Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, June 02, 2014

OTP - June 2014: Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

The war has killed at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and may have contributed to the deaths of as many as four times that number, according to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

When security forces, insurgents, journalists and humanitarian workers were included, the war’s death toll rose to an estimated 176,000 to 189,000, the study said.

Bitter Mouse Posted: June 02, 2014 at 07:48 AM | 4613 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, politics, stupid ideas

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 14 of 47 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›
   1301. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 01:26 PM (#4721905)
It always cracks me up when conservatives go bonkers when they see liberals making a lot of money and using that money to further their political causes. It's like they think the rules should only work for them.


Not sure what your point is. The Clintons haven't paid a dime more in taxes than they were obligated to. And they're "using that money" in a further power grab, i.e., Hillary's run to the presidency. Of course, campaign contributions help there too.

They fulminate about George Soros constantly.


I've never said a word about George Soros.

Contrast that with the number of times Andy whines about the Koch Brothers.
   1302. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 01:29 PM (#4721907)
This is a slippery assertion, and likely not true without some arguable definitions of "very wealthy" and "support".

Here's some indication.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/11/05/why-the-wealthy-voted-for-obama/

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/10/the-top-1-probably-voted-disproportionally-for-obama/

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/10/13/the-rich-support-mccain-the-super-rich-support-obama/

Republican support peaks between $100K and $200K income. Obama won the >$200K vote in 2008.

Strangely, none of the polling from 2012 includes any income break over $100K. i.e. $100K+ is the highest bracket surveyed, where 2008 had $200K+ as a category.
   1303. GregD Posted: June 09, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4721908)
More very wealthy people support the Democrats than the Republicans these days.
While it is difficult to isolate the very, very wealthy, every group that can be isolated shows the wealthiest definable groups supporting Republicans by large margins.

In 2012, the biggest donations to explicitly political groups came from:
Sheldon Adelson
Harold Simmons
Peter Thiel
Robert Rowling
--FIRST DEMOCRATIC DONOR J K simons
William Koch (the forgotten Koch!)
Jerrold Perenchio
Harlan Crowe
Paul Singer
--SECOND DEMOCRATIC DONOR Irwin Jacobs
Ken Griffin
--THIRD DEMOCRATIC DONOR Jon Stryker
Joe Craft


This doesn't include the R-backers who gave to unaffiliated PACs, notably the Kochs.

I wonder which party is more likely to support that?

Neither.
Well you have one party that has campaigned to raise capital gains and that forced through an increase in capital gains taking effect in 2013 and occasionally fragments on the issue with a majority favoring capital gains increases and some high-profile easterners (looking at you Chuck Schumer) undercutting them. On the other side, you have a party adamantly committed to blocking any gain.

And your claim is that these two positions are equivalent? That's absurd.


   1304. tshipman Posted: June 09, 2014 at 01:34 PM (#4721909)
And I'm also with raising capital gains rates.

I wonder which party is more likely to support that?

Neither

One party has actually raised Capital Gains. In the last few years no less!
   1305. Publius Publicola Posted: June 09, 2014 at 01:35 PM (#4721910)
Contrast that with the number of times Andy whines about the Koch Brothers.


The Kochs are underwriting a destructive, anti-science misinformation campaign about the effect of greenhouse gases on global climate. That's a differenrt story.
   1306. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 09, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4721913)
I'm waiting for Ray's reaction when Hillary uses the money she earned as author and speaker to fund a successful presidential campaign, then changes the tax code to 50% for the highest 1%, wiping out the budget deficit and funding expansions in healthcare, education, job training and unemployment benefits.

I think we'll all faint if that ever happens, though for quite different reasons.

------------------------------------------------------

Contrast that with the number of times Andy whines about the Koch Brothers.

My main complaint about modern campaign financing is the allowed anonymity, not the amount of money spent. Shine a little light under those rocks and let the snakes stand up and identify themselves. Even the Roberts court has said it would have no objection to mandated disclosure laws.
   1307. GregD Posted: June 09, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4721921)
Republican support peaks between $100K and $200K income. Obama won the >$200K vote in 2008.

Strangely, none of the polling from 2012 includes any income break over $100K. i.e. $100K+ is the highest bracket surveyed, where 2008 had $200K+ as a category.
The gap in the 2012 data is interesting. Anecdotally, I knew plenty of finance people who voted for Obama not because he was promising to bring them milk and honey but because they were spooked by McCain's inability to respond to basic questions about economics in his NYC donor meetings. He mistook a question for growth for one about inflation and then could not process the followups that meant to be helpful.

Anecdotally, almost none of those people that I know of through first or second-hand knowledge supported Obama in 2012.

But more broadly, you have said the 200k to 1 mill bracket is basically not what you're after.

If there's evidence that Obama ran better than Romney among the truly rich, wouldn't there be evidence of this in big donations? If the big donors are lined heavily on the Romney side, doesn't that suggest that you're wishcasting with your claims about the Rich-Obama alliance?
   1308. Publius Publicola Posted: June 09, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4721928)
Republican support peaks between $100K and $200K income. Obama won the >$200K vote in 2008.


My guess is the very rich were really, really unhappy in 2008 with the way the Republicans were running the economy after they saw what happened to their portfolios after the market crashed.
   1309. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 09, 2014 at 01:59 PM (#4721930)
The Clintons went on to earn an astonishing $109 million between 2000 and 2007, according to disclosure reports.

For doing basically nothing. You want to know why we have a 1% and massive inequality?

Right there's your answer.
   1310. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:00 PM (#4721934)
If there's evidence that Obama ran better than Romney among the truly rich, wouldn't there be evidence of this in big donations? If the big donors are lined heavily on the Romney side, doesn't that suggest that you're wishcasting with your claims about the Rich-Obama alliance?

I'd go with the explanation that the deserving rich** vote Democratic, while the psychopathic rich instinctively identify with the Republican agenda. (/ducks)

**wording not coincidental
   1311. Publius Publicola Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4721935)
What would be your answer, Bear? It looks suspiciously like you're going to go all Trotskyite on us here.
   1312. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:04 PM (#4721940)
For doing basically nothing.


Bill and Hill were paid a mere pittance relative to the enormous responsibility their federal jobs entailed. I have no problem with them ( or any other ex-senior federal officer ) monetizing their experience and making out like bandits in "retirement."
   1313. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4721942)
The Clintons went on to earn an astonishing $109 million between 2000 and 2007, according to disclosure reports.

For doing basically nothing. You want to know why we have a 1% and massive inequality?

Right there's your answer.


Really? What percentage of eight figure income earners (per year) are made up of people whose income sources are heavily weighted with book royalties and lecture fees? Do you really think this narrow category forms the heart of the problem of inequality?

And what's the solution? Raise their taxes? I doubt if the resistance to that around here would be found among us modern liberals.
   1314. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4721944)
What would be your answer, Bear? It looks suspiciously like you're going to go all Trotskyite on us here.


