Originally Posted by James50

We will find out the truth of this statement in a few weeks when QE2 ends. For the past 6 months, the Fed has been buying 70% of the Treasury debt.

Tom Friedman, master of the metaphor, has talked about the fall from a 50 story building. For the first 49 stories, you can think you are flying.

We will be able to borrow all the money we want until we can't.

James50

After 10+ years of the economic doldrums and the Fukashima nuclear disaster, I would assume this would apply to Japan in spades. Their borrowing costs are not much different from ours.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

It is not self-destructing; it is being murdered by a corporatist mentality that values profit over the public interest.

Unfortunately, Kiff, things are finite. That doesn't make people who treat them as not-infinite greedy or mean. It [i]does/i] makes people who treat them as infinite foolish.

Things are self-destruction because they were placed on, then held on, a collision course with the universe's limits. You do yourself a disservice complaining about the 'villains' who put a brick wall right where your head was swinging.

Originally Posted by James50

I liked Peggy Noonan's comments this morning entitled "Republicans Return to Reality" after the doubts expressed at the Republican presidential debates about our current military adventures especially in Afghanistan.

Come home America!

James50

Amen to that! Afghanistan --- the graveyard of empires -- "This time it's different", the fallacy that paves the way to the graveyard.

Originally Posted by James50

I mean wait and see for a few weeks until they pass the budget. Can't the left ever make an argument without becoming hysterical?

James50

You know, James, as a leftie myself, I find that statement to be both inaccurate and annoying. Now, if you were to ask if PW et. al. can make an argument without getting hysterical, you'd find widespread agreement. Plus, there are plenty of righties here in these forums who can't make an argument without getting hysterical, but because it takes the form of angry moralizing or a flood of numbers,
which is to say, a more macho style of hysterics, it isn't always seen as such.

And BTW, I agree with you that two of the left-leaning posters on this thread have hit the panic button unnecessarily.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

What about sugar?

Don't get me started on sugar, or any of the other massive subsidies going to the poor li'l beleaguered producers of basic commodities ... abolish the infamous things. They're costing us a ton of money, distorting the market, necessitating all sorts of expensive expedients to unload their overproduced (because subsidized) stuff, and encouraging the latifundia model of food production... basically, it's agribusiness pork.

Russ Feingold considers politicians who accept corporate contributions as a dance with the devil. I'd say in today's political climate, most politicians are doing an Irish jig with the hellish creature.

Former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold issued Democrats a dire warning at the annual Netroots Nation conference here on Thursday, saying the party was in danger of losing its "soul" if it accepts corporate contributions in the 2012 elections.

MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. --
"Sometimes we have to be very direct with the Democratic Party," said Feingold to the crowd of progressive activists and bloggers at the Minneapolis Convention Center. "Just as you have long pushed our Democrats to stand up for their ideals, I'm here this evening to ask you to redouble your efforts. I fear that the Democratic Party is in danger of losing its identity."

Feingold pointed to Priorities USA, a new Democratic independent expenditure group -- known as a super political action committee (PAC) -- that is allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of corporate money. It was launched by former deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton and former senior adviser Sean Sweeney in April.

"Creating those kinds of super PACs for Democrats is wrong. It is not something we should do. I disagree," Feingold said. "I think it's a mistake for us to take the argument that they like to make -- that what we're going to do now is, we're going to take corporate money like the Republicans do, then after we win, we'll change it. When's the last time anyone did that? Most people don't change the rules after they win

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_878817.html

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

You know, James, as a leftie myself, I find that statement to be both inaccurate and annoying. Now, if you were to ask if PW et. al. can make an argument without getting hysterical, you'd find widespread agreement. Plus, there are plenty of righties here in these forums who can't make an argument without getting hysterical, but because it takes the form of angry moralizing or a flood of numbers,
which is to say, a more macho style of hysterics, it isn't always seen as such.

