The honeymoon is ALREADY over? Shocking numbers

[utgibbs]

utgibbs, I don't see how you are reaching these conclusions.

Which conclusions?

What do you want to see, IP? Should we list some line items and find out where the American people, when polled, stand? Not a bad way to start I should think.

 

[utgibbs]

so stay at home moms married to millionares should be included in the unemployed figure. interesting logic. does it bother you that your trillion of keynes stimulus didn't help the labor market in the slightest? didn't make you question yoru assumptions?

stay at home moms aren't counted in the workforce.

Trillions weren't poured into labor! Poured into clearing "toxic" assets. Poured into the very architects of the false economy. Poured into the welfare dads (again! I don't even have to go back to the SandL bailout!)

For shame, droski!

 

[utgibbs]

I just thought he was making veiled racist remarks.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Who on earth are you talking about? WTF?

 

[KB5252]

Great question which will take a long time to answer in full, so I would suggest you "stay tuned" to the Politics board for a full answer over time.

The short answer to your question is in the Preamble: "promote the general welfare". Government should concern itself with the health, wellbeing, and prosperity of its people. It is very good at doing several things.

Human needs change with time, and government must change with those needs. Again, the devil will be in the details, but a short-line item list, omitting all nuance would be:

1. Climate Change
2. Health care
3. Education (although we are stuck in an Industrial Revolution style education that needs radical makeover)
4. Living wages (including elderly)
5. Regulation

What we need a lot less of:

1. Military both defense and war spending
2. Prisons / Police
3. Cars and roads (although CC makes this inevitable)
4. Corporate Welfare (including 7% of revenues from Corporate tax - a travesty).

A list like this sounds trite (Climate Change affects so many generations - touches on transport, energy, foreign aid, etc), but I feel certain this is probably what you were looking for.

We can find some common ground here for sure but where the disconnect between us comes is in government being a driver of the change. I am convinced that government is a huge driver of the problem, they are enablers ( if not directly responsible) for much of this countries ills. They (politicians) have perpetuated this as they cash in on the ills either in treasure or politically. Both parties are equally responsible and neither are trustworth IMO.

Instead of empowering them to make these changes it is much more important to limit them as much as possible, to strangle them slowly and diminish their hold. This must come first before any real change can take place IMO.

 

[JayVols]

so stay at home moms married to millionares should be included in the unemployed figure. interesting logic. does it bother you that your trillion of keynes stimulus didn't help the labor market in the slightest? didn't make you question yoru assumptions?

I am no economist, but this is a slippery slope type argument. True that the stimulus didn't create many jobs; however, tax cuts that many argue as a mythical elixir to cure high unemployment didn't prevent us from getting into this situation. There seems to be no single cure all solution in this economy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

utgibbs, I don't see how you are reaching these conclusions.

Which conclusions?

What do you want to see, IP? Should we list some line items and find out where the American people, when polled, stand? Not a bad way to start I should think.

Vermont moves to make single-payer health system.

VPR News: Health Care Economist William Hsiao Lays Out Options

People want to cut military spending, not medicare or SocSec:

Poll Responses on How to Cut the Deficit - Graphic - NYTimes.com

Cap-limits on executive pay (near supermajority):

Most Americans Favor Gov't. Action to Limit Executive Pay

Impact of minimum wage increases:

Minimum Wage Has No Impact on Small Business

Hellfire, even climate change is near supermajority (and has been in past):

Increased Number Think Global Warming Is ?Exaggerated?

However, we do find that magic 25% don't believe Obama was born in the US:

CNN Poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S. – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

And a lot more besides. Quite easy to find how I come to these conclusions with so much supporting data. I would have thought you read Chomsky et al.

 

[utgibbs]

We can find some common ground here for sure but where the disconnect between us comes is in government being a driver of the change. I am convinced that government is a huge driver of the problem, they are enablers ( if not directly responsible) for much of this countries ills. They (politicians) have perpetuated this as they cash in on the ills either in treasure or politically. Both parties are equally responsible and neither are trustworth IMO.

