Do you feel the election is going to be decided on foreign relations rather than domestic ones? There seems to be so much discord on the Repub side that one might feel that Obama is a shoe-in. But how does anybody know so early in the game? I feel that the campaign season should be shortened--that way other pertinent issues affecting the people can easier be addressed. Even seasoned senators are leaving because THEY are tired of the gridlock.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Sorry, not buying it. You are being ridiculously one-sided and unfair.

If you would bother to look slightly upstream of the thread, you would see -



Justin is well-aware that calling someone in my profession abjectly ignorant is fighting words. If he is claiming far superior knowledge, he better be able to back it up.

And where exactly would his superior knowledge and my abject ignorance play out in this arena? Three areas -
- nuclear processing
- the highest level of Iranian policy making
- the highest level of US policy making.

Taking the last first. I could have taken the near-obvious-to-all discernment between Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld(later, we learned that Rice/Powell/Tenet were just patsies) and Obama/Clinton/Panetta/Petraeus based on innate intelligence only let alone the orders of magnitude difference in the worshiping of Neo-Con mythology. However, knowing the history of Justin's and Indy's hatred of all-things-govt, what would be the point? If either one of them became President, the other would still be just as distrustful of big evil govt. Better for me to let them chew on their bone and back away slowly from that one. If you bother to take the time to actually read what I wrote, you will see that I said that I could understand their dismay and distrust given what has come before.

Regarding the second possible area of Justin's superior knowledge and my supposed abject ignorance, you really believe that his living in Russia for a period of time provides that? I have not only lived and worked for a few months in the same city as Justin, but have done so in many parts of the world for time periods ranging from months to a couple of years. I make no such claim that gave me any access whatsoever to the inner workings of the high policy makers of ANY of those countries. I seriously doubt that even Justin would take this line of justification for his supposed superior knowledge. Russia, by the way, is probable in the top three nations whose media outlets are thoroughly controlled by the central govt. There was a window there of relatively free-press, somewhat coinciding with Justin's time there, but those outlets are now closed off by Putin and a number of the journalists that had operated there are now dead from a variety of not-so-mysterious ailments and accidents.

That leads us to the third element of Justin's superior knowledge and my abject ignorance of nuclear processing. What I said was that the same source used by John to suggest that Iran has not YET decided to build the bomb also indicated that they had the technology to do so and that it would be a matter of a couple of months if not weeks. Justin's counter to that boiled down to providing a link to an advertisement for a book on how to make the bomb. If I were to Google around to find a book to indicate my superior knowledge, I would at least try to find one that purports to know something about what the Iranians have actually done -- but, maybe that's just me.

Again, I am befuddled by your one-sided reaction to my exchange with Justin. I believe it must have something to do with either (1) some sort of selective poster worshiping or (2) a total disrespect of knitting.

If it is the later, I would just like to note that while I don't believe it gives one superior knowledge of Iran's nuclear capabilities or intentions, I actually have great respect for knitting. I once took it up in 5th grade to attend an after-school knitting club taught by a teacher that I had an enormous crush on. Later in life, my mom use to pull my one accomplishment from that club out of the drawer to show people I was dating. She would do this only with the dates that she approved of so it was a sign to me early-on of those girls I would stop dating immediately and later, the women that I should attempt to continue to do so. Amazing, how my mother became such a better judge of character as I grew older.

I strongly suggest you make an attempt at the needles yourself. Maybe you too could learn to respect the needles.

However, if it is the former (i.e. poster worshiping), I would suggest offering Justin a room for you both. That may be just as enlightening for you as the needles would have been.

I don't see where he belittled your profession. You don't need to stoop that low. Actually, I disagree with Justin's views much more often than I disagree with yours. But your rhetorical devices suck.

Do you want to get a room?

Originally Posted by annla899

I don't see where he belittled your profession. You don't need to stoop that low. Actually, I disagree with Justin's views much more often than I disagree with yours. But your rhetorical devices suck.

Do you want to get a room?

Ah, I think that's what you're missing - the other side of professional belittlement.

In my profession, there is something known as the "suspension of disbelief." Prior to knowing what to suspend, one needs a thorough grounding in the "belief." Much like a Picasso or Van Gogh early works could give Courbet, Millet or any other Realist a run for their money, so too does a writer have to thoroughly understand the subject before breaking the rules. A vampire found on another planet is crude farce; a day care provider that never seems willing to go out into the sunlight makes one uneasy about the source of your 18 month's old new anemic condition. To pull that off, one needs to fully understand the nuances of day care, 18 month olds, parents stuck in a situation dependent on a strange day care provider, and, of course, anemia.

Justin is well aware of my profession and I'm sure gets some joy out of pushing my button. While everyone has areas of abject ignorance, a writer, by force of habit (and career-threatening scars), rarely puts pen to paper on any subject that could reveal even a hint of lack of substance. If the subject is of interest (and what isn't?), then days may be spent researching before one of us hazards a word.

A room would be great. I have other devices than just rhetorical that I've been told are indeed enjoyable.

Consequences Of An Attack On Iran Are No Joke

A grim joke made the rounds in late 2002 and early 2003, in the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq. The version I recall went something like this:

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney go into a Texas bar. Over a couple of beers they plan the invasion of Iraq, taking out Saddam Hussein and taking control of Iraq’s vast oil reserves. The big question, though, is how Americans might react to their starting another war, with victory still elusive in Afghanistan. They decide to do an impromptu sampling of public opinion, and invite an average, all-American looking guy standing at the bar to join them for a friendly drink.
“What would you think of us invading Iraq and taking over their oil fields, if you knew that 30,000 Iraqis and one American bicycle mechanic would be killed if we do it?” Bush asks.

The fellow slowly sips his beer, his brow furrowed. He mulls the question and looks troubled. Finally he asks, “Why should an American bicycle mechanic have to die?”
Cheney slaps the table and grins triumphantly at Bush. “I told you no one would give a damn about the 30,000 Iraqis!”

A decade later, no one seems to give a damn about Iranian lives either.

Iraqi physicians are seeing an upsurge in cancers and birth defects, which they blame on the usage of depleted uranium in the shells and bombs used by US and British forces in the 1991 Iraq war and the 2003 invasion. An estimated 300 tons of depleted uranium were used to attack Iraq in the First Gulf War. Abdulhaq Al-Ani, co-author of Uranium in Iraq: The Poisonous Legacy of the Iraq Wars, has been researching the health effects of depleted uranium weaponry on Iraq’s civilian population since 1991 and explained in an interview with Al Jazeera that the effects of depleted uranium on the human body don’t even begin to manifest until 5-6 years after exposure. Al-Ani points to a spike in Iraqi cancer rates in Iraq in 1996-1997 and 2008-2009.

AND:

The BBC reports that babies born in Fallujah now have 13 times the rate of congenital heart deformities than European-born infants. While visiting Iraq, World Affairs editor John Simpson was told many times that women in Fallujah have been advised not to bear children. The director of the Afghan Depleted Uranium and Recovery Fund, Dr. Daud Miraki, has found that increasing numbers of infants in eastern and southeastern Afghanistan are being born without eyes or limbs, and have tumors protruding from their mouths and eyes. The Pentagon denies any connection with the US military’s use of depleted uranium, even though (or perhaps because) these same effects are endangering veterans returning to the US from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is it worth it?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Do you feel the election is going to be decided on foreign relations rather than domestic ones? There seems to be so much discord on the Repub side that one might feel that Obama is a shoe-in. But how does anybody know so early in the game? I feel that the campaign season should be shortened--that way other pertinent issues affecting the people can easier be addressed. Even seasoned senators are leaving because THEY are tired of the gridlock.

At this point much is possible -- but at this stage the President has a higher chance of becoming incapacitated (including as mental breakdown) or dying than of being defeated, in which a reasonably-competent Democrat could win in his place. It's going to take an economic crash, a personal scandal, or a military or diplomatic catastrophe that nobody can now foresee to bring him down. The chance of him running an incompetent campaign is effectively nil; what worked in 2008 will fit his achievements so far. The Republican field may get out of disarray after Super Tuesday, well in time to prevent the President from winning 500 or so electoral votes with 60% of the popular vote. If I were to use statistical lingo to describe how I see him doing in electoral votes I see roughly 360 electoral votes as the median of likelihood with about 25 electoral votes as a standard deviation. He looks as likely to win 450 electoral votes as 270.

The four remaining Republican candidates all have serious flaws that practically ensure their defeat by an incumbent of even modest competence. I need not relate those obvious weaknesses. President Obama has achieved most of his promises to those parts of the electorate who voted for him and has those voters wanting more of the same.

I concur with you that this electoral year is the most agonizing in years. I doubt that, short of a transformation of our federal Presidential system into a centralized parliamentary system (which would require an overhaul of the Constitution) we can see any shortening of the Presidential campaign. The four surviving Republicans in the race have little to lose by losing. The money behind the political process ensures that the campaign can become little more than a barrage of cheap shots that debase politics in general.

Citizens United has itself debased our political process into one of "Your candidate is an extremist fool" followed by "Yours is even worse!" The archaic retort "So is your old man!" has become the level of public discourse. A 4T ordinarily becomes the mandatory sorting-out of the pathologies of culture, politics, and economics; this one will be no exception. In view of the 2010 election I can not see President Obama as the one to preside fully over the resolution of this Crisis Era. The Republicans take over as a near-monopoly Party and impose their dream of a "Christian and Corporate State", a New Feudalism, if they defeat this President and establish a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a solid House majority... but the Democrats have no chance to have a decisive majority until 2016. President Obama is decidedly not the Gray Champion; at most he can calm things and undo some of the degeneracy of the preceding 3T. (In view of the rot -- the debased culture, the corrupt economy, and the vile politics that we have recently gotten that would be a huge achievement). We have a President with more of a Truman-Eisenhower style than another Lincoln. But note well: Truman and Eisenhower were fine Presidents.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

