A nation in denial -- Tuesday's open thread
A nation in denial -- Tuesday's open thread
I’m starting the new year with the sinking feeling that important opportunities are slipping from the nation’s grasp. Our collective consciousness tends to obsess indiscriminately over one or two issues — the would-be bomber on the flight into Detroit, the Tiger Woods saga — while enormous problems that should be engaged get short shrift.
That's Bob Herbert, who really emerged over the last couple of years as our national voice of reason; unfortunately reason is a very, very scary place in 2010. Here's the reality based world that we're trying so desperately to avoid as we focus on other things:
This is a society in deep, deep trouble and the fixes currently in the works are in no way adequate to the enormous challenges we’re facing. For example, an end to the mantra of monthly job losses would undoubtedly be welcomed. But even if the economy manages to create a few hundred thousand new jobs a month, it would do little to haul us from the unemployment pit dug for us by the Great Recession. We need to create more than 10 million new jobs just to get us back to where we were when the recession began in December 2007.
What’s needed are big new innovative efforts to fashion an economy that creates jobs for all who want and need to work. Just getting us back in fits and starts over the next few years to where we were when the recession began should not be acceptable to anyone. We should be moving now to invest aggressively in a new, greener economy, leading the world in the development of alternative fuels, advanced transportation networks and the effort to restrain the poisoning of the planet. We should be developing an industrial policy that emphasizes the need for America to regain its manufacturing mojo, as tough as that might seem, and we need to rebuild our infrastructure.
Socialism? Hardly. As Philly homeboy Atrios points out today, we already do manage the living daylights out of the U.S. economy, but we do it rather stupidly and unfairly. This is our real war -- against joblessness-- and it's good to think about the current rise in spending that way; we had to invest billions to save the planet during World War II and it was paid back in the prosperous decades that followed; it may not be possible for a lot of reason to exactly duplicate the economy of the 1950s but we do need a second "Greatest Generation" to step up here.
Remember, this is an open thread so all topics are on the table, even Swify's never-ending review of "Exile on Main Street." Someone needs to talk me off of the Eagles' ledge and convince me to at least watch this game on Saturday night.
Comments (136)
Will, if you want to free up the economy, then you can't have it centrally managed. To believe that any set of bureaucrats have the knowledge to set us on the "right" course is insane. Innovation comes from spontaneous order, allow people to take risks and launch new businesses. Lower taxes, cut regulations and barriers to entry. Allow capital to flow freely. "Managing" an economy will lead to the government pickign winners, undoubtedly due to the clout they have via lobbying. Expecting anything else is foolish.— RG
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- Bob Herbert- "national voice of reason." Yet Limbaugh is a far right radical.......strange.....— Manny Trillo
Will, watch the Eagles Saturday night (really have have something better to do???). Either way it is a happy ending - either the Cowboys go winless in the playoffs for - I don't know a long time - or you get to watch the final game of the McNabb era. I don't think the Eagles have had more than 1 home playoff game since their Super Bowl year - that is losing Jeffrey money so someone has to go and they already extended Reid.— bird11- RG: You've made an unqualified statement that lowering taxes and cutting regulations and barriers to entry is the way to ensure prosperity. A logical interpretation of this statement is that you believe we would do best with no taxes and no regulation at all - and I'm going to run with that interpretation for a moment. Consider the pharmaceutical industry, or what passed for it, circa 1890. There was little regulation and few or no barriers to entry; any quack could mix up a batch of ingredients and label it as a sovereign remedy for (insert malady here). The obvious shortcomings of this situation led to the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906 and eventually to the establishment of the FDA to regulate it. It's harder now to break into the drug industry, but I'd argue that as a society we're better off as a result. Now if you're willing to admit that in certain industries some regulation is good, then we can discuss what the proper balance is. I know we're not going to agree on that; I, for one, think that health care is an area of the economy that will be better managed by the government than it would be even by a heavily deregulated private sector (and frankly, I really don't want to know what health care looks like with minimal government regulation). I also would like to see some re-regulation of the banking and securities-trading sectors. Your thoughts?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