And BTW, I agree with you that two of the left-leaning posters on this thread have hit the panic button unnecessarily.

I had the same thought. Let's particularize, not generalize. As they used to say in Ike's headquarters in London, "You can call anyone a bastard. Just don't call him a British bastard."

The atmosphere in this thread is like the Senate on the eve of the Civil War, I have to say. . . .

James, Peggy Noonan and yourself are two fairly reasonable Republicans who don't want to admit what has happened to their party, in my judgment.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

You know, James, as a leftie myself, I find that statement to be both inaccurate and annoying. Now, if you were to ask if PW et. al. can make an argument without getting hysterical, you'd find widespread agreement. Plus, there are plenty of righties here in these forums who can't make an argument without getting hysterical, but because it takes the form of angry moralizing or a flood of numbers,
which is to say, a more macho style of hysterics, it isn't always seen as such.

And BTW, I agree with you that two of the left-leaning posters on this thread have hit the panic button unnecessarily.

Between Odin's cursing and PW's guillotine picture, I think I lost my head. There are many reasoning and reasonable leftists on this forum. Its one of the reasons I stick around. Its (almost) always bad to generalize. I am sorry I said it.

James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

After 10+ years of the economic doldrums and the Fukashima nuclear disaster, I would assume this would apply to Japan in spades. Their borrowing costs are not much different from ours.

Not really. Interesting discussion here. "Will Earthquake in Japan Trigger Country's Debt Problems?"

If we net out intra governmental holdings and the financial assets held by the central government, Japan’s net financial liabilities amount to slightly more than 100% of GDP. The net financial liabilities held by the Japanese government, including the foreign currency assets of the central bank, add up to around 80% of GDP. Accounting for non-financial earning assets would bring the net liability figure down into the 70% range. And if the value of non-earning public assets held by the Japanese government were fully accounted for, the total value of Japan’s net liabilities becomes almost negligible.

94% of Japanese public debt is held by Japanese nationals. This means that for virtually every yen of Japanese public debt, there is a corresponding yen worth of savings assets held by thrifty Japanese investors. This essentially means that the Japanese economy has no debt problem whatsoever, on aggregate.

On the other hand, US debt in foreign hands is up over 30%.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The atmosphere in this thread is like the Senate on the eve of the Civil War, I have to say. . . .

Only verbal gutta percha canes in use here.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Only verbal gutta percha canes in use here.

Absolutely correct. In terms of position in the saeculum, we're actually a couple of years into the Civil War itself not in the years before, and we haven't had any (literal) pitched battles so far. I think that represents progress.

Mind you, the Republicans in Congress and in the state houses are behaving as foolishly and with just as much disonnect from reality as the Democrats in the Confederate States did then. But we're not shooting each other by the thousands. A good thing.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Absolutely correct. In terms of position in the saeculum, we're actually a couple of years into the Civil War itself not in the years before, and we haven't had any (literal) pitched battles so far. I think that represents progress.

Mind you, the Republicans in Congress and in the state houses are behaving as foolishly and with just as much disonnect from reality as the Democrats in the Confederate States did then. But we're not shooting each other by the thousands. A good thing.

I'd say the chances are very good that we won't start shooting. As a general rule, divorces don't end with shooting. However, I do and have always seen a major split coming down the road.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Absolutely correct. In terms of position in the saeculum, we're actually a couple of years into the Civil War itself not in the years before, and we haven't had any (literal) pitched battles so far. I think that represents progress.

Mind you, the Republicans in Congress and in the state houses are behaving as foolishly and with just as much disconnect from reality as the Democrats in the Confederate States did then. But we're not shooting each other by the thousands. A good thing.

The divide is still not so much North-South (that is, regional) as it is urban-rural. Although most American "territory" is "red", the population is heavily concentrated in "blue" zones. As a prime example, Greater Memphis may be the only "blue" territory for tens of miles in any direction, But it is a huge center of population, and people for miles around depend upon Memphis for certain services. Besides, in the generally-poor area around Memphis (parts of Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, and Kentucky) the railroads and main roads all lead to Memphis. That's where FedEx is.

On the other side, there are some very Red areas in New York State -- but they depend upon some very Blue cities for banking, education, and information.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I'd say the chances are very good that we won't start shooting. As a general rule, divorces don't end with shooting. However, I do and have always seen a major split coming down the road.

It won't happen. Both the North and the South were both extremely monolithic in political life. The American Civil War was not a war between bourgeois urban sophisticates and semi-feudal planters; the commercial and business elites of Richmond, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Memphis knew that they depended upon the semi-feudal planters. The only fifth column in the South was the slave population who had every incentive to flee to the Union lines at the first opportunity and goldbrick at until then. (Such was the ultimate weakness of the South -- that the people who did the real work had little incentive to cleave to the owners. The Union side exploited that reality effectively).

The Allies during World War II -- even the Soviets -- successfully exploited a similar reality in the Nazi empire. Partisan bands, often formed by escaping toilers, often fled the centers of Nazi rule in occupied territory. The difference: in contrast to the Confederates who were comparative gentlemen, the Nazis were unqualified monsters. If you are to choose sides in an apocalyptic war during a 4T, then choose the side that acts more justly. But I have digressed.

In any event it will be the great urban centers where mass protests will erupt against any American dictatorship (and, yes, that is still possible). Have someone like Scott Walker as President with a Congress that serves only elites without pretending otherwise, and you will see protests of the sorts that you recently saw in Cairo, Tunis, and Benghazi. Thousands will wonder whether they really voted for "that guy" and know why others didn't -- such as that outlaw motorcycle gangs posted themselves in front of voting places, and employers threatened anyone who voted contrary to the employer's instructions with with discriminatory layoffs and a hostile work environment. That is where the universities are. That is where masses of workers are. That is where the libraries are. Those are the places to which news media have the most rapid access. "Suffer for my greed and there will be prosperity like you can't now imagine but we can't say quite when" is no way to win hearts and minds.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It won't happen. Both the North and the South were both extremely monolithic in political life. The American Civil War was not a war between bourgeois urban sophisticates and semi-feudal planters; the commercial and business elites of Richmond, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Memphis knew that they depended upon the semi-feudal planters. The only fifth column in the South was the slave population who had every incentive to flee to the Union lines at the first opportunity and goldbrick at until then. (Such was the ultimate weakness of the South -- that the people who did the real work had little incentive to cleave to the owners. The Union side exploited that reality effectively).

The Allies during World War II -- even the Soviets -- successfully exploited a similar reality in the Nazi empire. Partisan bands, often formed by escaping toilers, often fled the centers of Nazi rule in occupied territory. The difference: in contrast to the Confederates who were comparative gentlemen, the Nazis were unqualified monsters. If you are to choose sides in an apocalyptic war during a 4T, then choose the side that acts more justly. But I have digressed.

In any event it will be the great urban centers where mass protests will erupt against any American dictatorship (and, yes, that is still possible). Have someone like Scott Walker as President with a Congress that serves only elites without pretending otherwise, and you will see protests of the sorts that you recently saw in Cairo, Tunis, and Benghazi. Thousands will wonder whether they really voted for "that guy" and know why others didn't -- such as that outlaw motorcycle gangs posted themselves in front of voting places, and employers threatened anyone who voted contrary to the employer's instructions with with discriminatory layoffs and a hostile work environment. That is where the universities are. That is where masses of workers are. That is where the libraries are. Those are the places to which news media have the most rapid access. "Suffer for my greed and there will be prosperity like you can't now imagine but we can't say quite when" is no way to win hearts and minds.

It's going to eventually happen. It's already happening and has been happening for years. We are going to split and we are currently in the process of splitting. Right now, the left is still doing its thing and the right is still doing its thing. IMO, there will be little or no change as far as that is concerned. So, we are currently on coarse for a natural split. The split will be natural and will be largely determined by the principles and values that individuals are either follow or adhere to.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

It's going to eventually happen. It's already happening and has been happening for years. We are going to split and we are currently in the process of splitting.

If the divide were north-south or east-west or otherwise regional, that might conceivably happen. When the split is urban-rural, though, it's impossible. The nation's urban and rural areas are mutually dependent and can't separate.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If the divide were north-south or east-west or otherwise regional, that might conceivably happen. When the split is urban-rural, though, it's impossible. The nation's urban and rural areas are mutually dependent and can't separate.

Perhaps so. We may not separate. Or, what could happen is that people continue to move into states that fit their political stance, as they have been doing the last few decades. That could work if both kinds of states have both urban and rural areas. Right now CA is a blue state, and could get more blue, as smart techies and young cultural-creatives move to places like San Francisco; but CA still has its rural central valley, which may remain red, even if less so in the future. So it may be a case of states that are more blue than red, and states that are more red than blue. And even if a split occurs, that does not mean that, once peace comes, trade will not continue between the new blue United States and the new red Confederacy, or within a new less-federalized union. Any more than today there is no trade between the USA and Canada, countries that were originally part of the same entity, the British Empire; or for that matter between the US and Great Britain.

I like the idea of a split in some says. But it would mean that a union of red states would be abyssmally bad. Then the question is, should the blue states invade and conquer the red states again, as they did in 1861? Or should the blue states let the red states decline and destroy themselves? What happened in the 1860s was that, probably because they were losing the war, the confederacy of red (then grey) states was starting to break up before the war ended. So what might remain is a union of blue states, and lots of small red states fighting among each other. That would be fine with me.

Probably the union will not dissolve; but it might. Almost anything is possible in a 4T, as it really heads toward its climax-- due only in the mid to late 2020s.

Originally Posted by James50

I mean wait and see for a few weeks until they pass the budget. Can't the left ever make an argument without becoming hysterical?

James50

It's been "too emotional" and now you're up the ante to "hysterical?"

This theme of yours of late seems to be getting a little overwrought, no?

Has any one perhaps referred to you as "Vizzini" because you sure remind me of this guy -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58LpHBnvsI&NR=1

- maybe you should consider a job with Fred Luntz?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Unfortunately, Kiff, things are finite. That doesn't make people who treat them as not-infinite greedy or mean. It [i]does/i] makes people who treat them as infinite foolish.

Things are self-destruction because they were placed on, then held on, a collision course with the universe's limits. You do yourself a disservice complaining about the 'villains' who put a brick wall right where your head was swinging.

Why do you think your 'finite argument' is even relevant when taxes are lower than they have ever been in 60 years.

Are you really this gullible?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

You know, James, as a leftie myself, I find that statement to be both inaccurate and annoying. Now, if you were to ask if PW et. al. can make an argument without getting hysterical, you'd find widespread agreement. Plus, there are plenty of righties here in these forums who can't make an argument without getting hysterical, but because it takes the form of angry moralizing or a flood of numbers,
which is to say, a more macho style of hysterics, it isn't always seen as such.

And BTW, I agree with you that two of the left-leaning posters on this thread have hit the panic button unnecessarily.

Hysterical? I guess when the standard is not keeping the pinkie aloft when sipping in the tea circle.

Flood of numbers from the Right? Outside of Glick's stalker posts, exactly where has that actually ever happen?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Perhaps so. We may not separate. Or, what could happen is that people continue to move into states that fit their political stance, as they have been doing the last few decades. That could work if both kinds of states have both urban and rural areas. Right now CA is a blue state, and could get more blue

I don't think California has changed all that much in terms of its political center, only in its partisan voting patterns, and that's because the Republican Party changed, not because we did. I also don't think you're right about people's relocation being for political reasons. It's for economic reasons more often than anything else. People aren't moving from the Northeast to the South and Southwest because they like the more right-wing politics of those areas but because jobs are available, they can afford to buy a house, and/or they like the climate. As they do, the South and Southwest become less right-wing, as we can see from the 2008 election.