Instead of empowering them to make these changes it is much more important to limit them as much as possible, to strangle them slowly and diminish their hold. This must come first before any real change can take place IMO.

Whereas I agree our democracy needs a reboot in a big way, I believe government is the one institution we can reel in with sufficient will. The other major institutions in our lives, especially corporations, are concentrated, rogue, and untouchable through democratic action.

I feel the concentration of power IS something we need to break up - but in all spheres: economic, political, social.

I sometimes find myself in that "chicken and the egg" debate. Does politics change culture? Or does culture change politics?

In my later life, I believe the latter more and more. We must change our lives first before our politics will change.

 

[KB5252]

Whereas I agree our democracy needs a reboot in a big way, I believe government is the one institution we can reel in with sufficient will. The other major institutions in our lives, especially corporations, are concentrated, rogue, and untouchable through democratic action.

I feel the concentration of power IS something we need to break up - but in all spheres: economic, political, social.

I sometimes find myself in that "chicken and the egg" debate. Does politics change culture? Or does culture change politics?

In my later life, I believe the latter more and more. We must change our lives first before our politics will change.

Disagree, money talks and as long as big business has the money and support to throw at politicians they will accept it. It is much easier for us to send the message to big business, we decide not to buy their products and hit them in the pocket the message is clear. The only remedy we have for politicians is to vote them out, nothing changes when there are twenty others in line more than willing to play ball.

 

[utgibbs]

Disagree, money talks and as long as big business has the money and support to throw at politicians they will accept it. It is much easier for us to send the message to big business, we decide not to buy their products and hit them in the pocket the message is clear. The only remedy we have for politicians is to vote them out, nothing changes when there are twenty others in line more than willing to play ball.

I would LOVE to see a two week shopping hiatus and the effect on the world. And with the continuing downward pressure on wages, we may see it sooner rather than later.

With sufficient politcal will, we can remove the sacks of money in the game. I should think that requires less political than your solution to strike at the corporations - although I would work for either!

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Perception. 40 percent think it will improve in next 12 months, more than half think so over next five years. The political consequences of that are undeniable.

half = 50%

So basically, you are saying that more people believe that the economy will not bounce back by the end of Obama's first term.

Are you trying to crow about that or what? I'm just not certain what your motive was for posting that.

 

[KB5252]

I would LOVE to see a two week shopping hiatus and the effect on the world. And with the continuing downward pressure on wages, we may see it sooner rather than later.

With sufficient politcal will, we can remove the sacks of money in the game. I should think that requires less political than your solution to strike at the corporations - although I would work for either!

I guess it's just a matter of which animal is more corrupt in this scenario. Any corporations first objective is to make money, in order to make money they need a good product at a reasonable price in order for the public to consume that product and sometimes they require help from government which leads to the lobbying.

Politicians on the other hand talk a good game in order to attain the offic they seek. Once they get that office their first endeavor is making connections and accumulating ins and money in order to build their coffers to maintain office. Theirs is a self serving endeavor under the guise of public service. Big business has alterior motives for sure but they aren't putting up the facade of public service, our government is the most corrupt organization going in the country today.

I suppose it is somewhat of a chicken or the egg type deal but this type of thing has been going on since Tammany Hall.

 

[MG1968]

I would much rather deal with corporate greed. At least I can vote with my wallet and shop somewhere else. It's nearly impossible to escape from overbearing and intrusive government without leaving the country.

 

[BeecherVol]

I guess it's just a matter of which animal is more corrupt in this scenario. Any corporations first objective is to make money, in order to make money they need a good product at a reasonable price in order for the public to consume that product and sometimes they require help from government which leads to the lobbying.

Politicians on the other hand talk a good game in order to attain the offic they seek. Once they get that office their first endeavor is making connections and accumulating ins and money in order to build their coffers to maintain office. Theirs is a self serving endeavor under the guise of public service. Big business has alterior motives for sure but they aren't putting up the facade of public service, our government is the most corrupt organization going in the country today.

I suppose it is somewhat of a chicken or the egg type deal but this type of thing has been going on since Tammany Hall.

This covers it pretty well.

 

[utgibbs]

I guess it's just a matter of which animal is more corrupt in this scenario. Any corporations first objective is to make money, in order to make money they need a good product at a reasonable price in order for the public to consume that product and sometimes they require help from government which leads to the lobbying.

Which brings us to the real purpose of marketing: the undermining of competitive market forces. The science of marketing is well established and is, very roughly, as follows: 20% of the population highly susceptible to suggestion; 60% moderately susceptible; 20% immune. (It actually follows the political party base very well too)

I would suggest we aren't paying real prices for two important reasons: 1. monopoly capital - (did we do away with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act under Clinton when I wasn't looking?) Agglomeration, concentration, "cartelization" has been the game for a generation or more. Purchasing power decreased for two generations and continuing. 2. government is left to pay (when even it pays) for the externalities. True costs are almost never reflected in any product.

Again, the lessons of the last 40 years is that politics can change (South Africa leaps to mind immediately to say nothing of the Soviet experience), but the economic rationality and supremacy of Capital does not change. The ANC laments while securing the vote, the neglected to secure the dollar.

I'd say world history over the last 40 years provides good evidence it's easier to change the politics. However, if you don't have control over the economic policy of your country - have you actually changed the politics? I think the answer is yes, but it is a very tepid victory.

Aside: It's important to realize the Soviet experience with "socialism" was still an arrangement where economic rationality was supreme above social considerations. It is difficult to call this heirarchy "socialism" in the main. This was its great failure.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Marketing and anti-trust gibberish was senseless. Seems everything about business is gibberish for you. Would you know a cash flow statement from an invoice?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

Marketing and anti-trust gibberish was senseless. Seems everything about business is gibberish for you. Would you know a cash flow statement from an invoice?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

BPV, it's obvious I know quite a bit about these matters. These toothless accusations are beneath you. You need to raise your game and put some meat on your burgers.

 

[BigPapaVol]

BPV, it's obvious I know quite a bit about these matters. These toothless accusations are beneath you. You need to raise your game and put some meat on your burgers.

Are you kidding me? This silliness about marketing with percentages implying that gullibility levels somehow tie to political persuasion is a poor worthy of all ridicule imaginable. The lunacy regarding anti-trust stands on its own. Hart Scott Rodino are just names to you.

If your silliness warranted more time or effort, I'd grant it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

Third time Obamas economy has been trending better, but there is real reason to believe it. Nothing has fundamentally changed to help it and any upturn raises specter of hideous inflation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

there are a couple of major changes that effect it. One is the GOP win. It stymies Obama's plans to further his economic fascism agenda.

Before you go nuts, I am not talking about social policy though his distaste for dissenting free speech is well known. I am talking about the national socialist agenda of gov't domination and control of private production and distribution.

Markets like tax breaks and controlled spending. In lieu of that, they'll cheer grid lock over liberal policies every time.

 

[utgibbs]

Are you kidding me? This silliness about marketing with percentages implying that gullibility levels somehow tie to political persuasion is a poor worthy of all ridicule imaginable. The lunacy regarding anti-trust stands on its own. Hart Scott Rodino are just names to you.

If your silliness warranted more time or effort, I'd grant it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Are you denying the scientific basis of marketing?

Unfortunately, your toothless accusations, and ocassional impassioned diatribes (and unfortunately toothless), can garner little attention for the simple fact: There is no meat on this burger!

 

[GAVol]

:crickets:

 

[Tenacious D]

Are you denying the scientific basis of marketing?

Unfortunately, your toothless accusations, and ocassional impassioned diatribes (and unfortunately toothless), can garner little attention for the simple fact: There is no meat on this burger!

UTG-

In your perfect world scenario, would there be any nation / state boundaries? Meaning, would you most prefer a one-world government?

Do you favor equitable wealth distribution?

Which specific nation / government do you feel is currently most closely aligned to your own political beliefs? Why?

What do you feel is the single greatest example of a successful socialistic society, either currently or historically, and why? My guess would be N. Korea, but I'll be interested to hear your answer.

Do you know of a good online shipping calculator to estimate the cost of sending a package from DaNang to Knoxville, and weighing approximately 85lbs or so? Or, if you just happen to know it off of the top of your head, that'd be equally acceptable, too.

Would you classify your fandom of Tiger Woods as being love / hate - as in, you love him half of the time, and hate him the rest? Or would you say that you loved 1/2 of him, but hated the other? Or, do you have no opinion, either way?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

TennD,

Great first question.

I believe in the liberation of people far more so than Capital, BUT I do not want a homogenous world culture (which has happened largely, all within my lifetime).

I do not approve of this kind of wealth redistribution:

Woody Guthrie (as sung by Billy Bragg and Wilco) suggests taking all the money and spreading it out equal. I tend to believe with $50 trillion in world GDP, we are actually making ourselves impoverished. We need a radical revolution of values, including what wealth really means.

The greatest socialism experiments would be Europe and the United States by far. The Wirtschaftswunder, the Les Trente Glorieuses, (Italy, which fared the best post-Mussolini, doesn't have a catchy phrase for those glorious years). Here is France:

Golf is a good walk spoiled.

PS, an even better graph is here: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:70&biw=1003&bih=557

but it was too big to post.

 

[Tenacious D]

TennD,

Great first question.

I believe in the liberation of people far more so than Capital, BUT I do not want a homogenous world culture (which has happened largely, all within my lifetime).

I do not approve of this kind of wealth redistribution:

Woody Guthrie (as sung by Billy Bragg and Wilco) suggests taking all the money and spreading it out equal. I tend to believe with $50 trillion in world GDP, we are actually making ourselves impoverished. We need a radical revolution of values, including what wealth really means.

The greatest socialism experiments would be Europe and the United States by far. The Wirtschaftswunder, the Les Trente Glorieuses, (Italy, which fared the best post-Mussolini, doesn't have a catchy phrase for those glorious years). Here is France:

Golf is a good walk spoiled.

PS, an even better graph is here: Google Image Result for http://alternatives-economiques.fr/blogs/gadrey/files/graph9.jpg

but it was too big to post.

What would happen to the innovative - and that's what drives all progress, be it financial, human freedoms, et al - advances, beneath the system you've proposed?

Its interesting that you tout Europe. Churchill had some interesting ideas on socialism that are worth exploring.

And this is a quite serious question - how might a Darwinian scientist view your socialistic agenda (read: how does "everyone gets the same" compare to "the survival of the fittest")?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

What would happen to the innovative - and that's what drives all progress, be it financial, human freedoms, et al - advances, beneath the system you've proposed?

Its interesting that you tout Europe. Churchill had some interesting ideas on socialism that are worth exploring.

And this is a quite serious question - how might a Darwinian scientist view your socialistic agenda (read: how does "everyone gets the same" compare to "the survival of the fittest")?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

The innovative lived long before either socialism or capitalism.

England voted Churchill out and built the NHS and the "family silverware" in the big socialist institutions like BT, British Steel, British Gas, etc. They don't have a catchy phrase either, but McMillan told the electorate, "You've never had it so good!"

"Survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin (but by a contemporary). It is vulgar representation of the extreme beauty, the supreme unifying principle of evolution. Evolution requires adaptation to a given environment. It is not the "strongest of the species" which survive, but the ones most responsive, adaptive, and crucially cooperative within their own ecosystem.

 

[Tenacious D]

The innovative lived long before either socialism or capitalism.

England voted Churchill out and built the NHS and the "family silverware" in the big socialist institutions like BT, British Steel, British Gas, etc. They don't have a catchy phrase either, but McMillan told the electorate, "You've never had it so good!"

"Survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin (but by a contemporary). It is vulgar representation of the extreme beauty, the supreme unifying principle of evolution. Evolution requires adaptation to a given environment. It is not the "strongest of the species" which survive, but the ones most responsive, adaptive, and crucially cooperative within their own ecosystem.

Why'd they cease their socialistic experiment in the 70's - as you said earlier?

Churchill was also re-elected, later. Curious.

And I'll let the evolutionists handle the rest, if they can stomach it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile