The difference between the two smokin' babes is what a few years in Congress will do to anyone. Ruins a person every time. The inevitable transition from smokin' to smoked. She used to look like Beyonce.
Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday defended the Justice Department's pursuit of medical marijuana growers and dispensers, saying they "took advantage" of state medical marijuana laws.
...
But Holder insisted the Justice Department has limited its enforcement actions "to those individuals (and) organizations that are acting out of conformity ... with state laws."
Holder has had 18 months to learn the details and deliver answers. Instead, he's used this time to lie to congress and withhold evidence. One can only conclude his complicity in these matters. His testimony is absurd. To my ear it sounded like this:
"I am not Eric Holder and I do not know anyone named Eric Holder. Furthermore, I have never met anyone named Eric Holder or heard of anyone named Eric Holder. It is Eric Holder's opinion that Eric Holder is a manufactured, fictional being made up by the right wing news outlets and blogs. Accordingly, I, Eric Holder, hereby refuse to provide further testimony on supposed actions taken during the operation, commonly referred to as Fast and Furious, by this fictional person known as Eric Holder."
If you want 'Real World' see the upcoming Will Ferrell movie, Campaign, which will be out in August. It's about a political campaign in the South. [link]
The reviews on the movie are mixed. GeekScholars Movie News, however, gave the preview an average score of "D+", on an A+ to F- scale, noting that the characters appeared to be surprisingly clichéd and uninspired given the strong comedic talent cast in the film. [6]
Cliched and uninspired?
I would suggest that it might be because it is all so banal. We see this stuff everyday in real life. I heard the director of the film say they had to keep rewriting the script because their humor was too tame and kept being overridden by news events that came across the wire everyday. The last scene in the trailer reminds me of Joe Biden telling that guy in the wheel chair to stand up and take a bow.
Signing off as Max (SFM) for purposes of this singular post but I cannot guarantee that I will be Max (SFM) in future postings without consulting my legal counsel.
1. Past administrations were judged in an atmosphere where there were some objective standards of right an wrong rather than the moral reletivism we suffer under today, and
Looks like you're trying to have it both ways. Either:
They are all dicks.
Or:
Past administrations were judged in an atmosphere where there were some objective standards of right an wrong rather than the moral reletivism we suffer under today
You seem to be saying that the Obama administration is dicker than the rest.
Just pointing out that when they are all dicks, trying to judge them on a relative basis (especially given the criteria they consistently apologized for in the link) is meaningless.
Waterfront's apparent obscurity offers a vivid illustration of the problems that good government advocates warned would happen after the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend all they want on politics. The surging flood of cash is making it harder to figure out who is behind attempts to sway voters and ensure that candidates are not circumventing federal campaign contribution limits by having donors funnel money through shell entities.
Rufus wrote: "Are you drunk? Who said anything about the deficit being 2%?
A quick math question for you rufus:
If revenues are 18% of GDP and expenditures are 20% of GDP what would the deficit be?
I was questioning Max on her numbers and asking for sources but she refused suggesting you migh do it. It seems she has no support for her numbers and nor do you support them. This is what she wrote:
Max wrote:
"Short span story being the country was 'managing' its fiscal books just fine until health care and the ME kicked into high gear. (As posted on a regular to boring basis many times, the revenues and expenditures hovered around 18% to 20% for the last half century. Stability.) Highly situational causation. Far from structural. Parliament not yet required."
I have been questioning the premise that the couontry has been managing its fiscal books just fine.
Ash, since WW II our tax collections (Income, Payroll, Excise, etc,) under all tax regimes, have tended to hover around 19% of GDP. Our expenditures have tended to be about 2% higher than collections. This regime works very well for a country with a fiat currency. It guarantees a little inflation, and, as a result, growth in the economy.
Obviously, recessions cause Less collections, and more spending for "safety net" type spending. Severe Recessions cause Severe divergence from the norm.
This Recession was/is a Doozey.
Collections are down to the 15% range, and Spending has exploded into the Mid-Twenties. If this is a typical deep recession, and we can come "blasting" out this is not all that great a concern. We'll get back close to our "balanced within two percent" regime, and we'll, over time, inflate away our excess debt, just as we always have.
The average deficit as a percentage of GDP since 1960 is 2.53% Since 1960 the only surplus years were: 1960 0.1% 1969 0.3% 1998 0.8% 1999 1.4% 2000 2.4% 2001 1.3%
All the rest of the years were in deficit. It isn't as if the books were roughly in balance with some deficit years and some surplus years but rather the surplus years are in very short supply yeilding an average (since 1960) of 2.53% budget deficit each year. Rufus, I believe, has maintained that a small tax increase or a VAT would be enough to bring the books into balance. I'm not sure how 'small' small would be to balance current deficits but what kind of tax would be needed to muster an average of 2.53% more of GDP? I'm sure the math is out there but I'm guessing it would be a pretty hefty levy to get that kind of increase in revenues.
Managing fiscal books well includes financing for future liabilities. The trend lines on the deficit are not good with Social Security costs projected to increase as well as health care costs. The military also looks set to suck up some future spending. Then there is the State and local level fiscal picture...
Another very broad measure of sustainibility of a fiscal position is the Current Account (basically the difference between all outgoing and incoming but it is a very broad definition. In general the US has run deficits, large deficits in the current accounts.
"Since 1989, the current account deficit of the United States have been increasingly large, reaching close to 7% of the GDP in 2006. In 2011, they have been the highest deficits in the world.[4] New evidences, however, suggest that the U.S. current account deficits are being mitigated by positive valuation effects.[5] That is, the U.S. assets overseas are gaining in value relative to the domestic assets held by foreign investors. The U.S. net foreign assets therefore is not deteriorating one to one with the current account deficits. The most recent experience has reversed this positive valuation effect, however, with the US net foreign asset position deteriorating by more than two trillion dollars in 2008.[6] This was due primarily to the relative under-performance of domestic ownership of foreign assets (largely foreign equities) to foreign ownership of domestic assets (largely US treasuries and bonds)."
You never, ever heard Me promote a VAT. The VAT is a very regressive tax, and, in my opinion, is among the top 5 causes of Europe's present sorry state.
Sorry 'bout that. rufus is against a VAT, got that.
I don't think that is Europes problem. I think Europes problem is the shared currency without the political union to go with it. I believe the EU situation acts a powerful argument against those folks who think the US should adopt a rigid gold standard for it would remove the ability of controlling your own monetary policy.
Sorry, again, didn't read you closely enough. Top 5 reasons. Anyway, I don't see how regressive taxation would cause the debt and de-leveraging problems we are seeing in the EU.
I must disagree. Your silly card (everything seems so silly, might as well sit and look at the squirrels) and your compassion card (I ache, you ache, we ache, we're all gonna ache) fill up and you realize it ain't worth the argument. Except when it comes to the wolves and M. Buttplug, of course. I think I may be possibly getting a line on Buttplug. (you wouldn't believe how that man needs to be in jail, no compassion here)
Spoiling for a fight Trainer Matz believes Union Rags has chance By Mark Blaudschun Globe Staff / June 8, 2012
ELMONT, N.Y. - He was the horse everyone touted coming out of his two-year-old season with wins in three of four starts. He was the favorite each time in the Kentucky Derby futures betting. A four-length victory in the Fountain of Youth Stakes in his three-year-old debut at Gulfstream Park did nothing to diminish the stature of Union Rags.
But then . . .
Horse racing is full of “but thens’’ for precocious two-year-olds who start the Derby season as prospects, then fade away.
Union Rags, trained by veteran Michael Matz, hasn’t quite faded away yet. In fact, there is some sentiment he can play the role of spoiler as I’ll Have Another goes after the Triple Crown in Saturday’s 144th running of the Belmont Stakes.
Two traffic-filled trips in the Florida Derby (where he finished third) and Kentucky Derby (where he finished seventh) have reduced expectations.
After Union Rags got caught in traffic in the Florida Derby and jockey Julien Leparoux was unable to escape it, Matz was hoping for better in the Kentucky Derby, but a bad start in the 20-horse field doomed him.
“When he jumped as he came out of the gate, I looked at my wife and said, ‘So much for the Kentucky Derby,’ ’’ Matz said Thursday morning. Matz’s decision to replace Leparoux with John Velazquez was, he says, strictly business.
“We had two unfortunate races,’’ said Matz. “Whether it was the rider, the trainer or the horse, I don’t know. But sometimes you have to go about doing things a little differently. I think he had some bad luck. The first time in the Florida Derby, whatever it was in the Derby. Your guess is as good as mine.’’
Matz feels Union Rags is the same horse who had so much promise as a two-year-old.
“I still feel he is a good horse,’’ said Matz, who kept Union Rags out of the Preakness in preparation for the Belmont, for which he was listed at 6-1 on the morning line. “I don’t think he had a chance in his last two races. I’m not sure if a mile and a half is the best race, but it’s the last Triple Crown race. I think he deserves a chance.