At this point much is possible -- but at this stage the President has a higher chance of becoming incapacitated (including as mental breakdown) or dying than of being defeated, in which a reasonably-competent Democrat could win in his place. It's going to take an economic crash, a personal scandal, or a military or diplomatic catastrophe that nobody can now foresee to bring him down. The chance of him running an incompetent campaign is effectively nil; what worked in 2008 will fit his achievements so far. The Republican field may get out of disarray after Super Tuesday, well in time to prevent the President from winning 500 or so electoral votes with 60% of the popular vote. If I were to use statistical lingo to describe how I see him doing in electoral votes I see roughly 360 electoral votes as the median of likelihood with about 25 electoral votes as a standard deviation. He looks as likely to win 450 electoral votes as 270.

The four remaining Republican candidates all have serious flaws that practically ensure their defeat by an incumbent of even modest competence. I need not relate those obvious weaknesses. President Obama has achieved most of his promises to those parts of the electorate who voted for him and has those voters wanting more of the same.

I concur with you that this electoral year is the most agonizing in years. I doubt that, short of a transformation of our federal Presidential system into a centralized parliamentary system (which would require an overhaul of the Constitution) we can see any shortening of the Presidential campaign. The four surviving Republicans in the race have little to lose by losing. The money behind the political process ensures that the campaign can become little more than a barrage of cheap shots that debase politics in general.

Citizens United has itself debased our political process into one of "Your candidate is an extremist fool" followed by "Yours is even worse!" The archaic retort "So is your old man!" has become the level of public discourse. A 4T ordinarily becomes the mandatory sorting-out of the pathologies of culture, politics, and economics; this one will be no exception. In view of the 2010 election I can not see President Obama as the one to preside fully over the resolution of this Crisis Era. The Republicans take over as a near-monopoly Party and impose their dream of a "Christian and Corporate State", a New Feudalism, if they defeat this President and establish a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a solid House majority... but the Democrats have no chance to have a decisive majority until 2016. President Obama is decidedly not the Gray Champion; at most he can calm things and undo some of the degeneracy of the preceding 3T. (In view of the rot -- the debased culture, the corrupt economy, and the vile politics that we have recently gotten that would be a huge achievement). We have a President with more of a Truman-Eisenhower style than another Lincoln. But note well: Truman and Eisenhower were fine Presidents.

A serious atmosphere should be prevailing now because we have so many pressing issues facing the nation, and I fear that if we really get involved in Iran that it will be yet another distraction to solving problems on the home front. Do you really feel it is necessary to have a nearly non-stop campaign season running from mid-term for two years up to the election? I would like to think that we are not stuck with this political quagmire forever but can't be too optimistic. According to theory a 4T is a time to boil off the clutter and address the major concerns, yet this doesn't seem to be happening on a society-wide level so far and is no doubt a major reason the Occupy movement took off. Don't know about any of you, but for me mild depression has occurred as a result.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

A serious atmosphere should be prevailing now because we have so many pressing issues facing the nation, and I fear that if we really get involved in Iran that it will be yet another distraction to solving problems on the home front. Do you really feel it is necessary to have a nearly non-stop campaign season running from mid-term for two years up to the election? I would like to think that we are not stuck with this political quagmire forever but can't be too optimistic. According to theory a 4T is a time to boil off the clutter and address the major concerns, yet this doesn't seem to be happening on a society-wide level so far and is no doubt a major reason the Occupy movement took off. Don't know about any of you, but for me mild depression has occurred as a result.

The fault isn't that people are flippant or apathetic about politics; it is instead that people are often serious in believing their ruinous follies. People who believe that their scientific and pedagogical nonsense is essential learning for all kids, who assume that those who disagree with them do so as a demonstration of their low character, or can see no political good except that which enhances the bottom line of their interests can only foul up political life. Unexamined self-interest of economic elites at the expense of everyone else, the inappropriate focus of the powerful during a 3T, does not create justice, trust, community, or even sustainability.

I expect this 4T to wring out the depravities of American life as forcefully as necessary. In business we are going to be obliged to tolerate low-yield, long-term investment that commits everything but also keeps people that we care about afloat as part of the deal. We will see educational reforms that will likely improve the quality of those who graduate from college while constraining the cost. Trickle-down economics that well served economic elites at the expense of everyone else will go. We need to rebuild the virtues that made America great without restoring the old vices.

It's up to us as a people to do this ourselves. Those nations that fail to adapt during a 4T get bad results and get results imposed from elsewhere. We have the freedom to elect thugs and fools as well as viable alternatives. This Crisis is far from over. People who relish the depravities of the Dubya era without the ludicrous personality of America's Commodus won a critical election in 2010 while most of us slept.

Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims

What a cruel, heartless SOB.

45% of Tennessee Republicans are Birthers

But it's not about his race, yep, RIIIIIGHT...

Originally Posted by Odin

Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims

What a cruel, heartless SOB.

It's not only heartless, it is beyond stupidity.

The Federal Govt uses a few keystrokes and increases the bank account levels of those construction and other firms doing the clean-up and re-construction of the area. They then pay their employees for doing the work to get the communities back on their feet; many of those formerly unemployed construction workers - the hardest hit by the Great Recession. All those workers now spend money at grocery and other stores, restaurants, hotels, what have you. Those business then, in turn, pay their workers, maybe hire some more, and those workers go out and spend their incomes - maybe get the baby some new shoes!

While there is much sadness associated with these disaster, we have a Federal Govt capable of getting those communities not only back on their feet, but in this lack-of-demand economy, more than likely eventually humming along economically better than they would have been otherwise. And that includes adding increased tax revenue to local/state coffers for better schools, roads and all other services they provide.

And guess what, no one's federal taxes went up.

The ONLY price we all pay is from adding more fire to the deficit fear-mongering demagogues like Ron Paul.

Another teachable moment likely ignored by the great brainwashed masses.


You take away the irrational fear of federal deficit spending and the entire GOP machine collapses down to only those fearful of the WMVs and two guys on a wedding cake.

Wow. I didn't mean to leave a grenade for pw right before we left to go camping all weekend. Sorry about that.

In any case, as far as 'specialized knowledge' about the nitty-gritty of actually manufacturing atomic weapons goes, the point of my earlier -- something I'm sure as a writer, pw gets -- is that having spent several years doing the technical research for a book about the atomic weapons industry in the United States kind of helps a bit.*

Also, don't take the 'abject ignorance' thing too badly. We're all exactly that way about lots more things than not, and it's (at least the 'abject' part) really easily and quickly curable. Hardly fighting words.

---
*things for pw to add to his tourism list -- very cool, much recommended, easier for a US citizen to get into (and they do tours and everything) than Pripyat: Hanford nuclear reservation; Nevada Test Site; Pantex; ohio-class sub crawl at Bangor.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Wow. I didn't mean to leave a grenade for pw right before we left to go camping all weekend. Sorry about that.

In any case, as far as 'specialized knowledge' about the nitty-gritty of actually manufacturing atomic weapons goes, the point of my earlier -- something I'm sure as a writer, pw gets -- is that having spent several years doing the technical research for a book about the atomic weapons industry in the United States kind of helps a bit.*

Also, don't take the 'abject ignorance' thing too badly. We're all exactly that way about lots more things than not, and it's (at least the 'abject' part) really easily and quickly curable. Hardly fighting words.

---
*things for pw to add to his tourism list -- very cool, much recommended, easier for a US citizen to get into (and they do tours and everything) than Pripyat: Hanford nuclear reservation; Nevada Test Site; Pantex; ohio-class sub crawl at Bangor.

No problem; just having fun.

Hope you had a great camp. A little early in the season, but I guess that's Florida. If you went further north, I hope those twisters didn't pull on your stakes to hard!



Did you see the pics of the school bus tossed into the restaurant's front window - I think in Indiana.



You can't see it on this pic, but the complete intact chassis(head to stern) is sitting right on the other side of the bus' body. The body is nearly completely intact except for every window blown out. They flew about 3 blocks together from the high school parking lot to sit right next to each other by and in the restaurant. Thirteen minutes earlier that bus was packed with students and the restaurant was serving several tables of people. No one was killed there. Pretty darn amazing.

I might take you up on those touring suggestions. I like the notion of having an excuse for my usual Bushmills' or Jameson's "glow"

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Wages are also "part of a package to which both employer and employee have to agree." So therefore, wages are also "the employer's money" (and subject to their say on how it is spent)? No, they are the employee's money, earned in exchange for the work and services they perform for their employer. This really isn't rocket science...

-No, it is not rocket science, but you do not seem to get it.

Employers pay employees wages in cash. Cash is fungible. The employee accepts the wages in return for producing goods and services. The employee spends that cash any way they want. The employee does not get pay which is not part of their salary. Get it?

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Seriously, it is a health plan with a huge array of services that are optional to the employee. Contraception is just one of many of those...

-Some employers offer insurance. Insurance is bought under certain terms by which certain treatments are covered (perhaps with caps or minimums), and other treatments are not. The employee accepts the insurance in return for producing goods and services. The employee takes advantgae of the policy under the terms. Employees (like anyone else with a policy) do not benefit from treatments not covered by the policy. Get it?

As you say, there are a huge array of services that are optional to the employee. But you are not right that contraception is always included (pre-Obamacare). To do so would be to increase the monthly charge for something one (or both) parties do not want. Get it?

If you do not like the package the employer offers, do not take the job.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

...Besides, as I said, the policy was changed, and now the insurance companies are mandated to provide the coverage free of charge. So this isn't even an issue anymore...

-Saying that all insurance companies are mandated to provided the coverage "free of charge" is baloney. Who pays for it? If I order you provide a good or service, is it free to you?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

...7) For someone who doesn't like serfdom, and does like markets, you seem really eager to live in a world where employers micromanage the lives of their employees...

-The only way an employer can micromanage you is if you stay with them.

I'd suggest you stay away from working for the Roman Catholic church.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Huh? If you did remove that expense, you would be substantially reducing the total compensation of your employees...

-If you remove the expense of a benefit that the employee does not want, you can pay them a little more, or provide a benefit which they do want. Are you saying you would not want that?


After I posted this:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Interesting. Depending on how you judge it, job growth recovered in MAR 2009, long before anything the Obama administration did could posibly have had effect. But then, in 2010, after he'd been in charge for over a year, jobs slumped. Now, its all rather pekid- far weaker than in previous recoveries. Huh. Go figure.

-Playdudette posted this:

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, keep grasping at straws. Too funny...

...but Jenny noted this:

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The spike in jobs in Spring 2009 had to do with the United States Census, namely temporary jobs to collect data. The drop in jobs in Summer 2009 was the ending of these temporary jobs. Just an FYI.

...and...

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

To paraphrase Carville, et al in 1992, It was the Census, Stupid...

-This is even more interesting. The apparent rise in MAR 2009 was due primarily to census employment, but the dip later in the year (after the Obama-Dem policies had time to effect) would be attributable to...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Any one comparing our Great Recession to any other economic contraction since the Great Depression is truly showing their complete and utter ignorance of what is going on.....

-Har har har. The last great depression became the longest depression after the instituting of progressive policies.

Maybe I'll remind PW of the $666B Obamulus:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-I love stat's!

According to Playwrite's sources:

2009 2nd Qtr: 1.5%
2009 3rd Qtr: 2.7%
2009 4th Qtr: 3.5%
2010 1st Qtr: 4.2%
2010 2nd Qtr: 4.6%

...and using their very highest assessments (out of 9 estimates, all of the above come from the CBO's "high" estimate), and given that the US yearly GDP is $14.772T, then the amount of quarterly GDP gain resulting from the Obama stimulus is the following (decimals rounded up):

2009 2nd Qtr: $56B
2009 3rd Qtr: $100B
2009 4th Qtr: $130B
2010 1st Qtr: $156B
2010 2nd Qtr: $170B

Total: $612B...

So the final result of the stimulus, calculated on the most favorable out of NINE (9) estimates, is a gain of $612B...

...after spending $666B, according to PW's own figures.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...That completely ignores a very long thread on SS where I schooled you for over a year... and you still don't get it.

Within the paradigm of the Trustees (and nearly everyone else), they are assuming wage growth that means, even after their projected 22% cut to scheduled benefits in 20 years from now, those retirees will be getting 125% of what today's retirees' get, and in constant dollars. We've been over that a lot and you know it...

-Funny, how Playwrong "schooled" me, and yet my predictions WRT the collapse of the SS Ponzi Scheme keep coming true.

And he still desn't get the fact that the only reason that those wages will be higher is because they'll be paying commensurately higher TAXES. Then, after that, there's the 22% cut in benefits. IOW, a wash, THEN a 22% cut.

Again, anyone is free to do the real dollars math themselves with Uncle Sam's official SS Ponzi Scheme calculator:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html
...

(just remember, that these calculations do NOT include a 22% cut)

...and the acturarial calculations:

actuary@ssa.gov

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2011/tr2011.pdf

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hope you had a great camp. A little early in the season, but I guess that's Florida. If you went further north, I hope those twisters didn't pull on your stakes to hard!

Heh. We actually pulled up stakes and bailed out ourselves at about 11 saturday night, when they announced a tornado warning for Hernando county. But I grew up in north Georgia; seen my share of the cool stuff twisters can do.

Oh, and it's if anything, late in the season for camping around here, apparently. I can imagine why, too. Summertime in the swamp isn't really fun for walking around carrying stuff outside and getting eaten by bugs and so on. Plus, the metric fuckton of rain that falls near-daily from May through August also kind of puts a damper on the fun of being in a tent or on a trail.
Really, camping here sucks ass. Gimme my Mt. Hood or Rainier anyday -- even (especially) winter. But the kids, and scouts, and etc...

I think if I lived in a place with lots of tornadoes I'd want my house to be underground.

I think I might like to live in an underground place someday regardless, or at least partially underground. You might be able to save a lot on heating and cooling.

I just read about the underground house UK soccer player Gary Neville is building on the Moors. It's in the Teletubby style.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Heh. We actually pulled up stakes and bailed out ourselves at about 11 saturday night, when they announced a tornado warning for Hernando county. But I grew up in north Georgia; seen my share of the cool stuff twisters can do.

Oh, and it's if anything, late in the season for camping around here, apparently. I can imagine why, too. Summertime in the swamp isn't really fun for walking around carrying stuff outside and getting eaten by bugs and so on. Plus, the metric fuckton of rain that falls near-daily from May through August also kind of puts a damper on the fun of being in a tent or on a trail.
Really, camping here sucks ass. Gimme my Mt. Hood or Rainier anyday -- even (especially) winter. But the kids, and scouts, and etc...

I hear ya. I've gotten spoiled by mid/late- hunting season after the first frost or two and the bugs have been knocked down. I've gotten too old for the tent thingee and like the cabins or even open platforms - they can be pretty rustic just as long as its off the ground. The wife still makes me take out the younger ones in tents in the frickin summer but I try to go as far north and as far up in altitude as possible.

My son still talks about the sand fleas at Parris Island last summer. There are some advantages to old age - like very distant bad memories.

For outdoors, you were in God's country. The one and only time I ever got really bad altitude sickness was on Raineer and we were only at the lodge!

Hmm, Florida.... snorkeling or scuba, maybe?

Oh crap, I'm off thread topic. ah, ah.....

What do you think about Romney's hunting skills? I think he's trying for the NASCAR/hunting crowd on this one. I hear he uses a $11.5 million Predator drone. He can fly it up to the Hudson Bay from his home in Mass. His peeps pick up whatever he bags and has it FedX back to this butcher - on the plate in under 18 hours! Wow, those NASCAR guys can relate to that!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

If you do not like the package the employer offers, do not take the job.

This would be fine if health insurance wasn't nearly always provided by employers, and if health insurance was reasonable to obtain as an individual (or if some other payment system were in place). However, right now, employees generally don't have the option of negotiating for wages instead of a restrictive benefit, so they are stuck with taking some of their compensation in the form of employer-provided health insurance. In a truly competitive market, the employer would not have the capacity to make a take-it-or-leave-it offer like this in the first place.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-The only way an employer can micromanage you is if you stay with them.

I'd suggest you stay away from working for the Roman Catholic church.

Or anyone else for that matter, if anything like the Blunt amendment ever passes. Do you really want to live in a world where an anti-vax employer can refuse to cover your child's vaccinations? Or one where alt med fanatics will only cover homeopathy and crystal energy when you get cancer? A universal conscience carve-out is insane -- and a specific one that only works for Christian conservatives is evil.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-If you remove the expense of a benefit that the employee does not want, you can pay them a little more, or provide a benefit which they do want. Are you saying you would not want that?

You obviously don't understand the way this situation works. Here, let me give you an example:

An employer pays $50,000 in compensation to an employee. Of that, $40,000 is their gross wages and $10,000 covers their medical insurance. After taxes, the employee has, say, $30,000 net, plus health insurance coverage.

If the employer gave the employee $50,000 in gross wages instead, this would all be taxed, and the employee would end up with $37,500 net. Then the employee would need to buy insurance. In the present market this is more expensive than for the employee than the employer, but let's assume that away and have the employee spend $10,000 on insurance. OK, so now the employee has $27,500 net, plus health insurance coverage. This is LESS compensation, so the employee will NOT take this trade.

In order for the employee to take the trade, the employer would have to pay the employee around $53,333 so that their net pay minus $10,000 for insurance was equal to taking the insurance. Since this raises the cost of employing that worker, the employer will never even bother offering this sort of a trade (and the vast majority of them don't).

I've simplified the numbers, but you can see how the tax system strongly encourages employers to provide health insurance instead of just paying people in wages. This means that a portion of a worker's income that should be part of their wages and theirs to control is now partly controlled by the employer. This is power that the employer has over the employee which the government has given them. They shouldn't have this power in the first place, but since they do, we cannot allow them to leave the employee with less control over their health care expenditures than they would if health insurance was purchased with wages. Tax law backs the employee into a corner, and limits their choices. We should not enable employers to restrict those choices even further, forcing an employee to switch jobs to get the health insurance they want.

Originally Posted by playwrite

For outdoors, you were in God's country. The one and only time I ever got really bad altitude sickness was on Raineer and we were only at the lodge!

No doubt. The only place easily-accessible place in North America better for outdoorsing than Oregon/Washington is BC.

Hmm, Florida.... snorkeling or scuba, maybe?

The springs can be pretty neat, and you can't argue with the fact that there are critters everywhere here. So that's cool. But yeah. If you're not big on bobbing around in the water like a jackass (and they don't even have waves in the Gulf...), there's just not so very much outdoors here.

Ah well...

What do you think about Romney's hunting skills? I think he's trying for the NASCAR/hunting crowd on this one. I hear he uses a $11.5 million Predator drone. He can fly it up to the Hudson Bay from his home in Mass. His peeps pick up whatever he bags and has it FedX back to this butcher - on the plate in under 18 hours! Wow, those NASCAR guys can relate to that!

I so very much don't give a shit about the scumbags that rule or that aim to rule. But that was probably funny.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

No doubt. The only place easily-accessible place in North America better for outdoorsing than Oregon/Washington is BC.

The springs can be pretty neat, and you can't argue with the fact that there are critters everywhere here. So that's cool. But yeah. If you're not big on bobbing around in the water like a jackass (and they don't even have waves in the Gulf...), there's just not so very much outdoors here.

The springs are amazing; in some critter ways, even better than the Yucatan's cenotes. I went on an eco-tour of the largest ranch in the US (yep, it's in FL and not TX!), I was pretty surprised at what's there - FL Jaguar for one. Also they took us over the largest mountain in FL - it's about 7 feet above sea level. I also learned where the term "cracker" actually originated - has to do with the sound of a whip that the Spanish FL cowboys, vaqueros, used -- and who just happen to be a little lighter skin than the others milling about back then.

And then, there's the Glades - a lot of holy shirt moments from the crocs and exotics; see if you can figure out this Tums moment –

And most of all, some of the descendents from those ancient ranch hands that make the movie Deliverance like it was made up the road at Disney Studios - if you know what I mean.

But, hard to feel bad for you, when I know you can head over to Miami’s wildlife, and ah, maybe take a cruise?


Try the Keys for the snorkel bobbin, particularly the one once removed from Key West to the North. Or better
still, get a boat and go to the one with the Spanish fort. Or best, have Jimmy B. give you a short puddle jump over there. That usually cost some bucks but if you can find Jimmy (try a few blocks away from Hemmingway’s house), un-harassed, buy him a beer and talk about any big game experience, good chance it will open a door of opportunity.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I so very much don't give a shit about the scumbags that rule or that aim to rule. But that was probably funny.

I know; just trying to keep us thread topic honest. I don't need any more points, particularly now that Rani is gunning for me on the prim-and-proper channel.

Oh that remains me. Apparently Romney when gatherin votes in FL said he was gonna go noodling for croc's. I guess that will also make the OK voters that just stick to catfish stand in awe of da man! See, back on thread topic!

James, we've been at this ad nauseum before, so just some highlights on most; but, with an expansion at the end on the most important aspect.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-
If you do not like the package the employer offers, do not take the job.

Kurt goes into detail on this so I'll just make the quick point.

Employment in the US is much more beyond, and purposefully so, the Social Darwinism that you imply. There are considerable laws and requirements imposed by our society, through govt, on those wanting to employ people. You are welcome, through non-violent action, to attempt to change any of those rules or the govt itself, but until you do, you are not entitled to pick and choose those with which you will comply.

As long as no one is getting hurt, the govt has no business interfering within the practices inherent to a religious group. However, if any such group involves itself in secular activities (health care, education), particularly that involve people not of their faith, then those activities are fully subject to the broader laws and regulations imposed by society through govt on those activities. If they don't want that, then those religious groups have the choice to cease and desist from those particular activities.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

---Maybe I'll remind PW of the $666B Obamulus:

As I have now frequently noted for you before, there has been no costs associated with whatever Obama has spent. There has been no tax increases; in fact, federal taxes have gone down considerable for most people since he's been in office. Further, there has been no sustained, generalized increased in prices, i.e. no real inflation, that can be attributed to any of Obama's spending. You could cut the benefits of his Stimulus by 90% and with it still costing us nothing, our return of investment (ROI) would still be infinite. Prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Funny, how Playwrong "schooled" me, and yet my predictions WRT the collapse of the SS Ponzi Scheme keep coming true.

Even within your false paradigm of "pay-as-you-go," "transfer payments" or the ludicrous "Ponzi Scheme," no one is claiming that SS is collapsing. Worst case scenario is that only 78% of scheduled benefits will be paid starting over two decades from now. And that is all predicated on real wage growth that would have future retirees’ benefits still being 125% of what today's retirees get in constant dollars. What was said on that other thread -
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...215#post378215

- still holds whether you learned anything in your 'schooling' or not.

However, as you know, I no longer reside in the false paradigm that you along with most reside. To simplify matters, let’s assume that, at best, all the payroll taxes to date have gone to paying SS benefits and any surplus has gone to other federal govt spending (this is the most commonly held myth on all sides of the argument). Let's go further still and assume the worst case that all the payroll taxes actually went poof into the electronic ether never to be resurrected again (this is the actually truth). Either way, the same result, the federal govt doesn't have a secret savings account somewhere holding any of the payroll taxes for any future use. Instead, what we are left with are pieces of paper, special SS bonds, issued by the same govt that issues our dollars (in paper and electrons). These paricular pieces of paper issued by our govt are locked in a special file cabinet -

They are stored in a three-ring binder, locked in the bottom drawer of a white metal filing cabinet in the Parkersburg offices of Bureau of Public Debt. The agency, which is part of the Treasury Department, opened offices in Parkersburg in the 1950s as part of a plan to locate important government functions away from Washington, D.C., in case of an attack during the Cold War.

One bond is worth a little more than $15.1 billion and another is valued at just under $10.7 billion. In all, the agency has about $2.5 trillion in bonds, all backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

And here it is, the white one with the super-duper 1950s high tech locks on it -



- notice the super badass protecting that file cabinet; must be a member of a particularly lethal and secret special forces and his weaponry must be invisible to the naked eye!!!

Now, sometime around 2017/18, our payroll taxes are going to be less that SS payouts and the govt will have to "tap" those paper bonds, i.e. they will turn one piece of govt paper (bonds) into another piece of govt paper (dollars). Actually, they will just, by keystrokes on the FED's computer, add digits to SS recipients' bank accounts just as they do now and grandma and granddad will be able to go out and buy whatever their accounts let them buy - I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to turn down their money.

Now what is to prevent the FED from doing that? Are they going to run out of keystrokes? Are they going to run out of electrons to send down the wire to recipients' bank accounts? Not likely.

Well, what happens if the amount the FED has to send down the wires with its keystrokes exceeds what is indicated to be the surplus on those pieces of paper held in the big white file cabinet with the 1950s lock on them? Will they run out of keystrokes? Will they run out of electrons to send down the wire? Are you sure anyone is going to remember the combination to that file cabinet to see what the amount on the bonds add up to be? Are you sure the file cabinet is not going to be misplace between now and 2037 - maybe next to Indiana Jones' crated-up Arc-of-the-Covenant?

So what is to stop the keystrokes from fully crediting SS recipients with their full benefits? Why that would be a govt decision, no? At one level, just some bureaucrats making sure all the numbers work on their spreadsheets - so they don't get a bad job performance rating. But eventually, it becomes a political decision, right?

Now, what should the politicians look at when making that decision? I think they might start with how the economy is doing at the time. Will the injection into the economy of all that money, through SS recipients, increase aggregate demand, beyond what the private sector is already creating, to a point to cause inflation to rise? If so, maybe not a good idea to add all those digits to SS recipients' bank accounts - best to hunt around for some excuse not to, right?

However, what if the private sector's aggregate demand creation is limping along and, in fact, the economy is in an economic contraction because there is not enough demand (does that sound faintly familiar?)? What if moving those keystrokes to max and getting granddad and grandma out their spending on the grandkids or one more vacation down at the Gulf or maybe even some sex toys is exactly what the anemic economy needs?

What would be really cool is if by the 2030s, the American people finally had smartin up about all this and just merely laugh at the few Ron Pauli types left still screaming about hyperinflation around the next corner for the zillionth time; or, at those who want to treat macro economics as some sort of morality play.

The problem is neither of us, nor anyone else, have any certainty whatsoever as to what the economy is going to need 20-30 years from now. If one of us did, we should be focusing that incredible future telling on what the SP500 will close at tomorrow and make an incredible fortune in less than 24 hours from now.

There are some clues, however. Do you think actual demand (based on incomes) currently exceeds potential global supply to meet that demand? It doesn't; actually, far far from it. Do you have any credible scenario where that is going to change? The one exception to that may be energy. However, do you think worrying about federal deficits is going to make any difference about that? Perhaps we might want to take on some more deficit spending now to maybe better address that limitation?

James, I don't think you're a dumb guy, really. I do think that you are so wedded to a false myth, and in a way that you believe serves your political inklings, that you can't even begin to question your most basic assumptions or viewpoints. Grasping reality doesn't require rocket science; it just requires an open mind and desire to know the truth.

An interesting example of how far beyond the pale some Republican candidates are: Santorum is losing Ohio at the moment because he is losing Catholic voters. Romney is doing better among them than among Protestants. Santorum's medieval positions are unpopular even in his own church.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

An interesting example of how far beyond the pale some Republican candidates are: Santorum is losing Ohio at the moment because he is losing Catholic voters. Romney is doing better among them than among Protestants. Santorum's medieval positions are unpopular even in his own church.

Whoever it was who tried to gut reproductive rights long established in American life.... contraception? ... just threw what was likely to be a close Presidential election into a blowout. I say it here. This will hurt Republicans in Congressional elections.

...Newt Gingrich just promised $2.50-a-gallon gasoline. How does he get that? With deflation that gets us $2.50-an-hour wages?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...Newt Gingrich just promised $2.50-a-gallon gasoline. How does he get that?

I will tell you how, drill baby drill.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I will tell you how, drill baby drill.

That won't work when the fact is there is no supply problem. It might work to get votes though, that is true. Republicans are all hoodwincked; in this case a literal "trickle down." Give the oil companies whatever they want, and the oil will trickle down.

America is really really stuck, because it buys this meme that what helps the economy is to help business. But helping business means letting them off the hook on taxes, regulations, and subsidies for themselves. Helping business means letting the bosses rule. Until the people get angry at the bosses again, which they should always be, they will give away the store to them, and they will lose. Business bosses do not create jobs; they destroy jobs. Only good government policy will create jobs, not by taking over all of private business, by requiring business to produce more in the national and the peoples interest as well as in their own interest.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

I will tell you how, drill baby drill.

President Obama does nothing to stop that.

The oil companies want control of policy in energy, transportation, and perhaps the environment. But even if that would bring oil prices down that wouldn't be worth the cost -- first, because effective control of government by an industry is a serious erosion of democracy, and second, because the oil industry can not stop speculators from bidding up prices of petroleum or could never be stopped from speculating in the market if they choose to do so (and if that is so we could have $7.50-a-gallon gasoline... and you saw that right).

Monopolization of a commodity with a nearly-vertical demand curve is good only for profiteers before it leads to an economic collapse.