Is that the US Bank? You can't read it on my screen.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Something very weird is going on with Ann Coulter. This column combines all-out attacks upon Newt with a fawning attitude towards Romney that is worthy of the candidate's own wife. It's not that I have any respect for her, I don't, I'm just fascinated by the depth of her feeling, especially since Romney is hardly the kind of politician she usually likes. Coulter has a reputation as a pretty free spirit herself. I can't help wondering if she and Newt might have a past.

Doesn't Coulter have a reputation for being "socially active"?

Originally Posted by Wes84

Doesn't Coulter have a reputation for being "socially active"?

That was what I meant, yes.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Radind, that makes perfect sense, but if you read the column I linked, my point is, that isn't the way it reads at all. If you substituted Obama for Gingrich and Reagan for Romney in that column, it would sound more like her.

And yes, Romney has never struck me as the kind of Republican she would like. I don't mean to sound like a conspiracist but I think there's some one--Rove maybe?--trying to enforce some sanity among top Republicans and their acolytes in the media like Coulter and Will. Meanwhile, Limbaugh and Hannity, I believe, are standing up for the Newt.

The 'Conservative' Rockefellar Branch has finally imploded on itself. Pundit's like Coulter have double-downed on the GOP so she has a poor choice to choose from.

Originally Posted by Aramea

This is probably at the base of what is actually going on with our economic situation. It has occurred to me over the last few years that it is likely that we simply do not need everyone working 40 hours per week, every week to adequately meet the needs of the population. We have compensated by creating "services" to do for people and paper-pushing jobs that may not really need to be done. The rest can't find work. It would certainly get my attention for a candidate (obviously not 2012) to map out a plan for a 30-hour week or one-month on/one month off, etc. Is that a 4T regeneracy type issue or more of a 2T morality issue? It will be a hard sell to hard boiled older Xers, but Millennials will probably be more accepting. It is true that most humans are wary of anyone that is fed and housed without working for it even when you point out the obvious issues with over-saturation, automation and outsourcing.

Exactly what I have been saying too.

Turns out Romney's tax return doesn't match the information on the financial disclosure forms he filed with the FEC. This is potentially a crime although he can claim it was all a mistake. Stay tuned.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Is that the US Bank? You can't read it on my screen.

It's a Political cartoon from the day typically put into history books, as I'm sure you know.

A satire on Andrew Jackson's campaign to destroy the Bank of the United States and its support among state banks. Jackson, Martin Van Buren, and Jack Downing struggle against a snake with heads representing the states. Jackson (on the left) raises a cane marked "Veto" and says, "Biddle thou Monster Avaunt!! avaount I say! or by the Great Eternal I'll cleave thee to the earth, aye thee and thy four and twenty satellites. Matty if thou art true...come on. if thou art false, may the venomous monster turn his dire fang upon thee..." Van Buren: "Well done General, Major Jack Downing, Adams, Clay, well done all. I dislike dissentions beyond every thing, for it often compels a man to play a double part, were it only for his own safety. Policy, policy is my motto, but intrigues I cannot countenance." Downing (dropping his axe): "Now now you nasty varmint, be you imperishable? I swan Gineral that are beats all I reckon, that's the horrible wiper wot wommits wenemous heads I guess..." The largest of the heads is president of the Bank Nicholas Biddle's, which wears a top hat labeled "Penn" (i.e. Pennsylvania) and "$35,000,000." This refers to the rechartering of the Bank by the Pennsylvania legislature in defiance of the adminstration's efforts to destroy it.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Turns out Romney's tax return doesn't match the information on the financial disclosure forms he filed with the FEC. This is potentially a crime although he can claim it was all a mistake. Stay tuned.

Last week on CNN, Gloria Borger said that according to insiders in the Romney campaign the reason why Romney was reluctant about releasing his tax return was because he had donated over a million dollars to the Mormon church and that was what the campaign was more concerned about than anything. I guess they figured the evangelical base would have a problem with that. So we will see if that actually becomes an issue or if there are other things that will become a bigger deal.

Just read a huge excerpt from Limbaugh's show today. It was extraordinarily rambling and confused, not like himself at all. It was all about Newt, Reagan, and the attack on Newt, an he can't really decide which side to come down on. Rather interesting.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Turns out Romney's tax return doesn't match the information on the financial disclosure forms he filed with the FEC. This is potentially a crime although he can claim it was all a mistake. Stay tuned.

I am amazed you really that this kind of stuff is important.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I am amazed you really that this kind of stuff is important.

James50

Why is it not important?

Originally Posted by SM Kovalinsky

Why is it not important?

Because I suspect people would ignore it or make excuses for it if it involved their preferred candidate or party. It's only worth pursuing if the "other guys" do it.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Because I suspect people would ignore it or make excuses for it if it involved their preferred candidate or party. It's only worth pursuing if the "other guys" do it.

My thought exactly.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I am amazed you really that this kind of stuff is important.

James50

If it isn't important, why is there a law requiring it?

What was all this stuff about Clinton supposedly disobeying the law, about what was that, again..... a stain of some kind I think.....

Originally Posted by James50

I am amazed you really that this kind of stuff is important.

James50

I was equally amazed to find that you thought the employees of UC Berkeley were part of a vast conspiracy.

A rather extraordinary set of poll numbers, at right, on the state of presidential politics. We don't like anybody.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I was equally amazed to find that you thought the employees of UC Berkeley were part of a vast conspiracy.

I am just following the money. Were you not surprised at the collective impact of that one institution? I know I was surprised. They are giving the money for a reason and not just because they are boy scouts. No doubt you would have thought it important if the institution was part of the financial world.

James50

Ah, perhaps this is what is going on:

In the Chronicle of Higher Education, economist Richard Vedder notes a new development in the education marketplace that should make many of his fellow academics nervous:

The announcement of agreements between Burck Smith's StraighterLine and the Education Testing Service (ETS) and the Council on Aid to Education (CAE) to provide competency test materials to students online is potentially very important, along with several other recent developments. A little economics explains why this is so.

With regards to colleges, consumers typically have believed that there are no good substitutes–the only way a person can certify to potential employers that she/he is pretty bright, well educated, good at communicating, disciplined, etc., is by presenting a bachelor's degree diploma. College graduates typically have these positive attributes more than others, so degrees serve as an important signaling device to employers, lowering the costs of learning about the traits of the applicant. Because of the lack of good substitutes, colleges face little outside competition and can raise prices more, given their quasi-monopoly status.

As college costs rise, however, people are asking: Aren't there cheaper ways of certifying competence and skills to employers?

"This is not for everyone, of course," Vedder notes. "Many have the resources to go to expensive residential colleges, which is as much a consumption as academic/investment experience."

The crucial distinction here is actually between the "academic" and "investment" functions of higher ed. The industry has exploded over the past few decades based on a business model that focuses more on selling the college degree as a credential--an "investment" that yields an increase in one's own "human capital"--than on persuading young adults that education is intrinsically valuable.

If someone could offer a less expensive job-hunting license--one that assessed an entry-level job-seeker's worth to a prospective employer at least as accurately as a college degree does--then the demand for college would plummet, as young adults could realize the same gains from a much smaller investment.

That's where ETS and CAE come in. They will offer two tests. One, called iSkills, "measures the ability of a student to navigate and critically evaluate information from digital technology." The other, the CLA, "assesses critical learning and writing skills through use of cognitively challenging problems." As Vedder explains: "Students can tell employers, 'I did very well on the CLA and iSkills test, strong predictors of future positive work performance,' and, implicitly 'you can hire me for less than you pay college graduates who score less well on these tests.' "

If the practice became widespread, it would drive college costs down and force cost-cutting and downsizing within the higher-ed industry. So you can expect the industry to fight hard against it.

Is higher ed really just designed to offer a credential or is it education? And how much should you indenture yourself to get the credential/education?

James50

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Because I suspect people would ignore it or make excuses for it if it involved their preferred candidate or party. It's only worth pursuing if the "other guys" do it.

That is soooooo true! Had a republican enacted and did what Obama did over the past few years, there would be an uproar from this side of the aisle.

Originally Posted by James50

I am just following the money. Were you not surprised at the collective impact of that one institution? I know I was surprised. They are giving the money for a reason and not just because they are boy scouts. No doubt you would have thought it important if the institution was part of the financial world.

James50

I didn't interpret it as the impact of one institution, because I am quite certain that the institution played no direct role. My strong hunch is that if you took the entire size of the UC Berkeley payroll and controlled for the fact that 90% of the employees are probably Democrats then the number wouldn't be surprising at all. That's only 10,000 employees giving $100. And I just checked, and sure enough the university system has 180,000 employees, so they gave an average of less than $10 each to Obama.

The financial institutions give to both sides, like most major corporations.

Of course I agree with you about the outrageous cost and decline of higher education, and indeed, there's no one on this forum who has suffered more impact from that than I. And I plan to get even.

Originally Posted by James50

Red State socialism. Grey Badger has some explaining to do. Keep in mind the red-blue determination is based on 2004 presidential election so it is a little off.

As for Georgia, I am still not apologizing for asking the feds to kick in on deepening the Savannah River to handle the new Panamax ships.

"Internal improvements" they used to call it.

James50

Would Georgia be willing to bear 80% of the costs? If not, why not?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

A rather extraordinary set of poll numbers, at right, on the state of presidential politics. We don't like anybody.

The demagoguery is now complete. Lewis Powell would be ever so pleased.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The demagoguery is now complete. Lewis Powell would be ever so pleased.

If this holds and is to be believed, Obama might win this one by default.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I can't disagree with those points. There is no limit on how much our government can spend; the Fed and/or the Treasury just needs to choose to do so. Too often this spending is used to prop up capitalist cronies, as David Stockman is pointing out now. The sound money folks like Ron Paul say the Fed should be abolished because of this lack of constraint. The other side of the coin from yourself!

MMTers are not enamored of the FED. It is as archaic as Ron Paul and for the same reason - we are not on the gold standard (and, it would be devastating for our economy and society to try to return to it).

The FED should be returned to solely its primary role of check clearing, maintaining reserve requirements and bank regulation (which should be increased in order to return banking to it boring former self); no more monetary policies - they are an anachronism. A key part of that would be to terminate the service provided primarily to the elites – issuing federal govt bonds. The biggest benefit, of course, would be to finally and completely destroy the myth that the federal govt needs to borrow its own dollars- and maybe folks would start acting like adults a little more.

Managing the economy should be greatly simplified by the federal govt sufficiently spending (i.e. injecting dollars into the economy) to foster full employment and sufficiently reducing spending or raise taxing (i.e., removing dollars from the economy) when needed for price stabilization. After that, most equity issues will disappear (but, I'd be okay with the govt attempting to deal with those that remain). Much of the desired social engineering (e.g. supporting the old and infirm, educating our youth and giving them a boast up, research and development, building/maintaining public infrastructure ) could then be dealt through the relatively much more open spending policy rather than by the highly cloaked machinations of tax policy. Yes, spending policy is more inefficent as a process, but that is how it should be - classical arguments over how big govt should be and what it should be attempting - those arguments should not be constrainted by the current idioacy that surrounds the ignorance of how our monetary system actually works.

With that in place, I'd would finally be able to sail off to French Polynesia knowing my work was done.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Would Georgia be willing to bear 80% of the costs? If not, why not?

If I am reading in-state politics right, Georgia would pay 100% if necessary. Your 80% figure is nice, but there is a huge difference in $14B (big dig) and $600M (deepening Savannah Harbor).

James50