He's already told us, IIRC, that he voted for the Socialist candidate the last two presidential elections.
   1315. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4721952)
Apparently, the Varmint Caucus isn't representative of all Democrats - When Democrats Quit On Obama:
The email hit my in-box at 9:41 p.m. last Wednesday. From one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, a close adviser to the White House, the missive amounted to an electronic eye roll. "Even I have had enough." Another Democrat had quit on President Obama.

The tipping point for this person was the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl case—not the soldier-for-Taliban swap itself as much as how the White House mishandled its obligation to communicate effectively and honestly to Congress and the public. More than that, Obama's team had failed once again to acknowledge its mistakes, preferring to cast blame and seek cover behind talking points.
. . .
To this senior Democrat, the Politico story showed the White House to be both tone-deaf and arrogant, two vices that are undermining what could have been a great presidency. I share this email to make the broader point and to offer a disclosure: In the 18 months since I began writing columns focused on the presidency, virtually every post critical of Obama has originated from conversations with Democrats. Members of Congress, consultants, pollsters, lobbyists, and executives at think tanks, these Democrats are my Obama-whispers. They respect and admire Obama but believe that his presidency has been damaged by his shortcomings as a leader; his inattention to details of governing; his disengagement from the political process and from the public; his unwillingness to learn on the job; and his failure to surround himself with top-shelf advisers who are willing to challenge their boss as well as their own preconceived notions.

"Dem Party is F****d," wrote a Democratic consultant with strong ties to the White House and Capitol Hill during the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act website.

A Democratic House member whose endorsement in 2008 helped lift the Obama candidacy told me in January, "He's bored and tired of being president, and our party is paying the price."

"Talented guy but no leader," said a Democratic lobbyist and former member of Congress in March. "If he could govern half as well as he campaigns, he'd be a good-to-great president."

Questioning why the Veterans Affairs Department hadn't been overhauled months ago as promised by Obama, a senior White House official conceded privately to me, "We don't do the small stuff well. And the small stuff is the important stuff." [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing. Some stuff can't be hand-waved away.
   1316. Publius Publicola Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4721956)
Some stuff can't be hand-waved away.


Waht about that Hillary poll I posted above, Clapper? Can that be hand-waved away?
   1317. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4721958)
1257:
...the system that socialists blah blah blah...

Drink?


Why did you cut that off there? I said socialists "like Sanders." And he is one. Of that there is no doubt.


Indeed, but talking about the government being manipulated by "socialists like Bernie Sanders" is like talking about the effect of "SNL writers like Al Franken" or "POWs like John McCain." You know, all those guys.
   1318. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4721960)
And what's the solution? Raise their taxes?


I'd settle for them shutting the F up about "the cancer of inequality" and stop trying to raise the taxes of people with far less money than them.

If there is a "problem" with inequality, Andy, they are a part of it. I certainly am not. If only.
   1319. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4721961)
Bill and Hill were paid a mere pittance relative to the enormous responsibility their federal jobs entailed.


Maybe Bill had "responsibility" as President but it's a stretch to claim that Hillary has been doing anything important. And it's rich to see an argument that Hillary had "enormous responsibility" given that as we've seen with Benghazi, she apparently had "responsibility" for nothing.

Also, they were living quite well sucking off the taxpayer teat all of these years, including all the perks it came with.
   1320. Publius Publicola Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4721962)
I'd settle for them shutting the F up about "the cancer of inequality


The American Association for the Advancement of Science disagrees.

   1321. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4721964)
People monetize physical characteristics every day.

Sure, but they have no moral right to. Society could justly tax away all income based on the luck of the genetic draw -- all Shaq's earnings from being 7-1, all Kate Upton's earnings from being hot, etc.
   1322. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4721966)
Read the whole thing. Some stuff can't be hand-waved away.

I agree with the thrust of what Fournier's saying, and there's little excuse for it. Screwing up the small stuff can lead to the big stuff being screwed up.

Oh, and here's another Fournier post that was made just a few weeks ago, in the context of another column blasting Paul Krugman. Here's how he responded to the criticism he knew was coming:

I can hear the blowback already: "False Equivalence!" Well, no; I'm not arguing that GOP skewing is equal to the Democratic skewing. That would be stupid. But what makes even less sense is thinking that the Democratic Party will thrive in the years ahead by lying and spinning a bit less than the GOP. There is no pride in being the least-worst party.


What's your take on that, YC?
   1323. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4721968)
I also find it strange that someone who writes incessantly about the decline of community over the past 50 years would be so opposed to the idea of subsidizing the premiums of those in need of it. Or does your concept of community only apply to nuclear families and neighborhood parishes, and disappear whenever you see the "socialist" boogeyman in your crosshairs?

Sharing money through the mechanism of government doesn't create a "community." It's bizarre that you think it would.
   1324. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4721973)
all Kate Upton's earnings from being hot, etc.


Except she's not all that hot, really. She doesn't have the proper waist-hip ratio. Her waist-hip ratio is too close to 1:1, which makes her have the shape of a 2 x 6 board when viewed from the front, which -- however pretty or hot she may be relative to an average girl -- should not have been supermodel quality.

Yes, I am aware I am the only one on the planet who sees this.
   1325. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4721975)
What would be your answer, Bear? It looks suspiciously like you're going to go all Trotskyite on us here.

End the ability and propensity of society's top "brand names" to take all the money for themselves.

I'd raise taxes on incomes above $1 million (or $1.5 or $2 million, whatever) to near-pure-confiscation levels. At those levels, you're either an entertainer, a crony capitalist, a big bank trader or other one-way gambler of other people's money, a sponge of crony capitalists (the Clintons), or a big public company manager in the rigged-salary market. It's virtually never money honestly earned.





   1326. Publius Publicola Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4721976)
Sharing money through the mechanism of government doesn't create a "community." It's bizarre that you think it would.


Then you agree that sharing money by itself does? If so, then why would "mechanism of government" be a show-stopper? What's so different about government mechanisms than say, corporate mechanisms, or non-profit mechanisms, or communit mechanisms, or philanthropic mechanisms?

That's just more Reaganite anti-government nonsense that bears no relationship to reality. The combination of social security, Medicare and other related programs has abolished elderly poverty to such a degree that it is hard to imagine how big the problem used to be, in the same manner that vaccination programs have abolished childhood disease. How are those programs not successful?
   1327. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4721978)
Then you agree that sharing money by itself does? If so, then why would "mechanism of government" be a show-stopper? What's so different about government mechanisms than say, corporate mechanisms, or non-profit mechanisms, or communit mechanisms, or philanthropic mechanisms?

Those typically aren't "communities" either. Snapper can speak for himself, but he's likely talking about the ties of blood and soil, and closely-held voluntary associations with some substantive underpinning beyond yuppie networking and showy charity. I've been a part of both worlds and the difference is obvious.
   1328. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4721979)
Yes, I am aware I am the only one on the planet who sees this.

No, you have company.

***
I'd raise taxes on incomes above $1 million (or $1.5 or $2 million) to near-pure-confiscation levels. At those levels, you're either an entertainer, a crony capitalist, a big bank trader or other one-way gambler of other people's money, a sponge of crony capitalists (the Clintons), or a big public company manager in the rigged-salary market. It's virtually never money honestly earned.

