# US politics - Republicans vs. Democrats (again)



## mmsbls

[Moderator's note - this thread wasn't initiated by mmsbls, but is being made out of moved posts from the thread on Libya which veered off topic]



Couchie said:


> @mmsbls: Indeed, whether by tyranny or representative democracy, all of the world's political systems are designed to put overambitious power-hungry sociopathic elites in power, and then ask them to act in the best interest of the common people.
> 
> Clearly the solution to all the world's problems is the adoption of Athenian sortition.


The US lawyer Gerry Spence seriously suggested a lottery for our representatives. I think his plan was to have the lottery for the House, have the House members nominate and vote on a Senate, and pick the President from the Senate. Even if some (presumably a small portion) of the House were criminals, insane, or retarded, he felt the result would be better government than our present system.


----------



## starthrower

mmsbls said:


> The US lawyer Gerry Spence seriously suggested a lottery for our representatives. I think his plan was to have the lottery for the House, have the House members nominate and vote on a Senate, and pick the President from the Senate. Even if some (presumably a small portion) of the House were criminals, insane, or retarded, he felt the result would be better government than our present system.


But this would deprive ignorant people of the right to vote for insane, criminal, and retarded candidates. The truth is scarier and more entertaining than the fiction.


----------



## Almaviva

graaf said:


> @Poland, Colombia thing - not all issues are dealt the same way, but there's no point in writing wall of text to someone who doesn't want to educate himself about geopolitics.
> 
> Because you don't like to think that way. It is called wishful thinking and it can make power-hungry politicians into humanitarians. I mean, have you ever hear Nixon tapes? Not heard of them, but heard them? Very humanitarian, yup, even towards their own nation. I guess Theory of Nixon the Humanitarian holds water... And you're not the only one - it is easy to notice that when Dr Mike speaks about US gov policy, he says "we" (_we_ have yet to go on the attack in Colombia, etc). I don't speak that way about Serbian gov, so I have no problem saying that they lied to us and the rest of the world and that they couldn't manage Kosovo anyway (it's decades old problem, and it's not being properly managed by the new Albanian gov, as the documentary you ignored says), and I definitely don't think they're humanitarian or whatever...
> 
> Anyway, no point of writing much, informations and even real educational material is out there, who wants to get it will get it, we're not saying anything new anyway.


Americans are very suspicious of the government, as a cultural trait. I think that when we say "we" we're taking into account the fact that since we elect these people (they aren't dictators) we feel a bit responsible when they screw up.

Oh I don't doubt that politicians are usually power hungry and rarely humanitarians, but I wouldn't go as far as excluding that they *can* act for humanitarian reasons from time to time. I see the action in Kosovo as one such example.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> But this would deprive ignorant people of the right to vote for insane, criminal, and retarded candidates. The truth is scarier and more entertaining than the fiction.


Exactly - you'd be essentially disenfranchising Democrats


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Exactly - you'd be essentially disenfranchising Democrats


Funny! But I had a couple of republican presidential candidates in mind
while typing that response. Heh, heh!!!


----------



## Almaviva

> But this would deprive ignorant people of the right to vote for insane, criminal, and retarded candidates.





DrMike said:


> Exactly - you'd be essentially disenfranchising Democrats


 Wait a moment, Dr. Mike, I thought you felt offended when someone called the group you identify with or support anything that is less than flattering. You've posted numerous times stuff like "why should I participate in a discussion when people call my beliefs this and that?" But then, you don't seem to uphold your own standards when you call Democrats ignorant and imply that they support insane, criminal, and retarded candidates. Yes, I saw the smiley, but I still see this as a pot-kettle-black moment. After what you've just said, I think I'll be less inclined to jump to your defense like I did many times, when someone else refers to Republicans or conservatives in detrimental terms and you react like you're personally offended.


----------



## Ukko

_DrMike_'s mini-post is a classic form of humor. Naturally, I can't remember which one. It's related to hyperbole, but maybe only a cousin.

Seems like this info should be on the Web; gotta look.

Update: Well, it looks like nobody out there sees the relationships I do. I think there are only a half-dozen, maybe fewer, kinds of humor. pun, incongruity, hyperbole...

Things like malapropisms and harmless grotesqueries fall under incongruity, for instance. And no harmful or cruel thing is humor in my universe, which probably cuts down on categories.


----------



## mmsbls

Hilltroll72 said:


> _DrMike_'s mini-post is a classic form of humor. Naturally, I can't remember which one. It's related to hyperbole, but maybe only a cousin.


@Alma: I agree with Hilltroll. I think Dr.Mike's post was clearly in fun. I do think some liberal posts are inflammatory and are serious; whereas, I don't _remember_ seeing any of Dr.Mike's posts attacking anything but ideas.


----------



## starthrower

Hilltroll72 said:


> _DrMike_'s mini-post is a classic form of humor. Naturally, I can't remember which one. It's related to hyperbole, but maybe only a cousin.
> 
> Seems like this info should be on the Web; gotta look.
> 
> Update: Well, it looks like nobody out there sees the relationships I do. I think there are only a half-dozen, maybe fewer, kinds of humor. pun, incongruity, hyperbole...
> 
> Things like malapropisms and harmless grotesqueries fall under incongruity, for instance. And no harmful or cruel thing is humor in my universe, which probably cuts down on categories.


All a dese big words is sendin' be back to ma dictionary. Tanks fer da learnin'!
Us truck drivers listen to classical music too. Not just Waylon Jennings.


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> All a dese big words is sendin' be back to ma dictionary. Tanks fer da learnin'!
> Us truck drivers listen to classical music too. Not just Waylon Jennings.


You're welcome. Waylon Jennings was OK, but Willie Nelson got to the heart of the song better, especially when he sang oldies.

Some of those 'long' words tell it more like it is than the bunch of short ones you have to use to express the same things. Even my truck driver friends buy that story.


----------



## starthrower

Waylon and Willie together on Luckenbach, Texas is my favorite! Kidding aside, I really am a truck driver. The best way to listen to music is to get paid for it!


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> Waylon and Willie together on Luckenbach, Texas is my favorite! Kidding aside, I really am a truck driver. The best way to listen to music is to get paid for it!


OK! Do you do long haul? One of my friends has told some stories... probably too 'real life' for the moderators here.


----------



## starthrower

I don't indulge in the sleazy lowlife. I don't do the long haul. Just an air freight shuttle back and forth from Syracuse to Rochester, so I'm home every day.

If you go over the road you will encounter quite a cast of characters. I remember being in Youngstown, Ohio where there are a bunch of truck stops. Listening to the CB radio was like a freak show! One minute there was a porn video vendor hawking his wares, in the next breath you had the preacher trying to save your soul! Take your pick on a Sunday morning.

But as far as trucking goes, it's just the paycheck I'm interested in. I could care less about all of the trucker talk and paraphernalia.
I don't own my own tractor, and I don't care about the chrome, super CB radio, fancy lights, and all that crap. I like driving, it beats being a cube farmer!