Wouldn't it be nice if those that want to work, and those that want to hire can do so without having to worry about the federal government dictating the terms of the agreement, and continuously threatening to change the conditions under which that agreement is reached?— Mr. Smith- bill atk.: How do you find it convenient to think about the deficits we ran under George W. Bush? What about the Reagan-era deficits? Do you just go with Dick Cheney's line that "Deficits don't matter; Reagan proved it"?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "It's harder now to break into the drug industry, but I'd argue that as a society we're better off as a result." Why? Market share is consolidated and competition is limited. The FDA regulations also leads to higher drug prices. They also slow down life saving drugs from hitting the market. Why can't we trust people to make their own decisions? As for health care, they run medicare which has trillions in unfunded liabilities. Why would it be any different when they insure everyone? "I also would like to see some re-regulation of the banking and securities-trading sectors" what deregulation caused the current crisis? The government was aware of CDOs and CDS, they actively promoted their use through Fannie and Freddie, two quasi gov agencies that will cost taxpayers billions.— RG
- Mr. Smith. Realistically, if the federal (or perhaps the state) government doesn't set some guidelines for the employment agreement, then does not the employer dictate the agreement to the (usually much less powerful) employee? Unless, of course, the employee is unionized, and then we've opened up a whole 'nother can of worms.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "then does not the employer dictate the agreement to the (usually much less powerful) employee?" How can the government possibly be the best arbiter of a fair wage? What inherent knowledge do they have on supply-demand forces for labor? The minimum wages prices out people who would be willing to work for less. Its a price control on labor, and similar to the nonsense the gov did with crops during the depression.— RG
- Want jobs? don't "manage" the market or pick which industries we "should" be "investing aggressively" in, but open it up to entrepreneurs with great ideas and allow them to reap profits from their risk taking.... THAT's how you create jobs.— Bud Fox
- Will, it IS socialism. there is no market for "efforts to restrain the poisoning of the planet" when you force people to pay for things they dotn want or need, yes thast socialism— TR
- In response to RG: "Why can't we trust people to make their own decisions?" I'd like to ask that question of the fine folks at Countrywide Financial, or perhaps at Goldman Sachs. "What deregulation caused the current crisis?" The repeal of Glass-Steagall comes to mind, and while that admittedly occurred during the Clinton administration, the repealing legislation was introduced by Republican Senators Gramm, Leach, and Bliley. Also, the SEC, by every account I've read, was rather supine during the GWB administration. As for your stated skepticism about FDA regulations, you're welcome to try mixing up and administering to yourself one of the 19th century patent medicines, but I don't intend to help you locate any recipes.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "I'd like to ask that question of the fine folks at Countrywide Financial, or perhaps at Goldman Sachs." The government bailed out many institutions, so they never had to take responsibility. The government is also trying to bail out homeowners, delaying the foreclosures, but not ultimately avoiding them. in other words, they are encouraging over extended borrowers to throw more money in a hole, instead of selling. "The repeal of Glass-Steagall comes to mind," What did this have to do with anything? Citi had an exemption to this rule and became a mix of investments and banking before GS was repealed. GS would have blocked the mergers that saved some firms after the crisis hit. In other words, more firms would have failed if GS was still around. "you're welcome to try mixing up and administering to yourself one of the 19th century patent medicines" Why would i do this?— RG
- Comment removed.
- To go further in debunking the Glass Steagal meme, Lehman and Bear Stearns never took advantage of the repeal, and weren't backed by commerical deposits. both still failed. Europes banks never separated deposits and investments.— RG
So the answer to our problems is the liberal agenda? New decade, same old liberals. Talk about denial.— jmc- Yo, Batty, the reason the Republicans look like spendthrifts next to the Democrats is because...they were! You should try looking up the actual meaning of these big words before you use them in sentences...— Yersinia Pestis
- "The minimum wage prices out people who are willing to work for less." We currently have people in this country who are not only willing to work for less, but they actually do. They're called illegal immigrants. Repeal the minimum wage, and do you not end up with American citizens living the way illegal immigrants do now? "What did [the repeal of Glass-Steagal] have to do with anything?" It made it easier for banks like Citi to reach the size where they posed a systemic threat to the economy (i.e. became "too big to [be allowed to] fail"). "The government bailed out many institutions, so they never had to take responsibility." Yeah, I'm still mad about that too. My hope - and yes, it's easier said than done - is that smart regulation will prevent us getting to that point of having to intervene again with our tax dollars. Finally, why would you take a 19th century patent medicine? Because in the deregulated world you envision, such medicines would be inexpensive and plentiful.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Comment removed.
- Billy Ray, it was actually kinda cool to see you, RG and others have a civil debate without the usual, "dems did this, R's did that" blame game. i was learning something from both arguments. However, in your last post you brought up Glass Steagal and you had to throw in it was Repub legislation, thus showing your true colors. I actually thought this wasnt going to be a partisan argument, silly me.— TR
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "Repeal the minimum wage, and do you not end up with American citizens living the way illegal immigrants do now?" You mean working instead of on unemployment or welfare? Doesn't sound so bad to me. If we wanted to raise the standard of living, why not raise the min wage to $25? People would have more to spend and the magic multiplier would kick in! "It made it easier for banks like Citi to reach the size where they posed a systemic threat to the economy (i.e. became "too big to [be allowed to] fail")." Citi had already merged before the repeal. They were too big to fail because the government said so. They were handed a virtual blank check for their poor decisions.— RG
- "My hope - and yes, it's easier said than done - is that smart regulation will prevent us getting to that point of having to intervene again with our tax dollars." I wish I shared your optimism, but regulations, security measures, etc often fight the last battle, because no one knows what the future holds. Meanwhile, they often raise costs and have other unintended consequences. The best way to regulate behavior is informed consumers. The SEC, FDIC, etc provide a false sense of security. They cleared Madoff, and he used that to lure in new investors.— RG
- TR: Thanks for the kudos, and yes, you do have a point: it shouldn't be all about supporting one's own party and blaming the other guys. That said, I disagree that preferring one party over the other and saying so automatically lowers the civility index. Self-identifying Republicans and Democrats ought to be able at least to talk to each other and enjoy the experience (and yes, I do enjoy speaking to RG, who's just about always thoughtful and on point). As for your last point about the minimum wage, RG, I agree: raising the minimum wage to $25 would be ludicrous. Just about as ludicrous as a 1% top income tax rate and the abolition of the FDA. Now between those two illogical extremes, where shall we set the balance? Bill atk.: Are you bill at in disguise? I was almost about to believe that you were someone entirely different and perhaps even someone worth engaging until that cheap shot about "The Sloth's Cheap Illegal Labor Supply." The ad hominem argument of dubious veracity and nonexistent bearing on the conversation at hand is classic bill at.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Now between those two illogical extremes, where shall we set the balance?" At some arbitrary point that the government decides. Seriously, thats what happens now. I just don't get the idea that knowledge has to be concentrated. Only a handful of bureaucrats and not a wide range of voluntary market actors can set wage prices. And think about some reprecussions. Walmart loved the recent hike, they knew competitors couldn't afford to pay that amount, while they could. Min wage is another barrier to entry for start ups or smaller companies.— RG
- Just remember that the government that the marginalized minority thinks can't even maintain a traffic light is the Only Thing That Can Possibly Save Us From The Islamofascicommiebruls. Flushing money down the Iraqi toilet? Absolutely essential for the Hate Americans Firsters. Providing quality health care to our fellow Americans? Unpossible. Heckuva job, swifty...— E.Plebnista
- Comment removed.
- bill atk's point has some veracity. TPS argues constantly against free amrket fetishists, but admiitedly used illegal labor because of the price. Its a wildly hypocritical stance, using, rightfully imo, the free market to benefit yourself, but deriding it when it benefits others.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Herbert wants to toughen up regulations that will stop "poisoning the planet" and calls for the return of American manufacturing in the same paragraph. WTF????? What does he think drove American manufacturing away in the first place? Enviornmental regulation!!!!!!! And why does everyone seem to think the great green revolution is going to save America? I'm still waiting to see it.— tjm333126
- ----} bill atk's point has some veracity. TPS argues constantly against free amrket fetishists, but admiitedly used illegal labor because of the price. {--- LOL! I hired someone as an independent contractor and paid him a good wage - more than triple the minimum wage. I was under no obligation to ask him for proof of his citizenship and had no proof of his citizenship. (Just as I was under no obligation to withhold employment taxes.) Nice try, RG. Don't let the facts get in the way of your reasoning.— Talking point sleuth
- Countless people died for years because the "free market" allowed hucksters to market toxic snake oil for the sake of a profit. But clearly, we are far worse off because a federal agency holds crooks accountable for deliberately marketing deadly products.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- ---} Because if you knew they were illegals and employed them anyway.... {--- After the fact he told me that he crossed the border illegally so he could find work to support his kids. He wasn't my "employee," he was an independent contractor. Keep trying, batboy.— Talking point sleuth
- Some people seems to have a question about what is legal and illegal when hiring an illegal alien. "The following is an overview of federal law on hiring and harboring illegal aliens. It is not a substitute for professional legal counsel in specific situations. Summary A person (including a group of persons, business, organization or local government) commits a federal felony when he: assists an alien whom he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment, encourages that alien to remain in the U.S., by referring him to an employer, by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions."— bird11
- Comment removed.
