Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's also not the entire truth. We do have the capital. Whether we have the courage to take it from those who are hogging it and put it to use remains to be seen, though.

If you had the capital, you wouldn't be participating in leftwing campaigns and dishing out leftwing propaganda to aquire and control ours.

The RW lie machine is out again. Obama's speech is being move inside because of bad weather, and the lie machine is already spouting BS about it being because Obama couldn't fill up the stadium.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I really don't understand your point here. I haven't heard anything new re: the political arena in quite some time, much less anything RADICAL. How do you perceive the Democrats trying to radically change America via a human with divine powers? All I have heard is "rich people need to pony up for some stimulus if they won't create some jobs". That is hardly new, radical or magic.

You learn a lot about the Democrats and their social and political makeup when you're willing to walk in on their turf, get down on their grass and play with them.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

*Ahem*



But,(in response to Rani):



<giggle>


Prince

PS:!

I just sent JDG 66 a PM.

Damn your 4 smiley faces!

Originally Posted by Odin

The RW lie machine is out again. Obama's speech is being move inside because of bad weather, and the lie machine is already spouting BS about it being because Obama couldn't fill up the stadium.

Could he?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In common usage. You have to recognize that "working folks" and "working people" are terms of the labor movement. Despite the presence of "work" as four of its letters, it has nothing to with whether or not one works; many people work who are not "working folks." "Working folks" are the lower class (although not the lowest class -- that's inhabited by the unemployed/unemployable). Members of the upper class usually work -- in fact, almost everyone works. But they are not "working folks."

In common usage working folks are working folks. In distinct usage working man is applicable but no longer applicaple. You could try to remove me but you really can't because I was a working man before I became a business owner. Do the old symbols still define the working man or is a gas powered trimmer and a pnuematic hammer or nail gun more applicable? Based on your standards, the man dumb enough to pound a hammer deserves to be taxed less therefore paid more the man who is smart enough to use a nail gun instead because there's more labor involved in hammering vs pulling a drigger.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I just sent JDG 66 a PM.

Damn your 4 smiley faces!

I should have known that you, Rani, and Glick were part of a "Stalk Odin" club. Disgusting.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

If you had the capital

Please observe in the post you quoted the word "we." This is distinct in meaning from the word "I." It's plural.

Originally Posted by Odin

I should have known that you, Rani, and Glick were part of a "Stalk Odin" club. Disgusting.

I don't stalk you. I just hammer you and flip you around once you give me the opportunity to hammer you and flip you around, so to speak. Who's fault is that Odin?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

In common usage working folks are working folks. In distinct usage working man is applicable but no longer applicaple. You could try to remove me but you really can't because I was a working man before I became a business owner.

That means you used to be working folks. It doesn't mean you still are. As a business owner, you're the boss. The boss is never working folks, even if he does work, and even if he used to be an employee at one time.

The point here is that there's a fundamental, unavoidable conflict of interest between working folks and the boss. Your employees want you to pay them more. That's in their interest. But if you do pay them more, that cuts into your profits. So not paying them more is in your interest as the boss. This is unavoidable, and it means you are no longer one of them.

The conflict of interest between you and your employees is MUCH greater than any conflict between either of you and someone on public assistance. Attempts to convince your employees to the contrary are lies.

EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not working folks either. I'm self-employed. There's no conflict of interest between me and working folks, because I have no employees, but I don't have a boss, and that means I'm not working folks myself, although, like you, I used to be.

Originally Posted by Aramea

This is extraordinarily difficult to explain to a Randian true-believer, but I give you props for trying. I, myself, have given up. I did get it through to my step-father, at which time he said "so, we still have to reduce spending because of the deficit". Four sentences don't go by until he says "Obama is bad because unemployment is still over 8 percent". Those are two opposing concepts in today's economy. They cannot tie that knot and I am tired of saying it. Reducing the deficit will increase unemployment, and to-the-moon unemployment is A-OK as long as a Republican is in charge. It is an urgent problem when a Dem is in charge.

Yes, I understand the frustration.

I'm not sure what is worse - (1) trying to explain to a self-identified successful businessman or a business school enrollee that, without demand, they're likely to go-out-of business let alone hire someone or (2) trying to explain to Progressives how they have bought into the fallacy of federal debt being like household or business debt and their kneejerk sense of the need to genuflect at the balance budget alter.

Neither can ever put up any rational counter-argument with any real thinking behind it and as they come close to grasping that they both fall into defensive posture to keep their minds closed. The supposed business man/student is worse with the usual spouting off of bumper sticker sloganeering of big evil govt that can't create jobs ideologue blindness. However, the Progressive’s bottom line of "this just can't be" has become torturously boring.

The only hope is that at least some silent bystanders get a bit curious and do a little research and a lot of real independent thinking – hard to find that these days, however.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I can see how reducing the deficit would reduce funding and eliminate jobs in the process. I can also see how interest payments on the debt will exceed the cost of Obama's Stimulus and bite into funding unless its financially supported with more debt.

You come so close with the basics and yet you just can't put it together.

Of course interest on the federal debt will grow and part of it will not be offset by revenues; so what?

Those interest payments go to real people and real institutions that use it to create demand (including investing in economic growth). It still circles back to whether it creates too little or too much demand for the economy to supply - too little and you get deflation, too much and you get inflation.

Why are you so convinced it will be inflation? And exactly when will that occur? And why do you believe that if inflation becomes an issue it can't be addressed by increasing taxes, decreasing spending or raising interest rates?

Why are you so afraid of something that you cannot predict will even happen - to the point where you accept TODAY 12 million unemployed, many more under-employed, crumbling infrastructure, economically-debilitating student debt, underfunded research and development, etc, etc. These are the things that will determine if the economy can meet future demand; if fully invested in, these are the things that will not only prevent inflation but allow for a prosperous economy for EVERYBODY. Why are you so willing to forgo that for the possibility, however remote, that there may be inflation some day?

You're no different than the kid who won't get out of bed because there might be a magical monster under his bed. Cute with a kid, but yea, it really is that asinine in an adult.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Will it last forever? How long does faith last? At what point do investors, banks and taxpayers completely loose faith?

Immediately after losing faith, they can then proceed to go to jail or the funny farm for not paying their taxes. That's because the federal government accepts tax payment in the currency that it chooses to accept tax payments, and that is not gold, donkeys or brides. No, that be dollars and only dollars that the US government will accept – and they will throw your butt in jail or the funny farm if you keep bringing them coconuts or even bars of gold.

So loss faith if you want, but just make sure you have enough of the stuff to pay your taxes. Oh, unless your Romeny and don't pay any taxes.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Please observe in the post you quoted the word "we." This is distinct in meaning from the word "I." It's plural.

I assume "we" meant progressives or socialists or liberals or blues or greens or Kiffly brigades or a conglomerate of leftwing hodge podge. You were obviously included in the "we". So, whatever we is, you're part of it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Immediately after losing faith, they can then proceed to go to jail or the funny farm for not paying their taxes.

And that's the key there. Faith in the US dollar lasts exactly as long as faith in the US government's enforcement organs to kidnap and beat up with impunity people who don't do what they say. MMT deserves to be congratulated for finally getting around to openly recognizing this basic point.

Originally Posted by Odin

Julian Castro = future president of the US. That guy is going places!

Yea, there was some good analysis last night on, I think, PBS as to when the Hispanic population growth will make Texas a swing state - some were putting it as early as 2016.

Romney's got a lock on TX in 2012 but watch the actual vote totals closely particular the Hispanic total and % register. Turnout is the issue with Hispanic today, but that would change in a heartbeat with a Hispanic on the ticket.

When TX goes to a swing state, it will become conventional wisdom that the GOP has downsized to a regional party with diminished influence (kind of hard to contend in the Electoral College starting out with CA, NY, TX in the other column). From there, it may get real interesting as to how the Dem party could grow so large that a split would be inevitable - but, that would come much later.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Immediately after losing faith, they can then proceed to go to jail or the funny farm for not paying their taxes. That's because the federal government accepts tax payment in the currency that it chooses to accept tax payments, and that is not gold, donkeys or brides. No, that be dollars and only dollars that the US government will accept – and they will throw your butt in jail or the funny farm if you keep bringing them coconuts or even bars of gold.

So loss faith if you want, but just make sure you have enough of the stuff to pay your taxes. Oh, unless your Romeny and don't pay any taxes.

Lets see, you don't have the forces and the ability to round up several million ILLEGAL Mexicans but you think you have the forces and the ability to round up half of the American taxpayers. Oh boy, do you have a lot to learn about Americans. Lets see, a small scrap in rural Texas and another in rural Idaho resulted in the loss of a federal building. What do you think a big scrap is going to result in as far as losses? My only hope is that you're the tax collector and the Democrats are in full control. Oh, and if all the fiat money in great grandmas account and all your account were to vanish would you sell me your bades diamond ring or access to her body or opt to fly out a window and go splat?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I assume "we" meant progressives or socialists or liberals or blues or greens or Kiffly brigades or a conglomerate of leftwing hodge podge.

You assume incorrectly. We meant Americans. All of us, together as an aggregate.

You were obviously included in the "we".

Yes, but so was everyone else, and that inclusion is mandatory. I, by myself, all alone, am not "we."

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Fortunately, I'm not as dumb as dirt. I identified those connections long before you saw the light and fell in line with Bush Republicans as far as taxation is concerned.


The question is whether the government is spending to much and getting little or nothing back as far as returns and results.

Tell me, Sherlock, what's it going to take to stimulate me. I can sprinkle a helluva lot more money and generate a lot more business than female airheads and dirt cheap labor.

Taxes - You're right on the taxes - I am somewhat ambivalent. It doesn't make much sense to raise anyone's taxes in this economy right now. Taxes serve only to get people to use the currency and to control inflation. The former is not really an issue any more nor will it ever likely be (no matter how hysterical the Austrians may get) and the latter can only be something we can hope for given the high levels of unemployment and under-employment. However, if you are going to raise taxes on someone, doing so for the top 2% is best because it will have absolutely no impact on aggregate demand in the economy. My only fear is that raising such taxes will give the excuse to further cut federal spending which is about the stupidest thing we can do right now - but given how stupid Americans are about how their monetary system actually works, it is very likely we'll do the stupid thing.

Spending to much - relative to what? As a self-professed successful businessman, you should know the correct measure is the ratio "return on investment" (ROI). We can argue about the 3 million jobs that were created or the infrastructure that was built or even Solyndra, whatever you want that goes into the numerator. However, it is a fact that the denominator is ZERO, there has been NO real cost associated with those investments. No one's taxes have gone up; in fact, total federal tax rates have gone down since Obama has taken office. There is very little generalized inflation, and what inflation there has been during that time can be attributable to cost-push inflation in food, energy, health care and higher education - not to federal govt expenditures or the FED's "printing money."

If the denominator is zero, and it is, then the ROI is infinite. Do you know of ANY private business endeavor with a infinite ROI?

Sprinkling - you're sprinkling something alright. It's called silliness. You're not going to sprinkle money or generate business unless you too have income and that income comes from someone else spending. You want to reduce that spending by removing billions from the economy so that an electronic spreadsheet at the FED shows a smaller difference between revenues and spending. That is some pretty silly sprinkling.

Originally Posted by Odin

I should have known that you, Rani, and Glick were part of a "Stalk Odin" club. Disgusting.

Man, Prince of Cats was just kidding, but I thought it would be funny. It is the sort of thing JDG 66 (Glick) is good at. And you bring it on yourself. You apologized in another thread, and I acceted, but I can see you were just playing for sympathy. I take back my acceptance of your apology.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I don't stalk you. I just hammer you and flip you around once you give me the opportunity to hammer you and flip you around, so to speak. Who's fault is that Odin?

Yeah, he brings it on himself. He really cannot see it though, because he is blind to his faults. I do not think he will ever get better. at anything.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That means you used to be working folks. It doesn't mean you still are. As a business owner, you're the boss. The boss is never working folks, even if he does work, and even if he used to be an employee at one time.

The point here is that there's a fundamental, unavoidable conflict of interest between working folks and the boss. Your employees want you to pay them more. That's in their interest. But if you do pay them more, that cuts into your profits. So not paying them more is in your interest as the boss. This is unavoidable, and it means you are no longer one of them.

The conflict of interest between you and your employees is MUCH greater than any conflict between either of you and someone on public assistance. Attempts to convince your employees to the contrary are lies.

EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not working folks either. I'm self-employed. There's no conflict of interest between me and working folks, because I have no employees, but I don't have a boss, and that means I'm not working folks myself, although, like you, I used to be.

Another Brian Rush humpty dumpty definition.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Lets see, you don't have the forces and the ability to round up several million ILLEGAL Mexicans but you think you have the forces and the ability to round up half of the American taxpayers. Oh boy, do you have a lot to learn about Americans. Lets see, a small scrap in rural Texas and another in rural Idaho resulted in the loss of a federal building. What do you think a big scrap is going to result in as far as losses? My only hope is that you're the tax collector and the Democrats are in full control. Oh, and if all the fiat money in great grandmas account and all your account were to vanish would you sell me your bades diamond ring or access to her body or opt to fly out a window and go splat?

Let's not play in magic ponyland. Instead, let's try the experiment!

Don't pay your Federal taxes, KIA, and be very vocal about your non-payment - maybe even go on local TV and declare your nonpayment. In fact, once the deadline has passed and you've got the IRS notice, march to your IRS office and tell them you are not going to pay your taxes. (I'll leave it to you as to whether you want to waive a pistol around). Let's see what will happen - should be fun.

But you and Justin are implicitly correct - the system depends to a large extent that there isn't a large group of really really stupid subversives who really really hate their country and are really really hypocritical when it comes to all that flag waving that they really really like to put on display.

Before you try your experiment, why don’t you and Justin take a buddy trip to the outskirts of Mogadishu to see the Nirvana you both desire. Hell, I might just foot the bill for that trip.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yes, I understand the frustration.

I'm not sure what is worse - (1) trying to explain to a self-identified successful businessman or a business school enrollee that, without demand, they're likely to go-out-of business let alone hire someone or (2) trying to explain to Progressives how they have bought into the fallacy of federal debt being like household or business debt and their kneejerk sense of the need to genuflect at the balance budget alter.

Neither can ever put up any rational counter-argument with any real thinking behind it and as they come close to grasping that they both fall into defensive posture to keep their minds closed. The supposed business man/student is worse with the usual spouting off of bumper sticker sloganeering of big evil govt that can't create jobs ideologue blindness. However, the Progressive’s bottom line of "this just can't be" has become torturously boring.

The only hope is that at least some silent bystanders get a bit curious and do a little research and a lot of real independent thinking – hard to find that these days, however.

I guess you are missing out on the counter-productivity of creating debt. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

blah, blah, blah, blah. Come on, a clever player like you should be able to come back with something better than this s***.

Too close to the truth, hey?