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> But as far as trucking goes, it's just the paycheck I'm interested in. I could care less about all of the trucker talk and paraphernalia.
> I don't own my own tractor, and I don't care about the chrome, super CB radio, fancy lights, and all that crap. I like driving, it beats being a cube farmer!


I guess Carmen Basilio felt that way about onion farming. Before your time?


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Wait a moment, Dr. Mike, I thought you felt offended when someone called the group you identify with or support anything that is less than flattering. You've posted numerous times stuff like "why should I participate in a discussion when people call my beliefs this and that?" But then, you don't seem to uphold your own standards when you call Democrats ignorant and imply that they support insane, criminal, and retarded candidates. Yes, I saw the smiley, but I still see this as a pot-kettle-black moment. After what you've just said, I think I'll be less inclined to jump to your defense like I did many times, when someone else refers to Republicans or conservatives in detrimental terms and you react like you're personally offended.


"Dear Lord, I'm sorry for saying Democrats was ignorant and voted for insane, criminal, and retarded candidates - and bless all them starving pygmies in Africa, amen."


----------



## starthrower

Hilltroll72 said:


> I guess Carmen Basilio felt that way about onion farming. Before your time?


Coincidentally, I happen to be sitting here in his hometown of Canastota, NY.
Never been to the Boxing Hall Of Fame even though it's right down the street.

I don't have much interest in pugilism. I don't think I'm gonna haul onions either!


----------



## Almaviva

mmsbls said:


> @Alma: I agree with Hilltroll. I think Dr.Mike's post was clearly in fun. I do think some liberal posts are inflammatory and are serious; whereas, I don't _remember_ seeing *any of Dr.Mike's posts attacking anything but ideas*.


 That's actually not true, mmsbls, as Dr.Mike knows very well thanks to a recent episode.


----------



## Almaviva

Hilltroll72 said:


> _DrMike_'s mini-post is a classic form of humor. Naturally, I can't remember which one. It's related to hyperbole, but maybe only a cousin.
> 
> Seems like this info should be on the Web; gotta look.
> 
> Update: Well, it looks like nobody out there sees the relationships I do. I think there are only a half-dozen, maybe fewer, kinds of humor. pun, incongruity, hyperbole...
> 
> Things like malapropisms and harmless grotesqueries fall under incongruity, for instance. And no harmful or cruel thing is humor in my universe, which probably cuts down on categories.


I know, Hilltroll. But Dr. Mike gets so easily offended when someone calls Republicans ignorant (like when we questioned how wise it is for certain strata of the population to vote for Republicans against their own interests) that I thought this was a good opportunity to give him a dose of his own medicine.


----------



## Ukko

Yeah... I've been thinking that _DrMike_ probably doesn't get emails relayed to him by his low-end-of-the-economic-scale friends, like I do. When I write about Republican-hired spin doctors BSing the working class via mass-mailed emails, I know whereof I write.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> "Dear Lord, I'm sorry for saying Democrats was ignorant and voted for insane, criminal, and retarded candidates - and bless all them starving pygmies in Africa, amen."


 We're so glad that you're sorry, but beware of taking the Lord's name in vain.


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> We're so glad that you're sorry, but beware of taking Our name in vain.


FYP

j/k of course...


----------



## starthrower

Hilltroll72 said:


> Yeah... I've been thinking that _DrMike_ probably doesn't get emails relayed to him by his low-end-of-the-economic-scale friends, like I do. When I write about Republican-hired spin doctors BSing the working class via mass-mailed emails, I know whereof I write.


If only these folks would take a minute to check the facts instead of swallowing the BS whole. It's a strangely ironic situation since they happen to be sitting at their computers while being swindled with nonsense. You can't save people from their own stupidity and laziness.


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> If only these folks would take a minute to check the facts instead of swallowing the BS whole. It's a strangely ironic situation since they happen to be sitting at their computers while being swindled with nonsense. You can't save people from their own stupidity and laziness.


Well, none of the friends who relay these things to me are stupid. I don't understand _what_ the problem is; it seems to be some sort of inertia. Some of the messages are on the acceptance level of rumors, so I check them out at Snopes. When Snopes puts the kibosh to the rumor, I send the friend the link. The response is 'well, OK', but I get the impression my friend is employing the 'where there's smoke, there's fire' axiom.

[need an emoticon showing arms out to the side in an 'eh, it's hopeless' emulation]


----------



## starthrower

Hilltroll72 said:


> Well, none of the friends who relay these things to me are stupid. I don't understand _what_ the problem is; it seems to be some sort of inertia. Some of the messages are on the acceptance level of rumors, so I check them out at Snopes. When Snopes puts the kibosh to the rumor, I send the friend the link. The response is 'well, OK', but I get the impression my friend is employing the 'where there's smoke, there's fire' axiom.
> 
> [need an emoticon showing arms out to the side in an 'eh, it's hopeless' emulation]


I guess you have to chalk it up to intellectual laziness. But my god, how much lazier can people get? It's not like they have to leave the house and go to the library. Several years back I confronted a woman in an email who was forwarding a slanderous email about Obama conspiring with Muslim terrorists to destroy America. She even included her business letter head in the email, and boy was she outraged that I called her on this nonsense. Lots o' clueless, gullible people out there.


----------



## Guest

Of course, you all are working under the assumption that my side is in the wrong. I have related numerous instances in various threads here where the other side of the aisle has played fast and loose with facts and information - exactly how many promises that Obama delivered have actually come true? The latest revealed falsehood - that the healthcare bill would save $1 trillion over 10 years has now been debunked by the CBO. It turns out it will run up the debt by $1 trillion over 10 years. Of course, that is what us liars and intellectually lazy guys on the other side said from the beginning.

How about how the nearly $1 trillion stimulus would keep unemployment to no more than 8%?

How about how all the car bailouts have been payed back?


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> How about how all the car bailouts have been payed back?


You mean the bailouts started by Bush?


----------



## starthrower

I don't disagree with you, DrMike. Both sides have made false claims and promises. They're all politicians bought and paid for by the interested parties.


----------



## Almaviva

starthrower said:


> I don't disagree with you, DrMike. Both sides have made false claims and promises. They're all politicians bought and paid for by the interested parties.


 If only Dr. Mike had this balanced view...
For him, it's rather OBAMA BAD! OBAMA BAD! OBAMA BAD! REPUBLICANS GOOD! DEMOCRATS EVIL!


----------



## Ukko

starthrower said:


> I don't disagree with you, DrMike. Both sides have made false claims and promises. They're all politicians bought and paid for by the interested parties.


Probably not all of them. I consider Bernie to be a voice in the wilderness - and, unfortunately, approximately that effective.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> You mean the bailouts started by Bush?


