative point of view.

No. At best they're wrong.

And by the way, the general conservative ideological position is that helping people only enables them to need help. That doesn't mean liberals believe the opposite extreme, that only government can help poor people or that everything government does will help! 

Same with everything conservatives believe. They say that big government is bad. That doesn't mean liberals believe in big government for its own sake! Conservatives hate "regulations," but that doesn't mean liberals automatically want a bunch of stupid rules in the way. And so on.

I identify myself as being liberal - not ideologically, but practically - because reality is liberal! All the progress man has made in the history of the world has been liberal! The only good things conservatism has ever brought have been when they caused careful treading - which of course is an important role, but it's not the role the Republican party is playing today. Blind opposition and moderation are two different things.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 28, 2011)

Re-reading my post, Jose, we're saying exactly the same thing about the real world having shades of grey...only from different angles.

You're just perhaps gladder to suffer fools than I am.


----------



## madbulk (Nov 28, 2011)

More than that it's too simplistic to solve any problems, it's belligerent and therefore not persuasive -- an impediment. 
When Nick for example says conservatives are 100% wrong about everything, he's being anything but simplistic. He's clarifying and indeed he may be close to dead on. But apart from being ultimately untenable, it's just not productive. Zealots are dismissed, rightly or wrongly, by centrists. And centrists are 99% of your potential change.
No, the fight itself long ago became the point just as in any crappy back and forth fight that springs up about monthly in our little VI-Control world here.
As Jose re-stated  ... A mess -- always has been, always will be.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 29, 2011)

The divisions created from script readers and media Parrots gets carried over to the threads, so there is always some guys arguing with each other.
My reasons are simple, I know they are all liars and thieves so I enjoy bashing all " representativres."
On occasion that offends some of the worshippers, it's nothing personal though...


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 29, 2011)

chimuelo @ Tue Nov 29 said:


> The divisions created from script readers and media Parrots gets carried over to the threads, so there is always some guys arguing with each other.
> My reasons are simple, I know they are all liars and thieves so I enjoy bashing all " representativres."
> On occasion that offends some of the worshippers, it's nothing personal though...



Saying "they are all liars and thieves" is like saying "All musicians are drunks and womanizers...".....

Oh wait. Never mind.


----------



## madbulk (Nov 29, 2011)

if only.


----------



## rgames (Nov 29, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 28 said:


> the general conservative ideological position is that helping people only enables them to need help.


Absolutely false. Go live in middle Georgia for 10 years and see how much local churches do to help people out, and at a fraction of the cost that the Federal government collects in taxes to do the same thing. That statement is horribly uninformed. Seriously Nick - you make some absurd statements, but that one is exceptionally absurd.

All I've seen out of liberals lately is people camping out in Manhattan while complaining about the fact that they're having trouble paying for their iPhones and iPads because their degrees in basket weaving aren't paying much. Meanwhile, highly conservative parts of the country continue to send people to third-world countries to help others who really need help. Now you're making me mad...



> They say that big government is bad.


Mostly true.

First of all, you need to distinguish between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. They are very different but tend to get lumped together. Most "conservatives" are fiscal conservatives but not social conservatives.

Part of the "big government is bad" argument leads to the conclusion that things like gay marriage should be perfectly legal. Get the government out of the way and let them do what they want. Is that a conservative position? In fact, it is.

Second of all, being fiscally conservative is not the same as believing society shouldn't help out those who need help. Rather, most conservatives are more than willing to help out but believe it's done most efficiently on the local level (which, in fact, has been proven true time and time again). So rather than giving money to the Federal government, conservatives act locally through community, city, and state organizations. The less money they give to the Federal government, the more they have to give locally and the more efficiently those dollars are used.

The Federal government clearly has a role in defense, international relations, interstate commerce, and other activities that are impractical on a state-by-state basis. We could never have 50 separate Armies, 50 separate Navies, 50 separate Air Forces, etc: they would be inefficient, unnecessary and a waste of money if implemented that way. Furthermore, things like health care are probably better administered on a Federal level (because the pool of people is larger - 50 separate state-run health care systems would be more inefficient). You can lump social security in there as well, though the case is not as strong.

Conservatives don't want to hoard their dollars - that's an uninformed and tired notion spawned by the left . Rather, they want those dollars spent in the smartest way so that they produce the most positive impact on society.

It's quite simple: if you want to support education, would you rather give your dollars to the Federal government so that 50% of those dollars go towards things like turtle highways? Or would you rather spend those dollars at the local and state level where 85% of those dollars go towards your intended purpose?

Seem pretty obvious to me which is the better choice.

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Nov 29, 2011)

Richard wrote, "Most "conservatives" are fiscal conservatives but not social conservatives."

I find this hard to believe. In my personal experience they are only rarely discrete. Do you have any evidence to back it up? You usually do. Or was that just a throwaway thought.


----------



## madbulk (Nov 29, 2011)

About Nick's "they think helping people enables them to need more help," Richard also wrote, "Absolutely false..." Then "absurd." Both, probably wrong. Despite the evidence that followed.
You're both able to be right here, but what fun would that be?
Hence, I'm right.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 29, 2011)

Right, Richard - I'm not talking about social conservatism for the most part.

But we've gone over your argument that churches and charity are all we need before. It's remotely possible that would work in Tucson (where the hate is dry), but on larger scales an optional "alms to the poor" system has almost no correspondence to any real-world issues.

We left the feudal era a couple of centuries ago.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 29, 2011)

The endless left/right stuff again 'eh...?
I think using Government and Private Charitable organizations is the answer.
Both have their share of waste and corruption, Government definately wins that title as most " officials " never had a job, and are Federally concieved.
But St. Vincents and Catholic Charities is the best program I have ever seen for helping the homeless, and drunks, etc. get back their diginity through a regimented work ethic and having to obey laws and rules.
It works great, so the tiresome my side is better than yours is half of an equation.
I suggest to all who worship their churches or elected representative, to go and volunteer just one day at St. Vincents, meet some celebrities who also show up to help, and see how Faith based organizations along with Government are very effective. Brooke Shields, Andre Agassi, Joe Jackson, Oscar Goodman, and Justin Timberlake to name a few.

I had one of the finest bassists from the Graduation class of 1999, but sadly after months of nice paychecks, and free Alchohol in Atlantic City, he had to go back.
But he falls down over and over and keeps getting back up and is so talented, you can't stop helping anyone who is actually trying to get off dope, alchohol, gambling, etc.

Some folks have addicitive personalities and fight their whole life, it's an American tragedy actually, but there are many such programs that help, and it isn't as costly as handing people a check and Food Stamps, paying their Section 8 landlords, and telling them to stay home and we'll feed you.

That wasteful nonsense is the most pathetic Social experiment I have ever seen, and to make it worse they entice you with more money if you have more children........
Brilliant program.

But maybe the same creators of such social experiments happen to be vested in the Prison for Profit system like many elites are, then this program makes perfect sense...

Use the Feds and the Private sector together, it has proven to work over and over.

Peace...


----------



## rgames (Nov 29, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 29 said:


> But we've gone over your argument that churches and charity are all we need before.



That's not what I said. There needs to be a balance and the money has to go to the place where it provides the most benefit to society. Look at socialist countries: you give all your money to to the state and it focuses wealth in the hands of a few just like it does in the current US capitalist society. The only way to avoid going down that rabbit hole is to keep the money close to where it's going to be used.

The fewer fingers on the dollar, the more efficiently it is spent.

Your tax dollars funded the occupation in Iraq. How do you feel about that use of your money? Would you rather have spent that money on education or the arts? Guess what: if you kept more of your money at the state and local level, that's exactly what would have happened.

You're still giving "alms to the poor", you're just giving it to a church that skims more off the top and spends it on things you would rather not waste money on.

By promoting larger Federal government, you are inherently reducing your ability to choose how your tax dollars are spent. Therefore, you are promoting a more un-democratic form of government. That's what conservatives believe.

Brian - look at the candidates that conservatives support on a national level. They are never far-right in terms of social policies. In fact, most have been quoted as saying that they oppose far-right social agendas. Just like national-level liberal candidates are not far-left. The majority of people in both parties are closer to the middle than the extremes.

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Nov 29, 2011)

I don't see how that matters that much, Richard. On a national level push comes to shove both sides ultimately support the candidate that has a snowball's chance of winning and that's the one that has centrist appeal. That doesn't make the argument that the base is not-socially conservative. 
True, the majority of people are closer to the middle than the extremes, almost necessarily. That's just the nature of things, but I'm not persuaded by this that the majority of conservatives are fiscally but not socially conservative, any more than the opposite liberal analog. Not yet at least.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 29, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Nov 29 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Part of the "big government is bad" argument leads to the conclusion that things like gay marriage should be perfectly legal. Get the government out of the way and let them do what they want. Is that a conservative position? In fact, it is.
> ...



http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/major ... riage.aspx

The above is a 2009 Gallup Poll that disputes your statement. I tried to find a more recent one, as I know the numbers have moved somewhat-but certainly not enough to support your statement.

Unless, of course, you are defining "a conservative position" as a position a random conservative could possibly hold, which didn't seem to be your argument.

Had you substituted the word "Libertarian" for "Conservative", I might have agreed.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 29, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Nov 29 said:


> Second of all, being fiscally conservative is not the same as believing society shouldn't help out those who need help. Rather, most conservatives are more than willing to help out but believe it's done most efficiently on the local level (which, in fact, has been proven true time and time again). So rather than giving money to the Federal government, conservatives act locally through community, city, and state organizations. The less money they give to the Federal government, the more they have to give locally and the more efficiently those dollars are used.
> 
> rgames



I find it an absurd notion that if people were allowed to keep more money from their paychecks, they would automatically assign the surplus to the needy. This is a long held conservative position, this "thousand points of light" theory, and in principle I not only support it, I practice it-but I have nowhere near the faith in human nature necessary to believe that the majority would. For that matter, I doubt you have any evidence to support that particular projection of a futuristic conservative paradise/Ayn Randian benevolent capitalist society. Rather, looking backwards, you can view the industrial revolution for an example of unregulated capitalism with unenforced charity. It wasn't pretty for many.

As to state vs federal,I agree with you on certain points, such as the fairly shameful waste of Federal monies for education and various redundant bureaucracies(including defense!)-however, if Alabama (for example) is given the choice to spend former federal monies to improve their dreadful educational system and take on charitable initiatives or cut taxes-I think I know what the result will be. Also, when you speak of charitable institutions being efficient with money, we know very well that some of the largest fundraisers in the world, such as The Red Cross and the United Way have horrible overhead and are inefficient as hell. As usual, these questions are far more nuanced than the head-butting ideological positions taken by many allow.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 29, 2011)

> Guess what: if you kept more of your money at the state and local level, that's exactly what would have happened.



More likely what's happening in Europe is what would have happened.


----------



## rgames (Nov 29, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Tue Nov 29 said:


> I have nowhere near the faith in human nature necessary to believe that the majority would.



That gets at the crux of the issue, doesn't it?

You're not concerned about being able to choose how to use your money, you're concerned about being able to choose how others use their money.

Liberals believe they have the right to make everyone's choices for them.

Conservatives believe people have the right to make their own choices (a concept also known as "democracy").

Most people fall somewhere in the middle.

You are correct that, if given the option, lots of people would reduce their spending on items that were previously paid for through tax dollars. Like the occupation in Iraq, turtle highways, and bridges to nowhere.

That's a bad thing?

Regardless, I'm not saying get rid of taxes. Sorry - I know - repeating again, but it seems I have to. I'm saying put them at the level where they make the most sense. For a lot of things, that's not at the Federal level. Sometimes it's not even at the state level, it's at the local and city level.

When dollars get too far away, they are forgotten and tend to get abused.

Regarding the social aspect, I agree that not all people who call them conservatives have actually thought about what it means. If you believe in limited government, you believe in limited government. If you want to legislate social policy through government, then you don't believe in limited government, ergo you are not a conservative.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 29, 2011)

> Liberals believe they have the right to make everyone's choices for them.