- --snip-- Employment includes any service or labor performed for any type of remuneration within the United States, with the exception of sporadic domestic service by an individual in a private home. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- ---} Are you suggesting it is legal to pay an independent contractor that you know is an illegal, but not an employee? {--- I had no foreknowledge that he was in this country illegally. I paid him well, as an independent contractor, for a two hours work of work. He wasn't my "employee."— Talking point sleuth
- tps, "feeding his family" is a lame excuse. Everybody wants to feed their family. birdy, tps does say "after the fact". You've been at it for years, and it's gone nowhere.— SteveMG
- Comment removed.
- Sorry, batboy. Unlike you, I don't assume that everyone who speaks Spanish is an illegal alien.— Talking point sleuth
- "In general, services of a household nature in or about a private home include services performed by cooks, waiters, butlers, housekeepers, governessess, maids, valets, baby sitters, janitors, laundresses, furnacemen, caretakers, handymen, gardeners, footmen, grooms, and chauffeurs of automobiles for family use."— bird11
- Luckily for TPS, vertigo is covered by Obamacare.— RG
- Read the exception, birdie. It's from your site. LOL! Attytood toadies, stealing from their employers by spending their work time googling like mad to try to prove I broke the law. Because, you know, they care so little about my opinions. ARts and logic - never the twain shall meet.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- TPS - all I posted was the applicable laws since there seemed to be some debate as to what was legal or illegal in the practice of hiring illegal aliens. I made no comment on your specific practices on this post. Possibly this link can be of help to you http://www.lyricsfreak.com/k/kinks/destroyer_20078967.html— bird11
- Comment removed.
- Let's see if Mr. Hope and Change keeps his WORD........"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008."...............THE GULLIBLE LIBERALS FELL FOR THIS FAST TALKING CAR SALESMAN.— Manny Trillo
- ---} Basically, if you found out that someone you hired to perform any task was here illegally, whether they were full-time, part time, or temporary (independent contractor qualifies as temporary) then you need to verify eligibility to work in the US. {---- I found out after the fact that he was here illegally, and never hired him again. Google might have to shut down with all this ARt activity - all because of the hope I could end up in prison. I guess being humiliated so many times for making so many inane posts has really gotten to you boyz.— Talking point sleuth
- ---} He also said that it is the hirer's responsibility to do this in the first place, {---- Just so I know the law when they come with the handcuffs, or at least for future reference, bryanc - am I required to ask anyone that I might hire, once, for a couple of hours of work, whether or not they are eligible to work in this country - or just people who speak Spanish?— Talking point sleuth
- "am I required to ask anyone that I might hire, once, for a couple of hours of work, whether or not they are eligible to work in this country - or just people who speak Spanish?" I dunno TPS, you're the statist who favors complex regulations and believes in the authority and wisdom of government that writes them.— RG
- ----} dunno TPS, you're the statist who favors complex regulations and believes in the authority and wisdom of government that writes them. {---- Good point, RG. So then, since you want to abolish government and live in your fantasy land of the perfect "free market," should we assume that you are against any regulation of citizenship status or employment? I have no illusions about the "wisdom" of the people elected to office. However, for all its imperfections, I greatly prefer living in a country founded on the principles of democracy. When you find that perfect Shangri-La, where people are allowed to market toxic products at a profit, but choose not to do so because you say they shouldn't do so, please let me know.— Talking point sleuth
- Clearly requiring documentation from only one group be that based on color, gender, religish beliefs or native language could be viewed as discrminatory - I would suggest that anyone hiring anyone require documentation from that potential employee.— bird11
- ---} I would suggest that anyone hiring anyone require documentation from that potential employee. {--- So, you think that if some kid comes to your house and offers to shovel your snow for a fee (and you're just so tired out from shoveling snow because of all that "global cooling,"), you will ask him for verification of eligibility to work?— Talking point sleuth
- "and live in your fantasy land of the perfect "free market,"" Repeated strawman. The free market isnt perfect, but it allows freedom, choice, and responsibility. "I greatly prefer living in a country founded on the principles of democracy." Ah, yes, a system in which when one side wins, they can call it a mandate and wage war/pass health care, despite opposition from large chunks of the population.— RG
- "When you find that perfect Shangri-La, where people are allowed to market toxic products at a profit," This really does expose the shallowness of your thought. How can one profit in the long term if they kill their customers? Its not really a viable business plan. We know you hate the "fat cats" , but tone down the paranoia. Not every entrepenuer is trying to kill you.— RG
- Shocking, government propping up a bubble. After screaming at Wall St for extending risky loans, the government has encouraged low interest rates and more home buyers. Can you say cognitive dissonance? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34704789/ns/business-real_estate/— RG
- TPS - if you want to obey the law to the letter I would have to answer yes to that - you might also want that documentation because it is also illegal to anyone under the age of 14 and with all that winter gear on it may be difficult to determine age. And TPS since adhering to these laws is so important I'll remind you that children age 14 and 15 can only work 4 hours per day - I have no idea how long it takes to shovel Casa TPS - and they can not work between the hours of 7pm and 7am. Better safe than sorry.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- ---} I have no idea how long it takes to shovel Casa TPS - {--- Just bought a snowblower. My driveway is a b*tch, and I'm expecting heavy snow for the foreseeable future - "global cooling" and all. Thanks for the tips, birdie. Next time that kid rings my bell at 6:00 AM to ask to rake my leaves, I'll be sure to tell him I'm legally forbidden from doing so.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- TPS - I hope the kid already raked the leaves for this year. After a snow fall like we had in December if the leaves are still on the ground it can really have an adverse effect on your lawn for the following spring.— bird11
- "if the leaves are still on the ground it can really have an adverse effect on your lawn for the following spring." How so? just moved to a new house with a fair sized lawn. Leaves all over the place. Between the holidays, weather etc, I havent had time to rake/mulch the leaves. Plus, I need to buy or borrow a lawnmower.— RG
- --} How can one profit in the long term if they kill their customers? Its not really a viable business plan. {-- LOL! You got me on that one, RG. Knowingly marketing toxic substances before FDA regulations never happened- because companies realized it wasn't a good long-term business plan. Talk about Shangri-La! Obviously, knowingly marketing toxic substances still happens. But check out the record of the meat processing industry under the Bush and Clinton administrations. Clinton's administration was also influenced by the meat industry lobby - but under Bush's mantra of the benefits of deregulation, a decline in regulation lead to more toxic meat being marketed. Funny, I guess the meat processing industry didn't get that memo about long-term profits, RG.— Talking point sleuth
- I don't have a lawn, birdie. I'd rather read batboy's posts than mow grass. My property is full of plants, and protect them through the winter. No more raking until spring anyway.— Talking point sleuth
- sorry - should have typed ".... and leaves protect them...."— Talking point sleuth
- "But check out the record of the meat processing industry under the Bush and Clinton administrations." Yeah, gov agencies gave the a-ok for the meat to be sold, giving false security to consumers. And they even let it be sold to schools for the lunch program. Keeop believing in government solutions, though.— RG
- RG don't know the whys and hows but if you leave your lawn leaf covered over the winter you tend to get very spotty grass in the spring. I might not be the best person to seek advice from on this one - I had the big lawn for a decade and hated it. Happiest day of my life was when I moved back to Center City and gave every rake, shovel, hedge clipper, lawn mover, etc to my friend.— bird11
- ---} Yeah, gov agencies gave the a-ok for the meat to be sold, giving false security to consumers. {--- Like I said, RG. Democracy is an imperfect system, but it is better than the alternative. Clinton sold out to lobbyists also. There was a circle-jerk between his administration and the defense industry, for example. But the fact remains, less regulation under Bush's administration - in service of the "free market is Nivana," "de-regulation solves all worries" mantra - resulted in more toxic meat being marketed. Because, you know, the meat processing industry didn't get your memo about the long-term drawbacks of making hundreds of millions from selling bad meat.— Talking point sleuth
- thanks bird. my father in law knows this stuff and hasnt said anything yet. I've got woods in my back yard, and it was a foreclosure, so it wasnt inhabited for awhile. I need a weekend with decent weather and no family events.— RG
- "Because, you know, the meat processing industry didn't get your memo about the long-term drawbacks of making hundreds of millions from selling bad meat." Bad meat given government approval, so the consumers aren't aware. Ahh, the false sense of security. And its not like th meat was poisoned. Ammonia was used to kill off ecoli, etc but it had a bad smell, so they cut back. the ammonia processed was originally used by the gov because it was the cheapest.— RG
- ---} Bad meat given government approval, so the consumers aren't aware. {--- And the less government regulated, the more bad meat was sold. ---} Ammonia was used to kill off ecoli, etc but it had a bad smell, so they cut back. {--- Right. And companies made the decision to risk lives for the sake of profit. Thanks for proving your point about how companies self-regulate because of their conviction about long term profits. How anyone can still believe in the myth of the regulatory effects of long-term profits - after the past few decades where company after company made decisions purely on short-term profitability - is beyond me.— Talking point sleuth
- RG - my sympathies. Some people really enjoy the lawn work stuff and I hope you are one of them because if you're not it sucks. You did bring a big smile to my face, however. Any post that mentions father-in-law and lawn work together makes me so happy I no longer have either.— bird11
- "And companies made the decision to risk lives for the sake of profit." Profits derived from the government who was both their regulator and top consumer for the school lunches program.— RG
- "Some people really enjoy the lawn work stuff and I hope you are one of them because if you're not it sucks." I've got two young kids, two dogs, and a cat. We needed more room for them to run. Plus, we're in a quiet neighborhood on a no thru traffic cul de sac. Lawn work is part of the price I gotta pay. On the brightside, I got a 55 inch led lcd TV, and it is glorious.— RG
- ---} Profits derived from the government who was both their regulator and top consumer for the school lunches program. {--- It's an imperfect system, RG - which can be, and is, gamed on a regular basis. But just because it's imperfect doesn't mean that it is better than the alternative. You claim that industries would self-regulate the safety of their products based on long-term profitability. That defies common sense as well as history since the dawn of time. Profiting from unregulated products pre-existed government regulatory bodies for centuries. The notion that profiting from short-term gain only exists because of government regulation is pure "free-market" fetishism.— Talking point sleuth
- RG - train those yutes to do the lawn work!! Even if they are too young now they at least are your ticket out of lawn work in the near future.— bird11
- they are 2.5 and 1.5 years old. Gotta get them potty trained first! I do plan on giving them these chores when they are older. have the son feeding the pets and both of them cleaning up at night.— RG
- ---} RG - train those yutes to do the lawn work!! {--- Nice. Encouraging others to exploit child labor. Why am I not surprised?— Talking point sleuth
- "don't know the whys and hows but if you leave your lawn leaf covered over the winter you tend to get very spotty grass in the spring" The problem is that the moisture from snow will also combine with the leaves to expedite their disintegration process leaving a soupy mess of wet, decomposing leaves all over your lawn. This concoction can cause a damaged lawn when the snowfall melts away. Additionally, the natural tarp caused by the leaves will help enable growth of mold and disease.— legatus
- OK enough talk of lawn work. A friend just informed me that today is the 30th Anniversary of the U.S. release of The Clash's London Calling. Classic album. Definitely one of my all-time favorites.— bird11
- Yeah, we should look to the government for long term solutions. Ignore that 14 tril debt, the constant deficits, the unfunded laibilities. The government ignores the 24/7 newscycle and delibarates crefully on legislation like TARP and the Patriot Act.— RG
- Deficits that occurred because hundreds of millions were lifted from poverty and provided health care. Better if we had just kicked sick elderly people to the curb and allowed them to die more quickly, eh? The long term deficits could be mitigated if people like the tea party folks would stop demonizing, out of political partisanship, for the notion of common sense ways of addressing the deficits. Talk about creating methodologies to reduce costs and they start screaming about "death panels," just so frauds like Palin can get elected. As long as people keep screaming about "socialism," even as they scream "keep your hands off my medicare," ideas like raising limits on medicare eligibility will never take off. What you fail to realize, RG, is that the "drown government in the bathtub," mantra only diminishes the extent that an imperfect system can be improved - all because you have some idealized belief about the benefits of a completely unregulated society.— Talking point sleuth
- "As long as people keep screaming about "socialism," even as they scream "keep your hands off my medicare," ideas like raising limits on medicare eligibility will never take off." Its near impossible to repeal or cut back entitlements, both parties know it and won;t commit political suicide trying to do so. Its what happens when you promise the world to people and can't fund it. Look at SS benefits, technically they should have been cut this year, due to COLA decreasing. They still got extra. You let me know when either side gets serious about entitlement reform. And remember, the tea partiers don't hold office.— RG
- "today is the 30th Anniversary of the U.S. release of The Clash's London Calling. Classic album. Definitely one of my all-time favorites." Mine, as well. I saw them at JFK Stadium in 1982. It was the first of many ""Farewell Tours" for The Who. The Hooters opened the show, followed by Santana, then The Clash, and finally The Who. Awesome show!— legatus
- Comment removed.
- "OK enough talk of lawn work." One final note...I understand that if your lawn gets diseased, the gov't will send Lawn Doctor to take care of it at taxpayer expense.— legatus
- Comment removed.
- I'm sure you can get the majority of the American people to agree that having a green lawn is a right.— RG
- Comment removed.