Yes, that is what I mean. And when Obama tells you they have all been payed back, he is referring only to the amount lent while he was in office, because if he counts all the money they have received (and, incidentally, he was all for the auto bailouts that Bush authorized), then the truth is that they haven't all been payed back.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> If only Dr. Mike had this balanced view...
> For him, it's rather OBAMA BAD! OBAMA BAD! OBAMA BAD! REPUBLICANS GOOD! DEMOCRATS EVIL!


Nope, it is actually more like Obama lies, the economy dies! Republicans are the lesser of two evils - Democrats want to tax me to have money to bribe their constituents to vote for them.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> How about how the nearly $1 trillion stimulus would keep unemployment to no more than 8%?





DrMike said:


> Nope, it is actually more like Obama lies, the economy dies! Republicans are the lesser of two evils - Democrats want to tax me to have money to bribe their constituents to vote for them.


I'm not sure I would say Obama lied about the economy, but he certainly did not state what economists felt was true. He argued for a stimulus as did every macroeconomist I read. The difference was that Obama pushed a stimulus that was clearly too small, and he did not make that clear. Macroeconomists believed we needed a stimulus of between $0.8 - 1.3 trillion (variation among economists), and the stimulus needed to have a good multiplier effect (e.g. tax breaks were not considered very useful).

The stimulus had $499 billion in "job creation" and $288 billion in tax cuts ($70 billion of these were part of the Alternative Minimum Tax which everyone believed would have been extended without a stimulus package). The $499 billion package was less than half of what many economists believed necessary to get the economy going. Obama should have made that very clear, but he misled the country.

It's true that the stimulus did create or avoid the loss of a large number of jobs. According to the CBO estimate, the stimulus:

- lowered unemployment by 0.7-1.8%
- increased the number of people employed by 1.4 - 3.3 million
- increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 2 - 4.8 million (some of these people had part-time jobs)

Nevertheless, economists knew this was not enough, and Obama should have made that clear.

I would not describe the stimulus as "a nearly $1 trillion stimulus". I would call it a $500 billion stimulus with additional tax cuts since that's how economists viewed it.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> If only Dr. Mike had this balanced view...
> For him, it's rather OBAMA BAD! OBAMA BAD! OBAMA BAD! REPUBLICANS GOOD! DEMOCRATS EVIL!


And let's not be coy here and pretend that I am the sole partisan in these debates. I'd be up all night trying to find a balanced opinion from you regarding the GOP or the Tea Party.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> And let's not be coy here and pretend that I am the sole partisan in these debates. I'd be up all night trying to find a balanced opinion from you regarding the GOP or the Tea Party.


 Yep, you would.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure I would say Obama lied about the economy, but he certainly did not state what economists felt was true. He argued for a stimulus as did every macroeconomist I read. The difference was that Obama pushed a stimulus that was clearly too small, and he did not make that clear. Macroeconomists believed we needed a stimulus of between $0.8 - 1.3 trillion (variation among economists), and the stimulus needed to have a good multiplier effect (e.g. tax breaks were not considered very useful).
> 
> The stimulus had $499 billion in "job creation" and $288 billion in tax cuts ($70 billion of these were part of the Alternative Minimum Tax which everyone believed would have been extended without a stimulus package). The $499 billion package was less than half of what many economists believed necessary to get the economy going. Obama should have made that very clear, but he misled the country.
> 
> It's true that the stimulus did create or avoid the loss of a large number of jobs. According to the CBO estimate, the stimulus:
> 
> - lowered unemployment by 0.7-1.8%
> - increased the number of people employed by 1.4 - 3.3 million
> - increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 2 - 4.8 million (some of these people had part-time jobs)
> 
> Nevertheless, economists knew this was not enough, and Obama should have made that clear.
> 
> I would not describe the stimulus as "a nearly $1 trillion stimulus". I would call it a $500 billion stimulus with additional tax cuts since that's how economists viewed it.


I appreciate the time you invested in this post, but let's talk seriously here for a second. Bush went to war in Iraq based on what was the conventional wisdom of the time - that Saddam Hussein either had, or was actively pursuing, WMD. Bill Clinton believed it. Hillary Clinton believed it. Al Gore believed it. John Kerry believed it. The CIA believed it. The intelligence agencies from many of our allies believed it. And yet we still had Democrats screaming that Bush "lied us into war."

Now that we see so many inconsistencies in what Obama told us and what the truth is, and suddenly we are to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can parse the various components of the stimulus all you want, but the fact of the matter is the total bill that is referred to as the "stimulus" package - the total amount that bill cost the taxpayers - is in the ballpark of $800 billion - $1 trillion.

So tell me what the difference is between lying and stating something that he knew others felt to be not true? I'm not quite sure I understand the nuances there.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> If only Dr. Mike had this balanced view...
> For him, it's rather OBAMA BAD! OBAMA BAD! OBAMA BAD! REPUBLICANS GOOD! DEMOCRATS EVIL!


Let's also be honest here about what passes for "balanced" on your side of this debate. You and starthrower and others will give your harshest criticisms only to the Republican/conservative opinions. Then, when I point out the hypocrisy of your side, you dismiss it all as "politics as usual." Acting in bad faith by Republicans and conservatives, to you, is going to bring the country down. But similar activities by Democrats/liberals is merely par for the course. So, when Bush ran up huge deficits and ran the debt up several trillion during his 8 YEARS in office, that is reckless and reprehensible. When Obama is on course to pass that level of deficit spending in less than 4 years, well, he's just doing what needs to be done.

There is no balanced view on your side. The balance is that I represent the conservative position, and the rest of you represent the liberal position. So let's dispense with any criticisms of how unbalanced I am. Unless you all are presenting a facade here and really aren't as liberal as you state, you all are just as partisan as I am.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Let's also be honest here about what passes for "balanced" on your side of this debate. You and starthrower and others will give your harshest criticisms only to the Republican/conservative opinions. Then, when I point out the hypocrisy of your side, you dismiss it all as "politics as usual." Acting in bad faith by Republicans and conservatives, to you, is going to bring the country down. But similar activities by Democrats/liberals is merely par for the course. So, when Bush ran up huge deficits and ran the debt up several trillion during his 8 YEARS in office, that is reckless and reprehensible. When Obama is on course to pass that level of deficit spending in less than 4 years, well, he's just doing what needs to be done.
> 
> There is no balanced view on your side. The balance is that I represent the conservative position, and the rest of you represent the liberal position. So let's dispense with any criticisms of how unbalanced I am. Unless you all are presenting a facade here and really aren't as liberal as you state, you all are just as partisan as I am.


I have acknowledged as much, just, not in so many words. Refer to my post above where I said "Yep, you would." So now we both know that we're both totally biased. At least, I hope you also see it.


----------



## starthrower

I have no problem with conservative republicans. It's just that there aren't any of these people left in the party. Just because I disagree with some of your opinions, DrMike, doesn't mean I blindly support Obama and all of the democrats. 

