Gameplaying, Real and Unreal
Quite a few Republicans have drifted over towards their fainting couch over a recent SuperPAC ad by a Pro-Obama outfit, protesting that they’ve been given the vapors by it’s punch below the belt. I won’t vouch for the individual facts of the matter, but as somebody who saw a family member’s health collapse under the strain of a layoff while he was growing up and, who saw the toll that insufficient healthcare took thereafter, I can say it’s not a game.
To some it is. As Dana Milbank wrote in a column of his, the way many people discover to make money in games is to fire their workers early and often, as they try to build their businesses up. He does this describing his daughter's video game, but one can't help but connect to the logic of modern business practices. The ideal is supposed to be that you let people develop experience, that you build employee loyalty and in return, they devote themselves to making your business the best it can be.
But in real life, as in the game, people have found it's much more lucrative to push a self-centered strategy in which labor is ruthlessly crushed, and numbers of workers are manipulated to increase stock performance. Or, they're all fired or lose their jobs because plants get shut down and/or the companies get loaded down with so much debt they go bankrupt. Supposedly this is good for everybody in the long run.
Romney's recent ad, one which attacks Obama for supposedly gutting welfare to work requirements shows us exactly what kind of honesty we can expect from Romney, direct from the candidate. In it, he says that Obama has been going behind the country's back to undermine Welfare reform. In fact, as several fact-checking sites have confirmed, he's done nothing of the sort. He's allowed waivers to states from federal welfare-to-work policies, true enough, but those are predicated on creating programs that will be able to produce a twenty percent improvement in getting people back to work, and more to the point, this was part of the law as originally written.
In other words, as a Republican Congress passed it.
As the linked article puts it, his pants are on fire, and could likely melt lead at their temperature. But worse than that, he's hitting on the old Welfare meme, long a favorite of Republicans. They killed it, but apparently pulling the rotting corpse out of the ground for another waving around is not beneath their dignity.
Republicans accuse us of class warfare, but when's the last time the poor and working class were treated as anything more than liabilities. Sure, they'll glorify ignorance, backwardsness and prejudice to appeal to people who don't want to look at themselves as on the bottom of the heap, but that fits right into a system where the elite believe that this is all that folks at that level are capable of.
I don't glorify that sort of stuff because I like to think of people as all being capable of improving their lot, if given the chance. But the system as it is now locks people into their class strata far more strongly, if it isn't kicking them down. The statistics bear this up, at least in America, the land of opportunity.
For some, that just means less competition, less having to deal with the people they look down upon. It surely doesn't hurt them that much if they stay rich, and if most other Americans become less upwardly mobile than their friends in Europe and Canada.
To me, it's kind of a waste to look at education and other improvements of intellectual discipline as being something only the stuck up folks who think their better than everybody else avail themselves of. Republicans complain that Democrats don't support people climbing up on their own merits, but they don't miss an opportunity to peddle the sensibility that if you get a college education, or somehow, in some other way better yourself, that you're becoming pretentious, snobby, and all that other stuff.
We're told we're on our own, that whatever we achieve, we have to do it all without any public help, and other kind of assistance, or otherwise our achievement, or our skills are invalid. Not only is that not even remotely plausible, it's a recipe for deepening class division. The reason why people weren't so jealous of the rich and powerful before the financial downturn was that they expected the game was played on its merits. If you worked hard, if you got your education, if you did what was expected of you, you could advance.
Unfortunately, that promise, spoken or unspoken, has been broken. The emphasis on increasing debt financing rather than wage increases in the financial world has shifted the center of gravity away from the development of a consumer society, and back towards a system where the average person pays rents up the income brackets to those above them, and stays indebted on a near permanent basis. We haven't seen this in our lifetimes, but our grandparents did, though their memory passes away from them.
I keep on emphasizing this thought, and it bears repeating, that however nostalgic we may be for a return to the Gold Standard or the Gilded age based on some notion of more positive values and more virtuous economic behavior, the stark reality of many of these periods are what often lead people to create the new systems. Many people are unaware that before the Great Depression and the fall of the pure Gold Standard, depressions were a common event, especially when too much money went overseas. America's money supply was, while based on something real and consistent, also dependent on the supply of that symbolic metal, rather than its own real ability to work and do economic activity
In other words, they idolize the way the game was once played, but with little understanding of how real world consequences led to the change in the rules. They forget that for the longest time America got caught up in land speculation crashes, stock market crashes, and commodities failures on a regular basis. We reformed the system to what it was after the Great Depression in order to get out of that cycle.
And unsurprisingly, when we changed the rules back, the same damn things started happening again. Why?
My theory is quite simple: human beings are creative game-players, and given a complex enough game, laissez faire rules become inadequate to prevent people from cheating. This isn't because of some underclass or overclass of especially immoral people. This owes to the simple fact that if a person gets the right amount of short term reward for doing things in a way that the people making up the rules didn't imagine, they will do that, and others will imitate. It doesn't matter if the practice stifles innovation (Patent trolling, for example), or whether it puts the assets we rely upon to support an economy at risk (exotic derivatives trading, algorithmic trading prone to making inhumanly stupid mistakes)
To a certain extent it is unavoidable, sometimes even positive that people get this creative. But this kind of creative behavior can also create imbalances. People believe that the economy and the business world, left to themselves, tends towards some sort of equilibrium and stability, but the truth is otherwise. Or, put another way, the system is dynamic enough that it can create situations that build up tension, that bubble up and then crash down.
To expect that the market can rule us fairly forgets that the market isn't some homogenous entity, and nor are the businesses so plentiful in a given sector that competition forces good behavior. Even if there are quite a few competitors in a given market, there's also no guarantee that the policies that the competitors imitate will all be in the customer or consumer's interests.
I mean, if we're talking about things done on the basis of reward, the only metric has to be whether a given practice scares away more customer's money than it brings in. But that doesn't mean the practice is healthy or sustainable. There were a great many competitors in the non-bank Lender market. Their behavior was pretty similar across the board, their fates pretty much the same. At some point, they were making money hand over fist.
That ended of course. Sometimes outcomes come in direct reaction, sometimes they build in process. The industry wide moral hazard of putting more people who couldn't pay in homes, of endless real estate speculation collapsed of its own weight, but only after becoming a primary support of our economy, basically what was keeping us out of recession in the first place.
The system Romney profited off of wasn't one of building companies who then paid their owners back via profits. Instead, people like him took short cuts, essentially taking control of companies and using their status as legal persons, and their control of that company in order to pay themselves off via rather large sums of debt-financed cash. They were putting their companies further in debt just to generate a lot of cash for themselves.
Does this sound remotely sustainable? No. Could you make a fortune doing this? Yes.
Romney preaches a gospel of self-reliance, but his line of work isn't about self-reliance. To be blunt, it's about parasitism on you, and he'll blast others about what he sees or portrays as their parasitism on you to distract you. His people have found a way to avoid the risk and trouble of making money by actually running businesses, and instead do so by using legal and financial trickery to buy depressed (and therefore cheap) businesses, run consultants through, and make their money by exploiting the assets and financial capabilities of the company. Namely, the jobs of those who work for the company, their pensions, the companies ability to take out debt. The numbers don't have to add up to anything that makes sense to us on a common level. They can leave a company vastly more indebted, like they did with that Italian company I introduced things with, with fewer workers, less real world productivity, but fewer workers per unit produced, which some regard to be efficiency, and reward as such on the stock market.
Speculative tricks, in other words, meant to mimic and manipulate the real world activity that those numbers were meant to measure, without that activity.
Make a complicated enough game, and people will cheat in it, and the cheating, often enough, will cause a loss of real productivity.
Mitt Romney is rich mainly because he manipulated the rules. So was George Bush, who made his fortune not by producing something, even oil, but basically by participating in a strong-arm speculative real-estate scheme with his buddies. They made their fortunes by screwing somebody else, cheating the system.
And so, they see no problem arguing for a system built along those lines. And that's the problem. If your idea of sustainability isn't shaped by a recognition of common interests, then what comes out of it is an almost, if not exactly aristocratic system, where the many are expected to toil for the benefit of the few who have the leverage to do things. And yes, some people will advance, but mostly because they were ruthless enough to do so, and many will see no obligation to help others succeed as they have.
Greed motivates, but motivates what? We see street crime and organized crime motivated by that. We see people looting the pension funds of their employees, or the bank deposits of the people who do business with them. I've seen it again and again throughout my life time. The social stigmas of beating people down, of cheating people and the system, of making the consumer experience worse and more exploitative, and so on and so forth are rarely strong enough to voluntarily discourage people from misbehavior, especially when their success or inherited wealth affords them insulation from the class of people that gets hurt.
The market can no more constrain bad behavior appropriately on a consistent basis than social shaming in regular society can prevent crime or misbehavior in large scale civilization. We cannot live as if we operate in a tribal or village-like environment when the society we live in operates at considerably more complexity
It's not that simply weighing down society with books of law or constraining every move with micromanaging bureaucracies is going to solve the problem. In my mind, what we are dealing with here should be a composite system where the market and society perform their regulatory functions for the most part, but where key areas of economic weakness and risk are deliberately confronted with law and regulation. I'm not a socialist, like some claim. I don't believe that that government can resolve all economic problems effectively or efficiently. At the same time, though, my brand of capitalism does not expect that a lack of the rule of law will be compensated for which spontaneous virtue from companies and individuals left to their own devices.
Both ideas of things are naive, but for different reasons. Many have argued that opposite means bad or good, depending on which side they fall on, but in my experience, real conflicts aren't about pure, diametric opposition, but rather different ways of seeing the world intersecting at right angles.
We can't control everybody's behavior, and shouldn't. Sometimes people will notice things, do things on their own that work. They'll do that regardless of what laws we enact. But adaptation, in my view, is not always productive or positive, and society doesn't always successfully constrain such behavior by market behavior. If every supermarket pushes contaminated food on people, and there isn't a significant enough financial upside to fixing the problem, they won't. If every car company makes better money ignoring a glaring safety problem, it will be ignored.
I've lived long enough to see that people will take shortcuts if the reward for doing so is great enough. They'll copy off of somebody else's test and use the time they would have needed for studying to play video games. They'll cut through the woods to win a race, or take steroids to lift more weights or create more bulk. Time and time again we see examples of this. It's not something imposed by big government or which goes away when we have big government. It's not about government at all!
We humans have survived and flourished on this planet by being very clever, by turning our circumstances to our advantage through the use of those wonderful, massive brains of ours. But as cultures throughout time have found, folks can be creatively bad, as well as creatively good. And it's not as if we are immune from admiring or imitating those who creatively exploit the system or others.
That is why we need government, because no society can long survive if it behaves that way. It's hard, often enough, to do things the right way. It's difficult to get somebody in an oil company to accept that their fuel should be obsolete for various reason. If a person's key rewards depend on not facing a reality, to paraphrase the saying, they won't.
If we want a productive society, we need certain avenues of cleverness, certain possibilities of cheating the system to get the reward and credit people want to be cut off. When we, say, reward our kids for doing work, we want them to do that work. In the adult world, when we contract with somebody to build an addition to our house, we want them to do it well, do it right, and make it look good.
Romney's weakness as a potential President stems from the fact that his philosophy, at the very least, is naive about such things. He thinks the market which doesn't stand in the way of his "creative destruction" is going to right all the wrongs it needs to, that we don't have to worry about hindering the cheaters, making things more difficult for them so they comply with doing more productive things. That, or he doesn't, but wants us to thinks so. Obama's superiority comes from the fact that he pushes for real world improvements in economic activity, trade and manufacturing, not just a reshuffling of the deck on who owns what, not just more purely symbolic actions that cause more real world havoc than good.
We need to refocus this country back on real things, back on doing real good, and quit expecting that we can get those things without paying the cost. We're not going to get an economic recovery for free out of the market, not this time. We've over-corrected so massively that the new normal can't sustain a normal economy for years to come.
We're not going to get free economic activity by deficit spending more to make the rich richer. That didn't work, and that shouldn't have worked in the first place, if you thought about it. The problem with the rich is that they have more than enough money to sustain whatever consumption they engage in, and these days are in no danger of not having enough money to invest or employ other people with. In fact, these days, they're flush with cash, so not only is not a problem, it's more not a problem than it's been in decades. Whatever economic productivity that's been generated by our current tax revolt has come and gone.
No, we are going to have to work our way out of this. Only when you get people back working again can they circulate the wealth that gets other people working again, too. Only by making wages sustainable, by doing less to wear on the health and fortunes of the middle class can we get its heart beating strongly enough to get growth going well.
If we want to cheat and deceive our way to greater wealth as a country, as we were doing before the financial crisis, Romney would be the perfect President. But if we want a system that improves our real state of the union in this country, Obama is the better candidate, because he understands that our workers and... Well, the average person, are not liabilities to be written off, but a valuable resource that we can only take advantage of if we're willing to make the investment and put in the safeguards to protect their interests. We have to stop playing games with the economy, and start doing real work.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 8, 2012 7:48 AMStephen, the naivete in your post is breathtaking. Your view on capitalism smacks of a different “ism”.
Capitalism is all about competition. We require government to provide just laws, just enforcement of those laws, defence of private property, and an environment that provides equal opportunity to all under those laws.
For-profit corporations and companies exist to make money for their investors. To do this, some entities require labor and some do not. When capital requires labor it pays the going rate, whatever that may be at the time. For-profit corporations and companies are not in business as do-gooders, nor do they exist primarily to advance social causes.
Take, or reduce the profit incentive from entrepreneurs and there will be fewer or none of them. Labor is of tremendous value to some business endeavors and of little use to others. Gaging the morality of a business, beyond the laws under which it operates, is not only foolish, but impossible.
When a CEO does step forward to express his/her morality, as with the recent demonstration by Chick-Fil-A, you and your friends castigate them. They are not honored by you for having moral values, but rather…despised. If a business is not expressly in favor of your social values they are considered unworthy of existence.
Please don’t expect us to believe that government can bring morality to business, or to anyone or anything else as you seem to naively believe.
Liberaism has been successful in dumbing down our schools and taking religion out of our daily lives. Look to your own sins before casting your eyes on others sins.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 8, 2012 5:42 PMBREAKING NEWS:
MISSOURI VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY APPROVE RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION AMENDMENT
“Missouri voters yesterday approved state Constitutional Amendment 2 by a vote of 82.8% in favor and 17.2% against. (Official results.) The measure was described briefly on the ballot:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure: That the right of Missouri citizens to express their religious beliefs shall not be infringed; That school children have the right to pray and acknowledge God voluntarily in their schools; and That all public schools shall display the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution
Hurrah for Missouri.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 8, 2012 7:38 PMhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/fr-robert-sirico-5-questions-with-decker/
From the interview with Robert A. Sirico…
“Your new book is about the moral case for a free economy. What is the morality of the marketplace and how does it work? How does the market take care of the masses better than a government safety net?
Sirico: The morality of a market is rooted in the morality of the human person who is the center of that market. In precise terms, the market itself is neither moral nor immoral, but it becomes a vehicle for the moral and economic expression of the acting human person, who has the free will to choose good or bad.”
“
When people speak of “capitalism” today, they usually mean crony-capitalism, which is certainly not what I am attempting to offer a moral defense on behalf of and which I denounce in my book, along with corporate welfare. Those who act from within the bureaucratic mentality are looking to conserve or advance their sphere of power and so will favor their friends and political allies. When linked to business, this dynamic in effect politicizes economics so that the business person is no longer looking to please the consumer (thus serving people while making a profit), but will look to increase political power. The result is lobbying because businesses hire people to approach politicians and their representatives to curry favor in order to do business. This is not a phenomenon of markets but of politics.”
Just live well our everyday life and try our best to be the best of ourselves is the most thing that we should do. Do you agree with me?
Or what other things we should do to turn back the wheels of oppression
turn back the wheels of oppression before it is too late?
Stephen
“I won’t vouch for the individual facts of the matter,” This is good because the facts on the commercial are wrong. Romney wasn’t even working at Bain when this happened and it is a long stretch to attribute the death of this guy’s wife to Romney.
Personally, I figure it was Obama’s fault. I base my “fact” on the same sort of evidence you guys use against Romney, i.e. nothing.
Posted by: C&J at August 8, 2012 10:12 PMSorry Stephen, but my eyes glazed over after 10 paragraphs and by the time I go to the end, I was in a semi-coma.
The jest I take from this is, it’s ok for Obama to attack Romney with lying facts; but it’s not ok for Romney to say Obama gutted welfare.
Stephen, you do know there are charts showing Obama’s complete support for the commercial accusing Romney of killing a man’s wife, don’t you?
Let me throw a little twist into this conversation:
Obama called Romney “Romneyhood”, but it’s not the first time the left has used this term:
“Anyway, Romney Hood. Turns out this is another page from the Democrat Party playbook. There’s nothing new about this. Let’s go back, we’ve got sound bites here ranging from 1995 to 2011. The montage includes representative Albert Wynn, Democrat, Maryland, Debbie “Blabbermouth” Schultz from Florida, Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, the Demos public policy foundation — David Callahan, Charles Blow from the New York Times, and Vice President Algore. This is just a montage of sound bites from 1995 through the present…
ALBERT WYNN: Once again, they’re playing Robin Hood in reverse: Taking from the poor to give to the rich.
DEBBIE “BLABBERMOUTH” SCHULTZ: Really, it’s like reverse (pause) Robin Hoodism. It’s really (pause) shocking.
CLARENCE PAGE: Reverse Robin Hood. This is Reaganomics on steroids.
DAVID CALLAHAN: Robin Hood in reverse!
CHARLES BLOW: You cannot play Robin Hood in reverse!
ALGORE: It’s Robin Hood in reverse: Take from the kids, take from education, take from protecting our water.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/08/07/obama_s_latest_lie_romney_hood
Let’s look at Pelosi’s charge that Republican’s want to kill children with E-coli:
“So the Republicans want to poison children. This is not new, either. Republicans want to poison the water, they want to poison the air, and only government can save people from all this. Government always been what screws everything up! Let’s go back to 1995. This is a sound bite from Rush Limbaugh the television show. It’s another montage of Democrats with what was big then…
REP. THOMAS BARRETT: Why do the Republicans want to take apples and milk away from six-year-olds?
REP. LYNN WOOLSEY: Starving children is not the solution to balancing our budget.
REP. LITTLE DICK GEPHARDT: The Republicans are taking foooood out of the mouths of millions of needy and middle-class children!
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It’s cruel to kids!
SEN. DICK DURBIN: Stop declaring war on our kids!
SEN. TED KENNEDY: War on their children! War on their children!
REP. PATSY SCHROEDER: I also would like to speak to [sic] a moment about the mean-spiritedness I’m hearing about the on the floor today.
REP. PAUL VOLKER: But how can they be so mean-spirited?
REP. LITTLE DICK GEPHARDT: These cuts are mean-spirited!
REP. JOSE SERRANO: The mean-spirited Republicans…
SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: It is mean-spirited! It is vicious!
REP. JERRY NADLER: These Draconian, mean-spirited, and immoral cuts in funding.
REP. PATSY SCHROEDER: We’re seeing Draconian cuts in all sorts of social service programs.
REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ: We’re gonna let the kids go hungry again.
REP. JOHN LEWIS: They’re coming for our children. They’re coming for the poor. They’re coming for the sick, the elderly, and the disabled.
RUSH: This stuff is old. That’s 1995. That’s 17 years ago. Yeah, 17 years ago. They keep doing this stuff. Romney Hood, Robin Hood, reverse Robin Hood, poison the air, poison the water. Why does anybody vote for these people anymore? Why does anybody vote for ‘em? How do they get a single vote? I’m going nuts trying to answer the question.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/08/07/pelosi_gop_is_the_e_coli_club
But we are supposed believe Stephen Daugherty’s essay claiming it is the Republicans who tell lies.
Posted by: Frank at August 8, 2012 10:50 PMStephen
Even the Obama folks don’t want to be associated with this misleading ad.
“We have nothing, no involvement, with any ads that are done by Priorities USA. We don’t have any knowledge of the story of the family,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One.
So you again are staking about position more to hateful left of President Obama. Are you trying to make him seem moderate in comparison?
Posted by: C&J at August 8, 2012 10:52 PMAnd SD still supports this, whatever you want to call it, person for president?
That is shameful. That is irresponsible. That is blind, a lot of things.
This person from Chicago of late has a line of lies that would make the devil blush.
He may claim to be a Christian, a lot of people do, but the Bible says a liar will not enter the Gates of Heaven. That leaves him to only the smoking section.
Maranatha
Posted by: tom humes at August 8, 2012 11:32 PMStephen’s lengthy discourses are nothing more than a montage of hate against conservatives. He bounces all over the place, with incoherent hate comments about anyone who is successful. IMO, Stephen has nothing and will never amount to anything; therefore he hates all who succeed. Let’s look at this statement for example:
“Mitt Romney is rich mainly because he manipulated the rules. So was George Bush, who made his fortune not by producing something, even oil, but basically by participating in a strong-arm speculative real-estate scheme with his buddies. They made their fortunes by screwing somebody else, cheating the system.”
There are a few of things we can discover from this statement; 1st, Daugherty hates those who are successful, 2nd he is very jealous, and 3rd he is unable to get rich on government handouts, i.e.welfare. Everyone manipulates the rules according to SD. Perhaps Stephen could explain to us how Dirty Harry Reid is worth $10 mil on a salary of $193k a year as leader of the Senate? Did dirty Harry cheat the system? Rush Limbaugh made a good point the other day about America’s rich 1%: most of America’s rich are liberals and most liberals made their money as the result of Capitalism, but they feel a little embarrassed about being rich, attack capitalism, and claim they need to pay more taxes. When rich liberals side with the left, they are assured to be left alone. Conservatives who become wealthy want everyone to be successful; liberals who become wealthy, complain about the wealthy and try to block anyone else from being successful.
Stephen has a deep seated problem with those who are successful and wealthy; IMO it is because Stephen is close to middle age, has what he believes is an excellent education and believing he is more intelligent than most, and yet he is so poor that it has taken years to pay to have his teeth fixed. Stephen is full of jealousy toward people who have made their mark. If anyone doubts me, just read SD’s comments and posts; he hates success, especially if it includes wealth, and he often speaks of his own failures in life. Stephen claims vehemently that he is not a socialist, but his comments about successful people mirror the comments of Marx and Stalin; of the unfairness of those who have and those who have not.
Royal Flush-
The naivete is yours. You cite textbook definitions of how capitalism is supposed to work, and push a view of capitalism that depends on the basic goodness of people always shining through, people never falling to temptation for fear of social and market repercussions.
Just what have we seen in real life? In real life, people keep secrets, just like Mitt Romney does about his taxes. They think information might harm them if it gets out, so they keep it private. Or, they might fail to inform the person they’re trying to get to invest in their latest deal that they expect to profit from the failure of that investment, as in Goldman Sach’s “****ty deal”. Or they manipulate the measures by which people determine whether an investment is sound or not, as the credit rating companies did by certifying insured junk mortgage secruities as AAA investments, or as the folks at Barclays did with the LIBOR rate.
Who’s naive here? I could list those examples off the top of my head. Remember BCCI? Remember Drexel and the junk Bonds? Salomon Brothers, which quickly collapsed after that time, after having piously proclaimed “We make money the old fashioned way: we earn it.” Remember Charles Keating? Remember LTCM? There hasn’t been a decade free of major financial crashes and downturns since Reagan got into office. People bought into the notion that Wall Street and Business could police themselves, and the fact is, human nature does not cooperate with the notion that the foxes can be trusted to patrol the henhouse.
And the losses from all this bull**** have not been small.
People will get absorbed into the game, the culture of gameplaying, and forget to come up for air in the real world, in the world where there are consequences. They’ll wrap themselves up in hedges, keep themselves from going to the poorhouse, and then wonder why so many other people are mad at them because of their success, when their humongous failures are what tick people off.
That’s the unfortunate reality you won’t acknowledge: that these people are foolish and naive, rather than as savvy and brilliant as they think themselves to be. The people running the show here are no smarter than we are, on the balance. Perhaps they’re better salespeople, better gladhanders and deal makers, but they’re not necessarily wise enough to be trusted the way you think people like me trust the government, as wiser than everybody else.
As far as Missouri goes? The courts (and Democrats for that matter) have already upheld the right to voluntary prayer that the student engages in, so long as they don’t disturb class with it. And displaying the bill of rights? It’s in their text book. Teaching those amendments, and the constitution as a whole should be a part of the curriculum. In short, the whole thing is unnecessary. It’s a gesture prompted by the equally unnecessary constant anxiety of people on the right, who imagine themselves under attack from all side at all times.
C&J-
Not wrong, just a little more complicated than a thirty second ad has time to lay out:
In ad, the former GST Steel employee recounts how he lost his job and his health benefits after Bain Capital — the private equity firm founded by Romney — purchased and shut down the Kansas City plant. Soptic’s wife was ill but could not afford to go to the doctor; by the time she went to the hospital, she was already dying of cancer. Mitt Romney, his presidential campaign, and even some Democrats have said the ad crosses the line by suggesting that Romney is responsible for the death of Soptic’s wife. Soptic, however, that he did not intend to suggest that.“I’m not blaming him for her death,” he told the Journal. “I wouldn’t do that.”
Soptic acknowledged that his wife had insurance through her employer after he lost his job at GST Steel, though she eventually left her job because of an injury and lost her coverage as well. After he found another, lower-paying job, he said his family could not afford insurance.
Though he said he’s not “blaming” Romney for his wife’s death, Soptic told the Journal that because of Bain’s management of GST, he lost the health care that would have given his wife a better quality of life.
If I were a journalist I would ask the following: how long did she keep this job, how good was the insurance, and was she showing symptoms before she lost that job?
These would give us a reasonable idea of her situation. Even so, charges that he is a liar are fairly overblown, given those facts.
Ah, but are you torturing yourself over the conclusions you’ve jumped to? No.
I’ve maintained a properly tentative attitude towards the facts of the case. You haven’t.
Is the ad unfair? Well, when a man makes his money in a manner that sometimes means shutting down factors, bankrupting companies with excessive debtloads, etc., its only fair to expect that somebody’s going to bring that up. As my article puts it, this isn’t just a game, and unless you can successfully counter with an argument of necessity, people are going to look askance at it, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Frank-
Let me start out by congratulating you for declaring your ignorance publically. At the very least you could have the patience to copy and paste my work to a separate program, so you can break it apart and break it down.
But instead, you’re just going to gloat about how much better you are than me. That always works.
Rush Limbaugh again? I know you think he’s hot ****, but most Democrats only think you’re half right on that account.
Republicans are willing to gut regulations dealing with food safety. Why? so companies can make more money. But with what consequences?
I know in your little Talk-Radio defined world, the market prevents all troubles, but in my world, the real one, we see strings of incidents where people got infected with foodborne disease. Now when I was working in the food court in college, we had to follow a set of rules, and the idea there was to prevent food from getting contaminated by making sure certain things were never allowed to happen. Food was kept warm or kept cold, utensils were not shared between food items, so on an so forth.
Now you will see companies that cut corners, that let their food preparation facilities go bad, and so on and so forth, and the modern factory farms, with their unsanitary conditions, practically ensure that the animals will pass really nasty germs between each other. I mean, really, you joke about E. Coli, but folks can end up suffering bloody diarrhea, organ failure on account of an infection with certain strains. You got Salmonella, Clostridium, and all kinds of other strains out there. You know why you have to ask to get anything below a Well-Done burger? Do you know why folks caution against taking in things with Raw eggs? Do you know why you’re now asked to cook your meats to an internal temperature of 160 degrees?
Because otherwise, you stand a serious risk of infection, and Restaurants and other facilities don’t want to get sued over it. This real world problem wouldn’t go away if the Federal government stopped paying attenion, it would only grow, since the industry is a multi-state affair.
In short, you make fun of Democrats for making a big deal out of it, but only out of a naive ignorance of how serious the situation is.
tom humes-
Claims, claims, claims, you’re full of claims. One letter short and you’d be a shallow bay.
Billinflorida-
Deep ignorance is the only means by which you support your arguments. Ignorance about what real socialists actually promote. Ignorance about the requirements for what counts for Welfare these days. Ignorance about the tax rates and the regulations that were in force when we won the cold war as a free-market, capitalist society.
My simple statement is this: if the sum total of the results of the system is that most people feel pain so that a few can increase the comfort they already have, that is not sustainable. Romney’s problem, faced with the ad, isn’t that people begrudge him making a buck. Romney’s problem is that people begrudge folks making a buck by killing their jobs, making their lives more difficult, cutting down on benefits that help them deal with daily problems like healthcare.
But you don’t want to talk about it. Instead, you want to stew everybody in a free-floating, imagination fueled paranoia about the communists whose empire died two decades ago. You’re still milking that fear, in a day and age where even China is steadily becoming more business friendly, so that people don’t see what scumbags your politicians are, and how painfully bad for their interests those policies are.
Peopld didn’t turn to government because some evil commies came in and convinced them to. Marxists have long been ostracized in our society. No, what convinced people to adopt these reforms were the ****-ups that occured without the rules. Simply put, those gave Americans the impetus to lay down the rules of the road to keep the system out of that kind of mischief.
Ah, but decades have passed, so people don’t remember how bad it was, so folks like you can sometimes convince them to ditch these old rules…
…but what causes pain and suffering before often comes to cause the same now, so time and time again, the painful lessons are retaught.
Your notion of capitalism, your version of it, is a naive, overly nostalgic shadow of a decades gone world that was never as virtuous or prosperous as the ignorant promoters of the policies cracked it up to be.
I am a capitalist, and I will repeat this no matter how often you call me a marxist: but I am also a believer in the need for the rule of law, for the policing of the markets. I don’t share your brainlessly optimistic belief that the markets will simply take care of themselves in each and every instance.
I am willing to sit around and observe, see if the market does it itself, but if it doesn’t, if the market comes back and teaches us these ugly lessons about being naive about human nature once again, I will listen while you go into denial and stick your head in the sand.
And ultimately, that will be why I will win, why my people will win in the long run: you rely on the luck that nothing bad enough will happen to alienate people. I rely on the knowledge that **** will happen, and I am willing to take steps to deal with it when necessary.
And that is why your people will wrap themselves up in one fiasco after another, because the best case scenario you insist is the rule doesn’t happen.
I have no problem with people becoming rich. I do have a problem with standing aside idly while people make themselves rich in a way that makes the rest of us poor. The system can’t be built to make a few people happy and the rest of us miserable. Nobody in their right mind is going to tolerate that.
You want to paint this as the weak and wicked envying the glorious. I think that notion is full of ****. I don’t envy Romney. I don’t want to make money the way he did. If I make my fortune, I don’t want to build it on people’s misery. Honestly, I want to build it on people having a bit of fun, a bit of enjoyment in their lives, and that’s what I’m working towards.
I think it’s perfectly egotistical to insist that people like me go around all day jealous of the rich. All we ask for is a more level playing field, not their asses robbed of everything, and everything redistributed. People admire entrepreneurs who make something, create something, invent something useful. They’ve never admired those people who swoop in and tear apart and plunder weak companies.
People have good reason to loathe Romney, and until you realize that, you won’t realize why Romney was such a terrible pick for Presidential candidate.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2012 12:56 PMSD
Poor research on the steel plant that got closed down. Typical hint and muss from a died in the wool dimocrat. Leave some meat out but put a piece of fat in the max.
And all you can do is cry and wine over split milk. Romney this and Romney that.
This is pure and simple as a dimple. This is, as well as
all those other lies, are a distraction to try to keep
Obama from running on his record. Well, Obama is running
from his record or lack thereof.
As I have said before in other posts, SD your integrity
is as shot as a butt full of buckshot from the punkin’
patch. You’re a city slicker and probably don’t know about
punkin’ patches. Well those in Houston can lie to you about
that issue and you can swallow it hook line and sinker.
The spelling and grammatical errors above were intentional.
Maranatha
Posted by: tom humes at August 9, 2012 1:20 PMMORE GREAT ELECTION NEWS FROM KANSAS.
http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/08/why-liberals-are-scared-to-death-right-now/
“Election victories in Wisconsin, Indiana, Texas, Kansas, and Missouri show that the Tea Party is alive and well. The election in Kansas has not received a lot of attention, but the results are staggering.
In Tuesday’s primary, Tea Party activists ousted seven GOP incumbent moderate state senators. “An eighth, Senate President Steve Morris, a moderate Hugoton Republican, trailed his conservative opponent, likely marking the end of Morris’ 20-year career as a legislator.” This is after the so-called moderates outspent their more conservative opponents 3 to 1. Even getting the backing of the teachers’ union couldn’t win it for the establishment Republicans.”
I have no problem with people becoming rich. I do have a problem with standing aside idly while people make themselves rich in a way that makes the rest of us poor. The system can’t be built to make a few people happy and the rest of us miserable. Nobody in their right mind is going to tolerate that.
I would be curious to find out how Romney making his money the way he did caused ‘the rest of us to become poor’ or miserable. I know I sure wasn’t poorer or miserable due to anything he did…
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 9, 2012 2:21 PMStephen, let me put it this way; your postings are boring. You ramble on and on and you accuse me of listening to radio and you are guilty of believing everything written on the dailykos and huffpost. Get out of your bubble.
I believe the point of Rush’s montage is that the liberal talking point of Robin Hood, poisoning the water and air, and stealing the food out of the mouths of starving children goes back many years. It’s always the same old things from the left; starve people, throw grandma off the cliff, and take away old people’s SS. There is nothing new under the sun and the democrats prove it every election cycle. I take it back Stephen, your comments are not dumbass; it is you who are the dumbass. Not only do you defend the dumbass statements of Pelosi and Reid…you also parrot them:
“Now you will see companies that cut corners, that let their food preparation facilities go bad, and so on and so forth, and the modern factory farms, with their unsanitary conditions, practically ensure that the animals will pass really nasty germs between each other. I mean, really, you joke about E. Coli, but folks can end up suffering bloody diarrhea, organ failure on account of an infection with certain strains. You got Salmonella, Clostridium, and all kinds of other strains out there. You know why you have to ask to get anything below a Well-Done burger? Do you know why folks caution against taking in things with Raw eggs? Do you know why you’re now asked to cook your meats to an internal temperature of 160 degrees?
Because otherwise, you stand a serious risk of infection, and Restaurants and other facilities don’t want to get sued over it. This real world problem wouldn’t go away if the Federal government stopped paying attenion, it would only grow, since the industry is a multi-state affair.
In short, you make fun of Democrats for making a big deal out of it, but only out of a naive ignorance of how serious the situation is.”
What ridiculous comments; do you honestly think there are people out there who are trying to make people sick (in their own restaurants)? I guess that would put a restaurant out of business pretty fast, now wouldn’t it. Tell me Stephen, is there anything you are not an expert on? Now you rattle on and on about how food should be cooked. I believe you are losing it SD; you are losing your mind. Your comments defy logic. If this is what you are going through when Obama is in trouble, what are you going to do in November, when Obama loses and the Democrats lose the Senate? I am seriously worried about you Stephen. I have seen a change in the way C&J communicate with you (C&J are very courteous), but I believe they also see a mental breakdown in your posts and responses.
Once again I will remind Stephen that our economy is NOT a zero-sum game. One persons wealth can not be attributed to another’s loss.
I will also remind him that Capitalism is all about competition. Competition to work harder, invent something better or improve upon something already in the marketplace, to be smarter, to be quicker, to be braver…than your competition.
Folks move up and down the ladder of success all the time. Our Founders understood the value of capitalism in the market place. They understood that the market determines winners and losers…not government.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 9, 2012 3:26 PMNo one is forcing you to read or comment on SD’s posts Frank. When did this site become so disrespectful and full of posts for chinese handbags. Hey Moderators, time to delete some profiles and kick some people out. Where’s David Remer when you need him.
Posted by: Paul at August 9, 2012 3:28 PMRemer didn’t like the heat in the kitchen…I guess.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 9, 2012 3:32 PMtom humes-
I wonder what you were saying to me before the last election, when my guy won. :-)
Royal Flush-
It’s good news for Democrats. Soon, you’re going to have such a critical mass of radical morons that your party’s going to make Democrats look good.
That’s one thing Tea Partiers are good at: making people nostalgic for Democrats.
But on the other note, you misunderstand: I am not insisting that the economy is a zero sum game. Quite the opposite! What I am saying is that Romney and others are playing it that way, doing the kinds of business tactics that leave somebody else holding the bag in terms of debt and job losses, while they get away with the money.
What I am saying is that there are other ways of running an economy that are less zero-sum, which ultimately benefit both workers and business leaders. Unfortunately, they are nowhere near as obvious as the tactics that come at the cost of workers and thier families.
So, in essence, our choice is one between a more zero-sum idea of the economy, and a much more equitably beneficial version.
Rhinehold-
Well, among the things that happen, is that when companies fail to properly fund their pension funds, which sometimes happens when a company goes into bankruptcy, we get footed with the bill for the pensions for the workers.
But other than that, what consultants and folks like him do is take somewhat productive businesses, load them up with debt, bubble up their value, take the money and run. We get left with the bill, the workers get pink slips or paycuts or whatever, and the economy overall diminishes.
Frank-
So, your problem, and Rush’s is, that we’re not being fresh enough in how we label your legislative efforts and failures as dangerous, irresponsible, unhealthy for the nation, and so forth?
Really. The truth of the matter is that the problem of foodborne illness is real, but your side is more interested in fulfilling a political agenda, independent of any consequences.
American needs government that acknowledges important issues, not that which sweeps stuff under the rug to avoid hurting the bottom lines of the special interests.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2012 4:24 PMSome need “sitters” and some don’t. Remer was more of a tyrant than a sitter in my opinion. His value judgements about comments were sometimes very one-sided. I must admit however, that I miss the political and social jousting with him on current affairs.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 9, 2012 4:28 PMStephen
I think people like Obama are responsible for that poor guy’s wife’s death. They advocated over-regulating the drug market. Otherwise, no doubt we would have come up with a lifesaving drug that would have restored her to health at low cost.
You see how easy it is to play that game of yours?
You know that I can beat you at it because I am more imaginative. If we throw off the surely bonds of reason, we can postulate lots of things.
The Obama allies are cynically using this man’s grief to spin a crazy set of logic based on flimsy conditional probabilities that when applied produce essentially a zero probability of being right. You often claim to be scientific. Why can’t you understand this? Did you really not study causality in school?
Posted by: C&J at August 9, 2012 4:32 PMSD writes: “Royal Flush-
It’s good news for Democrats. Soon, you’re going to have such a critical mass of radical morons that your party’s going to make Democrats look good.
That’s one thing Tea Partiers are good at: making people nostalgic for Democrats.”
Isn’t this comment interesting. SD believes conservatives winning Republican primaries and elections is evidence of us being “radical morons”. In actuality, he is calling the electorate “radical morons” for voting for TEA party candidates. The TEA party helped win us the house and filled more seats with conservatives than before the last election. More conservative candidates for the senate is also in the mix in November. We are fielding more conservative candidates in national and state races around the country and SD considers this “good news for Democrats”. How silly. Are the dems fielding more liberal candidates in these same races? If not…why not!
Jealousy once again rears its ugly head as SD could only dream about liberals having their own party. Perhaps he believes that the Dem party is composed entirely of liberals but he would be terribly wrong. obama will definitely lose some of the black vote and union vote and women’s vote and youth vote that he enjoyed last time because of both his social policy and his economic policy.
Sorry Stephen, your puny explanation of how our economy works is dreadful. You still don’t understand how capitalism works. You continue to insist that one person’s gain is another’s loss. Has obama or the dem controlled senate attempted to write laws making the business practices of Romney and others illegal? If not…why not?
Well, among the things that happen, is that when companies fail to properly fund their pension funds, which sometimes happens when a company goes into bankruptcy, we get footed with the bill for the pensions for the workers.But other than that, what consultants and folks like him do is take somewhat productive businesses, load them up with debt, bubble up their value, take the money and run. We get left with the bill, the workers get pink slips or paycuts or whatever, and the economy overall diminishes.
I guess you are going to have to give me specifics, not generalities…
Unless you are just doing the usual progressive thing of blaming business as the villain and not giving it credit for the good that they do…
I don’t think all business make good decision, and there are some that are downright evil. But you are going to have to explain to me specifically how Romney was a party to those actions, not just say ‘vulture capitalist’ and expect that nonsensical hyperbole to stand with me.
Posted by: rhinehold at August 9, 2012 5:14 PMC&J-
First, get your argument straight: nobody but a cartoon villain would advocate overregulating the drug market. The better, more accurate way to say it is that you believe that the drug market is overregulated, and that Obama supports the status quo.
But after a decade that saw the COX-2 inhibitor fiasco and the Phen-fen debacle, I think the argument that nobody will die if we don’t regulate is discredited.
You misunderstand my “game”. If you ask me, “Steve, do you want bureaucracy getting in the way of new drugs?”, I’d of course say no!
But I know enough about what can happen with drugs to say that at the same time, we’ve seen drug companies knowingly conceal the terrible toll that side effects from the drugs are having, and those are killing people.
So I would be very selective about the proposals to streamline the bureaucracy, because a bad drug or an ineffective drug can end lives just the way the lack of such a drug does.
Let’s go back, and look at the auto bailout. Those involved layoffs, too! But we had an industry on the verge of collapse. Investors took haircuts on their bonds, the folks at GM and Chrysler had to agree to make more efficient cars, maintain factories, etc. The industry survived, GM is hiring again, though.
Obama successfully turned the company around with his plan.
If we see Romney come along, streamline a company, and make a profit from leaving a streamlined company behind, good, that’s where your proper, factual response can come from.
But if we look at a company that, instead of being modernized and streamlined, gets an absurd amount of debt loaded up on it that gets stuffed into dividends for the investors, rather than invested in the company, and which then subsequently collapses in bankruptcy… Well, that’s not being a turnaround artist, that’s being a parasite.
All too much of the kind of “Productivity Increases” were only such on paper, a game played on Wall Street with investors both knowing an unknowing, where cutting a workforce, even at the cost of real world efficiency, becomes hailed as a rise in productivity, because they’re making more money off fewer workers.
I like having a more complete perspective on things, rather than just making judgments based on flat, brainless political dogma. We won’t solve real world problems without it.
As for your last paragraph?
First, you’re misusing the term science and scientific. Try talking about logic. And if we’re talking logic, we need to make sure the facts are plugged in. Union workers in manufacturing jobs often have good healthcare. So, when they’re laid off, they suffer a loss of income, and a loss of health insurance.
That has consequences.
Yes, she got a job, then she lost it. Analyzing the system, the information we’d need to know to understand the probability would be:
1) When did she start feeling the symptoms of her disease? If we know the answer to this question, we can determine whether insurance from that job of hers would have done her any good.
2) What did her insurance cover, and what were the costs of that new insurance? Even if it was just less beneficial of a plan, an argument could be made that inferior healthcare coverage, or coverage at greater cost that discouraged people from taking advantage of it, could very easily make the transition from his insurance to hers problematic.
and
3) How much would the economic turmoil following losing a job impact how she sought out healthcare?
One last thing: by the time she did get diagnosed, she had no healthcare, so even if there’s an open question on whether she could have sought help sooner, the loss of that job due to injury means that when she finally knew she needed it, she no longer had the coverage. So, ultimately, lacking his old job did make getting healthcare in her time of need more of a problem.
You would have me buy a much oversimplified version of the story, and you’d call that being scientific. But appreciating the full situation, I can’t agree with you. There was a cost to that man losing his job.
Royal Flush-
In actuality, smart people do things they shouldn’t do. Nobody’s perfect, and Tea Party folks often leave out important little details.
Let me point out to you something about your House victory: both times the Republicans tried to play hardball with the Democrats, on account of Tea Party Extremism, the results were A) unpopular, and B) made even more of a mess of the economy with things like the fiscal cliff.
You can imagine jealousy, if that reassures you, but I’m getting less and less concerned that Romney’s going to win the White House every day.
Oh, and you know what else I enjoy? You love telling me I’m wrong, but I never get a plausible explanation back for why.
I don’t really think you have one. I think you and other Republicans have based your whole economic policy on being anti-liberal for so long that you no longer have real ideas of your own, real policies mroe complex than what you slap on bumper-stickers. The GOP’s become a pyramid scheme of overheated rhetoric. It can only pay back voters with more hot air from those already invested in it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2012 5:17 PMSD
Why don’t you dig up some crap of what I said, of course it will be out of context, but go ahead sonny, make my day.
Obama did not turn any company around. What the heck are you talking about. Giving him the credit for GM? You are nuts, sonny boy.
Posted by: tom humes at August 9, 2012 5:35 PMSorry you missed my plausible explanations. But…apparently something I write is liked by you as you state.
As for “real ideas”, I guess the electorate will measure that come November.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 9, 2012 5:39 PM“I will also remind him that Capitalism is all about competition. Competition to work harder, invent something better or improve upon something already in the marketplace, to be smarter, to be quicker, to be braver…than your competition.” Royal Flush.
Royal, there has been a concerted effort on the left to do away with many things that are the fiber of America, and competition is one of them. It is not PC to have winners or losers; children are being taught at a very young age to play sports with no score or take classes at school with no grades. Personal responsibility is another target of the left. We find crazies who walk into schools, theaters, or places of worship and kill people, with no remorse. We find young girls who give birth to live babies and throw them in a dumpster, with no remorse. And why, because any sense of personal responsibility is denied them. These are the side effects of a nanny state or as Hillary said, “it takes a village”.
“Frank-
So, your problem, and Rush’s is, that we’re not being fresh enough in how we label your legislative efforts and failures as dangerous, irresponsible, unhealthy for the nation, and so forth?
Really. The truth of the matter is that the problem of foodborne illness is real, but your side is more interested in fulfilling a political agenda, independent of any consequences.
American needs government that acknowledges important issues, not that which sweeps stuff under the rug to avoid hurting the bottom lines of the special interests.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2012 4:24 PM
Stephen, aren’t you one of the liberals who supported the disease ridden, defecate where you stand, piss on your own bed OWS protestors. Or rape women in their tents. Where was you concern about disease then??? By the way, speaking of sweeping things under the rug, Obama told GSA and DHS to stand down on arresting OWS protestors:
One last thought; Royal Flush, there is a great fear among liberals of the Tea Party. This is why the attack the TP so vehemently. If they thought the TP was not credible, they would say nothing; but this is one of the many things I learned from Rush Limbaugh over the years, “Liberals will always attack the thing they fear the most”, and the second thing I learned was that “Liberals will always brag about something they think they have pulled over on everyone”, i.e. Stephen’s support of Reid and the Romney/Bain/Soptic commercial.
Stephen
I don’t think what I say about Obama makes any sense BUT I think it makes AS MUCH sense as the idea that Romney caused the death of the woman twelve years after he left Bain.
The game we are playing is silly, but it is your game and your rules.
You know what I think? I think that if you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things. Don’t you agree?
Posted by: C&J at August 9, 2012 7:09 PM“Obama did not turn any company around. What the heck are you talking about. Giving him the credit for GM?”
Tom,
Sure Obama doesn’t deserve any credit. The fact that he refused to support continued bailouts of the form that Bush provided and wanted a bankruptcy solution was unimportant.
“On the March 30, 2009 deadline President Barack Obama declined to provide financial aid to General Motors, and requested that General Motors produce credible plans, saying that the company’s proposals had avoided tough decisions, and that Chapter 11 bankruptcy appeared the most promising way to reduce its debts, by allowing the courts to compel bondholders and trade unions into settlements.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization
The fact that he demanded a change in management didn’t matter either. “General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner announced his resignation early Monday as the Obama administration gave automakers failing grades for their turnaround efforts.” http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/29/news/companies/auto_bailout/index.htm
The irony of this issue is that the Obama administration acted just like Romney’s equity capitalist company in forcing a change in management and restructuring GM and Chrysler in bankruptcy. The only major difference is that the cash to support the “debtor in possession” in bankruptcy came from the government when private credit was unavailable and the government didn’t seek to make a profit from the investment.
It was a success. Some jobs were lost in the restructuring, equity holders lost, bond holders took a haircut and pension benefits were reduced. But, hundreds of thousands of jobs were saved and two US corporations remain as major players in one of the most important industries in the world.
The only criticism of the Obama administration’s management of GM and Chrysler bankruptcy “bailout” by Romney is that it could have been done with private equity without government funding. Not very likely according the vast majority of bankruptcy experts.
So, we really have no criticism by Romney of what the Obama administration did operationally with the “structured bankruptcy” only criticism that it could have been accomplished with private funds. In essence, good work but I think that the government didn’t have to fund the effort.
One last thought; Royal Flush, there is a great fear among liberals of the Tea Party. This is why the attack the TP so vehemently.
Frank I for one fear the tea baggers because they remind me of the people of Germany in the early 30’s and how with a bit of nationalism and a bit of persecuting others they ended up following a extremist right wing fanatic to ruin. The baggers seem to be a rabid bunch intent on destroying the federal government, or as one of their leaders explains it, making it small enough to drown in the bath tub.
If they thought the TP was not credible, they would say nothing;
It’s not so much that the baggers are credible it’s ,to me anyway, more that they are dangerous. They believe the ends justify the means and will go to extremes to further their ideology. They take failed polices and put a bumper sticker tag on them to incite the followers into believing the failed policy will work this time around. The gullibility of the movement followers is scary as well. You know the old saying about stupid people in large groups kinda fits here Frank. Not that these guys are stupid but they are a large group.
Is there no lie they won’t believe if it comes from Limbaugh or some other propagandist? This inability to use critical thinking skills to question anything the movement leaders put forth is scary to me as well. The power of the government in the hands of these types can only lead to war and famine IMHO. Taking the teaching of critical thinking skills out of the classroom as conservatives recently did will only hurt the country as the baggers prove. So yes I am afraid of them Frank.
but this is one of the many things I learned from Rush Limbaugh over the years, “Liberals will always attack the thing they fear the most”, and the second thing I learned was that “Liberals will always brag about something they think they have pulled over on everyone”,
Couldn’t the same thing be said about conservatives or people in general Frank. While you think these are words of wisdom from Limbaugh they are actually proof of how the conservative movement is more of a cult anymore. Your being led into demonizing your political opponents much like the Germans were led into demonizing the Jews.
Posted by: j2t2 at August 10, 2012 12:07 PMtom humes-
No, he only spearheaded the effort to use TARP funds and government-backed negotiations with creditors to push through a company-preserving Chapter 11 bankruptcy that otherwise wouldn’t happen on its own. I’d be nuts to think he’s responsible for the turnaround, if you define “nuts” as coming to conclusions based on sound premises.
Frank-
The funny thing about what Republicans think about competition, is that instead of preserving a situation where many companies compete indefinitely for consumer dollars, they support companies gobbling up their competitors, sooner or later making competition obsolete, and the company’s too big to allow to fail.
And as for personal responsibility, the corporate culture has gone from having people being thrown out on their butts when they screw things up, to having them resign and often take millions of shareholder dollars with them, another job waiting for them elsewhere.
You make some pretty sweeping claims about what is responsible for the purported moral decay of the country, and I just have to say that at your level of argument, I too could make the claim.
I mean, what are the effects of the gutting of accountability in the markets for manufacturers and service providers? Would that man have been able to get the assault weapons he used to shoot up a theatre, if the assault weapons ban was still in effect, especially the drum magazines? What does it do to the national character to have money and making money, regardless of the amoral behavior required, become the priority? What are the effects of companies being able to intrude further and further into people’s lives without penalty, to where kids never see their mothers and fathers?
What’s the moral effect of watching obvious problems mount in our society, only to see the lobbyists poison the debate, and the wrongdoers get away with everything?
Yeah, I can generalize blame, too. But the likelihood is, people are wrong on boths sides, the sides that hand out participation trophies, and those that have their kids sobbing over Jesus.
Republicans angrily talk about the legacy Democrats are handing the children of the next generation, but they were not so outraged at their own conduct in rewarding the rich of today with the tax dollars of those children. We would never have gotten to the point we did if Bush hadn’t broken with the previous pay-go policies.
Republicans chose to take a certain action, just as Democrats did decades before with the Vietnam war, that allowed the current generation to have its war, have its Medicare and social programs and not have to be taxed more to support it. Did Republicans avoid that mistake? No. Why? Because they saw it as something that would only happen to Democrats. Their policy did different things, would succeed where the Democrats hadn’t.
Blaming the Press for the war didn’t make things better for Iraq, any more than it made things better for vietnam. Failing to face up to the early shortfall of expectations, or avoid the cycle of dependency in Iraq didn’t help things in Vietnam, either.
The wars were not the same, but the cowardice of political leaders, the unwillingness to be straight with people is often the same.
As for the OWS protestors and the FDA?
God what a twisted argument. Let’s start from the top. First, did I support OWS in the interest of unsanitary behavior. Did I say, “You know what would make the world better? People pissing and pooping in public!”
Not really. I support holding Wall Street accountable. I support legislation and policy shifts that would end the progressive shifting of greater burdens onto the middle class, without the means to handle them. I support a jobs agenda that creates real jobs.
So, there is no hypocrisy, as you clumsily try to claim. I truly believe in making our food, our legal drugs, and our water safer to consume, preventing foodborne and waterborne disease. Why? Because I’m an intrusive liberal? No, becuase the alternative is unacceptable.
It’s the Tea Party who truly embodies fear. If it isn’t the UN, its the Muslims. If not the Muslims, the Mexicans. If not the Mexicans, then the guns being taken away. If not the guns being taken away, then Socialism. if not socialism, then a war on religion, if not a war on religion, then a war on Christmas. If not a war on Christmas, then Obama gutting work requirments on Welfare, turning it back to what it was. If not Welfare queens again, then it’s… something else.
The Tea Party is the Republican’s way of exploiting a public scared senseless by the economic collapse. They come in, and shift the blame, so a party whose policies led to the collapse can escape accountability.
But it comes at the price of relentlessly partisan politics that paralyzes the government in a time it needs to be taking action, and a Party that can’t or won’t change policy even when its clear the policy is failing.
The Tea Party represents the weakening of the party. A party that can’t respond to changed minds, within or without, or which can’t change its mind in the face of changing evidence, is a party that will break rather than bend when faced with adversity. Your artificial increase in unity comes at the price of relying on all that dogma, and all your party’s decisions to be right.
God help you if they aren’t.
C&J-
The problem is, what happens to people when they lose their jobs, and lose healthcare coverage with it is very real. It’s not just some artefact of rhetoric. While your charge is absurd, the charge in the commercial, that people suffered on account of those layoffs, and that the consequences down the line could be fatal, is actually a matter of fact. People did suffer such misfortune on account of being laid off.
What Romney does must be on the balance helpful to people. That is, for everybody who says, “I lost my job and my insurance,”, or “I lost money when they pulled out having looted the company”, there must be one or more other people who can say there was a positive benefit.
The scrutiny on Romney’s finances and his business activity was predictable, and justifiable. I don’t know why Republicans weren’t prepared to answer questions on it, besides the possibility that they’ve just gotten soft on any kind of questioning they would be held accountable on. Romney should have known this was coming, and that he is unprepared tells us what kind of a President he will be.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 10, 2012 12:44 PM8+% unemployment for years.
Trillions of debt.
Billions and billions of taxpayer money given to special interests groups and companys that will not repaid.
Another government mandate that takes away free choice.
Ignoring the nations illegal immigration problem.
More people dependent on government than ever before.
Intentionally dividing the people by creating a false belief of entitlements and rights.
Labeling oppossing views and beliefs as possible terrorism.
Intentionally inciting the poor to resent and despise success.
Non-stop rhetoric that any opposition is equal to “hate.”
Constant promotion of government over the individual.
HOPE AND CHANGE
Talk about taking failed etremeist policy and putting it on a bumper sticker to push ideology.
The most amazing thing of all though, is how the very words and beliefs of our founders are not considered “dangerous” and “extreme.” How believing in those now means one is devoid of “critical thinking skills.”
Obama: One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years.Lauer: You’re going to know quickly how people feel about what’s happened.
Obama: That’s exactly right. And a year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.
I’m sure that before the election this quote will be played more than once…
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 10, 2012 1:32 PMRoyal Flush wrote:
BREAKING NEWS:
MISSOURI VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY APPROVE RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION AMENDMENT
“Missouri voters yesterday approved state Constitutional Amendment 2 by a vote of 82.8% in favor and 17.2% against. (Official results.) The measure was described briefly on the ballot:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure: That the right of Missouri citizens to express their religious beliefs shall not be infringed; That school children have the right to pray and acknowledge God voluntarily in their schools; and That all public schools shall display the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution
Hurrah for Missouri.
I totally agree! It’s about time that all Religious beliefs be allowed in the school system! After all, Allah means God in Arabic!
And sense the Bill of Rights separates government from religion, I guess Missouri is able to maintain their public school system without the aid of government moneys. That’s a wonderful start in helping to solve our financial crisis. If more states decide to do the same - why we’ll be financially safe in just a couple of years.
Well done Missouri. It’s nice to see that at least one state is enlightened enough NOT to be scared of the other half of the world’s beliefs, and is financially capable of supporting itself!
Posted by: Highlandangel1 at August 10, 2012 1:37 PMHighland
Your exaggerated over generalizations are exactly why religious people feel the need to pass bills like this one and why millions flocked to Chik-Fil-A.
Religion allowed in schools? Being for “traditional” marriage equals hate?
Pu-leez!
Royal Flush-
Could you tell me what your response would be if the Buddhist students start chanting, and the Muslim Students take their five times a day in school?
The thing is, for any law to fit within proper constitutional bounds, it cannot discriminate. You cannot insist on Christians getting to pray, and deny others the same.
kctim-
Your statement basically displays a sudden awareness of problems that came up long before Obama even was elected. Our fiscal trajectory didn’t go from absolute balance to record imbalance all of a sudden. Bush’s tax cuts, wars, and medicare drug benefits, all unpaid for, had us on that trajectory in Bush’s first term, and the resistance to changing any of those policies from the right has been intense.
But shifting the blame? That’s the cheap solution to the Republican’s fiscal problem: claim it was a Democrat who did it, and then attack liberal spending priorities, which however distasteful to Republicans, did not cause the deficit. Republicans complain about Democrats exploiting the crisis, even as their hands are bloody with their own exploitation.
The unemployment? Republicans rejected Obama’s plans, and presented none of their own that any Democrat in their right mind could agree to. Republicans also killed jobs locally and at the state level, contributing to a higher unemployment rate directly!
The Mandate was the Republican policy, and while it took the choice to abstain from the market away, it provides a marketplace for those seeking insurance on their own
Obama deported record numbers of people, even at the expense of alienating hispanic voters. The notion he did nothing is fiction, a mistake if you didn’t know, a lie if you did.
As for that next point? The Tea Party.
As for the point after that? I went through several years of Republicans and conservatives alleging I was a terrorist sympathizer because I did not agree with our foreign policy. Since Obama’s been elected, Republicans and conservatives have continually called me a socialist. And I have seen one Republica and conservative after another bashing Islam, and anybody who doesn’t subscribe to their brand of Christianity.
I wonder, do you make your claim seriously unaware of all that you yourself, not to mention so many others have said? Your propaganda is terribly one-sided.
As for the subsequent point? You know, Republicans had no problem bashing Kerry for his wealth, or Obama as an elitist. I hear all about the Hollywood elites, the academic elites, this, that, and the other. Oh, and what was that whole thing with the “Let the banks fail”/anti-bailout push? You are very willing to exploit class tensions to further your cause, moreso at least than you are willing to admit it.
The point after that? Give me a break. That is just the kind of exaggerated response you get from a teenager. You know, I’m constantly getting rhetorically jump by Republicans beating me up with allegations that I’m some sort of Bond villain trying to destroy the country. It’s alleged I’m trying to hand my country over to the Islamofascists, to pull down capitalism into the mouldering grave of socialism, to get everybody to quit their job and become lazy so the government can pay for everybody to mooch off the truly industrious. And you guys say that seriously, with spite and malice I find it hard not to bash back at with equal force.
So, automatic hate for disagreement? Again, your words describe your own behavior better.
And last?
Well, this charge is as false as every other, an exaggeration that voids the meaningful connection of reality you hoped to imply. I don’t see conservatives berating small government when it comes to denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. I see conservatives in these very columns saying that when the government comes back and starts imposing Christian laws on everybody, everything will be fantastic!
Everybody thinks that they’d save the country, given the chance, that people doing things their way would do the trick. But if you look at anybody’s ideas, there are always flaws, misunderstandings, instances of ignorance and incompetence on a topic.
Nobody has it all right. But when people get together, they can sort things out.
I don’t believe in an absolute balance of group over individual or individual over group. I believe in a balance between the two, set as the evidence merits it. People who insist on forcing things to one side or the other, without regard to the reality of the situation are being fools. There is no perfect, one-size fits all logic for getting things right. That’s why we need Democracy. That’s why we need a Congress that can be held accountable to the people. That’s why we need a constitution that limits the power of government to harrass innocent people, and gives them the ability to get out what they believe to be the truth of the matter.
Long story short, the value of our kind of government is that it isn’t stuck having to remain in error forever while things go wrong, because the people who run it can’t be taken out of office, or the laws can’t be repealed.
Rhinehold-
Republicans are having to resort to cheapshots about accountability, but the truth is, most voters don’t blame him for the state of the economy, and nor do they think he didn’t try. Look at the patronizing attack Republicans sometimes use that says, “Obama tried his hardest, it just wasn’t good enough.”
They can’t deny that this wasn’t a result of being lazy or causing problems himself.
The trouble is, Republicans already put on quite a few performances getting in his way, so in the back of people’s minds is the realization that while Obama hasn’t completely succeeded in turning things around, part of the reason this hasn’t happened has been the willingness of the other side to simply refuse to cooperate.
Meanwhile, Romney, with his past and his actions makes it clear to most Americans that he’s not a product of a GOP that has learned its lessons, or wants to learn its lessons. More to the point, he’s not going to really even try to do anything original. He will simply employ the methods which have been tried, and which haven’t worked.
It’s not merely a question of whether Obama succeeded in turning around the economy, because Obama isn’t the only part of the decisions. He’s one alternative. And that other alternative? That man has to prove he would be better. What the commercial has people asking, and it serves its purpose by doing so, is whether people believe that what Romney would support, economically speaking, would be a better solution, or whether it would be more of the same policies that led up to this, and which was depressing job growth even before the Great Recession.
The Republicans have gone into this only thinking that they have to prove Obama a failure, or make it so. What they have failed to shake off is the mess of the failures that came before them, the policies that fractured America’s willingness to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt on economic policy. Even if Romney wins, if he fails to prove his policies superior, it’s going to be a hell of a task keeping him from sharing Obama’s fate.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 10, 2012 4:39 PMMeanwhile, the candidate with real proven success, Gary Johnson, is again being ignored…
11.6% job growth (highest of ANY presidential candidate)
Vetoed over 750 spending bills
Never increased taxes (Obama and Romney can’t say that)
Left New Mexico with a billion budget surplus
I can see why the powers in charge don’t want him to be heard…
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 11, 2012 12:17 AMRhinehold-
I wish people would quit seeing things in ideological terms. I’ve lived through three decades of Reaganomics, so I grew up on the promises of lower taxes and a better economy.
I’ve also grown up without a balanced budget in Washington for most of my life, and mysteriously things seem to get their most screwed up when a Republican gets in the White House and cuts taxes.
I know many conservatives mean well and intend well, but it seems to me that the math never adds up, so the intentions and the meanings never matter. Republicans ridicule Democrats trying to spend to create more jobs, but the Republican’s tax cutting and deregulating to get more jobs, and all that other stuff, doesn’t seem to have improved things.
When we admit that we need to ask for the money, the budget recovers. When we admit that we need to pay for what we get, the budget recovers. When we try to starve the beast or bribe the rich to hire the poor and middle class, the budget goes out of control. It’s happened enough, it’s no coincidence.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 11, 2012 11:38 AMI wish people would quit seeing things in ideological terms
LOL. Pot. Kettle. Black.
I’ve lived through three decades of Reaganomics, so I grew up on the promises of lower taxes and a better economy.
Not sure how you did this as Reaganomics lasted about 10 years, max. And was never fully implemented because of an obstructionist Democrat controlled congress…
mysteriously things seem to get their most screwed up when a Republican gets in the White House and cuts taxes.
You’ll have to detail this one out for me…
Let’s see, when Reagan got into office, the Democrats controlled congress. Despite constant blocking of any kind of fiscal responsibility and promises of lowering spending by congress that never happened, the country flourished.
When Bush I raised taxes under pressure by the Democrats in congress, the country went through a downturn long enough for him to lose his 70% approval rating and giving the presidency to Clinton.
Clinton angered his own party by enacting NAFTA as one of his first actions as president and tried to enact draconian healthcare reform, which was rejected by the newly republican congress. Clinton started several wars without congressional and UN approval but was seen as a peacekeeper (?) but was able to play hardball politics and get a few things enacted through a hostile congress (something this president obviously lacks).
However, the internet boom created a flurry of ‘money’ in the economy, making the tax revenues jump and allowing the deficit to lower in size, but the burst of that bubble before Clinton left office caused a recession (or near recession depending on how you look at it) which blew away any chance of a balanced budget. Bush came into office and immediately issues tax cuts, which did boost the economy until the attacks on 9/11 (which the left wants to blame on Republicans, something that has always disgusted me).
This killed the economy and Bush and the Fed monkeyed with the interest rates to try to get growth going again, lowering the deficit again, which worked for a while until that government manipulation created a housing bubble. The Democrats were elected to congress and immediately increased
spending and the deficit increased, as did ignoring the impending housing bubble and completely botching the appropriate actions of congress when it did burst, which caused the economic situation we were in three years ago…
That leaves Obama who for two years held the majorities in both the house and senate and couldn’t do anything to change a) the deficit or b) the economy for the better, the improvements we are seeing are despite his actions, not because of.
But hey, you can have your ‘ideology’, and believe what you want I guess, those of us who want to deal in reason, logic and facts will just have to disagree.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 11, 2012 1:01 PMseo , | ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ar,ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ! ! ! seo fuck http://google.com.br | http://google.com.br http://google.com.br ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | , , , , http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php , , - ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, seo fuck ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | , , , , , ,seo fuck ,
seo , | ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ar,ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ! ! ! seo fuck http://google.com.br | http://google.com.br http://google.com.br ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | , , , , http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php , , - ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, seo fuck ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | , , , , , ,seo fuck ,
seo , | ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ar,ar condicionado automotivo, http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php ! ! ! seo fuck http://google.com.br | http://google.com.br http://google.com.br ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | , , , , http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php , , - ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar ar de carro, de ar bomb ar condicionado automotivo | | | | | | | ! ! ! ! | ! ! ar condicionado automotivo, de ar condicionado automotivo ar,ar condicionado automotivo, seo fuck ar condicionado automotivo,-,ar condicionado automotivo,- ar condicionado automotivo, carro ar http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php, de ar bomb http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | http://nikweinstein.com/cl/google.php | | | , , , , , ,seo fuck ,
Posted by: seobrazil at April 27, 2013 4:28 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to editor@watchblog.com.
