Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5471  
Old 12-07-12, 14:33
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
It's exactly about checks and balances. Obama declared yesterday that with respect with the debt ceiling raise, "I'm not going to play that game." He said it at least twice to the BRT breakfast meeting. If I'm in congress on either side I'm thinking to myself... " uh, yeah, you're gonna have to work with us because that is how our system is set up... at least for now."
Please. You are aware that the Pres can't spend a dime, right? Anyway, we all know what it's really about.

Quote:
Conservatives certainly want it to serve that purpose, particularly as a tool to gut social programs they deplore. But that’s not what they’re telling the public, and what they’re telling the public is false.
Yep.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2....php?ref=fpblg
Reply With Quote
  #5472  
Old 12-07-12, 14:34
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
It's simple Scott, (but also for this reason unfathomable with the world's governments we actually have) legislate so that off-shore tax havens are illegal. Human behavior has got nothing to do with it, while shameful politics does. Why don't they do this? An interesting prospective was offered by my old Italian (as in septuagenarian) friend, who thinks we need to lessen the free-market trade incentives, by taxing the hell out of imported goods. Rebuild local economies and reestablish local cultures, in other words: i.e. globalization is not a fortuitous economic project for the masses. Now I don’t know if he’s right, but I appreciate the non-conformist mentality in a man of his age, in questioning what has come to be simply perceived as the implacable destiny of human civilization.

At least 50 million are without any form of health coverage. 47 million on food stamps. Is that by design? I have no idea, though starving to death aint pretty and neither is dying in the superpower for a banal cause. "By design" indeed, the question though is by whose?



So you pull up some lame chart as evidence to prove me wrong, which though indicates zero, at least nothing of value. Per pupil in which district? What is the distribution of such expences, because I'm sure such sums are not being spent on students in the Chicago slums? You're real good with "facts," however reality escapes you.

To that issue considering how finance has grown exponentially in recent decades, for which unconscionable sums of cash are generated – tens and hundreds of billions – and also extinguished each day at the stock market, I figure the spread between what was being spent on each student in America back in the 60’s and that which is being spent today should be at least ten times greater. But I don’t know. While I don’t believe that just throwing money into the system is a panacea capable of “curing” what ails US public education today, if not accompanied by a fortuitous cultural shift that places value in a system of collective education at the public’s service, which doesn’t discriminate against low income families (this is what I take to mean “progressive” democratic civilization, which by contrast you view as “penalizing” the already privileged wealthy). For this very discriminatory reason, I could never ideologically approve of the right’s call for a radical privatization of education. I realize though that mine, in light of today’s neoliberal regime, smacks of chimerical utopia; however, the money invested in each emerging citizen’s education does indicate where a state’s priorities lie. Instead how much is spent on each missile?



No, a "worker" has been placed in the cage that was built for him. Getting out is naturally doable, for a few that is. However, my point was that the system has been cast terribly out of balance, to place undue advantages for the top wage earners. All the statistics regareding the distribution of wealth among Americans of the upper, middle and lower classes since the 70's demonstrate this. While, yes, nobody forced workers to borrow, though it wasn't as if they had a choice either.

It was rather a new "mechanism" of finance that, quite unbeknownst to them, was foisted upon workers, at the moment when liberalism was not far from achieving its clamorous victory over unionized labor. At the same time, where is it written that massive financialization of the consumer market was the only applicable solution? Certain institutionalized edifices appear to have been established as if by Divine edict; however, we tend to forget that they are merely human constructs out of a host of possibilities. The important thing is to realize what interests were behind the choices that were made at the time, over those that have been negated.Your gun analogy can thus also be formulated within context of another direction: as in to whose head would it be held.



Well it’s about "social equality," which in reality has got nothing to do with "income inequality." This means that each has the same rights, irrespective of one's income, as regards access to a decent education, medical care, etc. The rich make all the money they want, but why has the fiscal income been so horrendously managed by the state? Why can't they be made to pay their fair share without the right screaming bloody "socialism" and why do the fiscal paradises even exist as an anti-social incentive for them to exploit? I've already stated what my and your idea about progressive society means, which in their diametrical antithesis can never be reconciled. Why, though, does society, which has paid so much into the State, get so little from it in return; to say nothing about why it has been forced to pay for the foibles of the banks under the mandate of those same legislators it voted into office? Why have the lobbyists been able to highjack this democracy? So, again, the system has gotten horribly out of balance, but why can't we render the economy more democratic? Everything has been horribly managed, Scott, and in the interests of those who have the most to profit from such a mismanagement condition. My questions are of course rhetorical. In the meantime the social malaise around these parts is consequently destined to become more acute. Sounds great.
Quote:
It's simple Scott, (but also for this reason unfathomable with the world's governments we actually have) legislate so that off-shore tax havens are illegal. Human behavior has got nothing to do with it, while shameful politics does.
A couple of posts back you were talking about greed. That's human behavior. At certain points people will resist the rate at which they are taxed (confiscation of their labor) and respond negatively to a lack of incentive. It's a very simply understood fact. If not offshore accounts it will be something else. The govt can't force people to create wealth... or attempt to. The question is and always has been, where is the point that's most efficient. Maximum revenue still providing incentive for people to go out and get things accomplished.

Quote:
i.e. globalization is not a fortuitous economic project for the masses. Now I don’t know if he’s right, but I appreciate the non-conformist mentality in a man of his age, in questioning what has come to be simply perceived as the implacable destiny of human civilization.
I can appreciate this too. It's almost 'conservative' in its sentiment. The problem is this genie is long since out of the bottle.

Quote:
So you pull up some lame chart as evidence to prove me wrong, which though indicates zero, at least nothing of value. Per pupil in which district? What is the distribution of such expences, because I'm sure such sums are not being spent on students in the Chicago slums? You're real good with "facts," however reality escapes you.
We both agree the American public education system is failing our kids and has for some time. You think the problem is funding. That ain't it.

Quote:
No, a "worker" has been placed in the cage that was built for him. Getting out is naturally doable, for a few that is. However, my point was that the system has been cast terribly out of balance, to place undue advantages for the top wage earners. All the statistics regareding the distribution of wealth among Americans of the upper, middle and lower classes since the 70's demonstrate this. While, yes, nobody forced workers to borrow, though it wasn't as if they had a choice either.
Worker had choices in the 70's just as they do now. People at the top are out of balance but then show me a time in history when that was not true. People have choice. Paying attention in school, not getting involved with riff raff, don't have kids before you can provide for them, getting married. People have choices, they just don't always make good ones.

Quote:
Well it’s about "social equality," which in reality has got nothing to do with "income inequality." This means that each has the same rights, irrespective of one's income, as regards access to a decent education, medical care, etc. The rich make all the money they want, but why has the fiscal income been so horrendously managed by the state?
In California, there are about 300,000 tax filers supporting 37,000,000 people. And yet, we just passed a law that increases their State income tax about 25%. We are asking more and more from fewer and fewer. At this rate there will not be very many at the top, at least in Cali and we will have that social equality you are looking for. It's take the top down for you, not bring the bottom up.

Quote:
Why, though, does society, which has paid so much into the State, get so little from it in return;
Because the State is horribly inefficient in most endeavors. Which makes running to the State for things like well run healthcare a huge mistake. But, that genie is now out of the bottle too.

Quote:
So, again, the system has gotten horribly out of balance, but why can't we render the economy more democratic?
Because doing so provides too much incentive for people to do nothing and not enough for people to do something. Basic human nature.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"

Last edited by Scott SoCal; 12-07-12 at 18:49.
Reply With Quote
  #5473  
Old 12-07-12, 14:39
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post

The new normal, eh? Looking good.

146000 jobs does not keep up with population increases, but why quibble.

What was it, another 500,000 people fell off the U-6? Aren't even counted anymore.

Yeah, it looks good.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5474  
Old 12-07-12, 14:42
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Please. You are aware that the Pres can't spend a dime, right? Anyway, we all know what it's really about.

Yep.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2....php?ref=fpblg

Some blowhard's opinion as fact, eh? You could have written that yourself and saved me some time.

So, I'm curious, what did BO means when he said "I'm not going to play that game...", can you help me here?
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5475  
Old 12-07-12, 14:45
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Some blowhard's opinion as fact, eh? You could have written that yourself and saved me some time.

So, I'm curious, what did BO means when he said "I'm not going to play that game...", can you help me here?
Interesting how things change.

June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”

May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.

November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.

March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.

September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

Maybe the Rs should've voted "nay" at some point during the Bush years, eh? I think it's pretty clear that the Rs new-found concern with the deficits and debt etc is purely political.

Last edited by VeloCity; 12-07-12 at 14:48.
Reply With Quote
  #5476  
Old 12-07-12, 14:47
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
The new normal, eh? Looking good.

146000 jobs does not keep up with population increases, but why quibble.

What was it, another 500,000 people fell off the U-6? Aren't even counted anymore.

Yeah, it looks good.
Compared to the Bush years and what your guys left Obama to work with, yep, looking pretty damn good and only going to get better.
Reply With Quote
  #5477  
Old 12-07-12, 14:49
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,467
Default

Meanwhile, Bernanke has completely lost the plot.

Quote:
The Fed is already buying $40 billion a month in mortgage- backed securities to boost the economy, and policy makers meeting Dec. 11-12 will consider whether to purchase more assets. John Williams, president of the San Francisco Fed, has proposed adding $45 billion of Treasury Securities per month.

Quote:
Under the exit strategy, the Fed would start selling bonds in mid-2015 in a bid to return its holdings to pre-crisis proportions in two to three years. An accelerated buildup of assets would also mean a faster pace of sales when the time comes to exit -- increasing the risk that a jump in interest rates would crush the economic recovery.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...-trillion.html


House of cards, eh Velo. Gonna blame this on Bush too?
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5478  
Old 12-07-12, 14:51
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Interesting how things change.

June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”

May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.

November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.

March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.

September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

Maybe the Rs should've voted "nay" at some point during the Bush years, eh? I think it's pretty clear that the Rs new-found concern with the deficits and debt etc is purely political.
Maybe you can tell everybody here when the last time congress failed to raise the debt limit? Maybe you can also explain the difference between 'billions' and 'trillions'? Thanks.
__________________
"It makes no sense. Fire the electorate let the people speak for themselves"
Reply With Quote
  #5479  
Old 12-07-12, 15:12
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Maybe you can tell everybody here when the last time congress failed to raise the debt limit?
Rs sure raised a fuss last time, didn't they? And threatening to raise a fuss next time, too. And yet, don't you find it just a bit odd that the same folks now raising a fuss and holler about the who...

Quote:
Maybe you can also explain the difference between 'billions' and 'trillions'? Thanks.
...had no problem raising the debt limit by almost $6 trillion over ~6 years during the '00s? McConnell and Co voted for it every time. Every single time. Didn't even raise a fuss. Why, one might suspect that the Rs aren't really concerned about the deficit, debt, governing, or really the country at all but are just trying to embarrass their own President and score some political points.

btw I didn't even realize that I left out the end of the Bush years. Here's the whole list. Under Bush the debt ceiling increased:

by $450 billion to $6.4 trillion in June 2002;
by $984 billion to $7.384 trillion 11 months later, in May 2003;
by $800 billion to $8.184 trillion 18 months later, in November 2004;
by $781 billion to $8.965 trillion 16 months later, in March 2006;
by $850 billion to $9.815 trillion 18 months later, in September 2007;
by $800 billion to $10.615 trillion 10 months later, in July 2008;
by $700 billion to $11.315 trillion three months later, in October 2008.

Up 90% in 6 years. One would think that you guys would be outraged and calling out McConnell and Ryan and the rest of the R leadership for being such profligate spenders, eh? Yet not a peep back then from you cons. What changed, Scott?
Reply With Quote
  #5480  
Old 12-07-12, 15:20
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Some blowhard's opinion as fact, eh? You could have written that yourself and saved me some time.
OK. How's this?

All this doomsday talk about deficits and debt and spending by conservatives is simply cover for what they really want, an excuse to gut the social programs they deplore because, in their view of the world, the only people on "welfare" are the "dependent" and "lazy". So, to paraphrase Paul Ryan, it would be "morally" good for them if we cut them off. Which is simply another way of saying that conservatives are mostly full of **** - it's not the deficits that bother them, it's the social programs themselves that they want ended. If it were really the deficit, then they'd be including defense spending cuts in with "entitlement" cuts. But they don't - it's only entitlements.


Quote:
So, I'm curious, what did BO means when he said "I'm not going to play that game...", can you help me here?
Sure. Elections have consequences. The balls in the R's court. The majority of the American electorate chose Obama's vision for the future, not the Rs. So Obama doesn't have to play the Rs game anymore, because no matter what happens, the Rs will be blamed. The R's, to their credit, recognize and to some extent have accepted that, but they weren't expecting it and now have no idea what to do.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:49.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.