Wrong.

Liberals believe WITT: we're in this together. 

Conservatives believe YOYO: you're on your own (also known as "fuck you I'm okay").


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 29, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Nov 29 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue Nov 29 said:
> 
> 
> > I have nowhere near the faith in human nature necessary to believe that the majority would.
> ...



No The crux of the issue is that any sort of basic humanism insists that one not let another suffer when there is enough for all. Having the government assist people ensures that. Your plan is projective. You cannot prove it with facts and figures, so you revert to a scornful screed that repeats your ideology without supporting it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 29, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Nov 29 said:


> You are correct that, if given the option, lots of people would reduce their spending on items that were previously paid for through tax dollars. Like the occupation in Iraq, turtle highways, and bridges to nowhere.
> 
> rgames



And help for the neediest would simply be reduced by default....but your personal charitable contributions and good works (and those of your fellow compassionate conservatives) would make up the shortfall. Except...you can't prove it.


----------



## rgames (Nov 29, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 29 said:


> > Liberals believe they have the right to make everyone's choices for them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let's see - the religious conservatives that you rail against are known for sending people to third-world countries to build houses, provide education, provide medical care, develop infrastructure, etc.

The liberals that you so dearly love are known for fighting for more money in their pockets and the right to smoke pot, especially if it gets them on TV.

I'm confused - which is the self-serving group of people?

rgames


----------



## rgames (Nov 29, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Tue Nov 29 said:


> And help for the neediest would simply be reduced by default....but your personal charitable contributions and good works (and those of your fellow compassionate conservatives) would make up the shortfall. Except...you can't prove it.



Likewise, you can't prove that the liberal system is the one that better serves the needy.

We have described the birth of politics!

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 29, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Nov 29 said:


> Let's see - the religious conservatives that you rail against are known for sending people to third-world countries to build houses, provide education, provide medical care, develop infrastructure, etc.
> 
> 
> rgames



Ah-bread for Jesus. One of my favorite topics.

Personally, I believe bread for Jesus is an unfortunate ploy by religionists who are compelled to convert ("There is no way to heaven but through me"©Jesus Christ)-on the other hand, bread for Jesus is better than no bread and no Jesus for anyone who is starving. Starvation trumps motivation every day of the week and makes these arguments look silly and specious.

That said- are you seriously arguing purity of motive?


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 29, 2011)

Bush, a faith based group and Bono from U2 did more for Africa than the entire world ever did. So having an Evil Conservative who believes in the old scrolls and a modern day Human Rights activist made a really good team as over 100,000 lives were saved. 
Where are the religious Muslim nations who live so close and have so much wealth....? I guess the towels they wear get tangled up in those jungle pathways and they hate insects......

How about the Socialist Sean Penn in Haiti...?
What an impressive chap he turned out to be. Everytime I see him hanging with Castro and Chavez I wonder if he's trying to get attention or something, but he rolled up his sleeves and kicked in his cash in Haiti.
And who could dismiss the lovely Angelina Jolie..Millions of her dollars go directly to various charities, and she is wise enough to show up and make sure the monies are distributed properly.

So it's basically the people, not these Groups of posers who want to help others with YOUR money. 

But I still enjoy the stereotypes and am happy to continue bashing elites, getting tips on applications, and demo and buy great products.
vi-control.net is a fabulous place.

Ok, let's back to the I am right you are wrong, I am smart and kind, you are wealthy and cruel stuff, very entertaining...


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 29, 2011)

chimuelo @ Tue Nov 29 said:


> Bush, a faith based group and Bono from U2 did more for Africa than the entire world ever did.



I'm not sure if that's exactly true, but it's basically true. Bush had a very good record on Africa, and would have had a good record on some sort of plan for eventual naturalization of longtime illegal but settled and peaceful immigrants, if he'd been allowed to.
My liberal hero Bill Clinton let hundreds of thousands die in Rwanda.

There is nuance to most things...but that's not really politics, is it? Politics is just win, baby-never retrench, never concede a point to your enemy, no flag of truce!


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 29, 2011)

Bush learned from watching Clinton suffer with the UN and saw how hard it was just to get NATO to Police it's own backyard in Kosovo, so he sent John Bolton there as a diplomatic insult, and just showed the world how irrelevant they really are.
I mean just look at the Copenhagen Save The Planet gathering where each elite had their own Jet and Limosuine, and there were hundreds of these wannabe Kings & Queens. The get together in Cozumel was even more of a joke, especially after this latest email release of these dirtbags lying and coercing to get thier point across.
If you ask me the UN gets together at these Posh extravaganzas to figure out what to do with the rest of us, and maintain the status quo..

It's too bad we didn't have Julian Assange around to show us the exchange of emails and classified documents during the Genocide while the elites ate Chateaubriande and fed their pet better scraps then the people they " represent."

The trouble is that the IPCC is like ClubFed, and the Pentagon. Freedom Of Information Act does not apply as they know whats best for the peasants...
How dare they ask for the latest 29,000 pages of how we sent OUR stimulus to Eurpoean Banks......???
I now understand why Obama couldn't produce the shovel ready jobs, ClubFed had better ideas, as usual.

But Clinton really did show his anger at the UN in many speeches where he mentioned Rwanda, and what needs to be done.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 30, 2011)

> We have described the birth of politics!



Unfortunately you never got very far past the birth. The whole idea that only religious people are the ones who have and act on a social conscience is incredibly arrogant.

The fact is that if you walk up to most modern Republicans today, his or her main view of the world will be a variation of YOYO:

"Why should I work hard so the government can steal my money to pay for lazy people [who smoke crack and procreate to collect welfare]?"

"Liberals want to take away my personal freedom to keep all my money."

"Don't you think I know how to spend my money better than the government does?"

"Big government wastes all my money and does nothing good with it."

"Job Creators."