I do disagree about today's republicans being the lesser of two evils. These people would throw seniors citizens out in the street before they would vote for a tax increase for the richest people on earth.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> I have acknowledged as much, just, not in so many words. Refer to my post above where I said "Yep, you would." *So now we both know that we're both totally biased. At least, I hope you also see it*.


I have never denied my conservative bias - in fact, I wear it as a badge of honor.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I have no problem with conservative republicans. It's just that there aren't any of these people left in the party. Just because I disagree with some of your opinions, DrMike, doesn't mean I blindly support Obama and all of the democrats.
> 
> I do disagree about today's republicans being the lesser of two evils. *These people would throw seniors citizens out in the street before they would vote for a tax increase for the richest people on earth*.


I challenge you to back up that assertion with actual facts, and not just Democratic talking points.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> I challenge you to back up that assertion with actual facts, and not just Democratic talking points.


You are genuinely unaware that they exist?


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> I challenge you to back up that assertion with actual facts, and not just Democratic talking points.


Examine what's on the table for the committee formed to make recommendations for reducing the deficit. Then determine the party affiliation of the various members backing big cuts to specific programs.

The tax 'increase' _Starthrower_ refers to wouldn't really be that; it would be rescinding the tax *cuts* the Bush-Cheney Gang pushed through. And that rescinding is highly unlikely in our plutocracy.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> You are genuinely unaware that they exist?


Tell me who has called for throwing seniors out in the streets? It is not an either/or scenario - either you raise taxes on the rich or you throw seniors out in the streets. Democrats would rather see seniors thrown out on the streets than have one of their pet spending projects cut. How many seniors could have been supported alone on the money that was wasted on the numerous buildings in West Virginia that are named after Senator Robert Byrd? How many seniors could be supported if government union workers were required to contribute to their insurance and retirement packages at the same level that the rest of us do? How many seniors could be supported if we didn't have to pay for the president and the first lady to fly - separately - to Martha's Vineyard? How many seniors could we support if we weren't dumping money into incentive programs to get people to buy hybrids - when these are clearly dumping tax dollars into the laps of people who don't need them? These aren't poor people going out and buying a new Toyota Prius. How many seniors could we support with the money spent in the "Cash for Clunkers" program? How many seniors could we support with the money that Bill Clinton spent to buy nuclear reactors for North Korea to get them to not develop their nuclear weapons technology?


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Examine what's on the table for the committee formed to make recommendations for reducing the deficit. Then determine the party affiliation of the various members backing big cuts to specific programs.
> 
> The tax 'increase' _Starthrower_ refers to wouldn't really be that; it would be rescinding the tax *cuts* the Bush-Cheney Gang pushed through. And that rescinding is highly unlikely in our plutocracy.


Check your facts - the "Bush-Cheney Gang" tax cuts ended. They are now the Obama-Biden Gang tax cuts, pushed through by Obama last December. So now, it is officially Obama that would rather throw seniors out on the streets than pass tax cuts for the wealthy. All he had to do was nothing - let them expire. And as I recall, his own Deficit Commission recommended ways to deal with our deficit problems that addressed entitlements - how many of their recommendations did the President incorporate into the budget that he submitted to Congress?


----------



## starthrower

Here is a detailed report from Factcheck.org Fiscal FactCheck
http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

It reports that both sides have initiated huge spending programs/wars/ect. that are not sufficiently funded. 
Yes, the top 10 percent pay the lion's share of taxes, but their incomes have increased dramatically in 
comparison the the other 90 percent. Half of those folks not even earning enough to pay federal income tax.

Here's another piece about those poor rich folks.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/05/04/173928/gop-taxes-wealth-exploding/


----------



## Ukko

It's impressive how few words it takes to twist facts into new 'facts'. Just remove from consideration all data that doesn't support your position. I've noticed that you are adroit at that, _DrMike_. One of the former governors of my state may have (I don't know his motives) taken up politics because it was a better living than doctoring. Have you considered that career move?



[This thread has been steadily increasing its Depression Potential. I think I will henceforth ignore it.]


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Now that we see so many inconsistencies in what Obama told us and what the truth is, and suddenly we are to give him the benefit of the doubt. You can parse the various components of the stimulus all you want, but the fact of the matter is the total bill that is referred to as the "stimulus" package - the total amount that bill cost the taxpayers - is in the ballpark of $800 billion - $1 trillion.
> 
> So tell me what the difference is between lying and stating something that he knew others felt to be not true? I'm not quite sure I understand the nuances there.


I don't disagree with you. Obama mislead the country by not making a case for a proper stimulus. I would say the difference between the stimulus and Iraq is that the truth in the Iraq case (i.e. Iraq and 9/11 were not linked) did not support the intervention whereas the truth in the stimulus (much more money was needed) did support a stimulus. Both presidents presumably misled the country because they felt that they could not get the policy they wanted without doing so.

Both Democrats and Republicans often mislead the country. Democrats suggest that Medicare spending does not need modification and imply that Social Security does not affect the deficit. Republicans hardly ever say anything not misleading when discussing taxes. Consequently, the populace has a very distorted view of policy. I get sick when I hear both sides talking politics.


----------



## Sid James

I think this thread should be re-named "The American politics thread."

There is no emoticon for "yawn" so here I go - YAWN!!!


----------



## Almaviva

Sid, I can always crop out these posts into another thread - but people will be complaining that they didn't start the new thread. Oh well, I'll do it.


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> Sid, I can always crop out these posts into another thread - but people will be complaining that they didn't start the new thread. Oh well, I'll do it.


Alma, any time you have a problem like that, move one of my old posts, if necessary removing the original context. I don't mind being blamed at all!


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Sid, I can always crop out these posts into another thread - but people will be complaining that they didn't start the new thread. Oh well, I'll do it.


Right - because I did it exactly one time. Look, Alma, if it is bending you out of shape "sticking up for me," I've told you on numerous occasions to not bother. I am a big boy and can look out for myself - your choice to be accomodating of me is exactly that, your choice. I am just as aware of all the forum rules as everyone else, and make every comment that I do with my eyes wide open.


----------



## mmsbls

Almaviva said:


> Sid, I can always crop out these posts into another thread - but people will be complaining that they didn't start the new thread. Oh well, I'll do it.


Alma, I have no problem with being listed as the "Starter" of this thread. In the "OP" you explained clearly what happened. I think your action makes perfect sense.


----------



## Guest

President Obama previewing his big plans to get jobs created now that he is back from his vacation.

Oh, wait, sorry - he gave this interview back in 2010. So, does anybody really believe he has any new ideas? Has he been holding back on us? Why didn't Congress act on these grand plans of his back in 2010, when Democrats held the House and Senate?


----------



## starthrower

It's really nothing more than a game. I don't waste my time listening to any of these politicians' talking points. Obama talking jobs and recovery is like a legless man talking about running a marathon. It ain't gonna happen. From what I've heard, Obama wants to extend free trade. How is this going to create jobs for Americans? 

