Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Add to which the Rani has not seen me in years, knows nothing about what's going on in my life at this time, didn't know me well (or want to) even when we were seeing each other, and is in no better position to comment on the subject than Exile is -- possibly worse, since she has some cause to erroneously think she knows.

I figured as much.

However, in one point she's correct. None of the reforms I advocate are for my benefit; there is indeed a separation there. I am in my fifties. I don't have all that much longer to live anyway, and certainly my working days are numbered and the number is not great. This is not about me. It has never been about me.

That indeed is the essence of what these people do not get.

And I deeply resent anyone trying to make it about me -- especially a narcissistic, self-centered, arrogant little piece of shit who was born a short easy climb from a modest measure of success, made that climb, and has coasted ever since. And that description, frankly, fits either one of those two posters.

Of course it isn't about you. It's about their own ignorance -- willful or otherwise.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Another lovely bit of venom that says a lot more about him than about anyone else.
Brian hasn't a clue what it takes to run his own business or attain a college degree. Unless he has done either one of those things in the last 8 years, which I highly doubt.

He probably doesn't have a clue what it takes to do what you do for living either. As business owner, I got a little taste of what it takes to deal with people who have some mental issues. I tip my hat to you. I know that I don't have what it takes.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

He probably doesn't have a clue what it takes to do what you do for living either. As business owner, I got a little taste of what it takes to deal with people who have some mental issues.

I spent plenty of years in the mental health field, and even now I have a guy who comes into the library on a regular basis who likes to talk very loudly about government conspiracies to anyone who will listen.

The experience is not unique to business owners.

KIA's statement in this post was "Brian looks to and relies on others to do things for him."

No, he did not use the word parasite there, but the implication was that Brian is either totally dependent on other people, or is sponging off them, or has no sense of direction in his life, etc., etc. -- and could be synonymous with parasitical behavior. But anyone who knows Brian knows very well that this characterization is a fabrication. It is a falsehood that springs from KIA's delusions and prejudices.

It's not the specific term that was used that is important. Jenny got the drift.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, enough with the sloppy facts already. Can either of you guys find a post where Exile referred to someone as a "parasite?" I can't.

You won't either. I haven't reffered to anyone as a parasite. But, I really don't care if the blues continue to refer to each other as parasites.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

You won't either. I haven't reffered to anyone as a parasite.

Everybody got the essence of what you said earlier. And it isn't the first time you've insulted people in that way on this forum.

But, I really don't care if the blues continue to refer to each other as parasites.

You really do have a remarkable talent for making shit up.

Originally Posted by The Rani

It's a truehood that you can't see due to your own delusions and prejudices.

No. I have taken in a lot of information on this subject over the years and drawn my own conclusions based on my personal experiences with both of you. I do not trust you. I trust Brian.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The America of today is no longer the America of the 1930's. We are more advanced and our standards are much higher. Personally speaking, I don't know any meat cutters or automobile manufacturers. The center of America is now largely professional vs manufacturing. The world has changed. The government isn't in the same position as it was back then. The nation isn't in the same position as it was back then. Nothing is the same as it was back then. Yet, for whatever reason, you're still using it to support your theory.

So why should we revert to the living standards of the 1920s or earlier? Do you really believe that lower pay even with longer hours of work is the way to prosperity for any people other than a ruling elite that most Americans would gladly cast off?

We have higher moral standards than we used to. We have better safety on the job than we used to. We give employers less leeway to abuse and exploit employees. We have laws against child labor. We have laws against selling nostrums, contents undefined to the purchaser but usually opiates and alcohol.

If we follow your advice, then America will be more like what it was in the 1920s, if not earlier. Let me suggest what that will mean. You are in the air-conditioning business, right? The air conditioning business took off when living standards improved. I'm not going to pretend that parts of Minnesota don't get hot in the summer. From about the Twin Cities southward, southern Minnesota has a Dfa climate -- a fire-and-ice climate with snowy winters and hot, humid summers. Not so long ago, air conditioning was a luxury in places with such climates -- contrast a place like Dallas where the summers are longer and more brutal. Make people desperately poor, and they quite using their air conditioners.

I could continue with the argument, but if living standards fell terribly in Minnesota because of a fascist economy, then your business wouldn't be so lucrative. Maybe yours would fail. Where would that leave you? Destitute?

Don't bother trying to sell air conditioners or air conditioning service in Mogadishu.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I am aware of that, which is how I know that you are prejudiced.

Just basing my conclusion off of personal experiences, as I said.

