July Sees More Jobs, Unemployment Drops Again
BLS reported that total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 162,000 in July. This was the 41st straight month of private sector job growth worth 7.3 million jobs. Unemployment ticked down to 7.4%.
BLS reports that employment rose in so-called "drinking places." Don't worry, permabears. There's no reason to drink so much. I'm sure that great big crash is right around the corner. Keep buying your gold. Keep burying it in your yard.
All joking aside this was an under-consensus report. It's good but not great. Some call this the Obama Doldrums but I don't see how continued growth counts as a "doldrum" just because someone thinks it should grow faster and isn't.
More about the "doldrums" at these sources:
Markets way up. Jobs still growing. Cars being sold. Houses being built. I had to look up the definition of doldrums just to be sure my understanding of the word fit this usage. I'm unconvinced.
Posted by Adam Ducker at August 2, 2013 3:35 PM
Everyone, of any political party, should be pleased that things are improving. Why the negative spin?
Royal Flush: “Everyone, of any political party, should be pleased that things are improving.”
The key word there is should. A certain brand of people have predicted the end of our economy every month for years. It’s kind of like the people who predict Jesus will return any day now. No one seems to care how many times they’ve been wrong, because after all…it could be next month…
Indeed, Obama has been very good for the 1%. Stocks are doing well. It seems a bit ironic that the poor and middle class are suffering the most, despite the Obama rhetoric.
I would call it doldrums. In the doldrums, you can sometimes move; you just don’t move fast or far enough to get real progress. At this growth rate, it will take us many years to catch up. Meanwhile, jobs are paying less and many are part time.
This may yet be the best summer of Obama’s time. Maybe this will finally be the summer of recovery. I hope so. My kids need to find good jobs.
” A certain brand of people have predicted the end of our economy every month for years.”
Yes, it is so sad. Why do some insist that unless we tax and spend more we will evaporate.
All joking aside this was an under-consensus report. It’s good but not great. Some call this the Obama Doldrums but I don’t see how continued growth counts as a “doldrum” just because someone thinks it should grow faster and isn’t…
The key word there is should. A certain brand of people have predicted the end of our economy every month for years. It’s kind of like the people who predict Jesus will return any day now. No one seems to care how many times they’ve been wrong, because after all…it could be next month…
I don’t think we are looking at a “month” that the economy will “collapse”; we are looking at “months” of economic “doldrums”.
The unemployment numbers “ticked down” because 250k people dropped out of work force.
Jobs are being created, but part time jobs made up 77% of jobs created this year.
If the economy is getting better, why do 37% of young adults still live at home? Perhaps Mr. Daugherty could answer this one?
AD said, “Markets way up”; perhaps the printing of money by the Feds and buying debt is a false market number.
The black youth unemployment rate has increased from 38.1% to 41.6% in the past year.
Unemployment among blacks is 12.6%.
But other than these minor glitches, the economy is looking just peachy.
It appears to me, Political Hostage, that liberals are too easily satisfied. Just as we have dumb-downed our children and increased the reliance of millions upon government, the liberal too is content with just a shadow of what should be going on now with our economy if it was properly run by competent adults.
Royal, many have called this the “new norm”. The left and the MSM where having a fit when the unemployment numbers were in the 4% range under Bush. Gloom and doom, “we’re all gonna die” type of reaction. But today 7+% is the norm.
Since I am black and you white guys are cracka’s (we know this word has no racist meaning), I don’t expect white guys to understand the plight of the black man. While temporary jobs are being created to bring down the unemployment rate for whites; the unemployment numbers have not moved for blacks and in some cases are getting worse. There were jobs to be created for the blacks of DC, in the area called “little Africa”, but the Democrats drove Wal-Mart right out of town.
I was just sitting here thinking how easy it would be for me to play the leftist race card and promote democrat government handouts. Oh, how Mr. Daugherty and other WB leftist would love me…but alas, I’m a conservative who believes in personal responsibility…in other words a traitor to my kind, an Oreo, and an Uncle Tom. I just love the way the lefty white boys, born with a silver spoon in their mouth, understand the plight of a black man who grew up on a sharecropper’s farm in SC in the 40’s and 50’s. “Nobody Knows the Trouble I’ve Seen”, repeat to music.
“The left and the MSM where having a fit when the unemployment numbers were in the 4% range under Bush. Gloom and doom, “we’re all gonna die” type of reaction.”
The stupid! It burns! It buuuuuurns.
Because we nearly did die after eight years of conservative economic policy. Remember how the Bush administration ended? Remember how liberals and the MSM complained because the jobs being created were all government jobs- defense and the TSA- while the private sector offshored and outsourced like crazy? In one year alone, 50,000 manufacturing plants- not jobs, but plants- were offshored. There were no increases in the minimum wage, and wages stayed flat or declined for almost everyone outside the 1%. Health care costs skyrocketed, starting a trend of companies avoiding offering full time jobs because the benefits were too expensive.
The liberals and MSM were absolutely, 100% right, and reality proved them to be absolutely, 100% right.
During the last three months of the Bush presidency, job losses were 803,000, 661,000 jobs, and 818,000 respectively.
That was the culmination of eight years of conservative economic policy and labor policy.
Under the Obama administration, we have seen consistent job growth; and that is job growth in the private sector. It is not driven by government hiring. Non-farm payroll has been positive month after month. The unemployment rate has slowly but steadily declined.
If any conservative is seriously concerned about the economy and hiring- and frankly, I don’t think any of you care whatsoever- but if you do, then ask your Republican politicians why the GOP House has yet to produce a jobs bill this session, or an infrastructure bill. They are doing precisely zero. Demand action.
The best stimulus has been the boom in oil shale and natural gas. We thank Obama for not screwing that up, although some of his more radical followers would like to scuttle it, but he did not no create it.
Your simple view is very distressing. According to you, only the action of government matter and it turns on and off like a switch. Therefore, “conservative” policies crashed and liberal ones just work.
A more balanced person would ask why we have not bounced back, why this time, for the first time in any of our lives, the economy has just gone sideways, despite the massive stimulus of government and the even better one provided by the energy boom.
Re job bill - government cannot create sustainable jobs. You almost seem to understand that when you contend that jobs during the Bush times were mostly government jobs. You seem to understand that we made mistakes during the Bush times by growing government too much, but fail to see that while Bush bloated government, Obama has not shrunk it back down to workable size. On the contrary, he advocates expansion.
One more thing about “conservative” policy. Today you and others blame Republicans for the troubles of Obama because they control one House of Congress. During the Bush, Democrats controlled the Senate half of the time and controlled both Senate and House 25% of the time. And Republicans never had the super majorities Obama enjoyed when he passed the stimulus or ObamaCare. Importantly, Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House at the time when the economy collapsed. Where they not paying attention or doing their jobs?
Re being 100% right - nobody is ever 100% right in anything as complex as the economy. Clearly, Obama doesn’t understand the economy. The test of understanding is the capacity to predict. Obama’s prediction about the economy have been worse than would have been achieved by random chance.
You write: “The best stimulus has been the boom in oil shale and natural gas.”
That is good. The stimuli that saved GM and the auto industry, including a million or more jobs, and that bailed out insurance giant AIG would also have to rank. Remember when the Republican House voted against the bailout in October 2008, and the stock market suffered its greatest one-day loss of treasure, over $1 trillion dollars? Passing that stimuli was a government act that literally saved us from a Great Depression.
“A more balanced person…”
Oh, I am balanced just fine. I remember. I recognize the difference between right and wrong, between good and bad policies; then I apply that to reality. Works every time.
“Re job bill - government cannot create sustainable jobs.”
Of course it can. Happens all the time. Consider the military-industrial complex. The government jobs created during the Bush administration were primarily of this nature- defense spending driven by wars, as well as the TSA-but those types of jobs do not help the economy nearly as much as productive jobs, such as jobs building infrastructure, or investments in education.
Bad political philosophy leads to bad actions, and bad actions lead to bad results. It takes time. The Bush administration inherited an economy with a budget surplus and stabilized national debt. The projection was for a $10 trillion surplus in the next decade. The discussion was whether it would be a good idea to completely eliminate the debt. (The conclusion was ‘no’, because functioning bond markets were crucial to worldwide finance). Unemployment was low, low, low. The DJIA was over 10,000, inflation was low, and interest rates were reasonable.
And then came the conservatives. Then came Bush.
Bad political philosophy. Bad actions. Bad results.
And now we have Obama. We avoided a Great Depression. The economy has consistently grown, and employment has consistently grow. Once again, the stock market is setting record highs. Once again, interest rates are low, inflation is low, housing is booming, and we are doing much, much, much better.
The Democrats did a good job while holding a supermajority. Not perfect. There are some things I wish they had done. But they passed Obamacare, and it is turning out to be much better than most people realized.
The GOP House has been a disaster. The 112th set a record for least productive in American history. That Congress passed 28 bills by the August break. The current Congress is even worse. It has passed 22 bills by the break. The Republicans are so fractured, they cannot pass basic legislation. One third is sane and will join the Democrats in passing the immigration bill, just as they have joined to pass previous critical legislation. Another third of the GOP can be talked into doing sane things. The other third is Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. The House Republicans waste their time with 40 attempts to repeal Obamacare, Personhood amendments, and other ideological lunges at wish fulfillment.
These are facts. This is what is happening.
” I recognize the difference between right and wrong, between good and bad policies; then I apply that to reality. Works every time.” While I admire your religious certainty, I doubt it is useful to anybody outsides a blog or a tavern.
Re TARP - I supported TARP at the time and I do now. It was necessary to create liquidity. It is the stimulus of 2009 that I think was largely ineffective. But the oil and gas stimulus was good all around.
Re government jobs - Sustainable is the key word. If government “creates” a job it takes money from elsewhere to do so. Government jobs can be crucial to creating conditions by which others can create wealth, but they are themselves an expense.
Re Bush - you admit that Bush’s big mistakes involved making government bigger and spending more. I think so too. So maybe Obama should work harder on reversing that trend.
“You admit that Bush’s big mistakes involved making government bigger and spending more.”
If by government you mean defense spending on unfunded wars, then yes; we fought Afghanistan and Iraq on the national credit card. I thought the TSA was a bad idea then and a bad idea now, but good luck defunding it.
Big mistakes included the tax cuts. That used to be a central point for the GOP. The tax cuts of 2001 & 2003 were supposed to create all those jobs. By the last three months of the Bush administration, we were losing 803,000, 661,000 jobs, and 818,000 respectively, and facing a catastrophic Great Depression.
And let’s not forget the philosophy of deregulation, which resulted in the Credit Crunch. The finance sector took mortgage securities and created financial instruments that magnified their losses by orders of magnitude.
Over the long term, the conservative refusal to recognize the existence of human-caused Global Warming may be the most destructive mistake of all. We will see.
Social policy miscues were equally unforgettable. It is interesting to note the decline of Bush’s popularity came when the GOP attempted to intervene on behalf of Terry Schiavo. They thought she was ok, and threw around the most scurrilous lies about anyone who thought otherwise, including her husband. Of course, we know how that ended.
It is difficult to talk about the conservative Bush years without resorting to superlatives. While past administrations have one major mistake that makes them candidates for the worst ever- the corruption of Nixon, the ineptitude and corruption of Harding, the drunkenness of Johnson and Pierce, the economic malpractice of Hoover, the fecklessness of Madison as he fled the capitol when it was burned by the British- but rarely has one president combined such a disastrous performance across the entire spectrum. That was Bush. That was conservatism in practice. And it resulted in an absolutely epic fail.
The financial system was NOT unregulated or even deregulated. The banking part that failed first was heavily regulated. In fact, government regulation required it to make particular kinds of risky loans.
Re global warming - the U.S. CO2 emission declined starting in 2006. No other country has reduced emissions much since that time. In fact, after 2000, U.S. CO2 emission were already growing more slowly than those in the EU and most of the rest of the world. It is likely that the U.S. will reach its putative Kyoto targets by next year w/o ever having to ratify that benighted treaty.
So if we had “recognized” this problem earlier, how would that have been very different? We have achieved more than was asked of us and more than people thought we could.
Meanwhile, China alone will emit more CO2 in 2020 than the whole world did in 1990.
Historians will treat Bush better than you think. He will not be a good president. He and Obama will end up about the same place in the ratings. They will say that neither “caused” the financial problem, but neither properly addressed it either.
I live at home because while helping my parents with the relatively low salary I’m taking home, I don’t have enough money to live by myself. If could take the Clark Kent route, and send part of my paycheck home, and live by myself, I would do just that.
I lived for four years at a college, and I never had to ask to come back home during the school year. I managed on my own just fine. It’s simply a mathematical question.
Now if you don’t have a job, the math of course works against you moving out. Baby Boomers had the advantage of an economy that, if not good at a certain point, would improve in the near future, and a lot of that had to do with the fact that we kept much of our manufacturing jobs here in America. When the economy recovered, and people were selling more stuff, the factories would hire more people, and everything would improve.
It’s only when we started shipping the jobs elsewhere that you started seeing this become a problem. Part of why so many of my generation are living at home is that the jobs simply aren’t there for them.
You screw up the economy, force many to delay retirement, cut short unemployment benefits for some false fiscal savings, shred the safety net, let your cronies move jobs overseas, let the loansharks and mortgage fraudsters continue to drag people down, etc, then the people just starting out aren’t going to launch as quickly as you want them to!
You know, this used to be the way things often occurred, back in those blessed days before That Man changed everything. But the thing was, before FDR’s day, a large segment of the population worked on the farm, lived on the farm, so there was work in a sense for those who moved back home. And of course, healthcare was all around bad, so there were no worries about Medicare. Extended families had long been the rule, with the grandparents not independent, but folded within the family walls when they got too old to work.
The world’s a different place. There is no family farm for 98% of Americans. Four Fifths don’t even live in a rural area. It’s back home, or its on the streets.
This is what happens when you apply a misplaced paradigm of employment from the Late 1800s and Early Twentieth Century to an America that is competing in a global economy. This is what happens when recovery is mainly focused on the top, rather than on the middle, where the additional disposable income actually gets disposed of, rather than accumulating like fluid in congestive heart failure or Cerebral Edema.
“The banking part that failed first was heavily regulated.”
The financial sector used to consist of three legs: commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance. The Glass Steagall Act was put in place after the Great Depression to keep these three legs separate. The Act served as a firewall so that, if one leg broke down, it wouldn’t take the others down with it. The repeal of Glass Steagall- an enormous piece of deregulation- removed those firewalls.
The first failure came within the commercial banking sector. Rising interest rates undermined sub-prime loans made primarily by private mortgage brokers, such as Countrywide, resulting in more foreclosures than expected. This was bad. However, there were not that many foreclosures, certainly nothing that could not have been taken in stride. If every single sub-prime loan had failed (which was not the case), it would have cost @ $280 billion.
However, the Glass Steagall firewalls no longer existed. The failures those loans had the potential to spread to the other two financial sectors, investment and insurance. What happened?
Another critical piece of deregulation, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2003, (CFMA), was inserted into the 2003 budget by Phil Gramm. This amendment prevented any government regulation or oversight of a new class of financial products, mortgage derivatives (among others). No oversight. No regulation. Period. This resulted in ‘shadow banking.’
Freed from firewalls, all three legs of the financial sector bought various mortgage derivatives. To make matters worse, the ratings organizations- S&P and Moody’s-gave tranches of sub-prime loans their highest ratings. Since the ratings organizations were being paid by the issuers of the sub-prime loans, the temptation to go along with overinflated ratings was irresistible.
While foreclosures threatened the country with over $200 billion in possible losses, the mortgage derivatives threatened the country with TRILLIONS in losses. Insurer AIG needed a bailout. The fourth largest S&L, WAMU, failed. The investment banks collapsed: Bear Stearns failed. Lehman Brothers failed. Merrill Lynch was rolled into BA. Many other very large firms failed.
Rising wages and an increase in the minimum wage did not happen during the Bush years. Job creation did not occur in sufficient quantities. Growth was fueled debt- both government debt due to the tax cuts, defense spending, and the TSA- and private debt, primarily through refinancing of mortgages.
The economic collapse resulted in asset deflation (for real estate) and deleveraging in the private sector. It is one of the things that makes the Obama recovery even more remarkable. It not only is occurring without increases in government jobs, it is occurring without the engine of private debt.
It has been a fine performance by the Obama administration. We escaped a dangerous liquidity trap, and now housing is taking off once again.
Obama has done a fine job as president. 162,000 jobs for July > negative 803,000, 661,000 or 818,000 jobs for the last three months of 2008.
Perhaps Obama’s crowning achievement, the thing he will be remembered for and praised, will be his role in dissolution of the Republican Party and conservative movement that nearly destroyed America, and obstructed and blocked nearly every effort to salvage the economy… Although I have to admit, conservatives seem bent on self-destructing without any outside assistance.
You are right. I was in the same boat as you but I was lucky enough to have the great Ronald Reagan become president and for the next twenty-five years things were great. We were able to make our fortunes during that time.
All of us boomers were lucky like that, but we didn’t know that during the 1970s, when lots of people predicted that things would never get better.
The time since 2008 has been a lot like the time after 1973 and before 1982. There was a lot of soul searching in those times too. The post-war system collapsed with the end of the Breton Woods agreement, followed by big increases in energy prices. Boomers are very well educated because older boomer stayed in school to avoid the draft and younger boomers (like me) stayed in school to avoid unemployment. But no matter, the 1970s really sucked the big one for most of us. That is one reason we love Ronald Reagan. Whether you think he deserves the praise or not, the good times for people my age began when “Reaganomics” started to take hold.
But things will improve for you. The economy really cannot suck forever. It will right itself. I know you don’t like it, but the energy revolution has essentially reversed the shortages that we began to suffer in 1973. It will provide a stimulus that will get us going again in a couple years.
Re living with parents - I see nothing wrong with that. We welcome our kids home whenever they want. There is no reason to pay a landlord just to claim to be independent. This stay-home pattern is very common worldwide and was common in the U.S. The post-war time was a bit of an anomaly, and I think we might revert to the mean of living with others, family or friends.
The big banks that failed were involved in mortgages and not much in investments. What they did they could have done before.
The real cause of the collapse was the misapprehension of risk and how those risks were correlated.
Re Obama - I doubt history will treat him any better than the current generation does. He was reelected by a narrower margin the second time and cannot get half the American people to approve of his policies.
He did do a very good job of trashing Republicans. He is an excellent campaigner, although his main tools are negative. Obama has changed the way elections are run. He spent more money than ever before and never disbanded is campaign after he became president. It is a sort of arms race and I don’t doubt Republicans have learned this lesson. The next campaign will be more professional on both sides and nastier all around.
Re conservatives - it depends on what you mean. I believe in freedom, rule of law (and keeping it simple but effective) and the use of market mechanisms. And I want not to be bothered very much. After that, I don’t much care.
Lots of the liberal proposals are complex and not workable in details. I suppose some can be adapted and may evolve into something better. Actually, the more complex they make them, the more they need people like me who can figure out how to make things go in spite of complexity. I benefit personally from liberal policy. Obama has been good for me and I anticipate being able to carve out a lucrative career playing off some of the particular policies in the next few years. Where there is complexity, there is an enhanced role for the “cognitive elite” like me, but I think it is not good for the country in the longer run.
“The big banks that failed were involved in mortgages and not much in investments.”
Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns were all investment banks. They all failed. ML continued to exist as part of BofA.
WAMU was a S&L, a commercial bank. Citigroup was a large commercial bank. AIG was in insurance.
The failures crossed lines between financial sectors because of the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.
The assessment of risk was wrong, no question.
They should have reduced the size of the big banks. Obama indeed failed to do that. It was his mistake.
Re risk - I think that my “solution” to this problem might not be far from yours. I do not believe we can effectually assess risk in a dynamic environment, which produces uncertainty and not risk per-se.
What we need to do is reduce complexity and set up breaks, so that one part can fail utterly w/o bringing down the system. The challenge to doing this is the belief that we can indeed regulate away risk. We want to predict what is not predictable.
It is much like an evolutionary environment. In markets there is variation and selection. Our regulations tend to avoid the selection part. We protect the established interests by means of regulation. Both sides of the political divide do this, although for ostensibly different reasons.
I am troubled by the increasing power of the Washington financial connection. Politicos move to the banks and banks advise politicos. Obama has done nothing to mitigate this. Regulations today tend to add complexity which allows established interests to maintain their power and keep out newcomers.
Our pursuit of safety is much like attempts to keep fires out of forests. It creates the illusion of stability while setting up conditions for a disastrous conflagration, which will be used to increase calls for more regulation. It is dangerous.
This is well beyond my pay grade, but I will speculate anyway. IMO, a smart regulation would be one that makes the accumulation of power less profitable by making sure they are subject to MORE risk, but smaller. This would include small holders. Deposit insurance, for example, should be more limited, to encourage people to spread their own risk.
Phx8 and C&J,
I have a question for you both. Why do you each think that the firewall of Glass-Steagall was removed? A follow up question is why do you each think that the TBTF banks have not been reduced in size after the Great Recession?
Its convenient to point fingers in a partisan manner but the truth of the matter is that the power structures within each party have been very reluctant to break up the big banks. It is only the outliers in each party that seriously advocate breaking up the big banks, e.g., Sherrod Brown, etc.
I think that the argument for big banks and integrated financial institutions is far simpler and more non-partisan than generally appreciated. It has to do with maintaining international financial competitiveness and retaining the major institutions of capital inflow into the US.
If you go back to the period prior to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, you will find that the main argument for repealing it was that US financial institutions were losing out to large international financial competitors and that the US risked losing its place in the world as the leading financial center. That circumstance could result in a catastrophic shift in world investment capital.
Today, the original arguments for repeal of Glass-Steagall and our need for financial mega institutions capable of competing internationally have been seemingly lost. But, I think that they lurk in the background.
We seem to have forgotten why we did it in the first place.
Reducing the size of the Too Big to Fail banks is a bridge too far right now. ‘Moderate’ Democrats and a large portion of the GOP oppose such a move; indeed, the GOP has fought to stop the Dodd-Frank financial reforms because they involved regulation. The GOP would not even allow a person to confirmed for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because it would oversee mortgage brokers.
“I am troubled by the increasing power of the Washington financial connection. Politicos move to the banks and banks advise politicos.”
Absolutely true. Until we have publicly financed elections, it will be very difficult to stop the corporate control of our political system, especially the control of the financial sector.
When I was in the financial sector in the late 80’s and early 90’s, the push for repeal of Glass Steagall among a small group already existed. Most people in the industry opposed it. They thought it was a terrible idea, unthinkable. However, a small number wanted it repealed because they saw an opportunity to sell more products. Brokerages would be able to sell insurance. Insurance companies would be able to sell mutual funds and more. Commercial banks would be able to do both. In short, repealing Glass Steagall was all about an opportunity to make profit, but most people recognized the opportunity involved terrible risks… Until the GOP turned even farther right in the late 90’s, and pushed through the repeal with Clinton’s help.
It was the worst mistake Clinton ever made. To this day, he still defends it.
You write: “It (TBTF) has to do with maintaining international financial competitiveness and retaining the major institutions of capital inflow into the US.”
It falls under the category of ‘efficient distribution of capital.’ I understand your point, and it is a good one. One problem is that financial institutions will never be as large as the truly large ones, namely governments, nor should they be. Financial competitiveness is a matter of speed via computers, and being able to put together deals, which can be done by groups of companies, just as IPO’s have always been done.
The other problem with generating profit that way is that it actually has nothing to do with efficient distribution. That was achieved two decades ago, or more, for all practical purposes that anyone can cite.
The problem is that, just because something is profitable, it doesn’t necessarily mean a business should go for it. Efficient distribution needs some friction in order for the system to work properly. It needs some drag. Without such friction, the system slides into disasters without a means to stop.
It is a little like trying to drive somewhere as fast as possible in heavy rain. The best speed would probably be around 50 mph. But the vehicle can do 120 mph! And that is faster! It means getting there sooner! And of course, driving at high speed without any friction or drag means hydroplaning, with predictable results.
Not a great analogy, I know, but it illustrates the point.
Re Dodd Frank
This law seems to suck. It tries to do too much and becomes too complex. The number of required steps are too great and reports. They even have a part of the bill designed to make sure that minorities and women have access to capital. While this may be a laudable goal, it doesn’t belong in a financial regulation bill.
Re the bank-Washington axis - this is not primarily the result of campaign. It has more to do with how they can help each other. Regulations can keep established bankers in the money. Bankers can provide jobs for former government officials.
I worry in both directions. I don’t want corporations having too much influence in government, nor do I want government in charge of corporations. No matter which direction it runs, it is bad to concentrate power.
Government and corporations should not get together too closely no matter who initiates the courtship.
What the Nation Got for $800 Billion
” QE3 was intended to make riskier assets like stocks more appealing. And stocks, which are predominantly owned by the wealthy, have risen in price. As a Bank of England study has shown, quantitative easing disproportionately benefits those who are already well off.
The Fed had other options. It could have put cash directly into the hands of consumers who needed it. Under the Federal Reserve Act, it can print and lend any amount of money for any length of time to any person or entity, as long as it is satisfied that it is likely to be repaid. With $800 billion, for example, the Fed could have given every homeowner in the country a $10,000 loan at a near-zero rate of interest. Think of what that might have done for the economy.”
I admit it. I’m a socialist. I hate America. The more people put out of work or forced to work part time rather than full time will create conditions necessary to overthrow the Constitution. We need more people dependent on government in order to establish socialism in this country, which is the only true and right form of government.
ph, Glass Steagall was dead before GLB and expecting 1930’s legislation to be relevant in the 1990’s financial sector, or now, is just crazy. Citi and Travler’s would have happened anyway and that’s why Clinton’s hand was forced.
I remember reading an article entitled “The Repeal of GSA caused the Financial Crisis” a while back. The author finished the article by saying there were many reasons for the crisis and focusing on just one was too simplistic. I thought that was great given his title!
GSA did some good things and it did some bad things. It’s repeal allowed banks like Wells to become valuable in the retail market while it created some bad situations in the transaction side of banking. Likewise a re-instatement will do some good things and will do some bad things. That’s just how regulation works.
If the Democrats and Obama think replacing full time employment with part time employment is a “recovery,” I want some of what you’re smoking because it must be some good stuff.
The only thing that’s improved is the stock market. The only people benefiting from that improvement are rich folks. So thank you Democrats and Obama because you’re helping the top 1 percent! What about the rest of us? When are we going to see our recovery?
The shift from full time to part time is worst than rising unemployment. This shift speaks to how weak our economy is. The poor and middle class continue to suffer under the lack of leadership of this administration.
Obama has yet to introduce any new ideas. He’s stuck in 2009 and just repackages the same old “solutions” over and over and over and over and over.
It’s not working. It’s time for a change.
Well, The House could pass legislation changing the way employment hours are measured. It could simply assess hours at a business in total, rather than dividing it between part-time and full-time, for the purposes of providing benefits. They could then pro-rate the benefits on that basis. It is very simple.
Didn’t think of that, did you?
But of course, Republicans are so profoundly opposed to the interests of working people, that such a simple solution will never even be considered. Conservatives will continue pushing for a system that depresses wages, offshores, outsources, and discourages providing benefits. They will run candidates for president such as Mitt Romney, an equity fund manager who claimed to be a ‘job creator,’ yet couldn’t name any jobs he created; eventually, he just dropped the claim, and did not even bother to pretend anymore. Romney was a job cremator, a “vulture capitalist” as his fellow conservative candidates called him, who stashed funds abroad in secret accounts in Switzerland, Bermuda, and elsewhere, and flat out refused to reveal how much. But that is what conservatives are all about, right? The important thing is to promote policies that screw working people in the ground, and then complain about how they are getting screwed. Anyway, they are all part of the 47% and a bunch of takers anyway. Remember, corporations are people, my friend!
If someone only works 30 hours a week or less, why should a business provide that person with benefits? You have obviously never run a business before. Typical Democrat.
It’s telling the only defense to Obama is complaining about Republicans.
No new ideas. No solutions. Just “it’s the Republicans fault!” or “the Republicans do it too!”
You’re like a bunch of damn babies crying to mommy.
I’m independent. I’m not a Republican. I’m not impressed by Democrats and see little reason why I should give you another chance. You’ve been given two chances on two elections. Obama is a failure and can’t lead.
It’s time for a change.
phx8 wrote; “The important thing is to promote policies that screw working people in the ground, and then complain about how they are getting screwed.”
Now wait a minute…as I recall, obamacare is a democrat bill with all their ideas about “fairness” built into it. Now, you say the Repubs are screwing people by not fixing the dem bill when they really want to completely overhaul it?
For the record, I voted for Democrats in the last two elections. That was a big mistake. Romney sucked, but Obama is just as bad.
Why is it that liberals spend all their time complaining about how other people run their business, instead of starting their own business and running it according to the liberal business model?
Why is it that successful so-called liberal business people don’t practice what they “say” they believe?
Why is it rich liberals sit at their nightly 7 course meal in one of their many homes, and complain about how nobody does anything to help the hungry and homeless?
“Now, you say the Repubs are screwing people by not fixing the dem bill when they really want to completely overhaul it?”
Really, Another? What pray tell is the Republican proposal for “overhauling” the ACA? If you know, please tell your Republican Representatives and Senators. They apparently are clueless since they have not produced any legislative alternatives. All they do is repeatedly vote (House) to repeal Obamacare or defund it. What’s their alternative proposals? They sort of forgot about the replace part of the “repeal and replace” slogan.
Seriously, Another, what is the “overhaul?”
My apology, Another. My above post was directed at Royal Flush.
Seriously, what is the “overhaul?”
Posted by: Rich at August 6, 2013 8:10 PM
Seriously Rich, how are Reps screwing working people in the ground (over obamacare), and then complain about how they are getting screwed, as phx8 wrote?
Rich, seeing how the vast majority of the people were satisfied with their health care before the ACA travesty was forced upon them, going back to a somewhat freedom based system would be a good start. A system that could have been “overhauled” to deal with raising costs in a way that is Constitutional.
A lot of people, including myself, voted for Obama because we thought he would be better for the economy and jobs. Rather than focus on those important issues, he focuses on gun control, healthcare, climate change, green energy, immigration, and gay marriage. For me, gun control was the last straw. The 2012 election was about the economy and jobs and he STILL doesn’t get it. Jobs and the economy are ALWAYS at the BOTTOM of Obama and the Democratic Party’s priority list. I’m sick of it and it’s time for a change.
People who had employer group insurance and Medicare were probably generally satisfied. They already had many of the protections provided by Obamacare under prior federal legislations, i.e., HIPPA, COBRA, ERISA, etc. which prevented coverage denial or lapse due to pre-existing conditions, etc.
But, those in the individual insurance market, i.e., unemployed, small business employees who aren’t offered employer group insurance, self employed, etc., were not satisfied. It was prohibitively expensive for many and had limitations due to pre-existing conditions, etc.
Obamacare and its state predecessor, Romneycare, are primarily directed at that portion of the population forced into the individual insurance market. It is not directed at the employer group market where the majority of Americans under Medicare age receive their health insurance. That is why most employed Americans under employer group policies have seen virtually no impact of Obamacare. The new state health care exchanges will not be their marketplace for insurance. The exchanges are designed to create a market for individual insurance contracts.
If Republicans desire to “overhaul” the health care system and not simply fix Obamacare, then it would seem reasonable to ask what are the proposals for “overhauling” the system. House Republicans have repeatedly voted to repeal Obamacare but have not brought to vote a major bill “overhauling” the health care system. Am I wrong? Have I missed something?
You can’t answer the question since Republicans have not crafted any legislation that would qualify as an “overhaul” of the health care system. Name one health care bill that the majority has brought to the floor for vote since gaining majority status in 2010.
Going back to the ‘free’ health care system makes no sense. The US spends 17.6% of its GDP on health care. The next closest country spends 12%; or, to put it another way, the US spends $8,233 per person, while the next nearest country, the Netherlands, spends $5,388. Now, if the US covered its whole population with the best health care in the world, maybe that would be worth spending so much more. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Over 40 million Americans are not covered by health care insurance, and by traditional standards such as infant mortality and longevity, the US ranks in the mid-30’s among the nations of the world.
Too bad some of you are dissatisfied with the economic performance of the Obama administration- you know, month after month of positive job growth, declining unemployment rate, low interest rates, low inflation, strong housing market, stock market setting records, month after month of increases in the GDP, and so on.
Ah, for the good old days of Republican economics- 1.4 million jobs lost in the final three months of 2008, unemployment soaring to the 10% range, the credit crunch, the collapse of the housing market, stock market crash, deep negatives for the GDP.
Because at least conservatives willing to intervene on behalf of Terry Schiavo. And deny the science of Global Warming. And deny the science of embryology. And deny the science behind the Theory of Evolution. And pass personhood amendments, giving embryos 14th amendment rights, including the right to own property.
At least the GOP still keeps a ban on gay marriage as part of its fundamental platform.
And who can forget the Southern Strategy:
“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are.”
Richard Nixon, 1970
“”By the ’70s and into the ’80s and ’90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”
Ken Mehlman, 2005, Republican National Committee Chairman and head of the Bush re-election campaign.
Because the important thing is to convince those darn latinos to “self-deport,” pass multiple bills repealing ACORN even though it ceased to exist three years ago, oppose bills like the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for women, because…
Lots and lots and lots of guns. Guns for school teachers! If only young black men like Trayvon Martin carried a gun! Let’s arm all school teachers and let’s arm all young black men! Guns guns guns!
Rich complains; “You can’t answer the question…”
My response was to the claim made by phx8. Why won’t you address that? phx8 apparently can’t answer either.
The House has voted to repeal or dismantle obamacare about 40 times. One can’t build new on a site until the old building sitting there is demolished. The old building (obamacare) is beyond repair and worthless.
The vast majority of people were satisfied with what we had and we threw it all away to satisfy a minority of people.
That majority has seen their rates go up, being made part-time, employers stop offering plans, and have been forced to purchase insurance they do not want or cannot afford.
We didn’t need a political powerplay forced down our throats against our will.
I think I was quite clear in addressing your question in my original comment. You seem to question whether or how Republicans are screwing working people into the ground. The GOP opposition to unions, minimum wage, as well as their support for outsourcing and offshoring as a matter of policy, support for Right to Work laws, and inability to address the issue of part time v full time re benefits, all serve as examples of deep opposition to the needs of working people. Tax policies and spending policies have resulted in flat to declining wages for working people for years, while the income of the top 1% has skyrocketed.
You simply responded with a statement supporting the needs of small businesses, and how they trump the needs of working people.
By the way, my attitude towards hiring employees is that they should be well-compensated and provided with benefits and incentives to do well. Employees invested in the success of the business through the fruits of their labor are superior to low paid employees who are unmotivated and un-invested. As I may have mentioned before, my wife and I will be buying into an existing small business. We will need to hire at least one employee. That person needs to be superb. Not cheap.
1) strong housing market - fueled by a large percentage of corporate house flipping and converting to rentals. This is slowing down.
2) month after month of positive job growth, declining unemployment rate - According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 600,000 Americans dropped out of the labor market during March alone. That pushed the labor force participation rate down to 63.3%, which is the lowest it has been in more than 30 years.
3) low interest rates - The 30-year fixed is more than a percentage point higher than it was three months ago. Since rates climbed from the lows, lenders have been receiving fewer mortgage applications, including refinances and purchase applications. The Mortgage Bankers Association says the refinance index on its weekly survey is at its lowest level in two years. Applications for home purchases dropped four times in the last five weeks.
4) low inflation rates - If we calculate the inflation rate the exact same way the government did prior to 1990, the inflation rate is averaging around 6.5%, which is basically double the official rate. However, if we measure inflation the same way the government did back prior to 1980, the inflation rate clocks in at a mind-numbing 11%.
5) stock market setting records - The Fed has been letting out trial balloons for a while now to get the public ready for the end of easing. It will be interesting to see how big will be the sell off when it happens. As the market is at a new high there are now all winners and no losers unless they are playing the downside.
My response directly above listing five supposed measures of obama’s success was prompted by phx8 writing…
“Too bad some of you are dissatisfied with the economic performance of the Obama administration- you know, month after month of positive job growth, declining unemployment rate, low interest rates, low inflation, strong housing market, stock market setting records, month after month of increases in the GDP, and so on.
As I may have mentioned before, my wife and I will be buying into an existing small business. We will need to hire at least one employee. That person needs to be superb. Not cheap.
Posted by: phx8 at August 7, 2013 11:57 AM
Get back with us on that business if you still have it three years from now. We will be interested in knowing how you view government small business tyranny you now appear to love, versus now…as a business owner struggling to survive.
Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show”
Stewart said of the obama administration’s thinking. “We’re happy to share irrelevant information with the public. We told you we were going to be transparent — we just didn’t tell you it was going to be about the last guy’s secrets.”
“The GOP opposition to unions, minimum wage, as well as their support for outsourcing and offshoring as a matter of policy, support for Right to Work laws, and inability to address the issue of part time v full time re benefits, all serve as examples of deep opposition to the needs of working people”
To bad this is all based on nothing more than stereotypes based partisan opinion, just like the ‘racists’ and ‘war on women’ rhetoric.
Have you ever noticed that the majority of the stereotypes you guys come up with are based on you guys not being given something?
You demand businesses give you union only shops. You demand businesses pay you more money than you are worth. You demand business and government give you benefits. You demand business and government pay for your birth control. Hell, you guys even demand government give you some made up right to not have guns anywhere near you.
You guys demand everything from everybody, but do so little yourselves.
“The GOP opposition to unions, minimum wage, as well as their support for outsourcing and offshoring as a matter of policy, support for Right to Work laws, and inability to address the issue of part time v full time re benefits, all serve as examples of deep opposition to the needs of working people”
“To bad this is all based on nothing more than stereotypes based partisan opinion…”
What!?! There are countless examples of Republican legislation supporting my assertion. How many times of Republican leaders led efforts to break unions? Reagan did it. Walker in WI did it. Kasich in OH tried. The GOP is responsible for so-called Right to Work laws. Outsourcing and offshoring- especially offshoring- were the prominent feature in the Bush administration approach to employment. Pretending that is partisanship is just ridiculous. It happened. It is real. It is a matter of record.
Btw, I do not think we will be struggling in business. The business already exists, and my wife is arguably one of the top retail people in the Northwest. Mrs. Phx is very, very sharp. Mr. Phx, however, knows nothing whatsoever about high-end Italian women’s clothing, and will probably not even be allowed inside the store… which will make everyone happier.
Interest rates on mortgages have increased over the past year, and should continue to rise. This is good. This is as it should be. The equity markets will not like rising interest rates, and that will almost certainly involve a correction of 10%. This is also as it should be.
The inflation rates sound suspect. Rule of 72: divide any number into 72, and the answer will be how long something takes to double. For example, if the inflation rate is 12%, it will take six years for prices to double. If prices double in 26 years, the inflation rate is 3%. See how that works? Very useful rule. Using the rule of 72, the interest rates you throw out there do not jibe with what we have seen.
Fed policy is maintain an interest rate of two or three percent. Less, and we risk deflation. Deflation is very bad. We saw asset deflation in real estate from about 2006 to 2012.
Btw, another sign things are improving… At one point, about 19% of all mortgages were underwater. A few months ago, the number was down to 14%.
In addition, the federal deficit is dropping at a faster rate than any other time in history. The national debt and budget deficit will be taken care of faster than anyone imagines. That is what a healthy economy does.
Mr. phx wrote; “Btw, I do not think we will be struggling in business. The business already exists, and my wife is arguably one of the top retail people in the Northwest. Mrs. Phx is very, very sharp. Mr. Phx, however, knows nothing whatsoever about high-end Italian women’s clothing, and will probably not even be allowed inside the store… which will make everyone happier.”
Frankly, I wish you and your wife well in your new business. I have been purchasing high-end Italian suits from “The Wizard of Ahhs” on e-bay for many years and just love them and the great price.
Legislation that protects an individuals right to work without being forced to join a union against their will, is not about unions.
What is real is that you believe any legislation that does not always benefit unions is an attack to rid ourselves of unions.
What is real is that unions, despite having some of the most homophobic and racist people around, support Dems because they offer them more power.
Your opinion and all the lefts rhetoric is based on a partisan based doom and gloom opinion.
I wish you alot of success in your business adventure, I just wish you would run it how you want to force others to run theirs.
I am disappointed that you will not take up the challenge to present the Republican plan for “overhauling” the health system.
Let me help. The essence of conservative think tank proposals is the elimination of employer group insurance and replacing it with individual/family policies purchased on the individual insurance market with income tax credits provided for such purchases. Conservatives have long been aware of the vast federal tax expenditures provided as subsidies for employer group insurance and the drag on corporate competitiveness. The most explicit presentation of this approach for overhauling the health care financing system was presented in John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. It sort of went nowhere. In fact, I doubt that most people even understood the proposal. The economic crisis dominated that campaign.
If people think that Obamacare is a massive change, then they haven’t seen anything yet if conservatives actually had the guts to present their proposals as an alternative to Obamacare. The sad fact is that conservatives present Obamacare as some massive change in the way Americans receive health insurance. It isn’t for the vast majority of Americans. It leaves virtually untouched employer group insurance which is the source of virtually all insurance for those under Medicare age. Obamacare impacts the individual market and small group employer health insurance.
You might be surprised to learn that the single largest tax subsidy in the federal budget is employer sponsored group health insurance (ESI). “The U.S. Department of Treasury estimates the tax expenditures for the employer health benefit exclusion and other employer-related health benefits to be $132.6 billion in 2006, making the exclusion the single largest tax expenditure in the federal budget. The exclusion is 66 percent larger than the deduction for home mortgage interest ($79.9 billion), which is a distant second, followed by capital gains on home sales ($43.9 billion), the child tax credit ($42.1 billion), and contributions to personal retirement savings.” In the four year period 2013-2017 it is expecetd to cost the federal government $760.4 billion. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF07L01 http://gppreview.com/2013/04/29/employer-sponsored-health-insurance-is-a-subsidy-necessary-post-health-care-reform/
Conservative proposals target that tax expenditure subsidy for their “overhaul” approach. Obamacare leaves it intact and provides subsidies and disincentives for those individuals outside the employer group market. Which do you think is more radical?
“Republican leaders led efforts to break unions?”
That’s incorrect phx8. The budget troubles many cities and states are facing can be partially traced to run-a-way union benefits. There is no denying it as just a little research will prove it is true.
Unions are angry with the dems right now over obamacare and the Reps had nothing to do with that miserable piece of crap legislation. It belongs on the scrapheap of other failed socialist attempts at tyranny.
Rich, if you believe that McCain is some sort of conservative or good at fashioning legislation with which I would agree you simply have not been paying attention.
When government must steal over $400 billion from Medicare, a failing entitlement, to begin a new entitlement, it is a study in stupidity.
When obamacare has to collect years of premiums before benefits begin to get a decent CBO score it is a study in stupidity.
When obamacare even pisses off the very unions upon which their flow of campaign money depends, it is a study in stupidity.
By the time obama is finished granter waivers for obamacare the only ones left will be Doughboy and Rich.
If the ACA “isn’t for the vast majority of Americans,” why all the rhetoric to convince everybody it is great for ALL Americans?
Premiums rose before and they are rising now.
Tens of millions didn’t want or have insurance before, tens of millions won’t now.
We had freedom of choice, we no longer have freedom of choice.
We had high taxes before, we will have much higher taxes now.
The vast majority were satisfied with our health care, now the majority is against what took its place.
First I would like to thank Adam for his continued efforts to keep us informed on the job market. It is important and he exhibits a knack of looking at statistics and giving us an unvarnished view of what is happening in a concise manner.
Unfortunately Adam’s post about the job market has turned into the normal diatribe of ACA good and bad discussion.
The “freedom” you speak of seems shallow. As Rich has pointed out, before the ACA you had the “freedom” to accept the employer provided insurance without the ability to negotiate few policy choices or monetary compensation or go out to the individual market and look at very pricey policies that are very restrictive to pre-existing conditions (freedom?, I don’t call that freedom). With the ACA you can actually look at state exchanges that allow you to contour your policy the way you need and shop for the best price and not have to be concerned with an existing condition you may have. Why would a conservative such as yourself not at least understand why another individual might see an advantage to this whether you want to take advantage of the program or not? I do understand your desire for freedom and your fear that it is being assaulted, I just don’t understand why you feel everyone should believe this like you do.
The waivers being considered and implemented are meant to make the ACA more successful. I understand that you do not want the ACA to be successful (we get it), I do not understand why, other than the misguided “freedoms” that kctim speaks of.
By the way, my wife an ardent supporter of Obama’s election and re-election campaigns, plans on dropping her employer provided insurance if she can find a plan on the state exchange individual market. She will do this even if it incurs greater expense to her because she believes that the ACA is a good law and will be beneficial for Americans. Maybe by the time our grandchildren enter the market all of this nonsense being ginned up by conservatives will be dust in the wind. Of course I’m certain some of the conservatives feel that the whole country may be dust in the wind if they don’t get their way.
Speak4all writes; “Royal The waivers being considered and implemented are meant to make the ACA more successful.”
More successful than WHAT? Are you seriously telling us that to even be somewhat successful obama must give waivers to those who yell the loudest…shysterism at its best.
That your wife has such intentions makes no sense to me. Is it not enough to vote for obama…must one also shine his shoes?
Speaking of Obamacare; if you wait long enough, the truth comes out. Sarah Palin was attacked for speaking of “death panels” and yet we find much truth in it.
ObamaCare’s cost-cutting board — memorably called a “death panel” by Sarah Palin — is facing growing opposition from Democrats who say it will harm people on Medicare.
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean drew attention to the board designed to limit Medicare cost growth when he called for its repeal in an op-ed late last month.
Dean was quickly criticized by supporters of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), who noted his ties to the healthcare industry as an adviser to a major D.C. lobbying firm.
But the former Vermont governor is not the only Democrat looking to kill the panel.
A wave of vulnerable Democrats over the past three months has signed on to bills repealing the board’s powers, including Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Reps. Ron Barber (Ariz.), Ann Kirkpatrick (Ariz.), Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and Elizabeth Esty (Conn.).
Regarding Mr. Daugherty’s response to living at home. Mr. Daugherty whines and cries about not making enough money to make it on his own. He’s what…late 20’s or 30ish? Living with mommy and daddy and working a dead end job. What’s the matter Stephen…that “Liberal Arts” degree not helping you get a job? Not to mention the student loans you have to pay back. If you had actually prepared and majored in something other that fine arts, video games, and syfy movies, you might have a degree that would help you. But alas, all you can do now is blather on about how great socialism and Obama is for America.
Stephen, you had everything going for you…a white guy, a leftist democrat, access to college, a government willing and ready to loan you the money, and the results…a failure. Your destined to live off someone else for the rest of your life.
I, on the other hand…black man, raised on a share cropper’s farm, worked from the time I was old enough walk, worked my way through college, and after being mentored on different jobs, I started my own business and was very successful. It required years of 16-18 hour days and dedication. I didn’t have time for movies and video games. And I certainly didn’t have time to sit around and post BS on a blog site. Since I am retired, I can do it now. Mr. Daugherty, I consider you a complete failure who has his head shoved so far up Obama’s rear that you will never see daylight again.
I believe in freedom for ALL, not just some.
I do not define freedom by choosing from the choices government gives me, I define it by being able to make whatever choice I choose for myself.
Before the ACA I could choose not to have insurance, now I will be punished by the government for not complying with its mandate. Being punished for not buying what the government tells you to, is not freedom.
“I just don’t understand why you feel everyone should believe this like you do”
It is your beliefs that require everyone to believe as you, not mine.
Under your beliefs, if someone chooses not to have insurance, they are punished. If someone chooses not to provide an insurance plan for their employees, they are punished. If a company chooses not to offer an insurance plan due to personal beliefs, they are punished.
My beliefs don’t prevent you from having insurance or from you paying for others insurance.
My beliefs don’t infringe on anybody’s freedoms, your beliefs infringe on the freedoms of all.
When it comes to rights and freedoms, I am not the one who is misguided.
ACA is the law. Debated in committees and passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President of the United States (don’t give me that shoved down our throats nonsense) and then upheld by the Supreme Court in a majority decision. Now that it is law waivers are being considered and implemented to help make the law successful. Not more successful than what, that makes absolutely no sense to me. If you wanted a different outcome I can understand that but we need to live within the law.
Shysterism best describes the House of Representatives attempts to repeal the law 40 times (without any regard to replacement), this is also a good example of Einstein’s description of insanity.
I wouldn’t expect you to make sense of my wife’s intentions, they are coming from a place that you do not possess. A conscience.
Your comment about shining someone’s shoes has no bearing on the discussion and it only does disservice to the point you are trying to make.
I feel I need to make a comment about my handle “Speak4all”. In a different thread it was suggested that it should be Speak4yourself. My handle isn’t about me it is meant to remind me and also be a plea to anyone that posts here.
What I am about to write FDR got, Reagan got and Obama gets. The person who is listened to the most is the one who tries to speak for as many people as possible.
kctim - “I do not define freedom by choosing from the choices government gives me, I define it by being able to make whatever choice I choose for myself.”
Well and succinctly said Tim. Freedom doesn’t tell us what light bulb or toilet we must buy. Our Constitution was never meant to protect us from OURSELVES…but from government itself.
I respect your desire for what you describe as “freedom”. This is not my description of freedom. Under your description of freedom we don’t need any laws or regulations, just do what you want when you want for whatever reason you want. That is anarchy.
I truly hope you are able to find the “freedom” that you want in this life but in order to do that you would need to live as an island without any contact with the rest of the world. For the rest of us we value our freedom that can be defined by how we treat each other and our environment and these values are expressed in laws and regulations that support that. I have no idea how to get to the “freedom” you desire.
You sure do take a lot of interest in Stephen’s personal life. I just don’t understand why. Please read my comment above about trying to speak for people and not just against them, I know it will be difficult but there is a meaning in there that is meant for you.
The person who is listened to the most is the one who tries to speak for as many people as possible.
Posted by: Speak4all at August 8, 2013 4:38 PM
A couple of those kind you mention might be Hitler, Stalin, Caesar, Mao Zedong, and a few other notable tyrants. Obama can speak, but his ideas are bullshit.
Speak also writes; “Now that it is law waivers are being considered and implemented to help make the law successful.”
Do you even begin to understand how hypocritical that statement is? Passed by congress, signed by prez, partially upheld by SP, and now the little tyrant wants to change the law on his own. You admit that without “waivers” and changes the law won’t be successful.
One has to be a real dolt to pay more insurance premium than necessary merely to support a politician. I asked obama…he said he would rather have your wife’s cash contribution.
The ACA was put on the fast track to be passed before the people had their say in the 2010 election. The surprises that keep popping up with it show how it was rushed and how concerns were dismissed. The waivers, not to tweak, but to delay and change the law, are the result of the lefts desparation to “shove it down all of our throats” before we could have a say.
Maybe this mass rejection of the law would have been prevented if you guys would have waited to hear from the people.
The 2010 House was put there to represent those of us who do not wish to live under yet another government mandate and it is their job to do everything they can to get rid of the ACA for us.
Perhaps our Reps would quite trying for repeal if the left would work with us to get something we could agree on and have Reid put in up for a vote in the Senate.
Yes many tyrants were gifted speakers as well. Does that mean then that Reagan was a tyrant. You make equations to suit your arguments but they don’t necessarily make any sense when dissected. Your constant refrains about our current President demean you as a citizen and member of our community here. The law will be successful by it’s own merits, time will tell but that doesn’t mean we can’t all work to make it successful. That would be your choice.
I realize you are all about pushing buttons through postings here. I am sure you made the comment about a dolt to reflect somehow on someone. You can place your ability to push buttons in a place sunshine never reaches.
You wouldn’t ever consider asking Obama anything. After all given the feelings you express here you wish you never heard of him. And yet some of us (millions and millions of us) believe he is the best thing to happen to this country in a very long time.
The law was debated, voted on and signed to bring about the change as quickly as possible for a variety of reasons none of which involved the throats of those who opposed it unless they required medical attention. Your representatives (republican, conservative or “independent”) chose not to have any input to the law that was written. The speed it was done at was to make sure the value of the law could be recognized and affirmed. I believe the re-election of President Obama was part of that affirmation process. The only mass rejection I recall from that election process involved someone named Romney. I believe the people spoke. We tried working with ‘your representatives’ during the discussions that brought this bill to law. Funny there wasn’t really any reciprocal discussions or ideas from those representatives and there still isn’t today. Again I respect that you do not agree with or like this law however it is the law.
What would you call a person who makes an unnecessary purchase solely to support a politician?
Not to support a politician but to support a law. You have no desire to make any attempt to understand that. To bad. In your fervor to diminish our President you make yourself seem nonsensical and comedic.
“The speed it (ACA) was done at was to make sure the value of the law could be recognized and affirmed.”
There you go again Speak, with more drivel and hypocrisy.
Good laws are speedily passed? Good laws require deception, bribery, and threats to become law? Good laws need to be revised quickly to overcome the faults which occurred due to the speed? Good laws must have carve-outs for special interests? Good laws must have the support of less than a majority of Americans? Good laws must over-ride the rights of individuals. Good laws must exempt, from its consequences, those who designed and passed and signed the laws? Good laws must hatch from liberal minds?
“Not to support a politician but to support a law.”
Oh…now I understand. What other purchases does your wife unnecessarily make, at greater cost, to show support for other laws she likes? Or, is this the only law she likes?
I read through the article. The panel hasn’t even convened yet, and you’re declaring it a failure.
Dean’s piece also drew strong arguments in favor of the panel from supporters like Peter Orszag.
The former White House budget director said the IPAB is necessary in light of Medicare’s transition to new payment models that are meant to lower costs while improving care.
It’s preferable to the “old way,” which saw Congress “simply slash Medicare payments” to providers, Orszag wrote in a column for Bloomberg.
“The point of having such a board — and here I can perhaps speak with some authority, as I was present at the creation — is to create a process for tweaking our evolving payment system in response to incoming data and experience, a process that is more facile and dynamic than turning to Congress for legislation,” he wrote.
It’s still not a death panel, and a handful of Democrats getting scared by Republican opponents doesn’t change that.
They called it a death panel for the same reason you use my mentioned biographical details against me: emotional impact.
I’ve mentioned my Aspergers. You use it to sort of say, “oh look, he’s a failure!”
Well, let me relate an anecdote which might enlighten you. I didn’t get the training wheels off my bike until I was eight. By the time I was eighteen, I was going on bike rides that were measured in hours, and could keep a steady pace on that bike for all that time.
You have contempt for me, because at my age, I haven’t done everything I was supposed to do at that point. Well, my life has been one long series of complex life lessons learned at a later than usual time. But once I’ve learned my lessons, once I’ve managed to get past whatever I wasn’t ready for, I do it as well, if not better than others.
What occurs to me as I read your insults, is that you simply don’t seen argument or political debate in terms of equality. You believe you are better than your opponents, and intend to demonstrate THAT every time you make a comment.
What you should know by now is that on a fundamental level, I consider myself the equal of anybody I talk with. You cannot shake me off by playing these games with my background. You are going to have to go after actual facts, and if you can’t win an argument that way, I won’t admit defeat. It would seem stupid to me to let you pull textbook ad hominem attacks, and give into that.
I’m planning on posting for years to come, and I will hold your feet to the fire. If your only arguments against me are that I’m Young/socialist liberal/living at home or whatever, what folks are going to realize is that your basic argument is not liking the other side.
I’m a pragmatist at heart. What disturbs me is how every time I try to focus things on what is being done and what the effect is, people like you turn the argument back to your paranoid fantasies about us. Worse yet, I imagine you might feel that the whole thing is an utter nightmare, and your rhetoric constantly talks about how utterly awful things must be, or how awful they’re going to get.
And I’m like “Get back on the ****ing subject!”
Every argument with the Right these days seems to be about who is worthy to lead, and no matter what the magnitude or variety of ****-ups we can attribute to them, the answer always seems to be them.
I’m real sick of that. People like me want to prove ourselves, but instead, we’re getting stonewalled by people who think they’re entitled to have that power and use it no matter how badly things turn out.
A lot of them depending on the cause involved. Again I know you cannot fathom this, the conscience thing again. I don’t expect you ever, will so let’s just say you can’t go there, K?
Good laws are the one that last like Social Security and Medicare. Your characterization of my “drivel and hypocrisy” seems to really be all about “I don’t like it, I don’t like it and oh yes I don’t like it” foot stomping and breath holding aside. Good luck with that.
I have already experienced life without so much government intrusion on our personal lives. Laws and regulations were meant to protect people, not to control people as they do today. The majority defined freedom by government letting them be, not by government giving them things, as you do. My 15 and 16 year old parents didn’t believe others were responsible for our lives or that we were entitled to anything.
The rhetoric of personal responsibility leading to anarchy is based on fear, not fact.
“For the rest of us we value our freedom that can be defined by how we treat each other and our environment and these values are expressed in laws and regulations that support that.”
The “freedom” you value is mandated and controlled by others. People treat each other as others say they should be treated. People can say only what others believe to be PC. People must save for retirement how others allow. People can only bear arms if others permit. People must purchase what others require and demand. That’s some “freedom” you got going there my friend.
Tell me, I hold my beliefs no matter who controls the government, liberal or Republican, do you?
“I have no idea how to get to the “freedom” you desire”
We had it before, we can have it again. Of course, seeing how it requires less government freebies and more personal responsibility, I don’t see it happening. I’m in it to the end though. Any means necessary.
You’re lucky though. You have a choice. There are plenty of nations with the government you desire OR you can keep fighting to transform us into one of them.
Please tell me Speak, of all the speedy things I wrote about ACA, which of them would you characterize as “foot stomping”.
I’ll make it easy and add a couple more.
Good laws are those, we are told by the leader of the party who passed them, we can’t understand until they are passed. Good laws are those, which after a couple of years are still not understood. Good laws are those which force the private sector to reduce the hours of their employees to survive.
Also, please tell me just two laws your wife supports by purchasing something that is not necessary and which will cost more than the product she already has and provide a reduced benefit for her.
SD writes; “What disturbs me is how every time I try to focus things on what is being done and what the effect is, people like you turn the argument back to your paranoid fantasies about us.”
I focused on just some things I believe are wrong with obamacare. Care to tell us which ones are paranoid?
Ducker began this blog with the headline…Unemployment Drops Again
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 600,000 Americans dropped out of the labor market during March alone. That pushed the labor force participation rate down to 63.3%, which is the lowest it has been in more than 30 years.
Speak4yourself, it appears you have a personal vendetta for Royal Flush:
In your fervor to diminish our President you make yourself seem nonsensical and comedic.
But, unlike the child Mr. Daugherty, Royal does not need for an adult to speak up for him.
Regarding nonsensical and comedic; you must be referring to Obama. He is the biggest joke going.
Stephen Daugherty; besides suffering from being a juvenile, you seem to have a real potty mouth. Although you don’t complete the words, you imply a lot of profanity with asterisks. I have often heard that only illiterate people result to using profanity.
Regarding your mental and health issues; I guess one excuse is as good as another when your a millennial living at home.
I’m real sick of that. People like me want to prove ourselves, but instead, we’re getting stonewalled by people who think they’re entitled to have that power and use it no matter how badly things turn out.
Here’s the difference Mr. Daugherty; I have mine…I earned it…with no help from the government…therefore I am entitled. On the other hand…you do not have yours…you will never have yours…it kills you that you will never have yours…and it’s all because of the socialist policies that you have supported all your life.
Let me suggest a read for you on “8 Signs You’re a Young Adult During the Obama Administration”. How many fit your situation?
Let me tell you what you face Mr. Daugherty; massive debt and climbing, a healthcare system that will crumble, Social Security being fed by your money and will not be there for you, increasing government intervention in your personal life, increased terrorist attacks on America, an out of control EPA that will tell you how many pieces of TP you may use, and a two tier country of the haves and the have-nots…the middle class will be nothing more than a memory. Take a good look at speak4yourself; he is the epitome of an Obama worshipper. He’s so in love with Obama and his socialist agenda, that he is incapable of thinking for himself. This is you Stephen Daugherty. Your all a bunch of little socialist clones.
You may be here to “hold my feet to the fire”, or you may not be. It doesn’t really matter to me. I made mine, I have been successful, and I have enough to finish out my days on earth. You Stephen, will never have what I have had and still have.
SD writes; “Well, let me relate an anecdote which might enlighten you. I didn’t get the training wheels off my bike until I was eight.”
We all hope that you get the training wheels off your political thinking by the time you are forty.
Speak4yourself referred to “the definition of insane is to keep doing the same thing over and expecting a different result”; I wonder if he is referring to the success of communist nations like Russia or N. Korea, or perhaps he is referring to the tax and spend socialist policies of the failing European countries?
You Stephen, will never have what I have had and still have.
Posted by: Political Hostage at August 8, 2013 6:45 PM
I read that and it really makes me sad Hostage. How can we get through to those who insist that government is God; that government is best at making decisions for us; that government will take care of me; that government will make sure I get mine whether I deserve it or not; that government is all about providing for our needs, rather than protecting our rights?
God Bless your parents Hostage who taught you that you, not government, control your destiny.
Royal, the real problem with Stephen Daugherty is that he thinks he is something special or entitled because he suffered a minor setback in life. Let’s try this one on for size…I never had a bike with training wheels. My bike was one my older brother had (a 20 year old used one) and with his help we made it roadworthy once again for me. Compared to my childhood, Mr. Daugherty led a life of privilege. He has no idea what the term childhood obstacles means.
Good points Royal; but what those on the left fail to understand is that government, no matter how much power you give them, will only make your life sustainable. I see the comments of Daugherty and realize he is just sustained…he will never succeed to prosperity. It requires a different mentality and he nor most liberals don’t have it. If you listen and pay close attention, you will find liberals who have understood and have been successful; but invariably they become conservative and anti-government in the process. I would imagine that most liberals who write on WB are either on welfare and food stamps, or they are working in a government/state/city union job.
Hostage and I are about the same age and have lived much history. He has had to work harder than me to achieve what he has and I admire him greatly for that. My family was lower middle class and yet I found a way to get a college education. I began working and earning money when I was twelve. In my entire life I have only received three weeks of unemployment benefits. I took jobs that I really didn’t want until something better came along. I served my country in the Army. I have paid all the taxes I owed. I have no criminal record and a very good marriage.
I believe I have been a good citizen. I cherish the freedom and liberty given to me by our founders. I was formed by loving parents who gave me much more than wealth.
I thank God every single day that I am still able to breathe the air of freedom in our great land. I go where I please, say what I wish, manage my own affairs, and fear no man.
It is for all these reasons and more that I wish to hand to the next generation all those things which gave my life meaning, purpose, and a happiness that can only come from within.
“I would imagine that most liberals who write on WB are either on welfare and food stamps, or they are working in a government/state/city union job.”
Typically insulting, gratuitous and wrong comment by a conservative commentator on this blog.
“Republican leaders led efforts to break unions?”
A comment by Rich. So I guess we know where he stands in the world of liberals on WB. LOL
Looks like PH hit the nail on the head.
You fellows seemed to have become unhinged, good luck with that.
The ACA may stand the test of time, some of us will be here to witness the success or failure, we’ll see.
The Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision is another law we both support through donations to organizations and groups that support the rights of women to make decions only they and their physicians should make. Don’t start with the baby killer nonsense, we both value life and treasure our progeny however can’t reckon that we need to determine other peoples reasoning.
You both seem to have a great need to define Stephen’s personal life, this seems uhealthy at best please seek help.
I admire your dedication to what you define as “freedom” however without being able to use a time machine to take us both back to when there was this glorius “freedom” you speak of it’s impossible to affirm.
Perhaps it is the time when a group of men polticians, farmers, wealthy land owners, businessmen, rum runners, slave traders and general criminals of the crown conspired to revolt? At that time the desicion was made that slaves were only really 3/5ths of a person for tax benefits for the owners with no other rights at all. And women were property without the right to vote or own land. Maybe it was also a time of great disease and despair due to food borne illnesses from no regulation or food or medical products.
Again I respect your ideas of “freedom” but don’t believe they ever existed or will exist anywhere but in the mind of someone who ardently believes that. And again I wish good fortune in your endeavors to find your “freedom”.
When did I make the quoted comment and what was the context? I don’t recall making that specific comment. And what does it have to do with PH’s comment, anyway? It, by the way, happens to be true in general but is irrelevant to either my comments or PH’s. I might also add that I am not a union member, don’t work for government and I am not on welfare or food stamps. The only association that I have ever had with unions was during a summer factory job during my college years. They have both good and bad points.
“So I guess we know where he stands in the world of liberals on WB. LOL”
Laugh yourself silly, DSP. If insulting comments like those of Political Hostage gets your rocks off, then you are not an individual civil enough to have a productive discourse with. Sayonara
Unhinged…perhaps; but it’s a shame more blacks don’t understand that Planned Parenthood was founded for the purpose of eliminating African Americans. Margaret Sanger, who founded the organization also supported eugenics:
Eugenics (\yü-ˈje-niks\) is the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.
On the crisp, sunny, fall Columbus Day in 1999, organizers of the “Say So” march approached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. The marchers, who were predominantly black pastors and lay persons, concluded their three-day protest at the site of two monumental cases: the school desegregation Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade (1973). The significance of each case—equal rights for all Americans in the former, and abortion “rights” in the latter—converged in the declaration of Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the march’s sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.
“’Civil rights’ doesn’t mean anything without a right to life!” declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans—black and white—are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).1
The aim of the program was to restrict—many believe exterminate—the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s crème de la crème—those prominent, well educated and well-to-do—into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.
The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: “We have become victims of genocide by our own hands,” cried Hunter at the “Say So” march.
Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purity,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.
Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th-century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race.2 He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people.3 His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:
So, Speak4yourself, let’s look beyond the killing of babies and look at the Democrat supported euthanasia through PPH of blacks due to the fact they are inferior beings. I don’t know any conservative Republicans who support this organization. Don’t you just hate it when some African Americans are not the little Democrat Lemmings, and they look beyond the liberal compassionate BS?
Please attempt to get my handle typed correctly but if you are unable to I understand you have to ignore the obvious to make your silliness seem reasonable. In fact you can refer to me however you want however please try to discern the meaning of my handle as you appear to only speak for what your fevered mind interprets as reasoning.
I asked you to not refer to my beliefs as “baby killing” but that request and the reasoning behind it seems to have been replaced by your need to affirm that you know better than a woman to make her own decisions. How noble of you but also demeaning. I have no desire to enter into your logical equations to come to your conclusion however I do wonder why those equations exist in a body that is not yours.
While I can applaud your accomplishments in life, beleieve me we all have backgrounds that have been difficult, your accomplishments are no greater or less great than any of us who strive to survive. In other words get over yourself,been there done that.
I will continue to refer to you as Speak4yourself, since you don’t speak for me or any other conservative on WB.
Evidently you missed the whole point about Margaret Sanger and PPH; black women have never been able to make their own decisions. The decisions were made by leftist Democrats who chose to annihilate a race of people through PPH.
Don’t tell me you are another liberal who has been espousing the plight of the black man, but are now telling us you had it worse? Why don’t you enlighten us?
No, my guess is you’re about Mr. Daugherty’s age, who grew up with his face 10 inches from a TV screen, watching cartoons and playing video games.
I told you, you can refer to me however you like, knucklehead.
Enlighten you? If I thought you were here to be enlightened I might take a stab at that however you are a bomb throwing troll that has no desire to be “enlightened” but merely to denigrate and belittle other posters here who may not hold your staunch beliefs.
I will turn 66 this month and in fact will collect my first Social Security benefit check next month (while I continue to work a full-time job), yay! I know,I know that makes me a taker and a leech on you but hey I know you really are out to make my life better. Thank you.
Again with this Stephen reference. Contact a therapist about your obsession, it really might help.
My wife is planning an outing to a water park with about 8 of our grandchildren tomorrow and has asked me to help her gather up swimming goggles, get materials for a picnic lunch and of course stop at an ATM for what makes it all fun. This is their last blast of summer before school starts next week and it sounds like such a much better idea of something to do, especially after our brief discussions.
I will just have to take Rich’s advice in communicating with you and bid you Adieu.
Sorry, but the facts do not support the rewritting of history you are trying to do.
The bill was debated by liberals and the few good moderate Democrats still left in the Party. It was forced through as quickly as possible because they knew the ability to pass it had a deadline that was guaranteed to expire.
Heck, even most of the extremist progressives admit that.
The law was “passed” in 2010 but you say the election of 2012, not the election of 2010, is what affirms its creation? Despite the fact that 80+% of Americans were satisfied with their previous insurance and the fact that the majority now disapprove of the ACA?
“We tried working with ‘your representatives’ during the discussions that brought this bill to law. Funny there wasn’t really any reciprocal discussions or ideas from those representatives and there still isn’t today.”
You demand discussions to begin at absolute government involvement and you won’t have anything to do with ideas that are not focused on that.
You won’t budge from your position, which is not supported by the majority, but you blame US for not working with YOU?
“Again I respect that you do not agree with or like this law however it is the law”
I take it that when the Republicans are in control they also can count on your unquestioned support for misguided and unconstitutional laws?
“I admire your dedication to what you define as “freedom”…”
Our nations founding and history validates my definition of freedom, two things that must be ignored for one to accept your definition of freedom.
“Perhaps it is the time when…”
Yes it was, but you intentionally ignore the fact that we were able to move past all those things while still keeping our basic rights and freedoms intact.
“I respect your ideas of “freedom” but don’t believe they ever existed or will exist anywhere…”
In other words, you deny history and fear a future return to the principles this nation was founded on. Sad, but it is the opinion of a small majority of Americans today. An opinion that I as an American cannot respect. I mean, seriously, being forced to do something against your will and your own best interest and calling that freedom? Really?
“I do wonder why those equations exist in a body that is not yours”
Speak, you just posted numerous posts to justify the forcing of one persons beliefs onto another, but now you are saying it is wrong?
Speak4yourself, I’m surprised you’re still so ignorant at 66 years old. So you either retired from a union or civil job.
kctim, the ACA bill was written long before it was presented to a Democrat congress. The Democrats had this cherry pick monstrosity written up a long time ago. It just required a Democrat president and controlled congress to implement. We know there was no Republican input whatsoever. It’s just like the amnesty bill; the Democrats already have a bill written; they just need RINO’s like McCain and Graham to agree with it.
The liberals just hate for conservatives to say it was rammed down the American people’s throats. But what else can you call a complete partisan bill?
I look at what you write, and honestly, I don’t see the allowance for the fact that even in more traditional times, there was a sense of something greater that you belonged to.
It seems that in the fervent opposition to communism, some have deranged things in the other direction, and one that seems to me to be equally destructive to virtue. In one direction, you are responsible for no one, you are not your brother’s keeper, and in the other direction, you have no room to make your own choices, and no bad choice on somebody else’s part carries with it the cost it should so that they learn not to do what they do.
My belief is, there’s always been a balance between freedom and laws imposed on us. The purpose of our Republic is not to relieve us of all obligations to other people, it’s to constrain those obligations so that rules only pass if they have sufficient support in the public and among their representatives. You see it as too low of a standard, yet you would have us allow a minority of people to dictate what the laws are for everybody.
You don’t think of things that way, evidently. You only think of what you consider your rights. Well, you have your rights, up to a certain point. Many are guaranteed by constitutional decree, and we need those. But others are not necessarily so sacrosanct, especially when that freedom is abuse, or when such behavior leads more often than not to bad consequences.
You’d like to think everybody’s rational everybody’s smart enough to decide everything for themselves. And if we all lived all by ourselves, maybe your point of view would make sense. But we don’t live all by ourselves, we live in communities, in societies, in cities and suburbs and nations as a whole where all the different things we do have an effect on others.
Now some would advocate some sort of absolute control as a way to make this work, but my observation would be that there’s an element of chaos, of complexity that makes in important that people make most of their decisions for themselves. There’s simply nobody who could work out all the possibilities so as to wisely make decisions for everybody else.
At the same time, there are simple things with complex consequences, places where a simple fact, like say, the fact that banks are allowed to conglomerate to such and such a market share, that have far reaching consequences. For one thing, that we couldn’t simply let them fail without taking much of our economy with them.
In other places, what’s right is obvious, but what’s profitable is often overwhelming. Even the good people that know that they shouldn’t be doing a thing can get in over their heads as the promise of whatever profit is on the other side of the risk pulls them in.
It’s not merely been supposed that people behave differently in collective than they do by themselves, it’s been shown by neuroscience, by psychological studies. People will even give the wrong answer to a question, knowing that they’re doing so, if enough other people around them agree that it is the right answer.
We need laws not so much because people are stupid, or unable to take care of themselves, but because we are not completely rational, not completely independent in our thinking. We need laws that deal with that part of our nature, that deal structurally with the consequences of the fact that we will have these manic episodes as a society where we go nuts about something, and that, in the case of individual behavior, allows us to put on the brakes and say, “whoa, I shouldn’t be doing this.”
But also, we need there to be laws in the system to punish. Why? Because when folks lie, deceive, cheat, and profit by doing so, it creates an urge on the part of others to correct this injustice. When people can get away with things, the urge to correct things builds up. If you don’t take care of it, then at some point, you will have a critical mass which will fuel change in some other direction.
And you know what? There’s nothing that says that this urge to change things has to stay rational, either. If you don’t let that steam off in the form of moderate reforms, a moderate set of rules that satisfies the majority that the serious ****-ups that occurred won’t reoccur any time soon, then when the **** hits the fan again, folks won’t be satisfied with moderate reforms. They will be more radical, less sympathetic, less commonsensical about things.
You need to realize that by forcing the will of the majority into stalemate, you’re not winning. You’re not preserving your rights, you’re undermining the goodwill that would help protect those rights. You think what we’re trying to do is socialism? Wait and see what comes the pipe when our economy collapses again, and what little trust in capitalism there was is ground into the dust.
I honestly don’t want that. I want a system that rewards work, rewards innovation, rewards good business sense, not merely one that makes investors a lot of money. There’s two different kinds of capitalism, in reality. There’s the kind that basically lets a bunch of people get very rich, and leave everybody else in squalor, and there’s the kind that lets a few people get very rich, while most everybody else enjoys the benefit of their hard work as well. The first system leaves the average person with no stake in the continuation of the capitalist system, leaving things open for the socialists and communists to step in. With the second system, people see those benefits, and therefore will defend the system.
The irony is, without FDR’s actions, without all the regulation that was put on business, that forced businesses to stop doing crap that was outraging the public, many of the people who now decry any kind of reform would not have a capitalist system to defend.
We’ve let the rich shape the laws, let them have their freedom and rights to do so, and in gratitude, they’ve run our economy into the ground. They’ve acted with shameful indifference for the damage they’ve caused on a national, generational basis, even giving themselves bonuses after all the crap their mistakes have put us through. That they used the money meant to bailout their sorry asses from their mistakes to do this only compounds the ugliness.
How attractive is capitalism when it’s current incarnation is revealed to be an unaccountable nobility of the moneyed? Do you realize that this plays into the very narrative that real socialists use to gain power?
You cannot ignore what the crowd wants forever, but you can set things responsibly so that benign behavior remains, while the behavior that sends people running for their pitchforks and torches is done away with.
I don’t feel anywhere near as pathetic as you portray me to be. For one thing, I know much of what you allege is bull. You pretend to know all about me, but really, you’re just applying a stereotype.
My dad made millions, literal millions for a man who didn’t even bother to give him healthcare until the very end. He worked on commission, so some weeks would be big, and some would have us barely getting by. His boss was not unlike you in many ways, especially in his charming habit of screaming at my father.
The guy with the quadruple bypass.
My dad couldn’t have gotten the care he needed, and I would be out there having the time of my life as a young bachelor, or perhaps even a young husband! It’s tough to consider dating and marriage when you don’t have money left, and you live at home.
And I live at home basically because before I could get my job, my dad lost his, and I had to step in, or otherwise we all would be on the street. I took responsibility. I kept on taking it, even as the financial stresses, not helped in any way by high gas prices and food prices left me raging and weeping out of the stress.
You think of me as some naïve little dip**** who hasn’t had any experience in the real world. Quite the opposite. I don’t oppose your policy positions out of some sense of lazy entitlement. I oppose them because quite frankly my interests have been seriously damaged by them. Remember, I would be a free young man if I only had to take care of myself, and that could have happened if my father had had adequate healthcare over the long run. And it would have been far easier to bear under the burden I had to bear under if Bush’s policies hadn’t kicked up energy prices, if they hadn’t sent food prices rising.
You’re wrapped up in this political philosophy that lets you think that if everybody is free to get everything they want and do anything they want to get it, then moral and practical balance will simply emerge from the system. If we need to determine who is naïve and who is not, I would say that the person who doesn’t think that dark and nasty things can emerge from society and the economy just as naturally as anything else is the naïve one. I acknowledge that sometimes we should leave the economy alone. I also acknowledge that sometimes it’s simply stupid to do so. No society works without the constraints of the rule of law, and thievery and con games do not gain any real legitimacy for being large scale and legal, as can be the case on Wall Street.
I latched onto Obama not because I felt he was some perfect God. I latched onto him because was smart and could get things done. Even if he hasn’t done everything I could hope, I think I can say that if he didn’t get quite a lot done, or couldn’t do anything, the Republicans would not be so engrossed in pointless attempts at repeal or at their strained efforts to block everything.
Put simply, you fear him precisely for the reason I supported his election! If he were just some empty suit, then you would not need to block him at every turn. If he were truly ineffectual, Obamacare would never have passed. Nor any of the other measures you so hate. You have to call us socialists, really, because if you plainly stated what your position was, without the preface of trying to oppose some great radicalism, people would realize that it is your people who are attempting to push the truly radical change, not ours. We’re simply following what the mainstream wanted in the wake of the colossal disaster which was letting the Republicans have complete control of the Government.
There is nothing I can really say to Political Hostage that will not bring scorn to me, I think. I’ve noticed something about bullies: You take their criticism to heart, do what they want, and they’ll still give you ****. In fact, they’ll often give you **** about the very thing you conceded.
My problem with them, I think is that I am eccentric enough and perseverative enough that they get a good deal of sick entertainment out of bashing me. I feel compelled to respond when somebody slanders me. I don’t like to leave lies unchallenged, especially these kinds of reflexively hateful ones.
I think this is some part of why I decided earlier in my life, despite my affection for Reagan and Bush Senior that I wasn’t going to be a Republican. I saw the same kind of behavior I hated, and directed against people and institutions and disciplines I felt didn’t deserve it. I’ve yet to see what’s truly constructive for society about how the Republicans run things. They seem to coast on the infrastructure we already built, they seem to expect that we can forever fuel our economy on the same limited resources. While they may have a point sometimes where government doesn’t need to be, or where we can shrink it back, they seem to have the world’s poorest judgment when it comes to what they roll back. Invariably, something ****s up again. I’ve seen this happen since I was a kid.
For me, the structure of government’s proper reach isn’t a straight line, but a fractal. Going in in some places, curving back out in others. Nothing absolute, and some things are just allowed to emerge. But that requires that people exercise judgment, and that seems to be something people are phobic about nowadays. They try to essentialize things down to infallible laws of nature, but the fact is, in some cases there’s just nothing to essentialize down to. There’s no requirement that a tax cut be rewarded with greater spending from the rich, much less the revenue that comes from that. There’s no requirement that when you stay in and show you’re not going anywhere that the insurgency has to feel intimidated. There’s no requirement that an industry that can police itself will invariably do so when push comes to shove.
Yet these things are desperately held onto as truisms, as axiomatic statements that can be built into a whole, infallible philosophies. So what happens when you treat a philosophy as infallible that isn’t?
I can’t ignore all that I would have to ignore to agree with Political Hostage, or many of the Republicans. Real life observed seems to indicate that when given the choice to spend more, having been taxed less, they tend to spend just what they spent before. It indicates that job don’t proliferate, even if the inequality in incomes increases.
The brokerages and hedge funds and all those banks don’t seem to observe self-imposed limitations on their behavior. They seem quite willing to screw customers to get rich, and use derivatives to avoid facing the market based music. How can the market be the infallible, sole means of policing somebody, when somebody can use financial instruments to distort the incentives and disincentives of the market?
I can’t ignore these things.
Most conservatives don’t have trouble with FDR. His reforms were are appropriate for the 1930s. Most did not really work, but his experimentation was useful and those that did survive the 1930s were useful in subsequent decades. Of course, many no longer apply, but that is natural.
Ronald Reagan was a New Deal Democrat. He pointed out that the party left him. My problem with Democrats starts in the 1960s. That is when things went off the tracks.
I love to read biographies of great Americans. I currently (I never read anything one at a time) am reading “JFK’s Last 100 Days” and “Rendezvous with Destiny” about FDR. But after 1970, much of the Democratic ideas soured into identity politics and griping. It is not a surprise that the only decent Democratic leader since 1970 was Bill Clinton, who - at least as president - was a “new” Democrat, who famously (unfortunately erroneously) told us that the era of big government was over.
Re Obama - I think there is a real disagreement about what government should or can do. Obama folks want government to bother (your would say guide) people much more. I don’t think government SHOULD do that, but more importantly I don’t think it CAN as a practical matter.
ObamaCare will collapse on its own. Nobody really needs to defund it. But the collapse will be painful. We should never have even tried such a comprehensive approach. It was several steps too far. Now that people have a chance to read the things and see how it works, they like it even less. Even Obama himself admits by his actions, if not his words, that many of the big provisions cannot work.
If it would really collapse on its own, why do Republicans make such a big deal out of trying to push it over?
I’ll tell you what the real problem is: Conservatives would like to believe that their paradigm is a basic ground state, an ideal towards which things would naturally fall if left to themselves. People would just love Conservatism if the liberal media didn’t get in the way, they way. Everything would work out and not screw up, if they could remake government entirely.
But conservatism is not that well liked, or well regarded, in reality. Folks have not been impressed with its performance, and regardless of what you think, they likely believe its been given a fair chance to work, and just hasn’t. You or others in your party might not be able to conceive that your policies are mistaken, but there are plenty of people out there who can and do see them that way, and you can’t just wave a wand and get rid of them.
Worse yet, the alternatives to waving that wand, especially the ones being used in the aftermath of the Citizens United decision and the decision that hamstrung the Voting Rights Act, are only serving to further alienate people, and to help elect those who will only become more radical, more obnoxious to those beyond the party.
In short? You’re setting the conditions for a decline, even if the immediate effect might stall it.
The Republicans are not acting like it will fail on its own. They are deliberately sabotaging the expansion of Medicaid, deliberately attacking it on a constitutional level, deliberately sending the message that they will not simply let it die, that they’ll kill it first. They’re even telling people eligible for it not to sign up.
Norm Ornstein wrote a column about it, basically saying that this behavior is contemptible.
The Republicans are undermining their own proclaimed skepticism by making it clear that they are desperate and intent on MAKING it a failure, rather than simply letting it be a failure. It seems to be the pattern of things among the Republicans these days. Say how policy will fail on its own, then work through various means and various levels of government to undermine the ability of that policy to function as intended.
It’s a con game, to put it gently. And it brings up a problem for you and yours: are Republicans demonstrating the failing of big government, or are they demonstrating the price, the consequence of electing Republicans who have a conflict of interest with actually letting this nation’s government work well for it?
It will collapse by itself AND be very costly. We are all on that sinking ship, unfortunately. What makes a majority of Americans angry about ObamaCare is exactly that.
Re people loving conservatism. - let me be clear about “conservatism”. I am thinking of the idea of the smaller state that gives people the freedom to make choices. This will NEVER be popular. Unfortunately, most people really cannot handle that truth. They like to blame others for their problems and avoid the consequences of their choices.
Liberals have a distinct advantage in being able to play to human weakness. You really don’t believe your failures are the result of your choices, do you? Well, a liberal will support that belief and blame others. It works. Few people feel they get all they deserve, even though many probably get more.
The dynamic is that liberal policies are more popular but conservatives have the advantage of a system that works. We have to go through the back and forth of this. Countries like our, that is mostly conservative in practice, do well compared to those like Argentina or the old Soviet Union that believe in other systems.
Re the voting rights act - we can - and I am sure Holder will - go after cases of actual discrimination. The Court has simply decided that we cannot still make decisions based on conditions of 1965.
Racism has diminished greatly. Blacks are no longer held back by current racism, although many are held back by attitudes acquired during those racist times of the past. It is no coincidence that immigrant blacks, with very dark skins but w/o that baggage, are actually more successful than native whites.
Out best strategy is to stop pretending that the problems of the black community are based in racism. Of course, liberal won’t give up on that idea. They like to keep large parts of the community angry and voting Democratic.
What pretending? We can show you disparate outcomes. Racism didn’t just vanish. A month doesn’t go by when some Conservative figure doesn’t make a comment that could reasonably be interpreted as bigoted.
I think anybody who looks at this economy and thinks most of the people on unemployment are just laggards lazing about is getting too full of themselves. Our economy got knocked down a notch, and for most people it’s an ordeal having to suffer through all that, having to both look for work and keep the family supported despite all that’s gone wrong.
The conservative system FAILED. Wall Street did not police itself. You float the GSE canard in order to shift blame back onto government, but in the end, the Wall Street banks actively pursued this, even when the financial divisions they had doing the work had nothing to do with the GSEs, even where they didn’t have to follow the restrictions of the CRA. You float the canards to avoid having to change a set of policy platforms you’ve deemed infallibly true.
But nobody else is fooled. Nobody else is all that sympathetic. They know that the crisis didn’t just happen. They know they were lied to. They know it wasn’t a mass wave of laziness that killed eight million jobs in the course of a year and a half.
At best, you have confounded people’s hopes that something can done about it, and left them resigned to a system like that. But you know what? Folks won’t stay resigned if the next big financial crisis hits, and nothing has been done yet.
Democrats aren’t keeping people angry and voting Democratic. Republicans are. They’re continuing to show their contempt for anybody who calls them on what they did wrong, on what they got wrong. They’re continuing to alienate minorities and women, reasoning that it won’t hurt their current Demographics too much to put extra weight on the classic conservative positions.
But the world has moved on. You’re stalling. You’re in stalemate, and think that this is some sort of recovery. You’re wrong. You hit your high-water mark. If you don’t change soon, you won’t get the opportunity to change before my people get the competitive advantage.
Racism indeed did not vanish. My family and I have been victims of violent racism.
But racism is no longer a determining factor in success.
Your comment “A month doesn’t go by when some Conservative figure doesn’t make a comment that could reasonably be interpreted as bigoted.” makes this clear. Who the heck really cares about “bigoted comments.” We make a Federal case of them, and it really doesn’t matter,because we left the real racism back in 1965.
Re “the conservative system failed” - what do you think the “conservative system” is?
Wall Street was and is heavily regulated. In fact, some of those regulations are what allowed crooks to prosper. After the crash, when Democrats controlled all parts of government, did we see lots of them punished?
You may also recall that Wall Street contributed more to Obama than McCain in 2008 and 62% of Wall Street’s donations went to Democrats in 2010 AFTER the reforms. So looks like Wall Street might not be all that conservative.
Established business and finance types often like the type of state or crony capitalism advocated by liberals. Liberal policies protect the industries of the past. I am more concerned with the future.
Re classic conservative positions - I believe in freedom, equal rights, individual initiative and personal responsibility. If demography turns against those things, I am sad and despair for my country. And if significant groups of people show such poor judgement, I hope they see the truth before it is too late.
It is true that freedom from overriding state control is a recent development and still is not true in most of the world. We like to think that free market democracy is the way of the future. Maybe it is not. Maybe we will become more like the Chinese or the Russians instead of them becoming more like us. I hope not, but freedom is never really secure. As the old saying goes, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
“Most conservatives don’t have trouble with FDR. His reforms were are appropriate for the 1930s.”
Maybe today, but not in the 1930s. He was loathed by conservatives during his time.
A quote by FDR that is applicable today: A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio address, Oct. 26, 1939
Conservative and liberal are terms with changing and interacting definitions. Conservatives are not the same as they were in the 1930s and neither are liberals
The classic case in Ronald Reagan. As I quoted above and elsewhere, Reagan was a New Deal Democrat who was out of place in the party by the 1960s.
It is unlikely that any solution that worked well in the 1930s would work equally well today. Things have changed.
One of the things that changed most was American society. The New Deal created a new middle class, which essentially make much of the New Deal obsolete.
Re quoting FDR - I can do that to great effect and have. I can also easily quote JFK and Martin Luther King. They all said and advocated things we would think conservative today. FDR opposed much of welfare and was against unions for government workers. JFK told us to ask not what our country can do for us. MLK looked forward to a world where we would judge by character, not skin, i.e. no affirmative action.
We can all revere and dislike past figures. They have become the common heritage of Americans. We should learn from the past and be respectful of their solutions, but we have to look forward to the future.
I love history more than most people and I think the study is valuable. But nobody can ever “catch” me by claiming a historical imperative. I go with Emerson. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines….Speak what you think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you say today.”
Or maybe I can say that when conditions change, I change my mind.
I’m certain your son did not deserve to get beat up for any reason, especially if he was targeted on account of his race. But what conclusion, exactly, are you trying to draw, because racism on the part of some blacks doesn’t equal the lack of such against blacks in general.
I think you’re trying to react against claims of racism in the modern day from blacks on a political level, and all you can think about are the Al Sharptons and the Jesse Jacksons, and other such provocative people. You think of it as a race card played to gain sympathy.
Yet you turn around essentially give your seal of approval to people pulling over black and hispanics for statistical, rather than Fourth Amendment valid reasons- that is, the actual probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Even if your intentions are not racist, what you’re supporting is on a fundamental level. Individuals are not judged by their deeds, but instead by an overall racial reputation.
If you wonder why I am nowhere as eager to right the wrongs of racism against whites as you may be, my argument would simply boil down to this: we have the power in this country. If you look at Congress, if you look at every president up to the current one, you’ll see a sea of white faces, out of all proportion to our population numbers.
Did this just happen? No. It’s not random chance. It’s the legacy of history.
Speaking of which, what gives you the idea racism just up and died in 1965? You look through the history of what went on in that era, and you’ll realize that while we had these new laws on the books, enforcing them was a different matter, and people taking them to heart was a different matter. There are plenty of people who were born and grew up in a generation that experienced the last days of Jim Crow personally.
And quite a few of those people think it was a mistake to depart from that, or they feel that doubt about black people that was at the center of it, simply because that’s the way they were brought up. I mean, quick, how are black people most often spoken of in Conservative circles?
Laziness? The willingness to sit around on the government dime? How much do we talk about Welfare, despite the fact that your average black male can no longer get that kind of government help, despite the fact that Women on Welfare have to have kids and have to get a job, more or less? I mean, when you see conservatives putting out e-mails with watermelon patches in front of the White House, or photoshopped pictures of the President as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, you get the idea that some people just don’t have a very bright view of black people.
But you want to believe it all went away in 1965.
Real racism isn’t just official discrimination. It’s any generalization made on the basis of a person’s race about their character. Now we can’t reach into people’s hearts and change them, but we certain can counteract hiring biases, voter suppression, and other injustices. After all, that’s the point of the laws you reference when you talk about everything changing in 1965, the laws many conservatives have said they would gut on “constitutional” grounds
As for what you think of FDR. It’s irrelevant, really. You’d say that, but you continue to fail to acknowledge, perhaps out of fear of what it would mean, that your party’s not merely drifted but surged way to your right. They call FDR and what he did communist. You talk about how all these liberals of the past would be so disappointed in us, but my impression is, on policies alone, you’d be knocking them every step of the way. I know what these people made law. I know what their positions were, and how they compare to now. You can like these people because they’re safely dead, and you can argue that perhaps they were good once upon a time, but now they’re obsolete.
But in my lifetime, I’ve seen little evidence that many of these deregulation efforts have truly struck at obsolete measures. I see the same behavior that cause the new deal legislation in the first place, the overleveraged, bubble-inducing speculation, occurring where ever we give it the chance to pop up. Now we can either pretend we’ve outgrown it, and endure another giant speculative crash, perhaps one that will kill our economic growth for good, or perhaps we can admit that there’s an irrational side to humanity that must be constrained with law, with containment measures, by simply not allowing our most important financial institutions to be so vertically and horizontally integrated.
I have no problem with letting businesses fail on their merits, including major banks. But I do not assume that secondary and tertiary consequences do not follow when the banks are large enough. In fact, I would say that Murphy’s law applies: anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.
Speculative rises and falls are a normal part of the economy. The question is, how big do the bubbles get, and how many institutions, and how much of our economy pays the price when they burst? If we keep the disasters relatively small, we can let the lessons be learned the hard way. But if what you go for instead is a system, as the Republicans set up through legislation, where each of the biggest bank has an overwhelming percentage of our economy in its hands, and each bank is overleveraged, with all kinds of exotic and difficult to understand investments in each other, then not only will the crashes happen as they always do, but each time they happen, it will be a fundamental threat to our economy.
How many times does this have to happen before we learn our lesson? And how many lessons do you think a relatively libertarian free market can endure before people remember that once upon a time, it, too was considered obsolete, and deservedly so?
As far as these parts where you say that a certain practice is outmoded, why is it that you never bother to prove why it’s outmoded? Are you simply assuming each time that whatever law or regulation the corporations want off the books, that it’s simply outdated? One of the reasons we got into the mess we did in the first place was a so called financial modernization act. Their modernization, it seems, consisted of letting derivatives remain a black box. Even if what you claim about the reasons for the crash are true, much of that crash still would have been much less likely if somebody had regulated derivatives so that the exchanges were public, and investors knew what the liabilities were. Those instruments were used to distort the market, and if they couldn’t have been used in that fashion, the distortion you claim came from government, and which I claim came from the behavior of the private parties themselves, would have been more obvious to the investors in those companies. This bubble grew to the size it did in no small part because so many were kept in the dark for so long. The market cannot correct in due time and with safe effect for the general economy what it does not know until the last minute.
This bubble grew to the size it did in no small part because so many were kept in the dark for so long. The market cannot correct in due time and with safe effect for the general economy what it does not know until the last minute.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 12, 2013 8:43 AM
I would point out that this is the very same reason Conservatives wish to kill obamacare.
Precisely what are you saying is being kept in the dark?
Easy question. The full ramifications of obamacare. We find new provisions every day it seems that no one knew about. Now we find obama trying to change the law all by his lonesome.
It is an abomination.
“Now we find obama trying to change the law all by his lonesome.”
OK, I will bite, Royal. What is he doing to change the law by himself?
Ask a friend to google that for you Rich.
Re racism - I am simply saying that racism still exists but it is no longer a determining factor.
I use my son’s example because it still makes me mad, but also to show the absurdity of blaming whole races. My son was attacked by five bad black thugs. It does not say much about the whole black community. The same goes when a black is attacked by whites, but people like you want to make it so. Blacks attack whites more than whites attack blacks, BTW.
I also believe if six or more white guys went on a hunting expedition against random black kids, it would be national news. In my son’s case, it was hardly reported. In fact, we were told NOT to make too much of it for fear that racists like Sharpton would get involved and blame the victim.
Re “essentially give your seal of approval to people pulling over black and hispanics for statistical, rather than Fourth Amendment valid reasons” - This is not what I am saying and it is not what is happening. In fact, you have it exactly backwards.
Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to commit crimes than Whites or Asians. It is a behavior. If you target that behavior, you are more likely to catch the people more likely to do it. If we came out with anything else, there would clearly be bias at work.
Re the legacy or racism, it is contained in attitudes like those of poor blacks and yours. It is the soft bigotry of low expectations. People like you expect less of blacks and many of them expect less of themselves and it becomes self fulfilling.
Immigrant blacks, who are physically MORE African than American born blacks, are more successful than native blacks or even native whites. If racism were the issue, these guys would be worse off.
Re “There are plenty of people who were born and grew up in a generation that experienced the last days of Jim Crow personally” - Very few people who experienced Jim Crow as adults are still in the labor force. 50 years is a long time. The legacy is best fought by not being racist today.
Re liberalism being outmoded - the world is much more complex. Back in the 1930s, most labor was unskilled. Hundreds of men worked in repetitive factory jobs. Industry was simple and there were big dominant firms, most of which no longer exist in anything like that form.
There was also real poverty that was simply, if not easily addressed. Government can work in situations like this. Today, poverty is behavior based. It is harder to change behaviors than to build roads or bring electricity.
I am not the only one who understands this. Even many Democratic leaders know that we need to rely on incentives and non-government initiative. Many of Obama’s regulators and managers work on this basis. Read Cass Sunstein’s book, “Simpler” and tell me what you think. They just have to talk the old way to appease people like you. But this has a cost.
“Ask a friend to google that for you Rich.”
Sorry you have no friends Rich. Or is it that you won’t like the results?
You have consistently spoken about Obamacare in negative generalizations without being in any way specific.
One of the most recent allegations was that Obama was exempting Congress and its staff from the ACA. It was false.
Congress and their staff will purchase individual insurance on the new state based health exchanges created under the ACA in 2014 as required by the law. They will no longer be covered under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHB). The issue had to do with whether the government would continue contributing to the cost of their health insurance at the same level as currently. The so called “exemption” was to clarify that Congress and their staff would continue to receive the level of subsidy that all federal employees receive but they would purchase on the individual exchanges.
Rich bloviates on how the ACA affects members of congress and other Federal Employees but fails to tell all the story.
” Harry Reid revised the Grassley amendment when he rammed through his infamous ObamaCare bill that no one had read for a vote on Christmas eve. But he neglected to include language about what would happen to the premium contributions that the government makes for its employees. Whether it was intentional or not, the fairest reading of the statute as written is that if Democrats thought somebody earning $174,000 didn’t deserve an exchange subsidy, then this person doesn’t get a subsidy merely because he happens to work in Congress.
But the statute means that about 11,000 Members and Congressional staff will lose the generous coverage they now have as part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Instead they will get the lower-quality, low-choice “Medicaid Plus” of the exchanges. The Members—annual salary: $174,000—and their better paid aides also wouldn’t qualify for ObamaCare subsidies. That means they could be exposed to thousands of dollars a year in out-of-pocket insurance costs.
The result was a full wig out on Capitol Hill, with Members of both parties fretting about “brain drain” as staff face higher health-care costs. Democrats in particular begged the White House for help, claiming the Reid language was merely an unintentional mistake. President Obama told Democrats in a closed-door meeting last week that he would personally moonlight as HR manager and resolve the issue.
And now the White House is suspending the law to create a double standard. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that runs federal benefits will release regulatory details this week, but leaks to the press suggest that Congress will receive extra payments based on the FEHBP defined-contribution formula, which covers about 75% of the cost of the average insurance plan. For 2013, that’s about $4,900 for individuals and $10,000 for families.
How OPM will pull this off is worth watching. Is OPM simply going to cut checks, akin to “cashing out” fringe benefits and increasing wages? Or will OPM cover 75% of the cost of the ObamaCare plan the worker chooses—which could well be costlier than what the feds now contribute via current FEHBP plans? In any case the carve-out for Congress creates a two-tier exchange system, one for the great unwashed and another for the politically connected.
This latest White House night at the improv is also illegal. OPM has no authority to pay for insurance plans that lack FEHBP contracts, nor does the Affordable Care Act permit either exchange contributions or a unilateral bump in congressional pay in return for less overall compensation. Those things require appropriations bills passed by Congress and signed by the President.
But the White House rejected a legislative fix because Republicans might insist on other changes, and Mr. Obama feared that Democrats would go along because they’re looking out for number one. So the White House is once again rewriting the law unilaterally, much as it did by suspending ObamaCare’s employer mandate for a year. For this White House, the law it wrote is a mere suggestion.
The lesson for Americans is that Democrats who passed ObamaCare didn’t even understand what they were doing to themselves, much less to everyone else. But you can bet Democrats will never extend to ordinary Americans the same fixes that they are now claiming for themselves. The real class divide in President Obama’s America is between the political class and everyone else. “
C&J posted an article on this issue about a week ago. After he fully read the Politico article that started the rumor that Obama and/or Congress were attempting to exempt themselves, he withdrew his post realizing that the Politico article’s headline and secondary reports were very misleading. Nobody was attempting to exempt Congress from participation on the exchanges or the ACA law. The issue was simply how to continue to provide the same employer contribution that all other federal employees receive.
Lets also remember that it was a Republican that introduced the amendment in the first place to embarrass the Democrats but they included it anyway.
You might also want to read what a conservative critic had to say about the Grassley amendment. He approves because it is fully in line with conservative think tanks that want to do away with employer group insurance as I have tried to tell you. Do you approve of this approach? It would involve taking away incentives for employer group insurance and replacing it with a much larger type of Obamacare. The theory is that employers would pass along their health insurance benefit savings to employees in the form of higher wages allowing them to purchase in the individual market. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-25/what-s-so-bad-about-grassley-s-obamacare-amendment-.html
Rich - “The issue was simply how to continue to provide the same employer contribution that all other federal employees receive.”
OPM has no authority to pay for insurance plans that lack FEHBP contracts, nor does the Affordable Care Act permit either exchange contributions or a unilateral bump in congressional pay in return for less overall compensation. Those things require appropriations bills passed by Congress and signed by the President.
Reid neglected to include language about what would happen to the premium contributions that the government makes for its employees. Shame on him according to the libs, and place the blame on Grassley…but it became law and must be amended by congress, not some regulatory agency. Rich doesn’t agree that only lawmakers can make or change laws. Well, that’s OK, we all know how he views our Constitution.
And it seems, obama views law-breaking as his prerogative. Just a perk of office.
Apparently Rich didn’t read all the way through the linked article he provided.
“The regime the Grassley amendment imposes on Congress is the one that we ought to be imposing on every employer. The tax subsidy for employer-provided health insurance is hugely inefficient; it encourages over consumption of health care and provides a benefit that becomes more valuable as an employee’s income rises — so the biggest subsidies go to the people who need them least.”
Y’all should read the entire link because it really gives good answers.
Sorry Rich…you probably though I wouldn’t bother reading it just as you didn’t.
Of course, I read it, Royal. But, the Grassley amendment was clearly not intended to deprive Congress or its staffers health insurance contributions as provided to all other federal employees. Nobody disagrees with that assessment.
The writer of the article I linked to would like the Grassley amendment to be interpreted as prohibiting any contribution from the employer (Federal government). This is a good thing from a libertarian or conservative perspective. It would be ideal, in his opinion, in starting the ball rolling on eliminating employer group insurance generally which is highly subsidized by the federal government through the tax code. His point is that the exchanges provide the pooling benefits of the large group employer insurance without the economic drag on businesses, eliminates a huge tax expenditure on the part of the federal government and eliminates what is essentially a regressive tax structure favoring the rich and the health care industry.
You have carefully avoided comment on this issue. I have brought it up a number of times. Do you think it desirable to eliminate employer group insurance by eliminating or reducing the federal tax subsidies and incentives for such?
PRINCETON, NJ — Despite President Barack Obama’s renewed focus on the nation’s economy this summer, he scores worse with Americans on the economy than he did in June. His approval rating on the issue, now 35%, is down seven percentage points, and his ratings on taxes and the federal budget deficit are each down five points. During the same period, his overall approval rating is down three points.
What is interesting is a 3 point drop in overall approval to 44%, and Obama’s approval on healthcare and immigration is only 39%. We are seeing a trend here. It’s not getting any better and how will the American voters react next year.