There have always been regional differences in the U.S., but if anything they are less now than in the past, not more. The only thing that could possibly allow the union to separate is if the need for the national government declines, and since the primary function of all national governments is war, the thing that would allow secession from the U.S. is world peace, which can only be the result of global governance. As long as we have nation-states, preserving their integrity will be a primary goal, due to outside threats, and secession will rarely be tolerated.

Originally Posted by James50

...Can't the left ever make an argument without becoming hysterical?

-well:

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Outside of Glick's stalker posts, exactly where has that actually ever happen?

-"Stalker"! No, not hysterical...

Originally Posted by Odin

In Minnesota we can pay them just fine, but the Republicans in the legislature won't let us. They would rather that disabled people died on the streets.

-Disabled people will die on the streets! Ha ha ha!

I've challenged Lefties to show the data on all the grandmothers (or disabled) who supposedly die in droves before the government got into the taxpayer-funded charity business.

The Donner Party doesn't count.

Still waiitng.

I suspect that the self-proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom is woried that he won't be able to mooch off the taxpayers of MN for his so-called disability.

I've noticed something for some time on these discussions that I've finally put my finger on. That is, there are certain posters whose arguments always seem to have an unspoken coda "And so, now I've got you, you liberal S.O.B."

NIGYYSOB is one of the classic Games People Play, of course, if anyone here remembers that. And the game of Gotcha! is one I'm all too familiar with in other areas of life, where the object is not so much discussion and hashing out the issues as it is to trip of the other guy and try to make him or her out to be a fool or a liar.

Though I do have to acquit the posters here of the most pernicious version of the game, the one where you lead them down the garden path for the sake of seeing how far you can go, and then mock them for taking you seriously. Because you all are dead serious, which gives you a certain honesty. However -- having no interest in playing "Gotcha!" on either side of the fence, I find there are some arguments I am just passing over more and more. And no, it is not intellectual cowardice. A certain intellectual distaste for barroom brawls, perhaps.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

I suspect that the self-proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom is woried that he won't be able to mooch off the taxpayers of MN for his so-called disability.

Minnesota is still a welfare state. The taxpayers of Minnesota are very aware of it and are getting very sick of it. Minnesota also has a fairly strong 3rd party which splits the middle class vote which ends up sending a clown like Al Franken to Washington.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I've noticed something for some time on these discussions that I've finally put my finger on. That is, there are certain posters whose arguments always seem to have an unspoken coda "And so, now I've got you, you liberal S.O.B."

NIGYYSOB is one of the classic Games People Play, of course, if anyone here remembers that. And the game of Gotcha! is one I'm all too familiar with in other areas of life, where the object is not so much discussion and hashing out the issues as it is to trip of the other guy and try to make him or her out to be a fool or a liar.

Though I do have to acquit the posters here of the most pernicious version of the game, the one where you lead them down the garden path for the sake of seeing how far you can go, and then mock them for taking you seriously. Because you all are dead serious, which gives you a certain honesty. However -- having no interest in playing "Gotcha!" on either side of the fence, I find there are some arguments I am just passing over more and more. And no, it is not intellectual cowardice. A certain intellectual distaste for barroom brawls, perhaps.

The reality is that someone is either going to get someone or finger someone for the blame when the time eventually comes, so to speak. BTW, if there's going to be shooting that's when the shooting and head bashing is going to start. As that's happening, what are the intellectuals with a distaste for barroom brawls going to be doing? Let me guess, they'll probably be discussing their books, their theories, the understandings of this or that, their personal takes and other important intellectual stuff as their coarse and their futures are getting decided in/with barroom brawls. BTW, I've also noticed that you've been trying to seperate yourself from the blue pack, so to speak.