As I said, people like David Frum who intelligent people (aka liberals) can respect but disagree with are one in a million on that side of reality.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 30, 2011)

Giving crackheads money is OK, they'll die quicker and save the Government tons of health care money later on down the road, so I can relate to their position there.

Eliminating as many blacks in Watts with Coke from Noriega, then given to the CIA to sell in LA was brilliant. The ones who didn't die were jailed where the elites could make money off them.

So many Government programs are definately the way to go, the Church would have a lousy coke connection anyway, and be giving out really cut up shit that nobody could get addicted to or overdose on, so I am again in agreement with the Feds there too in a fiscal sense. Similar to the Health Care plan where everyone will have to wait months instead of weeks, discouraging the elderly from seeking the help they need.

We need more such programs. Don't cut Medicare, just make it harder to get, and kill as many of the poor before they can be of age to collect.................Brilliant...

We now have the GOP pretty much in a powerful position and the fact they haven;t called for the arrest of these dirtbag ponzi scheme Bankers is unacceptable.
The Liberals had 2 unfettered years of passing everything they ever dreamed of, and why they never wanted to arrest a single dirtbag from Wall Street should tell all of us, what these YOYO's, We are all in this together folks are thinking about..................themselves as usual...


----------



## Diffusor (Nov 30, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 28 said:


> Except that I was just winding up Chim - not at all serious.
> 
> But I am serious about the radical right exclusively having polarized our politics by pushing such a radical agenda. And I think it's the *image* of being reasonable and moderate you guys like, not that you really believe the answers to everything are half way to what you know to be dead wrong.
> 
> ...




Just look at Europe to see the budding endgames of liberal ideology.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 1, 2011)

That's the only bad thing about Socialism, you eventually run out of other peoples money to spend.
It seems our brethren were lied to about getting to retire at the age of 50 and having 30 years of leisure prior to entering Valhalla. I'd be upset too.
But to retire at 50....??? That's such a blatent falsehood but I guess like over here you lie your ass off to get elected, pass unrealistic laws line you pockets, and then leave a trail a shit behind you for the next guy.
Obama walked into a minefield.
But his bosses told him they'd fix everything with trillions of dollars for shovel ready jobs, but being new he didn't realize elite wealthy Liberals would build their own railroads and airports and the other half of the stimulus would go to European Banks, so we all get lied to.
It's the American way....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 1, 2011)

Diffusor, what you're seeing in Europe is way past the budding stages of the endgame of crony capitalism. It has nothing to do with liberal ideology, and the fact that you and other people say that only proves that conservatism has no basis in reality - just like chim's stupid quote of that bitch Margaret Thatcher.

Well, in all fairness Thatcher believed that shit before it had been tried and failed in the real world, so I suppose that's an excuse.

Europe had a massive financial collapse just like we did here. They are in crisis because they're all on the same currency and individual countries can't make adjustments, which is causing the whole thing to unravel.

If you look at the most heavily socialized countries in Europe - Sweden, Denmark, and also Germany - you'll see that they're the ones that are doing the best.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 1, 2011)

The Danes, Swedes and Germans are really excited about having to take a bigger hit in their paychecks to cover the other poorly ran countries. But in the true meaning of " We're all in this together "

The Needs Of The Many, Outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Spock ... In The Wrath Of Khan .... United Artists 1982


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 1, 2011)

Neither Denmark nor Sweden are in the eurozone.

And that underlines the point: this has nothing to do with liberal or any other ideology, it's what happens when times get tough and countries that need to devalue their currency can't do so because they're stuck on the euro.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 1, 2011)

Also, it's not at all true that all the countries in trouble were run poorly. Yes they were too heavily invested in real estate, but then everyone was.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 1, 2011)

So in other words the money taken from citizens in these countries is using the Private Sector to ensure their Ponzi schemes can continue...?

Interesting, I'd call that poorly run as usually a wise investor has a hedge bet or offshore account where the money is making interest, like our poiliticians do through the Caymen Islands, or with our Vice Presidents brothers' hedge fund in Antigua, under the protection of our Secret Service.

I really hope some brave Federal or State Proesecutor goes after these criminals on Wall Street who caused this, but since we never hear or see of such actions, that tells me that politicians are involved heavily and have put a stop to all investigations or prosecution.

So I hold the politicians responsible as much as their parnters at Goldman Sachs.

And any Government that was stupid enough to put all of their eggs in one basket should get rid of their leaders, who I can imagine are all Billionaires too.

You'd think since all of the wealthy Liberals are so successfull with their own money, they'd at least get us our money back instead of losing all of the time.....


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 2, 2011)

Diffusor @ Thu Dec 01 said:


> Just look at Europe to see the budding endgames of liberal ideology.



they're in a crisis because they are a collection of countries and egos that will never come to a decision about anything over any given period of time. what youre seeing here is stultification caused by the collapse of lehman brothers and the ensuing inabilty for anyone within the eurozone to make any headway on just about anything. im amazed that anyone in germany or france could even consider voting for their current leaders.
its given the US some sort of fucked up moralistic breathing room but it wont last long especially if the euro collapses which i discussed some time ago. no sane person would actually want the euro to collapse but we dont live in a fiscally sane world anymore.


thatcher never wanted anything to do with europe or what the boundaries of europe were at that time. the boundaries and color of europe change constantly though and new countries will be added and subtracted no doubt.

what kind of a system is that? get used to the fact that bond dealers own everyones ass and youll understand why china is now beginning its slow panic.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 2, 2011)

Please explaing Chinas' slow panic, as I always find your posts to be well informed whenever I read on financial matters, things you describe are often weeks ahead of what I read, so I would appreciate your perception of the slow panic you see in China....

Cheers.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 2, 2011)

China and Europe have been so politically and economically screwed up that the more we get involved with them the worse the US gets. Now we're pulling away from them and things are getting better. The less we stop thinking about a global economy and the more we stand on our own two feet and think of everybody else as potential ipad customers, the stronger we'll get.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 3, 2011)

But then the Feds will show pictures of starving people and mistreated pets like PETA and we'll feel so guilty, that we will borrow more money to help Pakistan and other countries that despise us, but the children, we must save them, and those poor pets with matted fur and one eye....