Better start with a 95 percent estate tax and major changes to capital gains, etc. Otherwise, this is an express lane to a far bigger plutocracy than we've already become.
   1329. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4721982)
Republican support peaks between $100K and $200K income. Obama won the >$200K vote in 2008.


So in your mind support = votes. That is a definition, but a wealthy vote is equal to a poor vote in that context. When we talk about monetary support, where the wealthy and poor diverge in power, then we see where the real wealthy support lies (as shown nicely in the post directly after yours).

Apparently, the Varmint Caucus isn't representative of all Democrats - When Democrats Quit On Obama:


Heh. A bunch of anonymous democrats bad mouth Obama*. Well he isn't running again, so campaign staff have zero need to curry favor with him. But really have you looked at obama's popularity with democrats using your favorite tool, the poll?

According to Gallup 80% of democrats approve of the job Obama is doing as of June 2 to 8. If 80% approval is "lost" then you have very high standards.

* There may be names in the article, I did not read the whole thing. BAD MOUSE!
   1330. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4721983)

Except she's not all that hot, really.


Ray's now parodying himself.
   1331. Publius Publicola Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4721985)
Those typically aren't "communities" either.


You'll have to define community then because I have no idea what you are talking about.
   1332. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4721986)
Maybe Bill had "responsibility" as President but it's a stretch to claim that Hillary has been doing anything important.


Senator and Secretary of State - not important according to Ray. OK then.
   1333. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4721987)
but he's likely talking about the ties of blood and soil,


Yes, the ties that are created when you kick people who don't share the same blood off the soil and claim it for your own.
   1334. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4721988)
You'll have to define community then because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Start with blood and soil, move next to the Friday night American Legion fish fry, then to the local bowling league, then move out. At the far end of the spectrum, you'll find the showy NYC charity functions, the hedge fundies' Robin Hood charity events, and last but not least, the federal government on the very end.
   1335. tshipman Posted: June 09, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4721991)
Better start with a 95 percent estate tax and major changes to capital gains, etc. Otherwise, this is an expressway to a far bigger plutocracy than we've already become.


How many R votes in the Senate does an increase to cap gains and estate tax get?

Also, Ron Fournier has a column blasting Obama with quotes from anonymous Democrats? Someone grab the fainting couch.
   1336. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4721992)
What's your take on that, YC?

Fournier usually leans toward the Dems, so if he's saying that they have problems, they should probably listen. He's rather late at discovering that Krugman is a hack, but better late than never.
   1337. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4721995)
Ray's now parodying himself.

Being unaroused by Kate Hudson (or anyone else who ascends to "the smokin' hot celebrity" slot) is NOT an indefensible position, and does NOT reveal a cluelessness about popular culture. Whereas his stating that no comedy can ever be a great film... oy yoy yoy.
   1338. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4721997)
How many R votes in the Senate does an increase to cap gains and estate tax get?

How much noise are Dems making about those things? Not much.

Regardless, not sure how the above refutes the point I made in #1328 re: the trend toward plutocracy.
   1339. Lassus Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4721998)
Senator and Secretary of State - not important according to Ray. OK then.

Government = not important, Government work = not important. This statement should not shock you.
   1340. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4721999)

Being unaroused by Kate Hudson (or anyone else who ascends to "the smokin' hot celebrity" slot) is NOT an indefensible position, and does NOT reveal a cluelessness about popular culture. Whereas his stating that no comedy can ever be a great film... oy yoy yoy.


I didn't say she was "unarousing," only wildly overrated and decidedly not -- by my metrics -- of supermodel quality.
   1341. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:12 PM (#4722001)
First, they came for the cheesemakers:
Old guy in the cell: What are you in for?

New guy in the cell: I aged cheese on wooden boards.

Old guy: Oh. (Moves away slowly.)
. . .
A sense of disbelief and distress is quickly rippling through the U.S. artisan cheese community, as the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week announced it will not permit American cheesemakers to age cheese on wooden boards. And, one would presume that this also means cheeses aged in France on wood boards won’t be allowed into the country. There will be mass cheese seizures at the border, with camembert dumped into the Atlantic like bales of marijuana.
. . .
But don’t despair, cheese lovers. Monsanto-Halliburton Cheese Corporation products never touch wood.

Looks like the Corporate Cheese Lobby ("Big Cheese") is using the power of the regulatory state to drive small, artisanal cheesemakers out of the market. Thank Obama.
   1342. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4722003)
Senator and Secretary of State - not important according to Ray. OK then.


These are do-nothing jobs, or at a minimum jobs that could be and are done by most of the population. They are not noble jobs and are actually shameful jobs in that at its core they are about controlling people.

And, again, if there _were_ "responsibility" in anything Hillary did as secretary of state, she sure as hell didn't accept any when the sh!t hit the fan in Benghazi.
   1343. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4722004)
Government = not important, Government work = not important. This statement should not shock you.

A while back, lefties here and elsewhere made political hay when a GOP congressman said he felt members of Congress were underpaid. If these jobs are so important, the salaries should be commensurate, with bans on post-office lobbying, paid speeches, etc., that are all but invitations to cronyism and corruption.
   1344. zenbitz Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4722006)
Wow does BBTF/OTP actually have common ground on "tax the #### out of the top 1%"?? Oh, Nieporent thou are forsaken!

For doing basically nothing. You want to know why we have a 1% and massive inequality?


As I have stated many times here, I am kind of econ-curious. But not enough to actually do any real reading on it. I saw a Cobert Report bit on Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century"... and the summary of the summary is r > g (where r = rate of return on capital and g = "economic growth" - I guess GDP% increase). I try to get all my econ study out of BBTF.

It struck me, being a rather theoretical type, that r == g for a very simple economic system. So r != g why? Is this just simply because of globalization? I.e, r(WORLD) = g(WORLD) but r(US) > g(US)? With the extra investment simply going overseas? Or I am over simplfying the over simplification?

   1345. Lassus Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4722007)
These are do-nothing jobs, or at a minimum jobs that could be and are done by most of the population

Senator I could squint and see it, sure. Secretary of State of the U.S. is a do-nothing job?
   1346. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4722012)
Apparently, the Varmint Caucus isn't representative of all Democrats -


Since I make up 50 percent of said caucus (AFAIK, Greg K hasn't responded to Bitter Mouse's outreach campaign ... foxes [foxen?] are hoity-toity like that, & he's Canadian, anyway), I should say not, since I'm pretty sure I haven't voted for a Democrat since the Blue Jays were still basking in the afterglow of their first world championship.

Mouse & I reside in the same neighborhood, as it were, but we worship in different churches. Or something like that.
   1347. Howie Menckel Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4722015)
er, Kate Hudson + a couple of cup sizes and sandwiches = Kate Upton
   1348. zenbitz Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4722017)
And Ray, re: the VA funding... you cannot compare a relative quantity to an absolute one. I have no idea if the VA was underfunded or overfunded or whatever, but you cannot look at it's budget in a vacuum and conclude that it was "well funded".

It would be interesting to here an explanation of the VA system in the US is a trainwreck (no argument that it is and has been long before Obama) but other other countries programs aren't as bad?

I am in favor of socialized medicine, because I think it's a .... man, I want to say "common good" here but I think that's the incorrect definition according to Mouse. "Uncommon Collective Good", I'll use that. I don't really have a huge problem with capitalism but I think certain industries should be centrally/publically controlled (although not necessarily at the Federal level) - Emergency services, Military, Education, Medicine, Scientific Research.

Other than that, I'm a minarchist! (LOL)
   1349. tshipman Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4722019)
How much noise are Dems making about those things? Not much.


Uh, in 2011, when the estate tax sunset, there were all number of protests from the Rs in the Senate.

Similarly, when the cap gains cut sunset, there were all number of protests from the Rs in the Senate.

Come on, now. Is it so hard to admit that your party is adamantly opposed to a policy position?
   1350. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4722020)
And Ray, re: the VA funding... you cannot compare a relative quantity to an absolute one. I have no idea if the VA was underfunded or overfunded or whatever, but you cannot look at it's budget in a vacuum and conclude that it was "well funded".


Add "well funded" to the list of concepts liberals have an oh so difficult time understanding, along with "lying," "race," and "intelligence."
   1351. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4722022)
And Ray, re: the VA funding... you cannot compare a relative quantity to an absolute one. I have no idea if the VA was underfunded or overfunded or whatever, but you cannot look at it's budget in a vacuum and conclude that it was "well funded".

I'm quite sure Ray knows that already. It's also little more than BBTF pedantry, since we have plenty of additional details on the topic.
   1352. bunyon Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4722023)
I am in favor of socialized medicine, because I think it's a .... man, I want to say "common good" here but I think that's the incorrect definition according to Mouse. "Uncommon Collective Good", I'll use that. I don't really have a huge problem with capitalism but I think certain industries should be centrally/publically controlled (although not necessarily at the Federal level) - Emergency services, Military, Education, Medicine, Scientific Research.

The trouble with this, it seems to me, is that you then produce a financial incentive for people to not go into very necessary professions. It used to be: "be a doctor and get rich!". Now, it's: "don't go to med school, you idiot, go work on Wall Street!". Society would be much better off with it's best and brightest going into the very fields you say should be socialized because they're common goods. I happen to agree they are common goods. But if you take away the financial incentives to go into those fields, you hurt the fields. I can attest that that last one, scientific research, is a terrible way to get rich. It used to be a not bad way to get solidly middle class but even that is going away. Certainly any kid who has the math and analytical skills to do well in science can make a lot more money doing things that, I would argue, are much less valuable to society.
   1353. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4722025)
Other than that, I'm a minarchist!


Government by Minnie Minoso?
   1354. zenbitz Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4722026)
I actually have no idea how much law makers should get paid. It probably has to be enough to make them *somewhat* bribe resistant, doesn't it? Or maybe that just makes it so only the super-rich can bribe them! I think (theoretically) it should be enough such that you don't have to be independently wealthy to "serve". You should be able to live in DC with your family. I presume they don't pay for their own flights back to their home state/district.

HA, maybe they should just get paid HOURLY. And their constituents should vote on COLA increases or year-end-bonuses. I would love to send Pelosi a set of steak knives for her good service to my district! (I didn't bother voting for or against her last week)

Maybe the presidency/cabinet posts should just go to the highest bidder? But instead of "wasting" it all on TV time he or she can give the money to widows and orphans or pet rescue or whatever.
   1355. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4722027)
The trouble with this, it seems to me, is that you then produce a financial incentive for people to not go into very necessary professions. It used to be: "be a doctor and get rich!". Now, it's: "don't go to med school, you idiot, go work on Wall Street!". Society would be much better off with it's best and brightest going into the very fields you say should be socialized because they're common goods. I happen to agree they are common goods. But if you take away the financial incentives to go into those fields, you hurt the fields. I can attest that that last one, scientific research, is a terrible way to get rich. It used to be a not bad way to get solidly middle class but even that is going away. Certainly any kid who has the math and analytical skills to do well in science can make a lot more money doing things that, I would argue, are much less valuable to society.


Yep, as a guy who left science, despite a pretty clear path to a tenure-track job at a top university, I can attest that you'd have to be insane to do it these days. I make, literally, 8 times as much as I would've if I'd stayed in the field, and that delta only will grow as I get older. And I don't work appreciably harder - rather, my schedule is just more "regular". Nowadays, anyone staying in science is basically doing it for quality of life reasons - you get a lot of women who want to mommy track it but still have a prestigous job.

Nothing ruins progress in a field faster than government control, particularly if government is determining the amount of capital allocated to a field and how it is allocated within the field.
   1356. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4722028)
Uh, in 2011, when the estate tax sunset, there were all number of protests from the Rs in the Senate.

Similarly, when the cap gains cut sunset, there were all number of protests from the Rs in the Senate.

Come on, now. Is it so hard to admit that your party is adamantly opposed to a policy position?

Are you doing some sort of shtick here? Again, how does your partisan cheerleading refute, in any way, the point I made in the second part of #1328?
   1357. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4722030)
As I have stated many times here, I am kind of econ-curious. But not enough to actually do any real reading on it. I saw a Cobert Report bit on Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century"... and the summary of the summary is r > g (where r = rate of return on capital and g = "economic growth" - I guess GDP% increase). I try to get all my econ study out of BBTF.

It struck me, being a rather theoretical type, that r == g for a very simple economic system. So r != g why? Is this just simply because of globalization? I.e, r(WORLD) = g(WORLD) but r(US) > g(US)? With the extra investment simply going overseas? Or I am over simplfying the over simplification?


The techniques of projecting and monetizing "brand names" -- namely, modern communications -- have increased dramatically in the last 30 years (*) and society has become much more admiring of and dependent on "brand names" in the last 30 years, primarily because of modern communication, a glut of possible choices, and the fraying of local and regional boundaries.

That explains a majority-plus of the 1% phenomenon.

(*) A LeBron James and the nation's top, say, corporate lawyers have a far broader market for their talents than a Magic Johnson ca. 1980 or the top US lawyers, ca. 1980. A Spaniard can consume LeBron James far more broadly than he could Magic Johnson in 1980 and will prefer LBJ to the local or regional sports star he would have consumed in 1980. Same thing in the professions of global scope. Thus the far more "winner take all" makeup of the 2014 economy. The world's output simply isn't *shared* to the degree it used to be -- not because sharing is any less in vogue (though it probably is), but because the economy had inefficiencies and impediments to favored groups taking so much for themselves back then.


   1358. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4722031)
But really have you looked at obama's popularity with democrats using your favorite tool, the poll?

Does this count? OBAMA HITS NEW LOW IN MASSACHUSETTS!
President Obama’s popularity has sunk to new lows even in liberal Massachusetts, as a disastrous health care law rollout and a series of scandals and blunders have soured voters in one of the bluest states in the nation, a new Suffolk University/Boston Herald poll reveals.

Bay State voters, who provided Obama with one of his biggest wins in the 2012 election, are now evenly split over whether he’s doing a good job as commander in chief, according to the Suffolk/Herald poll. Just 45 percent of 800 likely voters surveyed last week said they approved of Obama’s job performance, while 44 percent disapproved, a statistically insignificant margin, the new Suffolk/Herald poll shows.

Those dismal numbers represent the lowest approval rating of Obama’s presidency in a state that has always been one of his strongholds. Just a little more than a year ago, a whopping 63 percent of Massachusetts voters were gushing over Obama’s job performance, while only 32 percent did not approve.

There were also recent Massachusetts polls that had the Democratic candidate for Governor leading by a mere 5-7%, with support only in the mid-thirties. If Democrats have problems in Massachusetts, it's indeed a very bleak year.
   1359. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:51 PM (#4722039)
Those typically aren't "communities" either. Snapper can speak for himself, but he's likely talking about the ties of blood and soil, and closely-held voluntary associations with some substantive underpinning beyond yuppie networking and showy charity. I've been a part of both worlds and the difference is obvious.

I don't think I even mentioned community but, I think the key to an actual community is reciprocity. You get benefits and obligations in equal measure, and people have close enough ties to monitor that you're fulfilling your obligations.

Your family, or friends, or parish, or lodge, or whatever, will help you out, but you're expected to help yourself, and help others, to the best of your ability.

If you're unemployed, and go to your "community" for financial help, they'll give it, but with strings. If you're not viewed as actually looking for work, or if you're blowing the money on booze instead of paying your rent, the help will stop forthwith.

The problem with the welfare state, is that some people get benefits but have no, or almost no, obligations, while others have obligations, but get no benefits.
   1360. zenbitz Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:56 PM (#4722045)
The problem with the welfare state, is that some people get benefits but have no, or almost no, obligations, while others have obligations, but get no benefits.


I don't think of this as a problem, I think of this as a cost. It's a switching cost, or "friction".

The problem is not that such frictions exist - they exist at the "Community" or even "Family" level as well - the problem is that people are greedy little monkeys who can't see the forest for the trees (or more literally, cannot distinguish the ancedote from the ensemble)

   1361. zenbitz Posted: June 09, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4722050)
The techniques of projecting and monetizing "brand names" -- namely, modern communications -- have increased dramatically in the last 30 years (*) and society has become much more admiring of and dependent on "brand names" in the last 30 years, primarily because of modern communication, a glut of possible choices, and the fraying of local and regional boundaries.

That explains a majority-plus of the 1% phenomenon.


Sorry to be obtuse here SBB but I don't understand this response.
   1362. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:01 PM (#4722052)
I don't think of this as a problem, I think of this as a cost. It's a switching cost, or "friction".

Spending money to make sure people aren't starving in the streets is a cost. Incentivizing intergenerational dependency is most assuredly a "problem."
   1363. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4722056)
I don't think of this as a problem, I think of this as a cost. It's a switching cost, or "friction".

The problem is not that such frictions exist - they exist at the "Community" or even "Family" level as well - the problem is that people are greedy little monkeys who can't see the forest for the trees (or more literally, cannot distinguish the ancedote from the ensemble)


But, it's possible to design a welfare system with more obligations.

Examples:

1) Every able-bodied recipient of welfare benefits who is not either working, or caring for young children, has to do 40 hours of community service each week. Clean parks, pick up litter, bring meals or do shopping for the aged or disabled; whatever you're capable of doing.

2) Instead of any food you want, food stamps would be redeemable only for a basket of groceries designed by nutritionists to produce healthy meals at optimal cost. We'd even include the recipes, and we could have the community service folks deliver them to homes.

If you had those kind of requirements, you'd cut way back on scamming, eliminate the work disincentive, and get far more popular support for paying more benefits to those that need them.
   1364. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:07 PM (#4722060)

If you're unemployed, and go to your "community" for financial help, they'll give it, but with strings. If you're not viewed as actually looking for work, or if you're blowing the money on booze instead of paying your rent, the help will stop forthwith.


Given that begging is the world's oldest profession (and what better example of 'going to your community for financial help' is there?) I don't think this is the case at all. Generally we're more willing to give to help those who seem most 'like us' and give them less grief. Everyone knows somebody who has a family member who keeps getting into financial scrapes and who keeps getting bailed out by the parent/brother/spouse. It's as old as society.

I think the key to an actual community is reciprocity. You get benefits and obligations in equal measure,


But this doesn't actually happen. Lots of people take care of their older parents, for example, who are not able to work anymore and who aren't able to financially reciprocate for the benefits they receive.

"Ah", but you'll say "the people taking care of the elderly get emotional benefits from caring for their parents." Which is all well and good, but what about widows and orphans?

So you say, well, it's not fair that widows and orphans get left out, so you start an orphanage, or a Widow's Fund. But that still leaves gaps. A woman who is elderly and who never got married, for example, or a man who is too old to work. This is precisely the state of affairs prior to the welfare state -- there were too many groups who were left out of the private charity system. And when the Great Depression happened, the number of such people skyrocketed. Add to that the fact that even the groups covered by the patchwork of private charities couldn't be taken care of with donations drying up, and everyone realized that you needed a universal system, run by the government, to make sure everyone could get the aid they needed.

   1365. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:09 PM (#4722062)

1) Every able-bodied recipient of welfare benefits who is not either working, or caring for young children, has to do 40 hours of community service each week. Clean parks, pick up litter, bring meals or do shopping for the aged or disabled; whatever you're capable of doing.


That was the idea of the Victorian workhouses. The theory was that if lower-class people didn't fear starvation, they wouldn't work. So you needed to tie aid explicitly to work, and ideally to relatively unpleasant work, because otherwise those layabouts might prefer your version of work to a real job.

The workhouse system was a miserable failure, largely because the concept of a large body of able-bodied idlers was a myth. And yet advocates for the system still make the same arguments today.

Edit: And the poor houses were run by an elected board of members from the community in which the poor house was located, so a perfect example of the 'actual community' doing a shitty job of caring for its indigent members.
   1366. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4722063)
But this doesn't actually happen. Lots of people take care of their older parents, for example, who are not able to work anymore and who aren't able to financially reciprocate for the benefits they receive.

This is the epitome of reciprocity. Children paying back their parents for, you know, raising them.
   1367. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4722065)
But this doesn't actually happen. Lots of people take care of their older parents, for example, who are not able to work anymore and who aren't able to financially reciprocate for the benefits they receive.

You seem to be confusing "family" and "community." (Plus, what Snapper said in #1366.)
   1368. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4722068)
That was the idea of the Victorian workhouses. The theory was that if lower-class people didn't fear starvation, they wouldn't work. So you needed to tie aid explicitly to work, and ideally to relatively unpleasant work, because otherwise those layabouts might prefer your version of work to a real job.

The workhouse system was a miserable failure. And yet advocates for the system still make the same arguments today.


Lots of things were badly run in Victorian England.

Why should an able bodied person who is being supported by society not do some work to benefit society?

The whole principal of welfare for the able bodied is that they can't find a job. Nobody supports paying welfare to people who simply don't want to work. Do they?

So, until they find a job, the Gov't gives them one; community service in exchange for welfare. The hours can be flexible, so they have time to job hunt. You just need to average 40 hrs per week every month.

Not to mention, the obligation of showing up to work, and doing something every day, would do wonders to prepare the recipients for actual jobs.

I can't see how that is objectionable.
   1369. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4722069)
That was the idea of the Victorian workhouses. The theory was that if lower-class people didn't fear starvation, they wouldn't work. So you needed to tie aid explicitly to work, and ideally to relatively unpleasant work, because otherwise those layabouts might prefer your version of work to a real job.

The workhouse system was a miserable failure. And yet advocates for the system still make the same arguments today.

You've got to be kidding. We have ~10 percent real unemployment, but our elites tell us there's a labor shortage. It appears millions of people prefer welfare to the jobs that are available, whether it's on farms or at fast-food restaurants.
   1370. bobm Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4722071)
It used to be: "be a doctor and get rich!". Now, it's: "don't go to med school, you idiot, go work on Wall Street!". Society would be much better off with it's best and brightest going into the very fields you say should be socialized because they're common goods.

End the tax deductibility of interest on debt and you will eliminate the socially useless 90% of Wall Street activity. Much cleaner than adjusting marginal tax rates, capital gains, carried interest etc etc.
   1371. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4722075)
Nobody supports paying welfare to people who simply don't want to work.

????

Liberals from coast to coast, including the new mayor of NYC, support paying welfare to people who simply don't want to work. That's why we don't have the common-sense things you listed in #1363.
   1372. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4722077)
End the tax deductibility of interest on debt and you will eliminate the socially useless 90% of Wall Street activity. Much cleaner than adjusting marginal tax rates, capital gains, carried interest etc etc.

But, that's the wrong economic solution. Interest costs are an expense of corporations. The right way to go is to make corporate dividends deductible as well.
   1373. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4722078)
????

Liberals from coast to coast, including the new mayor of NYC, support paying welfare to people who simply don't want to work. That's why we don't have the common-sense things you listed in #1363.


That's my gut, but I want to hear our resident liberals actually say it.
   1374. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4722081)
What would be your answer, Bear? It looks suspiciously like you're going to go all Trotskyite on us here.


End the ability and propensity of society's top "brand names" to take all the money for themselves.

I'd raise taxes on incomes above $1 million (or $1.5 or $2 million, whatever) to near-pure-confiscation levels. At those levels, you're either an entertainer, a crony capitalist, a big bank trader or other one-way gambler of other people's money, a sponge of crony capitalists (the Clintons), or a big public company manager in the rigged-salary market. It's virtually never money honestly earned.


I'm not sure whether that's Modern Marxism or just plain envy, but it sure sounds like the kind of position that the conservatives here have been mocking since the first political thread.

Not that I don't appreciate much of the sentiment behind what you're saying, but to take taxation to "near-pure-confiscation" levels might, er, cause a few unintended consequences to the economy that might not be so great for anyone.

The techniques of projecting and monetizing "brand names" -- namely, modern communications -- have increased dramatically in the last 30 years (*) and society has become much more admiring of and dependent on "brand names" in the last 30 years, primarily because of modern communication, a glut of possible choices, and the fraying of local and regional boundaries.

That explains a majority-plus of the 1% phenomenon.

(*) A LeBron James and the nation's top, say, corporate lawyers have a far broader market for their talents than a Magic Johnson ca. 1980 or the top US lawyers, ca. 1980. A Spaniard can consume LeBron James far more broadly than he could Magic Johnson in 1980 and will prefer LBJ to the local or regional sports star he would have consumed in 1980. Same thing in the professions of global scope. Thus the far more "winner take all" makeup of the 2014 economy. The world's output simply isn't *shared* to the degree it used to be -- not because sharing is any less in vogue (though it probably is), but because the economy had inefficiencies and impediments to favored groups taking so much for themselves back then.


That certainly does go a long way towards explaining the creation of an upper 1% that's a lot more upper than it was in the days before modern communications really took off in media and finance. The problem is trying not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I do think there's a middle ground between our current tax system and one of "near-pure-confiscation".

What I've often wondered would be if government could lure away many of the top scientists from private drug companies with offers of low seven digit salaries and the sort of public recognition that's usually reserved for the Jonas Salks and four star generals of the world. And if you can also give them enough of a budget to work with, I wonder if they might not be able to come up with some of those miracle drugs that Merck and Pfizer discover, only to then price out of reach because they claim that the research costs were so high. Government already funds much of the basic research to begin, but what if it got more heavily into the next step and shared the benefits across the board?

Of course this sort of proposal is premised on the idea that monetary incentives past a certain point can be overtaken by a feeling that your life's work isn't simply going towards healing a few favored patients who are either rich or who win some sort of medical lottery. If the reason that designer drugs are priced at hundreds of dollars a dose or more is because of cost recovery, then I don't see any particular reason for not revamping the entire system of incentives so that the people who actually make the breakthrough discoveries get rewarded, while the CEOs of those companies find something more productive to do.

   1375. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4722082)
Nobody supports paying welfare to people who simply don't want to work. Do they?


Snapper, virtually every liberal supports paying welfare to people who simply don't want to work.
   1376. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4722083)
So, apparently one of the primary "Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter and a traitor" guys, Josh Korder (one of the platoon mates who some give the authority of god) was discharged with an "Other Than Honorable" status. Of course, that news cycle has been locked in and the narrative established on the right that Bergdahl is basically a Taliban fighter himself, so it's pointless to follow things up, but the undercurrent of dysfunctional platoon mates out to get a guy is sort of bubbling up with some evidence now.

But pay no mind. Narrative is established. Look at Obama's polling stats! No need to concern yourselves with the facts of anything.
   1377. tshipman Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:29 PM (#4722084)
Are you doing some sort of shtick here? Again, how does your partisan cheerleading refute, in any way, the point I made in the second part of #1328?


Ds aren't making a bunch of noise on it RIGHT THIS SECOND because it's old news. They know that there is no deal possible, and it's easier to run on other issues, as the estate tax/cap gains issue threatens party unity.

In the last four years, it has been a notable D issue.
   1378. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4722085)
So, apparently one of the primary "Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter and a traitor" guys, Josh Korder (one of the platoon mates who some give the authority of god) was discharged with an "Other Than Honorable" status. Of course, that news cycle has been locked in and the narrative established on the right that Bergdahl is basically a Taliban fighter himself, so it's pointless to follow things up, but the undercurrent of dysfunctional platoon mates out to get a guy is sort of bubbling up with some evidence now.

But pay no mind. Narrative is established. Look at Obama's polling stats! No need to concern yourselves with the facts of anything.

One down, a dozen or more platoon mates to go. I'm sure you'll keep us posted ...

***
Ds aren't making a bunch of noise on it RIGHT THIS SECOND because it's old news. They know that there is no deal possible, and it's easier to run on other issues, as the estate tax/cap gains issue threatens party unity.

In the last four years, it has been a notable D issue.

Please. Obama could change big parts of it with the stroke of a pen, and Obama and the Dems did nothing on this when they had the White House, House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate back in 2009. Dems are just as bought-off as the GOP on these issues. That's why large numbers of the rich are so comfortable supporting the Dems.
   1379. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:36 PM (#4722089)
One down, a dozen or more platoon mates to go


A dozen or more, you say? Name names.
   1380. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4722092)
A dozen or more, you say? Name names.

Why don't you start by naming names of some of Bergdahl's supporters from his platoon — or even citing some anonymous quotes. I doubt media outlets are refusing to quote them.
   1381. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4722093)
Snapper, virtually every liberal supports paying welfare to people who simply don't want to work.

I fully appreciate the sentiments behind what snapper's saying, but I wonder how willing he'd be to paying those workfare recipients enough in order to bring them up to any sort of civilized standard of living. There's nothing wrong with workfare per se in many cases**, but it's not any sort of long range solution to the problem of the income gap.

**Assuming you're not trying to apply it to single parents of small dependent children without providing day care.
   1382. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4722095)
This shouldn't be surprising to those who paid attention to the experience of other states with similar laws - Mississippi Voter ID Implemented With No Problems:
Mississippi’s new voter ID law got its first run in the June 3 primary, and the sky did not fall. Despite the tiresome and disproven claims by opponents that such laws cause wholesale voter disenfranchisement and are intended to suppress votes, Mississippi “sailed through” its first test of the new ID requirements, according to The Clarion Ledger, the newspaper of Jackson, Miss.

Aside from being able to use any form of government-issued photo ID, like every other state with ID requirements, Mississippi provides a free ID for anyone who does not already have a government-issued photo ID. Contrary to the claims of those who say large numbers of Americans don’t have an ID, Mississippi estimated that only 0.8 percent of Mississippians lacked an ID. In fact, even that may have been an overestimate since the state had to issue only about 1,000 voter ID cards. All those who forgot their ID on Tuesday also could vote by an affidavit as long as they returned and showed an ID within five days.
   1383. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:43 PM (#4722099)
Why don't you start by naming names of some of Bergdahl's supporters from his platoon


I'll take this as acknowledging that you're full of #### and move on.
   1384. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:43 PM (#4722100)
I fully appreciate the sentiments behind what snapper's saying, but I wonder how willing he'd be to paying those workfare recipients enough in order to bring them up to any sort of civilized standard of living. There's nothing wrong with workfare per se in many cases**, but it's not any sort of long range solution to the problem of the income gap.

What is this supposed to mean? Are you claiming welfare recipients currently don't have a "civilized standard of living"?
   1385. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4722102)
I'll take this as acknowledging that you're full of #### and move on.

LOL. I don't know if six or 12 or 17 of Bergdahl's platoon mates have been quoted by name; I haven't been keeping a log. I saw a clip with six of them on a panel, so there are many more than the one guy you mentioned. You're just doing your usual troll job.
   1386. GregD Posted: June 09, 2014 at 05:02 PM (#4722106)
   1387. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 09, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4722110)
So, apparently one of the primary "Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter and a traitor" guys, . . . was discharged with an "Other Than Honorable" status.

Not really a surprise that Sam steps forward to smear a guy whose "crime" is speaking a truth the White House finds inconvenient. Of course, as has already been noted, many of his platoon mates have come forward to say Bergdahl was a deserter, and I'm not aware of any that have defended Bergdahl. So, this "new" information doesn't really say anything about the story, although it says quite a bit about Sam. Have you no decency? Oh, sorry, we already know the answer.
   1388. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 09, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4722112)
I fully appreciate the sentiments behind what snapper's saying, but I wonder how willing he'd be to paying those workfare recipients enough in order to bring them up to any sort of civilized standard of living. There's nothing wrong with workfare per se in many cases**, but it's not any sort of long range solution to the problem of the income gap.

**Assuming you're not trying to apply it to single parents of small dependent children without providing day care.


Well, for every 4 single parents with dependent children, 1 can babysit, and 3 can work.

I'm not trying to solve income inequality here. I'm trying to establish some responsibility on the part of welfare recipients. Both to make the system more efficient, and to instill good habits in the recipients so they can transition to regular jobs more easily.

You should also support this because the more that recipients are seen as deserving of help, the more benefits taxpayers will be willing to fund.
   1389. zenbitz Posted: June 09, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4722121)
Incentivizing intergenerational dependency is most assuredly a "problem."


Really? Because it sounds to me like an excuse to not do something you didn't want to do anyway.

   1390. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 09, 2014 at 05:34 PM (#4722126)
Responding to Kelly's questions about an exclusive Fox News report by James Rosen that alleges Bergdahl converted to Islam, fraternized openly with his captors and declared himself a "warrior for Islam,"


Hilarious. Abject definition of "Faux News Network" there. Good job, Joe. Good effort.
   1391. zenbitz Posted: June 09, 2014 at 05:51 PM (#4722133)
The trouble with this, it seems to me, is that you then produce a financial incentive for people to not go into very necessary professions. It used to be: "be a doctor and get rich!". Now, it's: "don't go to med school, you idiot, go work on Wall Street!". Society would be much better off with it's best and brightest going into the very fields you say should be socialized because they're common goods. I happen to agree they are common goods. But if you take away the financial incentives to go into those fields, you hurt the fields. I can attest that that last one, scientific research, is a terrible way to get rich.


Well, there is nothing that says you can't pay them more. Isn't that what all the conservatives complain about? That public servants are paid too much? Is there any realistic reasons why middle school teachers (not administrators) shouldn't get paid $100K/year?

The reason why academic scientists don't get paid as much as someone with equivalent technical expertise in industry has nothing to do with government pay scales (afterall, PRIVATE universities don't pay much better) and everything to do with supply and demand. There are only so many academic professorial positions available, and those go the ones who are essentially willing to devote their lives to work for what are essentially town burger wages. It's like Art, really. There is plenty of demand for technical/scientific brilliance in industry - but actually most of those guys don't get rich either (except by either being entrepreneurs or coat-tail riding on stock options).
   1392. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 09, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4722138)
If I was in the terrorist union, I'd be pretty pissed that we got an American soldier to defect and convert, and held him for years, yet we somehow never bothered to mention our coup to anybody. The publicity department has really fallen off since those awesome Bin Laden viral videos.
   1393. zenbitz Posted: June 09, 2014 at 05:59 PM (#4722139)
1) Every able-bodied recipient of welfare benefits who is not either working, or caring for young children, has to do 40 hours of community service each week. Clean parks, pick up litter, bring meals or do shopping for the aged or disabled; whatever you're capable of doing.


This seems like a great way to create a bloated bureaucracy to find, manage, and place people -- most of whom probably are untrained and unmotivated. Which then the folks who are generally opposed to taxes will then rail against for it's in efficiency.

That being said - I could see a tiered system where you get X $ for showing up to pick up your check and then "hey - you want to get another $100? We are organizing street cleaning volunteers, here's a baggie." But 40 hours/week is pretty heavy. What are they going to do, take a toothbrush to sidewalk panels? Plus SOME people at least are only temporarily unemployed and do need 20 hr/week to look for a job.


I am the kind of liberal who thinks that if you are giving people money, you are better off just giving it to them with no strings attached. In the grand scheme of things it does not matter much. I think I proposed here a couple of years ago an ATM card that everyone got with the SS number on it that you could go and get $20 once/day.
   1394. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 09, 2014 at 06:03 PM (#4722143)
I fully appreciate the sentiments behind what snapper's saying, but I wonder how willing he'd be to paying those workfare recipients enough in order to bring them up to any sort of civilized standard of living. There's nothing wrong with workfare per se in many cases**, but it's not any sort of long range solution to the problem of the income gap.

What is this supposed to mean? Are you claiming welfare recipients currently don't have a "civilized standard of living"?


I'd suggest that you find out for yourself by trying to live on your TANF income for a year or so and then report back to us on your findings. You might want to digest this first.

   1395. zenbitz Posted: June 09, 2014 at 06:06 PM (#4722147)
What I've often wondered would be if government could lure away many of the top scientists from private drug companies with offers of low seven digit salaries and the sort of public recognition that's usually reserved for the Jonas Salks and four star generals of the world.


Most of the "top scientists" are not in private drug companies. Drug companies don't do science. They do engineering. They have disease indications and they bash at them with chemicals in the hope of winning the lottery (Phase III trials). Even a place like Genetech - a biotech/pharma company that encourages or requires it's scientists to publish original research is not exactly brain draining academia. Now what all the scientists do when they get a hot idea is that they found a company and let someone monotize. Look up the number of companies started by George Church (Harvard) or Atul Butte (Stanford)

Science is all done by very bright 20-30 year olds, some of whom go on to become good self promoters/trainers of scientists/grant writers/managers. AKA "Professors".
   1396. Lassus Posted: June 09, 2014 at 06:15 PM (#4722151)
If I was in the terrorist union, I'd be pretty pissed that we got an American soldier to defect and convert, and held him for years, yet we somehow never bothered to mention our coup to anybody.

Forget it, they're rolling.
   1397. zenbitz Posted: June 09, 2014 at 06:28 PM (#4722158)
Good graph on wage changes in different fields over roughly the last 80 years


WTH did Reagan do to the meat packing industry?
   1398. bobm Posted: June 09, 2014 at 06:37 PM (#4722164)
[1397] WTH did Reagan do to the meat packing industry?

From wikipedia:


1985 [Hormel] strike

In August 1985, Hormel workers went on strike at the Hormel headquarters in Austin, Minnesota. In the early 1980s, recession impacted several meatpacking companies, decreasing demand and increasing competition which let smaller and less-efficient companies to go out of business. In an effort to keep plants from closing, many instituted wage cuts. Wilson Food Company declared bankruptcy in 1983, allowing them to cut wages from $10.69 to $6.50 and significantly reduce benefits. Hormel Foods had avoided such drastic action, but by 1985, pressure to stay competitive remained.[13] Workers had already labored under a wage freeze and dangerous working conditions, leading to many cases of repetitive strain injury. When management demanded a 23% wage cut from the workers they decided to begin the strike.[14] It became one of the longest strikes of the 1980s. The strike began with the sanction of the Local of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, P-9. The local chapter of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union P-9 led the strike, but was not supported by their parent union. The strike gained national attention and led to a widely publicized boycott of Hormel products.

After six months, a significant number of strikebreakers crossed the picket line, provoking riots in Austin. On January 21, 1986, the Governor of Minnesota, Rudy Perpich, called in the National Guard to protect the strikebreakers. This brought protests against the governor, and the National Guard withdrew from Austin. The action had a greater effect on the UFCW international, which ousted the local P-9.

The strike ended in June 1986, after lasting 10 months. Over 700 of the workers did not return to their jobs, refusing to cross the picket line. In solidarity with those workers, the boycott of Hormel products continued for some time. Ultimately, however, the company did succeed in hiring new workers at significantly lower wages.

The strike was chronicled in the film American Dream, which won the Academy Award for best documentary in 1990.
   1399. Joe Kehoskie Posted: June 09, 2014 at 07:32 PM (#4722183)
Hilarious. Abject definition of "Faux News Network" there. Good job, Joe. Good effort.

Wait, I thought you wanted names of Bergdahl's platoon mates who spoke against him? I guess you were just flinging poo, as always.

***
I'd suggest that you find out for yourself by trying to live on your TANF income for a year or so and then report back to us on your findings. You might want to digest this first.

I never said welfare recipients were living a life of luxury, but the streets also aren't packed with millions of starving welfare recipients. Give us a break.

***
That being said - I could see a tiered system where you get X $ for showing up to pick up your check and then "hey - you want to get another $100? We are organizing street cleaning volunteers, here's a baggie." But 40 hours/week is pretty heavy. What are they going to do, take a toothbrush to sidewalk panels? Plus SOME people at least are only temporarily unemployed and do need 20 hr/week to look for a job.

Where do you live, the swankiest part of Beverly Hills? The average city is probably decades away from having people "take a toothbrush to sidewalk panels" because of an excess of available labor. Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
   1400. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 09, 2014 at 07:57 PM (#4722188)
Flip.
Page 14 of 47 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Andere Richtingen
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-23-2014
(51 - 8:35pm, Sep 23)
Last: Bourbon Samurai in Asia

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(268 - 8:26pm, Sep 23)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(308 - 8:22pm, Sep 23)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogBrisbee: Adam Wainwright and the Jan Bradys of years past
(12 - 8:20pm, Sep 23)
Last: Swoboda is freedom

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3575 - 8:18pm, Sep 23)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman

NewsblogChad | Have a heart! Root for the Royals
(36 - 8:09pm, Sep 23)
Last: TomH

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8058 - 8:08pm, Sep 23)
Last: A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats

NewsblogMLB creates pace of game committee
(107 - 8:03pm, Sep 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogMLB’s Metal Detector Policy is What ‘Terrorists Winning Looks Like’
(1 - 8:01pm, Sep 23)
Last: Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame)

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(222 - 7:47pm, Sep 23)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!)

NewsblogMets near extension with GM Alderson
(41 - 7:40pm, Sep 23)
Last: Captain Supporter

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-23-2014
(9 - 7:04pm, Sep 23)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogGene Collier: No shame in staying home for Pirates
(16 - 6:54pm, Sep 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogCalcaterra: If Bobby Cox has anything to say about it, Fredi Gonzalez will manage the Braves for a long time
(21 - 6:39pm, Sep 23)
Last: Arch Stanton

NewsblogOld Cuban stars don’t begrudge ballplayers who defect - The Boston Globe
(3 - 6:33pm, Sep 23)
Last: Perry

Page rendered in 0.8974 seconds
53 querie(s) executed