- ---} but the law is pretty clear. {--- --snip-- Employment includes any service or labor performed for any type of remuneration within the United States, with the exception of sporadic domestic service by an individual in a private home. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- ---} Tax everyone who does or does not have a lawn, and that way we spread the landscaping. {---- --snip-- In formal logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is an argument to refute a proposition (or set of propositions) by showing that it leads to a logically absurd consequence. --snip-- Kind of like saying that we shouldn't have a minimum wage because in some mythical world it could be $25 per hour. But you wouldn't do that, would you RG?— Talking point sleuth
- Do you think that the lawn legislation would be as secretive as the health care reform process? Guess we'll have to wait til next year for that promised transparency. http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/hoist_by_their_own_petard.php— RG
- "Kind of like saying that we shouldn't have a minimum wage because in some mythical world it could be $25 per hour. But you wouldn't do that, would you RG?" You really are arguing against yourself. $7.50 is a better wage than $25 to raise the standard of living? Price controls work wonders, ask the Soviet Union.— RG
- More on the minimum wage. http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/30/a-minimum-wage-equals-minimum— RG
- Comment removed.
- legatus - I was at the same show but missed the Hooters & Santana because I had promised that I would run a 10K that day - a promise I made before I knew about the show.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- ---} Price controls work wonders, ask the Soviet Union.{--- Another good point, RG. Because there really is no difference than the U.S. with minimum wage laws and the Soviet Union. No difference whatsover.— Talking point sleuth
- "How can one profit in the long term if they kill their customers? Its not really a viable business plan." Too easy, RG - the tobacco industry! As for the $25 minimum wage, that's your (tongue-in-cheek) proposal, not my (serious) one. Because I'm not a Communist. If you want to argue with one, call Fidel or something, I don't know. No, I don't share your Smithian confidence that the sum total of 300 million individual self-interested decisions in the complete absence of government intervention is always going to add up to a positive result for society, because the guys with more money are always going to have an easier time pursuing their self-interest at the expense of everyone else. But that doesn't mean I'm going to the opposite extreme of setting up a dictatorship of the proletariat to control the means of production either - that would be just as corrosive.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Too easy, RG - the tobacco industry!" Good call, but once again, its voluntary and over the long run. People choose to smoke, because it brings them pleasure. People won;t choose to continue eating poisoned food. "But that doesn't mean I'm going to the opposite extreme of setting up a dictatorship of the proletariat to control the means of production either - that would be just as corrosive." No, but you are implying that its morally justifiable to take from those better off than us to redistribute as we see fit. All because you don't like the outcome of the market. When des it stop? And if that line is determined, how and by who?— RG
- "No difference whatsover." Improving equality was the goal in both cases.— RG
- There are extensive studies on the effects of minimum wage laws that argue both sides, RG. Maybe you should read both sides of the debate also? But the point is that this statement --snip-- If we wanted to raise the standard of living, why not raise the min wage to $25? --snip-- doesn't bear any resemblance to what's being argued. The point is whether the existing minimum wage laws reduce employment, and if they do, what are the counterbalancing effects of limiting exploitation for the sake of profit.— Talking point sleuth
- ---} People won;t choose to continue eating poisoned food. {--- Yeah, just like people didn't choose to ingest toxic snake oil before the advent of the FDA. Clearly, no one chose to do that. And they only do so now because of the existence of government regulation. Because without government regulation, no companies would milk short-term profits by deceptively marketing their products. Say, RG, where can you buy plane tickets to Shangri-La?— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- 20 CFR 404.1057: "What is domestic service. Domestic service is work of a household nature done by you in or about a private home of the employer. A private home is a fixed place of residence of a person or family. A separate dwelling unit maintained by a person in an apartment house, hotel, or other similar establishment may be a private home. If a house is used primarily for supplying board or lodging to the public as a business enterprise, it is not a private home. In general, services of a household nature in or about a private home include services performed by cooks, waiters, butlers, housekeepers, governessess, maids, valets, baby sitters, janitors, laundresses, furnacemen, caretakers, handymen, gardeners, footmen, grooms, and chauffeurs of automobiles for family use. Pay for these services does not come under this provision unless the services are performed in or about a private home of the employer. Pay for services not of a household nature, such as services performed as a private secretary, tutor, or librarian, even though performed in the employer's home, does not come under this provision."— bird11
- Comment removed.
- RG: Shall we allow the Lloyd Blankfeins of the world to decide the distribution of wealth? Because that's what happens when the government elects to sit in the stands of the economic game rather than serving as a referee.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Winthorpe, you know, you can't just go around and shoot people in the kneecaps with a double-barreled shotgun 'cause you pi$$ed at 'em.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- " I had the most absurd nightmare. I was poor and no one liked me. I lost my job, I lost my house, Bunch hated me and it was all because of this terrible, awful Bryanc." - TPS overheard at the local bodega.— bird11
- bird11: Not sure my last one got past the moderators in its unmodified form, so let me try again: "I had the most absurd nightmare. I was poor and no one liked me. I lost my job, I lost my house, Penelope hated me and it was all because of this terrible, awful president."— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- My God! Citibank is going to corner the entire frozen orange juice market!— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Comment removed.
