Presidential Race (Respector Edition)

[Tweedling]

All this Fed back and forth is too heady for me to follow. Apparently we are headed for a financial meltdown of epic proportions. But there is nothing we can do about it. So when it comes I say we all travel to Sparky's house and seek protection in in his newly formed republic.

 

So until then how about this for fun Friday viewing:

 

(caution video very loud and annoying)

 

Oh wait no he is not

 

 

 

Go about your Fed talk now.

Oh man. I love this lady....classic.

I am very aware of the Lifeline. Growing up with my grandma she was disabled and qualified to receive this. What it cam down to was a button she wore around her neck and a big box with a red button for help, a button to reset every week and a switch in case you were leaving town for some time.

Now, I actually clicked on one of your links and so I have to ask you, is this video racist? Why do you think this woman believes that Obama gave them cell phones?

[Sparky speaks]

Will your vote really count in November? Like Stalin said, It is not important who votes, it's who counts the votes that matters...

 

Vote counting company tied to Romney

 

http://www.opednews....-120927-75.html

 

 

 

For those who are taking some interest in the Fed issue...

 

13 States Now Considering Gold and Silver as Money

 

http://www.profitconfidential.com/gold-investments/13-states-now-considering-gold-and-silver-as-money/

[KevinG]

Oh man. I love this lady....classic.

Now, I actually clicked on one of your links and so I have to ask you, is this video racist? Why do you think this woman believes that Obama gave them cell phones?

 

The woman is an idiot. She is on par with those on the right wing who think Obama is a Muslim socialist. I don't know why she thinks that, I am sure the same misinformation that caused Rush, Drudge, Hannity to think the same thing.

 

Is the video racist, I guess that depends on how you view it. I have always felt and object of any kind cannot be inherently racist. It is how a person views it and understands the subtext, which makes it racist. Do I think the video itself is racist, no. Do I think the person who made is racist, absolutely.

[Tweedling]

Because the supporter is black? Please man. That goes hand in hand with the underlining thought that people who don't like Obama are racist. So what label would you give the filmmaker who may make a video of conservatives yelling Obama is a Muslim?

[LouieB]

The imminent financial collapse has been predicted for years (decades) and so far it has not happened. Not unlike second coming it probably isn't going to happen. Gold and silver are worth something in and of themselves because it is a commodity that is traded on many markets. But the idea that each state will someday have their own currency based on whatever is also far fetched. Between the talk of going back to a gold standard (decades/centuries old idea), the collapse of the stock market (it also hasn't happened and in fact the market is doing pretty well), the decline and fall of western civilization, etc., all of these ideas are somewhat ridiculous.

 

I said this awhile back on this thread (Department of Redundency Department much) even if Mitt Romney (or Barack Obama) is elected President, it isn't the end of the world. We survived every political catastrophy since WWII (and including WWII) and survived. Those on the left thought the end of the world was coming with Nixon, Reagan, George W and somehow it didn't happen. Neither did it happen for the right when Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and now Obama was elected. The ship of state goes chugging on despite who is the so called leader of the free world.

 

It needs to be pointed out that we even survived the War Between the States (called the Civil War in the North) and somehow survived that too. Some folks would like to go on fighting this war, whatever it was called 150 years later, but we will survive that also.

 

LouieB

[Winston Legthigh]

There's a good book about the history of financial collapses (that is, "good" if you're into that kind of thing - economic history being something that the kids are into nowadays) called "It's Different This Time" - the thesis of which is that most bubbles that have popped have similar characteristics, with similar characteristics to the following recovery. Such so, that the smart guys have recognized the indicators, and have done well because of them. (Such as the guys who recognized the housing bubble, and short sold housing indices before the collapse, and did very well - made some MONEY, as it were.)

 

There isn't going to be an outright failure of any of these markets. They rise, they fall, but they keep chugging along.

[Sparky speaks]

This (expansion of the money supply) has never been done on the scale it is being done currently. To keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptMrAgWqRfg

 

This is a very good article if you have the time. Why do folks have such a hard time with common sense?

 

Statism Is Finished

by Jacob G. Hornberger

 

You see, for both liberals and conservatives, the welfare state is a given. As far as they’re concerned, the welfare state has now become a permanent part of American life. According to them, we should just accept that and then try to come up with ways to make the welfare state work, as Krugman devotes his life to doing.

 

Consider the basic problem. The government promises to provide a welfare dole to its citizens. For simplicity, let’s assume that the total amount of the promised dole is $1,000.00. Let’s says that the government collects the total sum of $250 in taxes.

 

Do you see the problem? The government doesn’t have the money to pay off the dole it has promised. It’s $750 short. But when it tries to explain that to people, they get upset and demand that the government honor its promise.

 

The government could go out and raise taxes on the people who have income and wealth in order to have the money to pay the entire promised dole. But the problem is that you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. After decades of confiscatory taxes on the Spanish people, the parasite has just about killed the private sector, which pays the taxes. If the government confiscates more wealth from the private sector, it just drives more businesses into bankruptcy and sends more people into unemployment, who then demand their share of the dole. And then what happens the following year, where people are, once again, demanding their full dole?

 

Interestingly enough, it seems that Krugman understands that problem because he doesn’t call for higher taxes in his article, as most liberals do. Instead, he turns to the European Central Bank to solve the problem. How? Through inflation — the printing of the money to “stimulate the economy” — or “priming the pump,” as interventionists used to call it.

 

But how in the world does that solve the problem? If printing money produced real, solid, long-term prosperity, Zimbabwe would have been the wealthiest nation in the world when it was inflating its currency several years ago. It wasn’t. It was possibly the poorest country in the world, in part because the government was looting and plundering the citizenry with inflationary increases in the money supply.

 

When the central bank inflates the money supply, it sends false signals to businessmen, banks, and investors — signals that indicate that there is increased wealth in society that can justify expanding business operations. Responding to those deceptive signals, the businessmen expand operations, the banks lend money for them, and investors put their money into the ventures.

 

But the problem is that increases in paper money aren’t real wealth—they’re not real capital. They are nothing but false signals and ways to plunder and loot people without raising taxes.

 

Ultimately, what happens? Reality sets in at some point. People figure out that there really wasn’t any increase in real wealth to justify the expansion of operations. That’s when the bubble bursts and the new round of crises occur.

 

That’s the welfare state and managed economy in action. Why can’t liberals and conservatives just face the fact that their beloved statist paradigm has failed and that it is incapable of being made to work?

 

Link:

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-09-28.asp

[LouieB]

 

There isn't going to be an outright failure of any of these markets. They rise, they fall, but they keep chugging along.

We actually just went through a collapse of epic proportions and somehow we survived, though clearly limping along. The one thing is clear; the banksters and the wall streeters aren't going to let a complete meltdown occur. Okay it is possible, anything is possible, but money is ultimately an abstract which like everything else, is subject to ebbs and flows. Are there going to be more bubbles and busts? For sure, only a fool would think otherwise, but we saw the worst in recent memory and maybe will see that again. Gold is always an option, but even that isn't a guarantee we won't all be selling apples on the side of the road.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

Because the supporter is black? Please man. That goes hand in hand with the underlining thought that people who don't like Obama are racist. So what label would you give the filmmaker who may make a video of conservatives yelling Obama is a Muslim?

 

If you don't like PBO because he is black that is racist. If you post a video of a person saying something stupid because they are black then that is racist. Now there is no way for me to look into that videographer's heart and tell if he is racist. But what is the purpose of posting this, other than to make a generalization about people who support Obama.

 

From the article:

Using one mockable person you found on the Internet to make generalizations about half the country is lazy and stupid.

 

Needless to say the importance of this video (or the person who posted this) being racists is kinda inconsequential. It is how it has been used by Rush, FoxNews, Hannity, the Drudge report, et al. that could be considered racist. So racist or not, using the video and then making generalizations may not be racist but it sure is lazy and stupid.

 

And Sparky, I don't care about the program and the redistribution of wealth that pays for people to get free cell phone, I think that is another matter entirely. What I am trying to get at is how quickly the Right Wing Media will jump on a story begin to spread out right lies and make generalizations over a large group of people.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Ok, Kevin, I'll bite. I don't care who came up with this idea or when they did. This is a typical example of a government required mandate that is paid for by the consumer, as the article states, when the phone companies tack the cost of these "free" phones on to our phone bills to pay for it. Thus the government has raised the price of phone service by interfering in the market place. From the libertarian viewpoint the government has no business providing free (subsidized) phone service to anyone rich or poor. Nothing is free in reality. We all pay the price from cell phones to free lunch.

Well, Sparky, you may think all this discussion is esoteric and theoretical, but it actually involves real people. My brother has been homeless for years, and his idea of a "home" these days is living in a tent in the woods. Thank GOD he has been able to get a free cell phone from the government, which he is able to use periodically. If not for that, our mother would never hear from him unless he panhandles enough cash for food AND a phone card, and neither would I. As it is, he usually gets one meal a day. He can also dial 911 on it in case of emergency, like, you know, having a heart attack and dying alone out in the woods.

Now, if you can get your head around that, and agree, "Oh, okay, I see, the government is providing a valuable service," then I will congratulate you on your coming around to a different point of view. But if you, or anyone else for that matter, says, "I don't want any of my money going to help people like that," well, my reply would not be a very polite one...It might even get me banned from the board, or at least get this thread locked.

[ih8music]

But if you, or anyone else for that matter, says, "I don't want any of my money going to help people like that," well, my reply would not be a very polite one...It might even get me banned from the board, or at least get this thread locked.

 

Unfortunately, there's a very large segment of this country who would say precisely that, regardless of the circumstances that led to his homelessness.

 

Sorry about your brother; hope he stays safe and gets his life back on track.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Unfortunately, there's a very large segment of this country who would say precisely that, regardless of the circumstances that led to his homelessness.

 

Sorry about your brother; hope he stays safe and gets his life back on track.

Thank you kindly.

I know you are right, but I would have the same response for anyone...simple sentence, starts with Go and ends with yourself.

[bleedorange]

It's really a nonstarter. Of all government programs to question, this is certainly near the bottom of the list. Very sorry to hear about your brother, though.

[LouieB]

Cell phones for homelessis a great program.Thanks for the personal take on this Mr. Heartbreak. You would have to be a heartless bastard to think that this program is a bad idea. I am sure lots of "good Christians":would decry this as a bad idea.

 

Taxes on various services pay for all kinds of stuff. There is a tax on phones that helps pay for e-rate which helps schools put in internet and support other telecommunications programs. It is all part of the famous "redistribution" of wealth that the right wing is always decrying. Those "wealthy" enough to be able too afford a cell phone also help schools with conductivity. Is this okay?

 

(E-rate also happens to be one of the most complex and convoluted government program ever, but that is a different story.)

 

LouieB

[Sparky speaks]

Look, Heartbreak, there should be a safety net for those folks as desperate as your brother. I was not trying to be a heartless bastard as you and others implied. But, I believe the government should not be subsidizing close to 100,000,000 people as it does now. I'm sure you agree we can't afford that. If this continues, there will be no money available to provide your brother and others like him with the services they desperately need and deserve. What will he do then? I doubt the majority of those receiving these benefits are as bad off as you describe your brother to be. No offense intended. Sorry you interpreted what I was saying the way you did. I understand how sensitive you are about your brother but those very same programs that are helping your brother are being threatened by Fed manipulation of the money supply and interest rates and the continued borrowing and spending beyond our means on the part of the government.

 

Bleedorange, I couldn't agree with you more as to where this falls on the priority list of government subsidized programs that need to be re-evaluated and restructured. I was only using the the phone issue as an example to relate it to the Fed discussion and to try to illustrate the point that when government subsidizes something the price goes up because there is no concern on the providers part to reduce prices because the government is going to foot the bill no matter what the cost. That then creates greater demand for the service because those receiving the benefit are more willing to use it because they are not paying the bill and not concerned with the cost. Hence the prices go up.The same holds true for college loans and medical costs or any other government subsidized program. Market forces are not allowed to operate when the government (through newly created borrowed money and taxes)pays the bulk of the costs making it easier for folks to obtain the services.

 

Plastic surgery and Lasik surgery for examle are not covered by most health plans. Believe it or not, the costs of those procedures is going down while all other medical costs covered by health plans such as Medicaid and Medicare are skyrocketing. Why, because the free market is working there. There are no government subsidies being used to pay for those services. The consumer is paying out of his or her own pocket. Those who provide the services know this and must be competitive price-wise in order to secure clients. It is basic economics. This is one of the major reasons health care prices have been rising and will continue to rise. The government has stymied competition in the health field. When you factor in the aging baby-boomer generation requiring more medical care this creates an even greater demand for services which is unsustainable. It is a vicious cycle that we will never get out of unless there is a drastic restructuring of our economic system and our entitlement programs. That won't happen until we go over that fiscal cliff which is just up ahead. Then we're all going to need a government subsidized cell phone.

[lost highway]

The following sentiment is perennial enough (truism even?) to appear cliche:

 

Take the cost of every fucking bomb that was dropped by this country that made men and women with their own hopes and dreams into a meat and rubble stew, now compare it to food stamps, soup kitchens, state appointed attorneys and so on.

 

If you think you're being ripped off by taxes no matter what, then which tax funded effort feels better for you as a human? Which one cost more money for that matter?

 

Now I'll put my bleeding heart soapbox back in my garage.......

[lost highway]

On a totally other tangent I propose a cease on Federal Reserve discussions in this thread. It is a worthy, and fascinating conversation. I think it could go much further, but it also has nothing to do with the Presidential Election. We have all recognized that neither candidate has made any statement to lead us to believe they have any unusual, or specific plans for changing it. Give it another thread.

[Sparky speaks]

On a totally other tangent I propose a cease on Federal Reserve discussions in this thread. It is a worthy, and fascinating conversation. I think it could go much further, but it also has nothing to do with the Presidential Election. We have all recognized that neither candidate has made any statement to lead us to believe they have any unusual, or specific plans for changing it. Give it another thread.

 

You are missing the point about its' inclusion. All that you wish your chosen candidate to accomplish if he wins the election and all the debates here about welfare, social security, taxes, bailouts, job creation, etc. are mute if that issue is not addressed because Fed policy will determine if there will be money to pay for those things or not. Those issues are affected and controlled by Fed policies of money inflation, interest rates, borrowing and spending. What the Federal Reserve does or doesn't do determines the fate of those issues dear to all of us. It is the elephant in the room no one wants to discuss or try to understand. Just because neither candidate wants to address the cold realities with the American people is not a reason to ignore it here. You can still talk about Michele Obama's food pyramid and Paul Ryan's abs with a few Fed posts thrown in can't you? I won't comment on those posts and you don't have to comment on the Federal Reserve ones.

[lost highway]

Obama isn't looking to put the public option in place on health care, or stop throwing money at Israel either.

 

You could make a thread of everything that won't be relevant to the presidential election. Those issues will matter to people. They won't matter much for the election. Which might deserve mention in this thread..... once. I'm not trying to edit you Sparky, it deserves its own thread. The story won't develop in presidential terms, it will be nationally stagnant and an ongoing talking point for you... forever. A lot of news will come out about the election in the next two months. It seems silly to have:

 

"Did you hear the strange analogy Obama made in the debate."

"Stop the FED!!"

"I was surprised by Romney's foreign policy remarks>"

"Stop the Fed!!"

"Orange you glad I didn't say banana." etc. etc.

[Sparky speaks]

So the very thing that will most affect the policies of whoever wins the White House is not relevant to the election discussion? Will either candidate be able to live up to their promises to create jobs and lower taxes if Fed policy prohibits them from doing it? Don't you want to know why they really will never be able to live up to those promises instead of accusing one candidate or the other of being a liar or an incompetent or a panderer? Look, if that is the sentiment of the majority of posters here in this thread I will acquiesce. I'll let the market of ideas dictate.

[KevinG]

On a totally other tangent I propose a cease on Federal Reserve discussions in this thread.

 

When I see a post by Sparky I scan it and if I see the word Federal or Reserve I skip it. I don't think it is important to the presidential election, regardless of the ranting of Sparky. But it is my choice to skip it. Just as Sparky rarely ever comments on the things that I post.

 

Sparky is free to post what he wants, you are free to totally ignore him. I find it a lot easier (though at times it is annoying to scroll for so long).

 

So yeah if Sparky wants to go nuts with the Fed is fine. If you don't like just ignore it.

 

So the first debate is in a couple of days. I am planning a party with a couple of my buds. Beer, pizza it will be like a football game but more entertaining. Anyone else do anything fun with the debates.

[ih8music]

So the first debate is in a couple of days. I am planning a party with a couple of my buds. Beer, pizza it will be like a football game but more entertaining. Anyone else do anything fun with the debates.

 

Funny you mention that. In the Fall of 2000, I was working out of town with a bunch of co-workers. We all worked for the same company (a large IT consulting firm), but were from all over the country. It was a particularly shitty project (aka "death march") and we'd frequently go out and get drunk together after work; made life in a shitty suburban Philly hotel a whole hell of a lot more bearable.

 

So when the debates came around, we decided to do that same as you're planning -- get some pizza, a few cases of beer, snacks, etc -- and treat the debate like MNF or the Super Bowl.

 

Holy crap was that a bad idea.

 

Because while it's one thing to talk shit about another person's favorite team, it's a whole different ballgame when you're talking shit about their core beliefs, religious (or not) ideology & complex issues like medicare, SS, taxes, etc. It got ugly, fast.

 

And this was in 2000, when people weren't nearly as polarized as they are now -- which is probably why we thought it would be a good idea!

 

Needless to say, we only did it for the very first debate and stayed clear of political discussion from then on. (Luckily the bunker mentality of being on a bad project superseded any bad feelings and we all remained friends. )

 

So anyway, some advice... make sure you're all either of the same (or very similar) political background, or keep the booze and trash talking to a minimum. It won't be nearly as fun as you think it might be.

[Sparky speaks]

Not much to read here...

 

 

 

Just think how many cell phones this could buy...

 

U.S. Move to Give Egypt $450 Million in Aid Meets Resistance

 

The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday that it would provide Egypt’s new government an emergency cash infusion of $450 million, but the aid immediately encountered resistance from a prominent lawmaker wary of foreign aid and Egypt’s new course under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/world/middleeast/white-house-move-to-give-egypt-450-million-in-aid-meets-resistance.html?_r=0

[LouieB]

Look, Heartbreak, there should be a safety net for those folks as desperate as your brother. I was not trying to be a heartless bastard as you and others implied. But, I believe the government should not be subsidizing close to 100,000,000 people as it does now. I'm sure you agree we can't afford that. If this continues, there will be no money available to provide your brother and others like him with the services they desperately need and deserve. What will he do then?

Okay so this is my broken record.....nearly every person and every family benefits from some sort of government subsidy. That is what we expect goverment to do at this point. Are there things that should be dropped? Probably, but when YOU are in need or someone in your family is in need, then those subsidies don't seem like a "waste of money." Everyone is affected by government programs, everyone and if you don't think you are, look closer. And in the future you made need more, if the need arrives.

 

So really we aren;t talkinb about 100 million poeple we are talking about EVERY person. Your kid got a National School Lunch? You got a subsidy. You work in a community with a military base? You got a subsidy. You drive on an interstate highway? You got a subsidy. You show up at a hospital and can't quite pay? You get a subsidy. You a farmer? You probably got a subsidy. You need dialysis? You got a subsidy. You out of work and get help finding a new job? You got a subsidy.

 

You got the picture. EVeryone needs to stop whinning about the government running out of money. It isn't going to happen if we are smart. If we are dumb and selfish we will, otherwise, we will be fine.

 

LouieB

[Sparky speaks]

Good morning Lou...

 

New Yorker editor now a crazy conspiracist?

 

New Yorker magazine editor says Netanyahu is 'arrogant and dangerous'

David Remnick accuses the Prime Minister of endangering Israel and making himself a factor in the U.S. elections.

 

By Haaretz

 

New Yorker magazine editor and Pulitzer-Prize winning author David Remnick accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday of endangering Israel, interfering in U.S. elections and aligning with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a "neocon strategy" against U.S. President Obama.

In a biting blog post in the magazine on Wednesday, Remnick accused Netanyahu of doing more “than any other political figure to embolden and elevate the reactionary forces in Israel, to eliminate the dwindling possibility of a just settlement with the Palestinians, and to isolate his country on the world diplomatic stage.”

 

I couldn't resist. This guy is good. He explains things in a way that most who are economic neophytes can understand...