When they decide to repeal NAFTA , break up monopolies, prosecute Wall Street criminals, end the insane military spending, seriously consider alternative energy sources, then I'll believe something might change.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Right - because I did it exactly one time. Look, Alma, if it is bending you out of shape "sticking up for me," I've told you on numerous occasions to not bother. I am a big boy and can look out for myself - your choice to be accomodating of me is exactly that, your choice. I am just as aware of all the forum rules as everyone else, and make every comment that I do with my eyes wide open.


No, it has happened at other times, from members other than you.
And I strongly defended you when a member questioned you on it, not because I'm trying to stick up for you, but because you were right.
It does cause a bit of puzzled responses when we do it.
Don't always take things this personally, Dr. Mike.
When I posted this, I had in mind your case, but other cases too.


----------



## Sid James

starthrower said:


> ...When they decide to repeal NAFTA , break up monopolies, prosecute Wall Street criminals, end the insane military spending, seriously consider alternative energy sources, then I'll believe something might change.


Don't hold your breath!...

In terms of US politics in general & political history, President Eisenhower, a moderate conservative, gets my respect while some of the more recent USA presidents of the conservative camp who come across to me as being little more, or no more, than just ideologues, get my big "thumbs down."


----------



## science

Repealing NAFTA would hurt the economy. Perot's prediction has not come to pass. Even if the labor market worked the way Perot imagines, China would be a bigger problem than Mexico.


----------



## Sid James

In terms of free trade, Aussie politicians have been making us probably the most free trade country on the planet since the 1980's. I'm not a protectionist, but neither do I think these policies have worked to this country's advantage. Eg. opening us up to imports of cheap fruit from overseas has been said to be hurtful to our farmers, who seem to be a kind of threatened species. It's hard to make a living on the land in the first place, with these things it's even harder. & our government does not give the huge subsidies that are afforded to farmers in Europe or the USA. Funny how the most pro-free trade countries like them don't actually do it in practice (or do it selectively, as it suits them). We call this kind of thing "pork barelling" over here, giving huge wads of cash to certain parts of the electorate/economy to boost yourself politically or whatever. Whenever I heard that the French govt., wanted to open the agricultural sector up to competition, farmers were almost literally up in arms, doing things like THIS and THIS. It's just getting absurd over there, certain vested interests are basically molly coddled & act like spoilt children. In contrast here, virtually the only assistance our farmers get from the govt. (as far as I know) is help in emergencies and natural disasters. What about the disaster of bringing in all this stuff from overseas, flooding the market with cheap foreign imports, and squeezing our own producers to death. Somehow, the theory of "free trade" doesn't match up with the practice, big time...


----------



## science

Sid James said:


> In terms of free trade, Aussie politicians have been making us probably the most free trade country on the planet since the 1980's. I'm not a protectionist, but neither do I think these policies have worked to this country's advantage. Eg. opening us up to imports of cheap fruit from overseas has been said to be hurtful to our farmers, who seem to be a kind of threatened species. It's hard to make a living on the land in the first place, with these things it's even harder. & our government does not give the huge subsidies that are afforded to farmers in Europe or the USA. Funny how the most pro-free trade countries like them don't actually do it in practice (or do it selectively, as it suits them). We call this kind of thing "pork barelling" over here, giving huge wads of cash to certain parts of the electorate/economy to boost yourself politically or whatever. Whenever I heard that the French govt., wanted to open the agricultural sector up to competition, farmers were almost literally up in arms, doing things like THIS and THIS. It's just getting absurd over there, certain vested interests are basically molly coddled & act like spoilt children. In contrast here, virtually the only assistance our farmers get from the govt. (as far as I know) is help in emergencies and natural disasters. What about the disaster of bringing in all this stuff from overseas, flooding the market with cheap foreign imports, and squeezing our own producers to death. Somehow, the theory of "free trade" doesn't match up with the practice, big time...


All too true, and the consumers pay. It's the same story it's always been: a cabal of producers with a concentrated interest join together, wield political power on that issue with a strength inversely proportionate to their numbers, and force a diffuse majority to transfer wealth to them via unnecessarily higher prices.

The bright side is, at essentially no point of history has trade been freer than it is now, and if we can avoid regressing to protectionism during this recession, we'll probably have a very much better future (in this regard) when it's past. The ruling classes of most countries have bought into the theory of free trade, and progress in that direction has been nearly unbroken over the past twenty-five or so years.

The biggest risk, other than populism, is that China might prove to be a mercantilist country. They won't be able to be too mercantilist for at least another decade, though, and that's even if they manage to avoid any large-scale political uprising (which would surprise me). By that time, India will be ready to challenge China and I suspect China won't be able to afford mercantilist policy in that case.


----------



## Ukko

Sid James said:


> In terms of free trade, Aussie politicians have been making us probably the most free trade country on the planet since the 1980's. I'm not a protectionist, but neither do I think these policies have worked to this country's advantage. Eg. opening us up to imports of cheap fruit from overseas has been said to be hurtful to our farmers, who seem to be a kind of threatened species. It's hard to make a living on the land in the first place, with these things it's even harder. & our government does not give the huge subsidies that are afforded to farmers in Europe or the USA.
> [as usual, I have to snip Sid  ]


'Free trade' in manufactured goods encourages 'runaway' companies, because their products can be sold in the country they left without tariffs. Outsourcing of components and other material goods is encouraged because they can be imported without tariffs. The current plutocracy is not worldwide, but it is certainly international - which weakens interest in local economies.

Note that my subject is _manufactured goods_. Agricultural products relate to protective tariffs somewhat differently.


----------



## starthrower

science said:


> Repealing NAFTA would hurt the economy. Perot's prediction has not come to pass. Even if the labor market worked the way Perot imagines, China would be a bigger problem than Mexico.


Perot predicted that American jobs would be outsourced to Mexico. How has this not come to pass?


----------



## Fsharpmajor

American jobs in hi-tech are being outsourced to Canada. Our electronics industry is booming.


----------



## science

starthrower said:


> Perot predicted that American jobs would be outsourced to Mexico. How has this not come to pass?


I'm sorry, I must be confused. I thought someone had posted Perot's "giant sucking sound" clip in this thread, and I was responding to that. Without that context, my statement doesn't make any sense.

Still, I do want to say that the idea that free trade destroys jobs is only somewhat true, and essentially misrepresents the nature of things. We have high unemployment right now because our economy is bad, not because we trade with Mexico or China. Somewhere I referred to the "lump of labor," which (in part) is the idea that if Mexico (or someone) gains a job, then the US (or someone) must be losing a job. It isn't an accurate way of thinking about the economy.

The average American is richer because of trade with Mexico than we would be without that trade; and if we destroyed that trade, we would destroy a portion of our wealth. A few Americans are poorer because of trade with Mexico, but if we destroyed that trade, they would not get their missing wealth back.

Repealing NAFTA would be almost exactly like creating a trade barrier in the middle of the US - say, on the Mississippi River. Of course it would be great for a few producers on each side, but on the whole most people would be poorer. That is why when trade barriers go down, they tend to stay down, and the fact that trade barriers of various sorts have been going down for the past 500 years is one of the reasons that we've all gotten, on average, richer.


----------



## starthrower

I'll have to look at the Perot video again and listen to everything he said. I'd say average Americans were getting richer for a while, but wages have stagnated in the past couple of decades.

It would be nice if these outsourced manufacturing jobs paid more than slave labor. I mean, life in Mexico is a nightmare for most people.


----------



## science

starthrower said:


> I'll have to look at the Perot video again and listen to everything he said. I'd say average Americans were getting richer for a while, but wages have stagnated in the past couple of decades.
> 
> It would be nice if these outsourced manufacturing jobs paid more than slave labor. I mean, life in Mexico is a nightmare for most people.


It takes time. Life in Mexico has been getting better.

In the US, wages have stagnated. That is true, and globalization does have a lot to do with it. (So does, probably, the weakness of unions.) On the other hand, the price of some fundamental goods (like clothing) have dropped considerably.


----------



## starthrower

Levi jeans cost 40 dollars a pair. That isn't cheap. Sneakers are very expensive. Most Automobiles are very expensive despite Mexican workers being employed in the industry. 

Another thing you have to factor in as far as Americans living well is the level of debt. Most people don't own all of the crap they've accumulated outright. They're in debt up to their eyeballs.


----------



## science

> Mr Obama wishes to be president of a country that does not exist. In his fantasy US, politicians bury differences in bipartisan harmony. In fact, he faces an opposition that would prefer their country to fail than their president to succeed.


Martin Wolf: 
http://registration.ft.com/registra...tml&referer=http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/


----------



## science

starthrower said:


> Levi jeans cost 40 dollars a pair. That isn't cheap. Sneakers are very expensive. Most Automobiles are very expensive despite Mexican workers being employed in the industry.
> 
> Another thing you have to factor in as far as Americans living well is the level of debt. Most people don't own all of the crap they've accumulated outright. They're in debt up to their eyeballs.


You can buy $25 jeans and $25 shoes. Not name brands like Levi's, of course. They're at Walmart, they're imported from China, Mexico, Bangladesh, Vietnam and the Philippines.

High end stuff like Levi's jeans (or Prada or whatever) does not change prices because of globalization. You pay for a brand name in those cases, not just a product.

As for automobiles, you can still get pretty good ones for under $20,000 - new. There is of course no reason to buy new cars if your income is below average. And these cars all come with airbags, power locks, air conditioning, anti-lock brakes - all stuff that is more expensive than the default options 30 years ago.

In terms of the price of basic consumer goods, the poor benefit from globalization pretty well. (Not as well, unfortunately, as CEOs.)

The problem is that you think from the POV of a producer rather than a consumer. On almost any product there are far more people at the consumption end than at the production end, so any policy that leads to lower prices benefits more people than it hurts.

Even if you want to consider the production end only, from a humanist perspective rather than a nationalist one, you'd have to say that free trade is really a good thing for the poorest people in the world. Someone somewhere goes from $60/hour to $20/hour, and of course that hurts in a big way (even though everyone else in that person's country benefits), but someone else goes from $.15/hour to $1.50/hour, and begins the long climb out of dire poverty.

It's not a zero-sum game (except from a relative point-of-view).


----------



## Sid James

starthrower said:


> ...Another thing you have to factor in as far as Americans living well is the level of debt. Most people don't own all of the crap they've accumulated outright. They're in debt up to their eyeballs.


Same here in Australia, in terms of debt. A record number of young people here (I'm talking say age 18 to mid twenties) are becoming bankrupt. If mum, dad and friends can bail them out, it staves off a big disaster. Sometimes they get more credit cards to pay for debt on existing credit cards they have. It's a vicious cycle. It seems that Gordon Gekko mentality of "Greed is good" has kind of become true. Maybe two generations ago, people were happy if they could survive and maybe have a few treats or luxuries. Now, we all want the latest technological gear, the latest fashions, an expensive holiday or two every year, etc. People are living beyond their means. There's the old saying that a lot of people are only a couple of pay packets away from risking losing everything. I admire the older generations for being able to live frugally & realistically, not buy in to this perpetual commercial, coporate spending spree attitude. This "go for growth" kind of economic model inevitably leads to a big bust, where many people get hurt, esp. those who either don't have the income to save, or the ones that do live way beyond their means, so a hiccup in the economy means they lose everything, or almost everything. We need more balance, focus more on getting the "basics" right...


----------



## Almaviva

Sid James said:


> Same here in Australia, in terms of debt. A record number of young people here (I'm talking say age 18 to mid twenties) are becoming bankrupt. If mum, dad and friends can bail them out, it staves off a big disaster. Sometimes they get more credit cards to pay for debt on existing credit cards they have. It's a vicious cycle. It seems that Gordon Gekko mentality of "Greed is good" has kind of become true. Maybe two generations ago, people were happy if they could survive and maybe have a few treats or luxuries. Now, we all want the latest technological gear, the latest fashions, an expensive holiday or two every year, etc. People are living beyond their means. There's the old saying that a lot of people are only a couple of pay packets away from risking losing everything. I admire the older generations for being able to live frugally & realistically, not buy in to this perpetual commercial, coporate spending spree attitude. This "go for growth" kind of economic model inevitably leads to a big bust, where many people get hurt, esp. those who either don't have the income to save, or the ones that do live way beyond their means, so a hiccup in the economy means they lose everything, or almost everything. We need more balance, focus more on getting the "basics" right...


I'm glad to have no debt whatsoever except for my mortgage which is two-thirds paid for and not a problem at all - it is actually a small part of my budget since I bought a house that cost less than what I could afford, unlike everybody else around me who usually buy houses that are beyond their means. No credit card balances at all (paid in full each month), no car loans (of my three current cars, two of them are paid in full, the third one I bought cash), no student loans for my kids (I've finished paying in one case, and I'm still paying in another case their tuition in full each month without ever contracting a loan), no nothing. If I got fired tomorrow (utterly impossible, my job is extremely secure) it would make no difference, we could live comfortably on my wife's income. I just hope my kids will follow my example. One of them is frugal, but the other isn't.


----------



## science

Sid James said:


> Same here in Australia, in terms of debt. A record number of young people here (I'm talking say age 18 to mid twenties) are becoming bankrupt. If mum, dad and friends can bail them out, it staves off a big disaster. Sometimes they get more credit cards to pay for debt on existing credit cards they have. It's a vicious cycle. It seems that Gordon Gekko mentality of "Greed is good" has kind of become true. Maybe two generations ago, people were happy if they could survive and maybe have a few treats or luxuries. Now, we all want the latest technological gear, the latest fashions, an expensive holiday or two every year, etc. People are living beyond their means. There's the old saying that a lot of people are only a couple of pay packets away from risking losing everything. I admire the older generations for being able to live frugally & realistically, not buy in to this perpetual commercial, coporate spending spree attitude. This "go for growth" kind of economic model inevitably leads to a big bust, where many people get hurt, esp. those who either don't have the income to save, or the ones that do live way beyond their means, so a hiccup in the economy means they lose everything, or almost everything. We need more balance, focus more on getting the "basics" right...


Yup. I think the "hard times" we're having now may well lead to a more responsible generation coming of age soon.

The problem is that the globe has been relying on consumer spending - especially in the US, but evidently in Australia too - to drive the economy. We almost can't allow the US consumer to cut back, or we'll all be in a recession. Well, it is a recession that is bound to come sooner or later. As more and then more of the boomers retire, and the Medicare bills start to rise, and the taxes rise...

Well, hopefully by then global consumption will be ready to take up the slack.


----------



## starthrower

science said:


> You can buy $25 jeans and $25 shoes. Not name brands like Levi's, of course. They're at Walmart, they're imported from China, Mexico, Bangladesh, Vietnam and the Philippines.
> 
> High end stuff like Levi's jeans (or Prada or whatever) does not change prices because of globalization. You pay for a brand name in those cases, not just a product.
> 
> As for automobiles, you can still get pretty good ones for under $20,000 - new. There is of course no reason to buy new cars if your income is below average. And these cars all come with airbags, power locks, air conditioning, anti-lock brakes - all stuff that is more expensive than the default options 30 years ago.
> 
> In terms of the price of basic consumer goods, the poor benefit from globalization pretty well. (Not as well, unfortunately, as CEOs.)
> 
> The problem is that you think from the POV of a producer rather than a consumer. On almost any product there are far more people at the consumption end than at the production end, so any policy that leads to lower prices benefits more people than it hurts.
> 
> Even if you want to consider the production end only, from a humanist perspective rather than a nationalist one, you'd have to say that free trade is really a good thing for the poorest people in the world. Someone somewhere goes from $60/hour to $20/hour, and of course that hurts in a big way (even though everyone else in that person's country benefits), but someone else goes from $.15/hour to $1.50/hour, and begins the long climb out of dire poverty.
> 
> It's not a zero-sum game (except from a relative point-of-view).


Well I've been alive long enough to see the quality of these products go to crap. Yeah, you can buy cheap clothes at Wal-Mart but I don't want that crap. I want quality. On the other hand, I refuse to pay top dollar for goods I know are made in foreign sweat shops because the quality still isn't there and the people making the stuff are paid peanuts. Lets face it, when a company's number one objective is maximum profit, high quality is impossible.

Autos are made like junk today as well. Yes, they come with a bunch of standard equipment but they're not made to last. And no, you can't find too many cars for under 20,000 unless you want to squeeze into a tiny matchbox. If you want a comfortable sedan it's more like 25-30 grand.


----------



## science

starthrower said:


> Well I've been alive long enough to see the quality of these products go to crap. Yeah, you can buy cheap clothes at Wal-Mart but I don't want that crap. I want quality. On the other hand, I refuse to pay top dollar for goods I know are made in foreign sweat shops because the quality still isn't there and the people making the stuff are paid peanuts. Lets face it, when a company's number one objective is maximum profit, high quality is impossible.
> 
> Autos are made like junk today as well. Yes, they come with a bunch of standard equipment but they're not made to last. And no, you can't find too many cars for under 20,000 unless you want to squeeze into a tiny matchbox. If you want a comfortable sedan it's more like 25-30 grand.


We seem to be talking about different things.


----------



## Couchie

science said:


> You can buy $25 jeans and $25 shoes. Not name brands like Levi's, of course. They're at Walmart, they're imported from China, Mexico, Bangladesh, Vietnam and the Philippines.
> 
> High end stuff like Levi's jeans (or Prada or whatever) does not change prices because of globalization. You pay for a brand name in those cases, not just a product.


Clothes are probably the easiest things in the world to save money on because they're seasonal. Hit up the mall during the semiannual blowout clearances when the stores switch over their stocks and it's not difficult to find name brands marked down 50-80%; no need to shop at Walmart. You're crazy if you ever pay full price for any garment.


----------



## science

Here is a nice article incorporating several POVs in the recent discussion here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/02/jobs-report-and-fixing-the-crumbling-market.html



> *Fixing the Job Market
> Sep 2, 2011 10:59 AM EDT
> Despite the shock of Friday's awful jobs data, Zachary Karabell says we've long known that it'd take years of transition and tons of money to cushion the worst effects of a profoundly changed and troubled economy.*
> 
> Another month, another sign that the job market remains unchangingly, distressingly stuck. The official unemployment rate according to just-released figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is at 9.1%, but that fails to capture the weakness of the overall employment picture. The headline number has been essentially unchanged since April - and indeed there has been almost no net job creation for the past year. Underneath that number, however, there is a more confusing - and troubling - picture.
> 
> Over the past year, it's become ever more clear (or at least it should have become ever more clear) that the United States is ossifying into several different economies. One is the Apple economy of high-tech devices, ample discretionary income, and brave new-world giddiness of social media, interconnectedness and burgeoning global commerce. That economy is best captured by what was, until recently, a different jobs report, the "Steve Jobs" of Apple's quarterly earnings (which will presumably become the Cook report from now on).
> 
> The government employment report, however, aka the official jobs report, exposes other realities. That report shows not just 14 million unemployed, but a permanent underclass of underemployed, underpaid, and marginally attached workers. Four million of those 14 have been out of work for more than six months. An additional 2.6 million are "marginally attached" to the labor force, meaning they have looked for work, but not as assiduously as the statisticians have deemed necessary and hence aren't statistically part of the work force. If part-time and discouraged workers are added in, the "real" unemployment rate skyrockets to more than 16 percent.
> 
> These figures are "official" but that doesn't make them gospel. They are the product of not just phone surveys and payroll information, but also of myriad revisions and assumptions about the creation and destruction of new business, seasonal factors, and past trends as they apply to present realities. Hence the reason why these numbers are constantly revised in future reports. On the plus side, the surveys do a poor job capturing the cash and underground economies that undoubtedly provide many with sustenance. On the negative side, they fail to account for the fact that many of the 131 million people who are by official definition "employed" have jobs that barely keep them at the poverty line.
> 
> These reports also create a blended average that obscures vast differences. Unemployment is a massive problem for younger people and younger men, and especially young black men. It is not much of a problem for college educated white women. These truths may be uncomfortable in a society that shies away from honest discussions of race and class, but they come through loud and clear in these reports.
> 
> Unfortunately, the jobs report has become a monthly referendum on not just the health of the American economy but on the political class in Washington. The 2012 election is likely to revolve not around debt or health-care but around employment. In the process, the malaise of the "economy" will be magnified, but the strengths will not. That in turn creates its own negative feedback loop of declining confidence and anxiety, which is that much more of a headwind against moving forward.
> 
> And the fiction that we are all in this together is a further impediment. We have a serious employment problem in the United States that is not a product of economic cycles, but changing economies and global commercial system knit together by technology that privileges capital and only rewards labor if you are in the emerging world. There is an underclass (a word not much used in America since the 1960s) of tens of millions of people in the United States who are on the short end of that stick. Unless that is specifically acknowledged and addressed, "jobs creation" is likely to be a will-o'-the-wisp.
> 
> At the same time, ignoring the fact that a majority of the country is actually doing fine or thriving doesn't help us either. Yes, we live in a body politic, and yes, we cannot claim to be healthy if parts are in dire straits. But a body politic isn't quite an actual body. The ways in which we are economically affluent and strong - and which are indeed reflected in these jobs reports - has to be part of the equation or else we truly will be unable to address the parts that aren't.
> 
> On that score, the affluence of much of the country is a resource. Pleading collective penury - as the Tea Party does - or claiming that the government is broke when interest rates are as low as they've ever been and the world is pouring dollars into U.S. Treasuries is to live in an alternate reality. Companies that are growing 20 percent a year in revenues and sitting on cash have the resources to invest, and government has the ability to spend wisely and constructively to assist that process. But you wouldn't know any of that given how the jobs report is used and analyzed.
> 
> Next week, President Obama will deliver a much-anticipated speech on his plans for jobs creation. The speech will almost certainly be lambasted by the right as too much government and by the left as not enough. But even here, government is a factor, but not the alpha and omega factor that politicians and the political season make us believe. There is no silver-bullet solution to the chronic underemployment of early 21st century America. It is a symptom of a morphing economy and a much more competitive global system. It will require years of transition and money spent somewhere by someone to cushion the worst effects of that for the millions who are caught in that inflection, who cannot magically be retrained and who still need food, clothing and shelter.
> 
> It will require one other element most missing just now: a full recognition of the strengths of a $15 trillion economy, of the vast resources that the U.S. possesses, and of the fact that we are not even close to using that wisely. Shouting about government as the problem and debt as the cause - that is more than distracting. It is leading us down a rabbit hole; we are already a ways down, but it can go much deeper.


----------



## mmsbls

Earlier today I just heard (on TV) or read (books or magazines) probably the 20th economist saying the same thing. We need to use deficit spending to create jobs and grow the economy in the next year or two. After that we should probably reduce the deficit with a combination of taxes (specifically eliminate tax loopholes and lower rates somewhat) and some reduced spending. What amazes me is that essentially no politicians, including Democrats, push this message. Democrats might allude to some of these things, but they almost never explain that almost ALL macroeconomists believe this message. 

It's as though someone has termites in their house, and they talk to lawyers, police, teachers, but not to pest specialists. Even liberal TV rarely has economists on. They prefer their own talking heads. (To be fair I did see 2 economists on MSNBC today - but that is rare). I understand why people do not rely on climate scientists to understand climate change - some do not want to spend money or change habits to "protect the world". But everyone wants the economy to do better. Even sectors that are doing wonderfully, such as energy companies and the financial sector, would generally do better with a better economy.

I know that Republicans must oppose everything Obama thinks so they can defeat one of the greatest threats to the US in its history, but it's still frustrating to watch the experts given so little exposure.


----------



## violadude

mmsbls said:


> Earlier today I just heard (on TV) or read (books or magazines) probably the 20th economist saying the same thing. We need to use deficit spending to create jobs and grow the economy in the next year or two. After that we should probably reduce the deficit with a combination of taxes (specifically eliminate tax loopholes and lower rates somewhat) and some reduced spending. What amazes me is that essentially no politicians, including Democrats, push this message. Democrats might allude to some of these things, but they almost never explain that almost ALL macroeconomists believe this message.
> 
> It's as though someone has termites in their house, and they talk to lawyers, police, teachers, but not to pest specialists. Even liberal TV rarely has economists on. They prefer their own talking heads. (To be fair I did see 2 economists on MSNBC today - but that is rare). I understand why people do not rely on climate scientists to understand climate change - some do not want to spend money or change habits to "protect the world". But everyone wants the economy to do better. Even sectors that are doing wonderfully, such as energy companies and the financial sector, would generally do better with a better economy.
> 
> I know that Republicans must oppose everything Obama thinks so they can defeat one of the greatest threats to the US in its history, but it's still frustrating to watch the experts given so little exposure.


I agree, news on TV (on both sides) is a joke these days. At least it is in America.


----------



## science

Forgive me. I won't post the whole article just because it'd start to seem like spamming the thread, but here's a good one on the Republicans vs. Democrats (again) theme:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830?print=true



> *The GOP War on Voting
> In a campaign supported by the Koch brothers, Republicans are working to prevent millions of Democrats from voting next year
> by: Ari Berman*
> 
> As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots.


Etc.

The big picture: Since democracy demands progressive taxation to support a welfare state, some powerful people would like a little less democracy.


----------



## starthrower

science said:


> The big picture: Since democracy demands progressive taxation to support a welfare state, some powerful people would like a little less democracy.


Especially the ones who own Lear Jets. They don't have to drive on crappy roads and dilapitated bridges, or send their kids to public schools. Hey, no investment, no return. Lets let the whole country fall apart so the rich can keep more money they'll never spend.


----------



## science




----------



## starthrower

Ahhhh, yes! The politics of deceit. Unfortunately, most people will never have things explained to them articulately, such as in that YouTube clip. They'll just listen to the lies on TV. And under the umbrella of the welfare state we must include the military industrial complex. We've painted ourselves into a corner and we can't get out! Ike's warning fell on deaf ears.


----------



## science

starthrower, in the next decade or so we'll face a moment of truth. There will be a populist revolt -- hopefully through the ballot, not violence -- and we'll see whether freedom/democracy wins, or wealth/authoritarianism wins. For the last 30 years, wealth/authoritarianism has made great strides, and now they think they've got a realistic shot at dismantling Social Security (while profiting from it of course) and Medicare. They think they can set us back politically to the 1920s, but I think if they succeed we'll be set back to the 1670s. 

I suspect the ruling classes of the west believe they can emulate those of China. We'll see. We'll also see if China's rulers are correct. Perhaps the age of democracy is coming to an end - as it always has. 

Or perhaps this is just the darkness before a new dawn.


----------



## starthrower

My feeling is that things will turn violent if the people really push the issue. That's exactly what has happened in the past. Earlier this year I read the 20th century edition of Howard Zinn's The People's History Of The United States. Call him a leftist commie if you want, put Zinn documented one instance after another in America where the ruling class responded with brutal force and oppression towards working people who organized, demanded concessions, and staged massive strikes. All with the blessing of political leaders.

As far as the people effecting change through the ballot, I don't know how much headway can be made with such pathetically low and uninformed participation. The tea party folks fancied themselves to be making some headway in 2010, but all they did was shoot themselves in the foot.

It may never come to that, and things most likely will play out differently than in the past. I wish I could believe it was the darkness before the dawn, but I don't see any light coming up from the horizon.


----------