KIA's whole attitude seems to be "I got mine, F*CK YOU!", witch seems very typical of modern Movement Conservatism.

The ideology of Movement Conservatism is a mixture of socially-sanctioned sociopathic behavior fused with religious extremism.

Originally Posted by The Rani

One lunch in Chicago?
Other than that, your opinion of what I've said here is based on one-sided information, and as such is prejudiced.

Heh. No, it's based on a LOT more than that, and why do you care what I think anyway?

Originally Posted by The Rani

As opposed to "I never got mine, F*CK YOU!"
It works both ways.

No, it isn't. This whole "you hate rich people because you are just jealous and too lazy to succeed, yourself and want to take other people's money" talking point is as insulting as it is pathetic, the talking points of selfish jerks that truly delude themselves into thinking that they are John Galt and did everything without help from others, even if they were born on third base and got help via corporate welfare.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If what Exile said translates into "you're a parasite," these comments certainly translate into "F*CK YOU."

No, they translate as "get your head out of your *** and quit thinking you are hot shit".

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

So why should we revert to the living standards of the 1920s or earlier? Do you really believe that lower pay even with longer hours of work is the way to prosperity for any people other than a ruling elite that most Americans would gladly cast off?

We have higher moral standards than we used to. We have better safety on the job than we used to. We give employers less leeway to abuse and exploit employees. We have laws against child labor. We have laws against selling nostrums, contents undefined to the purchaser but usually opiates and alcohol.

If we follow your advice, then America will be more like what it was in the 1920s, if not earlier. Let me suggest what that will mean. You are in the air-conditioning business, right? The air conditioning business took off when living standards improved. I'm not going to pretend that parts of Minnesota don't get hot in the summer. From about the Twin Cities southward, southern Minnesota has a Dfa climate -- a fire-and-ice climate with snowy winters and hot, humid summers. Not so long ago, air conditioning was a luxury in places with such climates -- contrast a place like Dallas where the summers are longer and more brutal. Make people desperately poor, and they quite using their air conditioners.

I could continue with the argument, but if living standards fell terribly in Minnesota because of a fascist economy, then your business wouldn't be so lucrative. Maybe yours would fail. Where would that leave you? Destitute?

Don't bother trying to sell air conditioners or air conditioning service in Mogadishu.

Your path is Mogadishu. My path is America. So, while your toughing it out in Mogadishu, I'll still be selling stuff in America. Michigan could become Mogadishu. I have no interest in a fascist or a socialist economy. I don't believe Americans are going to be willing to accept either.

I have no beef with unions. I've never felt the need to become union. And I was to free minded and spirited to accept the union restrictions that would have been placed on me. In short, unions work for some folks but not all folks. The same rule applies to business. Union works for some but not all.

PB, have you ever sat down and pondered the question, how does the other side of America do it? How do we succeed? How do we achieve our personal levels of content? I mean, we pay for our schooling. We pay for our houses. We pay for our cars. We pay for our kids personal needs and entertainment. We pay for our utilities and public services. We don't vote for subsidies and we don't expect to recieve from the government. How does the other side of America do it?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

That second paragraph certainly caught my eye because it's pretty much what I've been saying for at least a year. The Republicans have a transformative agenda, the Democrats do not. Incidentally, Brian recently criticized me for saying the country had been heading steadily rightward on the grounds that we had moved leftward on social issues. The problem is that social issues are not 4T issues. In the 4T it's time to focus on the critical issues that matter to all of us, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Tragically, the Democratic Party doesn't seem to want to do that anymore. It is voting "no" on every budget proposal that comes before Congress, totally refusing to take any responsibility for the situation.

I don't really agree that the Republicans in Congress want a new economic collapse, 10% unemployment as far as the eye can see, etc., although they do appear to want more inequality of wealth since they've now introduced yet another round of tax cuts. I think they are drunk on their own ideology and can't see straight. It's extremely difficult to keep your attention span above 60 seconds as a Congressperson today, and it shows.
They are leading a postmodern 4T, all based on appearance instead of reality, while the country goes down the tubes. But that may be more appealing to the country than no 4T at all, the Democratic solution.

I think that the Democrats view the battle over the budget as a replay of the Social Security privatization fight in the middle part of the past decade and their fight with the Republicans over budgeting in the mid 90's. In other words, business as usual for them, like you said. The difference, as you point out, is with the Republicans, who truly appear to be going all in this time. In a way, their strategy makes sense. The Republicans were already heading into an election that was going to be more difficult for them than 2010 due to the demographics of the voters that come out during presidential election years. Add to that their difficulties in the mid-west over their attacks on organized labor, public anger over budget cuts (people always seem to like the theory of "fiscal discipline" better than the reality), and the general anger over incumbents that always accompanies bad economic times, and Republicans were already skating on thin ice before their plan to basically end medicare blew up in their face.

Right now, to me, their best strategy seems to be to try to get Democrats to provide political cover for their cuts to medicare by getting the Democrats to agree to cuts of their own as part of a compromise to raise the debt ceiling or as part of next years budget. That way, the issue becomes at least somewhat of a wash with voters.

I'm beginning to think that events might come to a head as early as this summer when the deadline to raise the debt ceiling finally comes. I agree that neither party wants economic collapse, but the Republicans, as a political party, certainly have an interest in holding the debt ceiling hostage for as long as possible in order to try to get Democrats to agree to cuts to medicare if for no other reason than to save themselves.

The big question is if Democrats hold to their current position of compromise. On the one hand, agreeing to cuts in Medicare would hurt the chances of the Democratic party to retake the house and keep the Senate. On the other hand, incumbent Democrats might see an advantage in compromise because raising the debt ceiling is unpopular with voters, so agreeing to a compromise with the GOP would provide them cover while also averting a possible economic disaster. In addition they also might not fear voters in their districts abandoning them over their compromise because they represent solidly Democratic districts to the point that even if Democratic enthusiasm were depressed, they would still retain their seats.

I hope I am wrong, and that the Democrats can get through to the next election without being forced into compromising with the Republicans, but right now it seems like the path of least resistance for everyone involved is for the Democrats to cave. Like you said, the Republicans are behaving like a 4T political party. In most ways, the Ryan budget represents the culmination of the efforts of modern conservatism to roll back the New Deal that began almost with the movement's inception. It goes much farther than anything the Republicans attempted in 1994 or under Bush. Democrats still seem like they are stuck in a 3T mode. It will be interesting to see if they remain that way.

Originally Posted by The Rani

As opposed to "I never got mine, F*CK YOU!"
It works both ways.

Actually, my attitude is "You're not entitled to what's mine, F*CK YOU!

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Actually, my attitude is "You're not entitled to what's mine, F*CK YOU!

No, what you think is JUST yours, really isn't. That is the whole damn point you are not getting.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Your path is Mogadishu. My path is America. So, while your toughing it out in Mogadishu, I'll still be selling stuff in America. Michigan might become Mogadishu. I have no interest in a fascist or a socialist economy. I don't believe Americans are going to be willing to accept either. I have no beef with unions. I've never felt the need to become union. And I was to free minded and spirited to accept the union restrictions that would have been placed on me. In short, unions work for some folks but not all folks. The same rule applies to business. Union works for some but not all. PB, have you ever sat down and pondered the question, how does the other side of America do it? How do we succeed? How do we achieve our personal levels of content? I mean, we pay for our schooling. We pay for our houses. We pay for our cars. We pay for our kids personal needs and entertainment. We pay for our utilities and public services. We don't vote for subsidies and we don't expect to recieve from the government. How does the other side of America do it?

Rock on cowboy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9sGd-JLvNA

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

That's fine. I believe that people have the right to choose there own destiny. If Wisconsin financially tanks, the red states will benefit from their losses. If Minnesota tanks, North and South Dakota and Montana will benefit from its losses. Right now, you rely on my wealth staying in Minnesota. I can simply move that wealth from a blue state like Minnesota to red state like Montana. It can become an ugly game that we are willing and financially able to play.

Funny, cuz I'm thinkin' Florida is screwed and I'm on my way out. I'm going to pick up my revenues and relocate to a state with higher taxes because I do actually value education, clean drinking water, etc.. Things are quite bad here and the more I travel the less I want to come home.

It is not even the lack of basic services. You can always triple filter the tap or send your kids to a private school, but when you devalue human capital you have to invest in prisons to lock up all the desperate, uneducated people who have surely run afoul of one of the hundred-thousand crimes in our convoluted law.

Then of course, there's the problem of corruption. When politicians are corrupt businessmen, you have to tax a cut of the low taxes for the contractors and partners that get first crack at determining policy.

See, the problem isn't the 5 or 10% spent on health and education and various social welfare... It is the 40-50% that is being siphoned off by all those banks & insurers, communication & entertainment/publishing cartels (plus bailouts because these "free market" champions can't take a loss), connected contractors, private prisons, and pointless wars that is really taxing the economy to death.

Of course, voting for Democrats isn't going to get rid of any of the real problems, but like I said, it isn't the 5-10% that is the problem...

Originally Posted by Odin

No, what you think is JUST yours, really isn't. That is the whole damn point you are not getting.

I didn't get your point about society being an organism either. Something tells me, I would have to drop a little acid to enter the proper frame of mind to discuss and understand your point. If you want to explain, I'll try to understand.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

You're an Xer; Brian is, what, a Boomer? I see where you're coming from and it's a good quality and attitude to have as part of yourself. As a whole, as a survival strategy I'd have to add mutual aid, mutual self-help as the other component, for just as we are not ants or bees, we are not great cats either.

Ahem!

Prince, sleepy-tired after a satisfying "din-din"!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Ahem!

Prince, sleepy-tired after a satisfying "din-din"!

OH, whose delightful spotty kitty is that? And how old is he and what's his name?

Pat, itching to give him a few pets, if he'd accept them.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Your path is Mogadishu. My path is America. So, while your toughing it out in Mogadishu, I'll still be selling stuff in America. Michigan could become Mogadishu. I have no interest in a fascist or a socialist economy. I don't believe Americans are going to be willing to accept either.

No, the point is that your business depends not so much on how miserably hot conditions get -- but instead whether people have the means with which people have to buy and maintain a luxury, namely air conditioning. It's the general prosperity that allows you to prosper -- and not need. I chose Mogadishu as an example of a place where the economy and public institutions are both so broken down that few people could buy air conditioners (the country is one of the poorest, and I question whether the electrical grid works) despite extreme heat.

You are the one who harbors the illusion that anyone can transcend any economic conditions -- and I have shown a counter-example. I know of nobody on this Forum who could thrive in Mogadishu, let alone like it there. The bare necessities of life are hard to get and keep because there is no effective government. Unless one is a tribal lord who can retain a small army of hired thugs to protect one, nothing that one owns or rents can be protected.

I have no beef with unions. I've never felt the need to become union. And I was to free minded and spirited to accept the union restrictions that would have been placed on me. In short, unions work for some folks but not all folks. The same rule applies to business. Union works for some but not all.

If you want to know what people best know how the economy works, then look at people who do the real work. They know what the cost is of anything, and they know that they need help in dealing with corporate bureaucrats who ultimately care only for themselves. Such people are masters of negotiation, people who, if they could get away with it, would pit every worker against each other until wages fell to the bare margin of survival. Why else can they afford those high-priced cars and suits? Maybe there are some small owner-operated businesses themselves struggling for survival that can't pay much. But a vertically-integrated, multi-location business with slick information technology and an elite bureaucracy of great sophistication in economics and psychology but no empathy for anyone who ever has to break a literal sweat on the job?

The late 3T is the heyday of corporate power. Once the bubble fails that is over.

PB, have you ever sat down and pondered the question, how does the other side of America do it? How do we succeed? How do we achieve our personal levels of content? I mean, we pay for our schooling. We pay for our houses. We pay for our cars. We pay for our kids personal needs and entertainment. We pay for our utilities and public services. We don't vote for subsidies and we don't expect to recieve from the government. How does the other side of America do it?

No fooling -- it is work. But you need a certain level of pay to support the physical infrastructure and for core public services. These days the level of economic inequality in the US, thanks to corporate stooges in Congress, is preposterously close to a breaking point. Executive compensation keeps rising while wages fail to keep pace with prosperity. Even if our elites aren't so crass as to make the command

SUFFER FOR MY HOLY GREED, YOU PEON!

we know what goes on in reality. Do you know what a Gini coefficient is?

...In any event, much of this Crisis Era will revolve around labor-management relations -- perhaps because the old nexus between ability and need has been transformed into a question of institutional power.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

KIA's statement in this post was "Brian looks to and relies on others to do things for him."

No, he did not use the word parasite there, but the implication was that Brian is either totally dependent on other people, or is sponging off them, or has no sense of direction in his life, etc., etc. -- and could be synonymous with parasitical behavior. But anyone who knows Brian knows very well that this characterization is a fabrication. It is a falsehood that springs from KIA's delusions and prejudices.

It's not the specific term that was used that is important. Jenny got the drift.

What she said.

Thanks, Kiff.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I am aware of that, which is how I know that you are prejudiced.

I think we are all prejudiced. It's called being human.