Originally Posted by Exile 67'

The key point is that Obama was weaker in foriegn policy than McCain and Obama won the election.

Was he? Sure, he perceived as such by conservatives who think strength is talking smack like "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran". But if you look at what the candidates explicity said about strength you have to consider the exchange between McCain and Obama about acting against al al Qaeda in Pakistan, without informing Pakistan. Obama said he would act* and McCain said he would not, it was not something you do to an ally.

Unlike the bomb bomb bomb bluster, that everyone knows is just meaningless bullshit, this exchange talked about a specific, realistic situation that could easily happen. And in this Obama was the hawk while McCain was the dove. Surely I was not the only one thinking, if Bin Laden is in Pakistan (as most experts believed) then McCain has ruled out getting him, while Obama has not. Since OBL was enemy #1 in my book, McCain has just revealed himself as fatally weak where it counts.

I believe the (unspoken) subtext of Obama's hawkish position was Clinton's 1998 attempt against OBL. In this attempt, cruise missiles launched from the Indian Ocean were to fly to a target in Afghanistan where intelligence indicated that OBL would be staying that evening. To get to landlocked Afghanistan the missiles would have to travel over Pakistan on their way. Clinton waited to inform the Pakis until just before the cruise missiles entered their airspace (so as to avoid an action that would be an act of war). The missiles took some hours to travel to their target where they detonated according to plan. Later it was learned that OBL had made a last minute decsion to stay elsewhere that night and was not there, and so had been spared. There was always a suspicion that he had been tipped off by the Pakis. Based on this experience Democratic policymakers would naturally be more leery of Pakitan's reliability than Republicans, who did not have this experience.
************************************************** ************************************************** *****
*Obama wasn't talking smack, when intelligence revealed the possible location of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, Obama ordered him killed and did not inform the Pakistanis, just as he said he would. McCain would not have acted, if we believe what he said.

Do we really believe that we have anything other than conservatives running for president? Maybe we Boomers have long term memory loss. I mean, shoot, there was a time when we had some progressive leadership in the Democratic party. But then, maybe like the frog in the boiling water, conservative rule just grew on us.

So looks like we get a choice in November between the Moderate Right or the Extreme Far Right.

August 13th, 2012 4:59 PM
Rep. Paul Ryan's Far-Right Agenda: The Media Can't Take the Truth
By Dean Baker

In principle, the country faces a choice this fall between a moderate conservative, President Obama, and Governor Romney, an extreme conservative who wants to privatize Social Security and Medicare and eliminate most of the services that the public expects from the federal government. The reason why this choice only exists in principle is that the media have worked hard to conceal Rep. Paul Ryan's extreme positions from the public.

Now that Governor Romney has implicitly embraced these positions by selecting Representative Ryan as his vice presidential nominee, it remains to be seen whether the media will do it job.First, in spite of all the name calling about President Obama being a Kenyan socialist, he has pushed an agenda that most Republicans would have been comfortable with twenty years ago. His health care plan was put forward by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1992, before Governor Romney put it in place in Massachusetts. His Wall Street reform leaves the too-big-to-fail banks bigger than ever, even after they helped to inflate a housing bubble, the collapse of which brought the economy to its knees.

And, running large deficits in a downturn was a practice that Obama could tie to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bushes. It would be difficult to find a policy pushed by our Kenyan socialist president that would make a Nixon Republican unhappy.

By contrast, Representative Ryan has an extreme right-wing agenda that predates both Great Society and the New Deal. He has put forward plans that would cut and privatize both Social Security and Medicare. He has also called for essentially zeroing out most categories of federal spending.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mi...ant-take-truth

Originally Posted by Deb C

Do we really believe that we have anything other than conservatives running for president? Maybe we Boomers have long term memory loss. I mean, shoot, there was a time when we had some progressive leadership in the Democratic party. But then, maybe like the frog in the boiling water, conservative rule just grew on us.

So looks like we get a choice in November between the Moderate Right or the Extreme Far Right.

August 13th, 2012 4:59 PM
Rep. Paul Ryan's Far-Right Agenda: The Media Can't Take the Truth
By Dean Baker



http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mi...ant-take-truth

He's the first politician to essentially admit that all the money that Gen X and older Millies put into Social Security and Medicare will be gone by the time they reach retirement age, and is actually running his platform on it. You knew it was coming, Nomads, now it's time to make the sacrifices expected of you. It's for the good of the country after all. Remember the sacrifices your Lost/GI generation grandparents and great grandparents made for their country? Now it's your turn to pay your dues just like they did.

Somehow I don't think it's going to work this time, though. Gen X will probably take the hit regardless (they'll have no choice), but this entitled Millennial Generation won't stand for it. Even if they do make the sacrifices asked of them, they'll demand to be rewarded well for it after this 4T, just like the GI generation did. The Lost generation got no such reward (most didn't live long into elderhood), but they did earn a lot of respect from the younger generations.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

He's the first politician to essentially admit that all the money that Gen X and older Millies put into Social Security and Medicare will be gone by the time they reach retirement age, ....

That's because he is clueless or evil. Given that even I can't believe he is that evil, I'll just caulk him up as another of the 99.9% who are clueless.

What exactly do you mean by "will be gone?" Have you EVER given that a moment's critical independent thought to that assumption?

I assume you mean that your payroll taxes have gone to others and as such were not 'saved' for your own elderly age. But let's say they were instead 'saved,' where would that savings be? Would it be put in a CD at the local bank? Or maybe Uncle Same would have been wise and opened a secret Swiss bank account? Or maybe Uncle would bury it under the Mall in front of one of the Smithsonian museums?

Here's the truth -

Uncle Sam doesn't EVER save money for ANYTHING. Uncle Sam only issues money (it's called spending) or destroys money (it's called taxing) and these days, its done with computer keystrokes on a electronic spreadsheet. When it comes time to pay you or anyone else's federal benefits, now or in the future, Uncle Sam is not going to run out of savings because Uncle Sam doesn't have any savings. And he's not going to run out of keystrokes. Paying you and every other beneficiary, now or tomorrow, is simple a political choice - end of story.

I could go into what that political decision should be based upon, but I'll instead only say now that an INFORMED decision can only be done in the midst of the realty at the time the benefits are paid.

Other than that, it is of little use to discuss the decision until you finally get that it has nothing to do with the Uncle Sam running out of savings or even running out of money bullshit that's been cramped down our collective throats for decades.

It's not rocket science, but it is a whole hell of a lot harder than trying to convince a kid that there's no Santa Claus coming down the chimney for Christmas. One would think it would actually be easier, but that's the problem with brainwashing - the lack of independent thought.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

He's the first politician to essentially admit that all the money that Gen X and older Millies put into Social Security and Medicare will be gone by the time they reach retirement age, and is actually running his platform on it. You knew it was coming, Nomads, now it's time to make the sacrifices expected of you. It's for the good of the country after all. Remember the sacrifices your Lost/GI generation grandparents and great grandparents made for their country? Now it's your turn to pay your dues just like they did.

Somehow I don't think it's going to work this time, though. Gen X will probably take the hit regardless (they'll have no choice), but this entitled Millennial Generation won't stand for it. Even if they do make the sacrifices asked of them, they'll demand to be rewarded well for it after this 4T, just like the GI generation did. The Lost generation got no such reward (most didn't live long into elderhood), but they did earn a lot of respect from the younger generations.

Ryan is lying. Playwrite has debunked the "SS is in trouble" nonsense too many times to remember. If the powers that be that operate folks like Ryan around like manikins get their wish they will shove all that SS money into the greedy maw of Wall Street and will trigger a boom and bust that will make the housing bubble and crash look like child's play. You are a fool if you think Ryan is thing about anyone except his Wall Street puppet-masters.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

He's the first politician to essentially admit that all the money that Gen X and older Millies put into Social Security and Medicare will be gone by the time they reach retirement age, and is actually running his platform on it. You knew it was coming, Nomads, now it's time to make the sacrifices expected of you. It's for the good of the country after all. Remember the sacrifices your Lost/GI generation grandparents and great grandparents made for their country? Now it's your turn to pay your dues just like they did.

The real problem is that the working classes are underpaid and economic elites are overpaid and undertaxed. The sacrifice required is for people to work harder and longer for less under harsher conditions so that elites can get even richer. Privatization of Social Security and Medicare largely mean that profiteers will make more off mandatory investments in sundry fees including 'management costs'. The civil servants who handle Social Security and Medicare are NOT paid megabuck compensation as commissions for selling instruments of insurance or 'management fees'.

Romney and Ryan stand for a plutocracy that will never give a working man a break.

Somehow I don't think it's going to work this time, though. Gen X will probably take the hit regardless (they'll have no choice), but this entitled Millennial Generation won't stand for it. Even if they do make the sacrifices asked of them, they'll demand to be rewarded well for it after this 4T, just like the GI generation did. The Lost generation got no such reward (most didn't live long into elderhood), but they did earn a lot of respect from the younger generations.

It is entirely possible that this Crisis will be over labor-management issues. Giant corporations under pathological leadership, seeking to drive workers into destitution and peonage, might bring forth strikes and riots -- perhaps even civil war.

...Obama/Biden and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate are the safer choices this time.

This fact check was sent to me. I guess both sides of the aisle can cause hysteria with partial truths and down right untruths.

Anyway..........

No End to ‘End Medicare’ Claim
Posted on July 6, 2012 , Corrected on July 18, 2012

Democrats are still hammering an old, and since replaced, GOP proposal, claiming it would “end Medicare,” and cost seniors $6,000 more a year for their health care. The newest Republican budget, proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, keeps traditional Medicare — unlike his plan from 2011 — and the increased cost claim is no longer applicable to it.

The latest string of “end Medicare” claims comes from the liberal Patriot Majority, a 501(c)(4), a nonprofit advocacy group, that was founded by a Democratic strategist, and that does not have to disclose its donors. Its ads, which began airing June 18, support Democratic Reps. John Barrow of Georgia, Ben Chandler of Kentucky and Jim Matheson of Utah, as well as Republican Rep. David McKinley of West Virginia. Another late June ad, from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, echoes the Medicare theme, attacking Rep. Rick Berg, who is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Kent Conrad in North Dakota. The ad says Berg voted for “essentially ending Medicare.”

House members voted along party lines on the Ryan budget last year (which included the Medicare proposal), with all Democrats and only four Republicans, including McKinley, voting against it.

Snip

The Journal actually said that the old Ryan plan “would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills” (our emphasis added). And that’s true of the old Ryan plan, which would end traditional Medicare for future beneficiaries (those who turn 65 starting in 2022). But as we explained above, the latest Ryan plan even keeps traditional Medicare as an option for future seniors.

Entire piece: http://factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-...edicare-claim/

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

PS: Notice I let that last "1%" comment pass without falling asleep. Maybe we are learning something. Maybe not.

I learned that you are cute when you sleep.

But I don't know why you sleep tho. Don't trickle-down and 1% describe accurately the problem with the elitist line that deceives the people? What other words would YOU suggest I use? It is the deceived who are asleep, so don't be among them.

Wake up, cat!

Edit: It IS extremely boring that the right-wing politicians keep trotting out these lines about job creaters, dependency, freedom and coercion, and the intrusive power of big government, and people keep falling for it. Yes, I think the people should be extremely bored with this line, and with hearing it over and over. If people don't want to hear about "trickle-down economics," then why do they keep falling for it again and again and again and again.................

And yes, people don't seem to get it that this policy (call it what you will) benefits only the wealthy class, the top 1%, and that the rest of us get screwed by these policies. Those are facts, and if you don't want to hear these facts (because if they are facts, you're going to hear them), then do something to change them by NOT voting for these clowns who create them. OK, I'm sorry if you didn't enjoy the rant.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Uncle Sam doesn't EVER save money for ANYTHING. Uncle Sam only issues money (it's called spending) or destroys money (it's called taxing) and these days, its done with computer keystrokes on a electronic spreadsheet. When it comes time to pay you or anyone else's federal benefits, now or in the future, Uncle Sam is not going to run out of savings because Uncle Sam doesn't have any savings. And he's not going to run out of keystrokes. Paying you and every other beneficiary, now or tomorrow, is simple a political choice - end of story.

Yep, printing more money will always solve the problem ... oh wait...

Originally Posted by Odin

Ryan is lying. Playwrite has debunked the "SS is in trouble" nonsense too many times to remember. If the powers that be that operate folks like Ryan around like manikins get their wish they will shove all that SS money into the greedy maw of Wall Street and will trigger a boom and bust that will make the housing bubble and crash look like child's play. You are a fool if you think Ryan is thing about anyone except his Wall Street puppet-masters.

I have to agree. I don't see Ryan as evil or clueless. I see him as a willing delusional. He believes in the Randian view of the best and the rest, so he aligns with The Best^TM . I hope he's ready for the onslaught. He's going to get it from all sides ... to whit:

Originally Posted by David Stockman in today's NY Times

Paul Ryan’s Fairy-Tale Budget Plan

PAUL D. RYAN is the most articulate and intellectually imposing Republican of the moment, but that doesn’t alter the fact that this earnest congressman from Wisconsin is preaching the same empty conservative sermon.

Thirty years of Republican apostasy — a once grand party’s embrace of the welfare state, the warfare state and the Wall Street-coddling bailout state — have crippled the engines of capitalism and buried us in debt. Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators” (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse.

...

The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station.

In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.

David A. Stockman, who was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, is the author of the forthcoming book “The Great Deformation: How Crony Capitalism Corrupts Free Markets and Democracy.”

More at the link.

While I certainly disagree with most of what Stockman has to say now and has said in the past, he is a consistent advocate for his position who doesn't let ideology blind him to the facts. If Ryan can't convince a strong conservative like Stockman, he's in serious trouble.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Yep, printing more money will always solve the problem ... oh wait...

No, not always; and yes, it can be detrimental in ONE particular situation.

If I can assume you recognize that ONE problem as exactly being that, i.e. ONE problem, then you have come a long long way; well beyond 99.9% of people. You have come to understand that federal taxes pay for nothing and certainly are not transferred to anyone else; federal taxes merely remove dollars from the economy (to control the ONE problem, by the way). Even better, you've come to understand that federal spending is not actually dependent on borrowing - the feds merely issue T-bills as a service to those ALREADY holding dollars that want to earn interest (best example, the Chinese, who have buko dollars from their trade surplus with us and want to earn interest so they buy T-bills).

Those two truths nearly always blow the minds of most people who typically wonder off muttering "that can't be true." They have no rational argument against those truths, but they simply can't emotionally accept it. They can't accept it because it goes against the most successful mass brainwashing ever accomplished, by far, in human history. You truly are one of the unique few who have broken through. I commend you!

Let me let you savor the moment of your uniqueness before we plunge into that ONE problem (actually, I'm under a script deadline right now and got to go! )


One last thing - technically, it's is not really "printing more money," it is actually "key-stroking more money" - I don't think they actually could print enough dollars to cause the ONE problem we're referring to; the sheer bulk of handling that much paper through the banking system would likely so clog the armor cars, roads, bank windows and vaults (if not entire buildings) that it would take too long to get the money into the economy and that would cause the opposite problem, i.e. a depression.

If Democrats keep chasing the Republicans instead of standing our ground, we will move even further to the right. Here we have a Republican VP candidate who has policies that even the two Bush's wouldn't agree with. Paul Ryan is extreme personified. If Obama attempts to compromise/cave like the last three and a half years, with this type of Republican, then the only winner will be Wall Street.

Excerpt from Democracy Now:

AMY GOODMAN: Matt Rothschild, the issue of Social Security. I mean, Mitt Romney has been somewhat careful, never coming out with a plan, yet here you have Paul Ryan, who is a man with a plan, a very clear plan, and it has to do with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Social Security, he’s taken on from the beginning. Can you explain Congressmember, now vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan’s plans for Social Security?


MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Yeah. He wants to do two things. He wants to partially privatize Social Security, so people can, instead of investing in the Social Security system, which you do now automatically, could take a sum of those funds, invest in Wall Street. Again, this would be a huge gift to Wall Street. And secondly, he would lift the retirement age from 65 to 67. And so, you know, we’d be working longer and longer, and we’d have more of our savings at risk. The problem with investing in the stock market, if the market goes down, then you’re going to be out of luck. And so, what happened, you know, back in the New Deal, we had one out of three elderly people who were in poverty. And after the New Deal and the Great Society programs, that got under 10 percent. And so, do we really want to go back to where we had one out of three, one out of two elderly people who are in poverty? I don’t think that’s the system we want to get to. But that’s the system that Paul Ryan may drive us to.

AMY GOODMAN: Interestingly, President Bush would not adopt Paul Ryan’s budget plan, his recommendations.

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Yeah, I mean, that gives you an indication of just how far right Paul Ryan is here. He’s to the right of both President Bushes. I think he’s to the right of Dick Cheney on some of these issues. And so, we have a guy who is just so far over to the edge that he is actually—he may hurt Romney’s chances, in some ways, because of that, but on the other hand, I think he’s going to help the Republican agenda, the Wall Street agenda, the primitive free market capitalist agenda, because he’s going to be out there every day now peddling this stuff. And unless Obama and unless Biden can really hammer that into the ground, we’re going to have to live with the consequences of that, whether Romney-Ryan win or not.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you, Matt Rothschild, for being with us, editor and publisher of The Progressive magazine, John Nichols, political writer for The Nation, author of Uprising: How Wisconsin Renewed the Politics of Protest, from Madison to Wall Street.

Originally Posted by playwrite

No, not always; and yes, it can be detrimental in ONE particular situation.

If I can assume you recognize that ONE problem as exactly being that, i.e. ONE problem, then you have come a long long way; well beyond 99.9% of people. You have come to understand that federal taxes pay for nothing and certainly are not transferred to anyone else; federal taxes merely remove dollars from the economy (to control the ONE problem, by the way). Even better, you've come to understand that federal spending is not actually dependent on borrowing - the feds merely issue T-bills as a service to those ALREADY holding dollars that want to earn interest (best example, the Chinese, who have buko dollars from their trade surplus with us and want to earn interest so they buy T-bills).

Those two truths nearly always blow the minds of most people who typically wonder off muttering "that can't be true." They have no rational argument against those truths, but they simply can't emotionally accept it. They can't accept it because it goes against the most successful mass brainwashing ever accomplished, by far, in human history. You truly are one of the unique few who have broken through. I commend you!

Let me let you savor the moment of your uniqueness before we plunge into that ONE problem (actually, I'm under a script deadline right now and got to go! )


One last thing - technically, it's is not really "printing more money," it is actually "key-stroking more money" - I don't think they actually could print enough dollars to cause the ONE problem we're referring to; the sheer bulk of handling that much paper through the banking system would likely so clog the armor cars, roads, bank windows and vaults (if not entire buildings) that it would take too long to get the money into the economy and that would cause the opposite problem, i.e. a depression.

Inflating the currency to pay off our debts is the most dangerous form of taxation. It devalues the dollar and actually makes everyone the poorer for it. In the short term it does benefit the poor. It greatly benefits people in debt at the expense of people who are owed money, no doubt about that, which is one of the reasons Keynesians like the idea. But there are long term consequences for considerably debasing currency that greatly hurt the poor more than it benefits them. Wages don't rise fast enough to match the new inflated currency, and people out of work have little hope of keeping up with the newly inflated economy, especially if they are ineligible for unemployment insurance. It extends recessions rather than ends them and it could lead to a situation like we saw in Germany in the 1930s.

I'm not quite sure why you and Odin felt the need to resort to such condescending responses to my post. I'm a former economics teacher. I know what Keynesian economics is. I never said I agree with Ryan's plan nor do I agree with it. My initial post was poking fun at the fact that he was actually running his platform on admitting that gen xers won't get medicare or social security when they reach retirement age despite the money they put into it. I am completely against his plan. I'm a Gen Xer after all and I'm all for raising the taxes on the wealthy to pay what the government owes to us, and to the rest of the world for that matter. But I am also opposed to drastically inflating the currency as a means to solve this problem. I don't think Keynesian economics works very well and it leads to more problems than it solves, especially as we head towards a more technologically automated economy in which the majority of jobs will be replaced by machines and computers.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

I'm not quite sure why you and Odin felt the need to resort to such condescending responses to my post. I'm a former economics teacher. I know what Keynesian economics is. Inflating the currency is just another form of taxation. It devalues the dollar. In the short term it does benefit the poor. It greatly benefits people in debt at the expense of people who are owed money, no doubt about that, which is why Keynesians prefer it. But there are long term consequences for considerably debasing currency that greatly hurt the poor more than it benefits them in the short term. Wages don't rise fast enough to match the new inflated currency, and people out of work have no hope of keeping with the newly inflated economy. It extends recessions rather than ends them.

True enough ... and not. Right now, we have the tilt in the other direction, toward deflation. Interest rates can't be much lower, so borrowers should be having a field day, but they aren't. Lenders aren't much in a lending mood ... and why should they. The banks are fat and happy, borrowing from Uncle Sam and lending it right back at a profit. They see no growing economic demand, so they don't lend to businesses amd can't lend to consumers at anywhere near the real interest they think they need. Big businesses are stuffed with cash, and have no reason to borrow. So we're sitting in stasis ... and crises are looming. We aren't about to go out and shop anytime soon.

So the odds of inflation are as close to zero as they can be. Our problem is not money, it's demand. We can create demand by going on a spending binge, but the only shopper with money and a willingness to spend it is the one able to create it out of thin air. If we do that, and inflation resuls in a few years, then we can fix that problem then. Unlike PW, I have no faith that our politicians will do that, unless there is a non-political way to do it ... which means borrowing from the Fed, and praying that they call the notes later.

Originally Posted by Ghw ...

I never said I agree with Ryan's nor have I ever. My initial post was more poking fun on the fact that he was actually running his platform on admitting that gen xers won't get the money they put in back. I am completely against that. I'm a Gen Xer after all. But I also don't think Keynesian economics works very well in and it leads to more problems than it solves, especially as we head towards a more technologically automated economy in which the majority of jobs will be replaced by machines and computers.

The excess capacity problem has no known solution at this point. We'll have to try a few things before that problem comes to heal ... but that's a future issue. Right now, we have a current mess to fix. Failure to spur growth and fix the maldistribution of wealth today, will virtualy guarantee a truly dismal future for our children and their children.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

True enough ... and not. Right now, we have the tilt in the other direction, toward deflation. Interest rates can't be much lower, so borrowers should be having a field day, but they aren't. Lenders aren't much in a lending mood ... and why should they. The banks are fat and happy, borrowing from Uncle Sam and lending it right back at a profit. They see no growing economic demand, so they don't lend to businesses amd can't lend to consumers at anywhere near the real interest they think they need. Big businesses are stuffed with cash, and have no reason to borrow. So we're sitting in stasis ... and crises are looming. We aren't about to go out and shop anytime soon.

So the odds of inflation are as close to zero as they can be. Our problem is not money, it's demand. We can create demand by going on a spending binge, but the only shopper with money and a willingness to spend it is the one able to create it out of thin air. If we do that, and inflation resuls in a few years, then we can fix that problem then. Unlike PW, I have no faith that our politicians will do that, unless there is a non-political way to do it ... which means borrowing from the Fed, and praying that they call the notes later.


The excess capacity problem has no known solution at this point. We'll have to try a few things before that problem comes to heal ... but that's a future issue. Right now, we have a current mess to fix. Failure to spur growth and fix the maldistribution of wealth today, will virtualy guarantee a truly dismal future for our children and their children.

You don't want to solve this problem with a solution that will dig us deeper into the hole we're in. We could keep artificially creating all sorts of BS jobs for people that there is no real need for and no one really wants so that we can continue extending this debt based economy to feed an ever increasingly bloated government until it's no longer sustainable. Or we can actually make some legitimate long term changes right now that will actually prepare us for this new technological and automated economy. Let's raise taxes on the rich, shrink government and cut useless programs that are just there for the sake of "creating jobs", kick corporate influence out of government and limit lobbying by special interest groups, pay off the debts we have, build a reasonable but modest and less costly safety net for those out of work and then we can lower taxes again and let the free market take care of the rest.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

You don't want to solve this problem with a solution that will dig us deeper into the hole we're in. We could keep artificially creating all sorts of BS jobs for people that there is no real need for and no one really wants so that we can continue extending this debt based economy to feed an ever increasingly bloated government until it's no longer sustainable. Or we can actually make some legitimate long term changes right now that will actually prepare us for this new technological and automated economy. Let's raise taxes on the rich, shrink government and cut useless programs that are just there for the sake of "creating jobs", pay off the debts we have, build a reasonable but modest and less costly safety net for those out of work and then we can lower taxes again and let private industries take care of the rest.

We can zero the debt problem away, by crediting everyone with a few hundred-thousand dollars, then taxing it back into the treausry the follwoing year. Would that be theft? In some cases, yes. In others, definitely not. But the debt prblem, if there really is one, will be resolved. This does nothing for the excess capacity problem.

Right now, the excesses are in the labor area. Should we allow "the market" to value everyone on a declining scale, until enough people decide working is a waste of time? And then, what do we do about them? They are not going to go into the woods and conveniently starve to death. In fact, that wouldn't work either, because removing the demand they create will reduce the need for workes, perpetuating the cycle. And what happens when all the jobs are taken by automation of some sort? We are a long way from that level today, but we're on track to get there. I may not see it, but my grandchildren certainly will see the first hurrahs of this glorious new age.

These are first generation issues. I guess the Luddites were roughly three centuries too early. Mechanization today can even displace mental work, so there are few enclaves of human effort left standing. In 100 years, the decision making function will be automated away as well, leaving humans nothing to do.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We can zero the debt problem away, by crediting everyone with a few hundred-thousand dollars, then taxing it back into the treausry the follwoing year. Would that be theft? In some cases, yes. In others, definitely not. But the debt prblem, if there really is one, will be resolved. This does nothing for the excess capacity problem.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should. There are better ways to solving the debt problem than just pressing the delete button and watching the fallout from a comfortable distance (I'm imagining the end of "Fight Club" right now).

Right now, the excesses are in the labor area. Should we allow "the market" to value everyone on a declining scale, until enough people decide working is a waste of time? And then, what do we do about them? They are not going to go into the woods and conveniently starve to death. In fact, that wouldn't work either, because removing the demand they create will reduce the need for workes, perpetuating the cycle. And what happens when all the jobs are taken by automation of some sort? We are a long way from that level today, but we're on track to get there. I may not see it, but my grandchildren certainly will see the first hurrahs of this glorious new age.

These are first generation issues. I guess the Luddites were roughly three centuries too early. Mechanization today can even displace mental work, so there are few enclaves of human effort left standing. In 100 years, the decision making function will be automated away as well, leaving humans nothing to do.

The same thing will happen that happened during the neolithic revolution and the industrial revolution. New occupations will be created to fill the vacuum. The market will create these occupations automatically, there's no need for the government to artificially create them. Hopefully people will be fulfilling roles that are rewarding and will benefit us as a people. It's very likely we won't have to work nearly as many hours, but we will have to work smarter so as not to be replaced by a machine. It will be a glorious age if we can figure it out. Now's the time to start working towards it.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

Let's
(1) raise taxes on the rich,
(2) shrink government and cut useless programs that are just there for the sake of "creating jobs"
(3) kick corporate influence out of government
(4) limit lobbying by special interest groups
(5) pay off the debts we have
(6) build a reasonable but modest and less costly safety net for those out of work
(7) then we can lower taxes again
(8) free market take care of the rest.

This is a naive program. 1, 3, and 4 are out of the question. For starters, Republicans would never go for it, period.

What you are left with is 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Republicans are ethusiastic about 2, 7 and 8 and so these are certainly doable.

5 is pure fantasy, it cannot be taken seriously.

Ryan has a plan to do 6, although I think a superior approach would be to just slash the spending on the existing programs when required by external forces not present at this time. This strategy has the advantage of requiring no effort at all to accomplish, its what will happen automatically when the external factors manifest themselves in 1-2 decades time.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

... The same thing will happen that happened during the neolithic revolution and the industrial revolution. New occupations will be created to fill the vacuum. The market will create these occupations automatically, there's no need for the government to artificially create them. Hopefully people will be fulfilling roles that are rewarding and will benefit us as a people. It's very likely we won't have to work nearly as many hours, but we will have to work smarter so as not to be replaced by a machine. It will be a glorious age if we can figure it out. Now's the time to start working towards it.

When we arrive at a time that machines are intelligent and fully capable of performing all the work that needs doing with no input from any human, we will need an alternative to employment-generated income. Here's one idea, that has the advantage of longevity. I'm sure that there are others, including a life-service mandate - think about this as a life-long draft, with few actual obligations owed for the quantitiy of rewards received.

There is no question that prescient computers will be created in the next two or three decades. Once that happens, the rest is inevitable.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

You don't want to solve this problem with a solution that will dig us deeper into the hole we're in. We could keep artificially creating all sorts of BS jobs for people that there is no real need for and no one really wants so that we can continue extending this debt based economy to feed an ever increasingly bloated government until it's no longer sustainable. Or we can actually make some legitimate long term changes right now that will actually prepare us for this new technological and automated economy. Let's raise taxes on the rich, shrink government and cut useless programs that are just there for the sake of "creating jobs", kick corporate influence out of government and limit lobbying by special interest groups, pay off the debts we have, build a reasonable but modest and less costly safety net for those out of work and then we can lower taxes again and let the free market take care of the rest.

Raising taxes on the rich might be doable after November, if Obama stands his ground and the Republicans cave, or if they lose the House.

"Shrink government" is meaningless. We need more government for some things, and less for others. Cut what is not needed and expand what IS needed.

The stimulus created jobs that were needed, like for building infrastructure and keeping teachers and firefighters on the job. The Republicans ended and reversed this since Nov.2010, thus stalling the recovery and keeping us in recession. Stimulus works, and should be used when needed. Creating money should also be used in times of low inflation and recession due to low demand.

I fully agree with kicking out corporate influence and limiting lobbying. Now it appears this will take a constitutional amendment, because of the Republican-appointed judges on the Supreme Court. A Democratic (and only a Democratic) congress could pass laws to this effect, and they would hold until the Republican Supreme Court throws some of them out again. It should be done, but until a Democratic president replaces Judge Kennedy, Scalia or Thomas, such a yo-yo would continue.

We can't pay off the debt; the best we can hope for is reducing the deficit. To do this, we need to raise revenues and cut defense and war. Programs that don't work should be cut, especially subsidies to industries that are established.

We need a safety net for those who can't work and can't find it, and for males and females, with welfare-to-work for those who can do it. Safety nets protect us all and stimulate the economy. Restoring it probably won't happen soon, but any further cuts should be resisted, unless they restore efficiency. Social Security is not in danger that a few adjustments will not correct, unless it is raided for the funds that people have already paid into the program (and should be restored to it), in order to fund more tax cuts, or unless the "tax holiday" is extended too long. The debt was created by Republicans as a rationale for cutting these programs. They should be continued as needed, therefore, and not cut in order to reduce the deficit and the debt.

Medicare works and should be extended to all. That won't happen soon, but cutting it as Ryan proposes goes against what is needed in the long run, and the eventual solution.

There is no need for lower taxes. They are already too low, including on the middle class. Lowering taxes does not stimulate the economy very much, especially lower taxes on the wealthy, but only helps the wealthy. I'm not sure what to do about corporate taxes.

We need investments and regulations as well as the free market. Some services are best operated or supervised by government; others are best left to the private sector, but regulated in the public interest as needed.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

When we arrive at a time that machines are intelligent and fully capable of performing all the work that needs doing with no input from any human, we will need an alternative to employment-generated income. Here's one idea, that has the advantage of longevity.

I like that idea. We all become owners and investors instead of wage slaves out of work. We also need the regulations to lower work hours and raise pay, as long as we have workers (and artists/craftspeople/services with a smile/therapists/teachers, etc). I don't think machines can ever do everything that we humans are willing to pay for.

Originally Posted by Gianthogweed

You don't want to solve this problem with a solution that will dig us deeper into the hole we're in. We could keep artificially creating all sorts of BS jobs for people that there is no real need for and no one really wants so that we can continue extending this debt based economy to feed an ever increasingly bloated government until it's no longer sustainable.

What about hiring people to do real work that needs to be done to benefit everyone in the public? These include fixing our broken bridges and roads, updating our antiquated sewer system and electrical grid, weatherizing homes, fixing up boarded, vacant homes -- I could go on and on. These are public needs that I don't see the private sector addressing. These are things that need to be done and aren't being done. Why?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

When we arrive at a time that machines are intelligent and fully capable of performing all the work that needs doing with no input from any human, we will need an alternative to employment-generated income. Here's one idea, that has the advantage of longevity. I'm sure that there are others, including a life-service mandate - think about this as a life-long draft, with few actual obligations owed for the quantitiy of rewards received.

There is no question that prescient computers will be created in the next two or three decades. Once that happens, the rest is inevitable.

The first idea is interesting (the Albus one), and, though not convinced that it will work, it might be worth a try, I'll have to read more about it. But I'm suspicious of the second one because "life service mandate" sounds like you're suggesting forced employment, though I'd have to read more about it to be sure. I have a major problem with forced employment, and would prefer not to go down that path. I think there is a lot of undue fear of an idle populace. People assume that if people aren't working they will do evil things (Idle hands as the saying goes). I don't agree with this line of thinking. The purpose of life is a life with purpose. Most people will find that purpose, and spend their time doing what they love even if it doesn't earn them much as long as their basic needs are provided for. For those who haven't found their purpose yet, they should have the choice of doing something like you are suggesting, but should never be forced. There will always be trouble makers who infringe on other people's liberties, and they should be punished for breaking those laws. But they shouldn't be forced to do anything because we fear what they MAY do if they're not working.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

What about hiring people to do real work that needs to be done to benefit everyone in the public? These include fixing our broken bridges and roads, updating our antiquated sewer system and electrical grid, weatherizing homes, fixing up boarded, vacant homes -- I could go on and on. These are public needs that I don't see the private sector addressing. These are things that need to be done and aren't being done. Why?

The market will always automatically provide for a need that is profitable. But if there is an urgent need for something that is not profitable that no private business is willing to provide, than the government can and should fill that need provided we can afford it. But we shouldn't be too reliant on government services, since we may not always be able to afford it and we don't want to go back to a debt based economy. We should do our best to avoid relying too much on government and should allow the market and technology to move us forward as much as possible.

It's probably too early to talk about 2016; is there a 2016 elections thread? I think so. But I will say, that if Paul Ryan runs he is likely to be nominated, and if nominated and runs against Hillary Clinton is likely to win. I would support Hillary of course, and would have to read the other signs more carefully later, but that's how it looks to me now looking at their mutual charts. I also think Ryan would probably only last 4 years, if elected in 2016. Whichever party is in power in 2020 is more likely than not to be replaced. Unless the voters wisely decide that a Republican president is just too much of a mistake to ever repeat again, then a Republican win in 2016 might be better in the long run, if the patterns hold and the party in power is voted out or otherwise turned out in the zero year. It is possible I suppose that a new party could turn out either major party in 2020 (as in 1860), though not likely. But more parties becoming powerful could be the eventual result of the 4T.

Sometimes it has happened that the party in power stayed in, but an assassination or death in office greatly changed the direction of policy anyway (1881, 1901). But the assassination and death-in-office pattern appears to have been broken. So the 20-year pattern is more likely to continue as a change of party in power. These predictions are not put forward as certainties of destiny, but probability forecasts.

May I interrupt this conversation for a thousand words through art?