- Winthorpe, think big, think positive, never show any sign of weakness. Always go for the throat. Buy low, sell high. Fear? That's the other guy's problem.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- JerryD - what are you talking about according to Queen Nancy "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience," (And how scary would it be if that were actually a true statement)— bird11
- bryanc, I wish my b!tches would get here. I ain't got time to be sitting in this cell with you.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- ----} TPS criticizing someone on their logic capabilities is like Dick Cheney saying you have bad aim. {---- Outstanding. Now I ask you, ladies and gentlemen (and batboy), take a look at the laughable analysis in the following post from bryanc, and then reflect on his credibility in talking about my logic. LOL! The guy can't even perform simple mathematical calculations: --- SNIP --- I love the way this survey plays with numbers to try to make things look more significant. Forty-six percent oppose the "health care reform" (note, they ask about support or opposition about the overall health care reform, not just whether someone supports or opposes the public option). Then the doozy: 25% of the 46% who were opposed to it, roughly 12% of that sub-sample, were opposed because it didn't go far enough. If they present it honestly, it looks more like only 5% of the people surveyed think think the bill does not go far enough. --- SNIP ----- In fact, it was 25% of the "sub-sample" of people who were opposed that were opposed because it didn't go far enough. That would be 12% of the total people polled. byranc can't add, but based his your erroneous calculations, he develops a left-wing bias conspiracy theory. Simply outstanding, braync.— Talking point sleuth
- Well, RG, it's that time of the month again. Payroll checks for our employees, which require your signatures. And no forgetting to sign the big ones! Can't get around the old minimum wage, RG!— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Comment removed.
- Never thought I'd say this, but: Lookin' good, bill atk.!— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- And to ease things back to the distribution of wealth topic: "You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by turning them into poor people." Wow, can anyone not love Trading Places?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Billy, the government allowed Lloyd Blankfein to sit in on negotiations to bail out AIG. All because Goldman had counterparty exposure, and have high level connections to the Fed and Treasury. Also, you might want to research Maiden Lane and other lesser known bailout programs that allow the Goldman Sachs of the world to redistribute taxpayer dollars. In a free market, Goldman and Citi would be gone. The government allows them to exist and profit off of taxpayer dollars. Privatized gains, socialized losses.— RG
- RG: "In a free market, Goldman and Citi would be gone." I wish I could believe that - and better yet, that in a free market they would never have reached the size they were before the government stepped in and made them even bigger (a disaster, remember, that actually took two presidential administrations to accomplish). I just can't buy it, though. You'd like me to believe that in a free market, barriers to entry are nonexistent, so the player in any particular market who wins one particular round of competition will face an entirely new set of competitors next round. What actually happens is: the winners take over the losers and use their newfound market power to set up their own barriers to entry - no government assistance necessary. The eventual result is monopoly. The standard case of this process, of course, is Standard Oil. Regulation that slows this process is smart, honest regulation (if you assume, as I do, that this can exist). Regulation that aids this process is dumb regulation, or maybe more likely, regulation that has been co-opted by the regulated. So, is this the part where we talk about campaign finance reform?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Big, new innovative effort to create jobs? Moving to invest aggressively in a new greener economy? Policy? These are all parts of the economic shutdown that we are experiencing. A healthy economy is one that allows individuals to make economic decisions for themselves in a free market. All we have now is market manipulation by special interests with the help of politicians. The only legitimate function of government in the economy is in keeping markets free of fraud. Unfortunately, government has failed us on that(Fannie and Freddie, subprime mortgages, homes built with illegal alien labor, rating fraud). Amazingly, after bailing out Fannie and Freddie, Obama is now giving them unlimited support with our tax dollars! While the government gives stimulous money to the politically favored, the credit market is squeezed for ordinary business borrowers. That is shutting down the real economy that keeps people employed doing real jobs. Until this changes, good luck!— Falls Ed
- I think Falls Ed about sums it up in regards to the myth that the free market has failed.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Just so's I get this right, RG - you actually believe that less regulation of medical training and credentialing would be a good thing?— Talking point sleuth
- Wow! Now we find out that monopolies wouldn't exist if there weren't government regulation. LOL! Outstanding. I think we've pretty much sealed the debate. Everything bad is the result of government regulation, and if there weren't government regulation, nothing bad would happen. No government = Shangri-La!!— Talking point sleuth
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: