Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

... Let me add that any belief that we are better off if a small "educated" or "well-bred" or whatever elite is running things and all we have to do is obey, is a good way to send society way off track - going downhill. It goes back to Plato, whose deep disappointment with what Athenian democracy had turned up was shared by many, a feeling which resulted eventually in Alexander the Great moving in. Was Athens any better off?

Paradoxically it may be the competitive system of American politics that got the results closest to those of the Platonic dream of an oligarchic state in effect if not form. One occupational group -- attorneys -- dominates the apex of power in American politics. With few exceptions (notably two generals) the best Presidents have been attorneys by profession. Someone like Harry Truman today would probably get led to a legal education -- he would have been a fine attorney. Attorneys may not be smarter than physicians, engineers, accountants, entrepreneurs, or research scientists, but they are probably the smartest generalists around.

Note well that one of the first subjects of learning for one of Plato's elite is... justice. Although just people can be poor leaders, unjust people are invariably bad leaders. Just take a good look at the Founding Fathers, and what do you see? Attorneys -- lots of them. Want a good political career? Start with law school. Sure, there have been some evil people with law degrees -- Vladimir Lenin, Andrei Vyshinsky, Wilhelm Frick, Hans Frank, Roland Freisler, and Saddam Hussein -- but consider all the bad guys in politics who were not attorneys. Soldiers, terrorists, physicians, businessmen, and blue-collar workers, let alone people born to some king? Attorneys respect words, precedents, and formalities.

Quite possibly the worst President in American history is Dubya, who could not get into law school. Abraham Lincoln got rich handling the tough cases of his time. Now just imagine Barack Obama as a DA or a judge. Is it any wonder that the Chicago machine wanted him to go into elective politics where he could do no harm to its members?

Or perhaps Plato was really saying "If we have to have an oligarchy, let's see to it they are taught to think and taught good values." Lotsa luck with that - the medieval Church tried to do exactly that with the feudal nobility.

At any rate, anyone who preaches that their little cadre should be running things is probably suffering from a fair amount of hubris.

No question. There still need to be some checks and balances. In a democracy it is best that people demand the best instead of tolerate the worst. If we can trust a jury of commoners decide the facts of a case of law, then maybe we can trust them to choose top leaders through competitive elections.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

It is what it is Bob....it's a natural divide that will continue to grow. Tax and spend is no longer an option. Borrow and spend has reaching it's limitations. Print and spend represents the ends which triggers the economic divide.

We are not even close to nearing a taxation peak. Considering how much our GDP has contracted, tax reciepts should be a record high percentage of GDP, but they aren't. Why? Because, prior to the crash, they were falling like a brick. .. Here's just 1945 to the present:


Note the sub 15% take after the collapse was all those poor rich people not having cap gains to report. Prior to that, the rates were already low. One thing this chart doesn't tell us is who carries what part of the burden, and how that compares to their ability to pay.

Now, you can argue borow-and-spend with PW, who will tell you that there is a bottomless reservoir of key strokes to buy just about anything. In case he forgets to mention it, the reason to spend like drunken sailors (and I don't wish to besmerch the economic assistance to the hospitlity industry provided by true professionals), is the decline in the general economic health of the country. Show any viable alternative that will get the economy roaring again. Even though that may not be as feasible in these automated days as it once was, allowing the economy to lumber along until the next contraction keeps us all poor. We'll be even poorer and many of us in distress when that contraction arrives, and it may be closer than you think.

BTW, being in a marginal state is a prescription for falling into poverty when times get rough. That may not affect you, but it will affect a lot of Millies. I doubt they will take it on the chin forever.

This is why racial minorities mostly vote for Dems, because Republicans get frothy mouths when such minorities vote.

Outgoing Maine GOP Chair Plans To Investigate Alleged Voter Fraud By ‘Black People’

They have put down the dog whistles and have went straight to the megaphones.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We are not even close to nearing a taxation peak. Considering how much our GDP has contracted, tax reciepts should be a record high percentage of GDP, but they aren't. Why? Because, prior to the crash, they were falling like a brick. .. Here's just 1945 to the present:


Note the sub 15% take after the collapse was all those poor rich people not having cap gains to report. Prior to that, the rates were already low. One thing this chart doesn't tell us is who carries what part of the burden, and how that compares to their ability to pay.

Now, you can argue borow-and-spend with PW, who will tell you that there is a bottomless reservoir of key strokes to buy just about anything. In case he forgets to mention it, the reason to spend like drunken sailors (and I don't wish to besmerch the economic assistance to the hospitlity industry provided by true professionals), is the decline in the general economic health of the country. Show any viable alternative that will get the economy roaring again. Even though that may not be as feasible in these automated days as it once was, allowing the economy to lumber along until the next contraction keeps us all poor. We'll be even poorer and many of us in distress when that contraction arrives, and it may be closer than you think.

The economy won't be roaring again anytime soon which means borrow and spend is going to continue until it reaches its social/economic limits and creates a natural reaction/contraction and a natural divide.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

BTW, being in a marginal state is a prescription for falling into poverty when times get rough. That may not affect you, but it will affect a lot of Millies. I doubt they will take it on the chin forever.

Are the millies going to continue taking it on the chin forever to support you and the Manhattan's (Playdudes)? According to the way they vote, you'd sure think so? I don't expect them to take it on the chin for me and I don't teach them to take it on the chin for me.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The economy won't be roaring again anytime soon which means borrow and spend is going to continue until it reaches its social/economic limits and creates a natural reaction/contraction and a natural divide.

You seem to feel there are such limits, so how do you define them? I agree that carrying a Federal debt of 300% of GDP is likely to create havoc at some point in the future, but the Japanese are already carrying about 200% in a modernizing economy with good pay and benefits, so the break point is probably higher than that in the current paradigm. Starving now, is not a solution for preventing starvation in the future, either. The Euro Zone is trying that as we speak, with less than satisfactory results.

On the other hand, there is is solid evidence that massive stimulus can create full-employment level economic activity. We did it in WW-II. No one can prove that it wil still work in an environment where work is deprecated by automation, but that's no reason not to try it. If that doesn't work, nothig else short of a return to simpler times will work either. Of couse, simpler times and a world populaoitn of the current (and growing) size aren't compatible, so it either works or we have a paradigm shift ... for good or ill..

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er ...

Are the millies going to continue taking it on the chin forever to support you and the Manhattan's (Playdudes)? According to the way they vote, you'd sure think so? I don't expect them to take it on the chin for me and I don't teach them to take it on the chin for me.

Yes, you are stoic. Good for you. Now, what's your plan and, more importantly, how and why does it work? If your answers are 'I don't have one' and 'I don't know', then retire to the bleachers and let another team take the field.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes, you are stoic. Good for you. Now, what's your plan and, more importantly, how and why does it work? If your answers are 'I don't have one' and 'I don't know', then retire to the bleachers and let another team take the field.

Yes indeed! By all means, the people who are aware enough to admit that they don't know need to step aside so the truly deluded can get to work implementing their Sure-To-Work plans! After all, there are still people won't even consider the possibility that they don't know, who are more than ready to get started working right away. And everyone knows that deluded or ignorant confidence is just what we need.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The economy won't be roaring again anytime soon which means borrow and spend is going to continue until it reaches its social/economic limits and creates a natural reaction/contraction and a natural divide.

In economics, the amateurs do rhetoric. The big boys do econometrics. At what point does the "natural" contraction begin? Show the numbers. Right-wing talk radio and the pronouncements of such 'experts' as Rash Libel and Glenn Dreck will not suffice.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Yes indeed! By all means, the people who are aware enough to admit that they don't know need to step aside so the truly deluded can get to work implementing their Sure-To-Work plans! After all, there are still people won't even consider the possibility that they don't know, who are more than ready to get started working right away. And everyone knows that deluded or ignorant confidence is just what we need.

There are three choices:

1. Do nothing, and hope for the best.
2. Follow your gut, and do what it tells you to do.
3. Do some analysis, and do the things that make the most sense based on that.

Note: nowhere was there a guarantee of success, but choice #1 seems to be nihilistic to me ... especially after we've seen some of that in action under Bush the Elder and Younger. The same is true for the second coice, but the examples are Reagan and Bush the Younger (he was a putz of classic proportion). Number 3 worked in the past, which, as they say on investment statements, is no guarantee of future success. Feel free to pick one, or add to the list. I'm going with #3 out of desparation, but you may be more confident choosing elsewise.

... and as to the retort from Classic X, it was mostly whining. I didn't see a plan there, nor did he advance one in the interim. Then again, you didn't either.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The economy won't be roaring again anytime soon which means borrow and spend is going to continue until it reaches its social/economic limits and creates a natural reaction/contraction and a natural divide.

That would be incredible prescience of you if you had said so 10 years ago and confined it to ONLY private sector debt.

Saying it today, and about the debt of the currency issuer (i.e., the fed. govt) just makes you look like another of the clueless sheeple being manipulated against your own, and your country's, best interest.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Are the millies going to continue taking it on the chin forever to support you and the Manhattan's (Playdudes)? According to the way they vote, you'd sure think so? I don't expect them to take it on the chin for me and I don't teach them to take it on the chin for me.

Just exactly where do you think retirees' income, Boomer or otherwise, goes?

Being obviously clueless, let me help you out.

It is spent on goods and services, and in doing so provides incomes to those of working age so that they can buy houses, put food on the table for their families, occasionally go on vacation, and save for their own retirement and education for their kids. Numbskulls like you always see retirees' benefits as expenditure. It is an expenditure, but as long as it comes from the currency issuer it is costless.

The only possible "cost" is if that retirees' spending, when added to all other spending, results in aggregate demand exceeding the global economy's capacity to supply. If that happens, then it puts upward pressure on prices, i.e. demand-pull inflation. THAT is not an issue today, and nobody has a crystal ball to know that it would be a problem in the future. However, trends in automation (and now, forecasts of oil abundance) suggest that the exact opposite of inflation is going to be increasingly the issue tomorrow - just like it is today, only worse. Under that situation, Boomer retirees spending their benefits is going to be a Godsend by providing sufficient incomes to Millies to raise their families.

You have been completely brainwashed by the financial sector elites; it started with you at a very young age. The first step to stop being just another of the sheeple is to quit being such a clueless dumbass.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There are three choices:

1. Do nothing, and hope for the best.
2. Follow your gut, and do what it tells you to do.
3. Do some analysis, and do the things that make the most sense based on that.

Your trichotomy is revealing in what it misses. The option: "Expend your time and energy on other pursuits more likely to be meaningfully impacted by you in a positive way" is kind of an important one to leave off -- particularly since it's a very good answer.

The first part of the plan is to the let massive failure of Boomer "leadership" manifest itself. The rest of the plan is a secret and you'll just have to trust us. We know what's best for you.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

[/LIST]

Your trichotomy is revealing in what it misses. The option: "Expend your time and energy on other pursuits more likely to be meaningfully impacted by you in a positive way" is kind of an important one to leave off -- particularly since it's a very good answer.

In the context, that's the same as "do nothing." It implies that no collective solutions are possible and individual effort is the only meaningful thing one can do.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Your trichotomy is revealing in what it misses. The option: "Expend your time and energy on other pursuits more likely to be meaningfully impacted by you in a positive way" is kind of an important one to leave off -- particularly since it's a very good answer.

... but it's a subset of answer #1, so why add it as a corollary. You're right, there's only a limited amount I can do personally, but I can decide which options I favor and which i oppose.

Saying I'm going to play golf rather than mow the lawn has no direct impact on the lawn. It still needs to be mowed.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In the context, that's the same as "do nothing." It implies that no collective solutions are possible and individual effort is the only meaningful thing one can do.

Again, a revealing statement. You imply that 'collective' necessarily means 'managed'.

That isn't the case, though.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Again, a revealing statement. You imply that 'collective' necessarily means 'managed'.

That isn't the case, though.

How so? If I do X and you do Y, are they collective or not? I can't tell, because X and Y may be additive, sibtractive or unrelated. If you cook dinner and I mow the lawn, there is no reason to assume mutual benefit. There may be, but it certainly isn't obvious. If and only if we have a collective reason to cook and mow, do we generate collective results.

Individual efforts are fine, but individual efforts without structure are just randon acts.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

[/LIST]

Your trichotomy is revealing in what it misses. The option: "Expend your time and energy on other pursuits more likely to be meaningfully impacted by you in a positive way" is kind of an important one to leave off -- particularly since it's a very good answer.

I think that falls under M&L's #2 or #3 depending on whether you're right or left hemisphere dominants, i.e., whether you are Peggy Noonan or Nate Silver.

You just knew it was coming; only a matter of time -

[/QUOTE]

The dub overs of this have become passe, but it still can hold you mezmerized.

That's because the origninal is some of the best damn acting on film ever. They turned the heat up to make everyone sweat in this shot but some of the actors really go beyond and look completely scared s-less. Makes one feel that is exactly what happen in that bunker.

- leaves the stage

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-young-voters/

November 14, 2012, 5:15 pm1590 Comments
Romney Blames Loss on Obama’s ‘Gifts’ to Minorities and Young Voters
By ASHLEY PARKER

Saying that he and his team still felt “troubled” by his loss to President Obama, Mitt Romney on Wednesday attributed his defeat in part to what he called big policy “gifts” that the president had bestowed on loyal Democratic constituencies, including young voters, African-Americans and Hispanics.

In a conference call with fund-raisers and donors to his campaign, Mr. Romney said Wednesday afternoon that the president had followed the “old playbook” of using targeted initiatives to woo specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people.”

“In each case, they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said, contrasting Mr. Obama’s strategy to his own of “talking about big issues for the whole country: military strategy, foreign policy, a strong economy, creating jobs and so forth.”

Mr. Romney’s comments in the 20-minute conference call came after his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, told WISC-TV in Madison on Monday that their loss was a result of Mr. Obama’s strength in “urban areas,” an analysis that did not account for Mr. Obama’s victories in more rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire or the decrease in the number of votes for the president relative to 2008 in critical urban counties in Ohio.

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

The president’s health care plan, he said, was also a useful tool in mobilizing black and Hispanic voters. Though Mr. Romney won the white vote with 59 percent, according to exit polls, minorities coalesced around the president in overwhelming numbers: 93 percent of blacks and 71 percent of Hispanics.

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge,” Mr. Romney said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

- contrasted with -

In a news conference of his own Wednesday, Mr. Obama, asked if he still planned to meet with Mr. Romney for a postelection discussion, spoke positively of his former opponent, saying that he “did a terrific job of running the Olympics,” and that he appreciated Mr. Romney’s ideas on government efficiency.

“I’m not either prejudging what he’s interested in doing, nor am I suggesting I’ve got some specific assignment,” the president said, when asked about Mr. Romney. “But what I want to do is to get ideas from him and see if there are some ways that we can potentially work together.”

Balanced and fair, is Orwellian for *robbing the people.*

DEMOCRATIC SENATOR KENT CONRAD SAYS RAISING MEDICARE AGE, CUTTING BENEFITS IS ‘BALANCED AND FAIR’


As ThinkProgress’s Igor Volsky writes, raising the Medicare age would create an enormous burden on seniors:

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, raising the eligibility age to 67 would cause an estimated net increase of $5.6 billion in out-of-pocket health insurance costs for beneficiaries who would have been otherwise covered by Medicare. Seniors in Medicare Part B would also face a 3 percent premium increase, the study found, since younger and healthier enrollees would be routed out of Medicare and into private insurance. Beneficiaries in health care reform’s exchanges would see a similar spike in premiums with the addition of the older population

Elizabeth Warren has a better plan:

Medicare isn’t the driver of our budget deficits — two wars, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and Wall Street’s recession are responsible for most of our debt. It’s simply unfair to ask American seniors to pay for a problem they did not cause.

Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren has an alternative, truly “balanced” approach. During a campaign debate last month, she laid out a popular, credible vision for dealing with the deficit: cut back on wasteful military and agriculture subsidy spending, and make the rich pay their fair share. Watch Warren explain:

More: http://boldprogressives.org/democratic-senator-kent-conrad-says-raising-medicare-age-cutting-benefits-is-balanced-and-fair/

Originally Posted by playwrite

- leaves the stage

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-young-voters/



- contrasted with -

The GOP is doubling down on both the racism and the stupidity.

Originally Posted by playwrite

- leaves the stage

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-young-voters/



- contrasted with -

You gotta admit, Romney care actually worked out pretty good for Obama's re-election.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You gotta admit, Romney care actually worked out pretty good for Obama's re-election.

Absolutely.

"Well, Mitt, you told everyone this wasn't your cat; you had never seen her before in your life. So we adopted her. Isn't she sweet?"

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

How so? If I do X and you do Y, are they collective or not? I can't tell, because X and Y may be additive, sibtractive or unrelated. If you cook dinner and I mow the lawn, there is no reason to assume mutual benefit. There may be, but it certainly isn't obvious. If and only if we have a collective reason to cook and mow, do we generate collective results.

Too true. But not what I was saying. You conflated "collective" and "managed". Certainly, if you and I agree that while I cook, you mow, we have made a collective effort. At the same time, when we approach each other with the ideas, agree what we will do, then do our things under our own motivation, we have acted collectively in total absence of leadership, management, planning, or whatever else you want to call it. This is how social cooperation works.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Too true. But not what I was saying. You conflated "collective" and "managed". Certainly, if you and I agree that while I cook, you mow, we have made a collective effort. At the same time, when we approach each other with the ideas, agree what we will do, then do our things under our own motivation, we have acted collectively in total absence of leadership, management, planning, or whatever else you want to call it. This is how social cooperation works.

So you agree, but in a circular fashion. OK, that's fine. The one point that needs to be made: your model only works if the societal structure is small. It's far too intimate to work at a level where you cannot coordinate directly. Oh, you can argue that the Internets fix all that, and it may expand the size of the ollaboration a bit. It won't make it large. To work you way, there still needs to be a sense of direct collaboration, or you need to impose hierarchy. Once hierarchy is in, your model is through.

As a point of reference, the tribal 'families' of the plains Indians were roughly 100 nuclear familes or less. There was a reason for that. On the other extreme, the Iroqouis Confederacy was quite large (~125,000) for the times, but it used the hierarchal model.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So you agree, but in a circular fashion. OK, that's fine. The one point that needs to be made: your model only works if the societal structure is small. It's far too intimate to work at a level where you cannot coordinate directly.

It's a claim that gets repeated over and over, but which is easy enough to disprove with even only a cursory examination of real events. Cooperation scales quite a long way up in the real world.