# The fundamental Republican/Tea Party nonsense!



## midphase (Nov 8, 2010)

I've been thinking about this one for a while, but I feel that one of the biggest piece of nonsense perpetuated by Republicans is that the general public gives a crap about the amount of National debt or how much the Government is spending.

What? Really?

Am I expected to believe that Joe Average in Little Rock gives two shits about such abstract concepts as Gross National Debt and 100's of Billions? 

No way...his main concern is to figure out how much he can max out his cards for the upcoming Black Friday Best Buy sale.

Does he care about anything beyond his immediate bubble? Does he really lose sleep over how much money the US owes to China? I highly doubt it.

This is just a prime example of repeating the same nonsense over and over and eventually people will start believing it.

Exit polls are solid on the fact that the primary concerns of the citizens are lack of jobs, and unemployment...and even then one could argue that the dissatisfaction has been hyped up by the Republican machine. Many of the people who I know have much better jobs now than they did in 2006 still voted Republican mostly due to their Tax philosophy.

This country is in trouble, but not because of the things that Republicans are accusing Obama of. Rather the over-sansationalistic news and media organizations are doing the population a great disservice by promoting an incorrect picture of how this country truly feels.

I can only hope that Obama will hold on to the little power he still has and not be intimidated or swindled by the utter bs that comes out of John Bohener's unnaturally orange face.

Thoughts?


----------



## midphase (Nov 8, 2010)

*Re: The Republican nonsense!*

P.S.

Regarding the Bank Bailouts and the TARP expenditures (which most Americans don't even realize are two completely separate issues), I honestly think that Republicans would have done the same exact thing (and the did under Bush).

I think this was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario for Obama, no matter which choice he would have made, Republicans would have immediately taken the opposite side and crucified him.


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 8, 2010)

*Re: The Republican nonsense!*

~~ deleted for privacy purposes ~~


----------



## rJames (Nov 8, 2010)

*Re: The Republican nonsense!*



midphase @ Mon Nov 08 said:


> I think this was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario for Obama, no matter which choice he would have made, Republicans would have immediately taken the opposite side and crucified him.



This is politics today. Obama and the dems have been naive to think otherwise. People don't want good government. They want to think they are getting good government.

The Republicans have figured out that if you say it, the general public will believe it.

Anyone for a $200,000,000 a day trip to India? Care to put your elderly parents lives in the hands of a death panel? Would you like to cut your taxes for everyone but continue to get your unemployment or social security check? Want your president to be a socialist? Do I even care what a socialist is??? Put a bogusman in the closet (or is that boogyman) and associate him with the opposition. This is politics today.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 8, 2010)

*Re: The Republican nonsense!*

The people I hear complaining about the government debt, and the taxes that will be needed out of their pocket to pay for it (brilliant people btw) range from far left to center right. (Don't really know any hardcore right wingers - I'm in LA, CA.) So I think your premise is unscientific.


----------



## P.T. (Nov 8, 2010)

"The Republicans have figured out that if you say it, the general public will believe it."

Is that anything like voting for a slogan like 'Hope/Change'?


----------



## midphase (Nov 8, 2010)

No P.T., there is a difference between a slogan (a catchy one at that), and simply promulgating false information (or at the very least hyped information) like the whole Obama/Socialist nonsense and the Tea Partiers' continued "concern" about national debt that absolutely doesn't impact them one bit.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 8, 2010)

Kays, of course you're right. The whole thing is being sold as a path to doing what Republicans really want, which is to abolish all social spending (especially Social Security and Medicare) and turn the country into a giant gated community with poor people fending for themselves because they deserve to be poor.

If these same fools were to look more closely at the debt, they'd see that it's totally manageable, that it's a medium-term issue and not an immediate one, that controlling medical costs is the major part of the problem, and above all that what we need right now is BIG STIMULUS. That is the only way out of this unemployment mess anytime soon.

Dave, all kinds of people complain about it, but that's because right-wing propaganda is everywhere. These people may be brilliant, but they're wrong.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 8, 2010)

P.T. @ Mon Nov 08 said:


> Is that anything like voting for a slogan like 'Hope/Change'?



Hope and change is certainly what we need.

The reality of it happening, given the absolute control that almighty corporations and private interest have over this country, is decades away...
...unless they squeeze people so hard that an actual revoution takes place.
I wouldn't totally count that option out though.... greed has a tendency to blind people :twisted: 

Big government?
What a joke!
Yea, make it small so that it cannot regulate any of the blatant, unlawful, corporate abuses.

Now, isn't it strange that we never hear about big corporations being a major issue instead?
After all, those entities are much more powerful and influencial than any government., and much more damaging to our liberties.
Profit at all cost dude! 
and major deception and misinformation.

No wonder the republicans will cut education funding (and the arts as well): 
the less educated the people, the less dò;    ï[“;    ï[”;    ï[•;    ï[–;    ï[—;    ï[˜;   ï[™;   ï[š;   ï[›;   ï[œ;   ï[;   ï[ž;   ï[Ÿ;   ï[ ;   ï[¡;   ï[¢;   ï[£;   ï[¤;   ï[¥;   ï[¦;   ï[§;   ï[¨;   ï[©;   ï[ª;   ï[«;   ï[¬;   ï[­;   ï[®;   ï[¯;   ï[°;   ï[±;   ï[²;   ï[³;   ï[´;   ï[µ;   ï[¶;   ï[·;   ï[¸;   ï[¹;   ï[º;   ï[»;   ï[¼;   ï[½;   ï[¾;   ï[¿;   ï[À;   ï[Á;   ï[Â;   ï[Ã;   ï[Ä;   ï[Å;   ï[Æ;   ï[Ç;   ï[È;   ï[É;   ï[Ê;   ï[Ë;   ï[Ì;   ï[Í;   ï[Î;   ï[Ï;   ï[Ð;   ï[Ñ;   ï[Ò;   ï[Ó;   ï[Ô;   ï[Õ;   ï[Ö;   ï[×;   ï[Ø;   ï[Ù;   ï[Ú;   ï[Û;   ï[Ü;   ï[Ý;   ï[Þ;   ï[ß;   ï[à;   ï[á;   ï[â;   ï[ã;   ï[ä;   ï[


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 8, 2010)

*Re: The Republican nonsense!*

Nick, people have been complaining about taxes for millennia is my point and they still are. I know staunch Obama supporters that are uncomfortable with the current financial policies. I understand there is a philosophy of spend your way out but like any philosophy not everyone subscribes to it. There are people all across the political spectrum that are concerned about the financial state of affairs. Bush is of course hugely responsible for his part in this. My point is that it is unscientific to ascribe budgetary concerns to a party affiliation - it's everywhere these days.


----------



## midphase (Nov 8, 2010)

Dave,

It's not necessarily that I disagree with you, as much as I don't buy into this "fiscal responsibility" philosophy as being the driving force of someone like the Tea Party (and by association Republicans).

In a recent episode of Real Time, Bill Maher was pointing out how technically the Democrats are a better fit for Tea Party ideology than Republicans (more power to the people, less taxes for middle and low income brackets, less spending through defense cuts, less colonialist interests, etc.). Tea Partiers identify themselves as not being affiliated with a specific party, yet every single candidate running on a Tea Party platform last week affiliated with Republicans and not a single one (out of well over 100) affiliated with the Democrats.

What I am seeing all over the news is this idea that the American people are angry about the Government debt, yet I don't see this being the case in real life, I think it's a rethoric that conservatives are playing up, but which in truth is a non-issue for most Americans.

Lastly, all the Republicans are pointing out to the Democrats that the recent elections signify that the current course of the administration must be reversed....yet they are quick to forget that in 2006 and 2008 they ignored the will of the American people and stayed the course when the situation was reversed. Here is an interesting article on just that contradition:

http://www.slate.com/id/2274015/


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 8, 2010)

*Re: The Republican nonsense!*

When the 'financial crisis' started, the global banks were sitting with about 20 billion in cash (liquid assets not tied to capital or investments/leveraged etc etc.) 
Since the TARP here in the US and similar efforts abroad, those same banks are now *admitting* to having 1.2 trillion in cash. 
This of course doesn't include the money that flowed into business that promptly moved it into offshore accounts or investments (ie, essentially jobs moving to cheaper labor markets too like GM ) 
Nor does it tell us how much money the world banks have, any more than we know "what the Fed has" since it too has never been audited. 
That's not savings, it's just theft via politics & financial hysteria.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2010)

*Re: The Republican nonsense!*



> Nick, people have been complaining about taxes for millennia is my point and they still are.



I'm sorry, Dave, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.



> I know staunch Obama supporters that are uncomfortable with the current financial policies.



Sure. I'm uncomfortable with the fiscal ones - or I should say lack thereof. We have monetary policy but no serious fiscal policy.



> I understand there is a philosophy of spend your way out but like any philosophy not everyone subscribes to it.



It's not a philosophy, it's a proven economic fact. And the fact that not everyone subscribes to it means nothing.

What's more, "spend your way out" is a distorted right-wing way to phrase it!




> There are people all across the political spectrum that are concerned about the financial state of affairs.



Anyone who isn't would have to be nuts. But this is a very complicated problem. You have to look closely at it to understand how macroeconomics is not your and my household budget.



> Bush is of course hugely responsible for his part in this. My point is that it is unscientific to ascribe budgetary concerns to a party affiliation - it's everywhere these days.



Sorry, I disagree. Republicans profess to want to cut government spending (note the word "profess," because what they really want is to cut social spending and lower taxes at the top; they have no interest in cutting the spending they like). So what do they do to sell that disgusting idea? They tell everyone the reason we're in trouble is runaway government spending. It's fear mongering, it works, and it's a lie.

The fact that this crisis is NOT because of government debt has been lost, and that's Kays' point I think.


----------



## midphase (Nov 9, 2010)

Yes, my point is that the population is once again being misdirected to think that the problem is something that it's not. Part of this misdirection is to convince the population that this is a huge concern for everyone around you...and if you're not on board with the rest you're way out of touch with reality.

I am also incredibly saddened how quickly we forget past sins, this week George W. is getting the hero's "welcome back" from news media because of his new book. There are many (or so the news tells me) that would love to have him back. 

I am saddened because since Obama got elected I am witnessing so many WTF moments from the Right which appear to stick (starting with Sarah Palin, end not ending with John Bohener unfortunately).

In essence, nonsense seems to have caught on (or so the media tells me). Jon Stewart had the right idea, but the point didn't stick as much as the latest nonsense to come out of the Conservatives....why not?

Is it possible that the only way that Liberals can get anything done is to become the same caliber douchebags as the right wingers? I guess nice guys do finish last!

P.S.

Article on Bush's newfound popularity and American's extremely short term memory syndrome:

http://www.slate.com/id/2274043/


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 9, 2010)

"I've been thinking about this one for a while, but I feel that one of the biggest piece of nonsense perpetuated by Republicans is that the general public gives a crap about the amount of National debt or how much the Government is spending."

Nick, the above is the opening sentence of the thread. The general public doesn't care about government spending? This is a pitiful premise and so far removed from the truth as to astonish. Why haven't I ever met a soul of any political persuasion that doesn't care about the national debt? I don't see how me pointing out that people have always been concerned about anything that will affect their pocketbook is irrelevant. And of course it will and people know it.

I understand you believe in the factual nature of said economic policies such as those advocated by Paul Krugman. But I don't think it's down to a fact along the lines of the law of gravity. There has been disagreement on economic philosophy and policy forever. The different camps all think they have THE answer.

The concept of "spending your way out of it" I got from reading Paul Krugman. The phraseology I used has nothing to do with party affiliation. In fact I'm mystified by this ascribing of political affiliation when discussing the laws of physical economics. People are right wing because they have a concern about economic policy? That's a bizarre notion. Because I disagree with a scientific economic policy such as Krugman's means I have a _political_ agenda? 

It seems Orwellian to me that certain statements are taken as code that puts the focus on who someone _is_ RIGHT WING! rather than what they are actually saying. No, this is utter nonsense that people that have a concern about their governments spending are this or that. Worse to say that they have no interest at all.


----------



## rgames (Nov 9, 2010)

midphase @ Tue Nov 09 said:


> Part of this misdirection is to convince the population that this is a huge concern for everyone around you...and if you're not on board with the rest you're way out of touch with reality.


Misdirection is part of the political spin process and the dems are just as guilty of using it as the republicans (I'd say the dems are actually more guilty of it). After all, hype about economic armageddon is basically what put Obama in office. Can't remember - how are the banks doing now? And how long did the recession last?



> Is it possible that the only way that Liberals can get anything done is to become the same caliber douchebags as the right wingers? I guess nice guys do finish last!


I'll say this: there's a lot more hateful rhetoric coming from the left than from the right, especially on this board (I see conservatives referred to as both "douchebag" and "uneducated" in this thread alone). I've mentioned that many times before. 

Check yourself.

rgames


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 9, 2010)

midphase @ Mon Nov 08 said:


> Dave,
> It's not necessarily that I disagree with you, as much as I don't buy into this "fiscal responsibility" philosophy as being the driving force of someone like the Tea Party



Whatever platforms and platitudes that ALL parties use to further their agenda, it's not some hideous attribute that the electorate is concerned about spending and further spending. As you can see above I don't comprehend your saying they are not interested. Both sides of the spectrum are concerned and people from all sides think they have the answer. 

We can have a fascist policy of hunting down people who don't toe the party line (who decides what the line is btw?) or we can agree to disagree and vote accordingly.


----------



## rgames (Nov 9, 2010)

*Re: The Republican nonsense!*



Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 09 said:


> It's not a philosophy, it's a proven economic fact.


"economic fact" is an oxymoron.

There are some basic economic heuristics but nothing that is a "fact". Economics is based on human behavior which is, inherently, unpredictable. So trying to establish facts in economics is essentially impossible.

Why do you think we have liberal economists and conservative economists? Because it's based mostly on opinion, not fact, and liberals and conservatives have different opinions, so they have different economic theories.

If economics were a fact-based science, such a distinction would not exist. Do we have liberal gravitation and conservative gravitation? No - there's just gravitation
and it acts the same for both liberals and conservatives.

That's a fact. 

rgames


----------



## midphase (Nov 9, 2010)

rgames @ Tue Nov 09 said:


> I'll say this: there's a lot more hateful rhetoric coming from the left than from the right, especially on this board (I see conservatives referred to as both "douchebag" and "uneducated" in this thread alone). I've mentioned that many times before.
> 
> Check yourself.




Sigh....

Not referring to you...but to the Palin's, Beck's, O'Reilly's, Rove's, Culter's, Libaughs' and the likes. 

Please find me a left wing popular political pundit who has been as abrasively douchy as any of these guys? The closest I can come up with is Olbermann whom comparatively speaking is as abrasive as a cotton ball.


----------



## midphase (Nov 9, 2010)

Dave Connor @ Tue Nov 09 said:


> As you can see above I don't comprehend your saying they are not interested. Both sides of the spectrum are concerned and people from all sides think they have the answer.
> 
> We can have a fascist policy of hunting down people who don't toe the party line (who decides what the line is btw?) or we can agree to disagree and vote accordingly.




Double sigh!!

Still not getting my point. 

The issue is not whether or not one is allowed to dissent with a party or not, but whether or not the concerns presented by the media are really truly reflective of how the public feels.

Exit polls last week showed that Americans are by and large mostly concerned with jobs. This concern has got nothing to do with things like health care, gays in the military, muslims in NY, stem cell research or bank bailouts. 

According to guys like John Boehner, by voting the way they did, Americans have rejected all of Obama's and the Democrat's policies and are now looking to have them all repealed and I find this notion to be simply absurd...starting with the idea than most Americans worry about the national debt which I firmly stand by my assessment by saying that most Americans couldn't give a flying f#&k about the national debt and I see the issue purely as a fabricated one (by the conservatives and the Tea Party alike).


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 9, 2010)

Americans are concerned about the entire economic climate. Part of that climate is government spending and it's affect on interest rates, taxes and all things monetary. Since jobs _are_ the number one concern of most people they naturally want as favorable government policies as possible to encourage business. Economists disagree on the best policy. Like most disagreements you always have intolerance of the other viewpoint. 

There has been talk about wasteful government spending and a balanced budget amendment for decades. So that's never been off the radar and people have always kept an eye on it. The concept of government intrusion and control has been a hot topic since the thirteen colonies. That's my point about people caring about the debt and other issues - they care and always have.


----------



## rgames (Nov 9, 2010)

midphase @ Tue Nov 09 said:


> Not referring to you...but to the Palin's, Beck's, O'Reilly's, Rove's, Culter's, Libaughs' and the likes.


Well, I don't listen to any of them so can't comment.

However, I have a pretty even mix of conservative and liberal friends and acquaintances and over the last 4-5 years there's always a lot more hateful speech coming from the liberals. Again, the posts on this board are a good example: there are all sorts of ad hominem attacks against conservatives but I can't recall ever seeing such an attack against liberals.

A little tolerance goes a long way towards advancing your cause... maybe that's why the republicans got the house back.

rgames

P.S. Actually go ahead and attack Palin . I'll concur she's worthy of most disparaging comments thrown her way. But I don't think she represents most conservatives.


----------



## madbulk (Nov 9, 2010)

I was following you rgames, right up to "maybe that's why they got the house back."
No, it's not. Don't gild the lily.

edit: Sorry. I mean, Richard. I hate it when people call me "madbulk" on here.


----------



## midphase (Nov 9, 2010)

rgames @ Tue Nov 09 said:


> midphase @ Tue Nov 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Not referring to you...but to the Palin's, Beck's, O'Reilly's, Rove's, Culter's, Libaughs' and the likes.
> ...




Perhaps you should...maybe that would cause you to see how full of utter bile and nonsense the attacks coming from very popular right wingers are towards the liberals...you might even start agreeing with me every once in a while.


Once again, this is not about people's right to disagree and voice their opinions, this is about instilling fear and hyping non-issues in an effort to control the population and as a result the elections. 

IMnsHO...the reason why Democrats lost the house is because they didn't do enough and hence demoralized their own supporters into not showing up at the polls. Obama runs the risk of falling pray to the same apathy if he's not going to be a lot more forceful about pushing his agenda even harder (which unfortunately just got much more difficult).


----------



## P.T. (Nov 9, 2010)

"No wonder the republicans will cut education funding (and the arts as well):
the less educated the people, the less discerning of such obvious, long running strategies."
_________
And the Dems will increase spending and then dumb down the curriculum.
Same end goal.

I talk to many people both Dem and Repub and many are very concerned about the debt.
We are at the point where we borrow money to run the Country as well as to pay interest on the debt that we already have.
It's out of control and we will never get this Nation in order unless we do something about it.
Now may not be the time because of the recession/depression that we are in, but the problem is that they never address the issue. It's always just spend spend borrow. 

Clinton was the one who signed the legislation that repealed the Glass/Steigal act which helped lead to the current problems. That was not simple republican deregulation.

Electing that many republicans was a repudiation of the democrats. People don't do that when they are well pleased.

The Health Care Bill was an unpopular piece of legislation that was enacted to meet the demand for the problems that the public was angry about that did not really address those problems. The main one being cost.
Polls I have seen indicate that even a majority of Dems were against it.
They had trouble passing it even with the huge majority they had in both Houses because many Democrat Legislators didn't like it. Blaming the Repubs for that is beyond silly.
If they can't pass legislation with a super majority, when can they pass it?

It's also not one parties job to support the other party.
Their job is to support their base.

It's also not the job of Congress to support the President. They are separate bodies with separate powers in a separation of powers system.

Considering that the Country is falling apart I tend to think that 1/2 of the Country hating the other 1/2 of the Country is not likely to be a prescription for National health.
Maybe people could learn that it's possible for people to see things differently and still be well meaning.

Or, I suppose we can still have a nice civil war and separate ourselves which more and more looks like the only solution.


----------



## snowleopard (Nov 9, 2010)

The economy we have now is actually a plutocracy. Both parties are bought and sold. If the anti-government Tea Party got into power, they'd get drunk with the money as well. 

As such, neither party governs with much legislation directly for working people. Everything is one form of supply-side targeted tax or regulation reduction or change. Usually under the guise that tax breaks, or spending to ‘stimulate the economy” Nearly all it does is widen the gap between the super wealthy and the rest of us. 

From 1950 through 1980, the average income for 9 out of l0 Americans grew from $17,719 to $30,941. That’s a 75 percent increase in income in constant 2008 dollars.
But then it stopped. Since 1980 the economy has also continued to grow handsomely, but only a fraction at the top have benefitted. The line flattens for the bottom 90% of Americans. Average income went from that $30,941 in 1980 to $31,244 in 2008. Think about that:- the average income of Americans increased just $303 total dollars in 28 years.

It’s also a fallacy that companies that make money, whether through good business or tax breaks, will spend that money creating jobs. Most of them have the profits go to the direct top, where it is hoarded. They hire people, and pay them well, only when they absolutely must. Not all companies, but most of them. 

You would think the rich might care, if not from empathy, then from studying history. Governing elites throughout history isolated and deluded themselves until it was too late. Two great examples from history where unmitigated purchasing and control of the government by the wealthiest were the Weimar Republic, and Tsarist Russia. Anyone who has taken a history class can tell you how those countries ended up once not just the bottom 10% had seen their lifestyles crumbled and little to live for, but the bottom 70%. 

It is a social engineering crucible almost. Either the social conservatives will no longer be willing to support the plutocrats and oligarchs, or the social liberals will realize that weapons and ammunition are easy to purchase and effective to use.


----------



## midphase (Nov 9, 2010)

I agree with SnowLeopard, except I would add July 14 1789 as another example to draw from history.

From my point of view, I see a president who is trying to set things in motion which will ultimately greatly benefit the population...and yet who is being sideswiped by both sides.

The idea that some of the lowest income population sides with the Republican party is beyond bizarre to me.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 9, 2010)

snowleopard @ Tue Nov 09 said:


> The economy we have now is actually a plutocracy. Both parties are bought and sold. If the anti-government Tea Party got into power, they'd get drunk with the money as well.
> 
> .



They're already selling out. Palin's got a reality show. The wanker Rand Paul is already looking for pork he can get his hands into. 

I'm not a doom and gloom type person, but it's gonna get bad. Very, very bad very, very quickly.

The tea party is rapidly becoming just another vehicle for the unscrupulous to cash in. The only tea party persons that was even remotely sincere about the movement was Sharron Angle, and Christine O'Donnell and both those girls were completely lambasted by their own party leaders.

The Republican party is just as corrupt now as it was 2 years ago. That they got any power back at all is completely beyond reason imo.

Oh, and the only reason why dems lost the House is that they abandoned their ideals. Ran scared like little spineless chickens. The ones that stuck to their guns actually did rather well. Harry Reid was in trouble. He didn't run from Obama but embraced him and that pretty much sealed the deal. He murdered Angle who was actually running ahead of him in polls.

I paid really close attention and those who stuck to their principles did rather well. Those who waffled went down in flames. California is a perfect example. The candidates here weren't running away from being Democrats and they all won hands down. Same in many other states.

I think what the American people hate are two face jackasses more than anything. If you're a liberal stand up and say that you're a liberal. I honestly think that Obama's poll numbers would be a lot higher if he just grew some balls and stopped playing the centrist presidential card. Just get up and say what you believe. If you go down in flames on some piece of legislation then go down in flames on principles.

Republicans have at least a unified message. Dems lost it. Dems need to get up a say that they believe government can have a positive influence in the society and point to successes. But they don't. They sneak around passing legislation that nobody knows what's in and then think that people are going to respect that. No they don't. If it's going to raise taxes then say it's going to raise taxes. Don't say you're going to lower taxes and then find 1000 ways to tax in some other area to make up the difference.

Dems need to grow a pair.

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2010)

> The general public doesn't care about government spending? This is a pitiful premise and so far removed from the truth as to astonish.



They think they care because they've been hyped up into believing that's the pain they're feeling. It's not. And nobody likes paying taxes, so if someone tells them that the national debt is the reason they have to pay taxes, of course they're going to shriek.

But the truth is that they couldn't care less about the national debt per se, they care about not having a job.



> Why haven't I ever met a soul of any political persuasion that doesn't care about the national debt?



You've met me. I know it's an issue that has to be dealt with, but it's way down the list of what I worry about.

And the reason is that it's a medium-term issue, not the immediate problem. But if you were to believe any Republican you'd think that this election proves that the public is screaming for the government to stop spending money cold in its tracks. 

In fact what this election proves is that people are feeling economic pain and they see that it's not going away, so they vote against incumbents.



> I don't see how me pointing out that people have always been concerned about anything that will affect their pocketbook is irrelevant. And of course it will and people know it.



But they don't know it, Dave, because the effect is going to be very small. All that hype about generational theft is bullshit.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2010)

> People are right wing because they have a concern about economic policy? That's a bizarre notion. Because I disagree with a scientific economic policy such as Krugman's means I have a political agenda?



Economic analysis is asexual, but you can't separate politics from economic policy. Republicans don't like "big government" or any social spending, so they're opposed to stimulus (at least that's their rhetoric). Their entire line of bullshit is that people made their own beds and should be allowed to lie in them, because helping them is enabling them to be dependent. Extending unemployment benefits is enabling people to be lazy. Since rich people create all the jobs, their money shouldn't be stolen from them and given to other people; not taxing them will make the economy better, and it's government regulation that's the cause of our problems.

The government should just stay out of the way and let the weak be purged. Then we'll be back in business, just like Ronald Reagan proved.

It's all ludicrous and has nothing to do with reality, of course, but that's the rhetoric.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 9, 2010)

Jose:



> Dems need to grow a pair



Yup.

I agree with about 75% of what Fareed Zacharia says, but he said one thing that's right on: being a one-term leader isn't a bad thing if you accomplished something good.

And this is the perfect example:

PT:



> Clinton was the one who signed the legislation that repealed the Glass/Steigal act which helped lead to the current problems.



That was part of his "stealing a page out of the Republican playbook" after the Republicans took control of both Houses. By moving to the right to appease them, he f-ed the country.

Clinton was good in some ways too, but letting Republicans have their way about pretty much anything - I'm talking about today's Republicans, who are insane - is very bad for the world.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 10, 2010)

whatever economic facts are they may or may not be is one thing. 

but what we now have in the US is what theyve had in the UK and some other euro countries for quite a while. living in denial. that will go on for a while and then the next phaze will occur. 

the constant yammering about fault of the banks completely is a symptom of living in denial. its also been the last bastion for the left for sometime now. anger then comes next and then finally acceptance. this denial always happens especially when this or that party takes a hammering at an election. thats why i dont attach myself to any party. it gets in the way of business.


----------



## midphase (Nov 10, 2010)

Can you explain the whole denial thing in more detail?

Who is in denial? How? Why?


Please be as detailed as possible....thanks.


----------



## snowleopard (Nov 10, 2010)

I'd like to know what denial that is as well? That we should accept the fact the government is a plutocracy controlled by the most wealthy power brokers, and we are powerless to stop it? 



Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Nov 09 said:


> But the truth is that they couldn't care less about the national debt per se, they care about not having a job.


Or just money. Getting paid for their efforts. As we have seen over the last 30 year it isn't just a job, it's getting paid well for their hard work. But the cards are more and more stacked against that. How you work hard, so does your boss, so does his boss, and yet the CEO and board members and top shareholders way above them make all the money. And I don't mean 30-40 times more, in many instances these people are making several thousands _times _more than the amount of the worker doing the work. And many of these super wealthy don't pay a very high % in taxes. 



> And the reason is that it's a medium-term issue, not the immediate problem. But if you were to believe any Republican you'd think that this election proves that the public is screaming for the government to stop spending money cold in its tracks.



Most of the money is in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, followed by Defense (and interest on the debt). Cut those by 25% and we'd start to put a dent into the national debt. Now, go out and start asking elderly people if they are willing to have their Medicare and Medicaid cut by 25%. 

Of course, the Tea Party's rhetoric anyway would have you believe these programs are socialist and should be eliminated entirely and people should pay for this on their own. For those not in the know, the average monthly cost of base medical care in either a nursing home or skilled nursing for someone elderly and infirm is about $6,000 per month. That's just the base, not including any further incurred medical expenses. What percentage of the elderly do you think can afford this? 



> The candidates here weren't running away from being Democrats and they all won hands down. Same in many other states.



Same in my home state of Oregon. Most Democrats ran as Democrats and won, fairly easily actually. Though I did vote for the Republican candidate for governor, who ran a good outsider campaign. Sadly, neither he, nor the Dems that ran as Dems were likely to change much with the amount of money that flows.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2010)

> but what we now have in the US is what theyve had in the UK and some other euro countries for quite a while. living in denial.



What we have is a huge income disparity caused by a tax policy that shifted the burden from the top down. That encouraged the middle class to borrow in order to keep up.

Who was guilty of denial? Not the bankers who created the bubble that burst?


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 10, 2010)

we're on the same page dude!



snowleopard @ Tue Nov 09 said:


> The economy we have now is actually a plutocracy. Both parties are bought and sold. If the anti-government Tea Party got into power, they'd get drunk with the money as well.
> 
> As such, neither party governs with much legislation directly for working people. Everything is one form of supply-side targeted tax or regulation reduction or change. Usually under the guise that tax breaks, or spending to ‘stimulate the economy” Nearly all it does is widen the gap between the super wealthy and the rest of us.
> 
> ...


----------



## rgames (Nov 10, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> What we have is a huge income disparity caused by a tax policy that shifted the burden from the top down.



How do you figure that? The top 5% of income earners generally pay about 60% of federal income tax.

Seems pretty top-heavy to me...

And you can't put all the blame on the bankers. Contrary to your statement, the middle class didn't *have* to borrow as much as they did. That's part of the problem - there was an unreasonable sense of entitlement out there. Sure, the banks capitalized on it, but they didn't create it.

Whether it's government debt or personal debt, the goal should be the same: live within your means.

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Nov 10, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> > What we have is a huge income disparity caused by a tax policy that shifted the burden from the top down.
> ...




Richard I don't know if you're still living with your parents or what, but the middle class does have to borrow to survive. The world is rigged so that 99% of the population has to go into debt to survive. Most houses that people live in, the cars they drive ect.... cost way beyond what people could reasonably expect to pay in a short amount of time. So what ends up happening is that people in order to stay alive have to go heavily into debt. It's actually almost impossible to live without debt. Trust me. I'm trying to do it. I wouldn't wish it on my worse enemy. 

So what are you left with. You're left with rising prices while annual income has remained unchanged. Back in the 1980's my parents were making a combined income of about $75,000. Back then that was plenty of money for the family. My dad was even able to put money away and buy his dream sports car for $16,000 cash.

I read somewhere that the average income in LA is about $55,000 for a family of 4. Please tell me a way that a family of 4 is even going to survive these days on $55,000 without living beyond their means? I have a family of three and we make considerably more than that and it's a tough road.

So the way I see things is that "living within your means" has become harder and harder. If a guy has a job that's paying him $35,000 a year in places like here he can't live within his means. So he borrows hoping that he can at least keep up with the monthly payments.

I saw the game early on in my life and decided that I had played it enough, but I tell you right now the average person isn't tough enough to handle a life without banks so that trap millions of people. Me on the other hand have never really been afraid of dying so when I decided to pull out of the debt game all they threw at me wasn't too hard to handle.

But, as an experiment if you want to try. Just take a credit card that you have and call them a say you're not paying any more and you want to settle. The mechanisms that they can legally throw at you will make your head spin. As a matter of fact it's probably is less painful to just die.

Ah, I don't know where I'm going with this or if this even has any bearing on the conversation, but every time you post something Richard, I just get the feeling that you have no idea what the world is like or what people are going through and I get the distinct feeling that you've never had to make your own way in the world. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get.

And, that's the impression I get with most of the Republicans. Take Rand Paul. Son of a Senator, his choice of the best schools to become a doctor. He has no right whatsoever to be complaining about government. He's been handed everything. He has no sympathy for a young kid growing up in the projects working his ass off to get good grades in school only to find out that once he's ready to choose a career he has no support for his continued education. I've know so many talented people black, white, and latinos that fell into that situation. The world would be such a better place with these guys as doctors, engineers, teachers ect... but they ended up working jobs at walmart or something after leaving highschool just because their parents where not wealthy.

To me it's this gap that the Republicans are trying to defend and that Progressives are trying to erase.

I have my problems with Dems but one things for certain, I hate Republican ideals. They really do want to go back to the days where the wealthy had all the power and the rest of us lived in shacks in the woods. And that poor white people get suckered into this "political philosophy" is beyond reason, imo.



Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2010)

> How do you figure that? The top 5% of income earners generally pay about 60% of federal income tax.
> 
> Seems pretty top-heavy to me...



Richard. The only thing that's top-heavy is that the top 1% take almost a quarter of the total income - the highest since the 1920s. It's not a coincidence that they had a crash then too.

And most of the money people make at the very top is capital gains, which are taxed at 15%.



> And you can't put all the blame on the bankers.



Oh yes I can. It was a big scam - a series of scams. They were totally guilty of gambling with all these "instruments," and they lost. What I'm talking about with the income disparity is the underlying problem; blame for the actual crash is squarely on Wall Street's shoulders and nobody else's - not Barney Frank's, not poor black peoples', not anyone else's.



> Contrary to your statement, the middle class didn't *have* to borrow as much as they did. That's part of the problem - there was an unreasonable sense of entitlement out there. Sure, the banks capitalized on it, but they didn't create it.



Entitlement?!

Gawd, conservatives make me mad.



> Whether it's government debt or personal debt, the goal should be the same: live within your means.



And that makes me even madder.

We've lost either 22 million jobs and all you say is that people borrowed too much.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2010)

Dave wrote:



> the interest being paid on it which is 30% I believe



The US government was borrowing at well under 2% last time I looked.



> For people to be concerned about another huge stimulus has nothing to do with fear mongering - just hard cold numbers - not what some guy is saying on TV but the facts.



Nope. The fact is that the stimulus we had is a tiny percentage of GDP, and in fact it was even tinier when you factor in the additional tax revenue because of it. And without additional stimulus we are going to have years of pain, and it's totally unnecessary. It's pound foolish.




> People should not be attacked for having common sense about Government spending. It really is insulting and childish to be attacked because you don't want astronomical debt shouldered by your government i.e. YOU the people.



Nope. Common sense says spend now, agree to cut back later when the economy picks up. What's being sold as runaway debt is fear mongering in support of an ideology that doesn't like social spending.

Look at Richard's attitude if you want to know exactly why I hate conservative ideology so much. It's all f you I'm okay.


----------



## rgames (Nov 10, 2010)

josejherring @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> I read somewhere that the average income in LA is about $55,000 for a family of 4. Please tell me a way that a family of 4 is even going to survive these days on $55,000 without living beyond their means?



Why can't a family of four live on $55k in LA? If, in fact, they can't then the simple answer is to move out of LA and find a location where they can afford what they want. Of course, odds are they'll have to rectify what they can actually get against their expectations.

Also, I didn't say live without debt, I said live within your means. There's nothing wrong with debt - you can maintain a well-balanced financial life that includes debt - but there is a risk associated with it. If you can't take the risk, don't take the debt.



> And most of the money people make at the very top is capital gains, which are taxed at 15%.



Not true - net tax rate for top 1% of earners hovers around 28%. For the bottom 50% of earners, the net tax rate is usually around 2.5%. So there you go: 28% vs. 2.5%. And, of course, most low-income folks pay zero taxes. In fact, a lot of moderate-income folks pay no taxes. Again, pretty top heavy if you ask me.

I'm OK with that, by the way, I'm just pointing out that the top earners do, in fact, spend a LOT more on taxes than the rest of the country - the burden is overwhelmingly at the top.

If you want to argue it should be even more at the top, well, that's a different argument.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Nov 10, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> Look at Richard's attitude if you want to know exactly why I hate conservative ideology so much. It's all f you I'm okay.



I said no such thing - if fact, I've repeatedly said quite the contrary. I support government (and private) efforts to help folks out.

When I was a kid, I stood in the food stamp line with my mom. We needed those handouts back then, so of course I'm not saying "f you I'm OK" because I know how much it sucks.

What I'm saying is that we're not going to get anywhere unless we maintain a focus on personal accountability IN ADDITION TO government assitance.

Simply relying on government to sort everything out via tax laws and entitlement programs is not the answer: people need to check themselves, first, then use the government to fill in the gaps.

That's been the essence of the US since day one. Let's not lose sight of that.

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Nov 10, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> josejherring @ Wed Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> > I read somewhere that the average income in LA is about $55,000 for a family of 4. Please tell me a way that a family of 4 is even going to survive these days on $55,000 without living beyond their means?
> ...



The fact that you even make this statement just kind of confirms what I was saying before. You really aren't living on your own are you?

55k a year isn't even a decent Tucson wage for a family of 4. Much less LA.


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 10, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> The US government was borrowing at well under 2% last time I looked.



Sorry I was referring to 30% personal income in the country be paid out by the federal government which is of course whopping. People are concerned about this naturally.



> The fact is that the stimulus we had is a tiny percentage of GDP, and in fact it was even tinier when you factor in the additional tax revenue because of it. And without additional stimulus we are going to have years of pain, and it's totally unnecessary. It's pound foolish.



I don't know Nick. Hundreds of billions of dollars, even trillions is _tiny_? Why has the CBO said that spending is unsustainable? I understand you trust in the theoretical nature of spending vrs GDP etc., but there are so many other factors that these forecasts are based on. Economic models by nature are based upon certain projections and the American people understand this. They flat out don't trust the government to get this right because the projections keep erring. Such as the unemployment projections that the stimulus was supposed to have such an effect on.



> Nope. Common sense says spend now


 Whose common sense? Specifically who? I have heard common sense dictates the complete opposite. But of course - because there are different viewpoints. What do we do about that? Gulags for the dissenters? The same argument is on both sides as far as not caring about people because everyone loses if the economy tanks.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 10, 2010)

P.T. @ Tue Nov 09 said:


> Maybe people could learn that it's possible for people to see things differently and still be well meaning.
> 
> Or, I suppose we can still have a nice civil war and separate ourselves which more and more looks like the only solution.



Dude, this is civil war.
To some., it has never ended, and in their book, meaning well is a sign of weakness.

You are defending some of the ruthless people this country has ever seen.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 10, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> I'm OK with that, by the way, I'm just pointing out that the top earners do, in fact, spend a LOT more on taxes than the rest of the country - the burden is overwhelmingly at the top.



You know very well that people that make that kind of money do not in fact pay 28%, since they hire very talented accountants and will show negligable profit.

Who are you kidding?

But since we're at it, in France, the very rich pay over 70% in taxes.
You made 100 million dollars in 2010, you are left with 30 millions:
boohoo, now it's gonna be really difficult to get by with such a pitance...

That pepople fall for the trickle down economics is pathetic.
Has any one felt the trickle during the Bush/tax cuts for the rich?
How did it help US... 'cause I can see how it helped THEM.....


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 10, 2010)

rgames @ Tue Nov 09 said:


> Misdirection is part of the political spin process and the dems are just as guilty of using it as the republicans (I'd say the dems are actually more guilty of it). After all, hype about economic armageddon is basically what put Obama in office. Can't remember - how are the banks doing now? And how long did the recession last?
> rgames



More boloney from RGames.

Banks are doing fine, how's the rest of the country doing?
For a guy that has known poverty, you seem to have run so far away from it, that you are missing the millions currently un-employed....


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 10, 2010)

Just a little quote from the hideous right-wing Congressional Budget Office.

The risk of a debt crisis along the lines of the kind being experienced in Europe will increase as long as the debt increases, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Tuesday. 

The CBO said in a new report that while it was impossible to predict whether the United States would encounter a debt crisis like those plaguing some European nations, the longer debts and deficits go unaddressed, the greater the risk of a crisis.

“Unfortunately, there is no way to predict with any confidence whether and when such a crisis might occur in the United States; in particular, there is no identifiable tipping point of debt relative to GDP indicating that a crisis is likely or imminent.” a new CBO report said. “But all else being equal, the higher the debt, the greater the risk of such a crisis.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 10, 2010)

rgames @ Tue Nov 09 said:


> midphase @ Tue Nov 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Not referring to you...but to the Palin's, Beck's, O'Reilly's, Rove's, Culter's, Libaughs' and the likes.
> ...



That one takes the cake!! o=< (o) 

How ironic that you are not listening to the main tool of your own party.
Didn't you vote for them?
Don't you want to hear how low it actually gets?
So you turn your head away when it smells bad, and then lecture people about morality/tolerance afterwards?!

That's too easy my friend!

You should make a point and listen to what the Republican machine has created to reclaim the throne, THEN you can compare ruthlessness in the land of the (no so) free


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 10, 2010)

Dave Connor @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> Just a little quote from the hideous right-wing Congressional Budget Office.
> 
> The risk of a debt crisis along the lines of the kind being experienced in Europe will increase as long as the debt increases, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Tuesday.
> 
> ...



So why don't we stop borrowing trillions to support a war that has gotten us nowhere?

Oh, wait, I forgot that the military industrial complex, created during world war 2 for good reasons, has never taken a back seat since, and has made sure that we have a mortal enemy from here on after.
Have you heard that the Tea Party agenda (and the republican agenda as well) is to reduce government spending (social mesures) and increase military spending (corporate awards)??
I guess it isn't good enough to have the most powerful military in the world, with a budget that, up until last year, was higher than ALL other world's military budgets COMBINED.

Have you fed your billionaire today?
Come on, be charitable!!
Vote republican! 
(to be honest democrats, once again, take orders from the same master)


----------



## rgames (Nov 10, 2010)

Patrick de Caumette @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> You know very well that people that make that kind of money do not in fact pay 28%, since they hire very talented accountants and will show negligable profit.



No, I don't know that - let's check the facts. According to IRS data, average net tax rate for top 1% of income earners in 2008 is about 23%. Average net tax rate for bottom 50% of earners in 2008 was about 2.6%. In fact, most people who pay no taxes are towards the lower end of the incomce scale, not the upper end. You can see a summary of the IRS' own data here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Which data are you referencing that leads to your conclusion? Certainly you have made some type of informed decision, right?



> How ironic that you are not listening to the main tool of your own party.


What is my party? Last I checked, I have no party affiliation. Again, you seem to have some data that I do not. Please share - I'm always willing to learn more about myself. You are, apparently, a wealth of knowledge about me!



> Banks are doing fine, how's the rest of the country doing?


Generally OK, except for jobs. We've had consecutive quarters of economic growth, stocks are rebounding nicely, financial sector is making big bucks again.

So, gosh, why no jobs? Hmmm..... 

The US economy is basically fine: it always was. John McCain said as much and Obama built a campaign around jumping on that statement (and, of course, changed his position shortly after getting into office). Well, when you convince people that economic armageddon is around the corner, they shrink their businesses and lay people off. That was done to such a huge extent that it's taking a lot longer than usual to correct it.

The recent recession was only slightly worse than most others we've encountered. That's evidenced by the fact that all economic indicators *except jobs* are basically OK again. What was different about this recession, and the reason why jobs are slow to come back, was the psychology: instead of reassuring the country (which is the responsible action), Obama did exactly the opposite, and he did so during a time when he had enormous influence over the country.

Well, it worked.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2010)

Dave, I'm not trying to make the case for government spending without limit! Of course what we're doing right now isn't sustainable! Right now we're in the middle of a crisis, and that begs for serious action to lower the unemployment.

My argument is only against the conservative hype that's designed to sell really bad economic and social policy. That includes deficit and debt hysteria, and it also includes ridiculous misdirections like "the unemployment forecasts were overly optimistic therefore stimulus doesn't work."

Again: spend now, agree to cut back later when the economy picks back up. And it would if we were to do that; it won't anytime soon if we don't. Temporary spending that doesn't crowd out private money.

And to repeat repeat myself: the deficit is a medium-term problem, not the problem we're facing right now. It's real but it's not what people are feeling.

***
Richard, if I misunderstood your attitude then my bad. But it's also important not to lose sight of the fact that there are five willing workers for every job opening in this country, and extending unemployment benefits under those circumstances is not enabling anyone to be dependent. Similarly, Patrick is right about tax policy: if people at the top paid more, like they used to, people in the middle would pay less and we wouldn't have this hideous income disparity. I've never met anyone who makes $350K a year who would stop working as hard if he or she had to pay an additional $10k a year in taxes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2010)

Richard, it is not psychological when we have a burst real estate bubble that triggers a financial crisis. You've said this nonsense before about it all being psychological, and I'm sorry, but that is just incredibly ignorant.

Also note that we have two economies, what John Edwards referred to as two Americas. The people at the top are in the economy you're talking about. Big corporations are borrowing at near-zero interest rates, buying back shares, buying other companies, and selling stuff in China, Brazil, and India. So the stock market is back up most of the way.

Of course the economy isn't bad across the board. It's "average people" who are in the toilet with no way out.


----------



## rgames (Nov 10, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> Richard, it is not psychological when we have a burst real estate bubble that triggers a financial crisis. You've said this nonsense before about it all being psychological, and I'm sorry, but that is just incredibly ignorant.



I never said it was *all* psychological, but psychology certainly plays a role. It's impossible to say how much, but it's certainly an effect.

In my *opinion* it was a large effect - that's why we're having a mostly jobless recovery. What other explanation exists?

rgames


----------



## Dave Connor (Nov 10, 2010)

Patrick de Caumette @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> Have you heard that the Tea Party agenda (and the republican agenda as well) is to reduce government spending (social mesures) and increase military spending (corporate awards)??



Patrick,

The point that I have been making is there is genuine concern about all things economic and it's not fair to say that everyone who has a concern is doing so because they have bought a lie or an agenda from any party. You don't have to be in the Tea or Republican Party to be wary of government spending.


Nick, I hear you - time for a salad and more important issues - like gear.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 10, 2010)

those people don't matter Nick


----------



## snowleopard (Nov 10, 2010)

While the top wealth do pay more in taxes, at some point you have to ask yourself what kind of world do you want to live in? Is it okay with you that we're sliding into a society where the super wealthy control nearly all the assets, plus the government, while even those people who work, and work hard, end up slipping into poverty?



rgames @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> Why can't a family of four live on $55k in LA? If, in fact, they can't then the simple answer is to move out of LA and find a location where they can afford what they want. Of course, odds are they'll have to rectify what they can actually get against their expectations.



Of course you are factually correct. The problem is if they live "within their means", as you put it, most of these people would live in places like this:


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 10, 2010)

Dave Connor @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Wed Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you heard that the Tea Party agenda (and the republican agenda as well) is to reduce government spending (social mesures) and increase military spending (corporate awards)??
> ...



Hey Dave,

the point you're making is totally legitimate. Borrowing is a slippery slope and we're all caught in it. To me, it is another way for the powerful to retain control other the masses, making sure the harness is on...
But as you mention, since that dynamic is also in play at a higher level, the level of nations, it is a very risky game, when someone finally calls your bluff and you have an empty hand...

Personally, I am not for government spending. And I am not an economist.
It does sound like we do need to inject money into the economy to get it going in the short term though.
But our recession also seems to be a reflection of our energy crisis, and that is a little more worrisome than bank fraud.

May you live in interesting times... I'm afraid that's now


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 10, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> I never said it was *all* psychological, but psychology certainly plays a role. It's impossible to say how much, but it's certainly an effect.
> 
> In my *opinion* it was a large effect - that's why we're having a mostly jobless recovery. What other explanation exists?
> 
> rgames



Well, maybe the fact that we are running out of oil, and that cheap energy is no longer an option, and that whole sectors of our economy no longer can exist without those pre-existing conditions... ~o) 

psychology?

dude, lay on that couch and talk to me...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 10, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> > How ironic that you are not listening to the main tool of your own party.
> 
> 
> What is my party? Last I checked, I have no party affiliation. Again, you seem to have some data that I do not. Please share - I'm always willing to learn more about myself. You are, apparently, a wealth of knowledge about me!



I don't know man: you talk like a republican, you think like one, you quote John McCain, anytime you have something bad to say it is against democrats...

come on my friend, come out of the closet, you know you want to....


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 10, 2010)

The Federal Reserve wanted the Dems to lose the seats, so they lost.
If you just look at the way they witheld this recent unasked for stimulus it makes good sense.
Why, is something we can only speculate on but just mentioning another stimulus puts confidence in the markets as we saw immediately after its announcement.
This could have been mentioned a month before the elections and the numbers in new jobs and growth could have saved the super majority....
But only after it was clear that the Dems were in deep shit did this announcemnt come.
Perfect timing just like TARP...
Now you have emboldened GOP guys claiming the news of them winning spurred the upturn.

I cant believe this isnt even discussed. I know I see a different color than most folks, but thats because I watch the guys who print the money, not the temporary occupants who read speeches. Bernanke at least looks at the camera when he tells you he stealing more money.
So while we all want to see more growth, more jobs, free education, affordable health care, the truth is the Federal Reserve is in charge of our government and partnered with global banking giants and power brokers.
When they want these type of entitlements, we will see them.
But dont waste your energy thinking a few new GOP or DNC types will do anything other than bring the Bacon home, thats their gig, and as Nevada recently has seen, he who brings home the Bacon, gets to go back and get more.
I think in the future we will see such entitlements, but only after the States have lost their soveirgnty. The Federal Reserve answers to no authority, and its decisions are final.
This is your government and our military is used as its muscle.
Druglords cut their Cocaine from 90% to 50% when they need extra cash to get back the profits from a lost shipment.
We print money.
The Mafia uses hit men to silence their enemies, we use our military.

But the one thing I am still confused on is Bernie Madoff went to jail, but our " leaders " were his role models, yet they get Secret Service protection and handsome pensions..........

I am shamed and confused.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2010)

chimuelo, QE2 is a monetary "stimulus" but not a fiscal stimulus. Whether or not your conspiracy theory is true, there's a huge, huge difference between providing more cheap money for banks and stimulating the economy to create demand. 

This is expansionary monetary policy, i.e. since they can't lower interest rates below zero to stimulate the economy, they're attempting to lower long-term interest rates by putting money in the system. It's unlikely to work very well, because big companies don't need more cheap money right now; they're hoarding it as it is, because they don't have any customers and don't need to invest in more capacity. And people can't refinance their houses at low rates because the don't have jobs and they're underwater.

I think the Fed is right to try it, but my take on the timing is that they saw Republicans won and there isn't going to be any fiscal stimulus, so they're doing what they can. It will devalue the dollar, though, and unless it starts a currency war it's going to make our exports more attractive - which is why everyone else, especially the Chinese, is pissed.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 10, 2010)

Richard, let's say Bernanke, Obama, every Senator and Congressman...every leader comes out tomorrow and says happy days are here again.

Or let's say they all said something similar the day before Countrywide crashed.

Do you honestly believe none of this would have happened?


----------



## midphase (Nov 10, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> In my *opinion* it was a large effect - that's why we're having a mostly jobless recovery. What other explanation exists?
> 
> rgames




I believe that the explanation is that we're witnessing the effect of an unstoppable corporate greed that has been at work to get us to this place for the past 20+ years. 

The true reason for unemployment doesn't have a whole lot to do with the recession, and everything to do with the consistent push for American corporations to go overseas for cheap labor. And take my word for it (although you won't) but no amount of deregulation or corporation-friendly tax codes are going to bring those jobs back. It's too good to pass up when you can find countries where the average weekly salary is less than a hour rate in the US...no amount of corporate welfare can beat that.

Read this...and know that it's just the tip of the iceberg:

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/535569/19-Iconic-Products-That-America-Doesnt-Make-Anymore (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/ar ... ke-Anymore)


These jobs aren't coming back no matter how many Republicans get elected into office...trust me!


----------



## rgames (Nov 10, 2010)

snowleopard @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> rgames @ Wed Nov 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't a family of four live on $55k in LA? If, in fact, they can't then the simple answer is to move out of LA and find a location where they can afford what they want. Of course, odds are they'll have to rectify what they can actually get against their expectations.
> ...



This is the crux of the issue: of course most people would choose *not* to live in a slum or trailer park, but, alas, we've never found a system of government or social structure that gives everyone what they want. There are always "have's" and "have-not's".

The best we can do is establish a society that affords equal opportunity, and that includes ensuring basic necessities like food and housing along with secondary necessities like education, health care, etc. Forcing equal outcome, though an admirable goal, has always proven to be impossible. Outcome is a result of personal motivation and/or inherited status. Always has been. Always will be.

So the next issue is taxes on the wealthy:

Here's a point that often gets lost: the wealthy in this country not only pay huge amounts in taxes, they are the major sources of funding for all sorts of social programs (medicine, the arts, education, etc). Here's a groundbreaking thought: perhaps not all social funding needs to go through the government? Perhaps bypassing the government can be more efficient? Possible?

I think so; here's an example: the school district where my kids go to school is one of the best in the country by any metric you choose. We're also one of the lowest-funded school districts in the country. Check that - we have one of the lowest levels of *government* funding in the country. Every year the district foundation raises huge amounts of money direct form the parents that goes straight into the schools, bypassing the government and its overhead. If we paid the same amount in taxes, the net funding to the schools would go WAY down.

So there you go: just because it's not a government tax doesn't mean it's not serving the greater good. And wealthy people spend a lot of money on things that serve the greater good but bypass the government.

Hint: government is NOT always the answer!

rgames


----------



## P.T. (Nov 10, 2010)

There are no jobs for 2 reasons.

They outsource anything that they can in order to increase profits.
To those who think that a rising stock market means a healthy economy, in reality it is based on things like this. Kill the economy for the american people while building the economy of the corporate world.
A healthy american corporation means nothing to the american people if that corporation is paying wages to people living in other countries who pay taxes to those foreign governments.
These so called american corporations are just draining america and profiting from foriegn labor.

The other reason we are losing jobs is because of the globalistd who want to equalize the economies of the world.
While it is a good goal to improve impoverished nations, doing it by killing the 1st world nations is unacceptable. But there are people doing it. 

Bring back our jobs.
In the past we did all our own manufacturing and paid our workers decent salaries. They made products that the average person could afford.
I see no reason why we can't do now what we did then.

If they want our salaries to go down then they should figure a way to lower the cost of living so that we can afford to live on lower salaries.

If we can't compete with nations that pay $5-10 a day (ans I don't see how it is possible to compete with that) then there should be tarrifs on that Countries goods as a cost of access to our markets.

Not a tariff designed to keep the goods out, but designed so that there profits will be in line with the profits that a company manufacturing in this Country would make.

If China can make a TV for $20 and it costs $100 to make it in america and they both sell for roughly $200 then there should be an $80 tariff on the Chinese TV.
That tariff would then go into the federal gov't for use in running the Country.

China would still be making more than they would trying to sell those TVs in China.
The american companies would no longer have a reason or need to outsourse the jobs and things would fall into balance.

China could threaten to close it's markets, but the truth is even with the tariff they would be doing better than they would without access to our markets.

Most of the growth in China and India is at the expence of the american and European economies. They have no economy of their own.


----------



## rgames (Nov 10, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> Richard, let's say Bernanke, Obama, every Senator and Congressman...every leader comes out tomorrow and says happy days are here again.
> 
> Or let's say they all said something similar the day before Countrywide crashed.
> 
> Do you honestly believe none of this would have happened?



The Obama administration already did that - shortly after he got into office. I even posted a note on this board after I saw it on Meet the Press. It was most ironic because it was word-for-word what Obama slammed McCain for during the campaign: "Our Economy Is Strong." And, of course, every time I bring this up I like to mention that I predicted that Obama would change his story once he got into office 

Of course a lot of what happened still would have happened - there were issues in the financial sector and other problems that needed to be worked out. And they were worked out: banks are OK. Auto manufacturers are at least no worse than they were. The economy is growing again.

What I'm saying is that the reason so many people lost jobs, and the reason it's taking so long to get them back, is at least partly due to the psychological factor. That takes a long time to overcome - hence the jobless recovery even though economic indicators seem to be OK. Hell, my grandmother lived through WWII in Italy and she still hoards toilet paper and non-perishable food.

When people are convinced that the economic machine is falling apart, they cut spending and hoard cash. Part of spending is spending on labor, so they cut jobs. Part of spending is also spending on things that other business produce, so that also forces business to lay people off. Banks hoard cash, so they don't lend it. Both of those results are clearly related to perception. And perceptions about the economy were greatly influenced during the Obama campaign, entirely towards the negative.

So, here we are: businesses are still waiting to hire and banks are still hoarding cash. Again, it takes a long time to swing the perception pendulum back the other way.

If not because of a residual perception of economic uncertainty, why would businesses continue to refuse to hire and banks continue to refuse to loan? The economic indicators say we're OK - so WTF?

Kays, I hear you on the overseas jobs but that's a trend that's been going on for years. So I don't think we can relate it to this particular jump in unemployment.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Nov 10, 2010)

rgames @ Wed Nov 10 said:


> I think so; here's an example: the school district where my kids go to school is one of the best in the country by any metric you choose. We're also one of the lowest-funded school districts in the country. Check that - we have one of the lowest levels of *government* funding in the country. Every year the district foundation raises huge amounts of money direct form the parents that goes straight into the schools, bypassing the government and its overhead. If we paid the same amount in taxes, the net funding to the schools would go WAY down.



Richard,

Your reasoning is so simplistic that it's hard to know where to begin with. Just answer me this...do you seriously believe that parents from an inner city low income school district would give "huge" amounts or even "barely sufficient" amounts to their kids' schools? How does that match with schools in wealthy districts where parents donating a few hundred $'s (or more) a year is not a stretch? Either you have an extremely insular perspective and refuse to see beyond it, or you have personal reasons for thinking the way you do...either way it's a flawed reasoning in light of the reality beyond your personal bubble.


----------



## midphase (Nov 10, 2010)

"Kays, I hear you on the overseas jobs but that's a trend that's been going on for years. So I don't think we can relate it to this particular jump in unemployment. "


Of course we can relate it to this particular jump. The same is true for the film industry. There are events that can accelerate the trends (for example a recession, or a writers' strike) but the path has been shaped by past events and it was bound to get there sooner or later.

What we're witnessing is a bit of a "perfect shit-storm", but the loss of jobs in America has been an unavoidable reality ever since Asia started offering a cheap and tireless workforce. The end result has been undoubtedly affected by the crap economy, but we've all seen it coming for years.

Don't expect quality jobs to come back any time soon, Palin isn't going to bring them back. Unfortunately, I'm sure once the Republicans gain back the presidency, they'll figure out some creative way of spinning the story around and show that they're enacting a positive job growth (what they won't tell you is that those are primarily minimum-wage jobs).


----------



## snowleopard (Nov 10, 2010)

The Democrats do that too, sadly. I still repeat what I said in my first post. The country has become a plutocracy. Both parties are bought and sold. 

As a point of reference I may try to supply some links tomorrow.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 11, 2010)

living in denial is when you come on tv and say that waterboarding is fine because you asked your team of lawyers and they said its ok. 

you then say that hans blix and his team of UN weapons guys are totally wrong when they tell you there are no WMD.

it also means that everytime theres a crisis you find anyone to blame. in my many years of experience noticing election results theres always a loser backlash like now for instance where the gop have taken over the house. this is why i dont understand why anyone would care about parties or colors.

in the uk yesterday for instance the students were infiltrated by left wing activists who then proceeded to smash up a conservative building. same thing happened with their miners back in the early eighties. its going to happen again soon over some other thing. 

debt is not about banks or banking. its about personal choices. when personal choices go wrong then if youre not honest about why then denial usually kicks in. seen it time and again with traders when they make bad choices. they dont last long. i


----------



## rJames (Nov 11, 2010)

What is interesting about this discussion is how people can see the same reality and perceive it so differently.

We all see American jobs going overseas. This is a good business decision for most business. It is a natural evolution as the global economy emerges. A thousand years ago, 99.999% of people from Europe NEVER even met anyone from China. The world is merging as a unit naturally, not from any sinister plot from world banks. This fact has been leaving the American worker in the dust for at least a few decades.

At the same time the top leaders in business are paid more and more to lead these global business. Nothing wrong with that. So, we see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer (as the poor become part of the worldwide labor pool).

Some of us think that even though we already pay lots of taxes, we can help to soften the blow to the masses. Government is the best way to do this. Government can spread money into education to help bring some of the "labor force" into the business force. Or not.

We all want lower taxes, but at what cost to the country? California's proposition process has brought the state to its knees financially. Is this what we want at the federal level? I fear this is what the tea party can do.

At this time, can't we just agree that we either need to cut programs or raise taxes?
Can we cut social security that people have paid into for the lifetimes and leave them without support? WILL we cut military spending? TARP is being paid back. 

All this shit is too complex for us to discuss with any accuracy. The intelligent people in Washington can't agree. The intelligent news pundits can't agree.

Sometimes I just want to scream because it is so fucked up.

A recent Gallup poll says that 59% of Democrats say it is necessary to compromise. 18% Dems say it is necessary to stick to your beliefs.

32% Republicans say it is necessary to compromise, 41% Reps necessary to stick to your beliefs.

Can we all see how that info illuminates the Republican posture through the first 2 years of the Obama administration.

Best,

R James


----------



## rgames (Nov 11, 2010)

midphase @ Thu Nov 11 said:


> do you seriously believe that parents from an inner city low income school district would give "huge" amounts or even "barely sufficient" amounts to their kids' schools?



No - but most inner city schools already get a lot more money than my district, even after direct donations from parents: AZ tax-funded education spending is currently #50 out of 50 states. So why do they need more? Schools don't need a lot of money - I've never seen any indication that education spending relates to education quality. 99% of primary education quality is determined by the parents, not the dollars.

My point on the previous post was that it's much more efficient to do many things with a combination of government AND private efforts. Let's not get too far from that point - education spending was an example, not the main point.

rgames


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 11, 2010)

I know this is probably an oversimplification but the Repubs had control of the boat for a good long time and the country didn't benefit from their course or philosophy so I was one of the people that said "why not give the other party a chance?" because what we had wasn't working in any way shape or form.

Given that Obama has been leader for less than a full term, did you guys honestly expect him to bail out the Titanic and turn the ship around in this time? Please, that's naive. I say give his administration another term and see what happens. Given how the government works, it's not as easy as making a declaration and implementing it the next day. 

Like I said, this is obviously a more streamlined perspective but I am an empiricist by nature and the Repubs didn't produce during their term. And please don't talk about the Democrat majority in the Senate because that didn't happen until later in Bush's 2nd term.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 11, 2010)

George wrote:



> this is why i dont understand why anyone would care about parties or colors



Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer...none of those people are Republicans.

Meanwhile, just look at every single Republican. I can't think of a single one I don't totally despise! They're all total assholes!


----------



## snowleopard (Nov 11, 2010)

People are fed up, and were fed up two years ago. They lost their patience, and wanted results from the promises. This is what swept Obama and the Dems into office. But it's also what swept Scott Brown into office for Ted Kennedy's seat, and it helped sweep the Republicans into office now. But unless they produce something that benefits the masses now, they will soon fall to the axe. People will only tolerate working hard and getting little in return for so long. But that axe will only bring in similar ilk with the amount of money that flows into and controls politics. 

Regardless, nearly all efforts by both parties are top-down economic plans, influenced by special interest money usually, under the guise of some form of supply-side economics that will supposedly stimulate the economy and create jobs. Be that cutting taxes, or targeted tax breaks, or government spending on various programs. TARP worked this way, as did the loans to the auto industry. But the vast majority of people working haven't seen squat. Not from the tax breaks, not from stimulus spending. 

I don't see change happening though in today's climate, regardless of who is in office. Until there is massive campaign and lobby reform. I see gridlock and bickering over the next few months, followed by the largest, most costly campaign in world history for the 2012 election.


----------



## Animus (Nov 11, 2010)

P.T. @ Thu Nov 11 said:


> There are no jobs for 2 reasons.
> 
> They outsource anything that they can in order to increase profits.
> To those who think that a rising stock market means a healthy economy, in reality it is based on things like this. Kill the economy for the american people while building the economy of the corporate world.
> ...



You hit the nail on the head! All this talk of the government spending more money to save the economy is pure nonsense. It has never worked.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 12, 2010)

or if we ever find the new alternate energy source...
You can be sure that the econnomy would be quicking into high gear at that point!


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Nov 12, 2010)

> Here's a point that often gets lost: the wealthy in this country not only pay huge amounts in taxes, they are the major sources of funding for all sorts of social programs (medicine, the arts, education, etc). Here's a groundbreaking thought: perhaps not all social funding needs to go through the government? Perhaps bypassing the government can be more efficient? Possible?



The wealthy might pay a lot in taxes, but they're also quite capable of making use of tax loopholes (as they have the $$$ to afford top-notch accountants, lawyers, etc.) as evidenced by the fact that Warren Buffett has a smaller effective tax rate than his secretary, Google has something like a 12% corporate tax rate, etc. But more importantly, the vast majority of our GDP growth and government spending on taxcuts goes to rich. In 2003-2007, in the prime years after the Bush cuts (but pre-recession), the rich got FAR richer, income disparity widened, investment outside the country skyrocketed, and the average American income... went down. Yes, down.

So the issue here is that trickle-down economics does not work, has NEVER worked, and Tea Partiers (and their kin) need to realize that their rage should be directed at corporate money infiltrating our political system. We need campaign finance reform more than anything. We do not need more tax cuts for the rich.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 12, 2010)

Robert Reich:

"...giving the top 1 percent a two-year extension [of the Bush tax cuts for the rich] would cost the Treasury $130 billion over two years, thereby blowing a giant hole in efforts to get the deficit under control.

Alternatively, $130 billion would be enough to rehire every teacher, firefighter, and police officer laid off over the last two years and save the jobs of all of them now on the chopping block. Not only are these people critical to our security and the future of our children but, unlike the top 1 percent, they could be expected to spend all of their earnings and thereby stimulate the economy."


----------



## midphase (Nov 19, 2010)

AH HA! Somebody else agrees with me that the majority of people aren't really that hot and bothered with the national debt and government spending as the Tea Party and most Republicans would have us believe:

http://www.slate.com/id/2274943/

People aren't desperate to go on a diet, so they're not willing to embrace any plans to shrink the buffet. According to a recent NBC poll, 70 percent of Americans say they would rather not cut programs like Medicare, Social Security, and defense. Fifty-seven percent said they were uncomfortable with increasing the Social Security retirement age to 69 over the next 60 years. A recent CNN poll showed that people are extremely reluctant to cut any big areas of the federal budget. Faced with the choice of cutting a program to reduce the deficit or protecting the program from cuts, 79 percent opposed cuts to Medicare, and 69 percent wanted to protect Medicaid. On Social Security, the equivalent figure was 78 percent. Sixty percent or more favored protecting aid to farmers, college loans, and unemployment assistance. The country is split evenly on cutting defense spending. What do people want to cut? Government salaries, "welfare," and the arts, which, depending on how you figure it, represent around 10 percent of the budget.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 19, 2010)

Why not just have Jeffrey Immelt send you the stats....?
He sits in on Cabinet meetings with the President, so you could get even better numbers from him.
Of course they want you to think we don't care about the economys pathetic growth over the next decade, they dont want to pay back their bailout money.

For those who might be unaware. General Electric owns CBS and MSNBC.
Jeffrey Immelt was just about to be voted out until he figured out a way to steal out tax dollars.

God Bless The USA.....


----------



## midphase (Nov 19, 2010)

Chim,

I think we're talking about two separate issues here. One is the payback of bailout money and corporate responsibility, the other is the systematic cut of government run programs (like NPR for example, or education, or socual services) which have very little if no impact on the overall economy.

I assure you that if the real culprits (military, social security and medicare) are even uttered as possible targets for cuts...the tea party will have a shitfit faster than you can say "Obama"

So once again, I say that I firmly believe that the majority of the American public really isn't all that concerned about the amount of national debt or government spending...and that belief seems to be reflected in the polls.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 19, 2010)

I just had a thought. Face it if Americans wants to reduce the deficit we just need to go out and make more money. Maybe it's us that need to do more to support the country by making more money, thereby paying more taxes to reduce the deficit.

You think that thought would get me elected? I could go on national TV and say something like, " you people blame government, the republicans and the democrats for all your woes. What you lazy bastards really need to do is find a way to make more money! That'll solve the country's economic problems."

I like that. Instead of the "rent is too damn high party". I'll start the "America is too damn lazy party". It'll sweep the nation. Anybody with me?


----------



## midphase (Nov 19, 2010)

Why are conservatives getting all riled up about the health care, and instead not marching in the streets to demand an immediate departuer from Iraq and Afghanistan?

Tarp, government bailouts and the health care isn't what got us into this debt...it's the Bush war....why isn't anyone being more vocal about that?




"The one thing this country needs to focus on right now is health care costs. Once that is taken care of, a lot of other problems will go away: "



Everything that we have seen from corporate behavior in the past 20 years would indicate that you're dead wrong. 




"- Medicare spending will go way down, so the debt burden can be reduced"

Unlikely

"- Health care will be more affordable, so more people will have it"

Extremely unlikely....but health care stocks and profits will go way up for sure.


"- Military spending will go way down (health care is a huge part of the military budget), so the debt burden can be even further reduced"

Extremely doubtful, if health cost decreases (which it wouldn't), the military spending would still go up somehow.

"- Corporations will become more profitable (lower prices on health care for employees), so tax revenues will increase, allowing the debt burden to be reduced again"

They will just figure out more ways to avoid paying the few taxes that they do already pay.


"- Small businesses that previously could not afford health care for employees would then be able to do so "

Doubtful that it would really impact anything...especially if health insurance rates would more than likely not decrease.


----------



## rgames (Nov 19, 2010)

midphase @ Fri Nov 19 said:


> Why are conservatives getting all riled up about the health care, and instead not marching in the streets to demand an immediate departuer from Iraq and Afghanistan?


Because Iraq and Afghanistan are temporary - health care is permanent (and more expensive).

You can withdraw troops. You can't just stop providing health care. Huge difference.

Look at social security: we spend WAY more money on social secuity than on all defense spending, let alone Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think you could just pull the plug on social security? No way. Once you've commited to it, you're stuck with it forever. We'll eventually leave Iraq and Afghanistan. The country will dissolve before we quit providing social security. Same thing with health care.

Don't forget, also, that a lot of military spending is essentially education dollars: kids join the services and get money for college when they get out. So a lot of military spending is actually dedicated to education, which winds up eventually growing the economy. So you can argue about the merits of a war, but a lot of defense spending helps people improve their standard of living and grow the economy, much more so than many other government expenditures.

Plus, a huge portion of this country's science spending happens through defense dollars. Why do you think Physics Today always publishes the defense budget? Because most scientists wind up using some piece of it at some point in their careers. And, of course, the defense industrial base employs a huge number of people, taxpayers who are necessary in order to keep that OASDI pool from evaporating.

Social security is a pure sink: it pays people who no longer support economic activity. Defense spending is exactly the opposite - it is, essentially, an economic stimulus.

My guess is that's why conservative aren't getting all riled up about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

rgames


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 19, 2010)

RGames says: "Don't forget, also, that a lot of military spending is essentially education dollars: kids join the services and get money for college when they get out. So a lot of military spending is actually dedicated to education, which winds up eventually growing the economy. So you can argue about the merits of a war, but a lot of defense spending helps people improve their standard of living and grow the economy, much more so than many other government expenditures."

Yes, yes, let's drop education funding.
After all, the military is taking care of our education already.
And a real objective, impartial way of looking at the world it is...

Last time I checked, I didn't notice any improvement of my living standards initiated by the military. But then, it may be due to the fact that I don't write music for military propaganda...
You wouldn't have a day job working for Lockheed Martin by any chance?
Everything would make sense...

RGames, I would really lke to have your opinion on the GOP stopping the nuclear arms treaty with Russia.
Also, what do you think of the GOP stopping the passing of a law that would level salaries for women compared to equivalent positions held by men?
All of this progressive thinking has taking place this week at the congress and senate level.
I give it to the GOP, they got to work right away! >8o


----------



## rgames (Nov 19, 2010)

Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Nov 19 said:


> Last time I checked, I didn't notice any improvement of my living standards initiated by the military.


Maybe not you specifically but the miltary employs huge numbers of musicians. In fact, if you're a wind player, there are many more gigs with the service bands than with private orchestras. And the salaries and benefits are usually much better.

So thanks for reminding me - you are correct that the value of military spending extends even further than I mentioned above 

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 19, 2010)

FWIW The real powers in DC allow the temporary occupants of the Capital to do as they wish with their domestic agendas in return for following orders when it comes to Foreign Policy.
I am confident that the Pentagon assured the GOP leaders lots of support if they would stop the " Treaty " so Russia would understand the message.
The GOP and DNC, especially the newly elected GOP dopes know nothing of Foreign Policy. The Pentagon knows all too well that Russia will have an entirely new group of politicians very soon and figures the wait makes sense. This is why we see the GOP or DNC saying stupid things and blocking programs that make no sense.
Equal pay for women 'eh...?? Is that for the new largely female GOP members that just got to town......??
Truth is that there's some other stupid secondary bill attached that has nothing to do with equal pay, but the media uses these little details because they too, have to do as instructed.


----------



## midphase (Nov 19, 2010)

rgames @ Fri Nov 19 said:


> Because Iraq and Afghanistan are temporary - health care is permanent (and more expensive).
> 
> You can withdraw troops. You can't just stop providing health care. Huge difference.




One could make a solid argument that the US Army will be in Iraq and Afghanistan for lifetimes, just like they still are in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea.

Health Care will ultimately prove to be less expensive than what the right wing hype would want everyone to believe, while rendering Americans healthier and hence more productive (and hence will have an impact on the GDP).


----------