“The biggest thing for John is to get him in a nice rhythm. He knows the track well. He knows what he has to do. Julien knew that too and couldn’t get it done. He’s ran over this track before [a 5 1/4-length win in the Grade I Champagne Stakes last October]. Now it’s up to Johnny and the gods to get it done and that he gets a good trip. Whether he is good enough or not, we’ll find out. He’s a big horse. He covers the ground easily. But we don’t know. No one knows. None of these horses will probably run this distance again in their lives. It’s a big question.’’
Belmont News
There is a female jockey in tomorrow' race, but her horse is 50-1. She's not getting much play in the equine press.
As it is, the U.S. tax code confers preferential treatment on investors in oil, natural gas, coal extraction and pipeline projects– they’re the only ones allowed to form MLPs. In fact, natural gas and oil companies are have been benefiting from being able to form MLPs for nearly 30 years.
Odd as its seems, the IRS code specifically excludes MLPs from investing in renewable energy companies and project portfolios, 24/7 Wall St. points out. Coons’ wants to level the playing field. In addition to gaining support from the Obama Administration, his bill has garnered five Republican co-sponsors for his legislation.
Why did economists, financiers and politicians fail to anticipate it?
Professor Stein argues that the financial world was suffering from collective mania in the two decades running up to the events. “Unless the manic nature of the response in the run up to 2008 is recognised, the same economic disaster could happen again,” he warns.
He defines the manic culture in terms of the four characteristics of denial, omnipotence, triumphalism and over-activity. “A series of major ruptures in capitalist economies were observed and noted by those in positions of economic and political leadership in Western societies. These ruptures caused considerable anxiety among these leaders, but rather than heeding the lessons, they responded by manic, omnipotent and triumphant attempts to prove the superiority of their economies.”
The massive increase in credit derivative deals, industrializing credit default swaps and the removal of regulatory safety checks, such as the repeal in the United States of the landmark Glass-Steagall banking controls were a manic response to the financial crises within capitalism,” he says.
Professor Stein’s award-winning research paper - A culture of mania: a psychoanalytic view of the incubation of the 2008 credit crisis – says this behaviour was also strengthened by “triumphant” feelings in the West over the collapse of communism.
“Witnessing the collapse of communism, those in power in the West developed the deluded idea that capitalist economies would do best if they eschew any resemblance to those communist economies, thereby justifying unfettered financial liberalization and the destruction of the regulatory apparatuses of capitalism. The consequences of this manic response have been catastrophic, with the on-going eurozone crisis being - in many ways - a result of this,” he says.
“Whether one examines the actions of banks and hedge funds, or the limitations of ratings agencies, auditors, regulators and governments, a more worrying and deeper question emerges concerning why so many parties, more or less simultaneously, were implicated in such unprecedented and extreme risk-taking.”
Rufus:You never, ever heard Me promote a VAT. The VAT is a very regressive tax, and, in my opinion, is among the top 5 causes of Europe's present sorry state.
You tax what you don't want, and subsidize what you want. That's why we tax cigarettes and subsidize babies with the Earned Income Credit. We want less consumption and more manufacturing. We should tax consumption, and subsidize factories built in the USA. That means extending the Obama tax cuts (not Bush tax cuts, because he signed one extension already, so he owns them) and it also means a VAT.
You're just transferring the liability for the sins of the rich onto the backs of the poor, T. It's a sure-fire way to end up with a massive "Mississippi."
Of course, the "Republican" wet dream is to cut Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment Benefits, Food Stamps, EIC, WIC, AND pass a Value Added Tax (National Sales Tax on Steroids.)
I think it important to let folks play as they like in the market and if they get burned so be it. That being said not all folk should be able to play as they like. The repeal of Glass-Steagal was a major mistake. Hedge funds should be free to gamble as they see fit, deposit taking institutions, insurance companies, shouldn't even if they THINK they can turn a good buck doing so.
Among the punitive, the vindictive, and pettiness of Dodd-Frank there stands one potentially seismic thought that sits so far not implemented. Title VII or the “Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act” is intended to regulate the over the counter swaps markets. This includes, among other derivatives, the constantly abused Credit Default Swaps (CDS) markets. The promise was the creation of a central exchange or clearinghouse for CDS instruments that would ensure adequate collateral is posted by counterparties and the financial system is safe from failed counter-party risk. This would mean standardized ISDA contracts and create a transparency by allowing everyone to see who holds insurance exposure to what debt instruments, and how much. This one thing could go a long way to reducing the ability of any one financial institution to pose systemic risk to the US and/or world economy.
A key element in an exchange as noted above is determining and enforcing "adequate collateral". I see a formalizing of common derivatives such as CDSs as being possible modeling it on the insurance business.
Still, a key systemic risk is the failure of deposit taking institutions and much of the response to the great depression revolved around protecting depositors money. Once Glass-Steagall was gone then a whole host of institutions became too important to fail. I think we should try to go back to protecting deposits, separating deposit taking institutions (and insurance companies) from the rest. Why the heck should taxpayers be back-stopping investment banks?
But here’s the key: Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the last financial crisis. And it probably wouldn’t have prevented JPMorgan’s $2 billion-plus trading loss. The loss occurred on the commercial side of the bank, not at the investment bank. But parts of the bet were made with synthetic credit derivatives — something that George Bailey in “It’s a Wonderful Life” would never have touched.
When I called Ms. [Elizabeth] Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”
In my conversation with Ms. Warren she told me that one of the reasons she’s been pushing reinstating Glass-Steagall — even if it wouldn’t have prevented the financial crisis — is that it is an easy issue for the public to understand and “you can build public attention behind.”
She added that she considers Glass-Steagall more of a symbol of what needs to happen to regulations than the specifics related to the act itself.
So would Glass-Steagall make things slightly better? Sure.
But the next time someone says that it is the ultimate solution, think again.
It makes sense that it wouldn't be the ultimate solution - much has changed in banking since its enactment. The core part of it, at least in my understanding, is the separation of deposit taking institutions from others. Once you've got the beast separated the deposit taking institution should be forcefully regulated and backstopped (i.e. FDIC). Ironically during the financial crisis they further melded the deposit taking institutions with others trying to save the lot. I still shake my head at the frantic regulation changes allowing Goldman Sachs to belly up to the fed window.
The first domino to nearly topple over in the financial crisis was Bear Stearns, an investment bank that had nothing to do with commercial banking. Glass-Steagall would have been irrelevant. Then came Lehman Brothers; it too was an investment bank with no commercial banking business and therefore wouldn’t have been covered by Glass-Steagall either. After them, Merrill Lynch was next — and yep, it too was an investment bank that had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.
Next in line was the American International Group, an insurance company that was also unrelated to Glass-Steagall. While we’re at it, we should probably throw in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which similarly, had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.
And the idea behind something like Glass-Steagall is that investment banks shouldn't be bailed out. I'm not convinced they needed to bail out those boys, let 'em fail. You pays your money you take your chances. It is the depositors that need protecting. Somehow we got to the point where all of the buggers needed protecting - I'm still not sure why.
I can see bailing out AIG in that they provide insurance. An insurance company shouldn't have been allowed to put so much capital at risk without reserves held to cover their bets in the CDS market, which is, essentially, an insurance market. At the time, of course, they couldn't change regulations, the situation was as it was. The fact that the gov provided the money to AIG that made Goldman Sachs whole stinks but ferretting out who gets haircuts and who doesn't in the middle of the crisis probably wasn't practical.
So, in short, something like Glass-Steagall parsing out who gets backstopped, and regulated, and the others is an important part of the financial system. Development of institutions like FDIC to do the backstopping is also important. The wild west of everyone doing what they like and eveyone getting backstopped is insanity.
Rufus:You're just transferring the liability for the sins of the rich onto the backs of the poor, T.
What are the sins of the rich to the redistributionists? Using their profits to provide new jobs. Instead, their line goes, we need to double down on porkulus spending, and get the money from China.
But there is an even deeper internal security issue: How far does the First Amendment extend today — or has it become the suicide pact of the 21st century? Does the “public’s right to know” mean that the press can freely compromise secrets directly affecting the nation’s survival? To begin with, remember that the secrets betrayed by The New York Times were not the property of the White House, the National Security Council, the Pentagon or the 14 alphabetical agencies comprising our intelligence establishment. Instead, those secrets were owned by the American people, who rely on their government to protect those crown jewels, which are essential to both the common defense and the general welfare...
Encroachment of the Executive on the balance of power began with Cheney's "stovepiping" of intelligence from the CIA. The expansion of Executive power began with the response to the terrorist threat largely under GWB and has continued uninterrupted by partisanship. The difference is that, under Obama, all the federal teams seem to be moving in unison in the same direction, unlike the two GWB terms.
Rufus:It wasn't the poor mom on Medicaid that Crashed the Global Economy, T. It was Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.
If the pre-Lehman economy was nothing more than a house of cards comprised largely of over-leveraged entities bundling fraudulent paper and selling it to each other, then it deserved to crash. Meanwhile, manufacturing is already back, public sector unions are on life-support, and the US is approaching energy independence.
Ah, our indomitable Obama hack is using statistics from my alma mater to further the Obama lie about who cause the majority of the 2009 deficit increase.
---
Congress only passed 3 of the 15 appropriations bills in fy 2009. Bush had threatened to veto the others over the spending levels, so the DEMOCRATS did a continuing funding bill for them at 2008 levels that covered until March 2009. In February, as I recall, Obama signed an omnibus bill covering the other 12 appropriations bills.
The Dems controlled Congress after the 2006 elections. Congress creates and passes spending bills, not the President. Obama voted yes on all the spending.
If you look at the budget deficits after the Bush tax cut the deficits went down sequentially until 2007, when the Dems took over. Bush did lend $700 billion to banks but most of that has been paid back, with interest. The $700 billion was part of the deficit but was not spending like the porkulus bill that Congress passed in 2009.
The porkulus stimulus bill will not be paid back so adds to the deficit. The bank bailout was paid back and lowers the deficit and national debt, unless the Dems with to violate the law and use the money for more "stimulus".
Pretty easy to see why the Dems haven't passed a budget in years.
I guess we must conclude Dianne Feinstein is a right wing wacko now that she is on the record saying that allies are now refusing to work with us because of the Administration Leak Factory endangering our warriors and any allies foolish enough not to abandon ship.
In 31 of the 37 years, Congress adopted at least one budget resolution for the fiscal year beginning in such year; Congress did not complete action on a budget resolution for six fiscal years (FY1999 in 1998, FY2003 in 2002, FY2005 in 2004, FY2007 in 2006, FY2011 in 2010, and FY2012 in 2011).
Margaret Thatcher (elected prime minister of the U.K. in 1979) and Ronald Reagan (elected president of the U.S. in 1980) added an essential ingredient to the philosophy of growth: an ideological faith in the market system. Faster growth would come from markets freed of red tape, lighter taxes and weaker trade unions. The Thatcher-Reagan philosophy also viewed increasing income inequality as acceptable insofar as it improved the incentives of the “wealth creators”: There would be a “trickle down” from rich to poor.
It was the shift to a market-based philosophy of growth that inflamed the insatiability of wants -- by abandoning any interest in the social outcome of growth. The market was bound by the rule of law, but there was no longer any moral, political or cultural restraint on the individual pursuit of wealth. Keynes’s notion of satiety had no place.
Such a system cannot work according to plan. It is both economically and morally inefficient. The Anglo-American system of the past 30 years, dominated by the financial-services industry, has been retained for the benefit of a predatory plutocracy that creams off the riches in the name of freedom and globalization.
So, what intellectual, moral and political resources still exist in Western societies to reverse the onslaught of insatiability and redirect our purposes toward the good life?
FWIW, I'm not crazy about any of it - using an economic behavior such as consumption as the lever to permit further government encroachment into private decision-making, but I expect something like it is coming. Eventually. The focus on Consumption is not quite correct in my view. The immediate focus should be on financial reform, which is complicated by the need for global coordination with trading partners to ensure the sacred "level playing fields" so valued among competitive enterprise. Whatever it takes to get corporate capital off the table (invested) and back in-country.
Point being, if you insist on fucking around with the capital markets, then you will crash the system and "meetings will be held" to "correct the problem."
Sounds like one of those Charlie Sheen commercials doesn't it?
Don't crash the system or Meetings Will Be Held.
Grim and Determined Meetings.
And you know that group. They don't waste anything, now do they.
"There are only two places left to go......Sacramento.....and Detroit. The morons will put hookers and cocaine on the menus if we say 'it's for the children'....."
"So, what intellectual, moral and political resources still exist in Western societies to reverse the onslaught of insatiability and redirect our purposes toward the good life?"
---
The left has taken over all the institutions which once maintened our intellectual and moral resources.
Leaving us bankrupt, save for the conservative movement.
The congressional budget timetable sets April 15 as a target date for completing action on the annual budget resolution (prior to 1986, the date was May 15). During the past 37 years, when Congress has completed action on a budget resolution, Congress adopted the budget resolution by the target date only six times, most recently in 2003 with the FY2004 budget resolution. Budget resolutions have been adopted, on average, almost 37 days after the target date.
As President Obama prepares to unveil his FY2013 budget Monday, White House chief of staff Jack Lew this morning was asked by CNN to defend the Senate’s refusal to pass a budget in more than 1,000 days.
“You can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support,” Lew said. “So unless… unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, [Majority Leader] Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed.”
That’s not accurate. Budgets only require 51 Senate votes for passage, as Lew — former director of the Office of Management and Budget — surely must know.
White House officials did not dispute that Lew misspoke. When asked about the discrepancy, a White House official said “the chief of staff was clearly referencing the general gridlock in Congress that makes accomplishing even the most basic tasks nearly impossible given the Senate Republicans’ insistence on blocking an up or down vote on nearly every issue.”
The issue highlights the difficulty the White House is having running against an obstructionist Congress
when half of that Congress is controlled by Democrats, who obstruct things for their own reasons.
In this case, political observers believe Reid is reluctant to have Democrats vote on a large budget full of deficits and tax increases that Republicans can use to run against them.
The better vs bigger distinction hasn't gotten much traction. Not nearly as sexy or marketable as "get government off the backs" of corporate America, I mean, the little guy, the entrepreneurial hero.
You're late to the party but I'll say it again. Government faces a huge challenge of reforming the regulatory code and the ideologues have turned that into a fringe debate of "no government" vs "more government."
Obama is looking to a future of declining fossil fuels, and is attempting to help get the country started on the road to increased "Renewable" sources of energy.
Romney used to "believe" the same thing - until he discovered he needed the tea partiers to show up at the polls.
I normally don't put as much stock in debates as do some; however, this year I think they will be the deciding factor (one reason why I won't let you pin me down right now, Mel. :)
Now, it's true, debates are somewhat like Horse Races; you just never know who is going to show up - your candidate, or his evil twin. But, I have a sneaking suspicion that these debates might redound to Obama's benefit.
Thank God we've got Obama. He said, why, just yesterday I think it was, the private sector is 'doing fine', and he himself, B-HO, had created over 4,000,000 private sector jobs.
He should do fine in the debates with data points like these.
Rising health-care costs are at the core of the United States’ long-term fiscal imbalance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that between now and 2050, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal spending on health care will rise from 5.5 percent of GDP to more than 12 percent. (Social Security costs, by comparison, are projected to increase from five percent of GDP to six percent over the same period.) It is no exaggeration to say that the United States’ standing in the world depends on its success in constraining this health-care cost explosion; unless it does, the country will eventually face a severe fiscal crisis or a crippling inability to invest in other areas.
Shortly *before* the notable (and complicated) distractions of 2008, not that the distractions of 2001 were finished, the policy consensus was that health care costs were the single largest obstacle to the fiscal responsibility that Ash disparaged upthread.
The policy wonks were correct. But the numbers got subsumed in 2008 and what was left of 2001 which lead to ideological partisanship and screaming - and, more importantly, allowed business interests to square off against social "entitlement" programs, which is the wrong formulation but don't tell Doug or his buddies @BC or bob and his Tea Party lace doily dilettantes. How quickly business forgot.
Orszag is a policy wonk. His piece is nuts on from start to finish. But his timing is in the toilet. The war costs and the recession costs will make the only realistic health care solution dead in the water. Too bad. Back to escalating private sector costs because timing is everything.
I gave this subject and Orszag's treatment of it exceptional detailed treatment awhile back. I'm through with it.
I'm tired also, Max; but let me leave you with this:
Go to the library, or, if you're much smarter than I, use the "wayback machine," and pull up a boatload of newspapers/magazines/etc from the Sixties.
Make a note of all the references to Personal Computers, Cell Phones, Statin Drugs, Genome-mapping, the Internet, smart bombs, stealth aircraft, missile defense, GPS, robotics, etc.
I noticed a headline yesterday about a test that could diagnose 3,200, I think it was, potential diseases/abnormalities in a fetus. How much could that save in early treatment/mitigation, etc?
2050?
Think of all the assumptions that have to go into such a calculation.
The "delivery systems" are subject to economic disincentives (not to mention outright fraud) that are not cost-competitive but as Orszag argues very persuasively that problem cannot be solved alone, let alone partially, by consumer-directed choice due to the risk pool asymmetries, and yet, the rebuttal position is stubbornly mired in the "free market" alternative.
On many of the key issues Obama's positions are much more aligned with the public than are Romney's.
For instance, Renewable Energy polls extremely high with John Q, and Betsy. Romney has locked himself into the Big Oil/Fossil Fuel side of the argument.
The War in Afghanistan is polling below 30%. I'm not sure Romney can make a good argument for more defense spending to a war-weary public.
Tax "Fairness" is a compelling talking point. For Romney to make the case that he should continue paying a lower effective tax rate than the janitor at the local shop is "iffy" at best.
Even "Obamacare," which is polling in the thirties is reacted to differently when the individual components are polled - Especially, Guaranteed Issue.
My daughter must be confident. I watched today as she took some tack and saddles to display at a local sale tomorrow at a stables near here. And, before she walked out of there,leaving her stuff to be sold tomorrow, she had purchased another saddle for herself, before she even knew if hers might sell tomorrow.
No that, my friends, is 'consumer confidence'.
Young people intelligently and fearlessly moving the economy FORWARD!.
More than two-thirds of Americans hope the Supreme Court will overturn some or all of the 2010 health care law, according to a new poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News.
Just 24 percent said they hoped the court “would keep the entire health care law in place.”
More than 70 percent of independent voters said they wanted to see some or all of the law struck down, with a majority saying they hoped to see the whole law overturned. Twenty-two percent of independents said they hoped the entire law would survive.
Yes, Doug, I said that Obamacare was polling very low. But, polling has also shown that certain ideas within it are very popular. Guaranteed issue is one.
Like horse racing, a lot of it is simply, "who is on his game."
And, sometimes you just get lucky (or, of course, unlucky.)
Overlooked somewhat is the fact that Europe is Crashing, and other large Global Economies are slowing, and, as a result, Oil Prices are tanking (ptp.)
If, by some miracle, he gets some unlikely combination of lower gasoline prices w/o the slowing U.S. economy that is sure to follow the disaster in Europe, it will be worth probably 5 points.
As I stated the other day, those Republicans that can actually read a BLS Report must feel like the luckiest people in the world.
No one in the WH, that I'm aware of, has pointed out that the unemployment rate ticked up 0.1% Because 642,000 people Entered the Workforce (422,000 of which snagged jobs.)
I cannot concentrate on that first clip for the life of me with that absolutely smokin' babe in the background.
ReplyDeleteHoly fuck.
Focus. Take your mind off it and look at the smokin' babe in the second video that comes to Holder’d rescue.
ReplyDeleteIf Holder was white and a Republican, the press would have hounded him from office months ago.
DeleteThe difference between the two smokin' babes is what a few years in Congress will do to anyone. Ruins a person every time. The inevitable transition from smokin' to smoked. She used to look like Beyonce.
Deleteb
Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday defended the Justice Department's pursuit of medical marijuana growers and dispensers, saying they "took advantage" of state medical marijuana laws.
ReplyDelete...
But Holder insisted the Justice Department has limited its enforcement actions "to those individuals (and) organizations that are acting out of conformity ... with state laws."
'I have superior knowledge?'
ReplyDeleteWhat the shit was that?
Doug?
DeleteHolder has had 18 months to learn the details and deliver answers. Instead, he's used this time to lie to congress and withhold evidence. One can only conclude his complicity in these matters. His testimony is absurd. To my ear it sounded like this:
ReplyDelete"I am not Eric Holder and I do not know anyone named Eric Holder. Furthermore, I have never met anyone named Eric Holder or heard of anyone named Eric Holder. It is Eric Holder's opinion that Eric Holder is a manufactured, fictional being made up by the right wing news outlets and blogs. Accordingly, I, Eric Holder, hereby refuse to provide further testimony on supposed actions taken during the operation, commonly referred to as Fast and Furious, by this fictional person known as Eric Holder."
Issa kicks ass, always has.
ReplyDeleteWait til you see what he did to an admin guy about what is defined as a
"Green Job"
MinceMeat
"It is Eric Holder's opinion that Eric Holder is a manufactured, fictional being made up by the right wing news outlets and blogs."
ReplyDelete---
Just like they did about Obama's so-called membership in a Socialist party in 1998.
...and that he swore to implement their Socialist Agenda if elected.
He has.
But to some the World is grey, no diff between Obama and Ronald Reagan.
(but they're just playing with our simple binary minds.
Inciting us, if you will.)
Check out my query about the Pole Dancer, Sam.
ReplyDeleteThis is stupid.
ReplyDeleteThis is unfunny.
This is comedy, much like our modern political system.
Real world reminder.
.
Delete.
If you want 'Real World' see the upcoming Will Ferrell movie, Campaign, which will be out in August. It's about a political campaign in the South. [link]
Trailer: [link]
The reviews on the movie are mixed. GeekScholars Movie News, however, gave the preview an average score of "D+", on an A+ to F- scale, noting that the characters appeared to be surprisingly clichéd and uninspired given the strong comedic talent cast in the film. [6]
Cliched and uninspired?
I would suggest that it might be because it is all so banal. We see this stuff everyday in real life. I heard the director of the film say they had to keep rewriting the script because their humor was too tame and kept being overridden by news events that came across the wire everyday. The last scene in the trailer reminds me of Joe Biden telling that guy in the wheel chair to stand up and take a bow.
You want comedy? Turn on the news.
.
No diff between Scott Walker and Barrett
ReplyDeleteNo diff between Issa and Holder.
No difference between black and white.
Trust me.
.
DeleteThey are all dicks.
Don't believe me? Give me 15 minutes and a google search on Issa.
.
Holder seems to have worked himself into a corner (as I have said, twice previously.)
ReplyDeleteThe Obama administration still has a ways to go before it catches up with its predecessors.
Signing off as Max (SFM) for purposes of this singular post but I cannot guarantee that I will be Max (SFM) in future postings without consulting my legal counsel.
.
DeleteTwo points.
1. Past administrations were judged in an atmosphere where there were some objective standards of right an wrong rather than the moral reletivism we suffer under today, and
2. Obama still has seven months to top the list.
.
Looks like you're trying to have it both ways. Either:
DeleteThey are all dicks.
Or:
Past administrations were judged in an atmosphere where there were some objective standards of right an wrong rather than the moral reletivism we suffer under today
You seem to be saying that the Obama administration is dicker than the rest.
.
DeleteJust pointing out that when they are all dicks, trying to judge them on a relative basis (especially given the criteria they consistently apologized for in the link) is meaningless.
.
Sam: I cannot concentrate on that first clip for the life of me with that absolutely smokin' babe in the background.
ReplyDeleteIn the 2010s this is what we mean when politicians get in a smoke filled room.
Oh?
ReplyDeleteWaterfront's apparent obscurity offers a vivid illustration of the problems that good government advocates warned would happen after the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend all they want on politics. The surging flood of cash is making it harder to figure out who is behind attempts to sway voters and ensure that candidates are not circumventing federal campaign contribution limits by having donors funnel money through shell entities.
LINK
Not shades of gray so much as green.
Somewhere over the rainbow in a smoke-filled room.
Rufus wrote:
ReplyDelete"Are you drunk? Who said anything about the deficit being 2%?
A quick math question for you rufus:
If revenues are 18% of GDP and expenditures are 20% of GDP what would the deficit be?
I was questioning Max on her numbers and asking for sources but she refused suggesting you migh do it. It seems she has no support for her numbers and nor do you support them. This is what she wrote:
Max wrote:
"Short span story being the country was 'managing' its fiscal books just fine until health care and the ME kicked into high gear. (As posted on a regular to boring basis many times, the revenues and expenditures hovered around 18% to 20% for the last half century. Stability.) Highly situational causation. Far from structural. Parliament not yet required."
I have been questioning the premise that the couontry has been managing its fiscal books just fine.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAsh, since WW II our tax collections (Income, Payroll, Excise, etc,) under all tax regimes, have tended to hover around 19% of GDP. Our expenditures have tended to be about 2% higher than collections. This regime works very well for a country with a fiat currency. It guarantees a little inflation, and, as a result, growth in the economy.
DeleteObviously, recessions cause Less collections, and more spending for "safety net" type spending. Severe Recessions cause Severe divergence from the norm.
This Recession was/is a Doozey.
Collections are down to the 15% range, and Spending has exploded into the Mid-Twenties. If this is a typical deep recession, and we can come "blasting" out this is not all that great a concern. We'll get back close to our "balanced within two percent" regime, and we'll, over time, inflate away our excess debt, just as we always have.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php
ReplyDeleteThank you Max!
DeleteA quick look at those numbers:
The average deficit as a percentage of GDP since 1960 is 2.53%
Since 1960 the only surplus years were:
1960 0.1%
1969 0.3%
1998 0.8%
1999 1.4%
2000 2.4%
2001 1.3%
All the rest of the years were in deficit. It isn't as if the books were roughly in balance with some deficit years and some surplus years but rather the surplus years are in very short supply yeilding an average (since 1960) of 2.53% budget deficit each year. Rufus, I believe, has maintained that a small tax increase or a VAT would be enough to bring the books into balance. I'm not sure how 'small' small would be to balance current deficits but what kind of tax would be needed to muster an average of 2.53% more of GDP? I'm sure the math is out there but I'm guessing it would be a pretty hefty levy to get that kind of increase in revenues.
Managing fiscal books well includes financing for future liabilities. The trend lines on the deficit are not good with Social Security costs projected to increase as well as health care costs. The military also looks set to suck up some future spending. Then there is the State and local level fiscal picture...
Another very broad measure of sustainibility of a fiscal position is the Current Account (basically the difference between all outgoing and incoming but it is a very broad definition. In general the US has run deficits, large deficits in the current accounts.
"Since 1989, the current account deficit of the United States have been increasingly large, reaching close to 7% of the GDP in 2006. In 2011, they have been the highest deficits in the world.[4] New evidences, however, suggest that the U.S. current account deficits are being mitigated by positive valuation effects.[5] That is, the U.S. assets overseas are gaining in value relative to the domestic assets held by foreign investors. The U.S. net foreign assets therefore is not deteriorating one to one with the current account deficits. The most recent experience has reversed this positive valuation effect, however, with the US net foreign asset position deteriorating by more than two trillion dollars in 2008.[6] This was due primarily to the relative under-performance of domestic ownership of foreign assets (largely foreign equities) to foreign ownership of domestic assets (largely US treasuries and bonds)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_account
You never, ever heard Me promote a VAT. The VAT is a very regressive tax, and, in my opinion, is among the top 5 causes of Europe's present sorry state.
DeleteSorry 'bout that. rufus is against a VAT, got that.
DeleteI don't think that is Europes problem. I think Europes problem is the shared currency without the political union to go with it. I believe the EU situation acts a powerful argument against those folks who think the US should adopt a rigid gold standard for it would remove the ability of controlling your own monetary policy.
Sorry, again, didn't read you closely enough. Top 5 reasons. Anyway, I don't see how regressive taxation would cause the debt and de-leveraging problems we are seeing in the EU.
DeleteVAT Taxes are Very Anti-Growth. And Europe's primary problem, right now, is that it's hard to see any growth coming down the pike in Europe.
DeleteIt’s a bitch getting old, your hate card fills up.
ReplyDeleteI must disagree. Your silly card (everything seems so silly, might as well sit and look at the squirrels) and your compassion card (I ache, you ache, we ache, we're all gonna ache) fill up and you realize it ain't worth the argument. Except when it comes to the wolves and M. Buttplug, of course. I think I may be possibly getting a line on Buttplug. (you wouldn't believe how that man needs to be in jail, no compassion here)
Deleteb
Spoiling for a fight
ReplyDeleteTrainer Matz believes Union Rags has chance
By Mark Blaudschun
Globe Staff / June 8, 2012
ELMONT, N.Y. - He was the horse everyone touted coming out of his two-year-old season with wins in three of four starts. He was the favorite each time in the Kentucky Derby futures betting. A four-length victory in the Fountain of Youth Stakes in his three-year-old debut at Gulfstream Park did nothing to diminish the stature of Union Rags.
But then . . .
Horse racing is full of “but thens’’ for precocious two-year-olds who start the Derby season as prospects, then fade away.
Union Rags, trained by veteran Michael Matz, hasn’t quite faded away yet. In fact, there is some sentiment he can play the role of spoiler as I’ll Have Another goes after the Triple Crown in Saturday’s 144th running of the Belmont Stakes.
Two traffic-filled trips in the Florida Derby (where he finished third) and Kentucky Derby (where he finished seventh) have reduced expectations.
After Union Rags got caught in traffic in the Florida Derby and jockey Julien Leparoux was unable to escape it, Matz was hoping for better in the Kentucky Derby, but a bad start in the 20-horse field doomed him.
“When he jumped as he came out of the gate, I looked at my wife and said, ‘So much for the Kentucky Derby,’ ’’ Matz said Thursday morning. Matz’s decision to replace Leparoux with John Velazquez was, he says, strictly business.
“We had two unfortunate races,’’ said Matz. “Whether it was the rider, the trainer or the horse, I don’t know. But sometimes you have to go about doing things a little differently. I think he had some bad luck. The first time in the Florida Derby, whatever it was in the Derby. Your guess is as good as mine.’’
Matz feels Union Rags is the same horse who had so much promise as a two-year-old.
“I still feel he is a good horse,’’ said Matz, who kept Union Rags out of the Preakness in preparation for the Belmont, for which he was listed at 6-1 on the morning line. “I don’t think he had a chance in his last two races. I’m not sure if a mile and a half is the best race, but it’s the last Triple Crown race. I think he deserves a chance.
“The biggest thing for John is to get him in a nice rhythm. He knows the track well. He knows what he has to do. Julien knew that too and couldn’t get it done. He’s ran over this track before [a 5 1/4-length win in the Grade I Champagne Stakes last October]. Now it’s up to Johnny and the gods to get it done and that he gets a good trip. Whether he is good enough or not, we’ll find out. He’s a big horse. He covers the ground easily. But we don’t know. No one knows. None of these horses will probably run this distance again in their lives. It’s a big question.’’
Belmont News
There is a female jockey in tomorrow' race, but her horse is 50-1. She's not getting much play in the equine press.
b
Obamie is a commie history - (his daddie and mommie were both commie too)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz
Just like GW Bush. Commie from the womb.
b
As it is, the U.S. tax code confers preferential treatment on investors in oil, natural gas, coal extraction and pipeline projects– they’re the only ones allowed to form MLPs. In fact, natural gas and oil companies are have been benefiting from being able to form MLPs for nearly 30 years.
ReplyDeleteOdd as its seems, the IRS code specifically excludes MLPs from investing in renewable energy companies and project portfolios, 24/7 Wall St. points out. Coons’ wants to level the playing field. In addition to gaining support from the Obama Administration, his bill has garnered five Republican co-sponsors for his legislation.
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1dCbD)
Leveling the Playing Field
Bet your boy, Issa, votes against This.
Why did economists, financiers and politicians fail to anticipate it?
ReplyDeleteProfessor Stein argues that the financial world was suffering from collective mania in the two decades running up to the events. “Unless the manic nature of the response in the run up to 2008 is recognised, the same economic disaster could happen again,” he warns.
He defines the manic culture in terms of the four characteristics of denial, omnipotence, triumphalism and over-activity. “A series of major ruptures in capitalist economies were observed and noted by those in positions of economic and political leadership in Western societies. These ruptures caused considerable anxiety among these leaders, but rather than heeding the lessons, they responded by manic, omnipotent and triumphant attempts to prove the superiority of their economies.”
The massive increase in credit derivative deals, industrializing credit default swaps and the removal of regulatory safety checks, such as the repeal in the United States of the landmark Glass-Steagall banking controls were a manic response to the financial crises within capitalism,” he says.
Professor Stein’s award-winning research paper - A culture of mania: a psychoanalytic view of the incubation of the 2008 credit crisis – says this behaviour was also strengthened by “triumphant” feelings in the West over the collapse of communism.
“Witnessing the collapse of communism, those in power in the West developed the deluded idea that capitalist economies would do best if they eschew any resemblance to those communist economies, thereby justifying unfettered financial liberalization and the destruction of the regulatory apparatuses of capitalism. The consequences of this manic response have been catastrophic, with the on-going eurozone crisis being - in many ways - a result of this,” he says.
“Whether one examines the actions of banks and hedge funds, or the limitations of ratings agencies, auditors, regulators and governments, a more worrying and deeper question emerges concerning why so many parties, more or less simultaneously, were implicated in such unprecedented and extreme risk-taking.”
Wha' Hoppened?
Rufus: You never, ever heard Me promote a VAT. The VAT is a very regressive tax, and, in my opinion, is among the top 5 causes of Europe's present sorry state.
ReplyDeleteYou tax what you don't want, and subsidize what you want. That's why we tax cigarettes and subsidize babies with the Earned Income Credit. We want less consumption and more manufacturing. We should tax consumption, and subsidize factories built in the USA. That means extending the Obama tax cuts (not Bush tax cuts, because he signed one extension already, so he owns them) and it also means a VAT.
Only if tied to regulating the OTC derivatives market.
DeleteI was going to say "Everybody has to pay" but it's more a matter of financial security and stability.
You're just transferring the liability for the sins of the rich onto the backs of the poor, T. It's a sure-fire way to end up with a massive "Mississippi."
DeleteWhat you'll end up with is more unemployment, and more "social spending" such as unemployment compensation, food stamps, EIC, etc.
DeleteOf course, the "Republican" wet dream is to cut Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment Benefits, Food Stamps, EIC, WIC, AND pass a Value Added Tax (National Sales Tax on Steroids.)
DeleteRe OTC deriviatives market:
DeleteI think it important to let folks play as they like in the market and if they get burned so be it. That being said not all folk should be able to play as they like. The repeal of Glass-Steagal was a major mistake. Hedge funds should be free to gamble as they see fit, deposit taking institutions, insurance companies, shouldn't even if they THINK they can turn a good buck doing so.
It's a matter of creating a clearinghouse/exchange for transparency, not telling traders what they can do or how much risk they can assume.
DeleteSome Tips For The Simpletons of 'Occupy Wall Street':
Among the punitive, the vindictive, and pettiness of Dodd-Frank there stands one potentially seismic thought that sits so far not implemented. Title VII or the “Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act” is intended to regulate the over the counter swaps markets. This includes, among other derivatives, the constantly abused Credit Default Swaps (CDS) markets. The promise was the creation of a central exchange or clearinghouse for CDS instruments that would ensure adequate collateral is posted by counterparties and the financial system is safe from failed counter-party risk. This would mean standardized ISDA contracts and create a transparency by allowing everyone to see who holds insurance exposure to what debt instruments, and how much. This one thing could go a long way to reducing the ability of any one financial institution to pose systemic risk to the US and/or world economy.
A key element in an exchange as noted above is determining and enforcing "adequate collateral". I see a formalizing of common derivatives such as CDSs as being possible modeling it on the insurance business.
DeleteStill, a key systemic risk is the failure of deposit taking institutions and much of the response to the great depression revolved around protecting depositors money. Once Glass-Steagall was gone then a whole host of institutions became too important to fail. I think we should try to go back to protecting deposits, separating deposit taking institutions (and insurance companies) from the rest. Why the heck should taxpayers be back-stopping investment banks?
Agreed.
DeleteReinstate Glass-Steagall, and eliminate Dodd-Frank.
Let us remember, Rufus was the first and most vociferous supporter of bailing out the very folks that caused it.
DeleteEnabling the "TBTFs" To become Bigger.
I favored tax relief for the victims.
But here’s the key: Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the last financial crisis. And it probably wouldn’t have prevented JPMorgan’s $2 billion-plus trading loss. The loss occurred on the commercial side of the bank, not at the investment bank. But parts of the bet were made with synthetic credit derivatives — something that George Bailey in “It’s a Wonderful Life” would never have touched.
DeleteWhen I called Ms. [Elizabeth] Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”
LINK
In my conversation with Ms. Warren she told me that one of the reasons she’s been pushing reinstating Glass-Steagall — even if it wouldn’t have prevented the financial crisis — is that it is an easy issue for the public to understand and “you can build public attention behind.”
DeleteShe added that she considers Glass-Steagall more of a symbol of what needs to happen to regulations than the specifics related to the act itself.
So would Glass-Steagall make things slightly better? Sure.
But the next time someone says that it is the ultimate solution, think again.
It makes sense that it wouldn't be the ultimate solution - much has changed in banking since its enactment. The core part of it, at least in my understanding, is the separation of deposit taking institutions from others. Once you've got the beast separated the deposit taking institution should be forcefully regulated and backstopped (i.e. FDIC). Ironically during the financial crisis they further melded the deposit taking institutions with others trying to save the lot. I still shake my head at the frantic regulation changes allowing Goldman Sachs to belly up to the fed window.
DeleteThe first domino to nearly topple over in the financial crisis was Bear Stearns, an investment bank that had nothing to do with commercial banking. Glass-Steagall would have been irrelevant. Then came Lehman Brothers; it too was an investment bank with no commercial banking business and therefore wouldn’t have been covered by Glass-Steagall either. After them, Merrill Lynch was next — and yep, it too was an investment bank that had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.
DeleteNext in line was the American International Group, an insurance company that was also unrelated to Glass-Steagall. While we’re at it, we should probably throw in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which similarly, had nothing to do with Glass-Steagall.
And the idea behind something like Glass-Steagall is that investment banks shouldn't be bailed out. I'm not convinced they needed to bail out those boys, let 'em fail. You pays your money you take your chances. It is the depositors that need protecting. Somehow we got to the point where all of the buggers needed protecting - I'm still not sure why.
DeleteI can see bailing out AIG in that they provide insurance. An insurance company shouldn't have been allowed to put so much capital at risk without reserves held to cover their bets in the CDS market, which is, essentially, an insurance market. At the time, of course, they couldn't change regulations, the situation was as it was. The fact that the gov provided the money to AIG that made Goldman Sachs whole stinks but ferretting out who gets haircuts and who doesn't in the middle of the crisis probably wasn't practical.
So, in short, something like Glass-Steagall parsing out who gets backstopped, and regulated, and the others is an important part of the financial system. Development of institutions like FDIC to do the backstopping is also important. The wild west of everyone doing what they like and eveyone getting backstopped is insanity.
(((((((((((((((((I'LL HAVE ANOTHER SCRATCHED FROM BELMONT STAKES)))))))))))))
ReplyDeleteB
Rufus: You're just transferring the liability for the sins of the rich onto the backs of the poor, T.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the sins of the rich to the redistributionists? Using their profits to provide new jobs. Instead, their line goes, we need to double down on porkulus spending, and get the money from China.
.
DeleteUsing their profits to provide new jobs
I needed a good laugh.
.
Why would you build a factory in the U.S. if "Consumption" had moved off-shore?
DeleteUsing their profits to provide new jobs
DeleteI thought Business was afraid to expand/invest/grow because of regulatory uncertainty and The Burden.
It wasn't the poor mom on Medicaid that Crashed the Global Economy, T. It was Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.
ReplyDeleteLeast T is using a handle that fits.
ReplyDeleteb
My daughter's instructor, another young woman, hates horse racing, loves rodeo.
ReplyDeleteShe may have it right. Racing too soon, too much, too far - they ruin the horses, she says.
May have it right.
b
Bred for long, skinny bones, and Powerful Muscles - What could go wrong?
ReplyDeleteEveryone understands that the No 1 industry in Greece is Shipping, right?
ReplyDeleteBut, did you know that "Profits from Shipping" are exempt from Taxation in Greece?
You ain't Seen corruption until the top 0.01% get total control.
Aristotle Onassis? No!
Delete(always did like that name, though)
Aristotle Onassis Quotes
After a certain point, money is meaningless. It ceases to be the goal. The game is what counts.
Aristotle Onassis
Find priest who understands English and doesn't look like Rasputin.
Aristotle Onassis
I have no friends and no enemies - only competitors.
Aristotle Onassis
If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning.
Aristotle Onassis
Aristotle Onassis Quote
It is during our darkest moments that we must focus to see the light.
Aristotle Onassis
The more you own, the more you know you don't own.
Aristotle Onassis
The secret of business is to know something that nobody else knows.
Aristotle Onassis
To succeed in business it is necessary to make others see things as you see them.
Aristotle Onassis
We must free ourselves of the hope that the sea will ever rest. We must learn to sail in high winds.
Aristotle Onassis
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/aristotle_onassis.html#2xG7tVpyv6gBMFxe.99
b
Remember this one, Rufus -
DeleteFind priest who understands English and doesn't look like Rasputin.
:)
b
I got half of it. :)
DeleteSounds good for the spouse too.
DeleteAnd then there's this -
ReplyDeletePresident Obama: “The private sector is doing just fine”
O well then....
This is called being detached.
b
.
ReplyDeleteFrom today's issue of Salon.
War on Whistleblowers Widens: Obama and the Kill-List
.
.
DeleteAnother take on the security leaks,
But there is an even deeper internal security issue: How far does the First Amendment extend today — or has it become the suicide pact of the 21st century? Does the “public’s right to know” mean that the press can freely compromise secrets directly affecting the nation’s survival? To begin with, remember that the secrets betrayed by The New York Times were not the property of the White House, the National Security Council, the Pentagon or the 14 alphabetical agencies comprising our intelligence establishment. Instead, those secrets were owned by the American people, who rely on their government to protect those crown jewels, which are essential to both the common defense and the general welfare...
[link]
.
Encroachment of the Executive on the balance of power began with Cheney's "stovepiping" of intelligence from the CIA. The expansion of Executive power began with the response to the terrorist threat largely under GWB and has continued uninterrupted by partisanship. The difference is that, under Obama, all the federal teams seem to be moving in unison in the same direction, unlike the two GWB terms.
ReplyDeleteRufus: It wasn't the poor mom on Medicaid that Crashed the Global Economy, T. It was Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.
ReplyDeleteIf the pre-Lehman economy was nothing more than a house of cards comprised largely of over-leveraged entities bundling fraudulent paper and selling it to each other, then it deserved to crash. Meanwhile, manufacturing is already back, public sector unions are on life-support, and the US is approaching energy independence.
No, T; we are still a "8,000,000 bbl/day Net Importer" of oil, and oil products (it would be 9,000,000 bbl/day if it wasn't for Biofuels.)
ReplyDeleteWe are nowhere near "approaching energy independence."
Ah, our indomitable Obama hack is using statistics from my alma mater to further the Obama lie about who cause the majority of the 2009 deficit increase.
ReplyDelete---
Congress only passed 3 of the 15 appropriations bills in fy 2009. Bush had threatened to veto the others over the spending levels, so the DEMOCRATS did a continuing funding bill for them at 2008 levels that covered until March 2009. In February, as I recall, Obama signed an omnibus bill covering the other 12 appropriations bills.
The Dems controlled Congress after the 2006 elections. Congress creates and passes spending bills, not the President. Obama voted yes on all the spending.
If you look at the budget deficits after the Bush tax cut the deficits went down sequentially until 2007, when the Dems took over. Bush did lend $700 billion to banks but most of that has been paid back, with interest. The $700 billion was part of the deficit but was not spending like the porkulus bill that Congress passed in 2009.
The porkulus stimulus bill will not be paid back so adds to the deficit. The bank bailout was paid back and lowers the deficit and national debt, unless the Dems with to violate the law and use the money for more "stimulus".
Pretty easy to see why the Dems haven't passed a budget in years.
I guess we must conclude Dianne Feinstein is a right wing wacko now that she is on the record saying that allies are now refusing to work with us because of the Administration Leak Factory endangering our warriors and any allies foolish enough not to abandon ship.
ReplyDelete.
DeleteLeaks {link]
Obviously, you and Dianne are right wing wackos, Doug. Obama said so.
.
Obama on blaming Bush for deficits
ReplyDeleteNot only does Obama quadruple the deficit this year, the long-term outlook shows them rising, not falling, under Obama’s plans.
Even the White House projections, using the rosiest possible conditions, shows them increasing after never getting down to the 2008 level.
Even in 2013, the White House predicts a budget deficit higher than Bush’s last year, and then increases in the deficit steadily through 2019.
And again, as I said, that doesn’t count the real structural deficit of Medicare and Social Security.
They’re not doing everything they can do to eliminate the deficit. They’re doing everything they can do to make them exponentially worse.
In 31 of the 37 years, Congress adopted at least one budget resolution for the fiscal year beginning in such year; Congress did not complete action on a budget resolution for six fiscal years (FY1999 in 1998, FY2003 in 2002, FY2005 in 2004, FY2007 in 2006, FY2011 in 2010, and FY2012 in 2011).
ReplyDelete1 - Clinton
3 - Bush
2 - Obama
LINK
2 + 1 = 3
Delete3 = 3
Tie.
Hah!
We don't need no stinkin' budget, we got continuing resolutions.
b
Manufacturing IS back big time.....in China.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo
Not Government Motors, not Obama Motors, China Motors.
video
b
Margaret Thatcher (elected prime minister of the U.K. in 1979) and Ronald Reagan (elected president of the U.S. in 1980) added an essential ingredient to the philosophy of growth: an ideological faith in the market system. Faster growth would come from markets freed of red tape, lighter taxes and weaker trade unions. The Thatcher-Reagan philosophy also viewed increasing income inequality as acceptable insofar as it improved the incentives of the “wealth creators”: There would be a “trickle down” from rich to poor.
ReplyDeleteIt was the shift to a market-based philosophy of growth that inflamed the insatiability of wants -- by abandoning any interest in the social outcome of growth. The market was bound by the rule of law, but there was no longer any moral, political or cultural restraint on the individual pursuit of wealth. Keynes’s notion of satiety had no place.
Such a system cannot work according to plan. It is both economically and morally inefficient. The Anglo-American system of the past 30 years, dominated by the financial-services industry, has been retained for the benefit of a predatory plutocracy that creams off the riches in the name of freedom and globalization.
So, what intellectual, moral and political resources still exist in Western societies to reverse the onslaught of insatiability and redirect our purposes toward the good life?
LINK
Includes another call for a consumption tax.
FWIW, I'm not crazy about any of it - using an economic behavior such as consumption as the lever to permit further government encroachment into private decision-making, but I expect something like it is coming. Eventually. The focus on Consumption is not quite correct in my view. The immediate focus should be on financial reform, which is complicated by the need for global coordination with trading partners to ensure the sacred "level playing fields" so valued among competitive enterprise. Whatever it takes to get corporate capital off the table (invested) and back in-country.
Indeed, moron:
DeleteHistory is replete with examples of socialism increasing the common good, and capitalism resulting in societal bankruptcy.
...then we could get into the number of citizens eliminated by socialist governments vs free market governments...
...but why bother.
Committed morons are committed.
Time wasted.
Back off fuckhead.
DeleteAnd don't for one minute think you're the only one to have a rough time crossing the tracks.
Point being, if you insist on fucking around with the capital markets, then you will crash the system and "meetings will be held" to "correct the problem."
DeleteSounds like one of those Charlie Sheen commercials doesn't it?
Don't crash the system or Meetings Will Be Held.
Grim and Determined Meetings.
And you know that group. They don't waste anything, now do they.
Asshole.
"There are only two places left to go......Sacramento.....and Detroit. The morons will put hookers and cocaine on the menus if we say 'it's for the children'....."
ReplyDeleteMein Fuhrer, the Wisconsin recall has failed.
:)
video --
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/hitler_gets_the_news_of_walker_win.html
b
"So, what intellectual, moral and political resources still exist in Western societies to reverse the onslaught of insatiability and redirect our purposes toward the good life?"
ReplyDelete---
The left has taken over all the institutions which once maintened our intellectual and moral resources.
Leaving us bankrupt, save for the conservative movement.
Budget Resolutions, Smudget Obfuscations, the moron strikes again:
ReplyDeletesenate record of passing a budget
The congressional budget timetable sets April 15 as a target date for completing action on the annual budget resolution (prior to 1986, the date was May 15). During the past 37 years, when Congress has completed action on a budget resolution, Congress adopted the budget resolution by the target date only six times, most recently in 2003 with the FY2004 budget resolution. Budget resolutions have been adopted, on average, almost 37 days after the target date.
DeleteSo many fringe ideologues. So few fact-checkers.
Yep, Jake Tapper and Doug, fringe ideologues...
Delete..."Max" - common sense fact-checker,
My Ass.
Trying to conjoin apples and oranges does not an argument make:
The Democrat Controlled Senate, headed by Harry, is a record setter.
FOR OBVIOUS REASONS!
It is what it is motormouth. And you really should leave your ass out of it.
DeleteOBVIOUS is:
-the $4.4 Trillion and counting wars in the ME and
-the carefully planned dismantling of financial regulatory control over the banking industry that collapsed the global markets ($1.4 trillion) and
-unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug Plan and "Bush tax cuts" now owned by Obama ($1.5 trillion (approx)).
The second two numbers are approx but they're close enough for you.
WH Chief of Staff Errs on Senate Budget Rules
ReplyDelete– Jake Tapper, Rightwing Nutcase.
Feb 12, 2012 1:45pm
As President Obama prepares to unveil his FY2013 budget Monday, White House chief of staff Jack Lew this morning was asked by CNN to defend the Senate’s refusal to pass a budget in more than 1,000 days.
“You can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support,” Lew said. “So unless… unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, [Majority Leader] Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed.”
That’s not accurate. Budgets only require 51 Senate votes for passage, as Lew — former director of the Office of Management and Budget — surely must know.
White House officials did not dispute that Lew misspoke. When asked about the discrepancy, a White House official said “the chief of staff was clearly referencing the general gridlock in Congress that makes accomplishing even the most basic tasks nearly impossible given the Senate Republicans’ insistence on blocking an up or down vote on nearly every issue.”
The issue highlights the difficulty the White House is having running against an obstructionist Congress
when half of that Congress is controlled by Democrats, who obstruct things for their own reasons.
In this case, political observers believe Reid is reluctant to have Democrats vote on a large budget full of deficits and tax increases that Republicans can use to run against them.
My point, Moron!
Verbose but irrelevant.
DeleteNeed to call LinCare for some O2?
Jake Tapper is a Verbose, Right Wing Ideologue.
Delete...in Moronville.
Excellent, truly excellent!
ReplyDeleteProving my point.
Christie: Obama driving America off a "fiscal cliff"
ReplyDeleteUS Won’t Fall Off Fiscal Cliff: Rahm Emanuel
DeleteRufus and MaxMoron:
ReplyDeleteWe need Bigger Government!
We feel their pain.
Better Government.
ReplyDeleteThe better vs bigger distinction hasn't gotten much traction. Not nearly as sexy or marketable as "get government off the backs" of corporate America, I mean, the little guy, the entrepreneurial hero.
You're late to the party but I'll say it again. Government faces a huge challenge of reforming the regulatory code and the ideologues have turned that into a fringe debate of "no government" vs "more government."
The Reality is well between the two.
A nuance really.
Romney wants to add $100 Billion to the Defense Budget. That's some "Big" Gummint I think we can do without.
ReplyDeleteRomney thinks that 15%, er . .. . 14% Effective Tax Rate that he and Warren Buffet enjoy is perfectly appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI have to question That.
Obama is trying to set up one National Health Group that is affordable, and guarantees Health Coverage to All Americans. That seems reasonable to me.
ReplyDeleteObama is looking to a future of declining fossil fuels, and is attempting to help get the country started on the road to increased "Renewable" sources of energy.
ReplyDeleteRomney used to "believe" the same thing - until he discovered he needed the tea partiers to show up at the polls.
I still do.
I normally don't put as much stock in debates as do some; however, this year I think they will be the deciding factor (one reason why I won't let you pin me down right now, Mel. :)
ReplyDeleteNow, it's true, debates are somewhat like Horse Races; you just never know who is going to show up - your candidate, or his evil twin. But, I have a sneaking suspicion that these debates might redound to Obama's benefit.
Thank God we've got Obama. He said, why, just yesterday I think it was, the private sector is 'doing fine', and he himself, B-HO, had created over 4,000,000 private sector jobs.
ReplyDeleteHe should do fine in the debates with data points like these.
b
Always helps to have reality on your side.
DeleteNeither Rufus nor Max have ever addressed my repeated question about how can they possible assert that Obamacare is actuarially sound.
Rufus says he's trying to set up one National Health Group that is affordable, and guarantees Health Coverage to All Americans.
How reasonable can you get?
(In 3,000 pages of "law" calling for tens of thousands of pages of additional regulations)
Rufus loves central planning.
The Death of Freedom.
Doug, Obamacare is as actuarially sound as the Swiss System, or the Massachusetts System, or Medicare, or any other government system.
DeleteAgain, I'm telling you, you have no idea how much the current system of Medicaid, Hospital ER Treatments, etc are costing you already.
Spelled out in black and white, your favorite colors.
Delete2011-07 Peter Orszag, How Health Care Costs Can Save or Sink America
You two have fun now.
You see, Max, that's the thing; I'd never read an article with a title like that.
DeleteHC Costs cannot "save, or sink" America.
Rising health-care costs are at the core of the United States’ long-term fiscal imbalance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that between now and 2050, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal spending on health care will rise from 5.5 percent of GDP to more than 12 percent. (Social Security costs, by comparison, are projected to increase from five percent of GDP to six percent over the same period.) It is no exaggeration to say that the United States’ standing in the world depends on its success in constraining this health-care cost explosion; unless it does, the country will eventually face a severe fiscal crisis or a crippling inability to invest in other areas.
DeleteShortly *before* the notable (and complicated) distractions of 2008, not that the distractions of 2001 were finished, the policy consensus was that health care costs were the single largest obstacle to the fiscal responsibility that Ash disparaged upthread.
The policy wonks were correct. But the numbers got subsumed in 2008 and what was left of 2001 which lead to ideological partisanship and screaming - and, more importantly, allowed business interests to square off against social "entitlement" programs, which is the wrong formulation but don't tell Doug or his buddies @BC or bob and his Tea Party lace doily dilettantes. How quickly business forgot.
Orszag is a policy wonk. His piece is nuts on from start to finish. But his timing is in the toilet. The war costs and the recession costs will make the only realistic health care solution dead in the water. Too bad. Back to escalating private sector costs because timing is everything.
I gave this subject and Orszag's treatment of it exceptional detailed treatment awhile back. I'm through with it.
2050?
DeleteSheesh, they can't come with $100 billion on a Year on Year basis.
I'm sorry, Max; Policy wonk, or wonkette - it doesn't matter. He's just talking for the sheer enjoyment of hearing his own voice.
No, you're wrong but I'm too tired to take on both of you.
DeleteI'm tired also, Max; but let me leave you with this:
DeleteGo to the library, or, if you're much smarter than I, use the "wayback machine," and pull up a boatload of newspapers/magazines/etc from the Sixties.
Make a note of all the references to Personal Computers, Cell Phones, Statin Drugs, Genome-mapping, the Internet, smart bombs, stealth aircraft, missile defense, GPS, robotics, etc.
I noticed a headline yesterday about a test that could diagnose 3,200, I think it was, potential diseases/abnormalities in a fetus. How much could that save in early treatment/mitigation, etc?
2050?
Think of all the assumptions that have to go into such a calculation.
Big Four Federal Expenditures:
DeleteEducation
Welfare
Defense
Health Care
This is government spending not private spending but the argument for health care costs as an impediment to enterprise competitiveness is there.
The "delivery systems" are subject to economic disincentives (not to mention outright fraud) that are not cost-competitive but as Orszag argues very persuasively that problem cannot be solved alone, let alone partially, by consumer-directed choice due to the risk pool asymmetries, and yet, the rebuttal position is stubbornly mired in the "free market" alternative.
DeleteOn many of the key issues Obama's positions are much more aligned with the public than are Romney's.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, Renewable Energy polls extremely high with John Q, and Betsy. Romney has locked himself into the Big Oil/Fossil Fuel side of the argument.
The War in Afghanistan is polling below 30%. I'm not sure Romney can make a good argument for more defense spending to a war-weary public.
Tax "Fairness" is a compelling talking point. For Romney to make the case that he should continue paying a lower effective tax rate than the janitor at the local shop is "iffy" at best.
Even "Obamacare," which is polling in the thirties is reacted to differently when the individual components are polled - Especially, Guaranteed Issue.
"Especially, Guaranteed Issue."
ReplyDeleteConsult the New York times, Rufus:
You're hallucinating.
About what?
DeleteAre you telling me that doing away with "non-issue due to pre-existing conditions" is an unpopular thing?
See below, I thought you were refering to the individual mandate.
DeleteNeither Dems nor pubs can explain how to run a profitable enterprise with "pre-existing conditions."
Well, they can but it Does require 100% participation.
DeleteAnd, actually, Bob, Consumer Confidence is starting to tick up due to "jobs are becoming more available."
ReplyDeleteMy daughter must be confident. I watched today as she took some tack and saddles to display at a local sale tomorrow at a stables near here. And, before she walked out of there,leaving her stuff to be sold tomorrow, she had purchased another saddle for herself, before she even knew if hers might sell tomorrow.
DeleteNo that, my friends, is 'consumer confidence'.
Young people intelligently and fearlessly moving the economy FORWARD!.
:)
b
Here's B-HO at his best -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnWerVSkXFc
Used in a debate, a performance such as this would redound to his benefit. I have a sneaking suspicion this is so.
It's not hard to pull the wool over the eyes of some people.
b
Here ya go.
ReplyDelete(whata guy I am)
New Poll: The Supreme Court and the Health Care Law
More than two-thirds of Americans hope the Supreme Court will overturn some or all of the 2010 health care law, according to a new poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News.
Just 24 percent said they hoped the court “would keep the entire health care law in place.”
More than 70 percent of independent voters said they wanted to see some or all of the law struck down, with a majority saying they hoped to see the whole law overturned. Twenty-two percent of independents said they hoped the entire law would survive.
Yes, Doug, I said that Obamacare was polling very low. But, polling has also shown that certain ideas within it are very popular. Guaranteed issue is one.
ReplyDeleteLook, I'm not saying that Obama is going to win the debate. I am, however, saying that he "could."
ReplyDeleteAnything is possible.
DeleteOld betting adage
(but some things are not likely)
b
Like horse racing, a lot of it is simply, "who is on his game."
ReplyDeleteAnd, sometimes you just get lucky (or, of course, unlucky.)
Overlooked somewhat is the fact that Europe is Crashing, and other large Global Economies are slowing, and, as a result, Oil Prices are tanking (ptp.)
If, by some miracle, he gets some unlikely combination of lower gasoline prices w/o the slowing U.S. economy that is sure to follow the disaster in Europe, it will be worth probably 5 points.
It's all the fault of the Europeans now.
Deleteb
Bush, the Europeans, the Republicans, the Tea Party, the culprits are all around.
Deleteb
Maybe Romney will get up there and say he's a Moslem, like Obama did.
ReplyDeleteAnything's possible.
After all, marriage wise, there used to be some real similarities between the two outlooks.
Say, what's all this I am hearing about some new Vodka produced in Utah called 'Five Wives' or something. Wife mentioned it today.
I can see if you had five wives, you might need it.
b
As I stated the other day, those Republicans that can actually read a BLS Report must feel like the luckiest people in the world.
ReplyDeleteNo one in the WH, that I'm aware of, has pointed out that the unemployment rate ticked up 0.1% Because 642,000 people Entered the Workforce (422,000 of which snagged jobs.)
And a big X number again quit looking for work.
DeleteMust always factor that into the calculations, which is never done.
b
No, That Is Not Correct. See Report, below. The Employment to Population Ratio "Ticked UP" 0.2%, as did the "Labor Participation Rate."
DeleteEmployment Report
ReplyDelete