----------



## midphase (Dec 3, 2011)

I just want to say that "Slow Panic" seems like an awesome name for a band!


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 3, 2011)

:lol: 

Great name for a band...........I like that.
There's a band here in town of old scrawny guys who do Neil Young and lots of old jam stuff that cakk themsekves the Spirochetes.
I love it when bands have cool names like that...

Slow Panic should be a Metal group from Hong Kong.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 3, 2011)

There is a band called "Widespread Panic". Perhaps they should add "Slow" to their name.


----------



## midphase (Dec 3, 2011)

Widespread Slow Panic at the Disco!

Ok...back to the news....so how about that Herman Cain?

Isn't it kinda sad that after all the shit that spewed out of his mouth...what ends up doing him in is the same ol' affair accusation? I think it's pretty sad that apparently voters in this country aren't phased in the least about a candidate's intelligence or political intentions...but god forbid he's got an active sex drive!


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 3, 2011)

midphase @ Sat Dec 03 said:


> Widespread Slow Panic at the Disco!
> 
> Ok...back to the news....so how about that Herman Cain?
> 
> Isn't it kinda sad that after all the [email protected]#t that spewed out of his mouth...what ends up doing him in is the same ol' affair accusation? I think it's pretty sad that apparently voters in this country aren't phased in the least about a candidate's intelligence or political intentions...but god forbid he's got an active sex drive!



Don't forget Plan B! (hilarious, that)


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 3, 2011)

yeah widespread panic would be a very good name should the euro collapse. the idea that the US is not involved or pulling away from europe is probably on the margins of sanity. we caused the problem with europe. lehman brothers collapsed. hello? is there anybody out there? how many more times? just as one issue do any of you understand what would happen to french banks?

china has inflation issues and is not really a consumer. china owns everyones elses ass. we owe china a lot of money. china is now trying to bail out european contries through the issuance of debt. there is no demand. people will not continue to buy anything from china worse case scenario should the euro collapse. there will be contagion. everyone will stop buying. china will stop making things. the internal markets including the US will not be enough. slow panic turns into widespread panic. everyone implodes economically.

yes go ahead and form a band while you can still afford the equipment and currency actually has value.

the markets rule the world. bond traders rule the markets. the dow didnt go up 500 points the other day just because of sentiment. it was because the market perceived that european leaders were on top of things and understand whats actually happening.


:lol:


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 3, 2011)

and dont think the US has never defaulted because it has back in the 19th century.
ho hum.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 3, 2011)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Wasn't Europe supposed to collapse by now?

That's another thing that makes me tired-market prognosticators throwing darts at a board and calling it analysis. Every week, two dozen 'analysts' predict the end of the world , financial doomsday. When it doesn't happen on their proscribed schedules, they shrug and make more predictions. Eventually they get one right. Meredith Whitney's been dining on one thing she got right for the past four years.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 4, 2011)

Yeah, a friend of mine seriously told me that he had predicted the housing crash. Of course, he had been predicting it every year for 20 years...


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 4, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> That's another thing that makes me tired-market prognosticators throwing darts at a board and calling it analysis. Every week, two dozen 'analysts' predict the end of the world , financial doomsday. When it doesn't happen on their proscribed schedules, they shrug and make more predictions.



they dont make predictions. they make what ifs. and remember china never does anything fast. it has a 5 year plan for everything including slow panic. and you dont need to get every bet right. about 3 in 7 was always my way of thinking. 4 losers and 3 winners always reminds me of an office song someone made up during a really bad market down time in the 80's. he called it ferrari ferrari while youre fucking walking. 

i liked it a lot.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 4, 2011)

I guess that 3 out of 7 explains why 85% of "money managers' can't beat an index fund.
What a profession....especially in the days of high commissions. Win, lose or draw, the house gets its piece.


----------



## Udo (Dec 4, 2011)

George Caplan @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> .... the idea that the US is not involved or pulling away from europe is probably on the margins of sanity. we caused the problem with europe. lehman brothers collapsed. hello? is there anybody out there? how many more times? just as one issue do any of you understand what would happen to french banks?


As I mentionred before (and a fact even acknowledge by a US govt review panel), the troubles in Europe are directly attributable to the US. It wasn't just the collapse of Lehman Brothers; bad US govt policies and grossly inadiquate regulations were the root cause - and they're still not fixed!!

The fact that US companies like Goldman Sachs helped conceal the true debt situation in some countries, Greece in particular, has componded the EU problems. 



George Caplan @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> .... the markets rule the world. bond traders rule the markets. the dow didnt go up 500 points the other day just because of sentiment. it was because the market perceived that european leaders were on top of things and understand whats actually happening.


The Finance Industry can be summed up as highly susceptable to manipulation, driven by the GRIFUD Syndrome, facilitated by an extraordinary large number of very insecure and often neurotic people in prominent positions and helped in the US by bad govt policies and grossly inadiquate regulations!

(GRIFUD Syndrome ©, Udo :wink: - manipulation achieved through gosssip, rumour, inuendo, fear, uncertainty and doubt )


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 4, 2011)

now dont be bitter Larry. think of it this way. for 60 years banks and financial institutions paid phenomenal amounts of tax to their governments. and their individuals. they never asked where that tax was going or being used for. 

GS did not to my knowledge conceal anything. dont make the mistake of thinking that information is always forthcoming if not asked for in the first place. ive already explained about the SEC and their failings. same in any other country including the FSA debacle in the uk.


gosssip, rumour, inuendo, fear, uncertainty and doubt = sentiment.


----------



## Udo (Dec 4, 2011)

George Caplan @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> GS did not to my knowledge conceal anything. dont make the mistake of thinking that information is always forthcoming if not asked for in the first place.


GS knows that the requirement is for EU govts to present their true debt situation. Cooking the books/using creative accounting to help a govt diliberately conceal its real debt, what would you call that? Oh, of course, I forgot, ethics is an anathema to the finance industry!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 4, 2011)

> for 60 years banks and financial institutions paid phenomenal amounts of tax to their governments. and their individuals.



Feh.

FEH.

And they've been bribing and infiltrating the US government to the point that they now practically own it.

Meanwhile they took a massive percentage of all business profits in the US - I believe it's something like 30%! And the top managers pay 15% capital gains tax instead of income tax.

The sentiment is totally appropriate!

Remember the old adage that banks don't make investments, they make loans?


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 4, 2011)

George Caplan @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> now dont be bitter Larry. think of it this way. for 60 years banks and financial institutions paid phenomenal amounts of tax to their governments. and their individuals. they never asked where that tax was going or being used for.
> 
> GS did not to my knowledge conceal anything. dont make the mistake of thinking that information is always forthcoming if not asked for in the first place. ive already explained about the SEC and their failings. same in any other country including the FSA debacle in the uk.
> 
> ...



Now don't be condescending, George, and assume that telling the truth = bitterness.
It's not my fault that money mangers can't beat the index, though I do feel little sorry for the chumps who buy into their self-serving myths.

John Paulson made a genius bet. A few years later, his funds are losing 35%. The average investor would generally be just as well off picking their own equities and skipping the fees. 

As to GS, they were selling tranches of mortgage debt they knew to be bad to their customers, while simultaneously betting against them. That tells me everything I need to know.

SEC? They couldn't even figure out what a fellow named Madoff was doing to return 10% to his customers year over year through bad times and good. If they're the only dog guarding the henhouse, the chickens are doomed.


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 4, 2011)

everyone has a view but few have actually worked in the midst of it. paulson should have saved Lehmans. i cant see any way that anyone sane could argue against that at the time. not 3 years down the road. had he recommended lehmans recapitalization at the cost of dick fuld a lot of the mayhem in europe could have been avoided. but the mayhem in europe has been exacerbated by poor leadership of an almost certainly doomed in its present form eurozone. when you then see barclays buy out the best parts for around $1.75b and their share price is around 0.50puk you can see writing on the wall. you cant let the fourth largest investment bank in the US go down like that and not expect serious fallout all over the world. this is basic fundamental stuff.

germany tried to gain the upper hand in europe through warfare. the first failed and the second was a continuation of the first which failed. they are now trying to take over europe on a federal fiscal basis using their model. the irony of that is, is that their model is a really good model. but will 26 other countries see that and even if they see that will they ever accept it? will we accept it in the US and will china and anyone else thats large holding debt?

fund managers are like big ships. they cant turn or stop fast enough like the small investor that are buying and selling stock for themselves. the amounts are just too large. ever heard of the fidelity magellan fund? if you saw that then you would have a bigger understanding. and if you have a problem beating the index then you should look at buying and selling an index of your choice on a daily basis. you will need a lot of chutzpah for that though.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 4, 2011)

George Caplan @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> everyone has a view but few have actually worked in the midst of it. paulson should have saved Lehmans. i cant see any way that anyone sane could argue against that at the time. not 3 years down the road. had he recommended lehmans recapitalization at the cost of dick fuld a lot of the mayhem in europe could have been avoided. but the mayhem in europe has been exacerbated by poor leadership of an almost certainly doomed in its present form eurozone. when you then see barclays buy out the best parts for around $1.75b and their share price is around 0.50puk you can see writing on the wall. you cant let the fourth largest investment bank in the US go down like that and not expect serious fallout all over the world. this is basic fundamental stuff.
> 
> germany tried to gain the upper hand in europe through warfare. the first failed and the second was a continuation of the first which failed. they are now trying to take over europe on a federal fiscal basis using their model. the irony of that is, is that their model is a really good model. but will 26 other countries see that and even if they see that will they ever accept it? will we accept it in the US and will china and anyone else thats large holding debt?
> 
> fund managers are like big ships. they cant turn or stop fast enough like the small investor that are buying and selling stock for themselves. the amounts are just too large. ever heard of the fidelity magellan fund? if you saw that then you would have a bigger understanding. and if you have a problem beating the index then you should look at buying and selling an index of your choice on a daily basis. you will need a lot of chutzpah for that though.



Funny-I didn't say I had trouble beating the index. I said the vast majority of money managers do. What other function are they supposed to perform for their fees?


----------



## Udo (Dec 4, 2011)

George Caplan @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> germany tried to gain the upper hand in europe through warfare. the first failed and the second was a continuation of the first which failed. they are now trying to take over europe on a federal fiscal basis using their model. *the irony of that is, is that their model is a really good model* ......


Really?

"The German government likes to pride itself on its solid finances and claim the country is a safe haven for investors. But Germany's budget management is not nearly as exemplary as it would have people believe, and the national debt is way over the EU's limit. In some respects, Italy's finances are in much better shape."

www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1 ... 59,00.html


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 5, 2011)

Udo @ Sun Dec 04 said:


> Really?




oh yes. really.


----------



## Udo (Dec 5, 2011)

George Caplan @ Tue Dec 06 said:


> Udo @ Sun Dec 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Really?
> ...


If you knew/understood the European situation :wink: , you would know that the German model is not the best. It's Europe's largest Economy, that looked like it had a reasonable model (which is highly debatable now), but there are 2 or 3 smaller countries with a better/more effective model.


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 5, 2011)

would you be prepared to bet on those 2 or 3 other countries indexes and lets say $3000 a point? seriously.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 5, 2011)

What I don't understand is how they're going to solve the crisis by shrinking all their economies. It makes no sense to me.


----------



## Udo (Dec 5, 2011)

George Caplan @ Tue Dec 06 said:


> would you be prepared to bet on those 2 or 3 other countries indexes and lets say $3000 a point? seriously.


Sorry, I forgot, the casino approach rules economics these days ,,,, 

That's probably also why the GRIFUD Syndrome has become such a significant factor.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 5, 2011)

Udo @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> George Caplan @ Tue Dec 06 said:
> 
> 
> > would you be prepared to bet on those 2 or 3 other countries indexes and lets say $3000 a point? seriously.
> ...



"These days?" Which days were different?


----------



## Udo (Dec 5, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Tue Dec 06 said:


> Udo @ Mon Dec 05 said:
> 
> 
> > George Caplan @ Tue Dec 06 said:
> ...


For me, "these days" means the last 3 decades.  There were always risks, of course, but they were generally not carried by the tax payers (at least nowhere near fully). Now they are, in the US, and on top of that, the gamblers get bonuses when they lose.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 5, 2011)

Can you blame them...?
Stupid Americans keep sending the same thieves and criminals back to DC, and only a few every year get caught, which tells you just like drug smugglers, we catch 1 out of 20 loads if we're lucky.
Where else can you spend others money w/o a care of what happens to it, and even get IPO tips, favors for relatives to insulate you further.

So keep voting back these thieves from these fake parties that serve themselves.................oooops................I meant us, so well.
It's the voters fault.
But the Corporate owned media has it's legions of bloggers, " authorities " on economics and enviromental blackmailing........sorry.....I meant to say Protection, and thousands of Parrots that work for free.

You get stuck with the taxes, and your children, if you're really lucky might get to keep something when you die, but I believe by that time anyone making over 100,000 will be evil and rich, so the Death Tax rate will be 80% to cover for their coninued failed social experiments.

Freedom is never free, but the wealthy Liberals and Conservatives, and the very poor probably have a great time from your labor.
They should at least send a Christmas card thanking you for working your ass off for cheap, or helping the OctaMoms as they have a tough time with 14 children, etc.


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 5, 2011)

"What I don't understand is how they're going to solve the crisis by shrinking all their economies. It makes no sense to me."


it makes no sense in the long run but youre not dealing with long runs and havent for years. its short term. have you not noticed even in calif that kids today want everything now. not tomorrow but now. planning for the future. you talk to any kid about the future and watch the glazed expression. thats slow panic setting in.

thats why in my opinion the german model is a good one. they dont whinge about the downside in the economy like they do everywhere else. especially in the uk as was my experience before returning to the states. they try and get on with it all and produce growth. because its a good model it doesnt mean its going to work in a med type country though (insert emoticon here). thats why severe measures are now being taken in italy and ireland and thats why S&P may well downgrade germany and frances AAA rating. its inextricably linked and cant be stopped. it goes back to will the euro survive.

if youre in the 18 to 35 year bracket youre in a world of shit and that goes back way before the collapse of lehmans. lehmans was the catalyst that got things started but the problems were prevalent before 2008.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 5, 2011)

Craziness.

You know what? I have lived very well in America. I have never gone hungry, I have always had a roof over my head and some creature comforts. I have worked hard and have enjoyed the fruits of my labors without ever being rich.

I am somewhat amazed by the obviously middle class people on this board who have been given opportunity and a decent lifestyle, who made their own way and yet seem so bitter. None of us has lived in a hand to mouth, agrarian culture where the amount of rainfall might determine life or death for us or our families.

Yes, things are tough right now, especially for the poor, as they always are.
How are YOU doing? Hungry? Family on the street?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 5, 2011)

George, how do you figure it's going to help in the long run? It isn't; it's pure madness! Shrinking the economy just makes it harder to pay down debts. And if everyone does it at once then it's even more ridiculous.

Furthermore, the idea that you must pay penance is also economic nonsense. The crisis has nothing to do with people wanting more without waiting for it. The problem is not enough spending, not too much!

May I remind you that we had a worldwide financial crash. It is NOT because people have been living too high. On the contrary, the problem is that people aren't living high enough.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 5, 2011)

And Larry, what's your point exactly?

My family is living on less than half of what we were making two years ago (and had been making for many years). That doesn't mean we're starving or that we're not still way more fortunate than most of the world, but it still sort of sucks!

Don't get me wrong - I have many blessings to count. And I plan to be back in the 1% - my rightful place in the aristocracy - next year hopefully. But I don't think I need to be happy that we've had a hard time the past couple of years.


----------



## madbulk (Dec 5, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> May I remind you that we had a worldwide financial crash. It is NOT because people have been living too high. On the contrary, the problem is that people aren't living high enough.



Seriously?

Nevermind your confidence in Keynes... I'm good with the anti austerity and the "we haven't had enough stimulus and that's why this will go on forever because conservatives and the women who love them are morons..." That's all cool.

But oh yes it is because people have been living too high. Leverage = living too high. And whether your Lehman or everyone who bought a house in Las Vegas, that was leverage. And that's what did it.

Or did I miss a step in this thread and I'm all apropos of nothin?


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 5, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> And Larry, what's your point exactly?
> 
> My family is living on less than half of what we were making two years ago (and had been making for many years). That doesn't mean we're starving or that we're not still way more fortunate than most of the world, but it still sort of sucks!
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I have many blessings to count. And I plan to be back in the 1% - my rightful place in the aristocracy - next year hopefully. But I don't think I need to be happy that we've had a hard time the past couple of years.



We sold our main residence in Manhattan, which enabled us to live. My wife lost her corporate job over three years ago and is still unemployed. I am making 20% of what I was making TEN years ago....but of course, I bought that real estate with money I was blessed to make in the music business. I'm not rich but I'm ok. I have been afforded myriad blessings by living in this country and being born middle class- and through perserverance, caution and living through a few up cycles in business, my family is okay.

What's a hard time in your book? Did you give up meat? movies? new car? bigger flat screen? Go into debt for your children's education? All that stuff shrinks a lifestyle, but it would be laughable in much of the world if considered deprivation.

My point? We whine a lot. Count blessings.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 5, 2011)

madbulk @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Dec 05 said:
> 
> 
> > May I remind you that we had a worldwide financial crash. It is NOT because people have been living too high. On the contrary, the problem is that people aren't living high enough.
> ...



A couple of steps.

1. Predatory lending practices.

2. Collusion between government and financial institutions

3.The creation or at least sudden popularity of financial instruments so complicated, the leaders and major players of the institutions selling them claimed afterwards not to understand what they were selling (John Mack of Morgan Stanley was especially dumbfounded, and he wasn't even that bad a guy, it seems.)

Those few who DID understand were wildly speculating, using fraudulent valuations of bad debt....with, as it turns out after the bailouts, American taxpayer money.

I could go on endlessly, but I've read multiple books about this stuff, and it's exhausting after a while. I recommend Michael Lewis' "The Big Short" and Matt Taibbi's "Griftopia". Both are pretty entertaining, though Hank Paulson's "On the Brink" is good if you have some popcorn and need a serious chuckle.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 5, 2011)

Fair enough, and I agree with both of the above posts.

I haven't read Griftopia, but Matt Taibbi is one of very few writers I read and feel like I suck as a writer.  He's just terrific.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 5, 2011)

The other thing causing problems in Europe is the euro. Investors thought that all countries were the same since they were all on the euro. Oops.

Also, note that Spain for example was running a budget surplus just before the crash.


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 6, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> George, how do you figure it's going to help in the long run?



never said that nick.

spending is/was based on debt. round and round we go. :shock:


----------



## George Caplan (Dec 6, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> The other thing causing problems in Europe is the euro. Investors thought that all countries were the same since they were all on the euro. Oops.
> 
> Also, note that Spain for example was running a budget surplus just before the crash.



but i told you that over and over and over again. this has become basic fundamental stuff and has been for years. the very idea that different countries can roughly or even ballpark similar growth rates with acceptable affordable blips in the graph and then bail each other out simply because they happen to be on the same continent is weird. why not invite the US or australia or china to join the euro in that case? thats just a base simplistic part of it. it can get very complicated if you start down the road of philosophical points of view and historic economics.


----------



## madbulk (Dec 6, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Mon Dec 05 said:


> madbulk @ Mon Dec 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Dec 05 said:
> ...



Not at all what I was asking. I didn't miss any of this. Read The Big Short the day it was released. (no Michael Lewis book lasts more than a day here.) Saw Inside Job in a theater. 
Everything you said is right, but there's no mutual exclusivity to be had here. Folks were not just minding their own business living within their means and then one day Wells Fargo phoned and offered them ARM's. They were grabbing their encrusted vinyl Louis Vuitton bags, climbing into the newly financed BMW and racing out to look for first homes because the prices were just gonna run away from them if they didn't hurry. They'd be renters forever if they didn't fly into that open house and offer 52k above ask.
And really, I think it would be shame if we came out of this with no sense that maybe as individuals we might be a little wiser next time, and not excuse ourselves as being purely victimized.
(Not putting words in your mouth, sir.)


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 6, 2011)

madbulk @ Tue Dec 06 said:


> NYC Composer @ Mon Dec 05 said:
> 
> 
> > madbulk @ Mon Dec 05 said:
> ...



yeah, you're right as well. I lived in an overpriced loft building in Manhattan and watched my fellow occupants either live off their theoretical equity or do over the top renovations they could never get the money back from, so. There's certainly personal responsibility here by people who should have known better. Nothing goes up forever.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 6, 2011)

The people who lost their jobs when the economy crashed aren't all personally responsible.

And the banks are supposed to know the risks when they lend money better than the borrower. It's their job. People can't be expected to expect the bottom to fall out of the worldwide housing market all at once.

But the main point is that the "must be punished" school of economics is bullshit. Right now the problem is not enough spending, not too much.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 6, 2011)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... korea.html


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 6, 2011)

Waging war on unemployment should start with the design of the program.
My friends get calls all the time for temporary work from the Union Hall, but refuse it because if you make more than 900 USD in a single quarter, which is basically 3 to 5 days of work, you are disqualified for the extensions.
It's incredibly stupid, and how simple would it be to allow people to take the temporary jobs as it helps them keep their Health insurance, and just let them get back on the benefits once the work is over.....?

The design is similar to the enslavement of the Welfare programs, which we all agree are needed, but as soon as you try and climb from the slavery to self reliance, you lose your benefits.

So we can't blame people for sitting on their ass for 99 weeks, the program is terribly flawed.

Waging war on unemployment should have been the priority in 2009, not the other programs that benefitted the elites.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 6, 2011)

chimuelo @ Tue Dec 06 said:


> Waging war on unemployment should start with the design of the program.
> My friends get calls all the time for temporary work from the Union Hall, but refuse it because if you make more than 900 USD in a single quarter, which is basically 3 to 5 days of work, you are disqualified for the extensions.
> It's incredibly stupid, and how simple would it be to allow people to take the temporary jobs as it helps them keep their Health insurance, and just let them get back on the benefits once the work is over.....?
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you said here.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 7, 2011)

We should declare 2012 a lame duck session.
Just look at how many programs were voted on when the Dems got booted to the curb in 2010....?
Just one year of redesigining these flawed, fraud ridden Government programs would get repect from the people as Congress has the lowest approval I remember, and it's easy to get both sides to agree on something that helps the people and brings these 2 fake parties together at their jobs, instead of the Yacht clubs and Golf Courses...


----------



## midphase (Dec 7, 2011)

What do you guys think of this (Nick, Chim, Larry, etc...), I'm genuinely curious:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... lity_.html


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 7, 2011)

Without having read that beyond a quick skim, the last thing we need is a consumption tax when we're suffering from too little spending.

I'll have to read it, but I also don't understand how it can possibly be progressive enough. Someone who makes dozens of times the average income doesn't buy dozens of cars, houses, refrigerators, etc. - i.e. he or she isn't going to consume enough for the tax to progress high enough.

Also, I'm not sure how you'd encourage desired behavior through tax breaks, and how you'd account for deductions that shouldn't be taxed.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 7, 2011)

I agree with Nick-it looks impractical and I doubt it would be that effective.

I do sorta like the "Robin Hood " tax though (taxing brokerage trades). It would make financial institutions kick in for some of their multitudinous sins.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 10, 2011)

I think this is the thread in which George said that shrinking the European economy will help in the long run.

That seems totally implausible to me. I just don't understand what these bankers are thinking.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/1 ... om-europe/


----------

