by JanieM
Hypothesis: the following are all connected:
- The impossibly rancorous political situation in the U.S.
- The obscene level of wealth inequality in the U.S.
- The increasingly scary stories coming out of the world of airline travel.
*****
People are a bad mood.
Fights on airplanes are both a tangible manifestation of and a metaphor for something larger.
No argument that 1 and 2 are related.
But 3 seems like a bit of a stretch. Unless you posit that general disdain by business for their customers derives from 2. And even then . . . .
No argument that 1 and 2 are related.
But 3 seems like a bit of a stretch. Unless you posit that general disdain by business for their customers derives from 2. And even then . . . .
#3 is one of the places where random largish groups of people are kept in close company for an extended period of time.
#3 is one of the places where random largish groups of people are kept in close company for an extended period of time.
#3 is one of the places where random largish groups of people are kept in close company for an extended period of time.
And one of the few places where the 99% reliably bump the arm rests of at least the bottom rungs of the 1%. As they walk through first class.
Not that the people merely in first class are likely to be the greatest enemies of the proletariat or anything (the real Richie Richs are sailing in comfort in their well-appointed private nuclear dirigibles) — and at least some of the folks in those seats are just regular joe frequent fliers who scored a complimentary upgrade — but it is one of the few points of regular contact with strangers who can be inferred to at least be a little wealthier than your coach-flying ass. And it doesn’t help that the airlines explicitly institutionalize special treatment, and make quite a bit of effort to advertise those privileges.
I think I recall some research on this exact topic a while back: heightened awareness of class differences heightens internal tension and raises the risk of violence. Not necessarily violence between classes either. It’s at least as likely you go back to your seat and pick a fight with a passenger in the next row or the flight attendant as with a passenger from the opposite end of the plane.
Still, I’d be at least as inclined to believe the apparently high recent incidence of airplane fights is simply sampling bias.
#3 is one of the places where random largish groups of people are kept in close company for an extended period of time.
And one of the few places where the 99% reliably bump the arm rests of at least the bottom rungs of the 1%. As they walk through first class.
Not that the people merely in first class are likely to be the greatest enemies of the proletariat or anything (the real Richie Richs are sailing in comfort in their well-appointed private nuclear dirigibles) — and at least some of the folks in those seats are just regular joe frequent fliers who scored a complimentary upgrade — but it is one of the few points of regular contact with strangers who can be inferred to at least be a little wealthier than your coach-flying ass. And it doesn’t help that the airlines explicitly institutionalize special treatment, and make quite a bit of effort to advertise those privileges.
I think I recall some research on this exact topic a while back: heightened awareness of class differences heightens internal tension and raises the risk of violence. Not necessarily violence between classes either. It’s at least as likely you go back to your seat and pick a fight with a passenger in the next row or the flight attendant as with a passenger from the opposite end of the plane.
Still, I’d be at least as inclined to believe the apparently high recent incidence of airplane fights is simply sampling bias.
Part of the travel issue is that US domestic airline travel is now an oligopoly. United, Delta, American and SW. They have crappy customer service and the increase in fees to squeeze every last bit of consumer surplus out of people leads to more aggravation, but more profit for airlines and more expensive travel overall. United at least is also aggressively policing free riders in Economy plus so whereas you might have been able to sit there for free if not full, now they will fly a plane with 90% of the seats in economy plus empty.
Add in the necessity to disrobe to go through security lines – unless you pay an extra fee and go through a background check of course (which is another point of differentiation as jack notes) and things can be explosive.
I imagine that there is a fair amount of there being more news of it b/c there are more videos that can go viral, whereas in the past “fight on plane” would go unnoticed and barely be reason for mention in the paper.
Part of the travel issue is that US domestic airline travel is now an oligopoly. United, Delta, American and SW. They have crappy customer service and the increase in fees to squeeze every last bit of consumer surplus out of people leads to more aggravation, but more profit for airlines and more expensive travel overall. United at least is also aggressively policing free riders in Economy plus so whereas you might have been able to sit there for free if not full, now they will fly a plane with 90% of the seats in economy plus empty.
Add in the necessity to disrobe to go through security lines – unless you pay an extra fee and go through a background check of course (which is another point of differentiation as jack notes) and things can be explosive.
I imagine that there is a fair amount of there being more news of it b/c there are more videos that can go viral, whereas in the past “fight on plane” would go unnoticed and barely be reason for mention in the paper.
Ugh: They have crappy customer service and the increase in fees to squeeze every last bit of consumer surplus out of people leads to more aggravation, but more profit for airlines and more expensive travel overall.
This is where I see the connection between 2 and 3, profit and wealth inequality not being unrelated.
Although I also agree that we may be seeing sampling bias or the effect of everyone being able to film everything these days.
Ugh: They have crappy customer service and the increase in fees to squeeze every last bit of consumer surplus out of people leads to more aggravation, but more profit for airlines and more expensive travel overall.
This is where I see the connection between 2 and 3, profit and wealth inequality not being unrelated.
Although I also agree that we may be seeing sampling bias or the effect of everyone being able to film everything these days.
“So, take an airline, offering basically the same service to every passenger. They’ll hurtle you through the sky in a pressurized metal tube, moving you quickly you from Point A to Point B. How do you get passengers to ‘self-incriminate’ in that kind of environment?
“Simple: You offer several classes of service on the same flight, and you make the lowest class so miserable that more people will gladly pay the price for the higher class. That way you squeeze as much profit out of each passenger as possible.”
Why Does Air Travel Suck So Bad? This 19th Century Economist Explained It With Just 4 Words (in 1849!): It’s not about hurting passengers in coach. It’s about scaring the ones in business and first class.
“So, take an airline, offering basically the same service to every passenger. They’ll hurtle you through the sky in a pressurized metal tube, moving you quickly you from Point A to Point B. How do you get passengers to ‘self-incriminate’ in that kind of environment?
“Simple: You offer several classes of service on the same flight, and you make the lowest class so miserable that more people will gladly pay the price for the higher class. That way you squeeze as much profit out of each passenger as possible.”
Why Does Air Travel Suck So Bad? This 19th Century Economist Explained It With Just 4 Words (in 1849!): It’s not about hurting passengers in coach. It’s about scaring the ones in business and first class.
Ugh: Part of the travel issue is that US domestic airline travel is now an oligopoly. United, Delta, American and SW.
The government should allow foreign carriers to compete within the US.
Ugh: Part of the travel issue is that US domestic airline travel is now an oligopoly. United, Delta, American and SW.
The government should allow foreign carriers to compete within the US.
CharlesWT – That probably would work (although good luck)
The government should have also blocked the last 3-6 or so airline mergers. Continental, USAir, Northwest at a minimum should still be around.
CharlesWT – That probably would work (although good luck)
The government should have also blocked the last 3-6 or so airline mergers. Continental, USAir, Northwest at a minimum should still be around.
There’s also the new terminal at LAX for the super rich folk, where they can even watch the lessers suffer.
There’s also the new terminal at LAX for the super rich folk, where they can even watch the lessers suffer.
There’s also the new terminal at LAX for the super rich folk
Clicked through, skimmed it. Jesus H.
There’s also the new terminal at LAX for the super rich folk
Clicked through, skimmed it. Jesus H.
That question of sampling bias is really interesting. It infuriates me when it is employed when one talks about racism, but it can’t simply be dismissed. However, the only way to eliminate the argument (and by eliminate, I mean make it so that it is only deployed honestly, i.e. there is data to back it up) is to go to Foucault’s Panopticism Really sucks to be us…
That question of sampling bias is really interesting. It infuriates me when it is employed when one talks about racism, but it can’t simply be dismissed. However, the only way to eliminate the argument (and by eliminate, I mean make it so that it is only deployed honestly, i.e. there is data to back it up) is to go to Foucault’s Panopticism Really sucks to be us…
saw that apparently laptops are about to be banned on flights to the US from Europe http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/us-ban-laptops-europe-flights . Since, I imagine, business travellers generate such a small proportion of airline revenue?
saw that apparently laptops are about to be banned on flights to the US from Europe http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/us-ban-laptops-europe-flights . Since, I imagine, business travellers generate such a small proportion of airline revenue?
Well, important business people will, of course, be using the company plane. And therefore, de facto, not be impacted.
Well, important business people will, of course, be using the company plane. And therefore, de facto, not be impacted.
1. 1789
2. 1929
3. steerage
1. 1789
2. 1929
3. steerage
JakeB – they are apparently meeting on Wednesday in Brussels. I leave Tuesday night for Europe and then return Saturday, not clear if I should bring my laptop as I don’t want to check it.
I also read somewhere that perhaps they would exempt people who were enrolled in a “secure” traveler program like Global Entry, which is open to anyone but I imagine mostly used by business travelers.
But the real insanity is that if they do this it seems like only a matter of time before a lithium battery fire in a cargo causes a passenger plane to crash (it’s already happened twice to 747 cargo planes). What then?
JakeB – they are apparently meeting on Wednesday in Brussels. I leave Tuesday night for Europe and then return Saturday, not clear if I should bring my laptop as I don’t want to check it.
I also read somewhere that perhaps they would exempt people who were enrolled in a “secure” traveler program like Global Entry, which is open to anyone but I imagine mostly used by business travelers.
But the real insanity is that if they do this it seems like only a matter of time before a lithium battery fire in a cargo causes a passenger plane to crash (it’s already happened twice to 747 cargo planes). What then?
I remember when there was a theft ring among JFK baggage handlers. An expensive camera goes missing from your checked luggage, good luck getting satisfaction from the airline.
And now, everyone has to have “wimpy TSA locks”, if any, on their checked bags.
A few years ago, I figured that the best response would be to load up a checked bag containing valuables with a few extra pounds of live crickets (readily available from a bait shop). You’d hear the screams as the writhing insect mass escapes when you bag is opened, and that terminal would be going “chirp chirp” for the next two years.
Revenge is a dish served slightly cold and jumpy.
Crickets are harmless. If I really wanted serious revenge, I’d load up with ticks. Can’t get them at a bait store, though.
I remember when there was a theft ring among JFK baggage handlers. An expensive camera goes missing from your checked luggage, good luck getting satisfaction from the airline.
And now, everyone has to have “wimpy TSA locks”, if any, on their checked bags.
A few years ago, I figured that the best response would be to load up a checked bag containing valuables with a few extra pounds of live crickets (readily available from a bait shop). You’d hear the screams as the writhing insect mass escapes when you bag is opened, and that terminal would be going “chirp chirp” for the next two years.
Revenge is a dish served slightly cold and jumpy.
Crickets are harmless. If I really wanted serious revenge, I’d load up with ticks. Can’t get them at a bait store, though.
But the real insanity is that if they do this it seems like only a matter of time before a lithium battery fire in a cargo causes a passenger plane to crash (it’s already happened twice to 747 cargo planes). What then?
I anticipate a developing market in rental PCs that boot and run off your personal micro-SD card. Stop at the counter in the airport when you land and pick up the machine you reserved. Or if they can be cheap enough, it’s a freebie with your rental car. Turn it in on your way out of the country. A boost for Linux, which fits nicely in a small footprint, and a particular copy doesn’t care what hardware it’s running on. Unlike Windows, which I believe has reached the point that an installed copy checks the drives and network hardware and anything else with a serial number to make sure it’s running on the one machine it’s licensed for.
But the real insanity is that if they do this it seems like only a matter of time before a lithium battery fire in a cargo causes a passenger plane to crash (it’s already happened twice to 747 cargo planes). What then?
I anticipate a developing market in rental PCs that boot and run off your personal micro-SD card. Stop at the counter in the airport when you land and pick up the machine you reserved. Or if they can be cheap enough, it’s a freebie with your rental car. Turn it in on your way out of the country. A boost for Linux, which fits nicely in a small footprint, and a particular copy doesn’t care what hardware it’s running on. Unlike Windows, which I believe has reached the point that an installed copy checks the drives and network hardware and anything else with a serial number to make sure it’s running on the one machine it’s licensed for.
Somewhat related to #3… Trump could gain an immediate boost in popularity by announcing that he and the Republicans in Congress will be terminating the TSA.
Somewhat related to #3… Trump could gain an immediate boost in popularity by announcing that he and the Republicans in Congress will be terminating the TSA.
The real pain comes when you have a meeting in a country where the restriction is in place, but you need your own PC — special software, etc. I’ve got one of those in prospect (Istanbul next month) and I’m definitely not happy about it.
It does occur to me that, with better planning, I could have arranged an overnight in London or something on the way back, and avoided the hassle. Oh, well….
The real pain comes when you have a meeting in a country where the restriction is in place, but you need your own PC — special software, etc. I’ve got one of those in prospect (Istanbul next month) and I’m definitely not happy about it.
It does occur to me that, with better planning, I could have arranged an overnight in London or something on the way back, and avoided the hassle. Oh, well….
The real problem is that laptop batteries pack a lot of energy into a small package, which equals risks of fire or explosion, whether in the cabin or the cargo hold.
The laptops aren’t the problem, the batteries are. So a scheme where you could rent/buy BATTERIES after a flight, and just plug in your laptop (sans batteries) inflight, is about the only way that works. Too complicated for most people (and all gov’t agencies) though.
The real problem is that laptop batteries pack a lot of energy into a small package, which equals risks of fire or explosion, whether in the cabin or the cargo hold.
The laptops aren’t the problem, the batteries are. So a scheme where you could rent/buy BATTERIES after a flight, and just plug in your laptop (sans batteries) inflight, is about the only way that works. Too complicated for most people (and all gov’t agencies) though.
wj: return to the USA “the other way around”, via the Pacific. No ban in that direction, because terrorists would never think of that one weird trick, amirite?
wj: return to the USA “the other way around”, via the Pacific. No ban in that direction, because terrorists would never think of that one weird trick, amirite?
Actually, they don’t appear (that I have seen, anyway) to have a restriction on batteries alone. Hmmm….
But there apparently is now (there wasn’t last year when I came in) a requirement that, on arrival, you fire up your electronic devices (phones, as well as laptops). So you’d need to put the batteries back in after boarding and before clearing customs on arrival.
Actually, they don’t appear (that I have seen, anyway) to have a restriction on batteries alone. Hmmm….
But there apparently is now (there wasn’t last year when I came in) a requirement that, on arrival, you fire up your electronic devices (phones, as well as laptops). So you’d need to put the batteries back in after boarding and before clearing customs on arrival.
Ya know, before the Wright Brothers, you couldn’t fly with an abacus.
Ya know, before the Wright Brothers, you couldn’t fly with an abacus.
Ya know, before the Wright Brothers, you couldn’t fly with an abacus.
Ya know, before the Wright Brothers, you couldn’t fly with an abacus.
Twice? With that?
Allow laptops on the plane.
But no pants. That would keep everyone seated for the duration with their laptops on their laps and who is gonna want the initial explosion to go off in their, umm, laps.
You’d have to be very devout. Maybe Mike Pence, but I can’t see anyone else going through with it.
Twice? With that?
Allow laptops on the plane.
But no pants. That would keep everyone seated for the duration with their laptops on their laps and who is gonna want the initial explosion to go off in their, umm, laps.
You’d have to be very devout. Maybe Mike Pence, but I can’t see anyone else going through with it.
Before the Wright brothers, you couldn’t fly without an abacus either. Talk about catch-22!
Before the Wright brothers, you couldn’t fly without an abacus either. Talk about catch-22!
“before the Wright Brothers, you couldn’t fly with an abacus.”
Balloons.
“before the Wright Brothers, you couldn’t fly with an abacus.”
Balloons.
Oh, falling back on factual snark now.
Oh, falling back on factual snark now.
Yeah, but back then, nobody would be able to bring a Babbage Analytical Engine on a balloon flight.
Or fit it on their lap, either.
Yeah, but back then, nobody would be able to bring a Babbage Analytical Engine on a balloon flight.
Or fit it on their lap, either.
From JanieM’s post: “People are a bad mood.”
That’s too accurate to be corrected.
Thus it follows, soylent green is people.
I’ve been tinkering with a theory that cleek’s theorem as practiced by the right against the left in this country is akin to the Plains Indian tribal practice of “counting coup”, in lieu of outright bloodshed ….. but a cackling dare nonetheless.
https://nativeheritageproject.com/2012/10/05/counting-coup/
… which I’ve always admired as a novel way of fucking with fuckers.
But, I’m beginning to look at it from the pale
skin point of view of full-on annoyance evolving into outright madness and violence. I mean, how many Native Americans have we left now once the Texas Rangers got fed up with having their ears flicked from behind by the Comanche?
Just so the direction things are going to go if the annoying ones on the Right continue with this behavior.
I witnessed an incident in a bar not too long ago wherein a guy deep in his cups persisted in annoying the stocky, muscular cook in the joint by poking the latter in the shoulder and slapping the back of his head over some trivial point, probably having to do with a girl. All of a sudden .. they passed behind my stool at the bar … the cook, a pretty good barbecue expert, lifted the annoying one so his feet were off the floor and thus they passed behind me and out the front door where the annoying one was deposited some distance down the sidewalk, when gravity finally got aholt of his ass.
Funny thing is, some weeks earlier, the same annoying one had been breathing noxious fumes in my direction as he extolled the virtues of Donald Trump to the side of my face, while repeatedly poking me in the bicep to drive home the point.
The plate glass front window in the place had already been shattered once by incoming from scofflaws, so my respect for my friends, the owners, prevented me from sending the trumspter face first in the opposite direction.
Hooray for stocky cooks with tattoos.
Yes, Americans are tired of being fucked with.
From JanieM’s post: “People are a bad mood.”
That’s too accurate to be corrected.
Thus it follows, soylent green is people.
I’ve been tinkering with a theory that cleek’s theorem as practiced by the right against the left in this country is akin to the Plains Indian tribal practice of “counting coup”, in lieu of outright bloodshed ….. but a cackling dare nonetheless.
https://nativeheritageproject.com/2012/10/05/counting-coup/
… which I’ve always admired as a novel way of fucking with fuckers.
But, I’m beginning to look at it from the pale
skin point of view of full-on annoyance evolving into outright madness and violence. I mean, how many Native Americans have we left now once the Texas Rangers got fed up with having their ears flicked from behind by the Comanche?
Just so the direction things are going to go if the annoying ones on the Right continue with this behavior.
I witnessed an incident in a bar not too long ago wherein a guy deep in his cups persisted in annoying the stocky, muscular cook in the joint by poking the latter in the shoulder and slapping the back of his head over some trivial point, probably having to do with a girl. All of a sudden .. they passed behind my stool at the bar … the cook, a pretty good barbecue expert, lifted the annoying one so his feet were off the floor and thus they passed behind me and out the front door where the annoying one was deposited some distance down the sidewalk, when gravity finally got aholt of his ass.
Funny thing is, some weeks earlier, the same annoying one had been breathing noxious fumes in my direction as he extolled the virtues of Donald Trump to the side of my face, while repeatedly poking me in the bicep to drive home the point.
The plate glass front window in the place had already been shattered once by incoming from scofflaws, so my respect for my friends, the owners, prevented me from sending the trumspter face first in the opposite direction.
Hooray for stocky cooks with tattoos.
Yes, Americans are tired of being fucked with.
People are a bad mood.
this is just the warm up.
People are a bad mood.
this is just the warm up.
this is just the warm up.
One can only hope that the full response, when it comes will be (mostly) constructive, not just a lashing out. Lashing out, after all, is what brought us Trump.
this is just the warm up.
One can only hope that the full response, when it comes will be (mostly) constructive, not just a lashing out. Lashing out, after all, is what brought us Trump.
it will be whatever it is.
Trump was intended to be, and will be received as, a slap in the face to a lot of people. if the (R)’s can get their act together enough to take advantage of their hold on congress while they still have it, we may see policies that materially harm a lot of people.
it will probably elicit a response.
what the response is probably depends on how bad things get. so far they aren’t thoroughly horrible, at least if you’re not Hispanic or muslim, but it’s early days.
it will be whatever it is.
Trump was intended to be, and will be received as, a slap in the face to a lot of people. if the (R)’s can get their act together enough to take advantage of their hold on congress while they still have it, we may see policies that materially harm a lot of people.
it will probably elicit a response.
what the response is probably depends on how bad things get. so far they aren’t thoroughly horrible, at least if you’re not Hispanic or muslim, but it’s early days.
Counting coup.
Completely fascinating, thank you. Also greatly improved by Curtis pictures. I am lucky enough to have 5 framed Curtis prints on my wall, and absolutely love them.
Counting coup.
Completely fascinating, thank you. Also greatly improved by Curtis pictures. I am lucky enough to have 5 framed Curtis prints on my wall, and absolutely love them.
The laptop issue is, I believe, an intelligence effort. Even today, the US law allows the border security to copy the contents of the hard drive, but as the laptops are always hand luggage, that requires physically seizing the computer from the traveller. Thus, they can’t do it regularly.
If the laptops are in checked baggage, they can be taken for copying without hassle, which is a boon not only for anti-terrorism efforts but also for commercial and technological intelligence.
If the laptops need to be in checked baggage, no
European business traveler with a competitor in the US should ever again travel to US with their regular laptop. Instead, you should carry only those files you need for the meeting, and even those should be on an encrypted solid state memory in your pocket. The laptop should be a regular piece of trash without any sensitive content.
The laptop issue is, I believe, an intelligence effort. Even today, the US law allows the border security to copy the contents of the hard drive, but as the laptops are always hand luggage, that requires physically seizing the computer from the traveller. Thus, they can’t do it regularly.
If the laptops are in checked baggage, they can be taken for copying without hassle, which is a boon not only for anti-terrorism efforts but also for commercial and technological intelligence.
If the laptops need to be in checked baggage, no
European business traveler with a competitor in the US should ever again travel to US with their regular laptop. Instead, you should carry only those files you need for the meeting, and even those should be on an encrypted solid state memory in your pocket. The laptop should be a regular piece of trash without any sensitive content.
As an European, I must say that in my experience, US domestic flights are really shitty. Compared to your experiemce on European intra-Union flights, the US carriers have a clearly worse experience:
*The airports are usually much more depilitated.
*Security waiting lines are long, move slowly, the security staff is ruder, and the facilities still seem temporary, yet worn-out.
*Planes seem more shoddy, e.g. seats are in worse condition than on European carriers I use, and there is less space.
The in-flight reading is only mail-order catalogues targeted for the tasteless and the stupid. In Europe, there is usually an airline magazine with conveniently non-controversial stories about travel, economy, culture and international politics, of course with subtle advertisement of the airline.
All in all, in an American plane, you have the feeling of being lower-class, although in reality, the majority of fliers are probably upper middle class. Your social status is not respected. That is a very good reason for discontent, that may, combined with bad sleep and stress about the reason of travel, well explode in altercations.
As an European, I must say that in my experience, US domestic flights are really shitty. Compared to your experiemce on European intra-Union flights, the US carriers have a clearly worse experience:
*The airports are usually much more depilitated.
*Security waiting lines are long, move slowly, the security staff is ruder, and the facilities still seem temporary, yet worn-out.
*Planes seem more shoddy, e.g. seats are in worse condition than on European carriers I use, and there is less space.
The in-flight reading is only mail-order catalogues targeted for the tasteless and the stupid. In Europe, there is usually an airline magazine with conveniently non-controversial stories about travel, economy, culture and international politics, of course with subtle advertisement of the airline.
All in all, in an American plane, you have the feeling of being lower-class, although in reality, the majority of fliers are probably upper middle class. Your social status is not respected. That is a very good reason for discontent, that may, combined with bad sleep and stress about the reason of travel, well explode in altercations.
if you fly regularly in the US, I recommend applying for the TSA pre-screen program. shorter lines, less intrusive search, and you can leave your shoes on.
my wife and I recently flew Porter Air from Boston to Quebec city. they were great. they’re basically a Canadian regional, but if they go where you’re going, highly recommended.
yes, in general transport infrastructure in the US is not so great. the interstate highways are pretty good, other than that not so much.
if you think air travel here sucks, you should see the trains.
people are pissed because they’re getting screwed, and have been for a while. the current thinking for addressing that appears to be screw them some more so they can more fully experience the exhilarating freedom of market economics applied to every area of life.
it’s gonna suck, and there is no predicting how it will play out.
make people desparate, and they will behave in desparate ways.
if you fly regularly in the US, I recommend applying for the TSA pre-screen program. shorter lines, less intrusive search, and you can leave your shoes on.
my wife and I recently flew Porter Air from Boston to Quebec city. they were great. they’re basically a Canadian regional, but if they go where you’re going, highly recommended.
yes, in general transport infrastructure in the US is not so great. the interstate highways are pretty good, other than that not so much.
if you think air travel here sucks, you should see the trains.
people are pissed because they’re getting screwed, and have been for a while. the current thinking for addressing that appears to be screw them some more so they can more fully experience the exhilarating freedom of market economics applied to every area of life.
it’s gonna suck, and there is no predicting how it will play out.
make people desparate, and they will behave in desparate ways.
I really have no idea in which thread to post the continuing Mercer/Brexit etc stuff (for those not that interested in Brexit, remember that Mercer and Bannon are very close, and Brexit was Bannon’s first priority in his strategy for overturning the world order), particularly since I haven’t had a chance even to read today’s revelations, but for those still following, here it is:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/14/robert-mercer-cambridge-analytica-leave-eu-referendum-brexit-campaigns?CMP=share_btn_tw
I really have no idea in which thread to post the continuing Mercer/Brexit etc stuff (for those not that interested in Brexit, remember that Mercer and Bannon are very close, and Brexit was Bannon’s first priority in his strategy for overturning the world order), particularly since I haven’t had a chance even to read today’s revelations, but for those still following, here it is:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/14/robert-mercer-cambridge-analytica-leave-eu-referendum-brexit-campaigns?CMP=share_btn_tw
Connect the dots, those freckles on your back that turn out to be melanoma because you spent a little too much in the sun without a shirt as a kid, you irresponsible gets, and for which you shall forever be judged and denied medical care by sadistic, subhuman republican filth who suffer, apparently gleefully, from a genetic pre-existing mental condition, sadism, I believe passed down from their mothers’ side of the family, which then predisposes them to a habitual, unhealthy lifestyle of spending too much time with each other confirming the epistemic closures of their empathy glands and which is known to lead to terminal gunshot wounds, or as the NRA terms them, natural background concentrations of environmental lead poisoning that may lead to massive blood loss, especially among conservative diabetic pigfuckers.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/if-youre-not-pissing-em-off-youre-not.html
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/05/14/mulvaney-and-the-deserving-sick/
As Mulvaney so ignorantly reveals, like the murderous Irish cunt he and his mother are, the origins of childhood onset diabetes remain pretty much a mystery, which rhymes with fuck you.
There are 26 million diabetics in this country (reduced by two, I’m sure Mulvaney is tickled to know, on account of the horrible suffering and deaths of my Dad and sister) and most of the elderly in this country will suffer from age-onset diabetes as well on account of the fact of living too long in a country in which the freedom-loving Mulvaney and his pigshit brethren are paid off by the sugar-water, tobacco, and alcohol industries to poison trump supporters to the point where they are so addled by blood sugar problems that they beg republicans to fuck them in their dysfunctional pancreases and the majority has it.
I’ve have promised not to use the “v” word, which stands for vermin, so at this point I am speechless.
On the other hand, Robert Mercer and his daughter qualify for the maximum dose of Monsanto bug spray.
Connect the dots, those freckles on your back that turn out to be melanoma because you spent a little too much in the sun without a shirt as a kid, you irresponsible gets, and for which you shall forever be judged and denied medical care by sadistic, subhuman republican filth who suffer, apparently gleefully, from a genetic pre-existing mental condition, sadism, I believe passed down from their mothers’ side of the family, which then predisposes them to a habitual, unhealthy lifestyle of spending too much time with each other confirming the epistemic closures of their empathy glands and which is known to lead to terminal gunshot wounds, or as the NRA terms them, natural background concentrations of environmental lead poisoning that may lead to massive blood loss, especially among conservative diabetic pigfuckers.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/if-youre-not-pissing-em-off-youre-not.html
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/05/14/mulvaney-and-the-deserving-sick/
As Mulvaney so ignorantly reveals, like the murderous Irish cunt he and his mother are, the origins of childhood onset diabetes remain pretty much a mystery, which rhymes with fuck you.
There are 26 million diabetics in this country (reduced by two, I’m sure Mulvaney is tickled to know, on account of the horrible suffering and deaths of my Dad and sister) and most of the elderly in this country will suffer from age-onset diabetes as well on account of the fact of living too long in a country in which the freedom-loving Mulvaney and his pigshit brethren are paid off by the sugar-water, tobacco, and alcohol industries to poison trump supporters to the point where they are so addled by blood sugar problems that they beg republicans to fuck them in their dysfunctional pancreases and the majority has it.
I’ve have promised not to use the “v” word, which stands for vermin, so at this point I am speechless.
On the other hand, Robert Mercer and his daughter qualify for the maximum dose of Monsanto bug spray.
The more I read about Mercer, the more appalling he seems. Makes the Koch brothers and Soros look like choir boys.
The more I read about Mercer, the more appalling he seems. Makes the Koch brothers and Soros look like choir boys.
Trump’s lawyer tweets lingerie photo… of his …. [wait for it] …. own …. [almost there] ….
…. daughter.
creeps of a feather.
good Christian family values.
must respect.
Trump’s lawyer tweets lingerie photo… of his …. [wait for it] …. own …. [almost there] ….
…. daughter.
creeps of a feather.
good Christian family values.
must respect.
I honestly think that (3) is just about salience. Truth is, the airlines do a certain number of dickish things every year. If one is particularly egregious, the next few that are less appalling get more media prominence and the whole thing begins to look like a trend. Throw in a bit of statistical clumping and you’ve got yourself a scandal.
I’d bet good money (and I’m not a betting person) that the long-run average of appalling events visited on passengers by airlines is both constant and low.
Separately to that, we appear to have now become completely complacently accepting of all the lunatic rules that governments and airlines are introducing under the cloak of “security theatre”, but which in actual fact are either just massive wastes of time or direct grabs for cash or data on the part of those organizations.
Seriously, we know that the “liquid bomb” threat (hi, NSA!) is nil, and yet liquids are still restricted; why? Because the airports LOVE being able to charge $3 for a soda airside.
Similarly, TSA pre-screen is nonsense. I took 4 flights in the US last year and because we were travelling with a toddler, we were “comped” TSA pre-screen on every leg. Despite not being pre-screened! It’s just a cash grab, and is trivially easy to circumvent.
Stop talking about the very occasional airline wobbler, and start complaining about the real injustices being done to everyone, every time they fly.
I honestly think that (3) is just about salience. Truth is, the airlines do a certain number of dickish things every year. If one is particularly egregious, the next few that are less appalling get more media prominence and the whole thing begins to look like a trend. Throw in a bit of statistical clumping and you’ve got yourself a scandal.
I’d bet good money (and I’m not a betting person) that the long-run average of appalling events visited on passengers by airlines is both constant and low.
Separately to that, we appear to have now become completely complacently accepting of all the lunatic rules that governments and airlines are introducing under the cloak of “security theatre”, but which in actual fact are either just massive wastes of time or direct grabs for cash or data on the part of those organizations.
Seriously, we know that the “liquid bomb” threat (hi, NSA!) is nil, and yet liquids are still restricted; why? Because the airports LOVE being able to charge $3 for a soda airside.
Similarly, TSA pre-screen is nonsense. I took 4 flights in the US last year and because we were travelling with a toddler, we were “comped” TSA pre-screen on every leg. Despite not being pre-screened! It’s just a cash grab, and is trivially easy to circumvent.
Stop talking about the very occasional airline wobbler, and start complaining about the real injustices being done to everyone, every time they fly.
cleek, In this case I disagree pretty strongly. She obviously isn’t taking a selfie in the bathroom, its art. Its a hat tip to famous art for that matter.
I think its creepy that so many people think its creepy.
Proud father posting a clearly artistic, public picture of his daughter, not creepy. I an sure she doesn’t think its creepy either.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Michael-Cohen-donald-trump-daughter-lingerie.html
I guess some context for the photo shoot might have been ok, but my assumption was there was one, not that he is creepy.
cleek, In this case I disagree pretty strongly. She obviously isn’t taking a selfie in the bathroom, its art. Its a hat tip to famous art for that matter.
I think its creepy that so many people think its creepy.
Proud father posting a clearly artistic, public picture of his daughter, not creepy. I an sure she doesn’t think its creepy either.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Michael-Cohen-donald-trump-daughter-lingerie.html
I guess some context for the photo shoot might have been ok, but my assumption was there was one, not that he is creepy.
Stop talking about the very occasional airline wobbler, and start complaining about the real injustices being done to everyone, every time they fly.
Good luck ordering people around about what to talk about. I don’t think it will work around here; it certainly won’t work with me.
Anyhow, who said #3 is only about “airline wobblers”? The morning I wrote the post there was an article (not the first I’d seen) about two passengers getting into a fistfight on a plane. Nothing to do (except in the general sense that air travel is crappy and people are in a bad mood) with the airline as such.
Stop talking about the very occasional airline wobbler, and start complaining about the real injustices being done to everyone, every time they fly.
Good luck ordering people around about what to talk about. I don’t think it will work around here; it certainly won’t work with me.
Anyhow, who said #3 is only about “airline wobblers”? The morning I wrote the post there was an article (not the first I’d seen) about two passengers getting into a fistfight on a plane. Nothing to do (except in the general sense that air travel is crappy and people are in a bad mood) with the airline as such.
OK, let me rephrase: I don’t think that the stories about air travel are “increasingly scary” except in the sense that they have hit some sort of bump into society’s zeitgeist and that’s due to the media having a shitty grip of statistics and therefore over-reporting rare events that statistically cluster as if they were some kind of pattern.
So, sure, talk about them (and I retract my last para) — but my bet is that it’s no worse than any other year. Remember “nut rage” from 2015? ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/11407927/Daughter-of-Korean-Air-chief-jailed-in-nut-rage-case.html ) Or United breaking some guy’s guitar (this enraged Reddit in 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars#cite_note-cosh20090821-3 )?
I’ve had a bit of a search around for some statistics, and various bodies report increasing numbers of unruly passengers — in 2007, in 2012 and in 2014!
As always, let’s blame it on the Obama administration…
OK, let me rephrase: I don’t think that the stories about air travel are “increasingly scary” except in the sense that they have hit some sort of bump into society’s zeitgeist and that’s due to the media having a shitty grip of statistics and therefore over-reporting rare events that statistically cluster as if they were some kind of pattern.
So, sure, talk about them (and I retract my last para) — but my bet is that it’s no worse than any other year. Remember “nut rage” from 2015? ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/11407927/Daughter-of-Korean-Air-chief-jailed-in-nut-rage-case.html ) Or United breaking some guy’s guitar (this enraged Reddit in 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars#cite_note-cosh20090821-3 )?
I’ve had a bit of a search around for some statistics, and various bodies report increasing numbers of unruly passengers — in 2007, in 2012 and in 2014!
As always, let’s blame it on the Obama administration…
The Guardian have started getting threatening letters from Cambridge Analytica’s lawyers. Someone here (I can’t remember who) said how much they appreciated that we don’t post twitter stuff, but for anybody who’s interested in developments, this is Carole Cadwalladr’s twitter feed, which I think is well worth a look:
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla
The Guardian have started getting threatening letters from Cambridge Analytica’s lawyers. Someone here (I can’t remember who) said how much they appreciated that we don’t post twitter stuff, but for anybody who’s interested in developments, this is Carole Cadwalladr’s twitter feed, which I think is well worth a look:
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla
The Guardian have started getting threatening letters from Cambridge Analytica’s lawyers.
Hmmm. Maybe it’s time for me to drop some coin into the Guardian’s coffers.
The Guardian have started getting threatening letters from Cambridge Analytica’s lawyers.
Hmmm. Maybe it’s time for me to drop some coin into the Guardian’s coffers.
FWIW, I fly a lot, both up front and in the back. If anything, there is a shared sense of trying to make things work. I’m sure there are exceptions. I pretty share they are quite rare.
As for the raucous political discourse arising out of the obscene level of income inequality, I haven’t seen much of that from the middle or the right–what am I missing?
FWIW, I fly a lot, both up front and in the back. If anything, there is a shared sense of trying to make things work. I’m sure there are exceptions. I pretty share they are quite rare.
As for the raucous political discourse arising out of the obscene level of income inequality, I haven’t seen much of that from the middle or the right–what am I missing?
I haven’t seen much of that from the middle or the right–what am I missing?
on the right, the talk is all about making sure the rich get richer. the poor are irrelevant or inconvenient drains on profits.
I haven’t seen much of that from the middle or the right–what am I missing?
on the right, the talk is all about making sure the rich get richer. the poor are irrelevant or inconvenient drains on profits.
As for the raucous political discourse arising out of the obscene level of income inequality, I haven’t seen much of that from the middle or the right–what am I missing?
1. I wrote rancorous, not raucous.
2. It may be a subtle distinction, but I didn’t say “arising out of.”
3. As for what you’re missing…I suspect that any examples I would cite, you would dismiss as being beneath consideration and/or not representative, or some other lawyerly counterargument. (As with anecdata about air travel.)
We wouldn’t have to go far, though, since I would start with your own trademark sneering about “the left” right here at Obsidian Wings.
But hey, one freebie.
As for the raucous political discourse arising out of the obscene level of income inequality, I haven’t seen much of that from the middle or the right–what am I missing?
1. I wrote rancorous, not raucous.
2. It may be a subtle distinction, but I didn’t say “arising out of.”
3. As for what you’re missing…I suspect that any examples I would cite, you would dismiss as being beneath consideration and/or not representative, or some other lawyerly counterargument. (As with anecdata about air travel.)
We wouldn’t have to go far, though, since I would start with your own trademark sneering about “the left” right here at Obsidian Wings.
But hey, one freebie.
What’s more, “I haven’t seen much of that from the middle or the right” is an empty question, since I’m pretty sure that in McK world, bitching about income equality is definitionally “left.” So the question has no possible answer.
What’s more, “I haven’t seen much of that from the middle or the right” is an empty question, since I’m pretty sure that in McK world, bitching about income equality is definitionally “left.” So the question has no possible answer.
And finally, the notion that the political rancour in this country is all on one end of the spectrum is so beyond laughable that I wonder why I let myself get sucked into engaging with it.
And finally, the notion that the political rancour in this country is all on one end of the spectrum is so beyond laughable that I wonder why I let myself get sucked into engaging with it.
And finally, the notion that the political rancour in this country is all on one end of the spectrum is so beyond laughable
If this is indeed what McKinney meant, it is truly beyond laughable. It’s my impression, from the outside, that the real rancour has been zealously stoked, and fanned, by e.g. Rush Limbaugh, and above all by Fox, partly for ideological reasons but mainly for profit. I don’t deny that e.g. the Keith Olbermans of this world also took the baton and enthusiastically ran with it, but they seemed mere amateurs and followers-on compared to the rightwingers I cite. Is this impression wrong?
And finally, the notion that the political rancour in this country is all on one end of the spectrum is so beyond laughable
If this is indeed what McKinney meant, it is truly beyond laughable. It’s my impression, from the outside, that the real rancour has been zealously stoked, and fanned, by e.g. Rush Limbaugh, and above all by Fox, partly for ideological reasons but mainly for profit. I don’t deny that e.g. the Keith Olbermans of this world also took the baton and enthusiastically ran with it, but they seemed mere amateurs and followers-on compared to the rightwingers I cite. Is this impression wrong?
So, what is to be done about those who’s incomes are in the world’s top one percent? Annual incomes greater than $32,400. Should they be forced to share with the less fortunate?
So, what is to be done about those who’s incomes are in the world’s top one percent? Annual incomes greater than $32,400. Should they be forced to share with the less fortunate?
Should they be forced to share with the less fortunate?
yes. and we do.
and we should do more of it!
Should they be forced to share with the less fortunate?
yes. and we do.
and we should do more of it!
“What is to be done?”
LeninCharles asks.The likelihood of that strikes me as a real possibility. What are those 1%’ers going to do to stop it?
“What is to be done?”
LeninCharles asks.The likelihood of that strikes me as a real possibility. What are those 1%’ers going to do to stop it?
Yes.
Wouldn’t be the first time.
Incomes in the U.S. greater than the equivalent of $32,000 in say, 1953 dollars (roughly $3200, which placed you in the 24% to 27% marginal bracket) were subject for decades to a steeply progressive marginal tax rate on up to 91% of thereabouts at the highest incomes.
Low unemployment, high GDP growth, rare budget deficits, low inflation, all, with the exception of inflation lately, going in the opposite direction over time since then.
It was John Boehner’s favorite time in America. His Chevy loved the lev(y)ee.
Sure, 91% is too high.
But let’s stop pretending the goose stopped laying golden eggs.
Scroll to 1953.
https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/
Now if it’s the “forced” in “forced to share” that gets you, OK. Just be aware that there are plenty of things I don’t like being forced to do either, and won’t, which is the inverse of cleek’s law for me.
Yes.
Wouldn’t be the first time.
Incomes in the U.S. greater than the equivalent of $32,000 in say, 1953 dollars (roughly $3200, which placed you in the 24% to 27% marginal bracket) were subject for decades to a steeply progressive marginal tax rate on up to 91% of thereabouts at the highest incomes.
Low unemployment, high GDP growth, rare budget deficits, low inflation, all, with the exception of inflation lately, going in the opposite direction over time since then.
It was John Boehner’s favorite time in America. His Chevy loved the lev(y)ee.
Sure, 91% is too high.
But let’s stop pretending the goose stopped laying golden eggs.
Scroll to 1953.
https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/
Now if it’s the “forced” in “forced to share” that gets you, OK. Just be aware that there are plenty of things I don’t like being forced to do either, and won’t, which is the inverse of cleek’s law for me.
on the right, the talk is all about making sure the rich get richer. the poor are irrelevant or inconvenient drains on profits.
Got a cite? I haven’t seen that either.
is an empty question, since I’m pretty sure that in McK world, bitching about income equality is definitionally “left.” So the question has no possible answer.
What I’ve seen is that income inequality is a left’ish issue. If the conversation on that topic is rancorous, the rancor comes from the left.
And finally, the notion that the political rancour in this country is all on one end of the spectrum is so beyond laughable that I wonder why I let myself get sucked into engaging with it.
I agree there is plenty of rancor, but as for income inequality being the source of it from any quarter but the left, not so much. As for getting sucked into conversations you don’t want to have, one way to avoid that is to limit your discussions to only those who agree with you. Or to not post in public forums.
We wouldn’t have to go far, though, since I would start with your own trademark sneering about “the left” right here at Obsidian Wings.
Ok, now that’s a bit rancor-y.
GFTNC–I’m addressing–as requested by JanieM–her specific, three-point linkage: political rancor, income inequality and incidents of bad behavior on airplanes. She picked income inequality, not me.
In place of rancor, however, I’d put shallow predictability. Cleek’s non-sneering 3:15 is practically a lefty autotext for what everyone in the progressive know *knows* about what the right thinks about income inequality. Everyone “knows” that the right only cares about making the 1 percent even more wealthy. Same with profit margins–Republicans only care making more money for off shore, multi-national corporations and making sure that CEO’s pay as little tax as possible.
It’s a tough sell come election time, but fortunately for the Republicans, roughly one have of the country is too benighted to see through their clever rhetoric. Only those non-rancor-y, clear-eyed progressives ‘get it’.
It doesn’t seem to occur to a fair number of lefties that their narrative-confirming caricatures might be somewhat off base or why that might be the case. It’s a lot easier to frame a debate when one side is in good faith and the other clearly not. Otherwise, we would have to have engagement and non-rancor-y communication.
P.S. I still think Trump is an all-world dick.
on the right, the talk is all about making sure the rich get richer. the poor are irrelevant or inconvenient drains on profits.
Got a cite? I haven’t seen that either.
is an empty question, since I’m pretty sure that in McK world, bitching about income equality is definitionally “left.” So the question has no possible answer.
What I’ve seen is that income inequality is a left’ish issue. If the conversation on that topic is rancorous, the rancor comes from the left.
And finally, the notion that the political rancour in this country is all on one end of the spectrum is so beyond laughable that I wonder why I let myself get sucked into engaging with it.
I agree there is plenty of rancor, but as for income inequality being the source of it from any quarter but the left, not so much. As for getting sucked into conversations you don’t want to have, one way to avoid that is to limit your discussions to only those who agree with you. Or to not post in public forums.
We wouldn’t have to go far, though, since I would start with your own trademark sneering about “the left” right here at Obsidian Wings.
Ok, now that’s a bit rancor-y.
GFTNC–I’m addressing–as requested by JanieM–her specific, three-point linkage: political rancor, income inequality and incidents of bad behavior on airplanes. She picked income inequality, not me.
In place of rancor, however, I’d put shallow predictability. Cleek’s non-sneering 3:15 is practically a lefty autotext for what everyone in the progressive know *knows* about what the right thinks about income inequality. Everyone “knows” that the right only cares about making the 1 percent even more wealthy. Same with profit margins–Republicans only care making more money for off shore, multi-national corporations and making sure that CEO’s pay as little tax as possible.
It’s a tough sell come election time, but fortunately for the Republicans, roughly one have of the country is too benighted to see through their clever rhetoric. Only those non-rancor-y, clear-eyed progressives ‘get it’.
It doesn’t seem to occur to a fair number of lefties that their narrative-confirming caricatures might be somewhat off base or why that might be the case. It’s a lot easier to frame a debate when one side is in good faith and the other clearly not. Otherwise, we would have to have engagement and non-rancor-y communication.
P.S. I still think Trump is an all-world dick.
That should read 23 to 24 percent marginal tax bracket, depending on marital status.
That should read 23 to 24 percent marginal tax bracket, depending on marital status.
Everyone “knows” that the right only cares about making the 1 percent even more wealthy. Same with profit margins–Republicans only care making more money for off shore, multi-national corporations and making sure that CEO’s pay as little tax as possible.
Like an Ian Poulter shank on the 18th at the Players. Right. Really really far right.
Your motives may be as pure as the driven snow, but the policies you support invariably lead to the outcomes that we “know” you want.
How can that be?
Everyone “knows” that the right only cares about making the 1 percent even more wealthy. Same with profit margins–Republicans only care making more money for off shore, multi-national corporations and making sure that CEO’s pay as little tax as possible.
Like an Ian Poulter shank on the 18th at the Players. Right. Really really far right.
Your motives may be as pure as the driven snow, but the policies you support invariably lead to the outcomes that we “know” you want.
How can that be?
but the policies you support invariably lead to the outcomes that we “know” you want.
You mean like my being ok with a 40% tax load?
but the policies you support invariably lead to the outcomes that we “know” you want.
You mean like my being ok with a 40% tax load?
It seems to me to be perfectly possible to be a conservative and still feel that our current levels of income inequality are a problem. Unless, of course, you define “left” as being worried by income inequality.
If you disagree, perhaps we need to step back and have a discussion about what constitutes “conservative” vs “liberal”.
It seems to me to be perfectly possible to be a conservative and still feel that our current levels of income inequality are a problem. Unless, of course, you define “left” as being worried by income inequality.
If you disagree, perhaps we need to step back and have a discussion about what constitutes “conservative” vs “liberal”.
It seems to me to be perfectly possible to be a conservative and still feel that our current levels of income inequality are a problem. Unless, of course, you define “left” as being worried by income inequality.
Yes, perfectly possible. I’m mostly agnostic on income inequality being a thing and mostly opposed to progressive remedies because the cure is invariably worse than the disease. As a practical matter, whatever changes might actually be made *might* change the form of how the uber rich make their money and pay their taxes, but not the end result. The fact of gross disparities at the extremes isn’t going away. Being in a state of perpetual rage about it is not productive and tends to sound like class envy. I wonder how many in the 4th and 5th quartiles actually have a concept of the uber wealthy vs the nominally wealthy vs the well off vs the ‘nice life’? From that level, I imagine anyone with a home, two cars and relatively nice clothes looks like a millionaire. Do progressives really think folks at that level give a shit whether someone has one, ten or a hundred million dollars? What if what people in the 5th and 4th quartiles really want is a better job and more money and if they are completely indifferent to how much better off others might be? What if they don’t give a damn about how much money Paris Hilton or Chelsea Clinton have? If they don’t care, why are progressives so mad on their behalf?
It seems to me to be perfectly possible to be a conservative and still feel that our current levels of income inequality are a problem. Unless, of course, you define “left” as being worried by income inequality.
Yes, perfectly possible. I’m mostly agnostic on income inequality being a thing and mostly opposed to progressive remedies because the cure is invariably worse than the disease. As a practical matter, whatever changes might actually be made *might* change the form of how the uber rich make their money and pay their taxes, but not the end result. The fact of gross disparities at the extremes isn’t going away. Being in a state of perpetual rage about it is not productive and tends to sound like class envy. I wonder how many in the 4th and 5th quartiles actually have a concept of the uber wealthy vs the nominally wealthy vs the well off vs the ‘nice life’? From that level, I imagine anyone with a home, two cars and relatively nice clothes looks like a millionaire. Do progressives really think folks at that level give a shit whether someone has one, ten or a hundred million dollars? What if what people in the 5th and 4th quartiles really want is a better job and more money and if they are completely indifferent to how much better off others might be? What if they don’t give a damn about how much money Paris Hilton or Chelsea Clinton have? If they don’t care, why are progressives so mad on their behalf?
You mean like my being ok with a 40% tax load?
Reminds me of one former denizen here who defended his zealous stance on police needing to be free of restrictions by saying that he would recommend the death penalty for any cops caught perjuring themselves and patted himself on the back for his consistency. It got tiresome with him as well…
You mean like my being ok with a 40% tax load?
Reminds me of one former denizen here who defended his zealous stance on police needing to be free of restrictions by saying that he would recommend the death penalty for any cops caught perjuring themselves and patted himself on the back for his consistency. It got tiresome with him as well…
LJ–do you think a 40% tax load is a minimalist, pro-uber wealthy position?
LJ–do you think a 40% tax load is a minimalist, pro-uber wealthy position?
“P.S. I still think Trump is an all-world dick.”
See, at the last minute, you ruin everything by veering away from sheer rancor in favor of shallow predictability. 😉
“P.S. I still think Trump is an all-world dick.”
See, at the last minute, you ruin everything by veering away from sheer rancor in favor of shallow predictability. 😉
It got tiresome with him as well…
I missed this the first read-through. Classic LJ–snotty and supercilious at the same time. Nicely done. One of the things I don’t miss about college or law school is being “taught” by people like you. If you were as smart as you project yourself to be, you’d rip me on substance, if you could. I’m waiting for the day when you feel like giving it a go. Twinkie.
It got tiresome with him as well…
I missed this the first read-through. Classic LJ–snotty and supercilious at the same time. Nicely done. One of the things I don’t miss about college or law school is being “taught” by people like you. If you were as smart as you project yourself to be, you’d rip me on substance, if you could. I’m waiting for the day when you feel like giving it a go. Twinkie.
shallow predictability.
Not me. Tiresome, yes. Deplortable, yes. Predictable, sometimes. Shallow, never.
shallow predictability.
Not me. Tiresome, yes. Deplortable, yes. Predictable, sometimes. Shallow, never.
Well, interesting that we’re talking about income inequality (pssst: not going to be addressed by Republicans, ever) when Trump the traitor billionaire continues to reward the Russians for his payoff.
McKinney, I’m taking breaks between throwing up to ask what you think of the latest news? Or, if you’re looking at FOX maybe you didn’t see it.
Well, interesting that we’re talking about income inequality (pssst: not going to be addressed by Republicans, ever) when Trump the traitor billionaire continues to reward the Russians for his payoff.
McKinney, I’m taking breaks between throwing up to ask what you think of the latest news? Or, if you’re looking at FOX maybe you didn’t see it.
The fact of gross disparities at the extremes isn’t going away.
It takes a lot of guns and jackboots to escape the Pareto Principle.
The fact of gross disparities at the extremes isn’t going away.
It takes a lot of guns and jackboots to escape the Pareto Principle.
Sapient, which news in particular? I don’t watch news, period FWIW. I’m on my cell so a detailed response will likely have to wait.
Sapient, which news in particular? I don’t watch news, period FWIW. I’m on my cell so a detailed response will likely have to wait.
McT, I pride myself on being a teacher, but if the student doesn’t want to learn, there’s not much the teacher can do. You want to claim that because you support a 40% tax load, you can defend your other positions when you know the possibility of that happening is nil. So it is a position without substance. Which is why you take that position, because getting into the substance would mean you get ripped.
It would be nice if you were honest about it, but I don’t think you are being honest with yourself, so there’s not much anyone can say until you figure it out.
And btw “Twinkie” is one of those gendered insults that suggests that somehow I’m not ‘man’ enough to engage you. As if this discussion required some sort of masculine qualities like being able to lift heavier weights than women or being able to pee standing up. I know it’s a reflex that is hard to overcome, but surely, you can see how that leaves you open to charges that you are a misogynist?
McT, I pride myself on being a teacher, but if the student doesn’t want to learn, there’s not much the teacher can do. You want to claim that because you support a 40% tax load, you can defend your other positions when you know the possibility of that happening is nil. So it is a position without substance. Which is why you take that position, because getting into the substance would mean you get ripped.
It would be nice if you were honest about it, but I don’t think you are being honest with yourself, so there’s not much anyone can say until you figure it out.
And btw “Twinkie” is one of those gendered insults that suggests that somehow I’m not ‘man’ enough to engage you. As if this discussion required some sort of masculine qualities like being able to lift heavier weights than women or being able to pee standing up. I know it’s a reflex that is hard to overcome, but surely, you can see how that leaves you open to charges that you are a misogynist?
Ummm, important news is out there. Take a look at the Washington Post..
Ummm, important news is out there. Take a look at the Washington Post..
“It takes a lot of guns and jackboots to escape the Pareto Principle.”
I’d advise the Pareto winners to stop selling us guns and jackboots, given they are outnumbered:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a55076/republicans-healthcare-welfare-us-them/
“It takes a lot of guns and jackboots to escape the Pareto Principle.”
I’d advise the Pareto winners to stop selling us guns and jackboots, given they are outnumbered:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a55076/republicans-healthcare-welfare-us-them/
McTX:
Do you acknowledge AT ALL that, even though The Free Market results in vast income disparities BEFORE TAX, The Guvmint can decrease those disparites AFTER TAX without handcuffing The Invisible Hand?
You are a piker compared to the really rich. If your income is into the (currently) top marginal tax bracket, it’s not very far into it. Unless you have misrepresented yourself here, you don’t make a tenth of what Rush Limbaugh makes, pre-tax. Do you honestly think that a 50% marginal rate kicking in at $3M/year, or a 60% rate above $30M/yr, would distort the market for conservative radio blowhards or hedge fund managers or major league shortstops?
When you get off your “left’ish” fet’ish, I will happily talk turkey with you about what income tax rates — on what income BRACKETS — would be sensible or even “fair”. Until then, be aware that if the time for pitchforks and torches ever comes back, your conceit that you’re one of the oppressed minority of poor, hardworking, job-creating, multimillionaires will look foolish in at least two different ways.
–TP
McTX:
Do you acknowledge AT ALL that, even though The Free Market results in vast income disparities BEFORE TAX, The Guvmint can decrease those disparites AFTER TAX without handcuffing The Invisible Hand?
You are a piker compared to the really rich. If your income is into the (currently) top marginal tax bracket, it’s not very far into it. Unless you have misrepresented yourself here, you don’t make a tenth of what Rush Limbaugh makes, pre-tax. Do you honestly think that a 50% marginal rate kicking in at $3M/year, or a 60% rate above $30M/yr, would distort the market for conservative radio blowhards or hedge fund managers or major league shortstops?
When you get off your “left’ish” fet’ish, I will happily talk turkey with you about what income tax rates — on what income BRACKETS — would be sensible or even “fair”. Until then, be aware that if the time for pitchforks and torches ever comes back, your conceit that you’re one of the oppressed minority of poor, hardworking, job-creating, multimillionaires will look foolish in at least two different ways.
–TP
Sapient, I assume you are referring to the (alleged for now) disclosure by Trump to Russia of inside information regarding ISIS? With the understanding that the story, as written, needs to be verified, thefurther we get into this administration, the closer it seems we are to a 25th amendment situation.
LJ– thank you for clarifying my lack of honesty, not only with others but with myself. That was most enlightening. You are unbelievably insightful and I am honored to be the beneficiary of your constructive and uplifting criticism. You and everything you say is always in good faith. I now see that anyone who disagrees with you is in bad faith. This has helped me so much to understand myself as a person. I really mean this.
BTW, Twinkie = lightweight. But thanks for the social justice lecture, Twinkie. You Thought and Speech Police are just what the doctor ordered. Thanks!
Sapient, I assume you are referring to the (alleged for now) disclosure by Trump to Russia of inside information regarding ISIS? With the understanding that the story, as written, needs to be verified, thefurther we get into this administration, the closer it seems we are to a 25th amendment situation.
LJ– thank you for clarifying my lack of honesty, not only with others but with myself. That was most enlightening. You are unbelievably insightful and I am honored to be the beneficiary of your constructive and uplifting criticism. You and everything you say is always in good faith. I now see that anyone who disagrees with you is in bad faith. This has helped me so much to understand myself as a person. I really mean this.
BTW, Twinkie = lightweight. But thanks for the social justice lecture, Twinkie. You Thought and Speech Police are just what the doctor ordered. Thanks!
thefurther we get into this administration, the closer it seems we are to a 25th amendment situation.
I would suggest calling your Republican representatives of both houses and making it clear that you want that to happen now, before we go straight down the toilet.
Of course, we know that Trump is compromised. Maybe Pence is too, but one at a time.
Thanks, McKinney, for acknowledging a potential (at least) problem. I would call it a national emergency, but that’s just me being a hawk.
thefurther we get into this administration, the closer it seems we are to a 25th amendment situation.
I would suggest calling your Republican representatives of both houses and making it clear that you want that to happen now, before we go straight down the toilet.
Of course, we know that Trump is compromised. Maybe Pence is too, but one at a time.
Thanks, McKinney, for acknowledging a potential (at least) problem. I would call it a national emergency, but that’s just me being a hawk.
The fact of gross disparities at the extremes isn’t going away.
Says who? Advocating an array of public policies that both promote and aggravate income inequality and then claiming you are “fine” with them is, well, rich.
The fact of gross disparities at the extremes isn’t going away.
Says who? Advocating an array of public policies that both promote and aggravate income inequality and then claiming you are “fine” with them is, well, rich.
But, sapient, repeat after these guys, “The Russians are our friends, the Russians are our friends.”
In support of the Jefferson Davis Confederacy, an example of the strange syncretism seen only in cretinous America.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-supremacists-confederate-statue-protest
When it is finally revealed that Ayn Rand was the most successful undercover Soviet agent in history, we’ll see that Paul Ryan is a traitorous collaborator as well.
McTX, the Washington Post news is that trump read Hillary’s unreleased emails out loud to the Russians last week during their visit to the White House.
Now, they have all of her Fannie Farmer recipes, ans some bonus material, exactly as you feared.
I pine for the days when being a commie sympathizer was all a pose by winsome leftist coeds and that guy with the beret who dated all of them.
But, sapient, repeat after these guys, “The Russians are our friends, the Russians are our friends.”
In support of the Jefferson Davis Confederacy, an example of the strange syncretism seen only in cretinous America.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/white-supremacists-confederate-statue-protest
When it is finally revealed that Ayn Rand was the most successful undercover Soviet agent in history, we’ll see that Paul Ryan is a traitorous collaborator as well.
McTX, the Washington Post news is that trump read Hillary’s unreleased emails out loud to the Russians last week during their visit to the White House.
Now, they have all of her Fannie Farmer recipes, ans some bonus material, exactly as you feared.
I pine for the days when being a commie sympathizer was all a pose by winsome leftist coeds and that guy with the beret who dated all of them.
I’m mostly agnostic on income inequality being a thing and mostly opposed to progressive remedies because the cure is invariably worse than the disease. As a practical matter, whatever changes might actually be made *might* change the form of how the uber rich make their money and pay their taxes, but not the end result. The fact of gross disparities at the extremes isn’t going away.
And yet, it isn’t obvious how this time is different from the original Gilded Age. After which, we managed to substantially reduce economic inequality, while having the country and the economy grow enormously. Why couldn’t it happen again? Seriously, why is this time so different?
I’m mostly agnostic on income inequality being a thing and mostly opposed to progressive remedies because the cure is invariably worse than the disease. As a practical matter, whatever changes might actually be made *might* change the form of how the uber rich make their money and pay their taxes, but not the end result. The fact of gross disparities at the extremes isn’t going away.
And yet, it isn’t obvious how this time is different from the original Gilded Age. After which, we managed to substantially reduce economic inequality, while having the country and the economy grow enormously. Why couldn’t it happen again? Seriously, why is this time so different?
an example of the strange syncretism seen only in cretinous America.
Yeah, cute. Not a mile away from where I work. Not going to advocate violence here, but just wondering: how far will we let them go? Especially after today’s late breaking news?
an example of the strange syncretism seen only in cretinous America.
Yeah, cute. Not a mile away from where I work. Not going to advocate violence here, but just wondering: how far will we let them go? Especially after today’s late breaking news?
When it is finally revealed that Ayn Rand was the most successful undercover Soviet agent in history
Compared to Robert Mercer, a piker.
When it is finally revealed that Ayn Rand was the most successful undercover Soviet agent in history
Compared to Robert Mercer, a piker.
I’m too freaked out to worry about italics.
I’m too freaked out to worry about italics.
Fixed it before
Fixed it before
Well wj, all we need is a couple of world wars that decimate our economic competition and make cheap labor dangerous to use and we can make America great again.
Well wj, all we need is a couple of world wars that decimate our economic competition and make cheap labor dangerous to use and we can make America great again.
Shorter Marty: I love my privilege and care little of anything else. Also, I’m bored.
Shorter Marty: I love my privilege and care little of anything else. Also, I’m bored.
I care that in addition to the President casually declassifying code word info to share it with an ambassador that somehow no one notices it has also been shared by current security officials with former security officials and the Washington Post which is clearly illegal by everyone involved. The details are being “withheld” by the Post So no one will identify the country, how do they know? So the security problem potential is assured because it’s on the front page of the newspaper.
I think the second half of that is as big a problem as the first.
I care that in addition to the President casually declassifying code word info to share it with an ambassador that somehow no one notices it has also been shared by current security officials with former security officials and the Washington Post which is clearly illegal by everyone involved. The details are being “withheld” by the Post So no one will identify the country, how do they know? So the security problem potential is assured because it’s on the front page of the newspaper.
I think the second half of that is as big a problem as the first.
McT
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=twinkie
Apologies for the extended Social Justice lecture, but you don’t seem to really understand. I’m pretty sure you weren’t referring to my Asian heritage and I hope you weren’t suggesting it was the term as it is used in the gay community. So taking your admission that you want to call me lightweight, why are you calling me a lightweight? Because I won’t ‘mix it up’ with you. It is an insult based on perceived aspects of masculinity that you don’t even stop to question. That refusal/inability to even consider that is what comes across. I tried to point it out by drawing a parallel to a previous argument rather than accuse of you. Clearly, that must have stung because your response is to the man rather than the ball. The insult doesn’t bother me, but you repeating it at the end is not a good look on you or anyone. But you think it bothers me, so you go with it again rather than address the point, which is that you propose an unworkable possibility to shore up your ability to compromise unlike everyone from “the left”.
As for your inability to be honest with yourself, it’s that inability to even stop and think why you use the words you do that makes me suggest that. Hope that is not too silly and supercilious for you…
McT
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=twinkie
Apologies for the extended Social Justice lecture, but you don’t seem to really understand. I’m pretty sure you weren’t referring to my Asian heritage and I hope you weren’t suggesting it was the term as it is used in the gay community. So taking your admission that you want to call me lightweight, why are you calling me a lightweight? Because I won’t ‘mix it up’ with you. It is an insult based on perceived aspects of masculinity that you don’t even stop to question. That refusal/inability to even consider that is what comes across. I tried to point it out by drawing a parallel to a previous argument rather than accuse of you. Clearly, that must have stung because your response is to the man rather than the ball. The insult doesn’t bother me, but you repeating it at the end is not a good look on you or anyone. But you think it bothers me, so you go with it again rather than address the point, which is that you propose an unworkable possibility to shore up your ability to compromise unlike everyone from “the left”.
As for your inability to be honest with yourself, it’s that inability to even stop and think why you use the words you do that makes me suggest that. Hope that is not too silly and supercilious for you…
Missing Donald’s outrage.
Oh, forgot, he doesn’t comment here anymore because why bother? Atrocities are through the roof, but no Democrats around to blame. Hmmm. Wonder whether it’s correlation or causation there. I vote both.
Missing Donald’s outrage.
Oh, forgot, he doesn’t comment here anymore because why bother? Atrocities are through the roof, but no Democrats around to blame. Hmmm. Wonder whether it’s correlation or causation there. I vote both.
I think the second half of that is as big a problem as the first.
I think not. The fact that our President is selling out our intelligence to our “enemies” is worth US citizens knowing so that they can impeach him. Of course, Marty won’t be in favor of that because it would get in the way of his tax cut.
And yes, Marty is both outraged about his high Obamacare premiums because he lost his lucrative job, and worried about his taxes. Above country.
Poor Marty. He’s bored.
I think the second half of that is as big a problem as the first.
I think not. The fact that our President is selling out our intelligence to our “enemies” is worth US citizens knowing so that they can impeach him. Of course, Marty won’t be in favor of that because it would get in the way of his tax cut.
And yes, Marty is both outraged about his high Obamacare premiums because he lost his lucrative job, and worried about his taxes. Above country.
Poor Marty. He’s bored.
The way fascists take over is to convince people like you the current government is bad enough to replace by any means. Seems to be working.
The way fascists take over is to convince people like you the current government is bad enough to replace by any means. Seems to be working.
all we need is a couple of world wars that decimate our economic competition and make cheap labor dangerous to us
Did nothing change between 1895 and our entry into WW I?
all we need is a couple of world wars that decimate our economic competition and make cheap labor dangerous to us
Did nothing change between 1895 and our entry into WW I?
The way fascists take over is to convince people like you the current government is bad enough to replace by any means. Seems to be working.
Joke’s on you, bud. It’s already happened.
The way fascists take over is to convince people like you the current government is bad enough to replace by any means. Seems to be working.
Joke’s on you, bud. It’s already happened.
Did I do it again? Yep Or not.
Did I do it again? Yep Or not.
Out of here. Obviously I need to get a grip. On something.
Out of here. Obviously I need to get a grip. On something.
Wow, mega-sloppy of me on the italics there. Sorry, all.
Wow, mega-sloppy of me on the italics there. Sorry, all.
You’re so sweet, wj.
You’re so sweet, wj.
Well, the first one (two, actually) was me. The last one was you, however. 😉
Fixed them all. I hope….
Well, the first one (two, actually) was me. The last one was you, however. 😉
Fixed them all. I hope….
Haha. In my current mood, I’ll blame … [Sorry.]
Haha. In my current mood, I’ll blame … [Sorry.]
So back to whether fascists have taken over:
Of course, the Count has already posted about this: Richard Spencer was in my town. Of course, we don’t really like hi here, most of us.
But those of us (some whose handles begin with “M”?) who are not working for the resistance? We’re taking sides now. Do the right thing.
So back to whether fascists have taken over:
Of course, the Count has already posted about this: Richard Spencer was in my town. Of course, we don’t really like hi here, most of us.
But those of us (some whose handles begin with “M”?) who are not working for the resistance? We’re taking sides now. Do the right thing.
If your talking about destruction, don’t you know that you can count_me out…..
Take a side. Mine is on the rule of law. When they find an impeachable offense I’m down. Until then I expect our government to support and defend the constitution and laws of the country. I expect law enforcement to investigate, find evidence and turn it over to prosecutors. That process should have oversight from the Congress where that evidence is viewed by both parties to determine if/when there is enough evidence to warrant a special prosecutor. If the President is determined to have committed a criminal offense he should be impeached and arrested. Otherwise he hasnt done anythong that approaches impeachable.
I don’t expect that investigation or the day to day workings of the government to be impeded by constant illegal leaks or outright subordination from the ranks.
I don’t expect anything except obstruction from Democrats, that would require them to forget the Republican obstruction, and they believe they can demonize Trump enough to retake the House. The war is underway, sides have been taken, coup is being counted. To survive as a country requires both sides to function within the construct of our way of government, even if just within.
This story is about going around government, it is abusing the public trust and weakening the foundation of our country. I believe in our country first, you and your team have given up on it.
If your talking about destruction, don’t you know that you can count_me out…..
Take a side. Mine is on the rule of law. When they find an impeachable offense I’m down. Until then I expect our government to support and defend the constitution and laws of the country. I expect law enforcement to investigate, find evidence and turn it over to prosecutors. That process should have oversight from the Congress where that evidence is viewed by both parties to determine if/when there is enough evidence to warrant a special prosecutor. If the President is determined to have committed a criminal offense he should be impeached and arrested. Otherwise he hasnt done anythong that approaches impeachable.
I don’t expect that investigation or the day to day workings of the government to be impeded by constant illegal leaks or outright subordination from the ranks.
I don’t expect anything except obstruction from Democrats, that would require them to forget the Republican obstruction, and they believe they can demonize Trump enough to retake the House. The war is underway, sides have been taken, coup is being counted. To survive as a country requires both sides to function within the construct of our way of government, even if just within.
This story is about going around government, it is abusing the public trust and weakening the foundation of our country. I believe in our country first, you and your team have given up on it.
When they find an impeachable offense I’m down.
Hmmm… Bribery?
Obstruction of Justice?
Crazy as a loon?
Or just the wrong.
Fine with your folk. Tax cuts above country1
When they find an impeachable offense I’m down.
Hmmm… Bribery?
Obstruction of Justice?
Crazy as a loon?
Or just the wrong.
Fine with your folk. Tax cuts above country1
Marty, would receiving a consensual blowjob in the Oval Office meet your standard for an impeachable offense?
Marty, would receiving a consensual blowjob in the Oval Office meet your standard for an impeachable offense?
OT: Richard Spencer looks like the lead antagonist in the Designated Survivor
series.
OT: Richard Spencer looks like the lead antagonist in the Designated Survivor
series.
“would receiving a consensual blowjob in the Oval Office meet your standard for an impeachable offense?”
Precedent says no, precedent also says that sharing intel with the Russians about ISIS isnt one either, or promising to be flexible in cooperating with them. Nor is doing things lots of people in the country disagree with.
“would receiving a consensual blowjob in the Oval Office meet your standard for an impeachable offense?”
Precedent says no, precedent also says that sharing intel with the Russians about ISIS isnt one either, or promising to be flexible in cooperating with them. Nor is doing things lots of people in the country disagree with.
On a brighter note, I got to see Corey Booker giver the keynote speech at U Penn’s commencement today. I’m not one to cry much, but I was welling up at the end – not out of sadness. And the whole day made me feel like I was in the midst of, if not part of, an elite politcal-resistance force. (Yeah, that’s right, elite – scientifically, ethically, morally, and compassionately elite.)
On a brighter note, I got to see Corey Booker giver the keynote speech at U Penn’s commencement today. I’m not one to cry much, but I was welling up at the end – not out of sadness. And the whole day made me feel like I was in the midst of, if not part of, an elite politcal-resistance force. (Yeah, that’s right, elite – scientifically, ethically, morally, and compassionately elite.)
Cory, FFS…
Cory, FFS…
Wow. That’s some major league projection there, Marty.
And we should worry about some Trump lickspittle who leak embarrassing things about their boss?
You can’t be serious.
Wow. That’s some major league projection there, Marty.
And we should worry about some Trump lickspittle who leak embarrassing things about their boss?
You can’t be serious.
Thank you, hairshirt. I actually love Corey Booker, and am hugely grateful that you feel that way.
A person who I respect greatly had the chance to see him while in college, and was similarly moved. Again, there are some very inspiring Democrats out there, some of whom have to make occasional compromises in order to be elected.
Here’s to electing enough Democrats that they don’t have to compromise. Will take years, but I’ve got twenty maybe.
Thank you, hairshirt. I actually love Corey Booker, and am hugely grateful that you feel that way.
A person who I respect greatly had the chance to see him while in college, and was similarly moved. Again, there are some very inspiring Democrats out there, some of whom have to make occasional compromises in order to be elected.
Here’s to electing enough Democrats that they don’t have to compromise. Will take years, but I’ve got twenty maybe.
Less than twenty for copying the misspelling of Cory Booker’s name.
Less than twenty for copying the misspelling of Cory Booker’s name.
Marty: When they find an impeachable offense I’m down.
Marty revealed unto us last year that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, power-hungry, criminal.
Marty reveals unto us now that He, Trump (formerly Birther-in-Chief, always Liar-in-Chief, and now possibly Leaker-in-Chief), while deplorable, deserves a certain measure of respect and deference owing to the office he holds.
Reading between the lines, I am left with the impression that the “they” Marty speaks of are the Republicans and the right-wingers, for accusations against, or condemnations of, Mr. President Donald J. Turmp from Democrats or lefties are a threat to the nation.
Oh, well: Marty is a True American, unlike you lot, so keep paying attention to him if you must.
–TP
Marty: When they find an impeachable offense I’m down.
Marty revealed unto us last year that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, power-hungry, criminal.
Marty reveals unto us now that He, Trump (formerly Birther-in-Chief, always Liar-in-Chief, and now possibly Leaker-in-Chief), while deplorable, deserves a certain measure of respect and deference owing to the office he holds.
Reading between the lines, I am left with the impression that the “they” Marty speaks of are the Republicans and the right-wingers, for accusations against, or condemnations of, Mr. President Donald J. Turmp from Democrats or lefties are a threat to the nation.
Oh, well: Marty is a True American, unlike you lot, so keep paying attention to him if you must.
–TP
They: investigators and prosecutors, you know, the people we have entrusted the responsibility to.
They: investigators and prosecutors, you know, the people we have entrusted the responsibility to.
Not Comey, though. Right, Marty?
–TP
Not Comey, though. Right, Marty?
–TP
Marty, I’m having trouble seeing the Democrats opposing impeachment and removal. Keeping the ability to “run against Trump” just doesn’t seem like nearly enough reason. In addition to the possibility, which you apparently reject out of hand, that they might want him gone for the good of the country, there is this: how great would it be to run against the administration of the first President ever removed from office?** Even after he was gone, the charm is obvious.
No,if the Republicans in Congress ever reach the point where they are willing to act, the Democrats won’t be trying to obstruct them.
** Because, of course, Trump will never do a Nixon and resign. Admitting to being a loser just isn’t in him.
Marty, I’m having trouble seeing the Democrats opposing impeachment and removal. Keeping the ability to “run against Trump” just doesn’t seem like nearly enough reason. In addition to the possibility, which you apparently reject out of hand, that they might want him gone for the good of the country, there is this: how great would it be to run against the administration of the first President ever removed from office?** Even after he was gone, the charm is obvious.
No,if the Republicans in Congress ever reach the point where they are willing to act, the Democrats won’t be trying to obstruct them.
** Because, of course, Trump will never do a Nixon and resign. Admitting to being a loser just isn’t in him.
TP, I didn’t mean any of that. Dems will obstruct any progress, heck they will just throw an accusation a day and yes, would love to be able to start in on Pence.
I don’t particularly blame them for that.
Coney? He moved from being a primarily even handed law enforcement professional the day he decided to announce that he determined that Clinton’s actions didn’t rise to the level of prosecutable. He became a political figure at that point. His latest testimony was all about the political calculations he made along the way. The FBI Director should not be making those calculations.
In the end he refused to review what his testimony was going to be with Trump before he testified the last time. A common courtesy normally provided to the boss in that circumstance. A simple heads up. Another political calculation on his part.
Those things make it ok with me that he get replaced. The single most important criteria for a new FBI Director for me is someone who doesn’t play that political role.
TP, I didn’t mean any of that. Dems will obstruct any progress, heck they will just throw an accusation a day and yes, would love to be able to start in on Pence.
I don’t particularly blame them for that.
Coney? He moved from being a primarily even handed law enforcement professional the day he decided to announce that he determined that Clinton’s actions didn’t rise to the level of prosecutable. He became a political figure at that point. His latest testimony was all about the political calculations he made along the way. The FBI Director should not be making those calculations.
In the end he refused to review what his testimony was going to be with Trump before he testified the last time. A common courtesy normally provided to the boss in that circumstance. A simple heads up. Another political calculation on his part.
Those things make it ok with me that he get replaced. The single most important criteria for a new FBI Director for me is someone who doesn’t play that political role.
Sorry, first half was to wj.
Sorry, first half was to wj.
Adam Silverman at BJ. And more.
Nuance. Imagine.
Adam Silverman at BJ. And more.
Nuance. Imagine.
Marty, thanks for the clarification.
Marty, thanks for the clarification.
A common courtesy normally provided to the boss in that circumstance.
The president has the power to dismiss the director of the FBI. Is he really his ‘boss’ ?
You might want to consider the constitutional implications of that.
A common courtesy normally provided to the boss in that circumstance.
The president has the power to dismiss the director of the FBI. Is he really his ‘boss’ ?
You might want to consider the constitutional implications of that.
He is the boss. The President runs the executive branch to which the FNI Director reports. To create some amount of seperation it was decided, in the last century, to appoint Directors to a ten year term so they would have some independence. The very point being to make them above The politics.
The FBI Director bevame a thing in 1908. There is no constitutional implication to an executive branch employee being fired by the head of the executive branch despite the histrionics and Lawrence Tribes e.g. al best attempts at rewriting history.
He is the boss. The President runs the executive branch to which the FNI Director reports. To create some amount of seperation it was decided, in the last century, to appoint Directors to a ten year term so they would have some independence. The very point being to make them above The politics.
The FBI Director bevame a thing in 1908. There is no constitutional implication to an executive branch employee being fired by the head of the executive branch despite the histrionics and Lawrence Tribes e.g. al best attempts at rewriting history.
wow. there seems to be nothing Marty won’t excuse, so long as he can remain pointing away from liberals.
awesome
wow. there seems to be nothing Marty won’t excuse, so long as he can remain pointing away from liberals.
awesome
Nobody doubts that the President has the authority to fire the FBI director. But the fact that he is the boss doesn’t mean that he has the authority to demand a profession of personal loyalty to him. (Which he is alleged to have done.) There is a reason that the FBI Director (also the military, etc.) take their oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution, not those above them in the chain of command.
Also, even if one has the authority to fire someone, it can still constitute (attempted) obstruction of justice if they are engaged in investigating him. Whether that applies to overseeing the investigation, rather than actively doing the digging is a matter of some dispute. But if it applies, the calls for impeachment are not merely histrionics. Certainly they are more solidly based than just lying about adultery.
Nobody doubts that the President has the authority to fire the FBI director. But the fact that he is the boss doesn’t mean that he has the authority to demand a profession of personal loyalty to him. (Which he is alleged to have done.) There is a reason that the FBI Director (also the military, etc.) take their oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution, not those above them in the chain of command.
Also, even if one has the authority to fire someone, it can still constitute (attempted) obstruction of justice if they are engaged in investigating him. Whether that applies to overseeing the investigation, rather than actively doing the digging is a matter of some dispute. But if it applies, the calls for impeachment are not merely histrionics. Certainly they are more solidly based than just lying about adultery.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/unimaginative-and-incoherent-economic.html
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/unimaginative-and-incoherent-economic.html
Would like to wade in again, if I may.
Check this out: https://lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story
Long? Yes. But comprehensive – and I have to trust – by people who know what they’re talking about.
All good and fine that he has the authority to fire Comey. No-one can dispute that. But the implications endorsed in the link above show that relying exclusively on narrow legal technicalities to do this, that, and the other indeed only go just so far. Such technicalities have only just a certain shelf life with what appears to be a security breach on his end vis-avis the check-by-jowlfest with the Russian press apparatchiks.
Would like to see what McK has to say about the article.
Would like to wade in again, if I may.
Check this out: https://lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story
Long? Yes. But comprehensive – and I have to trust – by people who know what they’re talking about.
All good and fine that he has the authority to fire Comey. No-one can dispute that. But the implications endorsed in the link above show that relying exclusively on narrow legal technicalities to do this, that, and the other indeed only go just so far. Such technicalities have only just a certain shelf life with what appears to be a security breach on his end vis-avis the check-by-jowlfest with the Russian press apparatchiks.
Would like to see what McK has to say about the article.
the GOP’s new motto is, apparently, “technically not illegal!”
the GOP’s new motto is, apparently, “technically not illegal!”
“technically not illegal . . . when we do it!” Hilary sent material which was not (at the time!) classified, but which was later classified. Just because it wasn’t illegal when she did it didn’t matter at all.
“technically not illegal . . . when we do it!” Hilary sent material which was not (at the time!) classified, but which was later classified. Just because it wasn’t illegal when she did it didn’t matter at all.
I keep reading (and saying myself) that Trump is only getting away with this because the GOP congress lets him. I think that’s both right (because they could undercut him significantly) and wrong (absent impeachment he’s going to keep on Trumpernating), but in any event there is an underlying assumption to this view.
Which is, that the GOP Congress even knows how to reign Trump in. There is no real oversight of POTUS by a Congress controlled by the same party, and there hasn’t likely been since the 80s, maybe even 70s (or earlier). This is not much of a problem if POTUS is not batsh1t insane and/or has learned advisers. In Trump’s case it’s disastrous.
They have not idea what it means to conduct real oversight of a GOP President. Or rather, they can’t imagine it. For Hillary and Obama and Bill any old pseudo-scandal will do, or something that needs a real investigation gets blown up into a giant conspiracy. But with the GOP, it’s like they become catatonic- even for Trump!
Hell, a lot of the GOP Congress bashed Trump at one time or another during the primary (see comments from Rubio, Cruz, Ryan) in statements that are almost unbelievable now. And yet in office it’s “we needsss us our precious tax cutsss” slobbering all over him.
Fncking madness.
I keep reading (and saying myself) that Trump is only getting away with this because the GOP congress lets him. I think that’s both right (because they could undercut him significantly) and wrong (absent impeachment he’s going to keep on Trumpernating), but in any event there is an underlying assumption to this view.
Which is, that the GOP Congress even knows how to reign Trump in. There is no real oversight of POTUS by a Congress controlled by the same party, and there hasn’t likely been since the 80s, maybe even 70s (or earlier). This is not much of a problem if POTUS is not batsh1t insane and/or has learned advisers. In Trump’s case it’s disastrous.
They have not idea what it means to conduct real oversight of a GOP President. Or rather, they can’t imagine it. For Hillary and Obama and Bill any old pseudo-scandal will do, or something that needs a real investigation gets blown up into a giant conspiracy. But with the GOP, it’s like they become catatonic- even for Trump!
Hell, a lot of the GOP Congress bashed Trump at one time or another during the primary (see comments from Rubio, Cruz, Ryan) in statements that are almost unbelievable now. And yet in office it’s “we needsss us our precious tax cutsss” slobbering all over him.
Fncking madness.
And another thing: Paul Ryan is a complete and utter fraud, as I’ve said before, and he is so caught up in his Ayn Rand fever dream of finally being able to sh1t all over the poor and sick he can’t even mouth limp platitudes.
And I think Mitch McConnell, for all his formidable legislative negotiating and maneuvering skills, is actually afraid to try to do anything about Trump. Literally afraid.
Alpha males, indeed.
And another thing: Paul Ryan is a complete and utter fraud, as I’ve said before, and he is so caught up in his Ayn Rand fever dream of finally being able to sh1t all over the poor and sick he can’t even mouth limp platitudes.
And I think Mitch McConnell, for all his formidable legislative negotiating and maneuvering skills, is actually afraid to try to do anything about Trump. Literally afraid.
Alpha males, indeed.
the GOP Congress has no incentive to go after Trump as long as the people who elect them like still Trump.
sure, every day Trump does something that makes them all look like hypocrites; and then the next day he does something different that makes them all look like different kinds of hypocrites. but as long as the GOP base is OK with that (and they totally are), ‘sallgood, man.
dumb enough to vote for Trump, dumb enough to keep supporting him no matter what.
the GOP Congress has no incentive to go after Trump as long as the people who elect them like still Trump.
sure, every day Trump does something that makes them all look like hypocrites; and then the next day he does something different that makes them all look like different kinds of hypocrites. but as long as the GOP base is OK with that (and they totally are), ‘sallgood, man.
dumb enough to vote for Trump, dumb enough to keep supporting him no matter what.
Marty, you are simply wrong.
The FBI director reports to the Justice Department, which is headed by the Attorney General (the current incumbent having incidentally recused himself from anything to do with the Russia enquiry…).
https://www.justice.gov/about
The Mission statement of the Justice Deprtment:
To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
Their responsibility is not to the President, but to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens – of whom the president is but one.
The 1870 Act remains the foundation for the Department’s authority, but the structure of the Department of Justice has changed over the years, with the addition of the offices of Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and the formation of various components, offices, boards and divisions. From its beginning as a one-man, part-time position, the Department of Justice has evolved into the world’s largest law office and the chief enforcer of federal laws.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” This sacred duty remains the guiding principle for the women and men of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Marty, you are simply wrong.
The FBI director reports to the Justice Department, which is headed by the Attorney General (the current incumbent having incidentally recused himself from anything to do with the Russia enquiry…).
https://www.justice.gov/about
The Mission statement of the Justice Deprtment:
To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
Their responsibility is not to the President, but to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens – of whom the president is but one.
The 1870 Act remains the foundation for the Department’s authority, but the structure of the Department of Justice has changed over the years, with the addition of the offices of Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and the formation of various components, offices, boards and divisions. From its beginning as a one-man, part-time position, the Department of Justice has evolved into the world’s largest law office and the chief enforcer of federal laws.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” This sacred duty remains the guiding principle for the women and men of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Ugh, first time as tragedy, second time as farce. Trump is just Reagan revisited.
http://www.vqronline.org/essay/reagan-retrospect
Ugh, first time as tragedy, second time as farce. Trump is just Reagan revisited.
http://www.vqronline.org/essay/reagan-retrospect
Literally afraid.
Republicans are afraid because they’re complicit. This Russia thing most likely has very long tentacles. There’s no reason whatsoever that these people couldn’t get the same agendas passed under Pence. But there’s a reason they’re not going in that direction. They’re compromised.
Literally afraid.
Republicans are afraid because they’re complicit. This Russia thing most likely has very long tentacles. There’s no reason whatsoever that these people couldn’t get the same agendas passed under Pence. But there’s a reason they’re not going in that direction. They’re compromised.
that’s an interesting thought sapient.
Separately, if Trump is physically/mentally ill, I think the biggest clue would be to look at what he said about Hillary’s health during the campaign and apply that to him. He’s all projection.
He or his campaign raised questions about her stamina & strength, a spokeswomen said she had dysphasia. That’s from just a quick google.
that’s an interesting thought sapient.
Separately, if Trump is physically/mentally ill, I think the biggest clue would be to look at what he said about Hillary’s health during the campaign and apply that to him. He’s all projection.
He or his campaign raised questions about her stamina & strength, a spokeswomen said she had dysphasia. That’s from just a quick google.
They’re compromised
my favorite theory about why we know Trump told the Russians what he told them is that someone in the WH realized that Trump had just compromised himself. he told the Russians something that he shouldn’t have and that gave the Russians possible leverage over him. so, someone de-leveraged the info. clever, but i dunno.
still, i’m sure they are all afraid of what an active FBI investigation will turn out. guys like Trump and Stone and Bannon are bound to have things in their closets that, even if not about Russia, they would prefer to be kept in the dark.
They’re compromised
my favorite theory about why we know Trump told the Russians what he told them is that someone in the WH realized that Trump had just compromised himself. he told the Russians something that he shouldn’t have and that gave the Russians possible leverage over him. so, someone de-leveraged the info. clever, but i dunno.
still, i’m sure they are all afraid of what an active FBI investigation will turn out. guys like Trump and Stone and Bannon are bound to have things in their closets that, even if not about Russia, they would prefer to be kept in the dark.
Marty revealed unto us last year that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, power-hungry, criminal.
her killing spree continues!
https://patch.com/district-columbia/washingtondc/seth-rich-bombshell-fake-news-heres-why
Marty revealed unto us last year that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, power-hungry, criminal.
her killing spree continues!
https://patch.com/district-columbia/washingtondc/seth-rich-bombshell-fake-news-heres-why
Uh, McMaster just said Trump is going to give a speech in Saudi Arabia “intended to unite the broader Muslim world” and on Trump’s “hopes for a peaceful vision of Islam.”
God is fncking with us.
Uh, McMaster just said Trump is going to give a speech in Saudi Arabia “intended to unite the broader Muslim world” and on Trump’s “hopes for a peaceful vision of Islam.”
God is fncking with us.
Erik, son of Erick, says the person who leaked about Trump’s leak is a Trump supporter.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/conservative-erick-erickson-claims-source-who-leaked-latest-russia-bombshell-was-a-trump-supporter/
heh.
Erik, son of Erick, says the person who leaked about Trump’s leak is a Trump supporter.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/conservative-erick-erickson-claims-source-who-leaked-latest-russia-bombshell-was-a-trump-supporter/
heh.
the GOP Congress has no incentive to go after Trump as long as the people who elect them like still Trump.
This is true. Also, they will continue to support him b/c they will believe the things he does they like and not believe the things he does they don’t like (or excuse/minimize them somehow).
I do wonder what % of Trump’s support comes from a simple “Gorsuch is on the Court, and we may get more” view. 60%? 90%? If they can get tax cuts too, even temporary, it’s win win. Yuuuuge.
the GOP Congress has no incentive to go after Trump as long as the people who elect them like still Trump.
This is true. Also, they will continue to support him b/c they will believe the things he does they like and not believe the things he does they don’t like (or excuse/minimize them somehow).
I do wonder what % of Trump’s support comes from a simple “Gorsuch is on the Court, and we may get more” view. 60%? 90%? If they can get tax cuts too, even temporary, it’s win win. Yuuuuge.
Nigel,
I am not wrong. Until the late 20th century the Director of the FBI reported to the President, ass an employee of the Department of Justice he is clearly an employee of the Executive branch whose boss is the President. Did you suspect that the FBI would be an independent fourth branch of the government? We only have three.
Thomas Jefferson knew nothing of the FBI but it is true that they are sworn to uphold the laws and constitution of the US. So is the President.
Nigel,
I am not wrong. Until the late 20th century the Director of the FBI reported to the President, ass an employee of the Department of Justice he is clearly an employee of the Executive branch whose boss is the President. Did you suspect that the FBI would be an independent fourth branch of the government? We only have three.
Thomas Jefferson knew nothing of the FBI but it is true that they are sworn to uphold the laws and constitution of the US. So is the President.
they are sworn to uphold the laws and constitution of the US. So is the President.
Quite. So if the President if failing to do so, their loyalty is to upholding the laws and Constitution, not him. Right?
they are sworn to uphold the laws and constitution of the US. So is the President.
Quite. So if the President if failing to do so, their loyalty is to upholding the laws and Constitution, not him. Right?
heh. snap.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html
heh. snap.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/world/middleeast/israel-trump-classified-intelligence-russia.html
cleek,
if true, the Israelis will find a way to smooth it over, and they shall be very selective going forward about “sharing” intelligence.
my surmise anyway.
cleek,
if true, the Israelis will find a way to smooth it over, and they shall be very selective going forward about “sharing” intelligence.
my surmise anyway.
agree with bobbyp
agree with bobbyp
nigel,
everybody here should read that article about Reagan. Those were the days.
nigel,
everybody here should read that article about Reagan. Those were the days.
Trump’s disapproval rating, as reported by FiveThirtyEight is at an all-time high, and his approval rating is a tenth of a percent shy of his all-time low.
Keep the faith, Marty!
Trump’s disapproval rating, as reported by FiveThirtyEight is at an all-time high, and his approval rating is a tenth of a percent shy of his all-time low.
Keep the faith, Marty!
I am not wrong. Until the late 20th century the Director of the FBI reported to the President
Not”>http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fbi-founded”>Not correct.
The FBI has always been an arm of the Department of Justice, and it’s head reports to the Attorney General, who reports to the President.
I am not wrong. Until the late 20th century the Director of the FBI reported to the President
Not”>http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fbi-founded”>Not correct.
The FBI has always been an arm of the Department of Justice, and it’s head reports to the Attorney General, who reports to the President.
sigh….try again:
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fbi-founded
sigh….try again:
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fbi-founded
yes bobbyp he has always been in the Justice Department but he reported to the President:
“The Director briefed the President on any issues that arose from within the FBI until the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was enacted following the September 11 attacks. Since then, the Director reports to the Director of National Intelligence, who in turn reports to the President.[5]”
Wikipedia
yes bobbyp he has always been in the Justice Department but he reported to the President:
“The Director briefed the President on any issues that arose from within the FBI until the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 was enacted following the September 11 attacks. Since then, the Director reports to the Director of National Intelligence, who in turn reports to the President.[5]”
Wikipedia
hsh,
I know how unpopular he is, I believe I commented on that yesterday. But much like I went on during the Obama years about how people wouldn’t like the powers he had assumed once a Republican is in office( pretty obviously true now) I am now going on about how a bloodless coup being acceptable will only make it easier the next time, perhaps when someone you like is on the butt end of this sham.
Removing him at any cost is, too costly.
hsh,
I know how unpopular he is, I believe I commented on that yesterday. But much like I went on during the Obama years about how people wouldn’t like the powers he had assumed once a Republican is in office( pretty obviously true now) I am now going on about how a bloodless coup being acceptable will only make it easier the next time, perhaps when someone you like is on the butt end of this sham.
Removing him at any cost is, too costly.
I am now going on about how a bloodless coup being acceptable will only make it easier the next time
1998 is on line 2.
I am now going on about how a bloodless coup being acceptable will only make it easier the next time
1998 is on line 2.
It would be good Marty if you could detail the powers assumed by Obama that were (1) not there when Obama took office and (2) are now being used by Trump & making liberals unhappy.
More broadly, however, I would agree that POTUS has been given too much discretion on many fronts.
It would be good Marty if you could detail the powers assumed by Obama that were (1) not there when Obama took office and (2) are now being used by Trump & making liberals unhappy.
More broadly, however, I would agree that POTUS has been given too much discretion on many fronts.
With the writing of the Constitution, the presidency was viewed largely as an administrative role. That didn’t last long. Even Washington didn’t always color within the lines of the Constitution.
Trump may be just the person to deflate excessive expectations for the presidency. The downside is that future presidents may make Trump look rather bland by comparison. In some quarters, The Rock is being touted for 2020.
With the writing of the Constitution, the presidency was viewed largely as an administrative role. That didn’t last long. Even Washington didn’t always color within the lines of the Constitution.
Trump may be just the person to deflate excessive expectations for the presidency. The downside is that future presidents may make Trump look rather bland by comparison. In some quarters, The Rock is being touted for 2020.
“Thomas Jefferson knew nothing of the FBI ….”
Neither does trump.
But surely, Jefferson has communicated the Constitutional rightness of the FBI’s existence, to originalists Scalia (before Hillary had him killed, or come to think of it, after) Thomas, Alito, and now Gorsuch at those seances they conduct over at the Federalist Society.
I mean, they asked him, didn’t they?
I have the transcript:
Jefferson: Effbeeeye? What is that you say? Let me think. Did Adams and Hamilton sneak that under the tent flap too, those kingly buggers?
Oh, of course, the Federal Bureau of Investigation! Yes, yes, now I see. I included that in the Louisiana Purchase boondoggle, because after all, we have the prerogative of changing our minds, don’t we, isn’t that right, girls?
But can we please dispense with these, how you say, acronyms? There was no mention of any such creatures in the Constitution, FYI. IMHO, the other Founding Dads and I would have had a fit if it had. Now, the States may use acronyms, but you characters at the federal level must spell things out in full. So I guess in that respect, the lot of you are SOL.
“Thomas Jefferson knew nothing of the FBI ….”
Neither does trump.
But surely, Jefferson has communicated the Constitutional rightness of the FBI’s existence, to originalists Scalia (before Hillary had him killed, or come to think of it, after) Thomas, Alito, and now Gorsuch at those seances they conduct over at the Federalist Society.
I mean, they asked him, didn’t they?
I have the transcript:
Jefferson: Effbeeeye? What is that you say? Let me think. Did Adams and Hamilton sneak that under the tent flap too, those kingly buggers?
Oh, of course, the Federal Bureau of Investigation! Yes, yes, now I see. I included that in the Louisiana Purchase boondoggle, because after all, we have the prerogative of changing our minds, don’t we, isn’t that right, girls?
But can we please dispense with these, how you say, acronyms? There was no mention of any such creatures in the Constitution, FYI. IMHO, the other Founding Dads and I would have had a fit if it had. Now, the States may use acronyms, but you characters at the federal level must spell things out in full. So I guess in that respect, the lot of you are SOL.
…I am now going on about how a bloodless coup being acceptable will only make it easier the next time…
Putting aside who I might “like,” if there’s ever anyone again approaching how bad Trump is as a president, I hope it is easier the next time.
My thinking is that Trump’s antics will inspire a bipartisan reigning in – through the passage of explicit legislation – of executive discretion.
So maybe it won’t be possible to be as bad as Trump, at least not for as long as Trump will be that bad.
…I am now going on about how a bloodless coup being acceptable will only make it easier the next time…
Putting aside who I might “like,” if there’s ever anyone again approaching how bad Trump is as a president, I hope it is easier the next time.
My thinking is that Trump’s antics will inspire a bipartisan reigning in – through the passage of explicit legislation – of executive discretion.
So maybe it won’t be possible to be as bad as Trump, at least not for as long as Trump will be that bad.
Bloodless coup?
Sam Giancana and a dead Vivian Vance impersonator are having a good laugh over that.
Bloodless coup?
Sam Giancana and a dead Vivian Vance impersonator are having a good laugh over that.
Do you acknowledge AT ALL that, even though The Free Market results in vast income disparities BEFORE TAX, The Guvmint can decrease those disparites AFTER TAX without handcuffing The Invisible Hand?
Even with my math skills, I understand that taxing income at a higher level reduces after tax income. So, yes, I get your point. I don’t get why it is self evident that Rush’s bile or HRC’ pre-election bribes from Goldman Sachs should be taxed at higher rates just because I don’t approve of either of them. I don’t like using the tax code as a means of punishing those I don’t care for. For one thing, it punishes people who I either don’t know or who I admire.
Do you honestly think that a 50% marginal rate kicking in at $3M/year, or a 60% rate above $30M/yr, would distort the market for conservative radio blowhards or hedge fund managers or major league shortstops?
Your question assumes I’ve given the matter sufficient thought to have a considered opinion. I haven’t, so this is off the cuff: probably not.
I question whether increasing taxes like that would make any difference–if anyone in the lower income quartiles would even notice–other than as a feel-good for people who find income disparities so troubling that they can’t sleep at night because there are uber wealthy running around spending shitpiles on Gulfstream 10’s and 250 foot yachts. I don’t think the supposed beneficiaries of the angst certain non-right of center, non-center types have for the uber rich would ever notice either the higher rate or the impact of the higher rate. As I said, it has the look of a feel good thing, not a substantive thing.
When you get off your “left’ish” fet’ish, I will happily talk turkey with you about what income tax rates — on what income BRACKETS — would be sensible or even “fair”. Until then, be aware that if the time for pitchforks and torches ever comes back, your conceit that you’re one of the oppressed minority of poor, hardworking, job-creating, multimillionaires will look foolish in at least two different ways.
So, there isn’t a right or a left? I don’t hale from the right? I thought I did. You’re not a lefty? I thought you were. Have I imputed to the left something that isn’t left’ish? No one here seems at all concerned with a commenter refers to the right or right wing or something similar–why the issue with being identified as left? Regardless, when the mobs turn out, if they ever do, they won’t see me as an ally, nor will I claim to be.
Would like to see what McK has to say about the article.
I agree with it. Or I agree with it for the most part. There are probably nits here and there that I would quibble with. Big picture-wise, I concur.
Jonah Goldberg commented yesterday that regardless of whether the story as reported *is* true, because of what we know of Trump it certainly could be true. Because of who and what Trump is, he could have done most or all of what is alleged. My sense, from reading the entire WaPo story is that there was some piling on, but on collateral matters, not on the main thrust.
Taking this a step further and making the assumption that Trump fired Comey because he could not control Comey and Comey either refused to commit to being controlled or left that impression with Trump. Everyone is the hero in their own story, so I’m not taking a side in which of those two are being completely honest.
You can fire one, maybe two nominally independent executives under questionable circumstances. You can stupidly spill some intelligence beans a time or two. But when it becomes a serial aspect of a presidency, forget impeachment: the pres gets bounced on the 25th Amendment. The Repubs want to be around in 4 years, not relegated to the Permanent Party of Trump. They will need to do the heavy lifting to fix their mistake or face the consequences. Acceding to a Democrat-led impeachment is the worst of all worlds for the Repubs. At a minimum, they will have to use the threat of the 25th A to force his resignation.
My two cents and probably worth exactly that.
Do you acknowledge AT ALL that, even though The Free Market results in vast income disparities BEFORE TAX, The Guvmint can decrease those disparites AFTER TAX without handcuffing The Invisible Hand?
Even with my math skills, I understand that taxing income at a higher level reduces after tax income. So, yes, I get your point. I don’t get why it is self evident that Rush’s bile or HRC’ pre-election bribes from Goldman Sachs should be taxed at higher rates just because I don’t approve of either of them. I don’t like using the tax code as a means of punishing those I don’t care for. For one thing, it punishes people who I either don’t know or who I admire.
Do you honestly think that a 50% marginal rate kicking in at $3M/year, or a 60% rate above $30M/yr, would distort the market for conservative radio blowhards or hedge fund managers or major league shortstops?
Your question assumes I’ve given the matter sufficient thought to have a considered opinion. I haven’t, so this is off the cuff: probably not.
I question whether increasing taxes like that would make any difference–if anyone in the lower income quartiles would even notice–other than as a feel-good for people who find income disparities so troubling that they can’t sleep at night because there are uber wealthy running around spending shitpiles on Gulfstream 10’s and 250 foot yachts. I don’t think the supposed beneficiaries of the angst certain non-right of center, non-center types have for the uber rich would ever notice either the higher rate or the impact of the higher rate. As I said, it has the look of a feel good thing, not a substantive thing.
When you get off your “left’ish” fet’ish, I will happily talk turkey with you about what income tax rates — on what income BRACKETS — would be sensible or even “fair”. Until then, be aware that if the time for pitchforks and torches ever comes back, your conceit that you’re one of the oppressed minority of poor, hardworking, job-creating, multimillionaires will look foolish in at least two different ways.
So, there isn’t a right or a left? I don’t hale from the right? I thought I did. You’re not a lefty? I thought you were. Have I imputed to the left something that isn’t left’ish? No one here seems at all concerned with a commenter refers to the right or right wing or something similar–why the issue with being identified as left? Regardless, when the mobs turn out, if they ever do, they won’t see me as an ally, nor will I claim to be.
Would like to see what McK has to say about the article.
I agree with it. Or I agree with it for the most part. There are probably nits here and there that I would quibble with. Big picture-wise, I concur.
Jonah Goldberg commented yesterday that regardless of whether the story as reported *is* true, because of what we know of Trump it certainly could be true. Because of who and what Trump is, he could have done most or all of what is alleged. My sense, from reading the entire WaPo story is that there was some piling on, but on collateral matters, not on the main thrust.
Taking this a step further and making the assumption that Trump fired Comey because he could not control Comey and Comey either refused to commit to being controlled or left that impression with Trump. Everyone is the hero in their own story, so I’m not taking a side in which of those two are being completely honest.
You can fire one, maybe two nominally independent executives under questionable circumstances. You can stupidly spill some intelligence beans a time or two. But when it becomes a serial aspect of a presidency, forget impeachment: the pres gets bounced on the 25th Amendment. The Repubs want to be around in 4 years, not relegated to the Permanent Party of Trump. They will need to do the heavy lifting to fix their mistake or face the consequences. Acceding to a Democrat-led impeachment is the worst of all worlds for the Repubs. At a minimum, they will have to use the threat of the 25th A to force his resignation.
My two cents and probably worth exactly that.
Marty,
Could be, I get the impression that the FBI chief could brief the President directly on “national security” (i.e., intelligence) matters, but he did not report to the President as a matter of course. I would suspect Hoover, with all his power, started this custom.
I found no citation of legislation passed that institutionalized such direct ‘briefings’. Could exist, but I don’t know of it.
Marty,
Could be, I get the impression that the FBI chief could brief the President directly on “national security” (i.e., intelligence) matters, but he did not report to the President as a matter of course. I would suspect Hoover, with all his power, started this custom.
I found no citation of legislation passed that institutionalized such direct ‘briefings’. Could exist, but I don’t know of it.
Marty:
‘Removing him at any cost is, too costly’
……might I ask how you are accounting for the cost side of the analysis in allowing him to remain as POTUS with no constraints on his destructive incompetence?
Marty:
‘Removing him at any cost is, too costly’
……might I ask how you are accounting for the cost side of the analysis in allowing him to remain as POTUS with no constraints on his destructive incompetence?
Acceding to a Democrat-led impeachment is the worst of all worlds for the Repubs.
Well, since impeachment proceedings originate in the House and the House is under control of the GOP, I feel you can rest easy on that score, McKinney. As of now, there can be no “Democrat-led” impeachment.
But thanks for thinking of us!
Acceding to a Democrat-led impeachment is the worst of all worlds for the Repubs.
Well, since impeachment proceedings originate in the House and the House is under control of the GOP, I feel you can rest easy on that score, McKinney. As of now, there can be no “Democrat-led” impeachment.
But thanks for thinking of us!
My thinking is that Trump’s antics will inspire a bipartisan reigning in – through the passage of explicit legislation – of executive discretion.
hsh….that would be nice, but that horse left the barn some time ago. it’s not coming back.
And no surprise, it was pretty much a bi-partisan affair. Simply put, Congress, as an institution, has abdicated a lot of that responsibility….for a host of reasons.
My thinking is that Trump’s antics will inspire a bipartisan reigning in – through the passage of explicit legislation – of executive discretion.
hsh….that would be nice, but that horse left the barn some time ago. it’s not coming back.
And no surprise, it was pretty much a bi-partisan affair. Simply put, Congress, as an institution, has abdicated a lot of that responsibility….for a host of reasons.
I feel you can rest easy on that score, McKinney. As of now, there can be no “Democrat-led” impeachment.
The Repubs have the House for now. But even then, you could have the Dems and enough Repubs lead the charge. Ugly, but possible.
I feel you can rest easy on that score, McKinney. As of now, there can be no “Democrat-led” impeachment.
The Repubs have the House for now. But even then, you could have the Dems and enough Repubs lead the charge. Ugly, but possible.
when it becomes a serial aspect of a presidency, forget impeachment: the pres gets bounced on the 25th Amendment. The Repubs want to be around in 4 years, not relegated to the Permanent Party of Trump. They will need to do the heavy lifting to fix their mistake or face the consequences.
The question becomes, at what point will those who need to invoke the 25th Amendment decide that they have to do so? Or, perhaps more accurately, when do they decide that their electoral calculus is better if they do so?
Let’s face it, even starting such a discussion among Trump-appointed Cabinet Secretaries would be a high risk matter for all concerned. For openers, the instant Trump heard of it, firings would proliferate like mad. So it would have to be done with extreme care that those talking would not leak.
Or, I suppose, those who think it has to be done could start rumors that those opposed were the ones considering it — get Trump to fire people until they were a majority of those remaining….
when it becomes a serial aspect of a presidency, forget impeachment: the pres gets bounced on the 25th Amendment. The Repubs want to be around in 4 years, not relegated to the Permanent Party of Trump. They will need to do the heavy lifting to fix their mistake or face the consequences.
The question becomes, at what point will those who need to invoke the 25th Amendment decide that they have to do so? Or, perhaps more accurately, when do they decide that their electoral calculus is better if they do so?
Let’s face it, even starting such a discussion among Trump-appointed Cabinet Secretaries would be a high risk matter for all concerned. For openers, the instant Trump heard of it, firings would proliferate like mad. So it would have to be done with extreme care that those talking would not leak.
Or, I suppose, those who think it has to be done could start rumors that those opposed were the ones considering it — get Trump to fire people until they were a majority of those remaining….
bobbyp,
My estimate of the cost of him staying in power is much lower than most. I see him as a generally incompetent one term President who will fade into the background of the political fights over health care and taxes and immigration. This would move faster if there wasn’t a constant, daily attempt to find another story to fan the flames of impeachment talks.
Each of these episodes is outrage built on a sand pile. He does something, the usual suspects declare it is the last straw, the country has collapsed. Then everyone gets up, goes to work the next day, the world didn’t end and the other usual suspects say it is no big deal, mostly correctly. The most prominent, and commonly agreed, feature of all of this is the embarrassment that he represents us.
Over the course of another six months everyone will figure out it isn’t good, but it isn’t impeachable and the momentum will die and he will fade to the background because no one will follow his every muttered/tweeted asininity.
Then, I hope we get some stuff done in Congress because some things will have moved along behind the scenes.
From my perspective, the best thing we could hope for is that the Democrats convince the Republicans, honestly, that getting rid of Trump by itself would be enough to restore a more positive working relationship in the Congress. The coup is quick and painless and suddenly a crapload of the Republican agenda is passed with some nice bones for the Democrats.
Barring that, I think we should, and probably will, suffer through four years of Trump and the whole country will look to primary candidates a completely different way from now on.
bobbyp,
My estimate of the cost of him staying in power is much lower than most. I see him as a generally incompetent one term President who will fade into the background of the political fights over health care and taxes and immigration. This would move faster if there wasn’t a constant, daily attempt to find another story to fan the flames of impeachment talks.
Each of these episodes is outrage built on a sand pile. He does something, the usual suspects declare it is the last straw, the country has collapsed. Then everyone gets up, goes to work the next day, the world didn’t end and the other usual suspects say it is no big deal, mostly correctly. The most prominent, and commonly agreed, feature of all of this is the embarrassment that he represents us.
Over the course of another six months everyone will figure out it isn’t good, but it isn’t impeachable and the momentum will die and he will fade to the background because no one will follow his every muttered/tweeted asininity.
Then, I hope we get some stuff done in Congress because some things will have moved along behind the scenes.
From my perspective, the best thing we could hope for is that the Democrats convince the Republicans, honestly, that getting rid of Trump by itself would be enough to restore a more positive working relationship in the Congress. The coup is quick and painless and suddenly a crapload of the Republican agenda is passed with some nice bones for the Democrats.
Barring that, I think we should, and probably will, suffer through four years of Trump and the whole country will look to primary candidates a completely different way from now on.
Even Jeff Sessions at one time agreed that the Attorney General does not simply follow the instructions of the President:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/31/sally-yates-responded-jeff-sessions-asked-would-defy-president/
The prescient clip begins with Senator Jeff Sessions – President Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general – saying: “You’re going to have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no…”
He goes on to ask: “Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper…?”
Ms Yates replied: “I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president.” …
Marty’s constitutional understanding seemingly has much in common with that of Trump.
Even Jeff Sessions at one time agreed that the Attorney General does not simply follow the instructions of the President:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/31/sally-yates-responded-jeff-sessions-asked-would-defy-president/
The prescient clip begins with Senator Jeff Sessions – President Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general – saying: “You’re going to have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no…”
He goes on to ask: “Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper…?”
Ms Yates replied: “I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president.” …
Marty’s constitutional understanding seemingly has much in common with that of Trump.
I believe that the Director of the FBI has those same responsibilities up to and including telling the President no. I also believe the President has wide latitude, not exceeded in this case, to fire the FBI Director, as his boss. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, and certainly in no way a constitutional question.
I believe that the Director of the FBI has those same responsibilities up to and including telling the President no. I also believe the President has wide latitude, not exceeded in this case, to fire the FBI Director, as his boss. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, and certainly in no way a constitutional question.
So Marty, you can live with the embarrassment so long as the GOP gets to keep their ill gotten gains? Tax cuts uber alles
So Marty, you can live with the embarrassment so long as the GOP gets to keep their ill gotten gains? Tax cuts uber alles
Tax cuts uber alles
That’s what they live by.
I don’t think Republicans have changed much since Nixon, except for the fact that almost none of those in Congress even care about how it all looks.
Of course, the news of the hour is that Comey took careful notes, and they point to Trump’s obstruction of justice. That’s a “high crime” pretty clearly. Of course, it’s enforceable by Republicans in Congress, and considering they’re all like Marty, we’ll have to see.
McKinney hopes that the 25th will be invoked. If that is on anyone’s mind among Congressional Republicans, one would think that they’d be distancing themselves from the crazy. I’m not seeing much of that.
Tax cuts uber alles
That’s what they live by.
I don’t think Republicans have changed much since Nixon, except for the fact that almost none of those in Congress even care about how it all looks.
Of course, the news of the hour is that Comey took careful notes, and they point to Trump’s obstruction of justice. That’s a “high crime” pretty clearly. Of course, it’s enforceable by Republicans in Congress, and considering they’re all like Marty, we’ll have to see.
McKinney hopes that the 25th will be invoked. If that is on anyone’s mind among Congressional Republicans, one would think that they’d be distancing themselves from the crazy. I’m not seeing much of that.
Marty,
Yes, the sun will still come up tomorrow and long into the future. I would agree that we can look forward to 4 years of incompetence and Trump getting sidelined. Unable to get out of his own way, maybe he won’t do too much harm.
Fingers crossed.
However, the last thing I want to see is a Pence presidency and a GOP Congress.
The GOP congresscritters will not abandon Trump as long as his base does not abandon him.
On removal: Any kind of a “coup” you can envision shall not be quick and painless unless Trump just decides, “f*ck it! I’m not taking this any more,” and resigns out of prideful spite.
The Dems will can do nothing about impeachment, and even if there were GOP defectors in the House, you are talking about a coup in that chamber, and speaker Ryan getting the ax. Utter turmoil.
The Dems still wouldn’t join in unless they could count the 2/3 Senate votes needed for a conviction.
Otherwise they will make noise, but sit tight.
That leaves the GOP in a bind.
A bind I am only too happy to see maintained until those incompetent f*cks are thrown out of office.
Marty,
Yes, the sun will still come up tomorrow and long into the future. I would agree that we can look forward to 4 years of incompetence and Trump getting sidelined. Unable to get out of his own way, maybe he won’t do too much harm.
Fingers crossed.
However, the last thing I want to see is a Pence presidency and a GOP Congress.
The GOP congresscritters will not abandon Trump as long as his base does not abandon him.
On removal: Any kind of a “coup” you can envision shall not be quick and painless unless Trump just decides, “f*ck it! I’m not taking this any more,” and resigns out of prideful spite.
The Dems will can do nothing about impeachment, and even if there were GOP defectors in the House, you are talking about a coup in that chamber, and speaker Ryan getting the ax. Utter turmoil.
The Dems still wouldn’t join in unless they could count the 2/3 Senate votes needed for a conviction.
Otherwise they will make noise, but sit tight.
That leaves the GOP in a bind.
A bind I am only too happy to see maintained until those incompetent f*cks are thrown out of office.
bobbyp,
I can see that. Dems really don’t want Pence with a GOP Congress so unless they could get a massive repudiation of the whole election(Russian collusion) then they don’t really want Trump gone, they just want to keep getting another to insert a well placed banderilla each time they go by to keep him crippled. Then they want to wrap the GOP around him like they did with Bush so they can get two more years of control of the House and maybe the next President.
I suspect that over 4 years they will begin to suffer from the electorates outrage fatigue and end up with less upside than they hope in the Presidential election.
And I really, really want those tax cuts.
bobbyp,
I can see that. Dems really don’t want Pence with a GOP Congress so unless they could get a massive repudiation of the whole election(Russian collusion) then they don’t really want Trump gone, they just want to keep getting another to insert a well placed banderilla each time they go by to keep him crippled. Then they want to wrap the GOP around him like they did with Bush so they can get two more years of control of the House and maybe the next President.
I suspect that over 4 years they will begin to suffer from the electorates outrage fatigue and end up with less upside than they hope in the Presidential election.
And I really, really want those tax cuts.
unless they could get a massive repudiation of the whole election(Russian collusion)
They could get? They got. Weird that it doesn’t bother you at all. And your love of tax cuts makes me way less worried about your insurance situation. Just saying.
unless they could get a massive repudiation of the whole election(Russian collusion)
They could get? They got. Weird that it doesn’t bother you at all. And your love of tax cuts makes me way less worried about your insurance situation. Just saying.
I don’t think Republicans have changed much since
NixonWild Bill McKinley.Fixed.
I don’t think Republicans have changed much since
NixonWild Bill McKinley.Fixed.
McKinney hopes that the 25th will be invoked. If that is on anyone’s mind among Congressional Republicans, one would think that they’d be distancing themselves from the crazy. I’m not seeing much of that.
Actually, what I’m saying is that the Trump presidency is in a perpetually fluid state. If he continues to do overtly, objectively stupid things, things that are widely perceived as such, the Reps will have to move away from him. That’s how I see it falling out. We aren’t there yet but seem to be moving in that direction.
McKinney hopes that the 25th will be invoked. If that is on anyone’s mind among Congressional Republicans, one would think that they’d be distancing themselves from the crazy. I’m not seeing much of that.
Actually, what I’m saying is that the Trump presidency is in a perpetually fluid state. If he continues to do overtly, objectively stupid things, things that are widely perceived as such, the Reps will have to move away from him. That’s how I see it falling out. We aren’t there yet but seem to be moving in that direction.
Further to my point, this just in from the NYT:
WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.
“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.
Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.
Further to my point, this just in from the NYT:
WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.
“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.
The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.
Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. The memo was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.
We aren’t there yet but seem to be moving in that direction.
I keep hoping for that, but it seems to me that the direction towards which we’re moving is whatever crazy Trump dishes out, Republicans accept and defend it.
I’ll be interested to see whether Comey’s memos make a difference. So far, Republicans see the next godawful thing, and accept it, and move on. Like Marty, it’s all about tax cuts with all of them. If Comey’s memos show blatant obstruction of justice, or if some inquiry results in proof of collusion with Russia, Republicans will shrug it off.
Republicans are traitors. Admit it.
We aren’t there yet but seem to be moving in that direction.
I keep hoping for that, but it seems to me that the direction towards which we’re moving is whatever crazy Trump dishes out, Republicans accept and defend it.
I’ll be interested to see whether Comey’s memos make a difference. So far, Republicans see the next godawful thing, and accept it, and move on. Like Marty, it’s all about tax cuts with all of them. If Comey’s memos show blatant obstruction of justice, or if some inquiry results in proof of collusion with Russia, Republicans will shrug it off.
Republicans are traitors. Admit it.
Like Marty, it’s all about tax cuts with all of them.
Well, for libertarians, it’s all about the regulatory cuts too. 🙂
Like Marty, it’s all about tax cuts with all of them.
Well, for libertarians, it’s all about the regulatory cuts too. 🙂
So, CharlesWT, do you have some examples of regulatory cuts that would be so great? Have you ever been to rural China where air pollution (particulate matter can choke you? Do you really want that here? What’s your goal with all of this?
By the way, I understand that regulations can be burdensome. Some burdens outweigh the good, and we have to be vigilant about monitoring that. But industries are pretty noisy about when that happens. We are good at using studies and data to figure out what works.
Why the across-the-board regulation hatred?
So, CharlesWT, do you have some examples of regulatory cuts that would be so great? Have you ever been to rural China where air pollution (particulate matter can choke you? Do you really want that here? What’s your goal with all of this?
By the way, I understand that regulations can be burdensome. Some burdens outweigh the good, and we have to be vigilant about monitoring that. But industries are pretty noisy about when that happens. We are good at using studies and data to figure out what works.
Why the across-the-board regulation hatred?
I can see that.
Well, I thought Clinton would win, so there you go.
Lower taxes you say? OK, but you have to go along with single payer, cutting military spending by 1/3rd, breakup up the big banks, capital gains taxed as ordinary income, estate taxes at 90% above $10mil, tilt toward the Palestinians and Iran, repeal Taft-Hartley, heavy regulation and/or taxes to end global warming, increase foreign aid by 400%.
I’d like to abolish (a lot of so-called) private property as well, but you can’t get everything.
Do we have a deal? 🙂
may the unicorns be with you.
I can see that.
Well, I thought Clinton would win, so there you go.
Lower taxes you say? OK, but you have to go along with single payer, cutting military spending by 1/3rd, breakup up the big banks, capital gains taxed as ordinary income, estate taxes at 90% above $10mil, tilt toward the Palestinians and Iran, repeal Taft-Hartley, heavy regulation and/or taxes to end global warming, increase foreign aid by 400%.
I’d like to abolish (a lot of so-called) private property as well, but you can’t get everything.
Do we have a deal? 🙂
may the unicorns be with you.
Nah, tax cuts aren’t that important.
More seriously, I wonder first if after being told no Trump let it go. Stupid thing, could get him legitimately impeached. I guess I’ll have to hope Pence likes tax cuts.
Second, I was discussing tax matters with a very smart woman I know that ran a billion(2?) Fund almost in the same breath we agreed that the only tax cut we were hoping for was on foreign cash. Apple is up to 100b in debt and the machinations to fund anything in the US on the value of their foreign cash is starting to get tricky even for them. Imagine how it might help smaller players.
Despite many arguments to the contrary, if I were the CEO of these companies I would be more likely to spend money locally if I didn’t have to borrow it.
Nah, tax cuts aren’t that important.
More seriously, I wonder first if after being told no Trump let it go. Stupid thing, could get him legitimately impeached. I guess I’ll have to hope Pence likes tax cuts.
Second, I was discussing tax matters with a very smart woman I know that ran a billion(2?) Fund almost in the same breath we agreed that the only tax cut we were hoping for was on foreign cash. Apple is up to 100b in debt and the machinations to fund anything in the US on the value of their foreign cash is starting to get tricky even for them. Imagine how it might help smaller players.
Despite many arguments to the contrary, if I were the CEO of these companies I would be more likely to spend money locally if I didn’t have to borrow it.
Oh, and kill the regulations. On pot. Wait, that’s not you g to happen. Maybe there are some things I don’t like about Trump. If I recall they were Flynn and Sessions. Still same.
Oh, and kill the regulations. On pot. Wait, that’s not you g to happen. Maybe there are some things I don’t like about Trump. If I recall they were Flynn and Sessions. Still same.
Have you ever been to rural China where air pollution (particulate matter can choke you?
We’re long pass that stage in industrial development and won’t be going back there even if all clean air regulations were repealed. Though it’s had a significant impact on how clean the air is now, the air was getting cleaner even before the EPA existed.
The EPA has spent years diving deeper into the weeds of diminishing returns. The EPA has argued that the law doesn’t require it to make cost/benefit analysis when creating new regulations. That it is allowed to create regulations that cost more than any possible benefit.
The EPA has also wasted a lot time and resources going after individual property owners who’ve had the audacity to make some spot on their property wetter/dryer than their betters in Washington thought proper. You’re very likely doing something wrong when you take cases all the way to the Supreme Court and it rules unanimously against you.
Have you ever been to rural China where air pollution (particulate matter can choke you?
We’re long pass that stage in industrial development and won’t be going back there even if all clean air regulations were repealed. Though it’s had a significant impact on how clean the air is now, the air was getting cleaner even before the EPA existed.
The EPA has spent years diving deeper into the weeds of diminishing returns. The EPA has argued that the law doesn’t require it to make cost/benefit analysis when creating new regulations. That it is allowed to create regulations that cost more than any possible benefit.
The EPA has also wasted a lot time and resources going after individual property owners who’ve had the audacity to make some spot on their property wetter/dryer than their betters in Washington thought proper. You’re very likely doing something wrong when you take cases all the way to the Supreme Court and it rules unanimously against you.
The EPA has spent years diving deeper into the weeds of diminishing returns.
I notice that whereas a lot of us provide links to our assertions, you provide nothing.
The EPA has spent years diving deeper into the weeds of diminishing returns.
I notice that whereas a lot of us provide links to our assertions, you provide nothing.
Data speaks volumes.
So, if you run a business from your home, say making pies, the costs of a commercial kitchen are sometimes prohibitive. That’s when you seek a waiver, to disclose to prospective buyers of your product that it is not inspected or made in compliance with state health regulations.
I’m all for those kinds of waivers (and disclosures). But large public manufacturers can afford to comply with environmental and health regulations.
Data speaks volumes.
So, if you run a business from your home, say making pies, the costs of a commercial kitchen are sometimes prohibitive. That’s when you seek a waiver, to disclose to prospective buyers of your product that it is not inspected or made in compliance with state health regulations.
I’m all for those kinds of waivers (and disclosures). But large public manufacturers can afford to comply with environmental and health regulations.
Take milk, for example. There is a market for raw milk, because some people think it’s fine to drink unpasteurized milk and are willing to take the risk of brucellosis, or whatever. Okay, people should be able to buy that milk from a farm, IMO, if they are made aware of the risks. (Also, some people want unpasteurized milk because it’s easier to make cheese with it. So fine, if they know where it comes from, so that if a disease occurs, it can be located and stopped.)
But what about unpasteurized milk that’s in a large production facility, and combined with other milk and nobody knows what’s what? That’s a recipe for disease epidemic.
Libertarianism is crazytalk. We need sensible regulation.
Take milk, for example. There is a market for raw milk, because some people think it’s fine to drink unpasteurized milk and are willing to take the risk of brucellosis, or whatever. Okay, people should be able to buy that milk from a farm, IMO, if they are made aware of the risks. (Also, some people want unpasteurized milk because it’s easier to make cheese with it. So fine, if they know where it comes from, so that if a disease occurs, it can be located and stopped.)
But what about unpasteurized milk that’s in a large production facility, and combined with other milk and nobody knows what’s what? That’s a recipe for disease epidemic.
Libertarianism is crazytalk. We need sensible regulation.
Whatever the achievements of EPA programs in the past – don’t forget that rates of air and water pollution abatement didn’t actually speed up after the creation of the agency in 1970 – we are well past the point of rapidly diminishing returns when it comes to additional pollution abatement. It is the right moment to make states and municipalities more responsible and responsive to their local citizens when it comes to handling environmental concerns and issues.
Relax: Gutting the EPA Won’t Make Your Air Dirtier and Water More Polluted: There have been diminishing returns to federal pollution regulation for a long time
Whatever the achievements of EPA programs in the past – don’t forget that rates of air and water pollution abatement didn’t actually speed up after the creation of the agency in 1970 – we are well past the point of rapidly diminishing returns when it comes to additional pollution abatement. It is the right moment to make states and municipalities more responsible and responsive to their local citizens when it comes to handling environmental concerns and issues.
Relax: Gutting the EPA Won’t Make Your Air Dirtier and Water More Polluted: There have been diminishing returns to federal pollution regulation for a long time
sapient, as you point out in your two comments, a lot of regulation harms the very people you would want to help. People on the lower end of the income scale.
sapient, as you point out in your two comments, a lot of regulation harms the very people you would want to help. People on the lower end of the income scale.
a lot of regulation harms the very people you would want to help.
And, as I point out in my two comments, there should be waivers for small entrepreneurs. I have some small experience with that, and it works quite well.
a lot of regulation harms the very people you would want to help.
And, as I point out in my two comments, there should be waivers for small entrepreneurs. I have some small experience with that, and it works quite well.
OK, but you have to go along with single payer, cutting military spending by 1/3rd, breakup up the big banks, capital gains taxed as ordinary income, estate taxes at 90% above $10mil, tilt toward the Palestinians and Iran, repeal Taft-Hartley, heavy regulation and/or taxes to end global warming, increase foreign aid by 400%.
Interesting list though;
Not single payer, but public option for poor and uninsured
I’m good with significant defense cuts phased in to limit the displacement of those currently serving. 1/3, 1/4? Sure
Breaking up the big banks is a colossally bad idea. It’s just knee jerk revenge.
Capital gains taxed as ordinary income: short term, sure oh wait. Long term I suppose if you legitimately means tested it. Middle class folks are planning on those for retirement.
I have become, which is a change I think, strongly against estate taxes. Doesn’t get the treasury a meaningful amount of money and seems petty.
I won’t be for the terrorist states, no matter how much rehabilitation they provide. I remember the hostages and the dozens of suicide bombers. No way.
I actually think Taft-Hartley is mostly irrelevant.
No such thing as global warming, no, no such thing as climate change, no, the weather says that my part of the country is going to benefit from the new tropical climate and Utah seafront. I think we should do what we are doing. It’s either too late or it’s unnecessary, really there is no middle ground.
Yeah we can give 20 billion in foreign aide rather than 5, or whatever that number is, it won’t make drop in the bucket.
OK, but you have to go along with single payer, cutting military spending by 1/3rd, breakup up the big banks, capital gains taxed as ordinary income, estate taxes at 90% above $10mil, tilt toward the Palestinians and Iran, repeal Taft-Hartley, heavy regulation and/or taxes to end global warming, increase foreign aid by 400%.
Interesting list though;
Not single payer, but public option for poor and uninsured
I’m good with significant defense cuts phased in to limit the displacement of those currently serving. 1/3, 1/4? Sure
Breaking up the big banks is a colossally bad idea. It’s just knee jerk revenge.
Capital gains taxed as ordinary income: short term, sure oh wait. Long term I suppose if you legitimately means tested it. Middle class folks are planning on those for retirement.
I have become, which is a change I think, strongly against estate taxes. Doesn’t get the treasury a meaningful amount of money and seems petty.
I won’t be for the terrorist states, no matter how much rehabilitation they provide. I remember the hostages and the dozens of suicide bombers. No way.
I actually think Taft-Hartley is mostly irrelevant.
No such thing as global warming, no, no such thing as climate change, no, the weather says that my part of the country is going to benefit from the new tropical climate and Utah seafront. I think we should do what we are doing. It’s either too late or it’s unnecessary, really there is no middle ground.
Yeah we can give 20 billion in foreign aide rather than 5, or whatever that number is, it won’t make drop in the bucket.
The pie filter works really well. I’ll remind people that it’s available if the anger management seems to be imperilled.
The pie filter works really well. I’ll remind people that it’s available if the anger management seems to be imperilled.
Breaking up the big banks is a colossally bad idea. It’s just knee jerk revenge.
OK, but then there’s no such thing as “too big to fail”. If they get in trouble, they go bankrupt like anybody else. Shareholders get nothing — at least until the depositors have their full balances, not just the insured amount. Executive employment contracts are void: no compensation beyond what they have in hand, and any in-house retirement is gone as well. Accept that, at minimum, and we can talk.
strongly against estate taxes. Doesn’t get the treasury a meaningful amount of money and seems petty.
It does have the serious plus of putting rewards on accomplishment, not just having won the lottery on parents. Yes, you should (and we do) have a reasonably high threshold before it kicks in. But if you can’t make it in life because you only inherited $2 million, rather than $50 million (or $2 billion), my sympathy is d*mn limited.
Breaking up the big banks is a colossally bad idea. It’s just knee jerk revenge.
OK, but then there’s no such thing as “too big to fail”. If they get in trouble, they go bankrupt like anybody else. Shareholders get nothing — at least until the depositors have their full balances, not just the insured amount. Executive employment contracts are void: no compensation beyond what they have in hand, and any in-house retirement is gone as well. Accept that, at minimum, and we can talk.
strongly against estate taxes. Doesn’t get the treasury a meaningful amount of money and seems petty.
It does have the serious plus of putting rewards on accomplishment, not just having won the lottery on parents. Yes, you should (and we do) have a reasonably high threshold before it kicks in. But if you can’t make it in life because you only inherited $2 million, rather than $50 million (or $2 billion), my sympathy is d*mn limited.
reaching way back to income inequality:
average rents for a one-bedroom in Salem MA are $1600+. For two-bedroom, $2000+.
My company lost a really good dev-ops guy last year because he and his wife want to have kids and they couldn’t afford to buy a big enough house. He moved out to western MA.
I know some homeless folks in my area, most of them have jobs. I know of one family that was living in their car with three kids, one of them 8 weeks old. Another family came up here from GA so the dad could get some specialized medical care, they ended up living in their car with two little kids because housing was so expensive. Mrs. We’re-Living-In-Our-Car was employed, it just wasn’t enough to make rent.
Because the folks that have the money around here have enough more than the folks that don’t that it screws up the housing market sufficiently to price poor people out, full stop.
You can live in a dangerous place cheaper, and you can get on line for Section 8 and wait. Or you can live in your car.
You’re right, poor people just want a job and a decent place to live. They don’t give a crap how much money other folks have, they’re just trying to make their own nut. Jobs are around if you will work for $10 or $15 or $20 bucks an hour, on a gig basis, with no benefits. Decent places to live are harder to come by. Who the hell is going to lend somebody a quarter of million bucks or more if their income is $20/hour on a gig basis. How do you come up with $7500 cash for first, last, and current on a 2-bedroom so your kids don’t have to sleep in your bedroom or on the couch, when you’re making $20/hour on a gig basis.
My wife and I have a good friend who lives in San Francisco. She has a very successful marketing consultancy, her partner is a very successful fertility doc. They have a lot of money, they live side by side with people who have no money. They’re afraid of those people, and those people mostly hate them, because rich people are driving them out of the places they have lived all their lives.
They sometimes walk out the door to find junkies or drunks crashed in their shrubs. One day our friend was driving through Berkeley in her beautiful white Benz, and some guy threw his soda at her. This stuff freaks them out. They’re nice liberals, but it freaks them out, because they’ve worked hard and have become very successful, and they thought they’d be insulated from that kind of bullshit.
And, no doubt, the poor guy who threw his soda at my friend while she was driving thought that he also works hard, and thought he’d be insulated from rich people taking over the whole fucking city.
Inequality. It actually is a thing. Look around, it’s not at all hard to see.
Maybe Houston is a magic place, where none of this goes on.
As far as Trump and impeachable offenses, every single day he is in violation of the emoluments clause. Every single day he violates the terms of his lease on a property that is owned by we, the people. Every single day he and his family pimp the office of the POTUS for favors from a variety of foreign governments. Many of his business associates are known Russian gangsters, as in have done time for securities fraud, assault, and a variety of other charges. It’s extraordinarily likely that he’s been involved in laundering Russian kleptocratic money through his real estate holdings.
But, but, the rule of law!! If the rule of law had any teeth, he’d be out on his ass already. The (R)’s will keep him around until they get their tax cuts and their regulation rollbacks so they can screw the poor and rape the land for another generation.
There is not a fucking thing that Trump can do short of shooting James Comey in the head in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue at high noon that you, Marty, will not defend, or at least minimize as some kind of “nothing to see here” liberal pearl-clutching fantasy.
Trump is a fucking crook. He’s a liar, a grifter, a serial bankrupt, a guy who beats his creditors down with blizzards of lawsuits and drives them into bankruptcy along with himself. he doesn’t pay his subs. He’s supposed to be some big business genius, but with a 9 figure head-start he can’t even beat the market.
He’s a fucking crook.
I doubt he’ll make four years because he’s not a very smart crook, and if you’re going to take the criminal path, you really do need to be smarter than average.
But who knows, with the loyal support of folks like you, maybe he’ll do his whole term.
But he is a crook, a common shitheel, a fraud, a liar, and a general all-around bullying creep.
Can’t wait until we don’t have to wake up every day to see what asinine clusterfuck du jour he has managed to foist upon us.
reaching way back to income inequality:
average rents for a one-bedroom in Salem MA are $1600+. For two-bedroom, $2000+.
My company lost a really good dev-ops guy last year because he and his wife want to have kids and they couldn’t afford to buy a big enough house. He moved out to western MA.
I know some homeless folks in my area, most of them have jobs. I know of one family that was living in their car with three kids, one of them 8 weeks old. Another family came up here from GA so the dad could get some specialized medical care, they ended up living in their car with two little kids because housing was so expensive. Mrs. We’re-Living-In-Our-Car was employed, it just wasn’t enough to make rent.
Because the folks that have the money around here have enough more than the folks that don’t that it screws up the housing market sufficiently to price poor people out, full stop.
You can live in a dangerous place cheaper, and you can get on line for Section 8 and wait. Or you can live in your car.
You’re right, poor people just want a job and a decent place to live. They don’t give a crap how much money other folks have, they’re just trying to make their own nut. Jobs are around if you will work for $10 or $15 or $20 bucks an hour, on a gig basis, with no benefits. Decent places to live are harder to come by. Who the hell is going to lend somebody a quarter of million bucks or more if their income is $20/hour on a gig basis. How do you come up with $7500 cash for first, last, and current on a 2-bedroom so your kids don’t have to sleep in your bedroom or on the couch, when you’re making $20/hour on a gig basis.
My wife and I have a good friend who lives in San Francisco. She has a very successful marketing consultancy, her partner is a very successful fertility doc. They have a lot of money, they live side by side with people who have no money. They’re afraid of those people, and those people mostly hate them, because rich people are driving them out of the places they have lived all their lives.
They sometimes walk out the door to find junkies or drunks crashed in their shrubs. One day our friend was driving through Berkeley in her beautiful white Benz, and some guy threw his soda at her. This stuff freaks them out. They’re nice liberals, but it freaks them out, because they’ve worked hard and have become very successful, and they thought they’d be insulated from that kind of bullshit.
And, no doubt, the poor guy who threw his soda at my friend while she was driving thought that he also works hard, and thought he’d be insulated from rich people taking over the whole fucking city.
Inequality. It actually is a thing. Look around, it’s not at all hard to see.
Maybe Houston is a magic place, where none of this goes on.
As far as Trump and impeachable offenses, every single day he is in violation of the emoluments clause. Every single day he violates the terms of his lease on a property that is owned by we, the people. Every single day he and his family pimp the office of the POTUS for favors from a variety of foreign governments. Many of his business associates are known Russian gangsters, as in have done time for securities fraud, assault, and a variety of other charges. It’s extraordinarily likely that he’s been involved in laundering Russian kleptocratic money through his real estate holdings.
But, but, the rule of law!! If the rule of law had any teeth, he’d be out on his ass already. The (R)’s will keep him around until they get their tax cuts and their regulation rollbacks so they can screw the poor and rape the land for another generation.
There is not a fucking thing that Trump can do short of shooting James Comey in the head in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue at high noon that you, Marty, will not defend, or at least minimize as some kind of “nothing to see here” liberal pearl-clutching fantasy.
Trump is a fucking crook. He’s a liar, a grifter, a serial bankrupt, a guy who beats his creditors down with blizzards of lawsuits and drives them into bankruptcy along with himself. he doesn’t pay his subs. He’s supposed to be some big business genius, but with a 9 figure head-start he can’t even beat the market.
He’s a fucking crook.
I doubt he’ll make four years because he’s not a very smart crook, and if you’re going to take the criminal path, you really do need to be smarter than average.
But who knows, with the loyal support of folks like you, maybe he’ll do his whole term.
But he is a crook, a common shitheel, a fraud, a liar, and a general all-around bullying creep.
Can’t wait until we don’t have to wake up every day to see what asinine clusterfuck du jour he has managed to foist upon us.
The EPA has spent years diving deeper into the weeds of diminishing returns.
God bless them.
And God bless them for not subjecting every consideration of public health and safety to the nickel-and-diming bullshit of costing out whether the money spent on making things safer is recouped on at least a dollar-for-dollar basis.
You think, if we roll back the EPA regs, that we won’t be breathing air you can strain the crap out of again? It’ll take less than a generation.
This country is full of SOBs who will be happy to poison you for a one-point bump in their stock price. You might forget that, but I won’t.
The EPA has spent years diving deeper into the weeds of diminishing returns.
God bless them.
And God bless them for not subjecting every consideration of public health and safety to the nickel-and-diming bullshit of costing out whether the money spent on making things safer is recouped on at least a dollar-for-dollar basis.
You think, if we roll back the EPA regs, that we won’t be breathing air you can strain the crap out of again? It’ll take less than a generation.
This country is full of SOBs who will be happy to poison you for a one-point bump in their stock price. You might forget that, but I won’t.
Just when we needed russell, he showed up.
Just when we needed russell, he showed up.
Maybe Houston is a magic place, where none of this goes on.
Houston is, by far, the largest city in the country without any zoning laws. It seems to work pretty well.
Some of the high cost of housing is due to restrictive zoning and permitting and out of date building codes.
I could see living in a micro house a year or two if I could sock away most of what I’m currently spending on housing.
Maybe Houston is a magic place, where none of this goes on.
Houston is, by far, the largest city in the country without any zoning laws. It seems to work pretty well.
Some of the high cost of housing is due to restrictive zoning and permitting and out of date building codes.
I could see living in a micro house a year or two if I could sock away most of what I’m currently spending on housing.
My gripe with Trump is that he’s made my tweeter account almost useless. The people I follow are over whamming me with endless Trumpisms. 🙁
My gripe with Trump is that he’s made my tweeter account almost useless. The people I follow are over whamming me with endless Trumpisms. 🙁
Because the folks that have the money around here have enough more than the folks that don’t that it screws up the housing market sufficiently to price poor people out, full stop.
Is the problem really rich people pricing the poor out by paying more? Or is rich people influencing zoning laws, keeping out apartment buildings, limiting heights, etc.? See Charles’ comment about Houston.
That’s not to say that NO zoning laws are the best way to go. I think there is actually something to be said for segregating business and residential areas; admittedly a matter of personal preference. But zoning laws which effectively, and often quite deliberately, keep poor people out are a terrible idea.
Because the folks that have the money around here have enough more than the folks that don’t that it screws up the housing market sufficiently to price poor people out, full stop.
Is the problem really rich people pricing the poor out by paying more? Or is rich people influencing zoning laws, keeping out apartment buildings, limiting heights, etc.? See Charles’ comment about Houston.
That’s not to say that NO zoning laws are the best way to go. I think there is actually something to be said for segregating business and residential areas; admittedly a matter of personal preference. But zoning laws which effectively, and often quite deliberately, keep poor people out are a terrible idea.
Yep let’s not worry about proof or due process or any of that bs, just throw away the key because we know he laundered money, no matter that the emoluments clause pretty specifically can’t be applied to any of the examples ever provided, never mind he’s never even been investigated for anything criminal as far as we know, much less the famous line “well hes never been convicted”, he’s an ass and we don’t like him so fing throw away the key. Never mind that, until maybe today, he STILL wasnt under investigation for anything criminal.
That Marty, it’s not good enough anymore to say that if they go through the process and he’s guilty that he should get impeached and go to jail. You have to be for calling him names, impeaching him anyway, and making shit up about him and doing it every day, or your just taking his side. Chrissakes, what country do you live in? I don’t want to live in a country where that’s the way this problem is solved.
Yep let’s not worry about proof or due process or any of that bs, just throw away the key because we know he laundered money, no matter that the emoluments clause pretty specifically can’t be applied to any of the examples ever provided, never mind he’s never even been investigated for anything criminal as far as we know, much less the famous line “well hes never been convicted”, he’s an ass and we don’t like him so fing throw away the key. Never mind that, until maybe today, he STILL wasnt under investigation for anything criminal.
That Marty, it’s not good enough anymore to say that if they go through the process and he’s guilty that he should get impeached and go to jail. You have to be for calling him names, impeaching him anyway, and making shit up about him and doing it every day, or your just taking his side. Chrissakes, what country do you live in? I don’t want to live in a country where that’s the way this problem is solved.
Interesting list though;
I left off jobs guarantee…many others.
Not single payer, but public option for poor and uninsured
Single payer for everybody. Break the tie of employment to health insurance.
I’m good with significant defense cuts phased in to limit the displacement of those currently serving. 1/3, 1/4? Sure
OK. 1% tax cut for you!
Breaking up the big banks is a colossally bad idea. It’s just knee jerk revenge.
They benefit from a huge public subsidy. F&ck them. Break them up or nationalize them.
Capital gains taxed as ordinary income: short term, sure oh wait. Long term I suppose if you legitimately means tested it. Middle class folks are planning on those for retirement.
Means testing anything is a bad idea. Retirement? Increase Social Security payments.
I have become, which is a change I think, strongly against estate taxes. Doesn’t get the treasury a meaningful amount of money and seems petty.
The amount of money recouped by the Treasury is not the point. It is a public policy to mitigate the establishment of an economic royalty.
I won’t be for the terrorist states, no matter how much rehabilitation they provide. I remember the hostages and the dozens of suicide bombers. No way.
So you don’t support Israel. Good for you.
I actually think Taft-Hartley is mostly irrelevant.
Then repeal won’t matter? OK. Repeal it.
No such thing as global warming, no, no such thing as climate change, no, the weather says that my part of the country is going to benefit from the new tropical climate and Utah seafront. I think we should do what we are doing. It’s either too late or it’s unnecessary, really there is no middle ground.
A possible existential crisis is turned into a meditation on land speculation.
Yeah we can give 20 billion in foreign aide rather than 5, or whatever that number is, it won’t make drop in the bucket.
Then tell your GOP buddies to stop whining about it, OK?
Thanks.
Interesting list though;
I left off jobs guarantee…many others.
Not single payer, but public option for poor and uninsured
Single payer for everybody. Break the tie of employment to health insurance.
I’m good with significant defense cuts phased in to limit the displacement of those currently serving. 1/3, 1/4? Sure
OK. 1% tax cut for you!
Breaking up the big banks is a colossally bad idea. It’s just knee jerk revenge.
They benefit from a huge public subsidy. F&ck them. Break them up or nationalize them.
Capital gains taxed as ordinary income: short term, sure oh wait. Long term I suppose if you legitimately means tested it. Middle class folks are planning on those for retirement.
Means testing anything is a bad idea. Retirement? Increase Social Security payments.
I have become, which is a change I think, strongly against estate taxes. Doesn’t get the treasury a meaningful amount of money and seems petty.
The amount of money recouped by the Treasury is not the point. It is a public policy to mitigate the establishment of an economic royalty.
I won’t be for the terrorist states, no matter how much rehabilitation they provide. I remember the hostages and the dozens of suicide bombers. No way.
So you don’t support Israel. Good for you.
I actually think Taft-Hartley is mostly irrelevant.
Then repeal won’t matter? OK. Repeal it.
No such thing as global warming, no, no such thing as climate change, no, the weather says that my part of the country is going to benefit from the new tropical climate and Utah seafront. I think we should do what we are doing. It’s either too late or it’s unnecessary, really there is no middle ground.
A possible existential crisis is turned into a meditation on land speculation.
Yeah we can give 20 billion in foreign aide rather than 5, or whatever that number is, it won’t make drop in the bucket.
Then tell your GOP buddies to stop whining about it, OK?
Thanks.
Houston is, by far, the largest city in the country without any zoning laws. It seems to work pretty well.
fabulous. and if that’s working out well for the people of Houston, I say carry on.
just keep it down there with you.
Houston is, by far, the largest city in the country without any zoning laws. It seems to work pretty well.
fabulous. and if that’s working out well for the people of Houston, I say carry on.
just keep it down there with you.
Is the problem really rich people pricing the poor out by paying more?
Again, this goes back to the matter of income inequality. If we have a system that resolutely shifts income upward, this is the kind of outcome one would expect.
Is the problem really rich people pricing the poor out by paying more?
Again, this goes back to the matter of income inequality. If we have a system that resolutely shifts income upward, this is the kind of outcome one would expect.
I don’t want to live in a country where that’s the way this problem is solved.
This cookie cutter was baked into the cake as the two major parties have become more ideologically coherent and evenly balanced. There are no more “moderate” Republicans. There are no more segregationist southern Democrats.
The impeachment of Clinton for a consensual sexual encounter set a pretty low bar. The GOP searched for months. They blundered into a reason. A very petty one. They pulled the tripper (sic).
Then came Bengazi. And then, christ almighty, EMAILS!
What goes around comes around. Sorry to say, your whining in this respect is falling on deaf ears.
LOCK HIM UP!!!!
I don’t want to live in a country where that’s the way this problem is solved.
This cookie cutter was baked into the cake as the two major parties have become more ideologically coherent and evenly balanced. There are no more “moderate” Republicans. There are no more segregationist southern Democrats.
The impeachment of Clinton for a consensual sexual encounter set a pretty low bar. The GOP searched for months. They blundered into a reason. A very petty one. They pulled the tripper (sic).
Then came Bengazi. And then, christ almighty, EMAILS!
What goes around comes around. Sorry to say, your whining in this respect is falling on deaf ears.
LOCK HIM UP!!!!
“Then tell your GOP buddies to stop whining about it, OK?”
Will do. However, if I actually had friends i probably wouldn’t be here commenting.
“Then tell your GOP buddies to stop whining about it, OK?”
Will do. However, if I actually had friends i probably wouldn’t be here commenting.
Is the problem really rich people pricing the poor out by paying more
yes
making shit up about him
Wtf am I making up about Trump?
Trump has a long record of being investigated and charged for both civil and criminal violations. in general he settles. that’s why he has all those lovely lawyers.
the lease on the DC post office building is a matter of public record. the post-election grant of IP rights, owned personally by Trump, by the PRC, a matter of public record. that just scratches the surface.
his failure to pay subs, public record. his banktuptcies, ditto. his litigious relationships with his business partners, ditto. his association with known criminals, ditto.
the infusion of Russian oligarch money into his real estate ventures, ditto. I’m comfortable with characterizing the potential of money laundering in those transactions as “highly likely”. if that gets up your nose, not my problem.
after winning the election, he doubled the membership fees at Mar a lago. I call that pimping the office to enrich himself. you call it whatever you like.
the man is a freaking crook. he used donations to his charity to pay his own personal legal fees. don’t give me any crap about “calling him names”.
he’s a crook.
Is the problem really rich people pricing the poor out by paying more
yes
making shit up about him
Wtf am I making up about Trump?
Trump has a long record of being investigated and charged for both civil and criminal violations. in general he settles. that’s why he has all those lovely lawyers.
the lease on the DC post office building is a matter of public record. the post-election grant of IP rights, owned personally by Trump, by the PRC, a matter of public record. that just scratches the surface.
his failure to pay subs, public record. his banktuptcies, ditto. his litigious relationships with his business partners, ditto. his association with known criminals, ditto.
the infusion of Russian oligarch money into his real estate ventures, ditto. I’m comfortable with characterizing the potential of money laundering in those transactions as “highly likely”. if that gets up your nose, not my problem.
after winning the election, he doubled the membership fees at Mar a lago. I call that pimping the office to enrich himself. you call it whatever you like.
the man is a freaking crook. he used donations to his charity to pay his own personal legal fees. don’t give me any crap about “calling him names”.
he’s a crook.
russell, I don’t care what you call him. I care that I get called a Trump supporter, uh he’d have to shoot James Comey crap, because I want the government to have to follow the law. And I do think some of it is uncalled for, one example is the Chinese IP rights. They weren’t requested after he got to be President, surely that got them approved but he isn’t the first President to get a kick from getting the Presidency.
“In 2009, Obama’s book sales peaked and he grossed nearly $5.7 million, but by 2010, gross book revenues had dropped to $1.6 million, according to Forbes.”
He didn’t write the book while he was in office, but he took the 5.7 million.
On the other hand I think the fees at Mar a Lago is a great example of pimping the Presidency and I said so.
Russian oligarchs didn’t infuse money into his real estate venture, they bought real estate. Those are different things.
He was in the mobbed up construction business in NY, I don’t have any doubt he had questionable mob ties, like the Kennedy’s had.
These things just don’t preclude him from being President, nor are they new or unique.
So if I feel like they may be overblown and I am looking for a smoking gun that I can say warrants an impeachment, then I don’t expect to be abused for it.
russell, I don’t care what you call him. I care that I get called a Trump supporter, uh he’d have to shoot James Comey crap, because I want the government to have to follow the law. And I do think some of it is uncalled for, one example is the Chinese IP rights. They weren’t requested after he got to be President, surely that got them approved but he isn’t the first President to get a kick from getting the Presidency.
“In 2009, Obama’s book sales peaked and he grossed nearly $5.7 million, but by 2010, gross book revenues had dropped to $1.6 million, according to Forbes.”
He didn’t write the book while he was in office, but he took the 5.7 million.
On the other hand I think the fees at Mar a Lago is a great example of pimping the Presidency and I said so.
Russian oligarchs didn’t infuse money into his real estate venture, they bought real estate. Those are different things.
He was in the mobbed up construction business in NY, I don’t have any doubt he had questionable mob ties, like the Kennedy’s had.
These things just don’t preclude him from being President, nor are they new or unique.
So if I feel like they may be overblown and I am looking for a smoking gun that I can say warrants an impeachment, then I don’t expect to be abused for it.
he isn’t the first President to get a kick from getting the Presidency.
nearly every elected official at the national level in this country leverages that office to make a bundle, one way or another.
books, lecture circuit, consulting, lobbying.
I think that all sucks, buts it’s all within the law.
Receiving things of significant value from another government while holding the office of POTUS is not.
selling books is not the same as being suddenly granted IP rights by a foreign power.
Russian oligarchs didn’t infuse money into his real estate venture, they bought real estate. Those are different things.
I believe they did both. and how do you think money laundering works?
I don’t expect to be abused for it.
no more difficult I expect a ration for calling a spade a spade. the man is crooked.
maybe he’ll be impeached, maybe he wont. I have no idea. I’m not looking for anything to happen outside due process and proper constitutional procedure.
whether he’s impeached or not, he’s a crook.
he isn’t the first President to get a kick from getting the Presidency.
nearly every elected official at the national level in this country leverages that office to make a bundle, one way or another.
books, lecture circuit, consulting, lobbying.
I think that all sucks, buts it’s all within the law.
Receiving things of significant value from another government while holding the office of POTUS is not.
selling books is not the same as being suddenly granted IP rights by a foreign power.
Russian oligarchs didn’t infuse money into his real estate venture, they bought real estate. Those are different things.
I believe they did both. and how do you think money laundering works?
I don’t expect to be abused for it.
no more difficult I expect a ration for calling a spade a spade. the man is crooked.
maybe he’ll be impeached, maybe he wont. I have no idea. I’m not looking for anything to happen outside due process and proper constitutional procedure.
whether he’s impeached or not, he’s a crook.
“Receiving things of significant value from another government while holding the office of POTUS is not.”
Well of course it was in this case. It is the IP rights that were granted to his company that has been turned over to his sons. Its not seemly, but its legal. Which is the point.
It is an inevitability actually, globalization being what it is. Or we can never have any successful businessman run for President.
“Receiving things of significant value from another government while holding the office of POTUS is not.”
Well of course it was in this case. It is the IP rights that were granted to his company that has been turned over to his sons. Its not seemly, but its legal. Which is the point.
It is an inevitability actually, globalization being what it is. Or we can never have any successful businessman run for President.
It is the IP rights that were granted to his company that has been turned over to his sons
define “turned over”.
who owns the trump organization? will the owner of the Trump organization realize any benefit from the awarding of the IP rights?
as POTUS, you cannot receive things of significant value from a foreign state.
a nice pen and pencil set, probably ok. IP rights to trade on a brand owned, personally, by you, not so much.
I don’t know what upside you get from defending the guy, but the rest of us aren’t obliged to play along.
the man is a freaking crook. if things play out in any lawful and reasonable way, he’ll get the boot. neither I nor anyone else is obliged to pretend he is anything other than what manifestly and palpably is.
It is the IP rights that were granted to his company that has been turned over to his sons
define “turned over”.
who owns the trump organization? will the owner of the Trump organization realize any benefit from the awarding of the IP rights?
as POTUS, you cannot receive things of significant value from a foreign state.
a nice pen and pencil set, probably ok. IP rights to trade on a brand owned, personally, by you, not so much.
I don’t know what upside you get from defending the guy, but the rest of us aren’t obliged to play along.
the man is a freaking crook. if things play out in any lawful and reasonable way, he’ll get the boot. neither I nor anyone else is obliged to pretend he is anything other than what manifestly and palpably is.
It is an inevitability actually, globalization being what it is. Or we can never have any successful businessman run for President.
horseshit.
what did tillerson do when he stepped up as sec state?
did it cost him anything? did he do it anyway?
Imo tillerson wasn’t a good choice for state, and I think he owes the world an apology for whatever involvement he had with ExxonMobil’s suppression of climate science unfavorable to their interests.
but he’s not a crook.
Trump is a crook.
It is an inevitability actually, globalization being what it is. Or we can never have any successful businessman run for President.
horseshit.
what did tillerson do when he stepped up as sec state?
did it cost him anything? did he do it anyway?
Imo tillerson wasn’t a good choice for state, and I think he owes the world an apology for whatever involvement he had with ExxonMobil’s suppression of climate science unfavorable to their interests.
but he’s not a crook.
Trump is a crook.
“He was in the mobbed up construction business in NY, I don’t have any doubt he had questionable mob ties, like the Kennedy’s had.”
The Mob will never put a bullet in trump’s head. They love him. He’s made.
“Its not seemly, but its legal. Which is the point.”
Interesting point. Could you have the decency to wait until Ms. McFarland’s fat ass is over the horizon to Singapore and Spicer’s boxer shorts are rung up the White House flagpole before you start doing their jobs.
“And I really, really want those tax cuts.”
You have no income, according to your testimony here. You do have pre-existing conditions and if one of them is diabetes or any other chronic, expensive deadly disease, you’re shit out of luck, according to Budget Murderer Mick Mulvaney. He’s going to take a look at every sugary beverage you’ve ever thrown back.
That bend in the cost curve is right ahead Marty. I’d brake if I were you.
“No such thing as global warming, no, no such thing as climate change, no, the weather says that my part of the country is going to benefit from the new tropical climate and Utah seafront.”
Your part?
You had better be fucking right.
You had better be fucking right.
via lgm
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/14/republicans-cuts-programs-food-stamps-welfare-veterans-238314
You had better be goddamned fucking right.
Republicans are cold-blooded murderers. It was once entertainment in this country to kill cold-blooded murderers.
You want the “V” word?
“He was in the mobbed up construction business in NY, I don’t have any doubt he had questionable mob ties, like the Kennedy’s had.”
The Mob will never put a bullet in trump’s head. They love him. He’s made.
“Its not seemly, but its legal. Which is the point.”
Interesting point. Could you have the decency to wait until Ms. McFarland’s fat ass is over the horizon to Singapore and Spicer’s boxer shorts are rung up the White House flagpole before you start doing their jobs.
“And I really, really want those tax cuts.”
You have no income, according to your testimony here. You do have pre-existing conditions and if one of them is diabetes or any other chronic, expensive deadly disease, you’re shit out of luck, according to Budget Murderer Mick Mulvaney. He’s going to take a look at every sugary beverage you’ve ever thrown back.
That bend in the cost curve is right ahead Marty. I’d brake if I were you.
“No such thing as global warming, no, no such thing as climate change, no, the weather says that my part of the country is going to benefit from the new tropical climate and Utah seafront.”
Your part?
You had better be fucking right.
You had better be fucking right.
via lgm
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/14/republicans-cuts-programs-food-stamps-welfare-veterans-238314
You had better be goddamned fucking right.
Republicans are cold-blooded murderers. It was once entertainment in this country to kill cold-blooded murderers.
You want the “V” word?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/16/trump-officials-on-comey-memo-dont-see-how-trump-isnt-completely-fcked
trump’s pigfucking incompetence is the only speed bump slowing down the professional murderers .. Pence, Ryan, McConnell and much of trump’s Cabinet.
As during World War II, it’s a choice between Hitler and Stalin after the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact went kaputnik.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/16/trump-officials-on-comey-memo-dont-see-how-trump-isnt-completely-fcked
trump’s pigfucking incompetence is the only speed bump slowing down the professional murderers .. Pence, Ryan, McConnell and much of trump’s Cabinet.
As during World War II, it’s a choice between Hitler and Stalin after the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact went kaputnik.
Marty, again no. Even Republicans don’t agree with your understanding of the status of the Justice Department:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/16/trump-comey-republicans-congress-scandals-238479
Rep. Pat Meehan (R-Pa.), a former federal prosecutor, suggested Trump’s interactions with Comey threatened the public perception of the Justice Department as an autonomous entity.
“This whole process is very difficult because we are seeing the central institution — the Justice Department, and the independence of the Justice Department — stretched. And people want to have confidence in the independence of [DOJ’s] activities,” Meehan said. “I’m hoping that throughout this long process, it can get back into a place where there could be confidence in the ability of the institutions to do their work.”
Yes, it is part of the Executive branch – but is has a legal function which is supposedly independent of presidential direction.
Marty, again no. Even Republicans don’t agree with your understanding of the status of the Justice Department:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/16/trump-comey-republicans-congress-scandals-238479
Rep. Pat Meehan (R-Pa.), a former federal prosecutor, suggested Trump’s interactions with Comey threatened the public perception of the Justice Department as an autonomous entity.
“This whole process is very difficult because we are seeing the central institution — the Justice Department, and the independence of the Justice Department — stretched. And people want to have confidence in the independence of [DOJ’s] activities,” Meehan said. “I’m hoping that throughout this long process, it can get back into a place where there could be confidence in the ability of the institutions to do their work.”
Yes, it is part of the Executive branch – but is has a legal function which is supposedly independent of presidential direction.
Republicans can be misinformed also. However, we would all like the FBI to get back to doing its work. The political considerations that had clearly become central to the Directors decisions were certainly hampering that.
None of this is at odds with anything I have said.
Republicans can be misinformed also. However, we would all like the FBI to get back to doing its work. The political considerations that had clearly become central to the Directors decisions were certainly hampering that.
None of this is at odds with anything I have said.
My company lost a really good dev-ops guy last year because he and his wife want to have kids and they couldn’t afford to buy a big enough house. He moved out to western MA.
What’s income inequality got to do with that? Evidently there are only so many family houses in Salem, so they get rationed by price. If incomes were less unequal, some people would still miss out.
Your really good dev-ops guy has been outbid by someone else. I suppose that guy is paid more because he’s more highly valued by his employers, and it would be more of a loss to the local economy if he moved away.
What is it you want here?
My company lost a really good dev-ops guy last year because he and his wife want to have kids and they couldn’t afford to buy a big enough house. He moved out to western MA.
What’s income inequality got to do with that? Evidently there are only so many family houses in Salem, so they get rationed by price. If incomes were less unequal, some people would still miss out.
Your really good dev-ops guy has been outbid by someone else. I suppose that guy is paid more because he’s more highly valued by his employers, and it would be more of a loss to the local economy if he moved away.
What is it you want here?
Count,
I only bring up tax cuts because i keep getting told i like them more than my country. Its a new way to disparage me personally and stay within the rules.
Tax cuts mean nothing to my personal financial situation, although for full disclosure I did piece enough contract work together last year to break the poverty level and I may do better this year. I am trying to build a business so shoot maybe I will have some money to retire someday. One can American dream.
The healthcare stuff is less worrisome, I’m confident that the Senate grasps the important minimum criteria.
On climate change there only seems to be extreme positions now. Either no problem or f#ck it we’re dead no matter what. The more people try to yell about settled science the more other people shrug and hope they are wrong because the settled science says we are doomed.
Count,
I only bring up tax cuts because i keep getting told i like them more than my country. Its a new way to disparage me personally and stay within the rules.
Tax cuts mean nothing to my personal financial situation, although for full disclosure I did piece enough contract work together last year to break the poverty level and I may do better this year. I am trying to build a business so shoot maybe I will have some money to retire someday. One can American dream.
The healthcare stuff is less worrisome, I’m confident that the Senate grasps the important minimum criteria.
On climate change there only seems to be extreme positions now. Either no problem or f#ck it we’re dead no matter what. The more people try to yell about settled science the more other people shrug and hope they are wrong because the settled science says we are doomed.
What is it you want here?
I want people who work for a living to be able to have a decent life. period,
and I love that your response is to parrot back a bunch of Econ 101 market theory.
people talk about not wanting to be a slave to the state, but they will gladly submit to being slaves of something they call the free market.
feel free to enslave yourself to whatever you like, but don’t expect the rest of us to join in.
What is it you want here?
I want people who work for a living to be able to have a decent life. period,
and I love that your response is to parrot back a bunch of Econ 101 market theory.
people talk about not wanting to be a slave to the state, but they will gladly submit to being slaves of something they call the free market.
feel free to enslave yourself to whatever you like, but don’t expect the rest of us to join in.
The more people try to yell about settled science the more other people shrug
nobody likes bad news.
The more people try to yell about settled science the more other people shrug
nobody likes bad news.
Thanks russell. What do you want to do about the problem that there are not as many family houses in Salem as families wanting to live in them?
Thanks russell. What do you want to do about the problem that there are not as many family houses in Salem as families wanting to live in them?
Either no problem or f#ck it we’re dead no matter what.
right.
that’s what waiting too long gets you.
at some point, after not turning away from the cliff, physics says you’re going over the cliff . and that can be true even if you can look out the window and still see the road.
Either no problem or f#ck it we’re dead no matter what.
right.
that’s what waiting too long gets you.
at some point, after not turning away from the cliff, physics says you’re going over the cliff . and that can be true even if you can look out the window and still see the road.
What do you want to do about the problem that there are not as many family houses in Salem as families wanting to live in them?
first, the problem is not specific to Salem, it’s general to Boston metro.
second, there’s plenty of housing per se, and more going up every day.
it just costs too much. the rent is too damned high.
What do you want to do about the problem that there are not as many family houses in Salem as families wanting to live in them?
first, the problem is not specific to Salem, it’s general to Boston metro.
second, there’s plenty of housing per se, and more going up every day.
it just costs too much. the rent is too damned high.
Is the rent so high that houses are standing empty for want of tenants willing to pay?
Or is it that the high rents are being paid, but by tenants you disapprove of?
Is the rent so high that houses are standing empty for want of tenants willing to pay?
Or is it that the high rents are being paid, but by tenants you disapprove of?
The ACLU getting involved in district attorney campaigns is a very promising development:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/16/the-aclus-radical-plan-to-fight-jeff-sessions-215139
The ACLU getting involved in district attorney campaigns is a very promising development:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/16/the-aclus-radical-plan-to-fight-jeff-sessions-215139
And a ‘semi-comprehensive’ (and very long indeed) list of Trump’s presidential conflicts of interest:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/
And a ‘semi-comprehensive’ (and very long indeed) list of Trump’s presidential conflicts of interest:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/
Or is it that the high rents are being paid, but by tenants you disapprove of?
what is this, twenty question?
McK says income inequality is not a thing. I say it is a thing. income differentials in the Boston area are greater than average, and one way that manifests itself is in the limited availability of affordable housing.
if you think that is actually not so, make your case. or, if you’d like to hijack my point to make some other point, go for it.
but I’m not gonna play these stupid bulls hit “what are you *really* saying” games.
what I’m really saying is what I said. you can tell, because it’s what I said.
wanna play stupid BS games, go find another playmate. or you can go find a rope to piss up.
thanks.
Or is it that the high rents are being paid, but by tenants you disapprove of?
what is this, twenty question?
McK says income inequality is not a thing. I say it is a thing. income differentials in the Boston area are greater than average, and one way that manifests itself is in the limited availability of affordable housing.
if you think that is actually not so, make your case. or, if you’d like to hijack my point to make some other point, go for it.
but I’m not gonna play these stupid bulls hit “what are you *really* saying” games.
what I’m really saying is what I said. you can tell, because it’s what I said.
wanna play stupid BS games, go find another playmate. or you can go find a rope to piss up.
thanks.
In short, Anti Bono.
In short, Anti Bono.
I think that income inequality is a thing.
I believe you that not everyone can live in a house the size they want in the Boston area.
I don’t see the mechanism by which reducing income inequality would make more large houses available. Perhaps there is one, perhaps you’d be willing to explain it to me, or perhaps you’d rather get sweary if someone asks you to clarify your argument. This being the internet, the last does not surprise me.
I think that income inequality is a thing.
I believe you that not everyone can live in a house the size they want in the Boston area.
I don’t see the mechanism by which reducing income inequality would make more large houses available. Perhaps there is one, perhaps you’d be willing to explain it to me, or perhaps you’d rather get sweary if someone asks you to clarify your argument. This being the internet, the last does not surprise me.
Is the problem really rich people pricing the poor out by paying more
yes
I’m not clear on this concept. Do you mean that rich people intentionally pay more for housing than it is worth just to exclude poor people? I’d debate that point, if that is the contention.
Housing, like any other commodity, is subject to the law of supply and demand. Very few pay more for a house than they think it is worth. The problem you allude to in MA sounds like classic supply and demand. Others have noted the role gov’t can play in artificially lowering supply or making the cost of new housing so high that only a few can afford it.
As for Houston, fine, we’ll stay here and keep it to ourselves. The summers are brutal, I’ll give you that. I notice the problems you bemoan are in dark blue states.
Is the problem really rich people pricing the poor out by paying more
yes
I’m not clear on this concept. Do you mean that rich people intentionally pay more for housing than it is worth just to exclude poor people? I’d debate that point, if that is the contention.
Housing, like any other commodity, is subject to the law of supply and demand. Very few pay more for a house than they think it is worth. The problem you allude to in MA sounds like classic supply and demand. Others have noted the role gov’t can play in artificially lowering supply or making the cost of new housing so high that only a few can afford it.
As for Houston, fine, we’ll stay here and keep it to ourselves. The summers are brutal, I’ll give you that. I notice the problems you bemoan are in dark blue states.
Income inequality combined with geographical concentration of those relatively few with higher incomes is what makes situations like the one russell describes happen.
San Fran, DC, Boston, NYC, etc. It’s not as big a deal in, say, Cleveland or Buffalo, because the people making the bigger money tend not to concentrate in those places and don’t price other people out.
This isn’t hard, is it?
Income inequality combined with geographical concentration of those relatively few with higher incomes is what makes situations like the one russell describes happen.
San Fran, DC, Boston, NYC, etc. It’s not as big a deal in, say, Cleveland or Buffalo, because the people making the bigger money tend not to concentrate in those places and don’t price other people out.
This isn’t hard, is it?
McTX: I don’t get why it is self evident that Rush’s bile or HRC’ pre-election bribes from Goldman Sachs should be taxed at higher rates just because I don’t approve of either of them.
Why does anything need to be “self-evident”? Whatever would become of your own profession if only “self-evident” propositions were considered valid? But I digress.
As do you, when you write of taxing bribes or bile. Last I checked, what we tax is INCOME — however it may be “earned”.
And as long as you keep talking of “punishing people” whenever the subject of taxing incomes arises, it’s hard to know how we could engage in any practical discussion.
…a feel-good for people who find income disparities so troubling that they can’t sleep at night because there are uber wealthy running around spending shitpiles on Gulfstream 10’s and 250 foot yachts.
It’s not buying jets or yachts that makes the “uber wealthy” dangerous to pikers like you and me. It’s buying politicians and lobbyists.
As for the housing thing:
Back in 1983, when the Sainted Reagan was president and I was a young engineer living in a rent-controlled apartment near Harvard Square, the building across the street went condo. One-bedrooms were selling for about $30K, which was almost exactly one year’s gross salary for me. I don’t know any young engineer, nowadays, who could buy one of those units for less than 2-3 years of gross salary. It’s not just low-wage service workers who are being priced out of housing in metro areas. One thing that’s NOT the reason for this trend is “rent control”; that went out in 1993.
–TP
McTX: I don’t get why it is self evident that Rush’s bile or HRC’ pre-election bribes from Goldman Sachs should be taxed at higher rates just because I don’t approve of either of them.
Why does anything need to be “self-evident”? Whatever would become of your own profession if only “self-evident” propositions were considered valid? But I digress.
As do you, when you write of taxing bribes or bile. Last I checked, what we tax is INCOME — however it may be “earned”.
And as long as you keep talking of “punishing people” whenever the subject of taxing incomes arises, it’s hard to know how we could engage in any practical discussion.
…a feel-good for people who find income disparities so troubling that they can’t sleep at night because there are uber wealthy running around spending shitpiles on Gulfstream 10’s and 250 foot yachts.
It’s not buying jets or yachts that makes the “uber wealthy” dangerous to pikers like you and me. It’s buying politicians and lobbyists.
As for the housing thing:
Back in 1983, when the Sainted Reagan was president and I was a young engineer living in a rent-controlled apartment near Harvard Square, the building across the street went condo. One-bedrooms were selling for about $30K, which was almost exactly one year’s gross salary for me. I don’t know any young engineer, nowadays, who could buy one of those units for less than 2-3 years of gross salary. It’s not just low-wage service workers who are being priced out of housing in metro areas. One thing that’s NOT the reason for this trend is “rent control”; that went out in 1993.
–TP
I don’t see the mechanism by which reducing income inequality would make more large houses available.
it would help level the playing field for folks looking for houses.
Do you mean that rich people intentionally pay more for housing than it is worth just to exclude poor people?
no, I mean rich people intentionally pay more for housing because they can.
which inflates the definition of what they’re worth.
in other words, what hsh said. it’s not rocket science.
I don’t see the mechanism by which reducing income inequality would make more large houses available.
it would help level the playing field for folks looking for houses.
Do you mean that rich people intentionally pay more for housing than it is worth just to exclude poor people?
no, I mean rich people intentionally pay more for housing because they can.
which inflates the definition of what they’re worth.
in other words, what hsh said. it’s not rocket science.
Russell, while I agree that income inequality is an issue, I disagree that it is at the root of the housing issue that you are talking about. McKinney and Pro Bono are right: it’s a supply and demand problem. Specifically, it’s a supply problem.
As you yourself noted, there are just not enough residences for families in your area. Not that there are plenty, but they are priced so high that people who want them cannot afford them so they sit empty. There just flat aren’t enough.
You mention that houses are being built like mad. But what kind of places are they building? If you are building all 4500 sq ft, 4 bedroom, 3 bath houses on acre lots, then they necessarily are going to be high priced — the inputs are going to require it. But if you zoned some 3 bedroom apartment buildings? The prices drop (because the amount of land required is less, for openers).
Build enough, and your problem largely evaporates. But you’ve got to have zoning laws which allow those apartments to be built.
Russell, while I agree that income inequality is an issue, I disagree that it is at the root of the housing issue that you are talking about. McKinney and Pro Bono are right: it’s a supply and demand problem. Specifically, it’s a supply problem.
As you yourself noted, there are just not enough residences for families in your area. Not that there are plenty, but they are priced so high that people who want them cannot afford them so they sit empty. There just flat aren’t enough.
You mention that houses are being built like mad. But what kind of places are they building? If you are building all 4500 sq ft, 4 bedroom, 3 bath houses on acre lots, then they necessarily are going to be high priced — the inputs are going to require it. But if you zoned some 3 bedroom apartment buildings? The prices drop (because the amount of land required is less, for openers).
Build enough, and your problem largely evaporates. But you’ve got to have zoning laws which allow those apartments to be built.
it would help level the playing field for folks looking for houses.
Somehow I’m thinking that, if the 50th-percentile income weren’t quite so much less than the 90th-percentile income, people closer to the 50th percentile would be better able to afford larger houses, be it because 90th-percentile income was lower, and people at that level wouldn’t be bidding housing as high, or because people close to the 50th percentile would have more money to spend on housing. Or it might be some combination of the two. Go figure.
it would help level the playing field for folks looking for houses.
Somehow I’m thinking that, if the 50th-percentile income weren’t quite so much less than the 90th-percentile income, people closer to the 50th percentile would be better able to afford larger houses, be it because 90th-percentile income was lower, and people at that level wouldn’t be bidding housing as high, or because people close to the 50th percentile would have more money to spend on housing. Or it might be some combination of the two. Go figure.
Do you mean that rich people intentionally pay more for housing than it is worth just to exclude poor people?
Yes. Please read this article, and what the person named Nicole Humphrey has to say.
Do you mean that rich people intentionally pay more for housing than it is worth just to exclude poor people?
Yes. Please read this article, and what the person named Nicole Humphrey has to say.
I guess I’m unclear on how supply and demand and the effects of income inequality are mutually exclusive.
if supply is short, prices go up. if some of the folks competing for housing have many multiples of the resources of others, prices go up.
two reinforcing factors, applying pressure in the same direction.
maybe there is some other point you’re making and I’m just missing, but saying “it’s not inequality, it’s supply and demand” doesn’t seem compelling to me.
it’s both.
this is a long- and densely-settled area, not a great deal of buildable open land, with a very high level of income inequality.
if you’re at the bottom or even just the middle of the totem pole, you move away, or buy a house in southern NH or out by Worcester or Providence and spend 3 hours a day getting to or from work.
or, if you mix all of that with a bit of bad luck, you live in your car.
inequality effects people’s lives. extreme inequality, which is common throughout the us, even more so.
and I don’t even want to talk about climate change. we’re close enough to the Gulf of Maine to be in basically one of the global cross hairs for the effects of that. if it’s all hunky dory where you are, good for you. we have to deal with it now, or at least soon.
we’ll go first, your turn comes next.
I guess I’m unclear on how supply and demand and the effects of income inequality are mutually exclusive.
if supply is short, prices go up. if some of the folks competing for housing have many multiples of the resources of others, prices go up.
two reinforcing factors, applying pressure in the same direction.
maybe there is some other point you’re making and I’m just missing, but saying “it’s not inequality, it’s supply and demand” doesn’t seem compelling to me.
it’s both.
this is a long- and densely-settled area, not a great deal of buildable open land, with a very high level of income inequality.
if you’re at the bottom or even just the middle of the totem pole, you move away, or buy a house in southern NH or out by Worcester or Providence and spend 3 hours a day getting to or from work.
or, if you mix all of that with a bit of bad luck, you live in your car.
inequality effects people’s lives. extreme inequality, which is common throughout the us, even more so.
and I don’t even want to talk about climate change. we’re close enough to the Gulf of Maine to be in basically one of the global cross hairs for the effects of that. if it’s all hunky dory where you are, good for you. we have to deal with it now, or at least soon.
we’ll go first, your turn comes next.
Suppose that the highest paid make 20 times the average income. Rather than several hundred times.
Income inequality is much lower, right? But given the same supply of housing, the poorer people still can’t find housing. Because they can (and will) still be outbid, even if at a much lower price. If you are outbid, it doesn’t matter; you still have to look elsewhere for a place to live.
Suppose that the highest paid make 20 times the average income. Rather than several hundred times.
Income inequality is much lower, right? But given the same supply of housing, the poorer people still can’t find housing. Because they can (and will) still be outbid, even if at a much lower price. If you are outbid, it doesn’t matter; you still have to look elsewhere for a place to live.
Sure, there are conditions under which some reduction in income inequality won’t help a significant number of people. And there are conditions under which a reduction in income inequality will help a significant number of people. And it’s not simply a question of how many times as much the highest-paid – or, really, higher-paid – make relative to the average. It’s also a question of how many there are of them (i.e. how income is distributed across the spectrum).
If Bill Gates’ income goes down to one fifth of what it was, it’s not going to help an HVAC tech buy a house. And, yes, in some sense, that would be a reduction in overall income inequality, even if a very narrowly focused one.
Sure, there are conditions under which some reduction in income inequality won’t help a significant number of people. And there are conditions under which a reduction in income inequality will help a significant number of people. And it’s not simply a question of how many times as much the highest-paid – or, really, higher-paid – make relative to the average. It’s also a question of how many there are of them (i.e. how income is distributed across the spectrum).
If Bill Gates’ income goes down to one fifth of what it was, it’s not going to help an HVAC tech buy a house. And, yes, in some sense, that would be a reduction in overall income inequality, even if a very narrowly focused one.
If there is a role for government, it’s not to beat down people at the top, but to remove obstacles that prevent people at the bottom from improving their lots.
If there is a role for government, it’s not to beat down people at the top, but to remove obstacles that prevent people at the bottom from improving their lots.
Do you mean that rich people intentionally pay more for housing than it is worth just to exclude poor people?
Yes. Please read this article, and what the person named Nicole Humphrey has to say.
Nicole is saying that well to do neighborhoods do not want Section 8 Voucher residents in their neighborhoods. Which has nothing to do with the “rich” (McKinney and Frisco are not rich communities, unless HSH and many others here are rich) paying more to keep poor people out. A true statement would be: people of all colors tend to buy in the best neighborhoods and best school districts they can afford for safety and education reasons. These people do not want to see their home values or their neighborhoods decline.
if supply is short, prices go up.
Yes.
if some of the folks competing for housing have many multiples of the resources of others, prices go up.
Only if there is a finite supply of highly desirable units. Otherwise, no. The fact that I can afford X in home price doesn’t increase the value of a house otherwise worth 40% of X simply because I’m the buyer. I might decide to buy a much less expensive home and reserve my cash for other purposes.
The net worth of a given population doesn’t drive prices except to the extent that no one selling to that market is going to price their product higher than the market can afford. You don’t open a high end restaurant or clothing store in a working class or government subsidized neighborhood. But if you intend to market to a certain level of affluence, you probably want to be in geographic proximity to your market which will drive your operating costs up and thus your price points. You will be competing with other like minded merchants and that will further drive prices up. The merchants with the deeper pockets will outspend/outbid those with less resources. None of them will pay an artificially inflated price just to say they did it, and no one charges an artificially inflated price other than to see what the market will bear. At the end of the day, you can’t sell something for more than someone is willing to pay for it.
Do you mean that rich people intentionally pay more for housing than it is worth just to exclude poor people?
Yes. Please read this article, and what the person named Nicole Humphrey has to say.
Nicole is saying that well to do neighborhoods do not want Section 8 Voucher residents in their neighborhoods. Which has nothing to do with the “rich” (McKinney and Frisco are not rich communities, unless HSH and many others here are rich) paying more to keep poor people out. A true statement would be: people of all colors tend to buy in the best neighborhoods and best school districts they can afford for safety and education reasons. These people do not want to see their home values or their neighborhoods decline.
if supply is short, prices go up.
Yes.
if some of the folks competing for housing have many multiples of the resources of others, prices go up.
Only if there is a finite supply of highly desirable units. Otherwise, no. The fact that I can afford X in home price doesn’t increase the value of a house otherwise worth 40% of X simply because I’m the buyer. I might decide to buy a much less expensive home and reserve my cash for other purposes.
The net worth of a given population doesn’t drive prices except to the extent that no one selling to that market is going to price their product higher than the market can afford. You don’t open a high end restaurant or clothing store in a working class or government subsidized neighborhood. But if you intend to market to a certain level of affluence, you probably want to be in geographic proximity to your market which will drive your operating costs up and thus your price points. You will be competing with other like minded merchants and that will further drive prices up. The merchants with the deeper pockets will outspend/outbid those with less resources. None of them will pay an artificially inflated price just to say they did it, and no one charges an artificially inflated price other than to see what the market will bear. At the end of the day, you can’t sell something for more than someone is willing to pay for it.
McKinney and Frisco are among the fastest growing communities in the country. Many of the new residents are escapees from other states where even middle and upper middle class people are having trouble affording to live a reasonable distance from their jobs. The area is also a magnet for the relocations of large corporations.
McKinney and Frisco are among the fastest growing communities in the country. Many of the new residents are escapees from other states where even middle and upper middle class people are having trouble affording to live a reasonable distance from their jobs. The area is also a magnet for the relocations of large corporations.
Only if there is a finite supply of highly desirable units.
Um, what????
I might decide to buy a much less expensive home and reserve my cash for other purposes.
You might. But we’re talking about what people do statistically as a population. People with more money tend to spend more on housing than people with less.
How you went from invoking supply and demand to discussing what you, personally, might do with your money is, I don’t know, a little weird.
Only if there is a finite supply of highly desirable units.
Um, what????
I might decide to buy a much less expensive home and reserve my cash for other purposes.
You might. But we’re talking about what people do statistically as a population. People with more money tend to spend more on housing than people with less.
How you went from invoking supply and demand to discussing what you, personally, might do with your money is, I don’t know, a little weird.
The fact that I can afford X in home price doesn’t increase the value of a house otherwise worth 40% of X simply because I’m the buyer.
It does if you will pay X for it.
Does that happen? Why yes, it does.
And suddenly a house that was worth $250K is worth $300K. Next time it changes hands, it’s $500K.
And so on.
Some folks will pay $500K just tear it the hell down and build their dream home on the rubble.
You can build more houses, but it’s kinda hard to build more land.
There’s always a demand for more housing, because there are always more people. When the differential in what people can afford is steep enough, prices rise faster than what would be expected from simple supply and demand.
If 100 people will spend $1M for a house, and only 50 houses are “worth” $1M, suddenly 50 other houses are magically worth $1M.
Because 50 people with $1M to spend on a house, want a house.
I guess one solution is just build a lot more houses, but in some areas (like mine) there just isn’t that much open land. And a lot of people want to live here, not least because it’s a place with a $70K-plus median income.
So some people end up living in their cars, or they move away.
This isn’t some weird NIMBY no-apartments-in-my-town thing, people are building apartments, too. And turning big formerly-single-family places into condos. And turning formerly-triple-decker-working-class-apartments into condos.
All of which cost a lot of money to buy or rent.
I get the supply and demand argument, I don’t think you all get the generally inflationary effect of a small-ish number of people with great big craploads of money.
The fact that I can afford X in home price doesn’t increase the value of a house otherwise worth 40% of X simply because I’m the buyer.
It does if you will pay X for it.
Does that happen? Why yes, it does.
And suddenly a house that was worth $250K is worth $300K. Next time it changes hands, it’s $500K.
And so on.
Some folks will pay $500K just tear it the hell down and build their dream home on the rubble.
You can build more houses, but it’s kinda hard to build more land.
There’s always a demand for more housing, because there are always more people. When the differential in what people can afford is steep enough, prices rise faster than what would be expected from simple supply and demand.
If 100 people will spend $1M for a house, and only 50 houses are “worth” $1M, suddenly 50 other houses are magically worth $1M.
Because 50 people with $1M to spend on a house, want a house.
I guess one solution is just build a lot more houses, but in some areas (like mine) there just isn’t that much open land. And a lot of people want to live here, not least because it’s a place with a $70K-plus median income.
So some people end up living in their cars, or they move away.
This isn’t some weird NIMBY no-apartments-in-my-town thing, people are building apartments, too. And turning big formerly-single-family places into condos. And turning formerly-triple-decker-working-class-apartments into condos.
All of which cost a lot of money to buy or rent.
I get the supply and demand argument, I don’t think you all get the generally inflationary effect of a small-ish number of people with great big craploads of money.
None of them will pay an artificially inflated price just to say they did it
LOL.
There are entire industries based on people paying artificially inflated prices for stuff, just to say they did it.
Seen a Range Rover recently?
Life isn’t Econ 101.
None of them will pay an artificially inflated price just to say they did it
LOL.
There are entire industries based on people paying artificially inflated prices for stuff, just to say they did it.
Seen a Range Rover recently?
Life isn’t Econ 101.
Seen a Range Rover recently?
Ho ho. I’ve seen 3 Bentley SUVs in Chelsea today.
QED.
Seen a Range Rover recently?
Ho ho. I’ve seen 3 Bentley SUVs in Chelsea today.
QED.
There are Hummers that have never gotten muddy.
There are Hummers that have never gotten muddy.
if some of the folks competing for housing have many multiples of the resources of others, prices go up.
Only if there is a finite supply of highly desirable units, Otherwise, no.
Context, Amigo. The only way having a lot of money causes a price to go up is if other people with a lot of money are competing for the same scarce goods. Otherwise, the presence of affluence plays no role. For example, the cost of a high end Lexus is the same regardless of income or net worth. If there were limited numbers of high end Lexuses (Lexi?), the price would go up.
How you went from invoking supply and demand to discussing what you, personally, might do with your money is, I don’t know, a little weird.
I was using the first person in the same way I could have used the third person. I wasn’t expressing personal preference, just trying to make a point.
If 100 people will spend $1M for a house, and only 50 houses are “worth” $1M, suddenly 50 other houses are magically worth $1M.
Because 50 people with $1M to spend on a house, want a house.
No. Of the first 50 homes, the price may start at 1M but then it goes up as demand for the next homes heats up (unless you are assuming that all 50 homes become available at the same time all 100 buyers show up, which would be unusual). The 50 homes worth less than 1M will move in the direction of demand or lack thereof. You won’t have static sales prices. Also, your hypo assumes that the market won’t respond to 50 surplus buyers with deeper pockets by building more, pricier homes.
LOL.
There are entire industries based on people paying artificially inflated prices for stuff, just to say they did it.
Seen a Range Rover recently?
Life isn’t Econ 101.
Life is a lot closer to Econ 101 than it is to anything else. Luxury goods are subject to supply and demand as well, just in a different form. Land Rover has to sell enough units to cover all of its costs and make a profit. So, it can’t price itself out of the market. There is demand for high end and/or flashy cars. A shit ton of money goes into gauging how many cars can Land Rover make without creating excessive supply thereby reducing demand thereby maintaining cost.
As BP knows, you don’t have to hit a Titleist Pro V One at $5 per ball to enjoy a round of golf. A lot of people do it because they believe it to be superior to other golf balls. Titleist profits from this perception by maintaining horizontal price control, i.e. no one can sell the Titleist line for less than Titleist will permit.
Except for marginal, weird shit like super expensive art, it’s all pretty much supply and demand. Ask the folks in Venezuela.
if some of the folks competing for housing have many multiples of the resources of others, prices go up.
Only if there is a finite supply of highly desirable units, Otherwise, no.
Context, Amigo. The only way having a lot of money causes a price to go up is if other people with a lot of money are competing for the same scarce goods. Otherwise, the presence of affluence plays no role. For example, the cost of a high end Lexus is the same regardless of income or net worth. If there were limited numbers of high end Lexuses (Lexi?), the price would go up.
How you went from invoking supply and demand to discussing what you, personally, might do with your money is, I don’t know, a little weird.
I was using the first person in the same way I could have used the third person. I wasn’t expressing personal preference, just trying to make a point.
If 100 people will spend $1M for a house, and only 50 houses are “worth” $1M, suddenly 50 other houses are magically worth $1M.
Because 50 people with $1M to spend on a house, want a house.
No. Of the first 50 homes, the price may start at 1M but then it goes up as demand for the next homes heats up (unless you are assuming that all 50 homes become available at the same time all 100 buyers show up, which would be unusual). The 50 homes worth less than 1M will move in the direction of demand or lack thereof. You won’t have static sales prices. Also, your hypo assumes that the market won’t respond to 50 surplus buyers with deeper pockets by building more, pricier homes.
LOL.
There are entire industries based on people paying artificially inflated prices for stuff, just to say they did it.
Seen a Range Rover recently?
Life isn’t Econ 101.
Life is a lot closer to Econ 101 than it is to anything else. Luxury goods are subject to supply and demand as well, just in a different form. Land Rover has to sell enough units to cover all of its costs and make a profit. So, it can’t price itself out of the market. There is demand for high end and/or flashy cars. A shit ton of money goes into gauging how many cars can Land Rover make without creating excessive supply thereby reducing demand thereby maintaining cost.
As BP knows, you don’t have to hit a Titleist Pro V One at $5 per ball to enjoy a round of golf. A lot of people do it because they believe it to be superior to other golf balls. Titleist profits from this perception by maintaining horizontal price control, i.e. no one can sell the Titleist line for less than Titleist will permit.
Except for marginal, weird shit like super expensive art, it’s all pretty much supply and demand. Ask the folks in Venezuela.
So, McKinney, are you saying that comparable homes in Morgantown, WV and San Jose, CA will have the same price? If not, why not?
So, McKinney, are you saying that comparable homes in Morgantown, WV and San Jose, CA will have the same price? If not, why not?
Also, too, no one is denying supply and demand. The Econ 101 reference, I think, had more to do with the idea of rational actors, a la your statement that people won’t spend money just for the sake of spending money. In fact, the phenomenon you appeared to deny figures into supply and demand.
Also, too, no one is denying supply and demand. The Econ 101 reference, I think, had more to do with the idea of rational actors, a la your statement that people won’t spend money just for the sake of spending money. In fact, the phenomenon you appeared to deny figures into supply and demand.
Because there are jobs in San Jose, and not in Morgantown. Coupled with the fact that there are a limited number of homes allowed to be built in Silicon Valley (zoning laws). With the result that people working there end up living out in the Central Valley, where homes are allowed to be built.
Yes, there are some other factors. People don’t live in East Oakland, even though it is a bit closer, because the schools and the crime rate discourage that. But there is a lot of open land nearer to San Jose which could have housing . . . except that houses are not allowed to be built on it.
Because there are jobs in San Jose, and not in Morgantown. Coupled with the fact that there are a limited number of homes allowed to be built in Silicon Valley (zoning laws). With the result that people working there end up living out in the Central Valley, where homes are allowed to be built.
Yes, there are some other factors. People don’t live in East Oakland, even though it is a bit closer, because the schools and the crime rate discourage that. But there is a lot of open land nearer to San Jose which could have housing . . . except that houses are not allowed to be built on it.
So, McKinney, are you saying that comparable homes in Morgantown, WV and San Jose, CA will have the same price? If not, why not?
Different supply, different demand due to being different markets.
In fact, the phenomenon you appeared to deny figures into supply and demand.
Then I’m not being clear. There is a market for frivolous, luxury shit that is way beyond even Paris Hilton levels of ostentatiousness (which may not be a word). Polo ponies and polo generally aren’t even close. Land Rovers, OTOH, and other high end cars have the panache of greater quality, reliability and longer service life. They aren’t luxury goods even if others think they are extravagant. Depending on purchasing power and taste, people will pay more to buy more or better or more and better. But, no one pays more than they have to pay for what they buy. They may buy weird, unnecessary and expensive stuff, but absent irrationality of a pretty high order, no one says “charge me an extra 10%, I’m feeling unusually stupid today.”
So, McKinney, are you saying that comparable homes in Morgantown, WV and San Jose, CA will have the same price? If not, why not?
Different supply, different demand due to being different markets.
In fact, the phenomenon you appeared to deny figures into supply and demand.
Then I’m not being clear. There is a market for frivolous, luxury shit that is way beyond even Paris Hilton levels of ostentatiousness (which may not be a word). Polo ponies and polo generally aren’t even close. Land Rovers, OTOH, and other high end cars have the panache of greater quality, reliability and longer service life. They aren’t luxury goods even if others think they are extravagant. Depending on purchasing power and taste, people will pay more to buy more or better or more and better. But, no one pays more than they have to pay for what they buy. They may buy weird, unnecessary and expensive stuff, but absent irrationality of a pretty high order, no one says “charge me an extra 10%, I’m feeling unusually stupid today.”
No.
As always, sez you.
The Econ 101 reference, I think, had more to do with the idea of rational actors, a la your statement that people won’t spend money just for the sake of spending money.
Correct.
Seriously, if there is one thing we should have all learned from the last ten years, it’s that people get stupid when large sums of money is involved.
There is a degree of wealth beyond which people apparently don’t give a crap. Gee, you could have gotten that for less money! Who cares?
The are I live in has a more-than-average degree of income inequality. One of the results of this is an artificial inflation of housing prices. When I say “artificial” I mean it is driven by more than normal, simple supply and demand price setting.
Or, more correctly, it is a function of supply and demand, but one of the factors is the tremendously greater supply of money available to some of the players.
There are enough people with enough more money than other people that they don’t really care all that much if they pay a premium. Sometimes to show off, sometimes just because they can.
I’ve been living in this area for a little over 30 years, that basic dynamic is one of the fundamental realities people in my area live with. It affects a ton of things, and housing costs are among them.
If it’s not like that where you live, fine. It’s like that where I live. Quoting textbook entry level market theory at me doesn’t change the facts.
No.
As always, sez you.
The Econ 101 reference, I think, had more to do with the idea of rational actors, a la your statement that people won’t spend money just for the sake of spending money.
Correct.
Seriously, if there is one thing we should have all learned from the last ten years, it’s that people get stupid when large sums of money is involved.
There is a degree of wealth beyond which people apparently don’t give a crap. Gee, you could have gotten that for less money! Who cares?
The are I live in has a more-than-average degree of income inequality. One of the results of this is an artificial inflation of housing prices. When I say “artificial” I mean it is driven by more than normal, simple supply and demand price setting.
Or, more correctly, it is a function of supply and demand, but one of the factors is the tremendously greater supply of money available to some of the players.
There are enough people with enough more money than other people that they don’t really care all that much if they pay a premium. Sometimes to show off, sometimes just because they can.
I’ve been living in this area for a little over 30 years, that basic dynamic is one of the fundamental realities people in my area live with. It affects a ton of things, and housing costs are among them.
If it’s not like that where you live, fine. It’s like that where I live. Quoting textbook entry level market theory at me doesn’t change the facts.
…no one says “charge me an extra 10%, I’m feeling unusually stupid today.”
I don’t think anyone was proposing such a thing. The point was that people will spend a lot of money on things to show people they have the money to spend. That’s why the term “conspicuous consumption” exists – because it happens.
Different supply, different demand due to being different markets.
Because? Do you think it has something to do with the incomes people can make in those places?
That’s why russell wrote that it’s not one or the other (supply and demand v. income inequality). It’s both, along with geographic concentration of high-earning people.
I’m not really sure what your point is, though. You say supply and demand, even though that’s the very mechanism through which people get priced out of certain areas. What is it you’re refuting, exactly?
…no one says “charge me an extra 10%, I’m feeling unusually stupid today.”
I don’t think anyone was proposing such a thing. The point was that people will spend a lot of money on things to show people they have the money to spend. That’s why the term “conspicuous consumption” exists – because it happens.
Different supply, different demand due to being different markets.
Because? Do you think it has something to do with the incomes people can make in those places?
That’s why russell wrote that it’s not one or the other (supply and demand v. income inequality). It’s both, along with geographic concentration of high-earning people.
I’m not really sure what your point is, though. You say supply and demand, even though that’s the very mechanism through which people get priced out of certain areas. What is it you’re refuting, exactly?
They aren’t luxury goods
Dude, US News and World Report gives Land Rover a reliability record of 3.0. Out of 5.0.
They start at about $85K. For a car.
That ain’t a luxury good?
I don’t care if folks buy Land Rovers or not. But don’t try to tell me that folks who buy them are operating on a purely value-for-dollar calculus.
There is no shortage of folks who will buy stuff just to show that they have the money to spend. It becomes a club, you do it because everyone you know and hang out with does it.
I live in a town with a disproportionate number of wealthy people in it, some of them really and truly filthy stinking rich. Sadly, I am not among them. Nonetheless, the whole dynamic of people pissing money away because they have enough of it that they basically don’t care is part of my daily life. Nice work if you can get it!
They were careless people, Tom and Daisy. True then, true now.
It makes stuff more expensive for other folks. Not everything, but some stuff.
They aren’t luxury goods
Dude, US News and World Report gives Land Rover a reliability record of 3.0. Out of 5.0.
They start at about $85K. For a car.
That ain’t a luxury good?
I don’t care if folks buy Land Rovers or not. But don’t try to tell me that folks who buy them are operating on a purely value-for-dollar calculus.
There is no shortage of folks who will buy stuff just to show that they have the money to spend. It becomes a club, you do it because everyone you know and hang out with does it.
I live in a town with a disproportionate number of wealthy people in it, some of them really and truly filthy stinking rich. Sadly, I am not among them. Nonetheless, the whole dynamic of people pissing money away because they have enough of it that they basically don’t care is part of my daily life. Nice work if you can get it!
They were careless people, Tom and Daisy. True then, true now.
It makes stuff more expensive for other folks. Not everything, but some stuff.
There are enough people with enough more money than other people that they don’t really care all that much if they pay a premium. Sometimes to show off, sometimes just because they can.
Ok, but none of that has anything to do with the notion to the rich pay more to exclude the poor. No one has offered credible support for that position. And to your point, on a micro level, sure there will be all kinds of variances. Some people will pay more than something is worth because of impulse and an irrational fear that if they don’t buy it, someone else will get it. That is all part of supply and demand.
Different supply, different demand due to being different markets.
Because? Do you think it has something to do with the incomes people can make in those places?
That’s why russell wrote that it’s not one or the other (supply and demand v. income inequality). It’s both, along with geographic concentration of high-earning people.
Income inequality is irrelevant to supply and demand except that no one is going to knowingly offer a good or service that costs more than the market can bear. There is no construct to show otherwise. The wealthy can pay more, yes, by definition. They still compete among themselves based on demand and scarcity. Food, shelter and clothing, regardless of price or quality, are not polo ponies.
To your specific West VA vs San Jose, the same house sits on two different dirt boxes. The San Jose dirt box is one of a very limited, highly desired supply. The West VA dirt box is ubiquitous. Further, while the cost of materials may vary because of delivery costs, the labor burden in West VA is likely much less than the labor burden in San Jose. So, labor, cost of underlying dirt box/scarcity of underlying dirt box = gross disparity in cost and therefore gross disparity in selling prices.
It is simply a mistake to think that an expensive item becomes less expensive if everyone makes less. If all of our salaries were fixed at 100K a year, none of us would be able to afford a private jet.
If you fix (or cap) everyone’s salaries, you get an economy of goods and services that matches the economy’s ability to compete with other economy’s. to illustrate, there aren’t any Lexus dealerships on Bangladesh (actually, I’m making this assumption to illustrate the point–there may be one or more dealerships); however, you will find Coca-cola. The Bangladesh economy can buy cokes, but it can’t support a store selling Lexuses/Lexi. If all economies were like Bangladesh, we might have Coke, but we wouldn’t have Lexus/Lexi.
There are enough people with enough more money than other people that they don’t really care all that much if they pay a premium. Sometimes to show off, sometimes just because they can.
Ok, but none of that has anything to do with the notion to the rich pay more to exclude the poor. No one has offered credible support for that position. And to your point, on a micro level, sure there will be all kinds of variances. Some people will pay more than something is worth because of impulse and an irrational fear that if they don’t buy it, someone else will get it. That is all part of supply and demand.
Different supply, different demand due to being different markets.
Because? Do you think it has something to do with the incomes people can make in those places?
That’s why russell wrote that it’s not one or the other (supply and demand v. income inequality). It’s both, along with geographic concentration of high-earning people.
Income inequality is irrelevant to supply and demand except that no one is going to knowingly offer a good or service that costs more than the market can bear. There is no construct to show otherwise. The wealthy can pay more, yes, by definition. They still compete among themselves based on demand and scarcity. Food, shelter and clothing, regardless of price or quality, are not polo ponies.
To your specific West VA vs San Jose, the same house sits on two different dirt boxes. The San Jose dirt box is one of a very limited, highly desired supply. The West VA dirt box is ubiquitous. Further, while the cost of materials may vary because of delivery costs, the labor burden in West VA is likely much less than the labor burden in San Jose. So, labor, cost of underlying dirt box/scarcity of underlying dirt box = gross disparity in cost and therefore gross disparity in selling prices.
It is simply a mistake to think that an expensive item becomes less expensive if everyone makes less. If all of our salaries were fixed at 100K a year, none of us would be able to afford a private jet.
If you fix (or cap) everyone’s salaries, you get an economy of goods and services that matches the economy’s ability to compete with other economy’s. to illustrate, there aren’t any Lexus dealerships on Bangladesh (actually, I’m making this assumption to illustrate the point–there may be one or more dealerships); however, you will find Coca-cola. The Bangladesh economy can buy cokes, but it can’t support a store selling Lexuses/Lexi. If all economies were like Bangladesh, we might have Coke, but we wouldn’t have Lexus/Lexi.
Since we’re talking about housing, there are people who will pay more for what is essentially the same house in one town rather than another, not out of concern for crime or services or schools, but because living in one is widely perceived to be more prestigious than the other.
Ooooh, look at my address!
Since we’re talking about housing, there are people who will pay more for what is essentially the same house in one town rather than another, not out of concern for crime or services or schools, but because living in one is widely perceived to be more prestigious than the other.
Ooooh, look at my address!
As an amusing anecdote, one of the main sources of revenue in the early days of the Republic was taxing luxury goods.
If you had a coach you would pay an excise tax to the feds.
If your coach required more horses, the tax was higher.
An amusing crew, those founders!
As an amusing anecdote, one of the main sources of revenue in the early days of the Republic was taxing luxury goods.
If you had a coach you would pay an excise tax to the feds.
If your coach required more horses, the tax was higher.
An amusing crew, those founders!
Income inequality is irrelevant to supply and demand except that no one is going to knowingly offer a good or service that costs more than the market can bear. There is no construct to show otherwise. The wealthy can pay more, yes, by definition.
So, if you have great income inequality in a particular place where wealthy people are concentrated, less-wealthy people can be priced out, correct? Are you disputing this or not?
If the income distribution were flatter, people in the middle would be better off relative to the people closer to the top, correct? Would this make them more or less able to afford market-priced housing?
I honestly don’t know what point you’re trying to make. The fact that people with little money can’t afford Lexuses has what to do with it?
You say you have poor math skills. Maybe that’s the problem here. I’m not really sure. You write things that either aren’t true or, if they are true, they are completely tangential to the discussion, and I can’t figure out why.
I guess I’m going to stop beating my head against the wall and get some stuff done.
Income inequality is irrelevant to supply and demand except that no one is going to knowingly offer a good or service that costs more than the market can bear. There is no construct to show otherwise. The wealthy can pay more, yes, by definition.
So, if you have great income inequality in a particular place where wealthy people are concentrated, less-wealthy people can be priced out, correct? Are you disputing this or not?
If the income distribution were flatter, people in the middle would be better off relative to the people closer to the top, correct? Would this make them more or less able to afford market-priced housing?
I honestly don’t know what point you’re trying to make. The fact that people with little money can’t afford Lexuses has what to do with it?
You say you have poor math skills. Maybe that’s the problem here. I’m not really sure. You write things that either aren’t true or, if they are true, they are completely tangential to the discussion, and I can’t figure out why.
I guess I’m going to stop beating my head against the wall and get some stuff done.
There is no shortage of folks who will buy stuff just to show that they have the money to spend.
For people who have it, they will also spend a lot of money for things that they just like the look and feel of. Why else would someone spend $400 for a toilet brush that goes in a bathroom where almost no one else is likely to see it?
There is no shortage of folks who will buy stuff just to show that they have the money to spend.
For people who have it, they will also spend a lot of money for things that they just like the look and feel of. Why else would someone spend $400 for a toilet brush that goes in a bathroom where almost no one else is likely to see it?
Is it that you’re hung up on the idea that someone thinks rich people conspire to bid up housing prices to get rid of everyone else, McKinney? And that somehow this is at odds with the concept of supply and demand?
Is it that you’re hung up on the idea that someone thinks rich people conspire to bid up housing prices to get rid of everyone else, McKinney? And that somehow this is at odds with the concept of supply and demand?
It is simply a mistake to think that an expensive item becomes less expensive if everyone makes less. If all of our salaries were fixed at 100K a year, none of us would be able to afford a private jet.
What about a reasonably nice 2000 sq ft house with 3 bedrooms?
It is simply a mistake to think that an expensive item becomes less expensive if everyone makes less. If all of our salaries were fixed at 100K a year, none of us would be able to afford a private jet.
What about a reasonably nice 2000 sq ft house with 3 bedrooms?
If the income distribution were flatter, people in the middle would be better off relative to the people closer to the top, correct? Would this make them more or less able to afford market-priced housing?
In a word, no. If the income distribution were flatter, but the supply was unchanged, the same people would still be able to buy houses, and others would not.
The price paid might change. At the absolute margin, you might have a few more people right just barely able to afford a house. In which case, who gets it is determined by things like who happens to hear about it being available first. But given a set number of houses, you don’t get more poor people in those houses just because the Gini coefficient has moved.
There are only two ways I can see that reducing wealth inequality results in more housing for poor people:
1) the wealthy cannot afford to buy zoning commission decisions that will restrict what kind and how many houses will get built.
2) those building houses will somehow build more, in order to keep up their total cash flow. (How they get permission to build more is an interesting question. And why, if they can do that, they don’t do so now in order to raise their income.)
Either way, it still comes down to supply. Which could be changed without the slightest change in wealth inequality.
If the income distribution were flatter, people in the middle would be better off relative to the people closer to the top, correct? Would this make them more or less able to afford market-priced housing?
In a word, no. If the income distribution were flatter, but the supply was unchanged, the same people would still be able to buy houses, and others would not.
The price paid might change. At the absolute margin, you might have a few more people right just barely able to afford a house. In which case, who gets it is determined by things like who happens to hear about it being available first. But given a set number of houses, you don’t get more poor people in those houses just because the Gini coefficient has moved.
There are only two ways I can see that reducing wealth inequality results in more housing for poor people:
1) the wealthy cannot afford to buy zoning commission decisions that will restrict what kind and how many houses will get built.
2) those building houses will somehow build more, in order to keep up their total cash flow. (How they get permission to build more is an interesting question. And why, if they can do that, they don’t do so now in order to raise their income.)
Either way, it still comes down to supply. Which could be changed without the slightest change in wealth inequality.
if fewer people make $5M/yr, fewer $50M houses will be purchased.
if fewer people make $500K/yr, fewer $2M houses will be purchased.
if the number of people able to purchase very expensive houses shrinks, there will be lower incentive for people to try trying to inflate the cost of their home in the hopes of snagging a wealthy buyer with money to burn.
if fewer people make $5M/yr, fewer $50M houses will be purchased.
if fewer people make $500K/yr, fewer $2M houses will be purchased.
if the number of people able to purchase very expensive houses shrinks, there will be lower incentive for people to try trying to inflate the cost of their home in the hopes of snagging a wealthy buyer with money to burn.
none of that has anything to do with the notion to the rich pay more to exclude the poor.
?
the same people would still be able to buy houses, and others would not.
You’re assuming that there is a specific and unchangeable population of people who are competing for the same set of houses in a given area.
The price paid might change.
And so we come to the nub of it.
Yes, the price does change. Which rules a larger set of people of the game altogether.
It’s entirely possible that the phenomenon I live with is that, of all of the people with loads of superfluous money available in the world, a disproportionate number of them want to live in the Boston area.
So, the supply/demand problem is that, relative to the housing stock, we have an oversupply of wealthy people.
In any case, there isn’t a lot of affordable new housing being built, because there’s enough big money around to soak up a lot of the new stuff built. Not all of it, just a lot.
And the older buildings that used to provide apartments for lower income people – the kinds of places I lived in when I first moved to this area in ’83 – have been turning into relatively more expensive condos. For decades.
If you don’t have a lot of money, it’s hard to find an affordable place to live. No doubt some of that is due to plain old lack of housing stock, even given that new building goes on all the time. In this area, some of it is due to low cost housing being soaked up by the student population, which is fairly large for the size of the city. But some of it is simply due to the fact that the discrepancies between the highest and the lowest earning populations in this area is unusually great, and the availability of big pools of expendable cash is inflationary.
“What the market will bear” is, in the end, exactly what someone is willing to pay. Folks with a lot of money will pay more. So, the market will bear more.
Econ 101.
none of that has anything to do with the notion to the rich pay more to exclude the poor.
?
the same people would still be able to buy houses, and others would not.
You’re assuming that there is a specific and unchangeable population of people who are competing for the same set of houses in a given area.
The price paid might change.
And so we come to the nub of it.
Yes, the price does change. Which rules a larger set of people of the game altogether.
It’s entirely possible that the phenomenon I live with is that, of all of the people with loads of superfluous money available in the world, a disproportionate number of them want to live in the Boston area.
So, the supply/demand problem is that, relative to the housing stock, we have an oversupply of wealthy people.
In any case, there isn’t a lot of affordable new housing being built, because there’s enough big money around to soak up a lot of the new stuff built. Not all of it, just a lot.
And the older buildings that used to provide apartments for lower income people – the kinds of places I lived in when I first moved to this area in ’83 – have been turning into relatively more expensive condos. For decades.
If you don’t have a lot of money, it’s hard to find an affordable place to live. No doubt some of that is due to plain old lack of housing stock, even given that new building goes on all the time. In this area, some of it is due to low cost housing being soaked up by the student population, which is fairly large for the size of the city. But some of it is simply due to the fact that the discrepancies between the highest and the lowest earning populations in this area is unusually great, and the availability of big pools of expendable cash is inflationary.
“What the market will bear” is, in the end, exactly what someone is willing to pay. Folks with a lot of money will pay more. So, the market will bear more.
Econ 101.
In a word, no. If the income distribution were flatter, but the supply was unchanged, the same people would still be able to buy houses, and others would not.
But what sort of house can someone at a particular income level afford? There are going to be variously priced houses at various distances from where the jobs are. If you have enough very rich people living in a particular area, people who make less have to move further and further out to afford a house that meets their needs, until you get to a point where many of them just leave and go somewhere else. Maybe West Virginia.
Yes, if you assume a fixed supply of houses, they are the only houses available for purchase. Then again, if some of them are big enough, lots of people can live in them – like families with a bunch of kids. Or some rich dude can buy one, live there by himself, and put in billiards room, a home theater, guest quarters with private bath, an office, and a gym.
In a word, no. If the income distribution were flatter, but the supply was unchanged, the same people would still be able to buy houses, and others would not.
But what sort of house can someone at a particular income level afford? There are going to be variously priced houses at various distances from where the jobs are. If you have enough very rich people living in a particular area, people who make less have to move further and further out to afford a house that meets their needs, until you get to a point where many of them just leave and go somewhere else. Maybe West Virginia.
Yes, if you assume a fixed supply of houses, they are the only houses available for purchase. Then again, if some of them are big enough, lots of people can live in them – like families with a bunch of kids. Or some rich dude can buy one, live there by himself, and put in billiards room, a home theater, guest quarters with private bath, an office, and a gym.
Perhaps the take-away is that, the greater the income inequality, the greater the income segregation that it will lead to. Whether that’s good or bad, I’ll leave an open question.
Perhaps the take-away is that, the greater the income inequality, the greater the income segregation that it will lead to. Whether that’s good or bad, I’ll leave an open question.
So, if you have great income inequality in a particular place where wealthy people are concentrated, less-wealthy people can be priced out, correct? Are you disputing this or not?
Ok, maybe you need to explain what you mean by “priced out”. A ball point pen will cost the same, more or less, regardless of income distribution. A house will cost the most the seller can get. Some people will be able to afford that price, others will not. This is true for anything–the more you have, the more you can buy/pay. Bubba’s income doesn’t price you out of buying in Bubba’s neighborhood–it’s the cost of housing in Bubba’s neighborhood.
If the income distribution were flatter, people in the middle would be better off relative to the people closer to the top, correct? Would this make them more or less able to afford market-priced housing?
Yes, but that market-based housing is still going to be supply/demand. There won’t suddenly be a ton more homes in San Jose. And if you flatten everything out, you lower the overall level of goods and services in your hypothetical economy. Actually, it’s not hypothetical. It’s called Venezuela.
I honestly don’t know what point you’re trying to make. The fact that people with little money can’t afford Lexuses has what to do with it?
Everything. For the same reason people with little money can’t afford to buy a Lexus, they can’t afford to compete for any other high value item including high value housing. In your ‘flatten things out’ economy, there are no high value homes. Only homes that can be afforded by those at the top of the flattened out pay scale. Maybe a nice double wide will be the envy of all in that fun world.
Artificially dicking with the economy is risky ass business. It never works, at least not for very long and it usually gets people killed. Not to mention that it requires a police state to enforce it.
So, if you have great income inequality in a particular place where wealthy people are concentrated, less-wealthy people can be priced out, correct? Are you disputing this or not?
Ok, maybe you need to explain what you mean by “priced out”. A ball point pen will cost the same, more or less, regardless of income distribution. A house will cost the most the seller can get. Some people will be able to afford that price, others will not. This is true for anything–the more you have, the more you can buy/pay. Bubba’s income doesn’t price you out of buying in Bubba’s neighborhood–it’s the cost of housing in Bubba’s neighborhood.
If the income distribution were flatter, people in the middle would be better off relative to the people closer to the top, correct? Would this make them more or less able to afford market-priced housing?
Yes, but that market-based housing is still going to be supply/demand. There won’t suddenly be a ton more homes in San Jose. And if you flatten everything out, you lower the overall level of goods and services in your hypothetical economy. Actually, it’s not hypothetical. It’s called Venezuela.
I honestly don’t know what point you’re trying to make. The fact that people with little money can’t afford Lexuses has what to do with it?
Everything. For the same reason people with little money can’t afford to buy a Lexus, they can’t afford to compete for any other high value item including high value housing. In your ‘flatten things out’ economy, there are no high value homes. Only homes that can be afforded by those at the top of the flattened out pay scale. Maybe a nice double wide will be the envy of all in that fun world.
Artificially dicking with the economy is risky ass business. It never works, at least not for very long and it usually gets people killed. Not to mention that it requires a police state to enforce it.
Not to mention that it requires a police state to enforce it.
it requires a simple statute change to bump the top tax brackets up.
we’ve been there before. everyone got through it just fine. there was no police state.
Not to mention that it requires a police state to enforce it.
it requires a simple statute change to bump the top tax brackets up.
we’ve been there before. everyone got through it just fine. there was no police state.
If you don’t have a lot of money, it’s hard to find an affordable place to live. No doubt some of that is due to plain old lack of housing stock, even given that new building goes on all the time. In this area, some of it is due to low cost housing being soaked up by the student population, which is fairly large for the size of the city. But some of it is simply due to the fact that the discrepancies between the highest and the lowest earning populations in this area is unusually great, and the availability of big pools of expendable cash is inflationary.
Russell, if this is the case, that the aggregate affluence is causing housing inflation regardless of supply and demand, then it should follow that *everything*–ball point pens, Coke, Kleenex–in your area is over-priced. I suspect the inflation is focused on housing and that its limited housing supply with excess demand *and* enough people with enough money competing for the limited supply that is driving the prices.
I think the disconnect comes in not taking into account that the wealthy compete for scarce goods with each other. Be definition, if you don’t have the money to compete, you’re not in the game.
If you don’t have a lot of money, it’s hard to find an affordable place to live. No doubt some of that is due to plain old lack of housing stock, even given that new building goes on all the time. In this area, some of it is due to low cost housing being soaked up by the student population, which is fairly large for the size of the city. But some of it is simply due to the fact that the discrepancies between the highest and the lowest earning populations in this area is unusually great, and the availability of big pools of expendable cash is inflationary.
Russell, if this is the case, that the aggregate affluence is causing housing inflation regardless of supply and demand, then it should follow that *everything*–ball point pens, Coke, Kleenex–in your area is over-priced. I suspect the inflation is focused on housing and that its limited housing supply with excess demand *and* enough people with enough money competing for the limited supply that is driving the prices.
I think the disconnect comes in not taking into account that the wealthy compete for scarce goods with each other. Be definition, if you don’t have the money to compete, you’re not in the game.
Artificially dicking with the economy is risky ass business. It never works, at least not for very long and it usually gets people killed. Not to mention that it requires a police state to enforce it.
You’re correct. Perhaps we need to keep our financiers from doing that.
In your ‘flatten things out’ economy, there are no high value homes. Only homes that can be afforded by those at the top of the flattened out pay scale. Maybe a nice double wide will be the envy of all in that fun world.
But we’re talking about places that were once more flattened out, where people making middle-class incomes, broadly speaking, could afford to live, but now can’t. You’re denying empiricism.
Bubba’s income doesn’t price you out of buying in Bubba’s neighborhood–it’s the cost of housing in Bubba’s neighborhood.
If there are enough Bubba’s making enough money in that neighborhood, it most certainly does. It has happened and is happening. You’re denying reality. Houses aren’t pens.
Artificially dicking with the economy is risky ass business. It never works, at least not for very long and it usually gets people killed. Not to mention that it requires a police state to enforce it.
You’re correct. Perhaps we need to keep our financiers from doing that.
In your ‘flatten things out’ economy, there are no high value homes. Only homes that can be afforded by those at the top of the flattened out pay scale. Maybe a nice double wide will be the envy of all in that fun world.
But we’re talking about places that were once more flattened out, where people making middle-class incomes, broadly speaking, could afford to live, but now can’t. You’re denying empiricism.
Bubba’s income doesn’t price you out of buying in Bubba’s neighborhood–it’s the cost of housing in Bubba’s neighborhood.
If there are enough Bubba’s making enough money in that neighborhood, it most certainly does. It has happened and is happening. You’re denying reality. Houses aren’t pens.
…then it should follow that *everything*–ball point pens, Coke, Kleenex–in your area is over-priced.
No, it shouldn’t. If you don’t understand why, then that might be the problem.
…then it should follow that *everything*–ball point pens, Coke, Kleenex–in your area is over-priced.
No, it shouldn’t. If you don’t understand why, then that might be the problem.
it requires a simple statute change to bump the top tax brackets up.
we’ve been there before. everyone got through it just fine. there was no police state.
Actually, this is not correct either but I don’t have the economics background to explain it the way I’ve had it explained to me. To attempt an illustration: if X, the owner of a 50M a year operation and who clears 5M a year and pays 1.5M a year in taxes has his tax burden bumped to 2.5M, he doesn’t just take that financial enema lying down, so to speak: he lays off all non-essential personnel, he cuts costs wherever he can and now he’s making 7M and still netting 3.5. You’ve wound up screwing the very people you wanted to help.
it requires a simple statute change to bump the top tax brackets up.
we’ve been there before. everyone got through it just fine. there was no police state.
Actually, this is not correct either but I don’t have the economics background to explain it the way I’ve had it explained to me. To attempt an illustration: if X, the owner of a 50M a year operation and who clears 5M a year and pays 1.5M a year in taxes has his tax burden bumped to 2.5M, he doesn’t just take that financial enema lying down, so to speak: he lays off all non-essential personnel, he cuts costs wherever he can and now he’s making 7M and still netting 3.5. You’ve wound up screwing the very people you wanted to help.
“he lays off all non-essential personnel, he cuts costs wherever he can and now he’s making 7M and still netting 3.5. You’ve wound up screwing the very people you wanted to help.”
While now, he’ll do the exact same thing and net 4.9M a year (assuming the same tax rate).
“he lays off all non-essential personnel, he cuts costs wherever he can and now he’s making 7M and still netting 3.5. You’ve wound up screwing the very people you wanted to help.”
While now, he’ll do the exact same thing and net 4.9M a year (assuming the same tax rate).
I suspect the inflation is focused on housing and that its limited housing supply with excess demand *and* enough people with enough money competing for the limited supply that is driving the prices.
Yes, that is precisely what I’m saying.
The limited supply is somewhat a function of the fact that people have been divvying up the real estate and building on it here for not quite 400 years. There just isn’t a lot of buildable space left.
The influx of wealth is largely due to the FIRE and tech industries that are prominent in Boston, and which have generated extraordinary wealth among a specific sector of the population, but not so much among others.
The only point I’m making is that income inequality is, in fact, a thing. Having a robust economy is great, the area I live in is quite different from when I moved here 30+ years ago, and it’s mostly for the better. But those benefits have not been distributed evenly, and the net effect of that is that folks who don’t make as much money are hard pressed to find affordable housing.
It shows up in other ways. My wife and I have a really hard time getting tradespeople to do basic maintenance work on our crappy little ranch house, because we are competing for their services with people who don’t think twice about dropping $50K or $100K on a kitchen remodel.
And you might think, hey! great opportunity for an enterprising young tradesman to break in by serving the less affluent but still solvent. But those guys are up against the same cost pressures that everyone else is, and a lot of them move away, and don’t want to drive an hour or two down from NH or Haverhill or somewhere out by Worcester to install a window.
I live in a sort of starter-home neighborhood in my town. The houses are mostly under 2000 sf, many under 1500 sf. All on 1/8 acre lots. Most of them were built mid-20th C. Little ranches and capes, a couple of colonials. Some have a one-car garage, some have no garage.
The average price of a house on my block is probably half a million bucks. That’s high for this area, but not by that much.
I’m not advocating that we “dick with the economy” to “fix everything”. I’m just pointing out that inequality is a real thing, with real consequences for people.
My wife and I are OK, money-wise. Not rich, not poor. OK. Knock on wood. But a lot of people are basically shut out of living here. Not poor people, either.
I suspect the inflation is focused on housing and that its limited housing supply with excess demand *and* enough people with enough money competing for the limited supply that is driving the prices.
Yes, that is precisely what I’m saying.
The limited supply is somewhat a function of the fact that people have been divvying up the real estate and building on it here for not quite 400 years. There just isn’t a lot of buildable space left.
The influx of wealth is largely due to the FIRE and tech industries that are prominent in Boston, and which have generated extraordinary wealth among a specific sector of the population, but not so much among others.
The only point I’m making is that income inequality is, in fact, a thing. Having a robust economy is great, the area I live in is quite different from when I moved here 30+ years ago, and it’s mostly for the better. But those benefits have not been distributed evenly, and the net effect of that is that folks who don’t make as much money are hard pressed to find affordable housing.
It shows up in other ways. My wife and I have a really hard time getting tradespeople to do basic maintenance work on our crappy little ranch house, because we are competing for their services with people who don’t think twice about dropping $50K or $100K on a kitchen remodel.
And you might think, hey! great opportunity for an enterprising young tradesman to break in by serving the less affluent but still solvent. But those guys are up against the same cost pressures that everyone else is, and a lot of them move away, and don’t want to drive an hour or two down from NH or Haverhill or somewhere out by Worcester to install a window.
I live in a sort of starter-home neighborhood in my town. The houses are mostly under 2000 sf, many under 1500 sf. All on 1/8 acre lots. Most of them were built mid-20th C. Little ranches and capes, a couple of colonials. Some have a one-car garage, some have no garage.
The average price of a house on my block is probably half a million bucks. That’s high for this area, but not by that much.
I’m not advocating that we “dick with the economy” to “fix everything”. I’m just pointing out that inequality is a real thing, with real consequences for people.
My wife and I are OK, money-wise. Not rich, not poor. OK. Knock on wood. But a lot of people are basically shut out of living here. Not poor people, either.
he lays off all non-essential personnel, he cuts costs wherever he can and now he’s making 7M and still netting 3.5.
I’ve never quite understood the concept of “non-essential personnel”.
If the guy can re-organize the workflow of his shop to get rid of $2M worth of salary, I suspect he’s gonna do that no matter what the tax regime is.
If he just cuts $2M worth of labor out of his payroll without making any other changes, he’s not gonna be grossing $50M for very much longer.
People do stuff. That’s where the money comes from.
he lays off all non-essential personnel, he cuts costs wherever he can and now he’s making 7M and still netting 3.5.
I’ve never quite understood the concept of “non-essential personnel”.
If the guy can re-organize the workflow of his shop to get rid of $2M worth of salary, I suspect he’s gonna do that no matter what the tax regime is.
If he just cuts $2M worth of labor out of his payroll without making any other changes, he’s not gonna be grossing $50M for very much longer.
People do stuff. That’s where the money comes from.
if X, the owner of a 50M a year operation and who clears 5M a year and pays 1.5M a year in taxes has his tax burden bumped to 2.5M, he doesn’t just take that financial enema lying down, so to speak: he lays off all non-essential personnel,
homo-economicus does not, ever, have “non-essential” personnel. and you should be ashamed of impugning his famed rationality simply for the sake of your hypothetical.
if X, the owner of a 50M a year operation and who clears 5M a year and pays 1.5M a year in taxes has his tax burden bumped to 2.5M, he doesn’t just take that financial enema lying down, so to speak: he lays off all non-essential personnel,
homo-economicus does not, ever, have “non-essential” personnel. and you should be ashamed of impugning his famed rationality simply for the sake of your hypothetical.
I just want to apologize for being kind of a dick, McKinney. It’s nothing personal. [It’s just that you’re so damned wrong! ;^)]
I just want to apologize for being kind of a dick, McKinney. It’s nothing personal. [It’s just that you’re so damned wrong! ;^)]
Count at 3:09 PM on the 14th removed from the spam folder.
(Sorry I didn’t catch it sooner.)
Count at 3:09 PM on the 14th removed from the spam folder.
(Sorry I didn’t catch it sooner.)
“You’ve wound up screwing the very people you wanted to help.”
The pronouns are a bit off in that.
If the guy receives a tax break instead, how would that make anyone else, otherwise known as personnel, more or less essential?
Are we arguing that tax cuts make business less efficient, top heavy, and bloated, all of the words economists and MBAs, and who is more non-essential than economists and MBAs, use for those who should “get a job”, as Mitt Romney might put it.
“You’ve wound up screwing the very people you wanted to help.”
The pronouns are a bit off in that.
If the guy receives a tax break instead, how would that make anyone else, otherwise known as personnel, more or less essential?
Are we arguing that tax cuts make business less efficient, top heavy, and bloated, all of the words economists and MBAs, and who is more non-essential than economists and MBAs, use for those who should “get a job”, as Mitt Romney might put it.
I was helping a friend pick a vehicle, the most interesting one she looked at was the Range Rover with the bulletproof option.
I was stunned. But it was just an option listed like a tow kit.
I was helping a friend pick a vehicle, the most interesting one she looked at was the Range Rover with the bulletproof option.
I was stunned. But it was just an option listed like a tow kit.
Articles on affordable housing:
Obama takes on zoning laws in bid to build more housing, spur growth
Regulatory Costs Inflate New-Home Prices, Builders Say: Fees for park space, stormwater devices, endangered-species surveys; ‘I don’t build affordable houses anymore’
Building Permit Delays Choke U.S. Housing Supply, Study Shows: Developers respond less quickly with new units in metro areas with long waits
Affordable Starter Homes Prove Increasingly Elusive: Builders pull back from entry-level housing as business shifts following market bust
Articles on affordable housing:
Obama takes on zoning laws in bid to build more housing, spur growth
Regulatory Costs Inflate New-Home Prices, Builders Say: Fees for park space, stormwater devices, endangered-species surveys; ‘I don’t build affordable houses anymore’
Building Permit Delays Choke U.S. Housing Supply, Study Shows: Developers respond less quickly with new units in metro areas with long waits
Affordable Starter Homes Prove Increasingly Elusive: Builders pull back from entry-level housing as business shifts following market bust
Why has regional income convergence declined?
Why Has Regional Income Convergence in the U.S. Declined?
California’s Suicidal House Policies
Urbanism, Texas-Style: It’s about economic opportunity—for all.
Why has regional income convergence declined?
Why Has Regional Income Convergence in the U.S. Declined?
California’s Suicidal House Policies
Urbanism, Texas-Style: It’s about economic opportunity—for all.
How No Zoning Laws Works For Houston: Median home values in Houston are only $144,900, despite its boom.
Lone Star Quartet: How four big metros—Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio—power the Texas economy
How No Zoning Laws Works For Houston: Median home values in Houston are only $144,900, despite its boom.
Lone Star Quartet: How four big metros—Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio—power the Texas economy
I just want to apologize for being kind of a dick, McKinney
likewise, I owe an apology to pro Bono for unnecessarily harsh words.
an annoying day, for reasons unrelated to things here. sorry about that.
I just want to apologize for being kind of a dick, McKinney
likewise, I owe an apology to pro Bono for unnecessarily harsh words.
an annoying day, for reasons unrelated to things here. sorry about that.
Every thread is open, given the times.
WTF?
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a55120/turkey-protesters-attack-washington/
Erdogan’s security forces are operating on the streets of Washington D.C., beating the shit out of people. The Turkish fucker must have watched our authoritarian fucker sic his thugs on protestors at those rallies during the campaign.
Is Homeland Security on this? Are Erdogan’s thugs being rounded up and at least rushed shackled to Dulles for immediate deportation.
I expect not:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/david-clarke-claims-to-accept-homeland-security-job
Clarke promised during the trump campaign to send one million American citizens to Guantanamo.
Maybe when trump has duterte of the philippines to town the two of them can hit the streets with bolos and automatic weapons and lay waste to D.C. drug dealers, journalists, and human rights protestors.
I was reading the other day that gun manufacturers are whinging about declining gun sales now that the dangerous angry nigger wielding minor tax increases, healthcare, and clean air against the bunkered, put-upon American people is no longer the poster boy for Wayne LaPierre’s dreams of bringing violence to his domestic enemies.
And yet real authoritarianism and foreign intervention from Russia in our affairs hosted directly from the White House and their government doesn’t seem to phase them or get their Red Dawn killer hackles up enough to gun up.
Americans are imbeciles. Assholes.
Every thread is open, given the times.
WTF?
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a55120/turkey-protesters-attack-washington/
Erdogan’s security forces are operating on the streets of Washington D.C., beating the shit out of people. The Turkish fucker must have watched our authoritarian fucker sic his thugs on protestors at those rallies during the campaign.
Is Homeland Security on this? Are Erdogan’s thugs being rounded up and at least rushed shackled to Dulles for immediate deportation.
I expect not:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/david-clarke-claims-to-accept-homeland-security-job
Clarke promised during the trump campaign to send one million American citizens to Guantanamo.
Maybe when trump has duterte of the philippines to town the two of them can hit the streets with bolos and automatic weapons and lay waste to D.C. drug dealers, journalists, and human rights protestors.
I was reading the other day that gun manufacturers are whinging about declining gun sales now that the dangerous angry nigger wielding minor tax increases, healthcare, and clean air against the bunkered, put-upon American people is no longer the poster boy for Wayne LaPierre’s dreams of bringing violence to his domestic enemies.
And yet real authoritarianism and foreign intervention from Russia in our affairs hosted directly from the White House and their government doesn’t seem to phase them or get their Red Dawn killer hackles up enough to gun up.
Americans are imbeciles. Assholes.
for Charles .
Boston has a poulation density about three or four times that of Houston. The situations are not comparable.
When I go to cities in the west, they don’t even register as cities, to me. when I visit family in phoenix, I feel like I’m back on long island, only brown.
different places, different issues. I’m sure issues of inequality show up in TX also, just not in housing cost.
for Charles .
Boston has a poulation density about three or four times that of Houston. The situations are not comparable.
When I go to cities in the west, they don’t even register as cities, to me. when I visit family in phoenix, I feel like I’m back on long island, only brown.
different places, different issues. I’m sure issues of inequality show up in TX also, just not in housing cost.
Countme-in,
Saw all of that because can’t do anything butl ook at twitter, and worry out my brains.
Hoping something is going on now that will save the country. Just hoping. Not at all sure.
Countme-in,
Saw all of that because can’t do anything butl ook at twitter, and worry out my brains.
Hoping something is going on now that will save the country. Just hoping. Not at all sure.
Mr. Homo Economicus, proprietor of Widgetco LLC, takes home $5M out of the company’s $50M in sales. Why only $5M? Because COGS, rent, utilities and WAGES (to presumably essential employees) eat up the other $45M of Widgetco’s gross revenue. Being a heroic entrepreneur, not a rentier, Mr. Homo Economicus works hard, putting in 80 hours a week running Widgetco LLC.
Mr. Economicus COULD hire a crackerjack manager to take half his workload off his hands for $1M, say. All else equal, Widgetco’s expenses would become $46M, and Homo would pay tax on only $4M of PERSONAL income.
If his personal marginal rate is 30%, the new hire costs him, personally, $700K — Homo’s after-tax income was $3.5M before the hire; it becomes $2.8M after the hire.
But if Mr. Homo Economicus suddenly faces a 50% marginal rate on his personal income, the new hire only costs him, personally, $500K — he would take home $2.5M without the hire; $2.0M with the hire.
Now, I may not have mastered Econ 101, but it seems to me that Mr. Homo Economicus has MORE incentive to hire the manager at the HIGHER marginal rate on PERSONAL income. And I may not be a tax expert, but the LLC is a “pass-through” entity — it DOES NOT PAY TAXES. (If I’m wrong, please re-imagine Widgetco as a sole proprietorship.)
The bottom line is that all else being equal (standard Econ 101 assumption) poor, hard-working Mr. Homo Economicus has more incentive to “create a job” when his personal marginal income tax rate goes up, because his own out-of-pocket cost is less.
I have no doubt that McKinney and Marty disagree.
–TP
Mr. Homo Economicus, proprietor of Widgetco LLC, takes home $5M out of the company’s $50M in sales. Why only $5M? Because COGS, rent, utilities and WAGES (to presumably essential employees) eat up the other $45M of Widgetco’s gross revenue. Being a heroic entrepreneur, not a rentier, Mr. Homo Economicus works hard, putting in 80 hours a week running Widgetco LLC.
Mr. Economicus COULD hire a crackerjack manager to take half his workload off his hands for $1M, say. All else equal, Widgetco’s expenses would become $46M, and Homo would pay tax on only $4M of PERSONAL income.
If his personal marginal rate is 30%, the new hire costs him, personally, $700K — Homo’s after-tax income was $3.5M before the hire; it becomes $2.8M after the hire.
But if Mr. Homo Economicus suddenly faces a 50% marginal rate on his personal income, the new hire only costs him, personally, $500K — he would take home $2.5M without the hire; $2.0M with the hire.
Now, I may not have mastered Econ 101, but it seems to me that Mr. Homo Economicus has MORE incentive to hire the manager at the HIGHER marginal rate on PERSONAL income. And I may not be a tax expert, but the LLC is a “pass-through” entity — it DOES NOT PAY TAXES. (If I’m wrong, please re-imagine Widgetco as a sole proprietorship.)
The bottom line is that all else being equal (standard Econ 101 assumption) poor, hard-working Mr. Homo Economicus has more incentive to “create a job” when his personal marginal income tax rate goes up, because his own out-of-pocket cost is less.
I have no doubt that McKinney and Marty disagree.
–TP
russell, if, because of Boston’s population density, not much can be done to increase affordable housing, then, I suppose, not much can be done about the area’s income inequality.
russell, if, because of Boston’s population density, not much can be done to increase affordable housing, then, I suppose, not much can be done about the area’s income inequality.
charles, that makes no sense at all.
charles, that makes no sense at all.
No, Charles. If nothing can be done about the housing supply, then even improved income equality won’t increase affordability of housing there.
No, Charles. If nothing can be done about the housing supply, then even improved income equality won’t increase affordability of housing there.
More on Erdogan’s thugs:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/turkish-embassy-protest-dc.html?_r=1
More on Erdogan’s thugs:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/turkish-embassy-protest-dc.html?_r=1
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/this-dangerous-moment/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/this-dangerous-moment/
If the Boston area is unwilling/unable to increase the stock of housing affordable to lower income workers, they will leave instead of moving there. The area will be left with the wealthy and the very poor with not many people in between.
If the Boston area is unwilling/unable to increase the stock of housing affordable to lower income workers, they will leave instead of moving there. The area will be left with the wealthy and the very poor with not many people in between.
Section 8 Vouchers Help The Poor — But Only If Housing Is Available
“For people who are a step away from homelessness, getting a housing voucher can feel like a way to a better life, but it isn’t a guarantee. NPR and the PBS show “Frontline” have been examining the billions that taxpayers spend to house the poor. Today, Section 8 housing vouchers – the program that helps people pay rent. But only 1 in 4 people who need help, get any.
NPR’s Laura Sullivan introduces us to two women – one who just got a voucher and another who doesn’t want low-income housing in her neighborhood. Together they illustrate a central question for housing policy – where should poor people live?”
Section 8 Vouchers Help The Poor — But Only If Housing Is Available
“For people who are a step away from homelessness, getting a housing voucher can feel like a way to a better life, but it isn’t a guarantee. NPR and the PBS show “Frontline” have been examining the billions that taxpayers spend to house the poor. Today, Section 8 housing vouchers – the program that helps people pay rent. But only 1 in 4 people who need help, get any.
NPR’s Laura Sullivan introduces us to two women – one who just got a voucher and another who doesn’t want low-income housing in her neighborhood. Together they illustrate a central question for housing policy – where should poor people live?”
When I go to cities in the west, they don’t even register as cities, to me. when I visit family in phoenix, I feel like I’m back on long island, only brown.
I know I’ve mentioned this before, but I party grew up in Phoenix. I describe it as a big suburb of nothing (or of itself, if you like). Even now, after all the growth there, the “downtown” is like that of a much smaller city such as Baltimore, but with the tall buildings spread much further apart.
It’s a very different deal, given how the cities came about and how and why they grew the way they did. I wish Jane Jacobs where here.
When I go to cities in the west, they don’t even register as cities, to me. when I visit family in phoenix, I feel like I’m back on long island, only brown.
I know I’ve mentioned this before, but I party grew up in Phoenix. I describe it as a big suburb of nothing (or of itself, if you like). Even now, after all the growth there, the “downtown” is like that of a much smaller city such as Baltimore, but with the tall buildings spread much further apart.
It’s a very different deal, given how the cities came about and how and why they grew the way they did. I wish Jane Jacobs where here.
WSJ:
at least he isn’t a Clinton.
WSJ:
at least he isn’t a Clinton.
This family has connections:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/05/18/if-only-there-were-a-rico-statute-for-criminal-congressional-conspiracy/
Paul Ryan’s re-election was foreign-sponsered fraud as well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-dccc.html?_r=0
How else could he keep himself in the position of murdering his constituents?
The entire 2016 election, right down to the tax-hating republican dogcatcher now so-called public servant in Dog Patch, was shite of the lowest order.
Entire governments across the United States, but most egregiously the federal government, are illegitimate.
I’m not sure we have the character of other civilizations to hurt the people who did this to us.
And yet gun sales are declining.
This family has connections:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/05/18/if-only-there-were-a-rico-statute-for-criminal-congressional-conspiracy/
Paul Ryan’s re-election was foreign-sponsered fraud as well:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-dccc.html?_r=0
How else could he keep himself in the position of murdering his constituents?
The entire 2016 election, right down to the tax-hating republican dogcatcher now so-called public servant in Dog Patch, was shite of the lowest order.
Entire governments across the United States, but most egregiously the federal government, are illegitimate.
I’m not sure we have the character of other civilizations to hurt the people who did this to us.
And yet gun sales are declining.
This is mostly for wj. I see this as a math problem he and I are finding different solutions to.
There’s an interesting graph on income by quintile and the top 5% here. When the top 5% goes from making about 3.5 times what the middle quintile makes to making 7 times what the middle quintile makes and, on top of that, there is a large influx of 5-percenters into an old urban area, it’s going to make it very hard for people in the middle quintile to afford housing.
There’s a decent range of price for housing that someone at a given income level would both want (setting the minimum) and could afford (setting the maximum), given the level of sacrifice someone is willing to make in other lifestyle areas. It’s not unusual for people to live next door to someone with a household income that is twice theirs. (I do that!) It is far less usual for people to live next door to someone with 4 times their household income.
There’s a decent amount of fluidity in what people can spend on housing, but it has limits.
For a simplified example, you take a place where, 50 years ago, doctors and lawyers lived in the nicest neighborhood, plumbers lived in the middle-of-the-road neighborhood, and janitors lived in the not-so-nice neighborhood. Look at that place today, after a good number of people in the FIRE and IT sectors (using russell’s example), some of whom are well into the top 5% (a good number of them one-percenters), have moved in and taken up the nicest neighborhood and half of the middle-of-the-road neighborhood, pushing prices to 3 or 4 times what they were in those places. This forces some of the doctors and lawyers into the middle-of-the-road neighborhood and the rest out of town to where they can afford some other nice neighborhood. This forces the plumbers into the not-so-nice neighborhood or out of town where they can afford some other middle-of-the-road neighborhood, leaving the janitors to do who-knows-what.
It’s not a simple matter of ordering from highest to lowest income and sticking them into the available housing, starting from the top, until you run out of housing, leaving everyone else to go live somewhere else, regardless of the actual range and distribution of housing prices and incomes. And the number of people per square foot of housing is not fixed, further complicating matters.
The degree of income inequality matters. This is my theory, and it is mine.
This is mostly for wj. I see this as a math problem he and I are finding different solutions to.
There’s an interesting graph on income by quintile and the top 5% here. When the top 5% goes from making about 3.5 times what the middle quintile makes to making 7 times what the middle quintile makes and, on top of that, there is a large influx of 5-percenters into an old urban area, it’s going to make it very hard for people in the middle quintile to afford housing.
There’s a decent range of price for housing that someone at a given income level would both want (setting the minimum) and could afford (setting the maximum), given the level of sacrifice someone is willing to make in other lifestyle areas. It’s not unusual for people to live next door to someone with a household income that is twice theirs. (I do that!) It is far less usual for people to live next door to someone with 4 times their household income.
There’s a decent amount of fluidity in what people can spend on housing, but it has limits.
For a simplified example, you take a place where, 50 years ago, doctors and lawyers lived in the nicest neighborhood, plumbers lived in the middle-of-the-road neighborhood, and janitors lived in the not-so-nice neighborhood. Look at that place today, after a good number of people in the FIRE and IT sectors (using russell’s example), some of whom are well into the top 5% (a good number of them one-percenters), have moved in and taken up the nicest neighborhood and half of the middle-of-the-road neighborhood, pushing prices to 3 or 4 times what they were in those places. This forces some of the doctors and lawyers into the middle-of-the-road neighborhood and the rest out of town to where they can afford some other nice neighborhood. This forces the plumbers into the not-so-nice neighborhood or out of town where they can afford some other middle-of-the-road neighborhood, leaving the janitors to do who-knows-what.
It’s not a simple matter of ordering from highest to lowest income and sticking them into the available housing, starting from the top, until you run out of housing, leaving everyone else to go live somewhere else, regardless of the actual range and distribution of housing prices and incomes. And the number of people per square foot of housing is not fixed, further complicating matters.
The degree of income inequality matters. This is my theory, and it is mine.
trump, the alt-right, breitbart, and the entire malign conservative edifice, now lacking one of its cornerstones, Roger Ailes, who I suspect is not really dead but merely on a long-term dirt diet, will be all over this.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/05/17/wikileaks-jumps-in/
I wonder if the bevy of aggrieved conservative female now former-FOX broadcasters will show up, like a Sophoclean Farcical Chorus in their little black mourning skirts, dabbing their once batting eyelashes with fake grief under their black mesh veils and do one last ironic synchronized crossing of the legs or maybe a twirl as they cover the scene for “another network”.
Perhaps the male anchors of FOX and the Friendless will unzip and salute in a 21-gun formation as a sign of respect.
Perhaps Hannity, in dark glasses, will throw himself on the gigantic sarcophagus and wail like a Greek widow, before warning darkly during his next broadcast that the only thing that ailed Ailes and done him in was a Clinton hit.
The FBI could get a pretty good suspect list for the entire Republican fraud and election-stealing regime by surveilling the gathered attendees at Ailes funeral.
Also keep track of the filth who don’t show up, the ingrates. Mafioso hit men always watched these types of proceedings from the anonymity behind the smoked glass of the limo.
For example, I expect Mr. Clean Ryan has other pressing business to attend to.
Diabetics to strangle, perhaps. Cripples to de-ramp. His mother to disappoint.
trump, the alt-right, breitbart, and the entire malign conservative edifice, now lacking one of its cornerstones, Roger Ailes, who I suspect is not really dead but merely on a long-term dirt diet, will be all over this.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/05/17/wikileaks-jumps-in/
I wonder if the bevy of aggrieved conservative female now former-FOX broadcasters will show up, like a Sophoclean Farcical Chorus in their little black mourning skirts, dabbing their once batting eyelashes with fake grief under their black mesh veils and do one last ironic synchronized crossing of the legs or maybe a twirl as they cover the scene for “another network”.
Perhaps the male anchors of FOX and the Friendless will unzip and salute in a 21-gun formation as a sign of respect.
Perhaps Hannity, in dark glasses, will throw himself on the gigantic sarcophagus and wail like a Greek widow, before warning darkly during his next broadcast that the only thing that ailed Ailes and done him in was a Clinton hit.
The FBI could get a pretty good suspect list for the entire Republican fraud and election-stealing regime by surveilling the gathered attendees at Ailes funeral.
Also keep track of the filth who don’t show up, the ingrates. Mafioso hit men always watched these types of proceedings from the anonymity behind the smoked glass of the limo.
For example, I expect Mr. Clean Ryan has other pressing business to attend to.
Diabetics to strangle, perhaps. Cripples to de-ramp. His mother to disappoint.
I don’t usually speak ill of the dead, but I’m sure Ailes is recruiting in the lowest circles if Hell as we speak to speak ill of me.
I don’t usually speak ill of the dead, but I’m sure Ailes is recruiting in the lowest circles if Hell as we speak to speak ill of me.
It matters for what you can afford. But how does flattening at the very highest level noticeably impact housing costs for anyone? The homes we are talking about are in the 1-2M range and can be afforded by incomes of 500k and up depending on down payment. Do you propose a policy to narrow that gap? If so, why?
It matters for what you can afford. But how does flattening at the very highest level noticeably impact housing costs for anyone? The homes we are talking about are in the 1-2M range and can be afforded by incomes of 500k and up depending on down payment. Do you propose a policy to narrow that gap? If so, why?
HSH, I think we’re actually pretty much on the same page. What seems to me to be the difference is this: I think that the core of the problem is that, as folks with high incomes arrive and others get shifted to less desirable accommodations,** there is no addition of new low-end accommodations. And the reason that doesn’t happen is restrictive zoning laws. Without those, there would still be affordable housing, regardless of what happened at the top end.
** I suppose we should also note that, as those folks move into what were less desirable neighborhoods, the nature of those neighborhoods changes. In short, gentrification is in play as well. It’s probably a stretch of the definition to call new building of cheap accommodations on farm/forest land “gentrification”, but the principles is the same.
HSH, I think we’re actually pretty much on the same page. What seems to me to be the difference is this: I think that the core of the problem is that, as folks with high incomes arrive and others get shifted to less desirable accommodations,** there is no addition of new low-end accommodations. And the reason that doesn’t happen is restrictive zoning laws. Without those, there would still be affordable housing, regardless of what happened at the top end.
** I suppose we should also note that, as those folks move into what were less desirable neighborhoods, the nature of those neighborhoods changes. In short, gentrification is in play as well. It’s probably a stretch of the definition to call new building of cheap accommodations on farm/forest land “gentrification”, but the principles is the same.
And the reason that doesn’t happen is restrictive zoning laws.
have I mentioned the lack of buildable land and general population density in this area?
or the fact that, of the available cardinal directions, about a third of them are currently occupied by an ocean?
it’s not always about the intrusive nanny state.
And the reason that doesn’t happen is restrictive zoning laws.
have I mentioned the lack of buildable land and general population density in this area?
or the fact that, of the available cardinal directions, about a third of them are currently occupied by an ocean?
it’s not always about the intrusive nanny state.
New York City has a similar problem. They went up.
New York City has a similar problem. They went up.
I think the difference between how we see this, wj, is that I think the income difference between to given percentiles matters. If it’s very large, those higher up can bid housing beyond the maximum that those lower can adjust to. It’s a question of who can hang on and who can’t.
It’s also a question of who wants to, if they can make a serious killing selling their house as opposed to just selling it for some decent profit. It’s not a wholesale tale of woe for those who choose to leave. If my house suddenly became worth 3 times what it is now, I wouldn’t be complaining. (But my kids probably would if they had to move away from their friends or go to a new school.) But that would still depend on where else I could afford to live.
The question is whether the steepness of the income graph across percentiles causes good or bad things to happen in the longer run. I tend to think it increases the forces of income segregation, which in turn leads to various social and political problems.
I don’t have a great solution to it. The only things that come to mind are more progressive taxation on high income and, maybe more directly for the problem under discussion, pricey real estate at the local level. Stronger unions (other than possibly the building trades where I live, which are pretty damned strong already) and higher minimum wages (set locally?).
It’s a sticky wicket to be sure, but you have to recognize and understand a problem before solving it, right?
I think the difference between how we see this, wj, is that I think the income difference between to given percentiles matters. If it’s very large, those higher up can bid housing beyond the maximum that those lower can adjust to. It’s a question of who can hang on and who can’t.
It’s also a question of who wants to, if they can make a serious killing selling their house as opposed to just selling it for some decent profit. It’s not a wholesale tale of woe for those who choose to leave. If my house suddenly became worth 3 times what it is now, I wouldn’t be complaining. (But my kids probably would if they had to move away from their friends or go to a new school.) But that would still depend on where else I could afford to live.
The question is whether the steepness of the income graph across percentiles causes good or bad things to happen in the longer run. I tend to think it increases the forces of income segregation, which in turn leads to various social and political problems.
I don’t have a great solution to it. The only things that come to mind are more progressive taxation on high income and, maybe more directly for the problem under discussion, pricey real estate at the local level. Stronger unions (other than possibly the building trades where I live, which are pretty damned strong already) and higher minimum wages (set locally?).
It’s a sticky wicket to be sure, but you have to recognize and understand a problem before solving it, right?
Another thought, from someone who already pays a lot in property taxes – a formula that takes income (and possibly wealth?) into account when assessing property taxes. One thing that would happen if my house did become worth 3 times what it is now is that, in a relatively short amount of time, my property taxes would go up to the point that I simply couldn’t afford to pay them any longer, even though my income hadn’t changed.
Another thought, from someone who already pays a lot in property taxes – a formula that takes income (and possibly wealth?) into account when assessing property taxes. One thing that would happen if my house did become worth 3 times what it is now is that, in a relatively short amount of time, my property taxes would go up to the point that I simply couldn’t afford to pay them any longer, even though my income hadn’t changed.
More on the Turks:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-turkish-connection.html
Two Secret service agents were assaulted as well.
I guess trump’s security detail wasn’t on hand to provide backup for their, umm, coworkers.
It’s a typical trump republican public/private partnership.
Meanwhile, trump has been treated worse that any other President in history.
Course, unfortunately unlike Lincoln, he’s not a theater-goer.
More on the Turks:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-turkish-connection.html
Two Secret service agents were assaulted as well.
I guess trump’s security detail wasn’t on hand to provide backup for their, umm, coworkers.
It’s a typical trump republican public/private partnership.
Meanwhile, trump has been treated worse that any other President in history.
Course, unfortunately unlike Lincoln, he’s not a theater-goer.
New York City has a similar problem. They went up.
NYC is not a good example of a place that has resolved it’s issues with affordable housing.
in any case, some folks think increases in income inequality are just not an issue, and some folks think it is.
I tend to think it is, and not even primarily because of the effect on housing prices. I’d say the effect on the political process and public policy is of greater consequence.
I’m sure zoning laws are a factor in the availability of affordable housing in my area. I’m also pretty sure the influx of stupid money bidding up prices is also a factor. but what the heck do I know, I just live here.
extraordinary differences in wealth and income tend to corrode the basic sense that all parties have an equal standing in public life. the reason people perceive that corrosion is because it exists.
I am on record, probably ad nauseum, in saying that my understanding of how best to address that is not through redistribution of wealth, but distribution. pay people more.
I haven’t heard anything, from anyone, over the last 40 years that has made more sense to me than that.
New York City has a similar problem. They went up.
NYC is not a good example of a place that has resolved it’s issues with affordable housing.
in any case, some folks think increases in income inequality are just not an issue, and some folks think it is.
I tend to think it is, and not even primarily because of the effect on housing prices. I’d say the effect on the political process and public policy is of greater consequence.
I’m sure zoning laws are a factor in the availability of affordable housing in my area. I’m also pretty sure the influx of stupid money bidding up prices is also a factor. but what the heck do I know, I just live here.
extraordinary differences in wealth and income tend to corrode the basic sense that all parties have an equal standing in public life. the reason people perceive that corrosion is because it exists.
I am on record, probably ad nauseum, in saying that my understanding of how best to address that is not through redistribution of wealth, but distribution. pay people more.
I haven’t heard anything, from anyone, over the last 40 years that has made more sense to me than that.
pay people more.
But but but but but but…
The money would have to come from somewhere, and that would be punishing the wealthy. Bad bad russell.
pay people more.
But but but but but but…
The money would have to come from somewhere, and that would be punishing the wealthy. Bad bad russell.
Throw this into the real estate mix:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/realtors-say-middle-class-will-face-higher-taxes-lower-house-prices-under-trump-plan-2017-05-18?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Throw this into the real estate mix:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/realtors-say-middle-class-will-face-higher-taxes-lower-house-prices-under-trump-plan-2017-05-18?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
I tend to think it is, and not even primarily because of the effect on housing prices. I’d say the effect on the political process and public policy is of greater consequence.
Yep.
There are more of us now than before.
Available land in some places (San Francisco, Seattle, etc.) is physically restricted by geography.
We crowd into cities to take advantage of economies of scale.
When you zone single family and insist on street parking for each apartment you create problems, especially when these policies apply in locations in or near the metro core.
But when incomes are resolutely shifted upward to professionals (lawyers, accountants, doctors, computer whizzes, etc.) they are able to effectively bid prices up for a limited supply.
And thus the people who clean the offices, wash the dishes, and wipe the drool off grandpa in the nursing home either live in their car or way way way out in the vast suburbs and commute on crappy public transportation that they largely pay for with their tax money.
The public, via its government, could use its powers to construct lower cost housing in or near the metropolitan core….but that would mean (gasp! NO!!! Not that word!!!) “redistribution”.
As you might guess, I’m fine with that. It’s poor public policies that enabled these folks to get a lot of that boodle to begin with. So we’re just taking back what was given in the first place….all because these lucky duckies are too f$cking greedy to share.
I tend to think it is, and not even primarily because of the effect on housing prices. I’d say the effect on the political process and public policy is of greater consequence.
Yep.
There are more of us now than before.
Available land in some places (San Francisco, Seattle, etc.) is physically restricted by geography.
We crowd into cities to take advantage of economies of scale.
When you zone single family and insist on street parking for each apartment you create problems, especially when these policies apply in locations in or near the metro core.
But when incomes are resolutely shifted upward to professionals (lawyers, accountants, doctors, computer whizzes, etc.) they are able to effectively bid prices up for a limited supply.
And thus the people who clean the offices, wash the dishes, and wipe the drool off grandpa in the nursing home either live in their car or way way way out in the vast suburbs and commute on crappy public transportation that they largely pay for with their tax money.
The public, via its government, could use its powers to construct lower cost housing in or near the metropolitan core….but that would mean (gasp! NO!!! Not that word!!!) “redistribution”.
As you might guess, I’m fine with that. It’s poor public policies that enabled these folks to get a lot of that boodle to begin with. So we’re just taking back what was given in the first place….all because these lucky duckies are too f$cking greedy to share.
…punishing the rich.
That’s rich 🙂
When we use public policy to shift income upward, we punish the poor.
Fixt.
…punishing the rich.
That’s rich 🙂
When we use public policy to shift income upward, we punish the poor.
Fixt.
Again, for Marty’s benefit, why the President is not simply the Attorney General’s boss… in the words of the AG himself:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/can-jeff-sessions-be-independent/527205/
As the attorney general, Sessions plays a unique role in the Cabinet, because his job is not simply to serve the president but ensure that the president himself follows the law. Sessions said as much during his confirmation hearing in January.
“The office of the attorney general of the United States is not a political position, and anyone who holds it must have total fidelity to the laws and the Constitution of the United States,” Sessions told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “He or she must be willing to tell the president no if he overreaches. He or she cannot be a mere rubber stamp to any idea the president has.”
Again, for Marty’s benefit, why the President is not simply the Attorney General’s boss… in the words of the AG himself:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/can-jeff-sessions-be-independent/527205/
As the attorney general, Sessions plays a unique role in the Cabinet, because his job is not simply to serve the president but ensure that the president himself follows the law. Sessions said as much during his confirmation hearing in January.
“The office of the attorney general of the United States is not a political position, and anyone who holds it must have total fidelity to the laws and the Constitution of the United States,” Sessions told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “He or she must be willing to tell the president no if he overreaches. He or she cannot be a mere rubber stamp to any idea the president has.”
I expect before this nest of republican trump scandal is over, we’ll see the wholesale jailing of journalists by these people:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/trumps-bully-boys.html
RC Hammond, now Tillerson’s hand-puppet at State, is a long-time Gingrich operative, the latter of whom, when the shit hits the fan, will be chased to the ends of the Earth and punished with savage violence for the harm he has done to this country and its institutions.
I expect before this nest of republican trump scandal is over, we’ll see the wholesale jailing of journalists by these people:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/trumps-bully-boys.html
RC Hammond, now Tillerson’s hand-puppet at State, is a long-time Gingrich operative, the latter of whom, when the shit hits the fan, will be chased to the ends of the Earth and punished with savage violence for the harm he has done to this country and its institutions.
Yeah, Nigel, Sessions said that at his confirmation hearing. But then, we already know he lied at his confirmation hearing. So….
Yeah, Nigel, Sessions said that at his confirmation hearing. But then, we already know he lied at his confirmation hearing. So….
I’m a bit late with this observation on housing, but I’ve just spent time with my daughter, who is going to university to Tokyo, and it seems one of the ways a country can deal with housing costs is by having a decent public transportation network. I don’t know if the US can go as far as Japan, but you would think that it could do something.
I’m a bit late with this observation on housing, but I’ve just spent time with my daughter, who is going to university to Tokyo, and it seems one of the ways a country can deal with housing costs is by having a decent public transportation network. I don’t know if the US can go as far as Japan, but you would think that it could do something.
Yeah Nigel, I got it. You don’t understand the concept of having a boss that can fire you If you screw up, but doesn’t direct your day to day activities. There is no constitutional fourth branch of government.
You keep quoting people saying the same thing, that I haven’t disagreed with. He was Comeys boss, there was no restriction on firing him and it has no constitutional consequence. It was more of an issue if he asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn, because then he was directing the day to day which can be construed, at least in the movies, as a criminal offense. I think it is criminal, I know it is inappropriate.
Yeah Nigel, I got it. You don’t understand the concept of having a boss that can fire you If you screw up, but doesn’t direct your day to day activities. There is no constitutional fourth branch of government.
You keep quoting people saying the same thing, that I haven’t disagreed with. He was Comeys boss, there was no restriction on firing him and it has no constitutional consequence. It was more of an issue if he asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn, because then he was directing the day to day which can be construed, at least in the movies, as a criminal offense. I think it is criminal, I know it is inappropriate.
There is no
constitutionalfourth branch of government.Dick Cheney may beg to differ… 🙂
There is no
constitutionalfourth branch of government.Dick Cheney may beg to differ… 🙂
I think it is criminal, I know it is inappropriate.
If Trump executed Hillary on the front lawn of the White House it would not be an “unconstitutional” act.* However, it could be found to be an impeachable offense by the House and subsequently a “high crime and/or misdemeanor” by the Senate.
Upon conviction by 2/3 of the Senate, he would then be removed from the Oval Office.
*Could Trump pardon himself? No. He would have to be sentenced in a court of law first. So he puts Hillary out of her misery, is tried and removed from office by the Senate, and then arrested for murder. Once tried and convicted, he could not pardon himself because he is no longer president.
I think it is criminal, I know it is inappropriate.
If Trump executed Hillary on the front lawn of the White House it would not be an “unconstitutional” act.* However, it could be found to be an impeachable offense by the House and subsequently a “high crime and/or misdemeanor” by the Senate.
Upon conviction by 2/3 of the Senate, he would then be removed from the Oval Office.
*Could Trump pardon himself? No. He would have to be sentenced in a court of law first. So he puts Hillary out of her misery, is tried and removed from office by the Senate, and then arrested for murder. Once tried and convicted, he could not pardon himself because he is no longer president.
If Trump executed Hillary on the front lawn of the White House it would not be an “unconstitutional” act.* However, it could be found to be an impeachable offense by the House and subsequently a “high crime and/or misdemeanor” by the Senate.
Extra tricky: if said execution was on 5th Ave in NYC, Trump would be prosecuted by NY State, and a presidential pardon has no affect on State convictions.
It’s not even clear to me that Trump couldn’t be prosecuted and convicted while in office. Unless someone can cite chapter and verse, I don’t recall any ‘presidential immunity’; there IS a congressional immunity but limited to “speech and debate” and “travel to and from Congress”. The stuff in the text about impeachment is that impeachment doesn’t preclude criminal prosecution.
And it’s not like there’s ever been an actual test of having a state criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
Clearly Trump is breaking new ground, in ever so many ways.
If Trump executed Hillary on the front lawn of the White House it would not be an “unconstitutional” act.* However, it could be found to be an impeachable offense by the House and subsequently a “high crime and/or misdemeanor” by the Senate.
Extra tricky: if said execution was on 5th Ave in NYC, Trump would be prosecuted by NY State, and a presidential pardon has no affect on State convictions.
It’s not even clear to me that Trump couldn’t be prosecuted and convicted while in office. Unless someone can cite chapter and verse, I don’t recall any ‘presidential immunity’; there IS a congressional immunity but limited to “speech and debate” and “travel to and from Congress”. The stuff in the text about impeachment is that impeachment doesn’t preclude criminal prosecution.
And it’s not like there’s ever been an actual test of having a state criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
Clearly Trump is breaking new ground, in ever so many ways.
Forgot to add: the reason for the ‘extra tricky’ is that if said crime was on the White House grounds, it would be covered by DC criminal statutes.
Would a DC conviction be voided by a Presidential pardon? Has it ever happened?
Forgot to add: the reason for the ‘extra tricky’ is that if said crime was on the White House grounds, it would be covered by DC criminal statutes.
Would a DC conviction be voided by a Presidential pardon? Has it ever happened?
Would a DC conviction be voided by a Presidential pardon? Has it ever happened?
You are correct Snarki. I guess the answer depends on the timing of the murder conviction. If prior to Senate conviction, perhaps. If after, I wouldn’t think so.
And he can’t pardon himself for being impeached and removed.
Thanks.
Would a DC conviction be voided by a Presidential pardon? Has it ever happened?
You are correct Snarki. I guess the answer depends on the timing of the murder conviction. If prior to Senate conviction, perhaps. If after, I wouldn’t think so.
And he can’t pardon himself for being impeached and removed.
Thanks.
I just hope that Mueller gets something done post haste before some Trump goons dispatch him in some pardonable or nonpardonable way. These people are thugs, and every day they continue to have power is another swirl down in the vortex. It’s a freaking national emergency.
The death of Ailes was a gift. Wish there were a slot machine with a whole lot of similar coins pouring out. After all, all of these evil dudes have lived quite a long time already.
I just hope that Mueller gets something done post haste before some Trump goons dispatch him in some pardonable or nonpardonable way. These people are thugs, and every day they continue to have power is another swirl down in the vortex. It’s a freaking national emergency.
The death of Ailes was a gift. Wish there were a slot machine with a whole lot of similar coins pouring out. After all, all of these evil dudes have lived quite a long time already.
We’re setting sail to the place on the map from which no one ever returns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_BoAXopS54
We’re setting sail to the place on the map from which no one ever returns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_BoAXopS54
honestly, i’m having a hard time seeing anything coming of these investigations. i just don’t think Trump is clever enough to have colluded; nor do i think he’s smart enough to have kept it quiet if he did.
at best, i think some of his election cronies might have been up to things, but they’ll basically get away with it. but Trump himself will always stay just on the lucky side of the benefit of the doubt.
unless… unless he does something stupid like perjure himself. but even then, the GOP congress would be happy to forgive it, because he’s not a Democrat.
(1998 Marty! look it up! the GOP tore the fabric of our democracy apart! oh noes!)
honestly, i’m having a hard time seeing anything coming of these investigations. i just don’t think Trump is clever enough to have colluded; nor do i think he’s smart enough to have kept it quiet if he did.
at best, i think some of his election cronies might have been up to things, but they’ll basically get away with it. but Trump himself will always stay just on the lucky side of the benefit of the doubt.
unless… unless he does something stupid like perjure himself. but even then, the GOP congress would be happy to forgive it, because he’s not a Democrat.
(1998 Marty! look it up! the GOP tore the fabric of our democracy apart! oh noes!)
i just don’t think Trump is clever enough to have colluded;
I think he’s stupid enough to have colluded without really understanding that it was a bad thing. He is, one way or another, on Putin’s payroll, and is obviously absolutely unwilling to argue with Putin. I’m sure he understands that his businesses are benefitting from relationships with dictators. I think you may be right in that he just doesn’t understand that corruption is maybe something that people aren’t really supposed to do. Also, he doesn’t get that thuggery and bullying is not really a Presidential plus, since he admires “tough”.
It’s all very pathological, and I hope something happens to him soon.
i just don’t think Trump is clever enough to have colluded;
I think he’s stupid enough to have colluded without really understanding that it was a bad thing. He is, one way or another, on Putin’s payroll, and is obviously absolutely unwilling to argue with Putin. I’m sure he understands that his businesses are benefitting from relationships with dictators. I think you may be right in that he just doesn’t understand that corruption is maybe something that people aren’t really supposed to do. Also, he doesn’t get that thuggery and bullying is not really a Presidential plus, since he admires “tough”.
It’s all very pathological, and I hope something happens to him soon.
i just don’t think Trump is clever enough to have colluded;
at the risk of distressing marty further, I’ll say that I don’t think trump would really understand what collusion means, or what it would consist of, or why it might be bad.
it would be just another deal.
I’m glad Mueller is on it, IMO he’s a good choice. it’ll land wherever it lands, and we’ll see what happens from there.
it could be anything.
wheeeee!
i just don’t think Trump is clever enough to have colluded;
at the risk of distressing marty further, I’ll say that I don’t think trump would really understand what collusion means, or what it would consist of, or why it might be bad.
it would be just another deal.
I’m glad Mueller is on it, IMO he’s a good choice. it’ll land wherever it lands, and we’ll see what happens from there.
it could be anything.
wheeeee!
Except the distressing Marty part I agree with russell’s 10:18. Good man for the job and we will get answers that I hope most will trust are honest.
I pretty much think Trumps not entirely sure what he might have done wrong, or if he did it, didn’t at the time. In fact, it seems he still sees his primary job as making a deal.
Im pretty sure Flynn and Manafort At least were not confused.
Except the distressing Marty part I agree with russell’s 10:18. Good man for the job and we will get answers that I hope most will trust are honest.
I pretty much think Trumps not entirely sure what he might have done wrong, or if he did it, didn’t at the time. In fact, it seems he still sees his primary job as making a deal.
Im pretty sure Flynn and Manafort At least were not confused.
i just don’t think Trump is clever enough to have colluded
I would agree that Trump isn’t clever enough to deliberately collude. But he could do something that he would see as just normal business practice: a deal involving trading one thing for another. Because that’s how business is done, and he aims to run the government like he runs (present tense deliberate) his businesses.
That would also be why he is so sure the investigation is about nothing. Because he did nothing wrong, by his lights, or even abnormal or exceptional.
One thing that I suspect he finds horribly upsetting is his lawyers telling him that Flynn et al also did something wrong — and they knew it from the get go. Which means, the lawyers will have pointed out, they probably will turn state’s evidence on him if the investigation keeps going.
i just don’t think Trump is clever enough to have colluded
I would agree that Trump isn’t clever enough to deliberately collude. But he could do something that he would see as just normal business practice: a deal involving trading one thing for another. Because that’s how business is done, and he aims to run the government like he runs (present tense deliberate) his businesses.
That would also be why he is so sure the investigation is about nothing. Because he did nothing wrong, by his lights, or even abnormal or exceptional.
One thing that I suspect he finds horribly upsetting is his lawyers telling him that Flynn et al also did something wrong — and they knew it from the get go. Which means, the lawyers will have pointed out, they probably will turn state’s evidence on him if the investigation keeps going.
“Except the distressing Marty part”
that was basically me recognizing that you regularly take a beating from most of the rest of us on the topic of trump, and generally do so gracefully.
these are tough times for folks trying to find a balanced middle path.
“Except the distressing Marty part”
that was basically me recognizing that you regularly take a beating from most of the rest of us on the topic of trump, and generally do so gracefully.
these are tough times for folks trying to find a balanced middle path.
I agree that Marty takes a ration with maddening equanimity, performed deadpan. Tough hide.
As for trump, I think he knows what “contusion” is, not so much “collusion”.
If he thinks he knows what the latter is, in his glands he believes it to be just another name for business being done oveh heah. A synonym for success. It’s something in the neighborhood of canoodling, but with money.
He’s confused.
Colluding for him is the opposite of someone breaking his balls. Performing an act of collusion is what golf courses are made for, away from the mics and the women.
If the women have to be involved in the collusion, he takes it directly to them in their dressing rooms.
I agree that Marty takes a ration with maddening equanimity, performed deadpan. Tough hide.
As for trump, I think he knows what “contusion” is, not so much “collusion”.
If he thinks he knows what the latter is, in his glands he believes it to be just another name for business being done oveh heah. A synonym for success. It’s something in the neighborhood of canoodling, but with money.
He’s confused.
Colluding for him is the opposite of someone breaking his balls. Performing an act of collusion is what golf courses are made for, away from the mics and the women.
If the women have to be involved in the collusion, he takes it directly to them in their dressing rooms.
Thanks russell, that was kind of tongue in cheek.
Thanks russell, that was kind of tongue in cheek.
honestly, i’m having a hard time seeing anything coming of these investigations. i just don’t think Trump is clever enough to have colluded; nor do i think he’s smart enough to have kept it quiet if he did
I regret to say I rather agree with this, sadly particularly because of the first sentence.
Im pretty sure Flynn and Manafort At least were not confused
I also agree with Marty on this. If both are true, and the investigation plays out that way, it’s going to be very interesting seeing Trump throwing people under the bus.
honestly, i’m having a hard time seeing anything coming of these investigations. i just don’t think Trump is clever enough to have colluded; nor do i think he’s smart enough to have kept it quiet if he did
I regret to say I rather agree with this, sadly particularly because of the first sentence.
Im pretty sure Flynn and Manafort At least were not confused
I also agree with Marty on this. If both are true, and the investigation plays out that way, it’s going to be very interesting seeing Trump throwing people under the bus.
Someone just sent me a tweet quoting a Time article (cannot cut and paste) which says that congressional investigations probing Russia’s help for the Trump campaign are looking at Cambridge Analytica and Breitbart. Excellent idea.
Someone just sent me a tweet quoting a Time article (cannot cut and paste) which says that congressional investigations probing Russia’s help for the Trump campaign are looking at Cambridge Analytica and Breitbart. Excellent idea.
Also, this piece on Comey and Mueller from Politico bodes rather well. I knew the Ashcroft hospital-dash story from an article in Vanity Fair (don’t laugh, they had a very interesting article on Comey in a recent edition), but this gives some different insights, and more importantly into Mueller:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/18/james-comey-trump-special-prosecutor-robert-mueller-fbi-215154?lo=ap_c1
Also, this piece on Comey and Mueller from Politico bodes rather well. I knew the Ashcroft hospital-dash story from an article in Vanity Fair (don’t laugh, they had a very interesting article on Comey in a recent edition), but this gives some different insights, and more importantly into Mueller:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/18/james-comey-trump-special-prosecutor-robert-mueller-fbi-215154?lo=ap_c1
This afternoon in the Washington Post, a story suggesting that someone close to Trump, and still working in the White House (unlike Flynn and Manafort) is now a “person of interest” in the Russia probe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-probe-reaches-current-white-house-official-people-familiar-with-the-case-say/2017/05/19/7685adba-3c99-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html
If true, it suggests that things are not going to die down any time soon.
This afternoon in the Washington Post, a story suggesting that someone close to Trump, and still working in the White House (unlike Flynn and Manafort) is now a “person of interest” in the Russia probe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-probe-reaches-current-white-house-official-people-familiar-with-the-case-say/2017/05/19/7685adba-3c99-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html
If true, it suggests that things are not going to die down any time soon.
I’ll be shocked if Republicans continue to stick with Trump now. I’m guessing the “person of interest” is Kushner.
I’ll be shocked if Republicans continue to stick with Trump now. I’m guessing the “person of interest” is Kushner.
I get,literally, 10-12 stories in my email every day on “new” information. Almost all from nyt and WaPo. There is a guy at WaPo, Adam something who pushes 4 a day, when he runs out of shit he labels one analysis and quotes himself.
Each marked as a breaking story. If a 10th of them are true no spectators will be in court because all the seats will be taken by unnamed sources and it will be the shortest legal action on fed history.
But Adam thinks it’s over because the last two days his analysis has been on how much trouble Pence is in.
Isn’t Ryan up next?
I get,literally, 10-12 stories in my email every day on “new” information. Almost all from nyt and WaPo. There is a guy at WaPo, Adam something who pushes 4 a day, when he runs out of shit he labels one analysis and quotes himself.
Each marked as a breaking story. If a 10th of them are true no spectators will be in court because all the seats will be taken by unnamed sources and it will be the shortest legal action on fed history.
But Adam thinks it’s over because the last two days his analysis has been on how much trouble Pence is in.
Isn’t Ryan up next?
Isn’t Ryan up next?
Ryan’s already compromised himself with his little tête-à-tête with Kevin McCarthy.
And, person of interest appears to be Kushner.
Isn’t Ryan up next?
Ryan’s already compromised himself with his little tête-à-tête with Kevin McCarthy.
And, person of interest appears to be Kushner.
from the WaPo story from wj:
From news to a rehash in three paragraphs. Although it could certainly be Kushner which would be good.
Irony would be if they got Pence and Trump was not implicated. No one is happy.
from the WaPo story from wj:
From news to a rehash in three paragraphs. Although it could certainly be Kushner which would be good.
Irony would be if they got Pence and Trump was not implicated. No one is happy.
sapient, Do you think they can get enough of them to get down to a Democrat?
sapient, Do you think they can get enough of them to get down to a Democrat?
Do you think they can get enough of them to get down to a Democrat?
No way at all. They’d have to get enough House members to flip the majority to the Democrats, and enough Senators to get the President Pro Tem there to be one. Just not going to happen.
Do you think they can get enough of them to get down to a Democrat?
No way at all. They’d have to get enough House members to flip the majority to the Democrats, and enough Senators to get the President Pro Tem there to be one. Just not going to happen.
Do you think they can get enough of them to get down to a Democrat?
They’ll probably stop at Hatch, although he’ll definitely need to name another cabinet. Most of the existing ones will be perp walked, I think.
Do you think they can get enough of them to get down to a Democrat?
They’ll probably stop at Hatch, although he’ll definitely need to name another cabinet. Most of the existing ones will be perp walked, I think.
Not Adam Aaron Blake
https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/aaron-blake/?utm_term=.a2d90557ec2e 4 so far today
Not Adam Aaron Blake
https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/aaron-blake/?utm_term=.a2d90557ec2e 4 so far today
He, Trump converts to Islam while visiting the Saudis. Not remotely a crime. Nothing like shooting somebody on 5th Avenue. Surely not an impeachable offense.
Does he lose any support among Republicans or the “white working class”? Does pious Christian Mike Pence stick by him? Does V. Putin keep him on the payroll?
No & no; maybe; yes.
–TP
He, Trump converts to Islam while visiting the Saudis. Not remotely a crime. Nothing like shooting somebody on 5th Avenue. Surely not an impeachable offense.
Does he lose any support among Republicans or the “white working class”? Does pious Christian Mike Pence stick by him? Does V. Putin keep him on the payroll?
No & no; maybe; yes.
–TP
Does pious Christian Mike Pence stick by him?
Pious Christian liar Mike Pence? Only if he’s saved (politically)!
Does pious Christian Mike Pence stick by him?
Pious Christian liar Mike Pence? Only if he’s saved (politically)!
They’ll probably stop at Hatch, although he’ll definitely need to name another cabinet.
Actually, maybe they’ll slow walk it until they get to Nancy Pelosi. That’s my favored scenario!
Of course, Marty, you will vote R because tax cuts over country. You don’t give a s?it whether people die for lack of healthcare, Sessions arrests [black] marijuana “offenders”, immigrants who are pillars of various communities get thrown out (after being placed in solitary).
For the purposes of being in the ObWi community, I’m supposed to pretend that you’re nice. Okee Dokee.
They’ll probably stop at Hatch, although he’ll definitely need to name another cabinet.
Actually, maybe they’ll slow walk it until they get to Nancy Pelosi. That’s my favored scenario!
Of course, Marty, you will vote R because tax cuts over country. You don’t give a s?it whether people die for lack of healthcare, Sessions arrests [black] marijuana “offenders”, immigrants who are pillars of various communities get thrown out (after being placed in solitary).
For the purposes of being in the ObWi community, I’m supposed to pretend that you’re nice. Okee Dokee.
Regular ObWi reader, delurking for a moment to point out to a specific commenter that your random & ongoing pot-shot snideness really does much diminish the quality of conversation here. Hell, in this very thread you take a whack at someone who isn’t even currently commenting here any more; as an observer of human behavior, I can only hypothesize that this was an effort to goad this vanished commenter into reappearing so that yet more licks can be taken.
As a rhetorical technique it’s really a pretty sad and tiresome. And in my humble opinion, the very antithesis of being nice.
Ironic, that.
Regular ObWi reader, delurking for a moment to point out to a specific commenter that your random & ongoing pot-shot snideness really does much diminish the quality of conversation here. Hell, in this very thread you take a whack at someone who isn’t even currently commenting here any more; as an observer of human behavior, I can only hypothesize that this was an effort to goad this vanished commenter into reappearing so that yet more licks can be taken.
As a rhetorical technique it’s really a pretty sad and tiresome. And in my humble opinion, the very antithesis of being nice.
Ironic, that.
that your random & ongoing pot-shot snideness really does much diminish the quality of conversation here. Hell, in this very thread you take a whack at someone who isn’t even currently commenting here any more; as an observer of human behavior, I can only hypothesize that this was an effort to goad this vanished commenter into reappearing so that yet more licks can be taken.
Maybe you are the “someone who isn’t even currently commenting here”?
I think you’re a little vague.
that your random & ongoing pot-shot snideness really does much diminish the quality of conversation here. Hell, in this very thread you take a whack at someone who isn’t even currently commenting here any more; as an observer of human behavior, I can only hypothesize that this was an effort to goad this vanished commenter into reappearing so that yet more licks can be taken.
Maybe you are the “someone who isn’t even currently commenting here”?
I think you’re a little vague.
west coast johnny,
West coast of what country?
west coast johnny,
West coast of what country?
Its Friday night, getting late and I am not in the best mood.
sapient,
I do not question your motives for the policies you support, nor your patriotism, nor whether you are a good person.
Tax cuts, even though they don’t get me any money, might very well be the thing to get us to 3-5% gdp growth, returning the delta to the tax coffers and putting tremendous upwards pressure on wages at our current unemployment rates.
That jump alone could enable a large number of folks to get better insurance in any market as long as we maintain the minimum criteria out of the ACA, mostly coverage for preexisting conditions.
Whether you believe that or not, the fact that I believe it means that caring about my country and tax cuts aren’t mutually exclusive.
Immigration is a big subject, taking one anecdotal story at a time on either side doesn’t solve it. There are people of good will in both parties struggling to find a way to have rational immigration policy and deal with illegal immigrants. I don’t find the stances of the Republicans, fix the problem and then take the people that are here and deal with them, the policy of most of the R’s that aren’t Trump or Cruz, much different in the medium term impact than the Dems.
Healthcare the Dem way failed. Again, on anecdotal story at a time doesn’t solve the problem for the 30M still uninsured and or the 7-8 million not very well insured. Because I think we need a solution that makes health care cheaper is because I love my country and that would make health care more accessible to all 360M people.
I believe in the economic policies of the Republicans and I am confident they have been really successful over the last 40 years. While wee have had financial and economic upheaval the US economy has been the best house on every block, good times or bad for all that time. The assumption that some other set of economic policies would have created better results is unprovable, and an assumption by those who would declare them bad for the country. I am certain that without the low interest rates, inflation and stable economy outside the housing sector that the policies built that we would not have fared so well in 2009.
So here is the thing, you can disagree with every word I wrote and many more, but don’t pretend that I am not just as concerned about our country as you. I would request that you depersonalize this significantly. I am really not the devils spawn.
Its Friday night, getting late and I am not in the best mood.
sapient,
I do not question your motives for the policies you support, nor your patriotism, nor whether you are a good person.
Tax cuts, even though they don’t get me any money, might very well be the thing to get us to 3-5% gdp growth, returning the delta to the tax coffers and putting tremendous upwards pressure on wages at our current unemployment rates.
That jump alone could enable a large number of folks to get better insurance in any market as long as we maintain the minimum criteria out of the ACA, mostly coverage for preexisting conditions.
Whether you believe that or not, the fact that I believe it means that caring about my country and tax cuts aren’t mutually exclusive.
Immigration is a big subject, taking one anecdotal story at a time on either side doesn’t solve it. There are people of good will in both parties struggling to find a way to have rational immigration policy and deal with illegal immigrants. I don’t find the stances of the Republicans, fix the problem and then take the people that are here and deal with them, the policy of most of the R’s that aren’t Trump or Cruz, much different in the medium term impact than the Dems.
Healthcare the Dem way failed. Again, on anecdotal story at a time doesn’t solve the problem for the 30M still uninsured and or the 7-8 million not very well insured. Because I think we need a solution that makes health care cheaper is because I love my country and that would make health care more accessible to all 360M people.
I believe in the economic policies of the Republicans and I am confident they have been really successful over the last 40 years. While wee have had financial and economic upheaval the US economy has been the best house on every block, good times or bad for all that time. The assumption that some other set of economic policies would have created better results is unprovable, and an assumption by those who would declare them bad for the country. I am certain that without the low interest rates, inflation and stable economy outside the housing sector that the policies built that we would not have fared so well in 2009.
So here is the thing, you can disagree with every word I wrote and many more, but don’t pretend that I am not just as concerned about our country as you. I would request that you depersonalize this significantly. I am really not the devils spawn.
“Healthcare the Dem way failed. Again, on anecdotal story at a time doesn’t solve the problem for the 30M still uninsured and or the 7-8 million not very well insured. Because I think we need a solution that makes health care cheaper is because I love my country and that would make health care more accessible to all 360M people.”
Marty – well-considered, and defensible. You’ve stayed the course and put up with a lot, and your voice is needed.
There’s so much to address, but for the sake of some brevity – I can’t help but wade in here on the question of health care/insurance. Just what exactly is it that you want? You clearly don’t want single-payer, you don’t want a more efficient ACA, and you can’t see the point, or any efficiency, in “Trumpcare” – whatever that actually means right now. So what are we left with? An expansion of Medicare?
This would seem to be the most plausible route for us to take, given the vitriol over everything else. But as much as you still keep the faith with the GOP, there isn’t a chance this is going to happen. You’ve invested your faith in a party that pretty much has signaled that it doesn’t see your concerns as theirs, and that, as things stand, appear to be paralyzed over the growing crisis that is our, um, president.
You have every right to access to affordable health care. As the rest of the citizens of our country. So how do you propose that it happen?
The only other thing to say is that on your assertion that despite “financial and economic upheaval the US economy has been the best house on every block, good times or bad for all that time. The assumption that some other set of economic policies would have created better results is unprovable” is equally unprovable given that we didn’t pursue an alternative. Just how is it that having the best house on the block was brought about through such upheaval?
As Mike Myers’ Linda Richman might intone from her divan – “discuss.”
And none of this is a personal attack.
“Healthcare the Dem way failed. Again, on anecdotal story at a time doesn’t solve the problem for the 30M still uninsured and or the 7-8 million not very well insured. Because I think we need a solution that makes health care cheaper is because I love my country and that would make health care more accessible to all 360M people.”
Marty – well-considered, and defensible. You’ve stayed the course and put up with a lot, and your voice is needed.
There’s so much to address, but for the sake of some brevity – I can’t help but wade in here on the question of health care/insurance. Just what exactly is it that you want? You clearly don’t want single-payer, you don’t want a more efficient ACA, and you can’t see the point, or any efficiency, in “Trumpcare” – whatever that actually means right now. So what are we left with? An expansion of Medicare?
This would seem to be the most plausible route for us to take, given the vitriol over everything else. But as much as you still keep the faith with the GOP, there isn’t a chance this is going to happen. You’ve invested your faith in a party that pretty much has signaled that it doesn’t see your concerns as theirs, and that, as things stand, appear to be paralyzed over the growing crisis that is our, um, president.
You have every right to access to affordable health care. As the rest of the citizens of our country. So how do you propose that it happen?
The only other thing to say is that on your assertion that despite “financial and economic upheaval the US economy has been the best house on every block, good times or bad for all that time. The assumption that some other set of economic policies would have created better results is unprovable” is equally unprovable given that we didn’t pursue an alternative. Just how is it that having the best house on the block was brought about through such upheaval?
As Mike Myers’ Linda Richman might intone from her divan – “discuss.”
And none of this is a personal attack.
sekajin,
I’m tired, its late so briefly.
I think that we could get block grants at a higher numbers to expand Medicaid everywhere and a voucher program. I don’t pretend to think that will ultimately solve the problem, but the more players that have to watch their budget the more likely that cost will begin to be managed. Health care costs need to be flattened out so wages can overtake them.
Despite recessions and upheavals, the US economy has performed better over time than (most) anyone else’s. The influences on the economy, policy and non policy, make the assertion that the basic policy has not been successful a good talking point but just that. There are issues we need to deal with, but killing the goose isn’t the way to distribute the golden eggs more fairly.
sekajin,
I’m tired, its late so briefly.
I think that we could get block grants at a higher numbers to expand Medicaid everywhere and a voucher program. I don’t pretend to think that will ultimately solve the problem, but the more players that have to watch their budget the more likely that cost will begin to be managed. Health care costs need to be flattened out so wages can overtake them.
Despite recessions and upheavals, the US economy has performed better over time than (most) anyone else’s. The influences on the economy, policy and non policy, make the assertion that the basic policy has not been successful a good talking point but just that. There are issues we need to deal with, but killing the goose isn’t the way to distribute the golden eggs more fairly.
Marty,
You don’t have to respond to this right away, so please don’t try, given that we live half-way round the world from each other.
Where you say “I think that we could get block grants at a higher numbers to expand Medicaid everywhere and a voucher program” –
this is going to be insufficient. Block grants might be easier to implement; they’re also easier to reduce funding on, de-fund, or outright cut. That’s why the GOP loves the idea of these things – they’re ditch-able. Vouchers are also not going to work, if it’s anything like what the GOP conceives of them as – for people with disposable income who can save money into such schema. Increasing numbers of Americans don’t have the income levels that enable them to do this.
Where you say “health care costs need to be flattened out so wages can overtake them,” I couldn’t agree more. The problem again is that GOP policy-making simply isn’t geared for this. It favors policies that flatten wages and and allow health care costs to go out of control.
I’m done here not to deny you the voice on this. It’s that you’re a true believer, and you’re still clinging to a Reagan-era GOP that has been long killed off by his disciples and children.
The only way that the health care crisis is going to be solved is when you start conceiving of affordable access to it as a right, and demanding that your representatives move so. Until then, nothing’s going to get done. You’re still trusting them to do the right thing when their idea of such is diametrically opposed to yours.
Marty,
You don’t have to respond to this right away, so please don’t try, given that we live half-way round the world from each other.
Where you say “I think that we could get block grants at a higher numbers to expand Medicaid everywhere and a voucher program” –
this is going to be insufficient. Block grants might be easier to implement; they’re also easier to reduce funding on, de-fund, or outright cut. That’s why the GOP loves the idea of these things – they’re ditch-able. Vouchers are also not going to work, if it’s anything like what the GOP conceives of them as – for people with disposable income who can save money into such schema. Increasing numbers of Americans don’t have the income levels that enable them to do this.
Where you say “health care costs need to be flattened out so wages can overtake them,” I couldn’t agree more. The problem again is that GOP policy-making simply isn’t geared for this. It favors policies that flatten wages and and allow health care costs to go out of control.
I’m done here not to deny you the voice on this. It’s that you’re a true believer, and you’re still clinging to a Reagan-era GOP that has been long killed off by his disciples and children.
The only way that the health care crisis is going to be solved is when you start conceiving of affordable access to it as a right, and demanding that your representatives move so. Until then, nothing’s going to get done. You’re still trusting them to do the right thing when their idea of such is diametrically opposed to yours.
If Marty is not, in fact, the devil’s spawn, who do we have among ObWi regulars who can fill that necessary slot?
I suppose we could manage with just a Judas goat for a while, but that’s hardly enough to keep the kettle bubbling.
I’d volunteer, but I’m too distracted to be creative, and thus can only carry out my usual role of the oddly-attired uncle who pops up from time to time to make some comment that, however valid (or not) in its own right, seems somewhat off-topic . . .
. . . but I digress.
If Marty is not, in fact, the devil’s spawn, who do we have among ObWi regulars who can fill that necessary slot?
I suppose we could manage with just a Judas goat for a while, but that’s hardly enough to keep the kettle bubbling.
I’d volunteer, but I’m too distracted to be creative, and thus can only carry out my usual role of the oddly-attired uncle who pops up from time to time to make some comment that, however valid (or not) in its own right, seems somewhat off-topic . . .
. . . but I digress.
Health care costs need to be flattened out so wages can overtake them.
there’s the nub of it. solutions? more to the point, politically feasible solutions?
even if we had a plan, it would take a generation to level out.
in the meantime, people have to go to the doctor.
Health care costs need to be flattened out so wages can overtake them.
there’s the nub of it. solutions? more to the point, politically feasible solutions?
even if we had a plan, it would take a generation to level out.
in the meantime, people have to go to the doctor.
Health care costs need to be flattened out so wages can overtake them.
there’s the nub of it. solutions? more to the point, politically feasible solutions?
even if we had a plan, it would take a generation to level out.
in the meantime, people have to go to the doctor.
Health care costs need to be flattened out so wages can overtake them.
there’s the nub of it. solutions? more to the point, politically feasible solutions?
even if we had a plan, it would take a generation to level out.
in the meantime, people have to go to the doctor.
“If Marty is not, in fact, the devil’s spawn, who do we have among ObWi regulars who can fill that necessary slot?”
Whew, that bullet was entirely too close. WATCH IT!
“If Marty is not, in fact, the devil’s spawn, who do we have among ObWi regulars who can fill that necessary slot?”
Whew, that bullet was entirely too close. WATCH IT!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/05/17/the-president-is-not-a-child-hes-something-worse/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na&utm_term=.017f82258076
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/05/17/the-president-is-not-a-child-hes-something-worse/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na&utm_term=.017f82258076
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/05/15/the-danger-within-those-who-voted-for-trump-threatened-our-institutions/
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/05/15/the-danger-within-those-who-voted-for-trump-threatened-our-institutions/
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/dropping-shoe-watch-every-day-he-looks-more-and-more-complete-moron
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/dropping-shoe-watch-every-day-he-looks-more-and-more-complete-moron
I think that we could get block grants at a higher numbers to expand Medicaid everywhere and a voucher program.
If the goal is to expand health care coverage to all,* this strikes me as unnecessarily complex. Just expand Medicare to everybody. Cost control of health care costs is, for all practicable purposes, impossible at the level of the individual. Collectively, it can be done….as has been demonstrated in many other countries.
*Block grants and vouchers actually work against this goal. They are political strategies masquerading as policy.
I think that we could get block grants at a higher numbers to expand Medicaid everywhere and a voucher program.
If the goal is to expand health care coverage to all,* this strikes me as unnecessarily complex. Just expand Medicare to everybody. Cost control of health care costs is, for all practicable purposes, impossible at the level of the individual. Collectively, it can be done….as has been demonstrated in many other countries.
*Block grants and vouchers actually work against this goal. They are political strategies masquerading as policy.
who do we have among ObWi regulars who can fill that necessary slot?
Maybe the count could branch out? Or clone himself….
who do we have among ObWi regulars who can fill that necessary slot?
Maybe the count could branch out? Or clone himself….
There are people of good will in both parties struggling to find a way to have rational immigration policy and deal with illegal immigrants.
One can hope. I am bemused by those on the right who rail against government regulations as attempts at “interference” in market outcomes and argue strenuously for “free trade”, but when it comes to free movement of peoples put the brakes on.
They reveal themselves to be market regulators as much as any wild eyed socialist.
There are people of good will in both parties struggling to find a way to have rational immigration policy and deal with illegal immigrants.
One can hope. I am bemused by those on the right who rail against government regulations as attempts at “interference” in market outcomes and argue strenuously for “free trade”, but when it comes to free movement of peoples put the brakes on.
They reveal themselves to be market regulators as much as any wild eyed socialist.
They are cost shifting strategies designed create multiple solutions based on needs, and ideas, at the state and local level.
My view is that Europe doesn’t have a single strategy, even Canada defers implementation to the provinces, so it makes little sense beyond the most basic safety net to have a federally designed program.
Some form of Medicare for the high risk pool and Medicaid for the poor? I’m ok. Both of those might get by a Republican Congress, maybe not the Freedom Caucus party.
They are cost shifting strategies designed create multiple solutions based on needs, and ideas, at the state and local level.
My view is that Europe doesn’t have a single strategy, even Canada defers implementation to the provinces, so it makes little sense beyond the most basic safety net to have a federally designed program.
Some form of Medicare for the high risk pool and Medicaid for the poor? I’m ok. Both of those might get by a Republican Congress, maybe not the Freedom Caucus party.
Marty: Tax cuts, even though they don’t get me any money, might very well be the thing to get us to 3-5% gdp growth …
Somebody ask Marty what perpetual GDP growth (whether at 2,5,10 or any other %) MEANS, and why it is a good thing. I’m out for the weekend.
–TP
Marty: Tax cuts, even though they don’t get me any money, might very well be the thing to get us to 3-5% gdp growth …
Somebody ask Marty what perpetual GDP growth (whether at 2,5,10 or any other %) MEANS, and why it is a good thing. I’m out for the weekend.
–TP
Zinger of the day (can’t remember which site’s comment section it was in; sorry):
Putin: “I went to Jared!”
Zinger of the day (can’t remember which site’s comment section it was in; sorry):
Putin: “I went to Jared!”
Jared is in deep sh1t. I do wonder if Trump’s covering up and more re Russia is to protect Jared (and thus Ivanka) and not himself. I suppose it could be both.
And if Trump is actually mad at Jared for the Comey firing sh1tstorm it could not only “this was your idea!” But also “I didn’t want to do this but did it to protect you!”
But whatever. Admitting you fired the FBI director because he/the bureau was investigating you is just fine in Trump-GOP America.
Jared is in deep sh1t. I do wonder if Trump’s covering up and more re Russia is to protect Jared (and thus Ivanka) and not himself. I suppose it could be both.
And if Trump is actually mad at Jared for the Comey firing sh1tstorm it could not only “this was your idea!” But also “I didn’t want to do this but did it to protect you!”
But whatever. Admitting you fired the FBI director because he/the bureau was investigating you is just fine in Trump-GOP America.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/05/19/anderson-cooper-cnn-trump-shill-jeffrey-lord-if-trump-took-dump-his-desk-you-would-defend-it/216578
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/05/19/anderson-cooper-cnn-trump-shill-jeffrey-lord-if-trump-took-dump-his-desk-you-would-defend-it/216578
The desk had it coming
The desk had it coming
what good is growth if the benefit of it distributed so narrowly?
it’s not a magic wand.
what good is growth if the benefit of it distributed so narrowly?
it’s not a magic wand.
and for the record, at this point I would be fine with devolving health insurance policy to the states. give me back what we had before in MA, and other folks can do whatever the hell they want.
if it sucks for those folks, they can wake up, smell the coffee, and vote themselves some new state leadership.
I’m tired of arguing about this stuff. if folks want to comparison shop to get the best deal for their brain surgery, or factor five figure deductibles into their household budgets, or pay the doctor with firewood and chickens, that’s OK with me.
live it up. just count me out of that noise, please.
and for the record, at this point I would be fine with devolving health insurance policy to the states. give me back what we had before in MA, and other folks can do whatever the hell they want.
if it sucks for those folks, they can wake up, smell the coffee, and vote themselves some new state leadership.
I’m tired of arguing about this stuff. if folks want to comparison shop to get the best deal for their brain surgery, or factor five figure deductibles into their household budgets, or pay the doctor with firewood and chickens, that’s OK with me.
live it up. just count me out of that noise, please.
Republicans elected the most highly placed traitor in the history of Nation States:
https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/17/comeys-fbi-computer-illegally-accessed-data-given-to-russian-diplomats/
All of them, and their 62 million voters, swept to victory in an American national election on the coattails of an illegitimate traitor, many of the re-elected republican reps and senators using the same compromised foreign sources of disinformation against clinton and their democratic campaign opponents as trump did, provided in many cases by the RNC, and THEY can be entrusted to prosecute their traitorous benefactor’s impeachment?
https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/20/exclusive-judiciary-committee-considering-articles-of-impeachment/
Fuck that shit.
I want pence and every white house appointee, every trump Cabinet officer, and every federal agency appointee’ resignation NOW. I want Gorsuch’s resignation NOW. I want every trump executive order rescinded NOW. I want every piece of shit legislation with the fingerprint of trump’s pinkie on it tabled for good NOW.
I want the entire RNC to resign now and the organization declared a threat to the security of the United States of America. I want its records seized and its bank accounts frozen.
I want the offices of every republican and conservative political action group in this country raided and their files impounded and their treasuries confiscated.
I want every conservative media outlet, including blogs, that peddled disinformation about democratic opponents over the past two years shut down and their assets, including the private assets of the filth who run them seized until all of it can be thoroughly investigated for any taint of illegitimate influence.
As a downpayment on that, I want Hannity and Drudged arrested and held for indictment under National Security law.
I want Barack Obama returned to the Presidency and Joe Biden returned to the Vice Presidency and their Cabinet officers returned to their posts to administer the important business of our Federal Government for an interim period until a Commission of uncompromised citizens, which leaves plenty of shitheads out, can be appointed to conduct a redo of the election, but this time, the campaigns will be limited to one week and Citizens United will be declared defunct for the duration.
I want all of the downmarket elections, state and local, right down to dogcatcher in Paduca, declared null and void and redone.
All of that must happen. Not some of it. All.
The entire republican edifice is the Devil.
And maybe “patribotics”, the source of the two cites in this comment, are the Devil’s spawn, prone to dissemble.
But maybe we need demons and a whiff of sulphur ourselves to fight the Devil.
Republicans elected the most highly placed traitor in the history of Nation States:
https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/17/comeys-fbi-computer-illegally-accessed-data-given-to-russian-diplomats/
All of them, and their 62 million voters, swept to victory in an American national election on the coattails of an illegitimate traitor, many of the re-elected republican reps and senators using the same compromised foreign sources of disinformation against clinton and their democratic campaign opponents as trump did, provided in many cases by the RNC, and THEY can be entrusted to prosecute their traitorous benefactor’s impeachment?
https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/20/exclusive-judiciary-committee-considering-articles-of-impeachment/
Fuck that shit.
I want pence and every white house appointee, every trump Cabinet officer, and every federal agency appointee’ resignation NOW. I want Gorsuch’s resignation NOW. I want every trump executive order rescinded NOW. I want every piece of shit legislation with the fingerprint of trump’s pinkie on it tabled for good NOW.
I want the entire RNC to resign now and the organization declared a threat to the security of the United States of America. I want its records seized and its bank accounts frozen.
I want the offices of every republican and conservative political action group in this country raided and their files impounded and their treasuries confiscated.
I want every conservative media outlet, including blogs, that peddled disinformation about democratic opponents over the past two years shut down and their assets, including the private assets of the filth who run them seized until all of it can be thoroughly investigated for any taint of illegitimate influence.
As a downpayment on that, I want Hannity and Drudged arrested and held for indictment under National Security law.
I want Barack Obama returned to the Presidency and Joe Biden returned to the Vice Presidency and their Cabinet officers returned to their posts to administer the important business of our Federal Government for an interim period until a Commission of uncompromised citizens, which leaves plenty of shitheads out, can be appointed to conduct a redo of the election, but this time, the campaigns will be limited to one week and Citizens United will be declared defunct for the duration.
I want all of the downmarket elections, state and local, right down to dogcatcher in Paduca, declared null and void and redone.
All of that must happen. Not some of it. All.
The entire republican edifice is the Devil.
And maybe “patribotics”, the source of the two cites in this comment, are the Devil’s spawn, prone to dissemble.
But maybe we need demons and a whiff of sulphur ourselves to fight the Devil.
At some point, using their methods turns you into the thing you hate. Don’t let it happen to you.
At some point, using their methods turns you into the thing you hate. Don’t let it happen to you.
Lincoln didn’t turn into Jefferson Davis by using Confederate methods against the Confederacy.
However, John Wilkes Booth became the father of the Republican Party by using Confederate methods against Lincoln.
Lincoln didn’t turn into Jefferson Davis by using Confederate methods against the Confederacy.
However, John Wilkes Booth became the father of the Republican Party by using Confederate methods against Lincoln.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/05/20/open-thread-bring-on-the-very-very-tiny-violins/
No, they must not be permitted to melt back into the electorate to emerge as some ruder beasts at a future date.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/05/20/open-thread-bring-on-the-very-very-tiny-violins/
No, they must not be permitted to melt back into the electorate to emerge as some ruder beasts at a future date.
From that last link:
“And a third said that others are sticking around purely for self-interest, hoping to juice their future earning potential. This Republican added that any savvy White House staffer should be keeping a diary. “The real question is, how long do you put up with it?” this person said. “Every one of those people could get a better-paying job and work less hours.”…
I thought government position-holders were overpaid dead weights, who took long lunch breaks, and twiddled their thumbs as they sucked the tax payer dry by shirking their labor, according to the “narrative”of lying pig filth conservatives.
But no, it’s in the private sector that you get paid more for less work.
From that last link:
“And a third said that others are sticking around purely for self-interest, hoping to juice their future earning potential. This Republican added that any savvy White House staffer should be keeping a diary. “The real question is, how long do you put up with it?” this person said. “Every one of those people could get a better-paying job and work less hours.”…
I thought government position-holders were overpaid dead weights, who took long lunch breaks, and twiddled their thumbs as they sucked the tax payer dry by shirking their labor, according to the “narrative”of lying pig filth conservatives.
But no, it’s in the private sector that you get paid more for less work.
Can we get a betting pool going to name the first trumper who defects to Russia over the next few months?
Maybe Russia could move its Washington D. C. Embassy into Mar-a-Lago and the lot of them can hold up there and declare diplomatic immunity from prosecution, with trump hanging off the tippy-top of the thing like King Kong swatting at fighter jets.
It will be unfortunate for the 62 million and the other trump enablers who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton who can’t afford the Mar-a-Lago the rent, upkeep, and the pedestrian food in the restaurant.
Can we get a betting pool going to name the first trumper who defects to Russia over the next few months?
Maybe Russia could move its Washington D. C. Embassy into Mar-a-Lago and the lot of them can hold up there and declare diplomatic immunity from prosecution, with trump hanging off the tippy-top of the thing like King Kong swatting at fighter jets.
It will be unfortunate for the 62 million and the other trump enablers who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton who can’t afford the Mar-a-Lago the rent, upkeep, and the pedestrian food in the restaurant.
I’m glad people realize that Russia was/is/will be a problem, and that the Trump administration is a result of that problem. It took awhile.
I’m glad people realize that Russia was/is/will be a problem, and that the Trump administration is a result of that problem. It took awhile.
Flynn, if he was going anywhere, would far more likely go to Turkey than Russia. Kushner probably won’t believe he isn’t untouchable and could actually be held legally accountable until the cell door slams shut. So Manafort seems to be the best bet.
Flynn, if he was going anywhere, would far more likely go to Turkey than Russia. Kushner probably won’t believe he isn’t untouchable and could actually be held legally accountable until the cell door slams shut. So Manafort seems to be the best bet.
Kushner probably won’t believe he isn’t untouchable and could actually be held legally accountable until the cell door slams shut.
Seems like since his dad was a felon, he might consider it possible.
Kushner probably won’t believe he isn’t untouchable and could actually be held legally accountable until the cell door slams shut.
Seems like since his dad was a felon, he might consider it possible.
“If Marty is not, in fact, the devil’s spawn, who do we have among ObWi regulars who can fill that necessary slot?”
Okay, wading in again.
Lay off Marty like this. And don’t look for targets to beat up here – please. That’s not what this forum is about, and that’s not what’s made me keep the faith with it for about the last ten years or so, back when I had waded in the first time – and the communitariut (sic?) here was kind enough to accommodate me – and this time around, again, with a long interval in between where I have been alternately delighted, amused, infuriated, stimulated, and enthused, by the voices on this forum.
Just saying.
Some of us may disagree
“If Marty is not, in fact, the devil’s spawn, who do we have among ObWi regulars who can fill that necessary slot?”
Okay, wading in again.
Lay off Marty like this. And don’t look for targets to beat up here – please. That’s not what this forum is about, and that’s not what’s made me keep the faith with it for about the last ten years or so, back when I had waded in the first time – and the communitariut (sic?) here was kind enough to accommodate me – and this time around, again, with a long interval in between where I have been alternately delighted, amused, infuriated, stimulated, and enthused, by the voices on this forum.
Just saying.
Some of us may disagree
“Some of us may disagree” – I meant to erase this and didn’t in time. It was a straggling thought that couldn’t keep up with the rest of what I was saying, and looked to die of servitude and overwork quickly.
Sorry about that.
“Some of us may disagree” – I meant to erase this and didn’t in time. It was a straggling thought that couldn’t keep up with the rest of what I was saying, and looked to die of servitude and overwork quickly.
Sorry about that.
Somebody ask Marty what perpetual GDP growth (whether at 2,5,10 or any other %) MEANS, and why it is a good thing.
lol, Tony, but I’m not going to do your dirty work. Before your return, you might take a look at this.
I encourage Marty likewise. Food for thought.
Somebody ask Marty what perpetual GDP growth (whether at 2,5,10 or any other %) MEANS, and why it is a good thing.
lol, Tony, but I’m not going to do your dirty work. Before your return, you might take a look at this.
I encourage Marty likewise. Food for thought.
They are cost shifting strategies designed create multiple solutions based on needs, and ideas, at the state and local level.
No. They are policies that reduce coverage and they leave it to the states to figure, imaginatively or not, who to shaft and how. The rich get a nice tax cut in the bargain. One could argue if that is a feature or a bug…..but it is a cold hard fact.
They are cost shifting strategies designed create multiple solutions based on needs, and ideas, at the state and local level.
No. They are policies that reduce coverage and they leave it to the states to figure, imaginatively or not, who to shaft and how. The rich get a nice tax cut in the bargain. One could argue if that is a feature or a bug…..but it is a cold hard fact.
I did not intend to “lay into” Marty with my previous comment, which was an attempt at levity bouncing off his own declaration that he was not the “devil’s spawn,” which amused/bemused me. I hope he didn’t take it wrong, and I’m sorry that others (e.g., sekaijin) did.
My point – to the extent that attempted levity has a point – is that there seems to be a need in most fora for someone to serve as the “devil’s spawn.” I can remember when it was Charles B on OBWi, and the now defunct (?) sideblog that wound up as “Taking it Outside” began as “Hating on Charles B,” IIRC. (A title preserved in amber as part of the URL: “hocb”) And he was certainly not the first. So if not Marty, who?
I certainly disagree with Marty on almost every conceivable issue, and have said so in the past and doubtless will say so again, but I try to avoid cheap shots extraneous to the thread. I am sorry if I came across as failing in that regard.
I did not intend to “lay into” Marty with my previous comment, which was an attempt at levity bouncing off his own declaration that he was not the “devil’s spawn,” which amused/bemused me. I hope he didn’t take it wrong, and I’m sorry that others (e.g., sekaijin) did.
My point – to the extent that attempted levity has a point – is that there seems to be a need in most fora for someone to serve as the “devil’s spawn.” I can remember when it was Charles B on OBWi, and the now defunct (?) sideblog that wound up as “Taking it Outside” began as “Hating on Charles B,” IIRC. (A title preserved in amber as part of the URL: “hocb”) And he was certainly not the first. So if not Marty, who?
I certainly disagree with Marty on almost every conceivable issue, and have said so in the past and doubtless will say so again, but I try to avoid cheap shots extraneous to the thread. I am sorry if I came across as failing in that regard.
dr ngo, i took it just the way you meant it. Something to smile at.
dr ngo, i took it just the way you meant it. Something to smile at.
Point taken, Doc – and Marty. (Mart – not trying to say as well that you can’t defend yourself. Of course you can, and you have. I think we all have thicker skins here!)
Thank you for your voices, and I mean that.
Point taken, Doc – and Marty. (Mart – not trying to say as well that you can’t defend yourself. Of course you can, and you have. I think we all have thicker skins here!)
Thank you for your voices, and I mean that.
Just one more song before I go (for now).
Marty – where you say your view is that “Europe doesn’t have a single strategy, even Canada defers implementation to the provinces, so it makes little sense beyond the most basic safety net to have a federally designed program,” this is true – but one thing the strategies have in common is this: it is baked at least into their laws, and in some of the countries, their constitutions, that access to affordable health care is a fundamental right for all their citizens (and yes, even residents), with cost controls at the level of implementation.
So individual countries in the EU, or Canada with regard to the provincial governments, are indeed free to implement any version or variation of the system they want – so long as they strictly meet the mandates of individual affordable access, and cost control.
In the case of Canada, it helps tremendously that they only have ten provinces – the federal side of the mandate is probably more palatable and requires less force of inculcation, while provincial devolution gives room in the provincial legislatures to tinker with it (and even with that, make no mistake that the further west you go in that country, the more you will still hear grumbling about detached elites in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, etc.). Bear in mind as well that the modern Canadian health care system was hatched not in Ottawa, but in Saskatchewan courtesy of Tommy Douglas, Donald Sutherland’s father-in-law.
All that aside – all this is where the U.S. differs from the rest of the developed world, and this is why we come off looking backward, contrarian, mean-spirited, crude, or at the least, just flat-out and inexcusably incompetent.
Just one more song before I go (for now).
Marty – where you say your view is that “Europe doesn’t have a single strategy, even Canada defers implementation to the provinces, so it makes little sense beyond the most basic safety net to have a federally designed program,” this is true – but one thing the strategies have in common is this: it is baked at least into their laws, and in some of the countries, their constitutions, that access to affordable health care is a fundamental right for all their citizens (and yes, even residents), with cost controls at the level of implementation.
So individual countries in the EU, or Canada with regard to the provincial governments, are indeed free to implement any version or variation of the system they want – so long as they strictly meet the mandates of individual affordable access, and cost control.
In the case of Canada, it helps tremendously that they only have ten provinces – the federal side of the mandate is probably more palatable and requires less force of inculcation, while provincial devolution gives room in the provincial legislatures to tinker with it (and even with that, make no mistake that the further west you go in that country, the more you will still hear grumbling about detached elites in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, etc.). Bear in mind as well that the modern Canadian health care system was hatched not in Ottawa, but in Saskatchewan courtesy of Tommy Douglas, Donald Sutherland’s father-in-law.
All that aside – all this is where the U.S. differs from the rest of the developed world, and this is why we come off looking backward, contrarian, mean-spirited, crude, or at the least, just flat-out and inexcusably incompetent.
I think the call for comity is all good.
But we still need some comedy to go along with it.
that’s an exterior shot of the Trump hotel in Riyadh.
if you made this stuff up, nobody would believe you.
I think the call for comity is all good.
But we still need some comedy to go along with it.
that’s an exterior shot of the Trump hotel in Riyadh.
if you made this stuff up, nobody would believe you.
Each country in Europe has its own approach to funding healthcare. But they all have something in common: healthcare is available to individuals without making the costs proportional to their expected needs.
The USA is in a minority of one in insisting on something which can’t possibly work.
Each country in Europe has its own approach to funding healthcare. But they all have something in common: healthcare is available to individuals without making the costs proportional to their expected needs.
The USA is in a minority of one in insisting on something which can’t possibly work.
Patribotics may or may not be the devil’s spawn, Count, but Louise Mensch (co-author of at least one of those pieces) definitely is. She may be sound on the Trump issue, but in all other respects she is a poisonous bit of work. She used to be a Conservative MP here, and was one of their best surrogates/spokespeople on TV shows because confident, articulate and reasonably bright, but she was a great user of half-truths and twisted argument, and an enthusiastic defender of various awful Tory policies and actions. Her departure from these shores to be with her American rock-promoter husband was unexpected but welcome. All that being said, however, I hope her info on Trump is correct, and I do occasionally check her twitter feed since people told me of her anti-Trump crusade.
Patribotics may or may not be the devil’s spawn, Count, but Louise Mensch (co-author of at least one of those pieces) definitely is. She may be sound on the Trump issue, but in all other respects she is a poisonous bit of work. She used to be a Conservative MP here, and was one of their best surrogates/spokespeople on TV shows because confident, articulate and reasonably bright, but she was a great user of half-truths and twisted argument, and an enthusiastic defender of various awful Tory policies and actions. Her departure from these shores to be with her American rock-promoter husband was unexpected but welcome. All that being said, however, I hope her info on Trump is correct, and I do occasionally check her twitter feed since people told me of her anti-Trump crusade.
GFTNC:
Yes, LGM warned of Mensch’s bona fides where I swiped the link. Thus “dissemble”.
But today’s republican party is the spawn of this guy, and at some point he needs to be stopped from swimming upstream by any means, because he is a destroyer, a truly evil piece of crap. Capitalize that “E”.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/newt-gingrich-swan-dives-fever-swamps
If Hillary has been piling up bodies like Tony Soprano, how did she overlook Gingrich all these years?
GFTNC:
Yes, LGM warned of Mensch’s bona fides where I swiped the link. Thus “dissemble”.
But today’s republican party is the spawn of this guy, and at some point he needs to be stopped from swimming upstream by any means, because he is a destroyer, a truly evil piece of crap. Capitalize that “E”.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/newt-gingrich-swan-dives-fever-swamps
If Hillary has been piling up bodies like Tony Soprano, how did she overlook Gingrich all these years?
O.K., this is the creepiest photograph in the history of international diplomacy:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/05/became-president-seventh-time
O.K., this is the creepiest photograph in the history of international diplomacy:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/05/became-president-seventh-time
If Hillary has been piling up bodies like Tony Soprano, how did she overlook Gingrich all these years?
Just keep in mind, folks, that Gingrich was the House leader during most of Bill Clinton’s term. All you Clinton haters: just imagine, for a few minutes, that. He had to not imagine, live it, for six years.
But welfare reform!
If Hillary has been piling up bodies like Tony Soprano, how did she overlook Gingrich all these years?
Just keep in mind, folks, that Gingrich was the House leader during most of Bill Clinton’s term. All you Clinton haters: just imagine, for a few minutes, that. He had to not imagine, live it, for six years.
But welfare reform!
Drain the swamp.
Drain the swamp.
Trump DID “drain the swamp”!
Right into the Whitehouse.
It was either that, or swampify a golf course, so, you know priorities!
Trump DID “drain the swamp”!
Right into the Whitehouse.
It was either that, or swampify a golf course, so, you know priorities!
On “the USA is in a minority of one in insisting on something which can’t possibly work”:
Of course. But what else is there for the health care industry in America to do? It sure gives sociopathic hospital chain CEOs something to ravage vulnerable people over, and hell, a belly laugh or two at board meetings.
American health care policy in 2017: If it’s good enough to fail masses of people miserably, over and over, it’s good enough to keep going, again and again. It’s all a mad race to the bottom to find that elusive lodestar – the prayed-over, hoped-for-against-all-hope exception to that rule where repeating the same thing over and over again is the definition of stupidity, with said masses borne triumphantly as prisoners in the midst, until their utility is exhausted from servitude and overwork (i.e, when they die of preventable and/or treatable conditions because the market was too preoccupied with its desperate search for turning utter failure into success).
Just remember – “There’s no success like failure, and failure’s no success at all” (B. Dylan)
On “the USA is in a minority of one in insisting on something which can’t possibly work”:
Of course. But what else is there for the health care industry in America to do? It sure gives sociopathic hospital chain CEOs something to ravage vulnerable people over, and hell, a belly laugh or two at board meetings.
American health care policy in 2017: If it’s good enough to fail masses of people miserably, over and over, it’s good enough to keep going, again and again. It’s all a mad race to the bottom to find that elusive lodestar – the prayed-over, hoped-for-against-all-hope exception to that rule where repeating the same thing over and over again is the definition of stupidity, with said masses borne triumphantly as prisoners in the midst, until their utility is exhausted from servitude and overwork (i.e, when they die of preventable and/or treatable conditions because the market was too preoccupied with its desperate search for turning utter failure into success).
Just remember – “There’s no success like failure, and failure’s no success at all” (B. Dylan)
Yeah, the crime families in New Jersey once had a major swamp reclamation project in the Meadowlands where they deposited their “fill”, if you what I mean, ovah heah.
trump is just taking out the garbage. It hadda be done. Sanitation is a legitimate business. We pay our taxes, don’t we fellas? Hanh?
You look out for your healt(h) and we’ll look out for your healt(h). Be a shame if your mother came down wit sumpin. Don’t get me wrong, she’s a nice lady annat, but mebbe she’s got dat lead poisoning flu ting dat gose around from time ta time.
Meanwhile, other countries seem to be more “exceptional” than we are, I mean, ya know, when it comes to a peaceful “environment” in which a goombah can to do some business wit out the a, watchchamacallit, friction of this heah foist amendment:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-model-society
Ross, who I use to watch on CNBC years ago while throwing up a little in my mouth, went on to say that he heard somewhere that China had ONE guy who held up a placard in public years ago, but anyone seen him lately? Now, in Russia, he’s heard they have people who give the authorities a hard time on occasion but they have this thing called the umbrella treatment and they come down with the cold sweats and the shakes and have to go to bed permanently where they are free to speak their minds.
The feigned innocence of wonder in Ross’s words about Saudi Arabia and the basket of sincere dates they gave him should go down well with the camel jockey and towelhead haters among trump’s republican supporters.
But, we sold more “big, beautiful military equipment” to them, so there is that.
Yeah, the crime families in New Jersey once had a major swamp reclamation project in the Meadowlands where they deposited their “fill”, if you what I mean, ovah heah.
trump is just taking out the garbage. It hadda be done. Sanitation is a legitimate business. We pay our taxes, don’t we fellas? Hanh?
You look out for your healt(h) and we’ll look out for your healt(h). Be a shame if your mother came down wit sumpin. Don’t get me wrong, she’s a nice lady annat, but mebbe she’s got dat lead poisoning flu ting dat gose around from time ta time.
Meanwhile, other countries seem to be more “exceptional” than we are, I mean, ya know, when it comes to a peaceful “environment” in which a goombah can to do some business wit out the a, watchchamacallit, friction of this heah foist amendment:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-model-society
Ross, who I use to watch on CNBC years ago while throwing up a little in my mouth, went on to say that he heard somewhere that China had ONE guy who held up a placard in public years ago, but anyone seen him lately? Now, in Russia, he’s heard they have people who give the authorities a hard time on occasion but they have this thing called the umbrella treatment and they come down with the cold sweats and the shakes and have to go to bed permanently where they are free to speak their minds.
The feigned innocence of wonder in Ross’s words about Saudi Arabia and the basket of sincere dates they gave him should go down well with the camel jockey and towelhead haters among trump’s republican supporters.
But, we sold more “big, beautiful military equipment” to them, so there is that.
O.K., this is the creepiest photograph in the history of international diplomacy
i wonder what they’re chanting while they touch the Orb Of Power…
O.K., this is the creepiest photograph in the history of international diplomacy
i wonder what they’re chanting while they touch the Orb Of Power…
Whatever they were chanting, it made them sleepy:
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/866316162644287488/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
Remember when we were told in these very pages that Clinton was probably terminally ill with several chronic diseases when the flu temporarily got her down during the campaign.
“Stamina” is a word no longer used by republicans when THEY go weak in the knees. It’s like the word “uncertainty” they used to describe folks and corporations whose health insurance policies were undergoing some alteration. You don’t hear that word anymore from the usual suspects as 20 or 30 million Americans wake up every day to some new threatened cessation of their lifelines.
Whatever they were chanting, it made them sleepy:
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/866316162644287488/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
Remember when we were told in these very pages that Clinton was probably terminally ill with several chronic diseases when the flu temporarily got her down during the campaign.
“Stamina” is a word no longer used by republicans when THEY go weak in the knees. It’s like the word “uncertainty” they used to describe folks and corporations whose health insurance policies were undergoing some alteration. You don’t hear that word anymore from the usual suspects as 20 or 30 million Americans wake up every day to some new threatened cessation of their lifelines.
It was either that, or swampify a golf course, so, you know priorities!
But, Snarki, he swampified the golf course at Mar-a-lago too. Thus proving his ability to multitask. (Although I suppose it could just be time slicing….)
It was either that, or swampify a golf course, so, you know priorities!
But, Snarki, he swampified the golf course at Mar-a-lago too. Thus proving his ability to multitask. (Although I suppose it could just be time slicing….)
maybe he’s draining the swamp in his head, onto the rest of the world.
like some terrible post-nasal drippings, that’s seeping into every crevice of our democracy.
maybe he’s draining the swamp in his head, onto the rest of the world.
like some terrible post-nasal drippings, that’s seeping into every crevice of our democracy.
Drain the swamp.
Sapient, do you ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, the Trump White House has a totally different take on what constitutes “the swamp” than the rest of us do? 180 degrees different.
Drain the swamp.
Sapient, do you ever get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, the Trump White House has a totally different take on what constitutes “the swamp” than the rest of us do? 180 degrees different.
Just to demonstrate that you never really know what to expect, there’s this. The Supreme Court just ruled, 5-3, that North Carolina’s Congressional redistricting was illegal because it relied excessively on race as a criteria for drawing the boundaries.
The surprise is that the 4 liberal justices were joined, not by Chief Justice Roberts but by . . . Mr Justice Thomas! (Perhaps this wasn’t actually a liberal/conservative or a partisan issue after all…?)
Just to demonstrate that you never really know what to expect, there’s this. The Supreme Court just ruled, 5-3, that North Carolina’s Congressional redistricting was illegal because it relied excessively on race as a criteria for drawing the boundaries.
The surprise is that the 4 liberal justices were joined, not by Chief Justice Roberts but by . . . Mr Justice Thomas! (Perhaps this wasn’t actually a liberal/conservative or a partisan issue after all…?)
The surprise is that the 4 liberal justices were joined, not by Chief Justice Roberts but by . . . Mr Justice Thomas!
outstanding.
not my favorite guy, but credit where credit is due.
The surprise is that the 4 liberal justices were joined, not by Chief Justice Roberts but by . . . Mr Justice Thomas!
outstanding.
not my favorite guy, but credit where credit is due.
The SC does seem to retain the capacity to surprise every so often.
Meanwhile, another authoritarian narcissist with a tenuous grip on reality might be falling out with your homegrown one:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/22/trump-turkey-protesters-security-guards-clash-238681
The SC does seem to retain the capacity to surprise every so often.
Meanwhile, another authoritarian narcissist with a tenuous grip on reality might be falling out with your homegrown one:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/22/trump-turkey-protesters-security-guards-clash-238681
The SC does seem to retain the capacity to surprise every so often.
The SC will tend to give you will more surprises when you try to shoehorn the justices into the prevailing left/right paradigm.
The SC does seem to retain the capacity to surprise every so often.
The SC will tend to give you will more surprises when you try to shoehorn the justices into the prevailing left/right paradigm.
Because ‘shoehorning’ Thomas into a conservative paradigm would be just ridiculous…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices
Because ‘shoehorning’ Thomas into a conservative paradigm would be just ridiculous…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices
The title of the article does contain the word, “leanings.”
And just because a vote by a justice appears to be left/right doesn’t mean the vote was motivated by left/right ideology.
The title of the article does contain the word, “leanings.”
And just because a vote by a justice appears to be left/right doesn’t mean the vote was motivated by left/right ideology.
Of course… in Thomas’ case, just coincidence, I guess.
Of course… in Thomas’ case, just coincidence, I guess.
It seems that NC went a bit too far on the racist gerrymandering for even Clarence Thomas to stomach.
It seems that NC went a bit too far on the racist gerrymandering for even Clarence Thomas to stomach.
I learn that it’s OK to indulge in overtly partisan gerrymandering, so long as one avoids doing it on racial lines.
Wouldn’t it be great if the USA were a democracy?
I learn that it’s OK to indulge in overtly partisan gerrymandering, so long as one avoids doing it on racial lines.
Wouldn’t it be great if the USA were a democracy?
I have not had time to read the decision, but Thomas not only voted with teh ‘left’, but took the trouble to authored a concurring opinion.
On other matters:
The left is in deep doo-doo wrt climate change.
and upside down on one other important matter.
Carry on!
I have not had time to read the decision, but Thomas not only voted with teh ‘left’, but took the trouble to authored a concurring opinion.
On other matters:
The left is in deep doo-doo wrt climate change.
and upside down on one other important matter.
Carry on!
The left is in deep doo-doo wrt climate change.
the doo-doo will be widespread, and will be no respecter of either persons or their political leanings.
don’t try pinning that on the “left”.
The left is in deep doo-doo wrt climate change.
the doo-doo will be widespread, and will be no respecter of either persons or their political leanings.
don’t try pinning that on the “left”.
don’t try pinning [climate change] on the “left”.
Oh, it’s TOTs the “left”‘s fault!
Why? Because when the scope of the problem was clear, what did the “left” do?
‘Houston, we have a problem… Houston?…….Houston?’
Instead of just slaughtering all the GOP greedheads that stood in the way of actually dealing with the problem.
History will judge the “left” harshly, you’ll see.
don’t try pinning [climate change] on the “left”.
Oh, it’s TOTs the “left”‘s fault!
Why? Because when the scope of the problem was clear, what did the “left” do?
‘Houston, we have a problem… Houston?…….Houston?’
Instead of just slaughtering all the GOP greedheads that stood in the way of actually dealing with the problem.
History will judge the “left” harshly, you’ll see.
as a matter of national public policy, the US will do nothing for the forseeable future. less than nothing, our policies will be harmful.
because money.
the rest of the world, including a variety of entrepreneurial private actors in the US, will work around that, to the best of their ability.
that’s not a prediction, it’s a description of what is happening now.
it’d be really helpful if the feds would get on board, but they probably wont. not with (R)’s driving the bus.
it will end up wherever it ends up.
to the degree that judgements are due, history will judge us all.
people, and the world in general, will adapt, but there is likely to be a lot of damage along the way. unless you’re a life form that is well adapted to whatever planet earth ca. 2100 or 2500 looks like. in that case, bobs your uncle.
remains to be seen how we humans make out.
as a matter of national public policy, the US will do nothing for the forseeable future. less than nothing, our policies will be harmful.
because money.
the rest of the world, including a variety of entrepreneurial private actors in the US, will work around that, to the best of their ability.
that’s not a prediction, it’s a description of what is happening now.
it’d be really helpful if the feds would get on board, but they probably wont. not with (R)’s driving the bus.
it will end up wherever it ends up.
to the degree that judgements are due, history will judge us all.
people, and the world in general, will adapt, but there is likely to be a lot of damage along the way. unless you’re a life form that is well adapted to whatever planet earth ca. 2100 or 2500 looks like. in that case, bobs your uncle.
remains to be seen how we humans make out.
Why would anyone with a problem call Houston?
Why would anyone with a problem call Houston?
as a matter of national public policy, the US will do nothing for the forseeable future. less than nothing, our policies will be harmful.
because money.
You’re giving a whole lot of people a pass here. The reason we have allowed these monsters to do this is because people don’t choose based on logic when elections roll around. Our system, even with its flaws, allows less wealthy people to prevail over wealth.
That middle finger f’d us all.
as a matter of national public policy, the US will do nothing for the forseeable future. less than nothing, our policies will be harmful.
because money.
You’re giving a whole lot of people a pass here. The reason we have allowed these monsters to do this is because people don’t choose based on logic when elections roll around. Our system, even with its flaws, allows less wealthy people to prevail over wealth.
That middle finger f’d us all.
Our system, even with its flaws, allows less wealthy people to prevail over wealth.
only if they use their heads.
Our system, even with its flaws, allows less wealthy people to prevail over wealth.
only if they use their heads.
Lemieux’s new article about Thomas is interesting:
https://newrepublic.com/article/142825/clarence-thomass-rulings-race-idiosyncratic
Lemieux’s new article about Thomas is interesting:
https://newrepublic.com/article/142825/clarence-thomass-rulings-race-idiosyncratic
although if you want to replace”because money” with “because obstinate ignorance and self-defeating stupidity” I will not argue the point.
although if you want to replace”because money” with “because obstinate ignorance and self-defeating stupidity” I will not argue the point.
although if you want to replace”because money” with “because obstinate ignorance and self-defeating stupidity” I will not argue the point.
Yes, this.
although if you want to replace”because money” with “because obstinate ignorance and self-defeating stupidity” I will not argue the point.
Yes, this.
as a matter of national public policy, the US will do nothing for the forseeable future. less than nothing, our policies will be harmful.
More accurately, the US will do nothing as a nation. But while national policies will not be helpful, a lot of states will have policies on the subject as well. Some of them big enough markets that companies will have an incentive to make changes to their products. (Think one state’s policies can’t make a difference? Think about Texas and school book content.)
Plus, in a number of cases, companies have discovered that making helpful changes actually helps their bottom line. They might not have tried making those changes without the policies initially. But now they know, and they aren’t going to change back just because some ignoramus has changed the policy.
We won’t do as much as we could have (and should have) done. And some companies will do things that are actively detrimental. But the situation isn’t quite as dire as your words suggest.
as a matter of national public policy, the US will do nothing for the forseeable future. less than nothing, our policies will be harmful.
More accurately, the US will do nothing as a nation. But while national policies will not be helpful, a lot of states will have policies on the subject as well. Some of them big enough markets that companies will have an incentive to make changes to their products. (Think one state’s policies can’t make a difference? Think about Texas and school book content.)
Plus, in a number of cases, companies have discovered that making helpful changes actually helps their bottom line. They might not have tried making those changes without the policies initially. But now they know, and they aren’t going to change back just because some ignoramus has changed the policy.
We won’t do as much as we could have (and should have) done. And some companies will do things that are actively detrimental. But the situation isn’t quite as dire as your words suggest.
The situation is pretty dire though, wj. For example, a piece I saw yesterday on hilzoy’s feed (I think) said scientists now report that half the Great Barrier Reef has died.
In other news, I apologise in advance for this because in a way it doesn’t tell us anything we don’t know, or advance our enjoyment, or stimulate discussion, not to mention it was posted on twitter. But here is Trump’s note left at Yad Vashem, next to Barack Obama’s ditto:
https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/867001555735769088/photo/1
There are no words adequate.
The situation is pretty dire though, wj. For example, a piece I saw yesterday on hilzoy’s feed (I think) said scientists now report that half the Great Barrier Reef has died.
In other news, I apologise in advance for this because in a way it doesn’t tell us anything we don’t know, or advance our enjoyment, or stimulate discussion, not to mention it was posted on twitter. But here is Trump’s note left at Yad Vashem, next to Barack Obama’s ditto:
https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/867001555735769088/photo/1
There are no words adequate.
But the situation isn’t quite as dire as your words suggest.
I completely agree that states, local municipalities, and private sector actors will step up to address the issue.
And it will help.
“Dire” exists on a spectrum. Are we all gonna die? No. Are there going to be harmful effects? Yes.
Apparently my area – anything in the vicinity of the Gulf of Maine – is likely to see disproportionately large effects in the near-ish term. For “near-ish” read “now”.
Other folks will get their turn later on. Or, maybe, never, in which case lucky them.
There are parts of the world that are likely to see truly disastrous effects. People who live in those areas may have to go somewhere else. Or starve.
Bangladesh, as an example, has about 160M people, and it basically sits in the biggest delta in the world. It won’t take much of either climate pattern change or water level rise to make it necessary for a lot of them to go elsewhere.
Note that the presence of just 5M Syrian refugees has contributed to destabilizing the EU, and helped foster the resurgence of reactionary or even fascist right-wing political movements there.
So, dire is a possibility.
But the situation isn’t quite as dire as your words suggest.
I completely agree that states, local municipalities, and private sector actors will step up to address the issue.
And it will help.
“Dire” exists on a spectrum. Are we all gonna die? No. Are there going to be harmful effects? Yes.
Apparently my area – anything in the vicinity of the Gulf of Maine – is likely to see disproportionately large effects in the near-ish term. For “near-ish” read “now”.
Other folks will get their turn later on. Or, maybe, never, in which case lucky them.
There are parts of the world that are likely to see truly disastrous effects. People who live in those areas may have to go somewhere else. Or starve.
Bangladesh, as an example, has about 160M people, and it basically sits in the biggest delta in the world. It won’t take much of either climate pattern change or water level rise to make it necessary for a lot of them to go elsewhere.
Note that the presence of just 5M Syrian refugees has contributed to destabilizing the EU, and helped foster the resurgence of reactionary or even fascist right-wing political movements there.
So, dire is a possibility.
GftNC, no question that the physical situation is dire. But my point was that the action/regulatory situation, while certainly not good, is not quite as dire as russell seemed to be suggesting.
GftNC, no question that the physical situation is dire. But my point was that the action/regulatory situation, while certainly not good, is not quite as dire as russell seemed to be suggesting.
Ah, sorry wj, I’m doing a lot of drive-by shooting at the moment because of huge and energy-draining situations here, so not giving the evolution of the thread(s) sufficient attention I guess. Apologies.
Ah, sorry wj, I’m doing a lot of drive-by shooting at the moment because of huge and energy-draining situations here, so not giving the evolution of the thread(s) sufficient attention I guess. Apologies.
The strongest protection against climate, current and speculated, is the elimination of poverty as quickly as possible. Not first world poverty, but the kind in the third and developing worlds.
The strongest protection against climate, current and speculated, is the elimination of poverty as quickly as possible. Not first world poverty, but the kind in the third and developing worlds.
“Other folks will get their turn later on.”
The biggest change I’ve noticed over the past 23 years is that winters in my area are usually much milder now, especially when there are El Ninos. Between this and buying at the bottom of the real estate market moving here was the smartest decision I ever made.
Of course I feel horribly guilty about it all.
“Other folks will get their turn later on.”
The biggest change I’ve noticed over the past 23 years is that winters in my area are usually much milder now, especially when there are El Ninos. Between this and buying at the bottom of the real estate market moving here was the smartest decision I ever made.
Of course I feel horribly guilty about it all.
Of course I feel horribly guilty about it all.
Sarcasm?
Of course I feel horribly guilty about it all.
Sarcasm?
the elimination of poverty as quickly as possible
better get some AI on it, because humans haven’t had any luck solving that one.
the elimination of poverty as quickly as possible
better get some AI on it, because humans haven’t had any luck solving that one.
Some people some places must be doing something right as billions of people have escaped abject poverty in just the past couple of decades.
Some people some places must be doing something right as billions of people have escaped abject poverty in just the past couple of decades.
Nope. Not sarcasm. When the El Ninos are causing destruction and misery for so many people around the world it’s pretty weird to enjoy the better weather they cause here.
Nope. Not sarcasm. When the El Ninos are causing destruction and misery for so many people around the world it’s pretty weird to enjoy the better weather they cause here.
This thread may already be the longest in ObWi history. So let’s make it a bit longer.
If Marty is still around, I would still like him to explain this “economic growth” business. Cutting taxes for the rich (and/or cutting services for the poor) is supposed to benefit the great middle class by way of higher “growth”. This has been a Republican/conservative mantra since forever. Shifting income and wealth upward is their perennial goal; “growth” is their perennial excuse. Republicans/conservatives seem to believe that faster “growth” is always possible and always good.
So I’d like a clear, Republican/conservative, explanation of what “growth” means. Does it mean more and more haircuts per capita? Does it mean the same number of haircuts per capita, just more expensive ones? Does it mean more steel going into more cars that burn more gasoline, year after year? Or what?
If McKinney is still around, I’d like to know his reaction to my argument up-thread that higher marginal rates on the personal income tax can result in “job creators” having more incentive to hire job consumers.
But then, I’d like a pony, too.
–TP
This thread may already be the longest in ObWi history. So let’s make it a bit longer.
If Marty is still around, I would still like him to explain this “economic growth” business. Cutting taxes for the rich (and/or cutting services for the poor) is supposed to benefit the great middle class by way of higher “growth”. This has been a Republican/conservative mantra since forever. Shifting income and wealth upward is their perennial goal; “growth” is their perennial excuse. Republicans/conservatives seem to believe that faster “growth” is always possible and always good.
So I’d like a clear, Republican/conservative, explanation of what “growth” means. Does it mean more and more haircuts per capita? Does it mean the same number of haircuts per capita, just more expensive ones? Does it mean more steel going into more cars that burn more gasoline, year after year? Or what?
If McKinney is still around, I’d like to know his reaction to my argument up-thread that higher marginal rates on the personal income tax can result in “job creators” having more incentive to hire job consumers.
But then, I’d like a pony, too.
–TP
I cut my own hair. No money changes hands, but I still have less hair afterwards. It’s really strange. If everyone did that, the barbers would be proctologists or some such. Then we’d have to get more and/or more-expensive colostomies for economic growth to happen. Whatever it takes, right?
I cut my own hair. No money changes hands, but I still have less hair afterwards. It’s really strange. If everyone did that, the barbers would be proctologists or some such. Then we’d have to get more and/or more-expensive colostomies for economic growth to happen. Whatever it takes, right?
I cut my own hair. No money changes hands,…
Wickard v. Filburn seems to imply that doing so could potentually be subject to federal regulation.
I cut my own hair. No money changes hands,…
Wickard v. Filburn seems to imply that doing so could potentually be subject to federal regulation.
Wickard v. Filburn seems to imply that doing so could potentually be subject to federal regulation.
Unlikely. No accounting in that case for style.
Wickard v. Filburn seems to imply that doing so could potentually be subject to federal regulation.
Unlikely. No accounting in that case for style.
I’m struggling to come up with a way for haircuts to be involved in interstate commerce. No doubt just a failure of imagination on my part.
I’m struggling to come up with a way for haircuts to be involved in interstate commerce. No doubt just a failure of imagination on my part.
I read Wickard years ago, more than once (and am not going to repeat the exercise tonight), because a long-banned commenter bitched about it so much that I got curious about what it actually said. (He said it meant that the government could ban people from growing their own food.)
In my IANAL opinion, it was ambiguous on some important points. The one I remember most clearly was: would the federal government have been telling the farmer how much wheat he could and couldn’t grow if the farmer hadn’t also wanted to be in the government subsidy program? (I don’t remember the details, but I do remember that the opinion was hazy on that point among others, and that a lawyer friend agreed with me about that.)
I have the impression that Wickard is a favorite stalking horse of people who don’t like government regulation, but it didn’t seem to me that it said clearly and unambiguously what they wish it had said. (Don’t mean you necessarily, CharlesWT.) Real lawyers can feel free to correct me; the actual unambiguous language that I somehow missed or misinterpreted would be welcome.
I read Wickard years ago, more than once (and am not going to repeat the exercise tonight), because a long-banned commenter bitched about it so much that I got curious about what it actually said. (He said it meant that the government could ban people from growing their own food.)
In my IANAL opinion, it was ambiguous on some important points. The one I remember most clearly was: would the federal government have been telling the farmer how much wheat he could and couldn’t grow if the farmer hadn’t also wanted to be in the government subsidy program? (I don’t remember the details, but I do remember that the opinion was hazy on that point among others, and that a lawyer friend agreed with me about that.)
I have the impression that Wickard is a favorite stalking horse of people who don’t like government regulation, but it didn’t seem to me that it said clearly and unambiguously what they wish it had said. (Don’t mean you necessarily, CharlesWT.) Real lawyers can feel free to correct me; the actual unambiguous language that I somehow missed or misinterpreted would be welcome.
Unable to help myself, I checked Wikipedia on Wickard. The framing still seems quite slanted to me, but I don’t have time (or, honestly, interest, at the moment) to try to wade through analysis, subsequent decisions, etc. I certainly don’t want to turn this already long thread into streams of lawyer-talk. 😉
Unable to help myself, I checked Wikipedia on Wickard. The framing still seems quite slanted to me, but I don’t have time (or, honestly, interest, at the moment) to try to wade through analysis, subsequent decisions, etc. I certainly don’t want to turn this already long thread into streams of lawyer-talk. 😉
I cut my own hair. No money changes hands,…
Wickard v. Filburn seems to imply that doing so could potentually be subject to federal regulation.
you seem to imply that Wickard seems to imply that having a wank could potentially lead to prosecution for solicitation.
which seems unlikely. but I guess you never know.
you say Wickard, I say Lochner. Whatever. Sometimes the courts don’t get it right.
I cut my own hair. No money changes hands,…
Wickard v. Filburn seems to imply that doing so could potentually be subject to federal regulation.
you seem to imply that Wickard seems to imply that having a wank could potentially lead to prosecution for solicitation.
which seems unlikely. but I guess you never know.
you say Wickard, I say Lochner. Whatever. Sometimes the courts don’t get it right.
Sometimes the courts don’t get it right.
True that though we would likely disagree on some of the cases.
Sometimes the courts don’t get it right.
True that though we would likely disagree on some of the cases.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/carrier-plant-where-trump-saved-jobs-plans-layoffs/ar-BBBsNjX
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/carrier-plant-where-trump-saved-jobs-plans-layoffs/ar-BBBsNjX
Maybe the Carrier workers can join the “gag” economy:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/05/24/uber-admits-stiffing-nyc-drivers-by-tens-millions-dollars.html
I hope they aren’t diabetics.
Maybe the Carrier workers can join the “gag” economy:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/05/24/uber-admits-stiffing-nyc-drivers-by-tens-millions-dollars.html
I hope they aren’t diabetics.
Bangladesh, as an example, has about 160M people, and it basically sits in the biggest delta in the world. It won’t take much of either climate pattern change or water level rise to make it necessary for a lot of them to go elsewhere.
or southern FL, which sits mostly below 6′ above sea level. that’s a lot of people who will need to move.
and just think of what happens, pollution-wise, when all those big abandoned gulf coast cities permanently flood.
Bangladesh, as an example, has about 160M people, and it basically sits in the biggest delta in the world. It won’t take much of either climate pattern change or water level rise to make it necessary for a lot of them to go elsewhere.
or southern FL, which sits mostly below 6′ above sea level. that’s a lot of people who will need to move.
and just think of what happens, pollution-wise, when all those big abandoned gulf coast cities permanently flood.
For JanieM:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/05/keep-reading-mcculloch-till-you-understand-it-why-wickard-was-obviously-correct
For JanieM:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/05/keep-reading-mcculloch-till-you-understand-it-why-wickard-was-obviously-correct
From the Count’s Uber link:
LOL.
What Kalanick needs is a swift kick in the @ss.
From the Count’s Uber link:
LOL.
What Kalanick needs is a swift kick in the @ss.
Lopez gave Wickard a bit of a slap down, so I think self-pleasuring is probably safe from federal interference.
For now.
Lopez gave Wickard a bit of a slap down, so I think self-pleasuring is probably safe from federal interference.
For now.
“or southern FL, which sits mostly below 6′ above sea level. that’s a lot of people who will need to move.”
Clearly, we need to “build the wall”, amirite?
“or southern FL, which sits mostly below 6′ above sea level. that’s a lot of people who will need to move.”
Clearly, we need to “build the wall”, amirite?
Thanks, bobbyp. Here’s my point stated quite clearly at the link (my bold):
Off to breakfast. 🙂
Thanks, bobbyp. Here’s my point stated quite clearly at the link (my bold):
Off to breakfast. 🙂
And from bobbyp’s:
And from bobbyp’s:
This is rather extraordinary:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-a-dubious-russian-document-influenced-the-fbis-handling-of-the-clinton-probe/2017/05/24/f375c07c-3a95-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html
This is rather extraordinary:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-a-dubious-russian-document-influenced-the-fbis-handling-of-the-clinton-probe/2017/05/24/f375c07c-3a95-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html
Nigel, I saw that, and yes. The Russians were very good at figuring out just what formula of buttons to push. It worked on the electorate, and it worked (if this article doesn’t overstate matters) on the FBI.
It’s disturbing on a lot of levels, including – what do we do about people’s willingness to be duped by fake evidence confirming their bias? This is going to be hard going forward, whether or not we solve (big if) our current problem of Donald Trump and his band of fascists.
Nigel, I saw that, and yes. The Russians were very good at figuring out just what formula of buttons to push. It worked on the electorate, and it worked (if this article doesn’t overstate matters) on the FBI.
It’s disturbing on a lot of levels, including – what do we do about people’s willingness to be duped by fake evidence confirming their bias? This is going to be hard going forward, whether or not we solve (big if) our current problem of Donald Trump and his band of fascists.
Don’t tell anyone, but my sources tell me we have two nuclear-armed submarines patrolling the waters adjacent to North Korea.
Mum’s the word.
Loose lips .. well, you know the drill.
Don’t tell any right wing murderous Filipinos.
Don’t tell anyone, but my sources tell me we have two nuclear-armed submarines patrolling the waters adjacent to North Korea.
Mum’s the word.
Loose lips .. well, you know the drill.
Don’t tell any right wing murderous Filipinos.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/he-could-be-crazy-so-well-see-what.html
Duterte is about to place even more of the Philippines under martial law, with the approval of Donald trump. No doubt the former is counseling the latter to do the same in the United States.
Duterte makes the Marcos’ look like women’s shoe store sales girls.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/he-could-be-crazy-so-well-see-what.html
Duterte is about to place even more of the Philippines under martial law, with the approval of Donald trump. No doubt the former is counseling the latter to do the same in the United States.
Duterte makes the Marcos’ look like women’s shoe store sales girls.
Well this is good news, at least:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-base-is-shrinking/
Well this is good news, at least:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-base-is-shrinking/
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/greg-gianforte-surprisingly-sensitive-about-cbos-score-ahca
Listen.
American journalists need to carry deadly force when anywhere near fucking republicans.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/greg-gianforte-surprisingly-sensitive-about-cbos-score-ahca
Listen.
American journalists need to carry deadly force when anywhere near fucking republicans.
More:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/big-crazy-news-out-of-montana
More:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/big-crazy-news-out-of-montana
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-presidents-american-carnage-budget.html
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-presidents-american-carnage-budget.html
So Greg Gianforte is one of Marty’s folks. Marty? Am I wrong? I’m happy to be wrong! McKinney? Stroking your chin?
All good, Trump folks! Y’all did a good thing didn’t you? Fascism in America.
I suggest that we quit blaming various groups (be it “wealthy” or “wwc” or whatever), and start calling out anyone who made a choice that furthers this Republican thuggery (by not voting for the reasonable person on the ticket).
Own it.
So Greg Gianforte is one of Marty’s folks. Marty? Am I wrong? I’m happy to be wrong! McKinney? Stroking your chin?
All good, Trump folks! Y’all did a good thing didn’t you? Fascism in America.
I suggest that we quit blaming various groups (be it “wealthy” or “wwc” or whatever), and start calling out anyone who made a choice that furthers this Republican thuggery (by not voting for the reasonable person on the ticket).
Own it.
Is McConnell a mole?
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/05/23/if-trump-is-putins-useful-idiot-isnt-the-gop-too/
Is McConnell a mole?
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/05/23/if-trump-is-putins-useful-idiot-isnt-the-gop-too/
Sessions must resign.
And then kill himself:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sessions-did-not-disclose-kislyak-meeting-security-clearance-application
Sessions must resign.
And then kill himself:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sessions-did-not-disclose-kislyak-meeting-security-clearance-application
Written by a conservative:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-rock-for-president/
Natch, the silver lining the dumb shit detects, and hopes for, in electing another know-nothing horse’s ass to the Presidency and which he compares to the compensations prison gangs find when prisons won’t and can’t protect them is the further degrading of government.
Key passage:
“When government becomes more incompetent and less trusted, advocates could begin to more convincingly emphasize local solutions instead of always looking to the federal government for answers.”
Keep it up, pigfuckers. You will need the GoFundMe campaigns for healthcare the writer extolls and Russell has decried here because I will fucking hurt all of you.
Written by a conservative:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-rock-for-president/
Natch, the silver lining the dumb shit detects, and hopes for, in electing another know-nothing horse’s ass to the Presidency and which he compares to the compensations prison gangs find when prisons won’t and can’t protect them is the further degrading of government.
Key passage:
“When government becomes more incompetent and less trusted, advocates could begin to more convincingly emphasize local solutions instead of always looking to the federal government for answers.”
Keep it up, pigfuckers. You will need the GoFundMe campaigns for healthcare the writer extolls and Russell has decried here because I will fucking hurt all of you.
This is very, very, good.
Read it. The whole thing.
This is very, very, good.
Read it. The whole thing.
Enough sapient, and I am filing a direct complaint with the kitty. The only bully around here is you. I am as calm and even keeled as one can get and I’m finished listening to you without complaint.
As far as Trumps base shrinking y’all keep believing that. Trump people, no, anyone Republican, are threatened and abused every day, bullied online and accused of ridiculous things. Politicians are physically threatened, and your party is sending people to town meetings to intimidate and threaten. Where is all that outrage from when Tea party folks showed up? You are the most, and I’ve avoided this word for over half a decade, hypocritical commenter I have ever dealt with. So you know what, if the reporter gets in his face and doesnt take no for an answer, im ok with him getting punched. If you dont watch yourself you may get that war youre agitating for.
There is no excuse for what is happening to any GOP person today.
The Sessions stuff is months old retread information.
So now, in this comment I’ve defended Trump people and Sessions, neither of whom I like or support, because you are more dangerous than them. Really think your side wins by doing that?
Enough sapient, and I am filing a direct complaint with the kitty. The only bully around here is you. I am as calm and even keeled as one can get and I’m finished listening to you without complaint.
As far as Trumps base shrinking y’all keep believing that. Trump people, no, anyone Republican, are threatened and abused every day, bullied online and accused of ridiculous things. Politicians are physically threatened, and your party is sending people to town meetings to intimidate and threaten. Where is all that outrage from when Tea party folks showed up? You are the most, and I’ve avoided this word for over half a decade, hypocritical commenter I have ever dealt with. So you know what, if the reporter gets in his face and doesnt take no for an answer, im ok with him getting punched. If you dont watch yourself you may get that war youre agitating for.
There is no excuse for what is happening to any GOP person today.
The Sessions stuff is months old retread information.
So now, in this comment I’ve defended Trump people and Sessions, neither of whom I like or support, because you are more dangerous than them. Really think your side wins by doing that?
So now, in this comment I’ve defended Trump people and Sessions, neither of whom I like or support, because you are more dangerous than them. Really think your side wins by doing that?
My side won.
But didn’t. Hmmm.
So now, in this comment I’ve defended Trump people and Sessions, neither of whom I like or support, because you are more dangerous than them. Really think your side wins by doing that?
My side won.
But didn’t. Hmmm.
Marty, you might want to read that 538 piece. They may be wrong. But they actually do have some serious data to back up what they are saying about Trump’s base eroding.
As I say, they could be wrong; polling isn’t perfect. But if you are going to argue that they are wrong, you really should offer up some countervailing data. There well may be some available somewhere. But I, for one, haven’t seen it yet.
Marty, you might want to read that 538 piece. They may be wrong. But they actually do have some serious data to back up what they are saying about Trump’s base eroding.
As I say, they could be wrong; polling isn’t perfect. But if you are going to argue that they are wrong, you really should offer up some countervailing data. There well may be some available somewhere. But I, for one, haven’t seen it yet.
I am as calm and even keeled as one can get
True, for a fascist Richard Spencer is calm too. Even keeled as well. But harmful to everyone with his views. By the way, I’m not in favor of banning your fascist, evil, cruel, hateful views.
I am as calm and even keeled as one can get
True, for a fascist Richard Spencer is calm too. Even keeled as well. But harmful to everyone with his views. By the way, I’m not in favor of banning your fascist, evil, cruel, hateful views.
Marty: Other than to note it, I am speechless at the hypocrisy in this statement.
Well okay, it was more than half a decade ago.
That was quite the thread. Plus ça change….
Marty: Other than to note it, I am speechless at the hypocrisy in this statement.
Well okay, it was more than half a decade ago.
That was quite the thread. Plus ça change….
True believers in He, Trump believe that His garden-variety supporters will never lose their faith in Him because they can’t imagine doing so.
Not saying Marty is a true believer in He, Trump; I take him at his word on that. Marty just feels that we libruls are the devil’s spawn and our criticism of He, Trump (and of conservatives) is obviously based on nothing more than tribal hatred — the kind of tribal hatred that conservatives would never display.
Oh, and Marty’s whimsical suggestion that sapient is “the most … hypocritical commenter I have ever dealt with” is enough to make a Kitty laugh — or at least doubt that Marty knows what “hypocritical” means.
As for Marty’s political advice, which appears to amount to ‘stop being beastly to any “GOP person” or you will drive them away from supporting Democrats’, I have to laugh myself.
–TP
True believers in He, Trump believe that His garden-variety supporters will never lose their faith in Him because they can’t imagine doing so.
Not saying Marty is a true believer in He, Trump; I take him at his word on that. Marty just feels that we libruls are the devil’s spawn and our criticism of He, Trump (and of conservatives) is obviously based on nothing more than tribal hatred — the kind of tribal hatred that conservatives would never display.
Oh, and Marty’s whimsical suggestion that sapient is “the most … hypocritical commenter I have ever dealt with” is enough to make a Kitty laugh — or at least doubt that Marty knows what “hypocritical” means.
As for Marty’s political advice, which appears to amount to ‘stop being beastly to any “GOP person” or you will drive them away from supporting Democrats’, I have to laugh myself.
–TP
I figured it was longer, but I wasn’t sure how long.
I figured it was longer, but I wasn’t sure how long.
I am as calm and even keeled as one can get
Thank goodness.
I am as calm and even keeled as one can get
Thank goodness.
And then kill himself
dude, c’mon.
Enough sapient, and I am filing a direct complaint with the kitty
I do not speak for the kitty, but I agree that the hating on Marty is not warranted and needs to be toned down.
regarding the rest of Marty’s comment, the crap you object to in how People Like You are treated is an exact mirror of how People Like Me are treated. Except some of your guys bring their firearms to the conversation.
the times are what they are. if you want to engage with people who aren’t like you, you’re going to be on the receiving end of some undeserved BS, some of it quite personal.
i’m not sure hypocrisy is even possible these days. many if most people sincerely believe that folks who aren’t like them are not simply wrong or mistaken, but are actually bad, or at least have bad motivations.
maybe they are right, some of the time.
as far as the thing in Montana goes, it doesn’t matter how “in his face” the reporter got. I hope that jerk loses to the folk singer, just because he thinks assaulting reporters who bug him is an OK thing to do.
and I’d leave the “you may just get that war” thing out of it. People Like Me have been threatened with that crap non-stop for the last 15 years, at least. it’s stupid, and it just encourages the knuckleheads.
People Like You, or at least the people you seem to want to speak for, love talking about all the liberal ass they’re gonna kick one of these days. fine, blow off steam. if it gets real, they will find that people aren’t really interested in having their asses kicked.
And then kill himself
dude, c’mon.
Enough sapient, and I am filing a direct complaint with the kitty
I do not speak for the kitty, but I agree that the hating on Marty is not warranted and needs to be toned down.
regarding the rest of Marty’s comment, the crap you object to in how People Like You are treated is an exact mirror of how People Like Me are treated. Except some of your guys bring their firearms to the conversation.
the times are what they are. if you want to engage with people who aren’t like you, you’re going to be on the receiving end of some undeserved BS, some of it quite personal.
i’m not sure hypocrisy is even possible these days. many if most people sincerely believe that folks who aren’t like them are not simply wrong or mistaken, but are actually bad, or at least have bad motivations.
maybe they are right, some of the time.
as far as the thing in Montana goes, it doesn’t matter how “in his face” the reporter got. I hope that jerk loses to the folk singer, just because he thinks assaulting reporters who bug him is an OK thing to do.
and I’d leave the “you may just get that war” thing out of it. People Like Me have been threatened with that crap non-stop for the last 15 years, at least. it’s stupid, and it just encourages the knuckleheads.
People Like You, or at least the people you seem to want to speak for, love talking about all the liberal ass they’re gonna kick one of these days. fine, blow off steam. if it gets real, they will find that people aren’t really interested in having their asses kicked.
This is very, very, good.
Cracked magazine online, FTW yet again.
For straight news, I like Reuters, CSM, the Beeb. Maybe the AP.
if I want to read stuff that reinforces everything I already think,
Mother Jones, Pro Publica, McClatchy.
if I want to read thoughtful commentary that actually makes me think twice, Cracked magazine online.
This is very, very, good.
Cracked magazine online, FTW yet again.
For straight news, I like Reuters, CSM, the Beeb. Maybe the AP.
if I want to read stuff that reinforces everything I already think,
Mother Jones, Pro Publica, McClatchy.
if I want to read thoughtful commentary that actually makes me think twice, Cracked magazine online.
Just as a last note, people like me haven’t been talking about kicking anyone’s ass. People like me are completely baffled by the level of physical threats, explicit or barely not, in political engagement. Key reasons, supporting violence between Americans, we didn’t support Trump suddenly being supported by pretty much every group. And then indignation, like all that physical violence talk wouldn’t lead to someone thinking it would be ok.
People like me didn’t support it then or now. And, for me, the warning about getting a war was an observation, not a threat from me.
Just as a last note, people like me haven’t been talking about kicking anyone’s ass. People like me are completely baffled by the level of physical threats, explicit or barely not, in political engagement. Key reasons, supporting violence between Americans, we didn’t support Trump suddenly being supported by pretty much every group. And then indignation, like all that physical violence talk wouldn’t lead to someone thinking it would be ok.
People like me didn’t support it then or now. And, for me, the warning about getting a war was an observation, not a threat from me.
I disagree vehemently and in the past often at length with Marty about pretty much all his opinions (except about Dylan). But it is perfectly clear that he holds these (wrongheaded) opinions sincerely, and with the view that they will result in a better country and society for the most people. Turning nasty on him is not only unwarranted, it also, as other commenters have noted, brings the tone of the debate down and makes reasoned discussion more difficult, if not impossible.
Apart from that, I’m totally with russell on this: Marty, your characterisation of the persecution of the poor put-upon Republicans is pretty funny. People turning up at Town Hall meetings to hold their congresspeople to account, even if raucously, is hardly the threat you imply. “Do your job” and “Your last term” are after all only expressions of trust in your democracy.
I disagree vehemently and in the past often at length with Marty about pretty much all his opinions (except about Dylan). But it is perfectly clear that he holds these (wrongheaded) opinions sincerely, and with the view that they will result in a better country and society for the most people. Turning nasty on him is not only unwarranted, it also, as other commenters have noted, brings the tone of the debate down and makes reasoned discussion more difficult, if not impossible.
Apart from that, I’m totally with russell on this: Marty, your characterisation of the persecution of the poor put-upon Republicans is pretty funny. People turning up at Town Hall meetings to hold their congresspeople to account, even if raucously, is hardly the threat you imply. “Do your job” and “Your last term” are after all only expressions of trust in your democracy.
protests from the left are never valid.
(corollary #1)
protests from the left are never valid.
(corollary #1)
GftNC,
I appreciate your perspective, your characterization of the active hatred and physical threats as funny leads me to believe you dont have a view of what is happening at these events, but also online and in person for any Republican. sapient is the norm in the way people get bullied anytime they admit to supporting the GOP. Besides the standard “ist” insults they are accused of being hateful etc. and generally get the count type “you’re gonna pay” threats.
Mostly these are people supporting pretty standard Republican positions that have been a normal part of our discussions for as long as there has been a US.
Whether one agrees with these positions or not the character attacks and threats are completely unnecessary.
Is there a view that these types of things happen to Dems? Sure, but the vehemence of the hatred from those sources is only duplicated on the right by pretty universally denounced right wing groups.
GftNC,
I appreciate your perspective, your characterization of the active hatred and physical threats as funny leads me to believe you dont have a view of what is happening at these events, but also online and in person for any Republican. sapient is the norm in the way people get bullied anytime they admit to supporting the GOP. Besides the standard “ist” insults they are accused of being hateful etc. and generally get the count type “you’re gonna pay” threats.
Mostly these are people supporting pretty standard Republican positions that have been a normal part of our discussions for as long as there has been a US.
Whether one agrees with these positions or not the character attacks and threats are completely unnecessary.
Is there a view that these types of things happen to Dems? Sure, but the vehemence of the hatred from those sources is only duplicated on the right by pretty universally denounced right wing groups.
Politicians are physically threatened,
LOL
you be sure to let us know when the “politician in crosshairs” becomes a favorite graphic design trope among liberals.
and your party is sending people to town meetings to intimidate and threaten.
are they armed?
do you have dozens of instances of liberal protesters strutting around with their tricked-out AR-15s, trying to look like spokesmodels for Guns n Ammo ?
Politicians are physically threatened,
LOL
you be sure to let us know when the “politician in crosshairs” becomes a favorite graphic design trope among liberals.
and your party is sending people to town meetings to intimidate and threaten.
are they armed?
do you have dozens of instances of liberal protesters strutting around with their tricked-out AR-15s, trying to look like spokesmodels for Guns n Ammo ?
FWIW, this:
and this:
seem…. contradictory. to me, anyway. maybe one was ironic?
seriously, show me anything rude, hateful, or threatening from “the left” and I’ll show you the equivalent from the other side.
then I’ll show you the equivalent from the other side carrying an AR-15.
folks like me have been living with this crap for a long time.
FWIW, this:
and this:
seem…. contradictory. to me, anyway. maybe one was ironic?
seriously, show me anything rude, hateful, or threatening from “the left” and I’ll show you the equivalent from the other side.
then I’ll show you the equivalent from the other side carrying an AR-15.
folks like me have been living with this crap for a long time.
folks like me have been living with this crap for a long time.
and not, remotely, only from “pretty universally denounced right wing groups”.
if you think “your side” has clean hands, you need to guess again.
folks like me have been living with this crap for a long time.
and not, remotely, only from “pretty universally denounced right wing groups”.
if you think “your side” has clean hands, you need to guess again.
I’m baffled that somehow a reporter can walk into campaign headquarters, be told the candidate can’t see him, interrupt an ongoing meeting by entering a room where the candidate is having the meeting, stick a Mic in the candidates face, be told that he will get answer later, refuse to leave insisting that he get an answer now, then when the candidate loses his temper, we are surprised and act like the reporter was “Just doing his job”.
So no I’m not in favor of his reaction, nor the reporters actions.
I’m baffled that somehow a reporter can walk into campaign headquarters, be told the candidate can’t see him, interrupt an ongoing meeting by entering a room where the candidate is having the meeting, stick a Mic in the candidates face, be told that he will get answer later, refuse to leave insisting that he get an answer now, then when the candidate loses his temper, we are surprised and act like the reporter was “Just doing his job”.
So no I’m not in favor of his reaction, nor the reporters actions.
leads me to believe you dont have a view of what is happening at these events
I’m wondering how many Trump rallies, etc, Marty has been to in order draw conclusions about ‘these events’.
leads me to believe you dont have a view of what is happening at these events
I’m wondering how many Trump rallies, etc, Marty has been to in order draw conclusions about ‘these events’.
i gotta say, this “conservatives are the real victims” shtick is one of the most amusing things i’ve read in a long time.
are we supposed to believe the last 9 years didn’t happen? are we supposed to believe Trump didn’t actually encourage his supporters to beat up liberals? all those guys with guns showing up at town halls or stroking their guns at Starbucks were really just a mass hallucination? liberal hunting permits aren’t real?
is Marty trying to gaslight us all?
i gotta say, this “conservatives are the real victims” shtick is one of the most amusing things i’ve read in a long time.
are we supposed to believe the last 9 years didn’t happen? are we supposed to believe Trump didn’t actually encourage his supporters to beat up liberals? all those guys with guns showing up at town halls or stroking their guns at Starbucks were really just a mass hallucination? liberal hunting permits aren’t real?
is Marty trying to gaslight us all?
Sure, Marty, you and your conservative fellow-travelers are the real victims in all of this. Not sure how you’re going to survive years and years of liberal domination of Washington DC, but I’m sure you’ll try.
If you need any help climbing up on that cross, give us a shout. I have some extra 2x4s and a screw-gun that can come in handy also, too.
Sure, Marty, you and your conservative fellow-travelers are the real victims in all of this. Not sure how you’re going to survive years and years of liberal domination of Washington DC, but I’m sure you’ll try.
If you need any help climbing up on that cross, give us a shout. I have some extra 2x4s and a screw-gun that can come in handy also, too.
As far as I can tell, it was sapient’s 9:17PM comment that set off Marty’s 10:15PM cri de coeur.
I note that sapient addressed his comment to both Marty and McKinney, so I can’t wait to see McKinney’s reaction.
Meanwhile, let’s not over-pander to Marty’s peevishness. He’s a big boy, and no more entitled to a pat on the head and a lollipop than any other person (“GOP person” or not) who airs his own strong views on the world wide web.
And when his views include “So you know what, if the reporter gets in his face and doesnt take no for an answer, im ok with him getting punched”, Marty can bite me.
–TP
As far as I can tell, it was sapient’s 9:17PM comment that set off Marty’s 10:15PM cri de coeur.
I note that sapient addressed his comment to both Marty and McKinney, so I can’t wait to see McKinney’s reaction.
Meanwhile, let’s not over-pander to Marty’s peevishness. He’s a big boy, and no more entitled to a pat on the head and a lollipop than any other person (“GOP person” or not) who airs his own strong views on the world wide web.
And when his views include “So you know what, if the reporter gets in his face and doesnt take no for an answer, im ok with him getting punched”, Marty can bite me.
–TP
I’m just not sure whether I should be snowflake or a thug today. Can I be both?
I’m just not sure whether I should be snowflake or a thug today. Can I be both?
i’m a snow-thug!
/ralphWiggum
i’m a snow-thug!
/ralphWiggum
“In 2017 Russia, snowflake beats up YOU!”
“In 2017 Russia, snowflake beats up YOU!”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/greg-gianforte-charged-misdemeanor-assault
Lucky the reporter is not an NRA member who has been advised to counter violence with deadly force. Apparently Gianforte has a problem with an open carry microphone. He favors open carry of weaponry in the Montana State House.
As an aside, how did a guy with a cosmo(neo)politan sounding name like “Gianforte” rise to the top in Montana?
Weren’t his forebears Italian anarchists of some kind?
Reporters should ask republicans to speak into the barrel and keep it short.
https://www.nationaljournal.com/hotline/print/2017/4/21
Both parties kowtow to violent, threatening extremism, because America. You gonna point or shoot a weapon at the TV screen during a political ad I’m watching, Elvis, as a political statement? Then expect your townhall audiences to be armed accordingly, safeties off, clips bigly.
Assholes. And the Democrats who do it remind of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I
http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/24/nra-ceo-goes-after-protesters-well-fight-the-violent-left/
LaPierre lumps in left-wing media, nearly all media that is, in his mind, with the black-masked nihilists perpetrating senseless illegal violence at demonstrations for violent retribution.
As “you’re gonna pay” threats go, my pathetic rants here pale in comparison to the $30 million the ever-threatening NRA spent alone in 2016 to sponsor a fuck who encouraged violence by his crowds from the campaign dais against journalists, liberals, and his own supporters if they were black and questioned him in any way during his rallies.
The word “pretty” does a lot of work in the phrase “pretty universally denounced right wing groups”.
Finally, if Hillary Clinton had won the election, she would be dead now (and not from the flu) shot down at the hands of a republican after a full-throated post-election (the pre-election campaign threatening violence apparently having not been enough) campaign of threatened violence by the usual suspects, including Sean Hannity, Wayne Lapierre, and the entire edifice of trump losers who pledged to NOT concede the election if she won.
The right wing would party publicly for days afterwards in the usual red states, while John McCain tut-tutted the violence as he sucked NRA dick.
We’d just now be watching the last scraps of black bunting being swept up by uninsured maintenance workers after the cortege passed along Pennsylvania Avenue and as Vice President Kaine conferred with the Secret Service to protect HIMSELF from the emboldened violent right wing in America, including trump’s personal security detail, advised by Putin’s secret police.
Marty, I try and speak over your head at the real enemies.
I cop to hypocrisy. I also cop to putting my pants on one leg at a time because the last time I stood on a chair and leaped into them two feet at once, something went awry and I banged my head on the far wall.
Nearly went out the window.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/greg-gianforte-charged-misdemeanor-assault
Lucky the reporter is not an NRA member who has been advised to counter violence with deadly force. Apparently Gianforte has a problem with an open carry microphone. He favors open carry of weaponry in the Montana State House.
As an aside, how did a guy with a cosmo(neo)politan sounding name like “Gianforte” rise to the top in Montana?
Weren’t his forebears Italian anarchists of some kind?
Reporters should ask republicans to speak into the barrel and keep it short.
https://www.nationaljournal.com/hotline/print/2017/4/21
Both parties kowtow to violent, threatening extremism, because America. You gonna point or shoot a weapon at the TV screen during a political ad I’m watching, Elvis, as a political statement? Then expect your townhall audiences to be armed accordingly, safeties off, clips bigly.
Assholes. And the Democrats who do it remind of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I
http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/24/nra-ceo-goes-after-protesters-well-fight-the-violent-left/
LaPierre lumps in left-wing media, nearly all media that is, in his mind, with the black-masked nihilists perpetrating senseless illegal violence at demonstrations for violent retribution.
As “you’re gonna pay” threats go, my pathetic rants here pale in comparison to the $30 million the ever-threatening NRA spent alone in 2016 to sponsor a fuck who encouraged violence by his crowds from the campaign dais against journalists, liberals, and his own supporters if they were black and questioned him in any way during his rallies.
The word “pretty” does a lot of work in the phrase “pretty universally denounced right wing groups”.
Finally, if Hillary Clinton had won the election, she would be dead now (and not from the flu) shot down at the hands of a republican after a full-throated post-election (the pre-election campaign threatening violence apparently having not been enough) campaign of threatened violence by the usual suspects, including Sean Hannity, Wayne Lapierre, and the entire edifice of trump losers who pledged to NOT concede the election if she won.
The right wing would party publicly for days afterwards in the usual red states, while John McCain tut-tutted the violence as he sucked NRA dick.
We’d just now be watching the last scraps of black bunting being swept up by uninsured maintenance workers after the cortege passed along Pennsylvania Avenue and as Vice President Kaine conferred with the Secret Service to protect HIMSELF from the emboldened violent right wing in America, including trump’s personal security detail, advised by Putin’s secret police.
Marty, I try and speak over your head at the real enemies.
I cop to hypocrisy. I also cop to putting my pants on one leg at a time because the last time I stood on a chair and leaped into them two feet at once, something went awry and I banged my head on the far wall.
Nearly went out the window.
sapient is the norm in the way people get bullied anytime they admit to supporting the GOP
Other people have already covered the ludicrousness of implying that the bullying is all in one direction, but it’s also relevant that even at ObWi, never mind the wider world, sapient isn’t “the norm” in the way she treats people.
As for the reporter and the candidate, the Missoula paper, which had formerly endorsed Gianforte, had this to say last night:
There is a longer history and a bigger picture here, and, to put it mildly, conflicting versions of what was going on right when the assault happened. Believing the campaign’s version of events rather than oh, let’s say, that of the Fox news team that witnessed them…suggests something, but it sure isn’t that both sides don’t do it.
sapient is the norm in the way people get bullied anytime they admit to supporting the GOP
Other people have already covered the ludicrousness of implying that the bullying is all in one direction, but it’s also relevant that even at ObWi, never mind the wider world, sapient isn’t “the norm” in the way she treats people.
As for the reporter and the candidate, the Missoula paper, which had formerly endorsed Gianforte, had this to say last night:
There is a longer history and a bigger picture here, and, to put it mildly, conflicting versions of what was going on right when the assault happened. Believing the campaign’s version of events rather than oh, let’s say, that of the Fox news team that witnessed them…suggests something, but it sure isn’t that both sides don’t do it.
More on Gianforte’s history with the press. From the press, of course, so maybe it’s a biased account.
But still, if you want to be in Congress, handling the press without manhandling them [sorry, couldn’t resist] goes with the territory. YMMV; Gianforte’s apparently does.
More on Gianforte’s history with the press. From the press, of course, so maybe it’s a biased account.
But still, if you want to be in Congress, handling the press without manhandling them [sorry, couldn’t resist] goes with the territory. YMMV; Gianforte’s apparently does.
Laura Ingraham agrees with me on what the reporter should have done to Gianforte:
https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/status/867562982661816320
And if she had been in the room cackling over the entire thing, the reporter should have gone all Andy Kaufmann on her and kicked her in the nuts.
Laura Ingraham agrees with me on what the reporter should have done to Gianforte:
https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/status/867562982661816320
And if she had been in the room cackling over the entire thing, the reporter should have gone all Andy Kaufmann on her and kicked her in the nuts.
sapient is the norm in the way people get bullied anytime they admit to supporting the GOP.
Wow. I had a suspicion that I was living in some kind of bubble**, but this…?
I have gotten exactly zero hassle from those around me for being a Republican. Or for being a conservative.
Even though I live in an area with a (small) majority of Democrats. Even though I know some quite staunch and active Democratic partisans — including my boss.
It simply doesn’t happen. At least in person — commenters on blogs, other than this one, are a different story. (And the most rabid of them seem to be Trump enthusiasts/trolls.) Perhaps people elsewhere are a bit weak on manners (aka “political correctness”), but that’s pure speculation on my part.
** Of course, my Republican state Assemblywoman and Democratic state Senator hold joint town halls. And people, even when quite upset about some issue, manage to be reasonably civil.
sapient is the norm in the way people get bullied anytime they admit to supporting the GOP.
Wow. I had a suspicion that I was living in some kind of bubble**, but this…?
I have gotten exactly zero hassle from those around me for being a Republican. Or for being a conservative.
Even though I live in an area with a (small) majority of Democrats. Even though I know some quite staunch and active Democratic partisans — including my boss.
It simply doesn’t happen. At least in person — commenters on blogs, other than this one, are a different story. (And the most rabid of them seem to be Trump enthusiasts/trolls.) Perhaps people elsewhere are a bit weak on manners (aka “political correctness”), but that’s pure speculation on my part.
** Of course, my Republican state Assemblywoman and Democratic state Senator hold joint town halls. And people, even when quite upset about some issue, manage to be reasonably civil.
I need to understand opposing views and all too often the conversation deteriorates before we get there (ObWi is rare in this regard, imho). Without them I’m in an echo chamber and, as russell said, there are plenty of other places for that.
Maybe I’m just restating the obvious, but I’m glad for Marty’s, et al, presence, considered offerings, and willingness to take the heat for it. So thanks for abiding.
And now back to the throttling…
Which reminds me, re: OP, and continuing my efforts to restate the obvious, Gianforte wasn’t on a jetliner but there’s an emergent theme here. Violence is becoming more okay, and in situations it has largely been avoided. “US Spring” doesn’t have the same ring to it, but…?
I need to understand opposing views and all too often the conversation deteriorates before we get there (ObWi is rare in this regard, imho). Without them I’m in an echo chamber and, as russell said, there are plenty of other places for that.
Maybe I’m just restating the obvious, but I’m glad for Marty’s, et al, presence, considered offerings, and willingness to take the heat for it. So thanks for abiding.
And now back to the throttling…
Which reminds me, re: OP, and continuing my efforts to restate the obvious, Gianforte wasn’t on a jetliner but there’s an emergent theme here. Violence is becoming more okay, and in situations it has largely been avoided. “US Spring” doesn’t have the same ring to it, but…?
As an aside, how did a guy with a cosmo(neo)politan sounding name like “Gianforte” rise to the top in Montana?
Weren’t his forebears Italian anarchists of some kind?
Count, in case you were actually curious, Guanforte is originally from New Jersey. He made millions in IT there, and then later moved to Montana. I don’t know if anyone has been throwing “carpetbagger” epithets around. But he could certainly be characterized as something of an outsider.
As an aside, how did a guy with a cosmo(neo)politan sounding name like “Gianforte” rise to the top in Montana?
Weren’t his forebears Italian anarchists of some kind?
Count, in case you were actually curious, Guanforte is originally from New Jersey. He made millions in IT there, and then later moved to Montana. I don’t know if anyone has been throwing “carpetbagger” epithets around. But he could certainly be characterized as something of an outsider.
Believing the campaign’s version of events rather than oh, let’s say, that of the Fox news team that witnessed them…suggests something
Mostly what it suggests is that Fox News has become part of the liberal MSM. 😉
Believing the campaign’s version of events rather than oh, let’s say, that of the Fox news team that witnessed them…suggests something
Mostly what it suggests is that Fox News has become part of the liberal MSM. 😉
if you don’t want reporters in your face, you probably shouldn’t run for congress.
if you can’t handle being hassled without beating people up, you should probably get some counseling. and maybe spend some time in court, and maybe in jail.
I’ll bet that even (R)’s in MT would find little to argue with in any of that.
if you don’t want reporters in your face, you probably shouldn’t run for congress.
if you can’t handle being hassled without beating people up, you should probably get some counseling. and maybe spend some time in court, and maybe in jail.
I’ll bet that even (R)’s in MT would find little to argue with in any of that.
oh those poor persecuted conservatives and their constant calls for “2nd Amendment Remedies” to the problem of people who don’t share their politics. poor wittle snowfwakes.
oh those poor persecuted conservatives and their constant calls for “2nd Amendment Remedies” to the problem of people who don’t share their politics. poor wittle snowfwakes.
And if they have remedies, they’ll get ya with nostrums, placebos, and shitouttalucks:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/cbo-agrees-trumpcare-wipes-out-protections-pre-existing-conditions
And if they have remedies, they’ll get ya with nostrums, placebos, and shitouttalucks:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/cbo-agrees-trumpcare-wipes-out-protections-pre-existing-conditions
And if I had some “don’t’s”, that would have read “don’t have remedies”.
Try bringing a pre-existing condition to a gunfight and see what happens to ya.
And if I had some “don’t’s”, that would have read “don’t have remedies”.
Try bringing a pre-existing condition to a gunfight and see what happens to ya.
The Sessions stuff is months old retread information.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-says-sessions-was-instructed-not-to-disclose-meetings-with-foreign-dignitaries/
oh yeah?
he lied about not meeting with them in testimony. he lied about it on his form. and now we know that he lied about not being able to remember that he met with them.
the Attorney General is demonstrably a serial liar.
The Sessions stuff is months old retread information.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-says-sessions-was-instructed-not-to-disclose-meetings-with-foreign-dignitaries/
oh yeah?
he lied about not meeting with them in testimony. he lied about it on his form. and now we know that he lied about not being able to remember that he met with them.
the Attorney General is demonstrably a serial liar.
Marty, I didn’t say the active hatred and physical threats, such as they are (and I admit I think you’re majorly exaggerating them, particularly when you consider what Dems, liberals and lefties generally have had to put up with from rightwing pundits et al for the last decade at least) were funny. I said your characterisation of Republicans being persecuted in that way was funny, in view of what had gone before (see parentheses above). Especially because, as russell and the Count note, the Dems, liberals and lefties are so seldom if ever armed.
Whether one agrees with these positions or not the character attacks and threats are completely unnecessary.
This is, and has always been, my point. For those saying Marty is being over-sensitive, I would just note that somewhere upthread sapient accuses him of having “fascist, evil, cruel, hateful views”. I reiterate, I disagree with Marty completely, and think his views if acted upon would result (despite his intentions) in large scale suffering, but to characterise them in this way is absurd; apart from anything else, how would you then describe an actual cruel, evil fascist (and there are plenty of them about)?
Marty, I didn’t say the active hatred and physical threats, such as they are (and I admit I think you’re majorly exaggerating them, particularly when you consider what Dems, liberals and lefties generally have had to put up with from rightwing pundits et al for the last decade at least) were funny. I said your characterisation of Republicans being persecuted in that way was funny, in view of what had gone before (see parentheses above). Especially because, as russell and the Count note, the Dems, liberals and lefties are so seldom if ever armed.
Whether one agrees with these positions or not the character attacks and threats are completely unnecessary.
This is, and has always been, my point. For those saying Marty is being over-sensitive, I would just note that somewhere upthread sapient accuses him of having “fascist, evil, cruel, hateful views”. I reiterate, I disagree with Marty completely, and think his views if acted upon would result (despite his intentions) in large scale suffering, but to characterise them in this way is absurd; apart from anything else, how would you then describe an actual cruel, evil fascist (and there are plenty of them about)?
“… as russell and the Count note, the Dems, liberals and lefties are so seldom if ever armed.”
Except with such weapons as “wit”, “humor”, “facts” and “logic”.
It’s just SO unfair to use those weapons against the powerless unarmed conservative GOPers, isn’t it?
“… as russell and the Count note, the Dems, liberals and lefties are so seldom if ever armed.”
Except with such weapons as “wit”, “humor”, “facts” and “logic”.
It’s just SO unfair to use those weapons against the powerless unarmed conservative GOPers, isn’t it?
And that is one of the things that we lose when we start tossing accusations and epithets around casually. We deprive ourselves of the tools to address those who truly deserve them.
And that is one of the things that we lose when we start tossing accusations and epithets around casually. We deprive ourselves of the tools to address those who truly deserve them.
What the Atlantic said:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/05/man-reacts-to-assault/528120/
What the Atlantic said:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/05/man-reacts-to-assault/528120/
Snarki, are you saying that being witless, humorless, fact-free, and illogical aren’t weapons? Or just ineffective ones.
Snarki, are you saying that being witless, humorless, fact-free, and illogical aren’t weapons? Or just ineffective ones.
Mr Not-At-All-A-Delicate-Snowflake Trump’s lawyers are made at… Bloom County.
Mr Not-At-All-A-Delicate-Snowflake Trump’s lawyers are made at… Bloom County.
made,mad,whatevar
made,mad,whatevar
For those saying Marty is being over-sensitive, I would just note that somewhere upthread sapient accuses him of having “fascist, evil, cruel, hateful views”. I reiterate, I disagree with Marty completely, and think his views if acted upon would result (despite his intentions) in large scale suffering, but to characterise them in this way is absurd…”
Sorry, I forgot (yet again) that people whose views, if acted upon, would result in large scale suffering deserve the presumption of good intentions.
My bad!
For those saying Marty is being over-sensitive, I would just note that somewhere upthread sapient accuses him of having “fascist, evil, cruel, hateful views”. I reiterate, I disagree with Marty completely, and think his views if acted upon would result (despite his intentions) in large scale suffering, but to characterise them in this way is absurd…”
Sorry, I forgot (yet again) that people whose views, if acted upon, would result in large scale suffering deserve the presumption of good intentions.
My bad!
Hope this fixes the ital problem.
Hope this fixes the ital problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtAeVl8Erhg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtAeVl8Erhg
Marty: So you know what, if the reporter gets in his face and doesnt take no for an answer, im ok with him getting punched.
RedState: There is never an excuse for a politician to assault a reporter for asking questions. There are hundreds of photos to see with politicians talking into a sea of microphones, digital recorders, and smartphones. It comes with the job.
Et tu…..
Marty: So you know what, if the reporter gets in his face and doesnt take no for an answer, im ok with him getting punched.
RedState: There is never an excuse for a politician to assault a reporter for asking questions. There are hundreds of photos to see with politicians talking into a sea of microphones, digital recorders, and smartphones. It comes with the job.
Et tu…..
how would you then describe an actual cruel, evil fascist?
a really, really, really and truly crueler, eviler fascisterist.
how would you then describe an actual cruel, evil fascist?
a really, really, really and truly crueler, eviler fascisterist.
Whatever happened to that thug GOP Congressman from Staten Island who threatened to throw a reporter over the rail in the Capitol?
What next? Another Preston Brooks?
Whatever happened to that thug GOP Congressman from Staten Island who threatened to throw a reporter over the rail in the Capitol?
What next? Another Preston Brooks?
So the thug won in Montana. That should please Marty, for otherwise there would have been another Democrat in Congress to trample on his non-fascist views and obstruct his non-cruel policy preferences.
The thug addressed his assault on the reporter and said he was sorry. A woman in the crowd shouted “And you’re forgiven!”. They grow a presumptuous sort of female “GOP person” out in Trump country, don’t they?
The thug then declared that he is going to Washington to “fight for” this, that, and the other thing. All politicians say that, of course, but few of them say it the day after they committed assault and battery.
Oh, well: the Montana jury pool, like the Montana electorate, probably shares Marty’s empathy for Republican thugs who physically attack librul reporters, so he’ll probably be acquitted.
Well done, Montana.
–TP
So the thug won in Montana. That should please Marty, for otherwise there would have been another Democrat in Congress to trample on his non-fascist views and obstruct his non-cruel policy preferences.
The thug addressed his assault on the reporter and said he was sorry. A woman in the crowd shouted “And you’re forgiven!”. They grow a presumptuous sort of female “GOP person” out in Trump country, don’t they?
The thug then declared that he is going to Washington to “fight for” this, that, and the other thing. All politicians say that, of course, but few of them say it the day after they committed assault and battery.
Oh, well: the Montana jury pool, like the Montana electorate, probably shares Marty’s empathy for Republican thugs who physically attack librul reporters, so he’ll probably be acquitted.
Well done, Montana.
–TP
Tony, you’re totally ignoring that
a) 2/3 of Montana voters cast ballots before the assault occurred. So their votes can’t really be said to endorse his behavior. (Especially the folks who called in to ask about changing their vote; not an option, but they cared enough to ask.)
b) the relative votes, compared to November, suggest that, with equal shifts elsewhere, there would be a lot of seats changing hands.
Tony, you’re totally ignoring that
a) 2/3 of Montana voters cast ballots before the assault occurred. So their votes can’t really be said to endorse his behavior. (Especially the folks who called in to ask about changing their vote; not an option, but they cared enough to ask.)
b) the relative votes, compared to November, suggest that, with equal shifts elsewhere, there would be a lot of seats changing hands.
So the thug won in Montana
he’s gotta run again in about a year. and now everyone knows what he is.
So the thug won in Montana
he’s gotta run again in about a year. and now everyone knows what he is.
OK, so here’s the thing.
I get why it’s satisfying to accuse your ideological opponents of cruelty and evil, and annoying to be called on it by the apparently naïve. Times are hard, and getting harder for the people that need help most, and to have people advocating for policies that you believe will make those people’s lot tougher is hard to take.
But (and I use sapient and Marty as examples only because they are the latest occurring case) there is a great danger in giving in to this short-term satisfaction. Marty gave a fairly detailed explanation way upthread of why he thinks lowering taxes will help the country as a whole, to defend himself from accusations of lack of patriotism if I recall correctly. I have said more than once that I know nothing about economics, but I am perfectly prepared to believe my better informed ObWi brethren that this theory doesn’t work/wouldn’t work/has been thoroughly discredited. However, Marty sincerely believes it. He also sincerely believes the Barack Obama was a dictator, and Hillary Clinton an international criminal mastermind. I think we can deduce from this that he has been thoroughly got at by the vast rightwing conspiracy headed by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers and others too numerous to mention. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Marty considers this analysis to be condescending and patronising, but there it is: this is my sincere belief.
When sapient accuses Marty of having “fascist, evil and cruel views” he may be avoiding calling Marty himself fascist, evil and cruel (f/e/c) to get around the posting rules, or he may believe exactly what he said. But there is a difference between the two. Marty’s views are that the policies he espouses would benefit the country and the people in it. The likely outcome might be f/e/c, but the views are not. This is a subtle difference, but we live in a world where it is truly dangerous to forego subtlety and give in to the short-term urge to insult and demonise. You end up with Trumps, or worse.
And Marty has demonstrated, again and again, that he personally is not f/e/c. There are people who are all those things: people who believe jews/blacks/muslims are subhuman filth and should be eliminated, people who believe that women are bitches to be used, people who enthusiastically exploit other vulnerable people etc etc (it is too depressing to go on). Such people’s views are f/e/c, and they are personally f/e/c. I think it is vital that we discriminate, and bestow our opprobrium where it is deserved. Our two countries (and many more) are riven by polarised opinions, where people on either side of an ideological divide can no longer speak to each other, and are consequently only too happy to demonise, make other and objectify their ideological opponents. Please let’s not do that here. There’s a reason why occasional lurkers de-lurk and plead for us to stop.
OK, so here’s the thing.
I get why it’s satisfying to accuse your ideological opponents of cruelty and evil, and annoying to be called on it by the apparently naïve. Times are hard, and getting harder for the people that need help most, and to have people advocating for policies that you believe will make those people’s lot tougher is hard to take.
But (and I use sapient and Marty as examples only because they are the latest occurring case) there is a great danger in giving in to this short-term satisfaction. Marty gave a fairly detailed explanation way upthread of why he thinks lowering taxes will help the country as a whole, to defend himself from accusations of lack of patriotism if I recall correctly. I have said more than once that I know nothing about economics, but I am perfectly prepared to believe my better informed ObWi brethren that this theory doesn’t work/wouldn’t work/has been thoroughly discredited. However, Marty sincerely believes it. He also sincerely believes the Barack Obama was a dictator, and Hillary Clinton an international criminal mastermind. I think we can deduce from this that he has been thoroughly got at by the vast rightwing conspiracy headed by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers and others too numerous to mention. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Marty considers this analysis to be condescending and patronising, but there it is: this is my sincere belief.
When sapient accuses Marty of having “fascist, evil and cruel views” he may be avoiding calling Marty himself fascist, evil and cruel (f/e/c) to get around the posting rules, or he may believe exactly what he said. But there is a difference between the two. Marty’s views are that the policies he espouses would benefit the country and the people in it. The likely outcome might be f/e/c, but the views are not. This is a subtle difference, but we live in a world where it is truly dangerous to forego subtlety and give in to the short-term urge to insult and demonise. You end up with Trumps, or worse.
And Marty has demonstrated, again and again, that he personally is not f/e/c. There are people who are all those things: people who believe jews/blacks/muslims are subhuman filth and should be eliminated, people who believe that women are bitches to be used, people who enthusiastically exploit other vulnerable people etc etc (it is too depressing to go on). Such people’s views are f/e/c, and they are personally f/e/c. I think it is vital that we discriminate, and bestow our opprobrium where it is deserved. Our two countries (and many more) are riven by polarised opinions, where people on either side of an ideological divide can no longer speak to each other, and are consequently only too happy to demonise, make other and objectify their ideological opponents. Please let’s not do that here. There’s a reason why occasional lurkers de-lurk and plead for us to stop.
Good people like Marty should, perhaps, recognize when they support policies that are also supported by people who believe jews/blacks/muslims are subhuman filth and should be eliminated, people who believe that women are bitches to be used, people who enthusiastically exploit other vulnerable people etc etc (it is too depressing to go on).
The number of true sociopaths is pretty small. When they’re enabled by “good people” is when the country crashes and burns. “Good people” who enable sociopaths have views that are fascist, evil and cruel. They should, perhaps, be made aware of that.
Good people like Marty should, perhaps, recognize when they support policies that are also supported by people who believe jews/blacks/muslims are subhuman filth and should be eliminated, people who believe that women are bitches to be used, people who enthusiastically exploit other vulnerable people etc etc (it is too depressing to go on).
The number of true sociopaths is pretty small. When they’re enabled by “good people” is when the country crashes and burns. “Good people” who enable sociopaths have views that are fascist, evil and cruel. They should, perhaps, be made aware of that.
“Good people” who enable sociopaths have views that are fascist, evil and cruel.
This is absurd as stated, even without going again into the difference between views and their possible repercussions.
sapient, do you perhaps believe that the best way of getting these “good people” to change their views is to notify them that their views are fascist, evil and cruel? Do you perhaps believe that so notifying them will stop them believing what they believe, and consequently in your words, enabling sociopaths? Sounds a bit absurd when put like that, doesn’t it? So if telling them that their views are f/e/c doesn’t achieve that, what purpose is it serving? Since it is serving a purpose for you, do you have any insight into what that is?
“Good people” who enable sociopaths have views that are fascist, evil and cruel.
This is absurd as stated, even without going again into the difference between views and their possible repercussions.
sapient, do you perhaps believe that the best way of getting these “good people” to change their views is to notify them that their views are fascist, evil and cruel? Do you perhaps believe that so notifying them will stop them believing what they believe, and consequently in your words, enabling sociopaths? Sounds a bit absurd when put like that, doesn’t it? So if telling them that their views are f/e/c doesn’t achieve that, what purpose is it serving? Since it is serving a purpose for you, do you have any insight into what that is?
sapient, do you perhaps believe that the best way of getting these “good people” to change their views is to notify them that their views are fascist, evil and cruel?
How successful have you been, with your practice of indulging their belief that their views are within the realm of “goodness”? It’s all good.
sapient, do you perhaps believe that the best way of getting these “good people” to change their views is to notify them that their views are fascist, evil and cruel?
How successful have you been, with your practice of indulging their belief that their views are within the realm of “goodness”? It’s all good.
I am successful for as long as people of opposing views are willing to talk to, and argue with, each other.
I am successful for as long as people of opposing views are willing to talk to, and argue with, each other.
Who said anything about Marty’s views being “good”?
GFTNC, you are now an enabler of enablers of fascists. I’m a little harder on Marty and McKinney than you are, so I’m not like you in that regard. But, since I openly admire your tolerance, I am an enabler of an enabler of enablers of fascists.
I hope my mother doesn’t find out.
Who said anything about Marty’s views being “good”?
GFTNC, you are now an enabler of enablers of fascists. I’m a little harder on Marty and McKinney than you are, so I’m not like you in that regard. But, since I openly admire your tolerance, I am an enabler of an enabler of enablers of fascists.
I hope my mother doesn’t find out.
I hope my mother doesn’t find out.
Since, as I think I mentioned on another thread, my mother worked against apartheid seriously enough in the 50s to be constantly followed by the secret police, and almost not to have been given a passport to leave South Africa in 1959, yet also (albeit many years later) was prepared to dine with my parents’ old acquaintance Percy Yutar, the man who prosecuted Nelson Mandela in the Treason Trial, I think I can be said to come by my attitudes honestly.
I hope my mother doesn’t find out.
Since, as I think I mentioned on another thread, my mother worked against apartheid seriously enough in the 50s to be constantly followed by the secret police, and almost not to have been given a passport to leave South Africa in 1959, yet also (albeit many years later) was prepared to dine with my parents’ old acquaintance Percy Yutar, the man who prosecuted Nelson Mandela in the Treason Trial, I think I can be said to come by my attitudes honestly.
albeit many years later
Your mother has a fascinating biography. I’m all for reconciliation when the time comes.
albeit many years later
Your mother has a fascinating biography. I’m all for reconciliation when the time comes.
Cutting taxes is fascim? Good to know. Does that make raising taxes communism?
Cutting taxes is fascim? Good to know. Does that make raising taxes communism?
When I was young and foolish, I was outraged that she/they were prepared to socialise with such a man. But the point, as I came to understand with maturity, was to hate the sin and not the sinner (a useful concept, even for atheists like me).
When I was young and foolish, I was outraged that she/they were prepared to socialise with such a man. But the point, as I came to understand with maturity, was to hate the sin and not the sinner (a useful concept, even for atheists like me).
But the point, as I came to understand with maturity, was to hate the sin and not the sinner (a useful concept, even for atheists like me).
Forgiveness works better after victory.
But the point, as I came to understand with maturity, was to hate the sin and not the sinner (a useful concept, even for atheists like me).
Forgiveness works better after victory.
In all fairness, McKinney, I don’t think it was only the cutting taxes opinion…..
In all fairness, McKinney, I don’t think it was only the cutting taxes opinion…..
Ok. What fascist policies do Marty or I advocate?
Ok. What fascist policies do Marty or I advocate?
Good people like Marty should, perhaps, recognize when they support policies that are also supported by people who believe
Does the fact that some scum support someone’s views make those views bad? If someone who all of us, including you, believe is scum starts supporting your position on some issue (and we can doubtless find a concrete example if we try), does that invalidate your position? I don’t think so, and I am pretty sure you don’t either. So perhaps you could apply the same to positions that you oppose.
Good people like Marty should, perhaps, recognize when they support policies that are also supported by people who believe
Does the fact that some scum support someone’s views make those views bad? If someone who all of us, including you, believe is scum starts supporting your position on some issue (and we can doubtless find a concrete example if we try), does that invalidate your position? I don’t think so, and I am pretty sure you don’t either. So perhaps you could apply the same to positions that you oppose.
Does that make raising taxes communism?
Yes. And fiercely proud of it!
Does that make raising taxes communism?
Yes. And fiercely proud of it!
Does that make raising taxes communism?
I assuming you are asking for the opinion of those here. Because I have definitely heard exactly that from those elsewhere.
Does that make raising taxes communism?
I assuming you are asking for the opinion of those here. Because I have definitely heard exactly that from those elsewhere.
More seriously, I don’t think we’re even necessarily talking about fascism – just policies that are very bad for a lot of people. Not “I won’t be quite as well off” bad, but “I might have a hard time staying alive or at least avoiding significant misery” bad.
More seriously, I don’t think we’re even necessarily talking about fascism – just policies that are very bad for a lot of people. Not “I won’t be quite as well off” bad, but “I might have a hard time staying alive or at least avoiding significant misery” bad.
I’m just trying to figure out what Sapient and others, applying traditional progressive nuance, think are fascist policies supported by people like Marty and me.
The name calling is getting to be a major bore. Particularly from a bunch of people who get pissy when called “lefties” or “leftish”. Seriously.
I’m just trying to figure out what Sapient and others, applying traditional progressive nuance, think are fascist policies supported by people like Marty and me.
The name calling is getting to be a major bore. Particularly from a bunch of people who get pissy when called “lefties” or “leftish”. Seriously.
HSH–what life threatening policies do you have in mind?
HSH–what life threatening policies do you have in mind?
Does the fact that some scum support someone’s views make those views bad?
It may depend on how you define “some.” If overt or reasonably detectible racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. line up en masse on one side of an issue (or, worse yet, a broad set of issues), it might give you pause if you line up with them most of the time.
If I can go Godwin, we’re not talking about Hitler enjoying a nice cup of coffee.
Does the fact that some scum support someone’s views make those views bad?
It may depend on how you define “some.” If overt or reasonably detectible racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. line up en masse on one side of an issue (or, worse yet, a broad set of issues), it might give you pause if you line up with them most of the time.
If I can go Godwin, we’re not talking about Hitler enjoying a nice cup of coffee.
More seriously
“I might have a hard time staying alive or at least avoiding significant misery” bad.
This is happening in a lot of ways. Health care, the budget cuts to kill programs for the most needy, enabling ICE agents to deport wonderful citizens in the cruelest of ways, embracing specific, massive, human rights abuses of dictators, returning to a policy of mass incarceration of low level offenders. Possibly not “life-threatening” but Democracy-threatening: violence against the Press, endorsing public lies about everything imaginable. Oh, and let us not forget one of the most important matters: colluding with a foreign hostile power in order to further its interests.
I know – good people, it’s all good. Perfectly within the realm of dinner party companionship. But, thanks, I’ll wait until we throw them out before I can digest food with people who allow this all to happen in order that they might get a tax cut.
More seriously
“I might have a hard time staying alive or at least avoiding significant misery” bad.
This is happening in a lot of ways. Health care, the budget cuts to kill programs for the most needy, enabling ICE agents to deport wonderful citizens in the cruelest of ways, embracing specific, massive, human rights abuses of dictators, returning to a policy of mass incarceration of low level offenders. Possibly not “life-threatening” but Democracy-threatening: violence against the Press, endorsing public lies about everything imaginable. Oh, and let us not forget one of the most important matters: colluding with a foreign hostile power in order to further its interests.
I know – good people, it’s all good. Perfectly within the realm of dinner party companionship. But, thanks, I’ll wait until we throw them out before I can digest food with people who allow this all to happen in order that they might get a tax cut.
Particularly from a bunch of people who get pissy when called “lefties” or “leftish”.
Actually, I don’t think anybody here objects to being called “lefties” or “leftish”. It’s that often in the past you have characterised, not to mention caricatured, a particularly absurd example of, for example, “progressive” theory, or “identity politics”, which you then go on to ascribe to all “lefties” including those here. This grates. If I am wrong, I am hoping one of the other lefties will put me right (BTW, I see myself as more of a liberal than a lefty).
Particularly from a bunch of people who get pissy when called “lefties” or “leftish”.
Actually, I don’t think anybody here objects to being called “lefties” or “leftish”. It’s that often in the past you have characterised, not to mention caricatured, a particularly absurd example of, for example, “progressive” theory, or “identity politics”, which you then go on to ascribe to all “lefties” including those here. This grates. If I am wrong, I am hoping one of the other lefties will put me right (BTW, I see myself as more of a liberal than a lefty).
WJ, yes I’m asking for opinions from people here.
WJ, yes I’m asking for opinions from people here.
correction: Not “citizens” – just members of our communities.
correction: Not “citizens” – just members of our communities.
HSH–what life threatening policies do you have in mind?
Environmental deregulation, GOP healthcare bills, poorly thought-out military adventures, cuts to food (and heating and housing) assistance. I could probably think of more. I imagine members of the GOP can as well.
HSH–what life threatening policies do you have in mind?
Environmental deregulation, GOP healthcare bills, poorly thought-out military adventures, cuts to food (and heating and housing) assistance. I could probably think of more. I imagine members of the GOP can as well.
I know – good people, it’s all good. Perfectly within the realm of dinner party companionship.
sapient, after the paragraph where you correctly list several appalling, ongoing current events, do you not see how idiotic this kind of comment is making you look?
I know – good people, it’s all good. Perfectly within the realm of dinner party companionship.
sapient, after the paragraph where you correctly list several appalling, ongoing current events, do you not see how idiotic this kind of comment is making you look?
If I am wrong, I am hoping one of the other lefties will put me right (BTW, I see myself as more of a liberal than a lefty).
Not wrong AFAIAC. Spot on.
If I am wrong, I am hoping one of the other lefties will put me right (BTW, I see myself as more of a liberal than a lefty).
Not wrong AFAIAC. Spot on.
sapient, after the paragraph where you correctly list several appalling, ongoing current events, do you not see how idiotic this kind of comment is making you look?
The “dinner companions” here support these things, GftNC – or at least vote for people who implement these policies. Not sure what you’re getting at, or what you’re missing.
sapient, after the paragraph where you correctly list several appalling, ongoing current events, do you not see how idiotic this kind of comment is making you look?
The “dinner companions” here support these things, GftNC – or at least vote for people who implement these policies. Not sure what you’re getting at, or what you’re missing.
It may depend on how you define “some.” If overt or reasonably detectible racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. line up en masse on one side of an issue (or, worse yet, a broad set of issues), it might give you pause if you line up with them most of the time.
On the other hand, lots of libertarians would like to see a smaller, less intrusive Federal government. Are their views invalidated because a bunch of “racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc.” want the same thing, in order to exercise their views at the state level?
Or, to put the shoe on the other foot, if you think big banks are a problem and should be reined in, is that invalidated because a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists (or whatever they are) attack those same banks violently?
I don’t think so. In either case.
It may depend on how you define “some.” If overt or reasonably detectible racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. line up en masse on one side of an issue (or, worse yet, a broad set of issues), it might give you pause if you line up with them most of the time.
On the other hand, lots of libertarians would like to see a smaller, less intrusive Federal government. Are their views invalidated because a bunch of “racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc.” want the same thing, in order to exercise their views at the state level?
Or, to put the shoe on the other foot, if you think big banks are a problem and should be reined in, is that invalidated because a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists (or whatever they are) attack those same banks violently?
I don’t think so. In either case.
I would guess it’s that you had made your point very well and should have stopped before detracting from it with unnecessary snark.
I would guess it’s that you had made your point very well and should have stopped before detracting from it with unnecessary snark.
I don’t think so. In either case.
Are there no cases where you do think so?
I don’t think so. In either case.
Are there no cases where you do think so?
if you think big banks are a problem and should be reined in, is that invalidated because a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists (or whatever they are) attack those same banks violently?
I don’t necessarily know whether big banks are a problem, but if I did think that they are a problem, and I voted for bomb-throwing anarchists, I certainly would be culpable.
if you think big banks are a problem and should be reined in, is that invalidated because a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists (or whatever they are) attack those same banks violently?
I don’t necessarily know whether big banks are a problem, but if I did think that they are a problem, and I voted for bomb-throwing anarchists, I certainly would be culpable.
Environmental deregulation, GOP healthcare bills, poorly thought-out military adventures, cuts to food (and heating and housing) assistance.
My memory may be failing, but I don’t recall Marty or McKinney (or anyone else here, at least since Brett left) arguing for any of those. Opposing badly done (in their view) environmental regulations? Sure. Arguing that Obamacare needs serious changes? Sure.** But that’s not the same as what you are apparently describing.
** As do those, albeit with different changes, who argue from the left for single payer.
Environmental deregulation, GOP healthcare bills, poorly thought-out military adventures, cuts to food (and heating and housing) assistance.
My memory may be failing, but I don’t recall Marty or McKinney (or anyone else here, at least since Brett left) arguing for any of those. Opposing badly done (in their view) environmental regulations? Sure. Arguing that Obamacare needs serious changes? Sure.** But that’s not the same as what you are apparently describing.
** As do those, albeit with different changes, who argue from the left for single payer.
Are there no cases where you do think so?
Yes, there are. Indeed, I would have no problem with taking a second look when a chorus of scum starts arguing (or whatever) for one of my positions. I just don’t think that it automatically invalidates the position. Which appeared to be what you were saying.
Are there no cases where you do think so?
Yes, there are. Indeed, I would have no problem with taking a second look when a chorus of scum starts arguing (or whatever) for one of my positions. I just don’t think that it automatically invalidates the position. Which appeared to be what you were saying.
wj, voting for the chorus of scum might also give you pause.
wj, voting for the chorus of scum might also give you pause.
My memory may be failing, but I don’t recall Marty or McKinney (or anyone else here, at least since Brett left) arguing for any of those.
But aren’t those among the major policy preferences of today’s GOP?
I can’t say for sure that Marty or McKinney have directly argued for those or similarly bad policies without looking, and don’t care enough to bother. It’s not just about them, anyway.
But, if you generally support the party that wants to do those things, what’s the difference? We’re not determining policy with our blog discussions. The closest we get, unless we’re holding office, is through those we support politically, be it by voting or otherwise.
My memory may be failing, but I don’t recall Marty or McKinney (or anyone else here, at least since Brett left) arguing for any of those.
But aren’t those among the major policy preferences of today’s GOP?
I can’t say for sure that Marty or McKinney have directly argued for those or similarly bad policies without looking, and don’t care enough to bother. It’s not just about them, anyway.
But, if you generally support the party that wants to do those things, what’s the difference? We’re not determining policy with our blog discussions. The closest we get, unless we’re holding office, is through those we support politically, be it by voting or otherwise.
And, a timely post: Making the distinction between honest opponents and toxic enemies.
Yet more fake news from the dishonest MSM, amirite?
And, a timely post: Making the distinction between honest opponents and toxic enemies.
Yet more fake news from the dishonest MSM, amirite?
Good post, Snarki.
Good post, Snarki.
wj, voting for the chorus of scum might also give you pause.
Oh, I have no intention of voting for the scum! (And I don’t.) I’m just saying that them adoption a similar policy to my preference doesn’t invalidate it.
wj, voting for the chorus of scum might also give you pause.
Oh, I have no intention of voting for the scum! (And I don’t.) I’m just saying that them adoption a similar policy to my preference doesn’t invalidate it.
But, if you generally support the party that wants to do those things, what’s the difference?
When you have a party which has gone as far off the rails as today’s GOP, you basically have two choices:
– you can decide to start a new party, to fill the necessary position of viable alternative party of government.
– you can remain part of that existing party (even if you frequently don’t vote for their nominee come the general election) and try to push it back to sanity.
The former, unfortunately, doesn’t appear to be particularly viable. The last time it happened was a couple of centuries back, and it took the single, overriding issue of slavery, and arguably a Civil War, to make it happen. Not seeing that today — although I suppose it could happen eventually.
Which leaves those who want things to change with registering Republican and voting in their primaries (note: not applicable in states with open primary voting) and otherwise working within the existing party structure. It worked for the nut cases to take over; it can work to push them out. It won’t be easy, but it looks like the only alternative which has a chance to work at all.
But, if you generally support the party that wants to do those things, what’s the difference?
When you have a party which has gone as far off the rails as today’s GOP, you basically have two choices:
– you can decide to start a new party, to fill the necessary position of viable alternative party of government.
– you can remain part of that existing party (even if you frequently don’t vote for their nominee come the general election) and try to push it back to sanity.
The former, unfortunately, doesn’t appear to be particularly viable. The last time it happened was a couple of centuries back, and it took the single, overriding issue of slavery, and arguably a Civil War, to make it happen. Not seeing that today — although I suppose it could happen eventually.
Which leaves those who want things to change with registering Republican and voting in their primaries (note: not applicable in states with open primary voting) and otherwise working within the existing party structure. It worked for the nut cases to take over; it can work to push them out. It won’t be easy, but it looks like the only alternative which has a chance to work at all.
“Ok. What fascist policies do Marty or I advocate?”
hsh, fascist and evil are mostly the favorite names. Tax cuts aren’t fascist. Reducing the growth of Medicaid next year from 6% to 2% isn’t fascist, its not even cutting Medicaid. Cutting the growth of the food stamp program is not cutting food stamps. Asking for able bodied people to be employed where possible to qualify for the safety net is not fascist, or evil. These are pretty bog standard American positions that are sometimes in conflict with other American positions all trying to accomplish providing an affordable safety net for people who need a safety net.
The amount of money spent on any one of those safety net programs is limited by many things, but no one believes they can all be provided with an unlimited budget.
We could spend the whole federal budget on healthcare, then all 360M people would have Cadillac insurance, and anything less than that is murdering people, so unless you are for that you are a hateful fascist.
The discussion is ridiculous. Overzealous EPA regulation being pushed back is neither fascist nor evil. If it wasn’t for the big banks the economy would have collapsed in 2008. Because thousands more banks would have been exposed to the failed mortgages from Fannie and Freddie without any place to spur liquidity.
The Dems passed a crappy healthcare bill that limits the ability to cover everyone or even the ones it covers very well so every attempt to fix that is evil and hateful, no consideration that another way might cover more people better. The CBO is forced to count crappy ACA insurance and the ever reupped insurance company subsidies in its calculation while not being able to count any upside from the states having flexibility. So the their numbers are meaningless because of the rules. Kaiser estimated that the very worst case, with no benefit from the changes, left 4.7 million more people uninsured over ten years. But they recognized that it could be better. And that’s before the Senate even tries to make it better. But those of us who think more people can get better insurance, not because of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh(who I have literally never heard on the radio), by doing those things are called murderers. Because some unlikely calculation gets a headline.
Its an ongoing ploy. It is bullying and intimidation so as not have to address reality or discuss the pros and cons in good faith. You either agree with my assessment of the facts or you’re evil.
“Ok. What fascist policies do Marty or I advocate?”
hsh, fascist and evil are mostly the favorite names. Tax cuts aren’t fascist. Reducing the growth of Medicaid next year from 6% to 2% isn’t fascist, its not even cutting Medicaid. Cutting the growth of the food stamp program is not cutting food stamps. Asking for able bodied people to be employed where possible to qualify for the safety net is not fascist, or evil. These are pretty bog standard American positions that are sometimes in conflict with other American positions all trying to accomplish providing an affordable safety net for people who need a safety net.
The amount of money spent on any one of those safety net programs is limited by many things, but no one believes they can all be provided with an unlimited budget.
We could spend the whole federal budget on healthcare, then all 360M people would have Cadillac insurance, and anything less than that is murdering people, so unless you are for that you are a hateful fascist.
The discussion is ridiculous. Overzealous EPA regulation being pushed back is neither fascist nor evil. If it wasn’t for the big banks the economy would have collapsed in 2008. Because thousands more banks would have been exposed to the failed mortgages from Fannie and Freddie without any place to spur liquidity.
The Dems passed a crappy healthcare bill that limits the ability to cover everyone or even the ones it covers very well so every attempt to fix that is evil and hateful, no consideration that another way might cover more people better. The CBO is forced to count crappy ACA insurance and the ever reupped insurance company subsidies in its calculation while not being able to count any upside from the states having flexibility. So the their numbers are meaningless because of the rules. Kaiser estimated that the very worst case, with no benefit from the changes, left 4.7 million more people uninsured over ten years. But they recognized that it could be better. And that’s before the Senate even tries to make it better. But those of us who think more people can get better insurance, not because of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh(who I have literally never heard on the radio), by doing those things are called murderers. Because some unlikely calculation gets a headline.
Its an ongoing ploy. It is bullying and intimidation so as not have to address reality or discuss the pros and cons in good faith. You either agree with my assessment of the facts or you’re evil.
so every attempt to fix that is evil and hateful
no, not “so”.
leave off the “so” and that’s where the GOP is these days.
they don’t have to replace the ACA with shitty evil nonsense, but it’s what they want to do.
they’re not just repealing the ACA and taking us back to the state of things in 2007. no, their plan will make things worse than they were in 2007. and they know it. everybody knows it.
but they’re trying to do it anyway.
either they’re to goddamned stupid to be allowed so much power, or they’re evil. or maybe both.
so every attempt to fix that is evil and hateful
no, not “so”.
leave off the “so” and that’s where the GOP is these days.
they don’t have to replace the ACA with shitty evil nonsense, but it’s what they want to do.
they’re not just repealing the ACA and taking us back to the state of things in 2007. no, their plan will make things worse than they were in 2007. and they know it. everybody knows it.
but they’re trying to do it anyway.
either they’re to goddamned stupid to be allowed so much power, or they’re evil. or maybe both.
Snarki, Nancy LeTourneau is on my list as a regular read. I appreciate her viewpoint.
The Gopnik article she cites is a bit Broderish for me, though, in that Mike Pence is not a good example of the honest opposition. David Frum, Evan McMullin – there are Republicans with whom I disagree on policy who have spoken out against Trump’s fascism.
Snarki, Nancy LeTourneau is on my list as a regular read. I appreciate her viewpoint.
The Gopnik article she cites is a bit Broderish for me, though, in that Mike Pence is not a good example of the honest opposition. David Frum, Evan McMullin – there are Republicans with whom I disagree on policy who have spoken out against Trump’s fascism.
i love how armchair statisticians who haven’t read the existing GOP bill, or are evaluating a GOP bill that doesn’t exist, are 100% confident that their numbers are more accurate than the professionals at the CBO.
it’s the same bullshit they use to argue against all other kinds of science. they just know.
/bullying!
i love how armchair statisticians who haven’t read the existing GOP bill, or are evaluating a GOP bill that doesn’t exist, are 100% confident that their numbers are more accurate than the professionals at the CBO.
it’s the same bullshit they use to argue against all other kinds of science. they just know.
/bullying!
hsh, fascist and evil are mostly the favorite names.
Why are you addressing me with this? I’m not arguing that people are fascist or evil. Maybe you didn’t notice that my comment to GFTNC was tongue-in-cheek, when I called her an enabler of enablers of fascists (and myself an enabler of an enabler of enablers of fascists).
I’m arguing that people bear some responsibility for supporting what are (in my opinion!) bad policies, not that they are, therefore, evil or fascist (or whatever). Wrong (in my opinion!), sure.
Maybe you need to discuss this with sapient, whom I probably agree with on policy almost entirely, but not on rhetoric or argumentation (or tactics?).
hsh, fascist and evil are mostly the favorite names.
Why are you addressing me with this? I’m not arguing that people are fascist or evil. Maybe you didn’t notice that my comment to GFTNC was tongue-in-cheek, when I called her an enabler of enablers of fascists (and myself an enabler of an enabler of enablers of fascists).
I’m arguing that people bear some responsibility for supporting what are (in my opinion!) bad policies, not that they are, therefore, evil or fascist (or whatever). Wrong (in my opinion!), sure.
Maybe you need to discuss this with sapient, whom I probably agree with on policy almost entirely, but not on rhetoric or argumentation (or tactics?).
Its an ongoing ploy. It is bullying and intimidation so as not have to address reality or discuss the pros and cons in good faith. You either agree with my assessment of the facts or you’re evil.
See Marty, I have been expounding at no doubt tedious length on why it’s wrong to characterise your views as f/e/c, and pretty much agreeing that it’s a cop-out to get personal rather than engage in good faith with the arguments, but for you to claim that this is “bullying and intimidation” after the accusations that were thrown at Dems for 8/9 years is just absurd too. It’s unfair, and inaccurate, and stifles debate, but “bullying and intimidation”, particularly in this forum, it aint.
Its an ongoing ploy. It is bullying and intimidation so as not have to address reality or discuss the pros and cons in good faith. You either agree with my assessment of the facts or you’re evil.
See Marty, I have been expounding at no doubt tedious length on why it’s wrong to characterise your views as f/e/c, and pretty much agreeing that it’s a cop-out to get personal rather than engage in good faith with the arguments, but for you to claim that this is “bullying and intimidation” after the accusations that were thrown at Dems for 8/9 years is just absurd too. It’s unfair, and inaccurate, and stifles debate, but “bullying and intimidation”, particularly in this forum, it aint.
I should make clear that I’m not arguing that people here are fascist or evil. Of course, some people in the world are. Another thing some people are is stupid, if they support terrible things without being able to comprehend that those things are terrible, even when it’s obvious.
I should make clear that I’m not arguing that people here are fascist or evil. Of course, some people in the world are. Another thing some people are is stupid, if they support terrible things without being able to comprehend that those things are terrible, even when it’s obvious.
Just FYI, here is someone on the (seriously anti-Trump) right who thinks that I’m wrong. Rather, the GOP can’t be saved and needs to be abandon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/26/a-week-that-reveals-how-rotten-todays-republican-party-is/?utm_term=.ff0994806ddb
Just FYI, here is someone on the (seriously anti-Trump) right who thinks that I’m wrong. Rather, the GOP can’t be saved and needs to be abandon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/05/26/a-week-that-reveals-how-rotten-todays-republican-party-is/?utm_term=.ff0994806ddb
wj, if you want to support moderate Republicans for office to change the party, you’re not one of the people we’re (I speak for many) talking about.
wj, if you want to support moderate Republicans for office to change the party, you’re not one of the people we’re (I speak for many) talking about.
Thanks for the link, wj.
Thanks for the link, wj.
Yes, good piece wj.
Yes, good piece wj.
“but “bullying and intimidation”, particularly in this forum, it aint.”
I appreciate your view, but calling the people who disagree with you(not you you) fascists and evil and various other things is certainly bullying. Its purpose is to silence them and make their views seem so radical that you would have to be a bad person to agree with them. There is not a much better definition of bullying.
“but “bullying and intimidation”, particularly in this forum, it aint.”
I appreciate your view, but calling the people who disagree with you(not you you) fascists and evil and various other things is certainly bullying. Its purpose is to silence them and make their views seem so radical that you would have to be a bad person to agree with them. There is not a much better definition of bullying.
do you watch Fox News, Marty?
do you watch Fox News, Marty?
fascist Maryland has just outlawed a common liberal bullying tactic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/05/26/no-more-rolling-coal-on-maryland-roads/
fascist Maryland has just outlawed a common liberal bullying tactic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/05/26/no-more-rolling-coal-on-maryland-roads/
Thanks, cleek. I’m taking a deep breath …
Thanks, cleek. I’m taking a deep breath …
WJ, yes I’m asking for opinions from people here.
If there’s one thing I have in apparently endless supply, it’s opinions.
Nobody commenting here is a fascist. Nobody commenting here has fascist tendencies.
Steve Bannon, IMO, is a guy with fascist tendencies. But he doesn’t comment here.
As far as actual policies, IMO policies that result in lots of people losing access to health care or food or housing are harmful. Also IMO, the entire (R) program will result in those things happening.
Folks think otherwise, that’s fine. That’s what I think.
In any case, I’m against those policies, and that’s why.
I’m sure you can be a fine, upstanding person and support the (R) program. It’s also evident to me that many people that support the (R) program are not only perfectly happy to see other people suffer as a result of the policies they support, but actually take some pleasure in the thought.
I find that… unattractive.
And no, Marty and McK, I’m not talking about you. I’m talking about the folks for whom what I just said is true. And there are lots of them.
I completely agree that there is little discussion of any of this stuff that is purely focused on the substance, or that puts aside the human tendency to demonize people who disagree with you, or that is even remotely constructive.
We’re all pissed off at each other. It is what it is. I’ll guess we’ll all just have to try harder.
Some asides:
Reducing the growth of a program without reducing the growth of the need for the program effectively reduces the tangible benefit of the program to the folks who participate in it.
If we only give out ten more pizzas this year instead of twenty, but twenty more people need pizza this year than last, everyone gets less pizza.
Right?
As always my solution this crap is pay people more. Take more of the lovely beautiful money our economy generates, and direct it to the folks who do the stuff that makes the money happen.
And when I say “make the money happen”, I don’t mean through clever shitbird smartass financial sleight of hand party tricks, but through their daily, productive labor.
Pay them.
Then a lot of this crap goes away.
Wouldn’t that be great?
When that idea pops up on the (R) radar, I’ll be happy to have a chat. Until then, everything I ever hear from (R)’s nets out to “tough shit, you shoulda been a banker”.
And I appreciate the general libertarian desire to get annoying intrusive government out of all of our business, and often have the same impulse every time I have to ask the freaking zoning board if I can please pretty please build my wife a garden shed, or every time I try to find some place that will let me throw out an appliance.
But annoying intrusive government gave me water I can drink, and air I can mostly breathe, and made the power plant clean up the coal ash that they dumped in the watershed, and cleaned up the toxic crap from the lead mill a mile from my house, and makes it possible for me to negotiate with my employer in a reasonable way without going to literal war, and lets me buy a piece of meat without worrying if it will poison me, and lets me hire a tradesman without having to figure out if he has any freaking idea what he’s doing. And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Hundreds of time each and every day, annoying intrusive government makes my life better.
People should really do some homework on the origins of the regulatory state. The feds had to be dragged kicking and screaming into building most of that apparatus, and most if not all of it was a response to f’ing egregious behavior on the part of private and state actors.
In any case, as far as I’m concerned, advantage annoying intrusive government. Well done, and carry on.
So, long story short, when I vote, I generally but not always vote (D) or (D)-ish. And I’m fine with conservatives per se, but for the record when folks start talking about how fine they are with Congresspeople beating up reporters, my personal ice gets thin.
If some bullet-head Congressperson tries to body-slam me, I’ll do my best to break his f’ing legs. Assholes and bullies deserve every bit of shit they catch.
I guess that makes me a lefty, not a liberal. Or maybe I’m some kind of weird Laura Ingraham liberal.
Isn’t that a thought!
Those are my opinions. I come by them honestly.
Thanks!
WJ, yes I’m asking for opinions from people here.
If there’s one thing I have in apparently endless supply, it’s opinions.
Nobody commenting here is a fascist. Nobody commenting here has fascist tendencies.
Steve Bannon, IMO, is a guy with fascist tendencies. But he doesn’t comment here.
As far as actual policies, IMO policies that result in lots of people losing access to health care or food or housing are harmful. Also IMO, the entire (R) program will result in those things happening.
Folks think otherwise, that’s fine. That’s what I think.
In any case, I’m against those policies, and that’s why.
I’m sure you can be a fine, upstanding person and support the (R) program. It’s also evident to me that many people that support the (R) program are not only perfectly happy to see other people suffer as a result of the policies they support, but actually take some pleasure in the thought.
I find that… unattractive.
And no, Marty and McK, I’m not talking about you. I’m talking about the folks for whom what I just said is true. And there are lots of them.
I completely agree that there is little discussion of any of this stuff that is purely focused on the substance, or that puts aside the human tendency to demonize people who disagree with you, or that is even remotely constructive.
We’re all pissed off at each other. It is what it is. I’ll guess we’ll all just have to try harder.
Some asides:
Reducing the growth of a program without reducing the growth of the need for the program effectively reduces the tangible benefit of the program to the folks who participate in it.
If we only give out ten more pizzas this year instead of twenty, but twenty more people need pizza this year than last, everyone gets less pizza.
Right?
As always my solution this crap is pay people more. Take more of the lovely beautiful money our economy generates, and direct it to the folks who do the stuff that makes the money happen.
And when I say “make the money happen”, I don’t mean through clever shitbird smartass financial sleight of hand party tricks, but through their daily, productive labor.
Pay them.
Then a lot of this crap goes away.
Wouldn’t that be great?
When that idea pops up on the (R) radar, I’ll be happy to have a chat. Until then, everything I ever hear from (R)’s nets out to “tough shit, you shoulda been a banker”.
And I appreciate the general libertarian desire to get annoying intrusive government out of all of our business, and often have the same impulse every time I have to ask the freaking zoning board if I can please pretty please build my wife a garden shed, or every time I try to find some place that will let me throw out an appliance.
But annoying intrusive government gave me water I can drink, and air I can mostly breathe, and made the power plant clean up the coal ash that they dumped in the watershed, and cleaned up the toxic crap from the lead mill a mile from my house, and makes it possible for me to negotiate with my employer in a reasonable way without going to literal war, and lets me buy a piece of meat without worrying if it will poison me, and lets me hire a tradesman without having to figure out if he has any freaking idea what he’s doing. And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Hundreds of time each and every day, annoying intrusive government makes my life better.
People should really do some homework on the origins of the regulatory state. The feds had to be dragged kicking and screaming into building most of that apparatus, and most if not all of it was a response to f’ing egregious behavior on the part of private and state actors.
In any case, as far as I’m concerned, advantage annoying intrusive government. Well done, and carry on.
So, long story short, when I vote, I generally but not always vote (D) or (D)-ish. And I’m fine with conservatives per se, but for the record when folks start talking about how fine they are with Congresspeople beating up reporters, my personal ice gets thin.
If some bullet-head Congressperson tries to body-slam me, I’ll do my best to break his f’ing legs. Assholes and bullies deserve every bit of shit they catch.
I guess that makes me a lefty, not a liberal. Or maybe I’m some kind of weird Laura Ingraham liberal.
Isn’t that a thought!
Those are my opinions. I come by them honestly.
Thanks!
“I appreciate your view, but calling the people who disagree with you(not you you) fascists and evil and various other things is certainly bullying. Its purpose is to silence them and make their views seem so radical that you would have to be a bad person to agree with them.”
Well, then it’s a good thing that nobody ever published a book titled LIBERAL FASCISM, then isn’t it?
“I appreciate your view, but calling the people who disagree with you(not you you) fascists and evil and various other things is certainly bullying. Its purpose is to silence them and make their views seem so radical that you would have to be a bad person to agree with them.”
Well, then it’s a good thing that nobody ever published a book titled LIBERAL FASCISM, then isn’t it?
for the record when folks start talking about how fine they are with Congresspeople beating up reporters, my personal ice gets thin.
Actually, and FWIW, I have to say I agree with this.
for the record when folks start talking about how fine they are with Congresspeople beating up reporters, my personal ice gets thin.
Actually, and FWIW, I have to say I agree with this.
If some bullet-head Congressperson tries to body-slam me, I’ll do my best to break his f’ing legs.
FYI, a kick to the side of a knee, especially if weight is on it, will accomplish a lot. It won’t actually break the leg. But rebuilding that knee will take a lot of time and rehab work. (No, I have never had occasion to use that technique. But it’s part of my general knowledge.)
If some bullet-head Congressperson tries to body-slam me, I’ll do my best to break his f’ing legs.
FYI, a kick to the side of a knee, especially if weight is on it, will accomplish a lot. It won’t actually break the leg. But rebuilding that knee will take a lot of time and rehab work. (No, I have never had occasion to use that technique. But it’s part of my general knowledge.)
calling the people who disagree with you(not you you) fascists and evil and various other things is certainly bullying.
You could also just call it “being upset” and let it roll off your back.
Your choice.
calling the people who disagree with you(not you you) fascists and evil and various other things is certainly bullying.
You could also just call it “being upset” and let it roll off your back.
Your choice.
BTW, I am (slowly) coming to the conclusion that MASSES of lefty-leaning Dems should (changing registrations, if needed) vote in the GOP primaries.
Because the GOP primary voters seem to be the only thing that GOP politicians are afraid of. Probably get an outsized effect from a moderate percentage of Dem voters crossing over also, too.
And just about anyone winning a Dem primary is probably “mostly okay” to vote for in the general election.
BTW, I am (slowly) coming to the conclusion that MASSES of lefty-leaning Dems should (changing registrations, if needed) vote in the GOP primaries.
Because the GOP primary voters seem to be the only thing that GOP politicians are afraid of. Probably get an outsized effect from a moderate percentage of Dem voters crossing over also, too.
And just about anyone winning a Dem primary is probably “mostly okay” to vote for in the general election.
I do not watch the Fox news network cleek. My local Fox channel in FL has a really nice local morning newscast that is a bit amateurish to keep the local flavor and I love that group of people. They don’t even cover much national news.
I do like Chris Wallace show because he seems to at least insist that two points of view get represented. Clearly a bit leaning to Republicans, but clearly not a fan of Trump.
I could not tell you without the feedback here on the blog what the Fox News people were saying.
I also do not watch MSNBC and rarely turn on CNN. I only turn on CNN when there is an event that I know will be covered nonstop(riots, bombings, etc.).
I get the great majority of my daily news online from AP, Reuters, WaPo and the NYT.
I do not watch the Fox news network cleek. My local Fox channel in FL has a really nice local morning newscast that is a bit amateurish to keep the local flavor and I love that group of people. They don’t even cover much national news.
I do like Chris Wallace show because he seems to at least insist that two points of view get represented. Clearly a bit leaning to Republicans, but clearly not a fan of Trump.
I could not tell you without the feedback here on the blog what the Fox News people were saying.
I also do not watch MSNBC and rarely turn on CNN. I only turn on CNN when there is an event that I know will be covered nonstop(riots, bombings, etc.).
I get the great majority of my daily news online from AP, Reuters, WaPo and the NYT.
FYI, a kick to the side of a knee, especially if weight is on it, will accomplish a lot.
Noted.
FYI, a kick to the side of a knee, especially if weight is on it, will accomplish a lot.
Noted.
“You could also just call it “being upset” and let it roll off your back”
Depends on how often it happens and how long it goes on.
“You could also just call it “being upset” and let it roll off your back”
Depends on how often it happens and how long it goes on.
We’re all pissed off at each other. It is what it is. I’ll guess we’ll all just have to try harder…
FWIW, I’m just mildly irritated.
Not by all of you, though.
We’re all pissed off at each other. It is what it is. I’ll guess we’ll all just have to try harder…
FWIW, I’m just mildly irritated.
Not by all of you, though.
Back to the female “GOP person” who shouted “You’re forgiven!” at The Thug.
Don’t anybody try to tell me that assault and battery on a reporter is NOT “bullying”, but calling a “GOP person” like that cruel, evil, or fascist IS.
–TP
Back to the female “GOP person” who shouted “You’re forgiven!” at The Thug.
Don’t anybody try to tell me that assault and battery on a reporter is NOT “bullying”, but calling a “GOP person” like that cruel, evil, or fascist IS.
–TP
Well, duh…..
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/05/if_everyone_deserves_health_care_single_payer_is_the_only_option.html
Well, duh…..
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/05/if_everyone_deserves_health_care_single_payer_is_the_only_option.html
“assault and battery on a reporter”
You know that’s not a thing right. Assault and battery, is a thing, misdemeanor assault and battery is a crime, it gets a punishment. Assault by a reporter is also a crime. won’t get punished.
Things that irritate me? Someone puts on a press badge and immediately gets to be a complete asshat with no repercussions. The reporter was someplace he should not have been, doing something he was specifically told not to do, refused to stop doing it and the candidate lost his temper.
Not a good political move but if I treated you the way the reporter treated the candidate you would have been looking to wreck my ACL, not my glasses. And it seems from the tempers here there are certain rooms that all I would have to do is walk in the room to get body slammed.
And no, it wasn’t the same as a gaggle of reporters confronting someone leaving a building, he was in a room, in private, having a meeting and was assaulted by the reporter.
“assault and battery on a reporter”
You know that’s not a thing right. Assault and battery, is a thing, misdemeanor assault and battery is a crime, it gets a punishment. Assault by a reporter is also a crime. won’t get punished.
Things that irritate me? Someone puts on a press badge and immediately gets to be a complete asshat with no repercussions. The reporter was someplace he should not have been, doing something he was specifically told not to do, refused to stop doing it and the candidate lost his temper.
Not a good political move but if I treated you the way the reporter treated the candidate you would have been looking to wreck my ACL, not my glasses. And it seems from the tempers here there are certain rooms that all I would have to do is walk in the room to get body slammed.
And no, it wasn’t the same as a gaggle of reporters confronting someone leaving a building, he was in a room, in private, having a meeting and was assaulted by the reporter.
Gianforte was just standing his ground.
Gianforte was just standing his ground.
Assault by a reporter is also a crime. won’t get punished.
Got an example of something which meets the legal definition of assault? Not necessarily including battery, but at least simple assault.
Assault by a reporter is also a crime. won’t get punished.
Got an example of something which meets the legal definition of assault? Not necessarily including battery, but at least simple assault.
Cleek, does it really count as standing your ground if you don’t have a firearm? 😉
Cleek, does it really count as standing your ground if you don’t have a firearm? 😉
Marty: Assault by a reporter is also a crime. won’t get punished.
Tell us again how the reporter committed “assault”. You may know more about criminal law than the rest of us.
Marty: The reporter was someplace he should not have been, doing something he was specifically told not to do, refused to stop doing it and the candidate lost his temper.
Had The Thug merely shouted “Get the hell out of here” I’d bee saying he merely “lost his temper”. That he had it in him to grab the reporter and slam him against the floor — that’s what makes him a Thug. But let that pass.
Here’s the real problem: neither you nor I would ever know anything interesting if reporters never went places where they’re not welcome, never asked annoying questions, always meekly deferred to the wishes of lawmakers and would-be lawmakers. To want reporters to be mere transcribers of press releases is to want something other than an informed electorate. There’s a name for that attitude, but I will let you figure it out for yourself.
–TP
Marty: Assault by a reporter is also a crime. won’t get punished.
Tell us again how the reporter committed “assault”. You may know more about criminal law than the rest of us.
Marty: The reporter was someplace he should not have been, doing something he was specifically told not to do, refused to stop doing it and the candidate lost his temper.
Had The Thug merely shouted “Get the hell out of here” I’d bee saying he merely “lost his temper”. That he had it in him to grab the reporter and slam him against the floor — that’s what makes him a Thug. But let that pass.
Here’s the real problem: neither you nor I would ever know anything interesting if reporters never went places where they’re not welcome, never asked annoying questions, always meekly deferred to the wishes of lawmakers and would-be lawmakers. To want reporters to be mere transcribers of press releases is to want something other than an informed electorate. There’s a name for that attitude, but I will let you figure it out for yourself.
–TP
Thats crap TP, people get interviews all the time, candidates answer uncomfortable questions all the time, the candidate specifically said he would answer those questions later, he was in a private meeting with some other group of people.
assault verb accost, accost bellicosely, adgredi, addriri, affront hostilely, aggress, appetere, assail, assault belligerently, attack, attack physically, attempt violence to, deal a blow, harm, oppugn, set upon, set upon with force, set upon with violence, strike, thrust at
Thats crap TP, people get interviews all the time, candidates answer uncomfortable questions all the time, the candidate specifically said he would answer those questions later, he was in a private meeting with some other group of people.
assault verb accost, accost bellicosely, adgredi, addriri, affront hostilely, aggress, appetere, assail, assault belligerently, attack, attack physically, attempt violence to, deal a blow, harm, oppugn, set upon, set upon with force, set upon with violence, strike, thrust at
Depends on how often it happens and how long it goes on.
All the time, for 15 years, in my case. I guess my sense of personal persecution has just gotten worn the hell out.
he was in a room, in private, having a meeting and was assaulted by the reporter.
I appreciate the thesaurus dump, but the legal definition of assault requires a threat of bodily harm.
That’s not in evidence.
I’m not sure what your upside is in defending this guy, but you’re serving some pretty week beer here. Maybe there are more worthwhile causes to champion.
Depends on how often it happens and how long it goes on.
All the time, for 15 years, in my case. I guess my sense of personal persecution has just gotten worn the hell out.
he was in a room, in private, having a meeting and was assaulted by the reporter.
I appreciate the thesaurus dump, but the legal definition of assault requires a threat of bodily harm.
That’s not in evidence.
I’m not sure what your upside is in defending this guy, but you’re serving some pretty week beer here. Maybe there are more worthwhile causes to champion.
It’s really wonderful that Marty was right there in the room with the candidate and that “reporter”, and can accurately describe EXACTLY what happened and why.
No secondhand stories needed, no political butt-covering, no MSM clickbait. You betcha.
It’s really wonderful that Marty was right there in the room with the candidate and that “reporter”, and can accurately describe EXACTLY what happened and why.
No secondhand stories needed, no political butt-covering, no MSM clickbait. You betcha.
Marty: … the candidate specifically said he would answer those questions later …
Vote first, ask questions later. Great idea.
Oh, and: should I feel bullied by your “crap” assessment? Crap, noun: shit, poopoo, doody, imported French merde. Enough to make a blushing flower wilt.
–TP
Marty: … the candidate specifically said he would answer those questions later …
Vote first, ask questions later. Great idea.
Oh, and: should I feel bullied by your “crap” assessment? Crap, noun: shit, poopoo, doody, imported French merde. Enough to make a blushing flower wilt.
–TP
yes TP you should.
russell, its really not so important to take up for the guy. He is likely an ass. Some things just rub you the wrong way. Reporters acting out is one of mine. The very first description of what happened I read was what I am paraphrasing. Nothing has been said different.
yes TP you should.
russell, its really not so important to take up for the guy. He is likely an ass. Some things just rub you the wrong way. Reporters acting out is one of mine. The very first description of what happened I read was what I am paraphrasing. Nothing has been said different.
Nothing has been said different.
huh?
you’re echoing PR flack Shane Scanlon’s account. but that was instantly debunked by the local Fox News camera crew, who were right there when it happened.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html
Nothing has been said different.
huh?
you’re echoing PR flack Shane Scanlon’s account. but that was instantly debunked by the local Fox News camera crew, who were right there when it happened.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html
Maybe Fox News has been reassigned to the “liberal MSM” category…?
Maybe Fox News has been reassigned to the “liberal MSM” category…?
Just read about it. Looks like no shit assault. No reasonable provocation, no self defense. I’d press charges.
Just read about it. Looks like no shit assault. No reasonable provocation, no self defense. I’d press charges.
Hey, now…just one darned minute
If it wasn’t for the big banks the economy would have collapsed in 2008. Because thousands more banks would have been exposed to the failed mortgages from Fannie and Freddie without any place to spur liquidity.
It is difficult for me to understand how anybody who was reasonably adult, and somewhat informed of what happened during 2008 to hold this opinion. The big banks were essentially holding hundreds of billions of worthless mortgage paper as “assets”. Technically, they were insolvent. The only reason they had liquidity is because the Fed backstopped them by buying up their crap at or near par and waiting it out. And the mortgages held by the F & F duo were government guaranteed.
As for me. I have voted for more than a few really crappy Dems. The reason is, when the legislature/Congress convenes, they majority caucuses and picks the management. The importance of this is, let us say, significant.
Thus endeth my lecture to ticket splitters.
This is the system we have to live with for now.
Hey, now…just one darned minute
If it wasn’t for the big banks the economy would have collapsed in 2008. Because thousands more banks would have been exposed to the failed mortgages from Fannie and Freddie without any place to spur liquidity.
It is difficult for me to understand how anybody who was reasonably adult, and somewhat informed of what happened during 2008 to hold this opinion. The big banks were essentially holding hundreds of billions of worthless mortgage paper as “assets”. Technically, they were insolvent. The only reason they had liquidity is because the Fed backstopped them by buying up their crap at or near par and waiting it out. And the mortgages held by the F & F duo were government guaranteed.
As for me. I have voted for more than a few really crappy Dems. The reason is, when the legislature/Congress convenes, they majority caucuses and picks the management. The importance of this is, let us say, significant.
Thus endeth my lecture to ticket splitters.
This is the system we have to live with for now.
Here’s the real problem: neither you nor I would ever know anything interesting if reporters never went places where they’re not welcome, never asked annoying questions, always meekly deferred to the wishes of lawmakers and would-be lawmakers.
heh. indeed. one can only imagine the sheer outrage from Limbaugh and Hannity if every time a reporter got in Hillary’s face, she turned, gave them the fish eye and said, “go f*cking pound sand.”
Here’s the real problem: neither you nor I would ever know anything interesting if reporters never went places where they’re not welcome, never asked annoying questions, always meekly deferred to the wishes of lawmakers and would-be lawmakers.
heh. indeed. one can only imagine the sheer outrage from Limbaugh and Hannity if every time a reporter got in Hillary’s face, she turned, gave them the fish eye and said, “go f*cking pound sand.”
here’s some small/local government conservatism for ya:
huh?
but the best (worst) part is that it makes it almost impossible to sue the police!
not quite fascism. but “police state” seems pretty apt.
so much freedom.
here’s some small/local government conservatism for ya:
huh?
but the best (worst) part is that it makes it almost impossible to sue the police!
not quite fascism. but “police state” seems pretty apt.
so much freedom.
Well, then it’s a good thing that nobody ever published a book titled LIBERAL FASCISM, then isn’t it?
Blimey Snarki, I assumed this was a joke til I read your comment again and looked it up……
Well, then it’s a good thing that nobody ever published a book titled LIBERAL FASCISM, then isn’t it?
Blimey Snarki, I assumed this was a joke til I read your comment again and looked it up……
“Someone puts on a press badge and immediately gets to be a complete asshat with no repercussions.”
trump is trying to turn that around by expanding the White House press pool to include complete asshats of the brietbartian variety who put on press badges with frequent concussions.
“Someone puts on a press badge and immediately gets to be a complete asshat with no repercussions.”
trump is trying to turn that around by expanding the White House press pool to include complete asshats of the brietbartian variety who put on press badges with frequent concussions.
Gianforte would have had his hands full with an old-school journalist like Jimmy Breslin.
Gianforte would have had his hands full with an old-school journalist like Jimmy Breslin.
not quite fascism. but “police state” seems pretty apt.
So much for limited government, huh? (I do expect libertarians to object, for the most part, though, and possibly other self-described conservatives – just not as many as should, if they had actual principles.)
not quite fascism. but “police state” seems pretty apt.
So much for limited government, huh? (I do expect libertarians to object, for the most part, though, and possibly other self-described conservatives – just not as many as should, if they had actual principles.)
“I assumed this was a joke til I read your comment again and looked it up……”
Sometimes I’m entirely TOO smooth and subtle sticking in a rhetorical shiv, it’s true.
“I assumed this was a joke til I read your comment again and looked it up……”
Sometimes I’m entirely TOO smooth and subtle sticking in a rhetorical shiv, it’s true.
not quite fascism. but “police state” seems pretty apt.
I have to say that SC was, is, and likely will continue to be a puzzle to me.
it’s like they’re in the union just be pissed off that they’re in the union.
and yes, for no small number of people, whether in SC or not, it’s a police state.
not quite fascism. but “police state” seems pretty apt.
I have to say that SC was, is, and likely will continue to be a puzzle to me.
it’s like they’re in the union just be pissed off that they’re in the union.
and yes, for no small number of people, whether in SC or not, it’s a police state.
From my libertarian point of view, Jefferson Sessions appears to be Trump’s worse cabinet pick. Why do presidents from both parties pick such bad attorneys general?
In most jurisdictions, law enforcement officers already have far too many protections from accountability without embedding additional protections in law.
From my libertarian point of view, Jefferson Sessions appears to be Trump’s worse cabinet pick. Why do presidents from both parties pick such bad attorneys general?
In most jurisdictions, law enforcement officers already have far too many protections from accountability without embedding additional protections in law.
Jeff Sessions is George Wallace-light, mentality-wise, in a different office.
Jeff Sessions is George Wallace-light, mentality-wise, in a different office.
No, not George Wallace lite. Wallace, noxious as he became, started in Alabama politics running as a liberal on racial issues there.**
If Sessions ever had a liberal thought on race, in his entire life, it’s an extraordinarily well-kept secret. Which, to mind, actually makes him worse than Wallace. Wallace was disgusting for pandering to voters by spouting stuff that he didn’t actually believe; Sessions actually believes that sewage.
** Wallace, after losing that first election: “They out-n*ggered me. I’ll never be out-n*ggered again!”
No, not George Wallace lite. Wallace, noxious as he became, started in Alabama politics running as a liberal on racial issues there.**
If Sessions ever had a liberal thought on race, in his entire life, it’s an extraordinarily well-kept secret. Which, to mind, actually makes him worse than Wallace. Wallace was disgusting for pandering to voters by spouting stuff that he didn’t actually believe; Sessions actually believes that sewage.
** Wallace, after losing that first election: “They out-n*ggered me. I’ll never be out-n*ggered again!”
it’s like they’re in the union just be pissed off that they’re in the union.
And yet,, Mark Sanford (yes, the one who took the famous intercontinental hike) is one of the few Republican politicians to speak out against the Gianforte thuggery. Who knew?
it’s like they’re in the union just be pissed off that they’re in the union.
And yet,, Mark Sanford (yes, the one who took the famous intercontinental hike) is one of the few Republican politicians to speak out against the Gianforte thuggery. Who knew?
Blimey Snarki, I assumed this was a joke til I read your comment again….
You’ve never heard of Doughy Pant Load’s magnum opus? Truly a “classic” of the projection genre.
Blimey Snarki, I assumed this was a joke til I read your comment again….
You’ve never heard of Doughy Pant Load’s magnum opus? Truly a “classic” of the projection genre.
In other news, maybe fascist is not the word I should have used (sorry) for viewpoints supporting Republican politics. I know it’s not technically, legally correct, but how about “traitor”?
Not much energy from Republicans about all of this.
Yawn. The President works for Putin. But tax cut.
In other news, maybe fascist is not the word I should have used (sorry) for viewpoints supporting Republican politics. I know it’s not technically, legally correct, but how about “traitor”?
Not much energy from Republicans about all of this.
Yawn. The President works for Putin. But tax cut.
** Wallace, after losing that first election: “They out-n*ggered me. I’ll never be out-n*ggered again!”
Ah, yes. I had not idea he was so enlightened.
** Wallace, after losing that first election: “They out-n*ggered me. I’ll never be out-n*ggered again!”
Ah, yes. I had not idea he was so enlightened.
not not … no
not not … no
For his time and place, in that first election Wallace actually was enlightened. Which is why he lost.
For his time and place, in that first election Wallace actually was enlightened. Which is why he lost.
For his time and place, in that first election Wallace actually was enlightened. Which is why he lost.
Probably true. He later betrayed his “enlightenment”. Then maybe regained it. Sad that people screw up so horribly.
For his time and place, in that first election Wallace actually was enlightened. Which is why he lost.
Probably true. He later betrayed his “enlightenment”. Then maybe regained it. Sad that people screw up so horribly.
True. But still puts him head and shoulders above Sessions IMHO.
True. But still puts him head and shoulders above Sessions IMHO.
True. But still puts him head and shoulders above Sessions IMHO.
Yes. And, okay, every single Republican senator voted for Sessions. Wallace would not have been affirmed in that way.
Holding back on the bad words, because the discussion then results in lectures about my bad words, but …
I think people who support R’s are “misguided”. That word will represent all of the bad “bullying” words I would be happy to use elsewhere.
True. But still puts him head and shoulders above Sessions IMHO.
Yes. And, okay, every single Republican senator voted for Sessions. Wallace would not have been affirmed in that way.
Holding back on the bad words, because the discussion then results in lectures about my bad words, but …
I think people who support R’s are “misguided”. That word will represent all of the bad “bullying” words I would be happy to use elsewhere.
Also, as is currently being discussed on LGM, Rodrigo Duterte is a fascist. I’m happy for someone to correct my terminology!
Donald Trump loves him some Rodrigo Duterte. Not hearing a lot of R pushback on that. Why not? Tax cuts?
How much are you people making?
Also, as is currently being discussed on LGM, Rodrigo Duterte is a fascist. I’m happy for someone to correct my terminology!
Donald Trump loves him some Rodrigo Duterte. Not hearing a lot of R pushback on that. Why not? Tax cuts?
How much are you people making?
Oh, by “you people” I mean people who are supporting Republicans. I’m sure no one here.
Oh, by “you people” I mean people who are supporting Republicans. I’m sure no one here.
I think people who support R’s are “misguided”
I look at it this way:
I think people who support R’s are “misguided”
I look at it this way:
Duterte would be a fascist if he had the mental rigor of Mussolini.
Duterte would be a fascist if he had the mental rigor of Mussolini.
Russell, you know Rick was lying. Right?
–TP
Russell, you know Rick was lying. Right?
–TP
if only everyone had Rick’s self awareness and sense of playful ironic humor.
unfortunately, it seems there are many who play those lines straight.
if only everyone had Rick’s self awareness and sense of playful ironic humor.
unfortunately, it seems there are many who play those lines straight.
“unfortunately, it seems there are many who play those lines straight.”
and that have the power to “round up the usual suspects”.
“unfortunately, it seems there are many who play those lines straight.”
and that have the power to “round up the usual suspects”.
An extraordinary editorial from Der Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/donald-trump-is-a-menace-to-the-world-opinion-a-1148471.html
An extraordinary editorial from Der Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/donald-trump-is-a-menace-to-the-world-opinion-a-1148471.html
i suspect that’s what should happen, and what likely will happen: the rest of the world will just work around Trump.
M~AGA
i suspect that’s what should happen, and what likely will happen: the rest of the world will just work around Trump.
M~AGA
Many Americans tried to warn other Americans that He, Trump would become a menace to the world as well as to America if elected president. And yet Americans as a whole insisted on electing a Russian mole to preside over them.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people can never be better than The People are. It is We the People who have offended and endangered the civilized world, and We bear a collective burden of guilt.
Before the America First crowd pipes up to denounce the notion that We the People should give a crap about the world’s judgement of us, let us remember the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence:
Everybody remembers the opening phrase, but many would rather forget the bolded part which is the operative clause of that famous sentence. (Jefferson, Franklin, and that crowd must not have been true patriots, eh?)
Meanwhile, other nations appear to vote somewhat less stupidly than We did. The French rejected Trump-in-skirts, and the Iranians rejected their greater evil. So there’s still a glimmer of hope for humanity as a whole.
–TP
Many Americans tried to warn other Americans that He, Trump would become a menace to the world as well as to America if elected president. And yet Americans as a whole insisted on electing a Russian mole to preside over them.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people can never be better than The People are. It is We the People who have offended and endangered the civilized world, and We bear a collective burden of guilt.
Before the America First crowd pipes up to denounce the notion that We the People should give a crap about the world’s judgement of us, let us remember the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence:
Everybody remembers the opening phrase, but many would rather forget the bolded part which is the operative clause of that famous sentence. (Jefferson, Franklin, and that crowd must not have been true patriots, eh?)
Meanwhile, other nations appear to vote somewhat less stupidly than We did. The French rejected Trump-in-skirts, and the Iranians rejected their greater evil. So there’s still a glimmer of hope for humanity as a whole.
–TP
“Before the America First crowd pipes up to denounce the notion that We the People should give a crap about the world’s judgement of us, …”
I was reflecting this morning that the so-called America First crowd and their fellow-traveling conservatives by and large not only put into place an individual, who may not only suffer from clinical dementia, but who knows NOTHING about how government works, domestically and in foreign affairs, but an entire movement which clearly operates with total contempt for our own government and its operations, but who explicitly trust, it is clearer every day, some of the most authoritarian and brutal governments on the face of the Earth …. Saudi Arabia, Russia, the Philippines …. in all of their actions.
In fact, the judgement of these governments, if not their countries, are held in much higher esteem by the so-called America First crowd and their fellow travelers than our own government and country are.
These filth and their conservative brethren hate the IRS and its completely legitimate functions of collecting revenue to operate our governmental institutions, but they shower our tax money on murderous regimes.
The employees of other governments, paid by the citizens of those countries via their own tax regimes, have ready access to the ears of the current inhabitants of the White House, but the expert employees of our own government are blackballed and held in utter contempt and their jobs unfilled and abolished.
Fuck the Republican Party.
Fuck it and kill it.
“Before the America First crowd pipes up to denounce the notion that We the People should give a crap about the world’s judgement of us, …”
I was reflecting this morning that the so-called America First crowd and their fellow-traveling conservatives by and large not only put into place an individual, who may not only suffer from clinical dementia, but who knows NOTHING about how government works, domestically and in foreign affairs, but an entire movement which clearly operates with total contempt for our own government and its operations, but who explicitly trust, it is clearer every day, some of the most authoritarian and brutal governments on the face of the Earth …. Saudi Arabia, Russia, the Philippines …. in all of their actions.
In fact, the judgement of these governments, if not their countries, are held in much higher esteem by the so-called America First crowd and their fellow travelers than our own government and country are.
These filth and their conservative brethren hate the IRS and its completely legitimate functions of collecting revenue to operate our governmental institutions, but they shower our tax money on murderous regimes.
The employees of other governments, paid by the citizens of those countries via their own tax regimes, have ready access to the ears of the current inhabitants of the White House, but the expert employees of our own government are blackballed and held in utter contempt and their jobs unfilled and abolished.
Fuck the Republican Party.
Fuck it and kill it.
Count, why aren’t you in Liverpool for the 50th anniversary celebrations? Liverpool wants to know.
(I remember as if it were yesterday the documentaries etc which started “It was twenty years ago today…”, the bit I can’t get my head around is that that was 30 years ago).
Count, why aren’t you in Liverpool for the 50th anniversary celebrations? Liverpool wants to know.
(I remember as if it were yesterday the documentaries etc which started “It was twenty years ago today…”, the bit I can’t get my head around is that that was 30 years ago).
Good question, GFTNC.
I aim to attend the annual Liverpool Beatlefest one day, which I’ve heard puts the ones here in the U.S. to shame, which is only fitting.
I met Donovan Leitch at the one I attended in Chicago 15 years ago today it was.
Yes, 999,999,950 years from now, the organizers will have Carl Sagan in tape intoning the intro: “It was a BBBBBillion years ago today, when Sgt. Pepper brought the band to play!”
Paul will be nearly one billion and 75 years old when he shows up for that one.
Good question, GFTNC.
I aim to attend the annual Liverpool Beatlefest one day, which I’ve heard puts the ones here in the U.S. to shame, which is only fitting.
I met Donovan Leitch at the one I attended in Chicago 15 years ago today it was.
Yes, 999,999,950 years from now, the organizers will have Carl Sagan in tape intoning the intro: “It was a BBBBBillion years ago today, when Sgt. Pepper brought the band to play!”
Paul will be nearly one billion and 75 years old when he shows up for that one.
Surely it’s “when Sgt Pepper taught the band to play?
Surely it’s “when Sgt Pepper taught the band to play?
Yes, well, it’s been 50.
Early on in the Beatles legend, playbills and announcers would introduce Paul as Paul McCarthy.
Yes, well, it’s been 50.
Early on in the Beatles legend, playbills and announcers would introduce Paul as Paul McCarthy.
God knows, with your encyclopaedic knowledge, you’re allowed the occasional slip. In fact, if you never made one, it would be downright eerie.
God knows, with your encyclopaedic knowledge, you’re allowed the occasional slip. In fact, if you never made one, it would be downright eerie.
Encyclopaedic perhaps with Beatles and baseball.
In all other areas, despite the shooting off of my mouth to the contrary, my record is a compendium of slips, goofs, overstatements, and dubious certainties.
Encyclopaedic perhaps with Beatles and baseball.
In all other areas, despite the shooting off of my mouth to the contrary, my record is a compendium of slips, goofs, overstatements, and dubious certainties.
dubious certainties
By far the best kind.
And so to bed – good night Count.
dubious certainties
By far the best kind.
And so to bed – good night Count.
Dubious certainties are certainly dubious…
Dubious certainties are certainly dubious…
So, today I was pondering the multiple celebrations of Memorial Day, fireworks, picnics, military salutes, and remembrances in song, and it occurred to me that I was not giving the country, the people or the core values of those that came before us nearly enough respect.
For all of those here who disagree with me in different ways and to different extents, perhaps sapient most but the list isn’t short, I will not complain about your criticism, or its vehemence, again. Our country has been built on the words and deeds of people of great heart and deep devotion.
The differences that we have overcome for a few hundred years were no less stark in their day, nor were the emotions that drove the opposition any less fierce than each of you express.
I have the greatest respect for each of you here, the depth of caring, the dedication to principle and the fierce defense of our country.
I wish each of you a thoughtful and enjoyable Memorial Day. I will try hard to keep in mind that all of you represent the best of what America stands for, people of conscience striving to create a better, kinder, more secure country, and world, for those that come after us.
So, today I was pondering the multiple celebrations of Memorial Day, fireworks, picnics, military salutes, and remembrances in song, and it occurred to me that I was not giving the country, the people or the core values of those that came before us nearly enough respect.
For all of those here who disagree with me in different ways and to different extents, perhaps sapient most but the list isn’t short, I will not complain about your criticism, or its vehemence, again. Our country has been built on the words and deeds of people of great heart and deep devotion.
The differences that we have overcome for a few hundred years were no less stark in their day, nor were the emotions that drove the opposition any less fierce than each of you express.
I have the greatest respect for each of you here, the depth of caring, the dedication to principle and the fierce defense of our country.
I wish each of you a thoughtful and enjoyable Memorial Day. I will try hard to keep in mind that all of you represent the best of what America stands for, people of conscience striving to create a better, kinder, more secure country, and world, for those that come after us.
Deep and sincere thanks for that comment Marty, and it is a sentiment we can agree on. Hear, hear!
Deep and sincere thanks for that comment Marty, and it is a sentiment we can agree on. Hear, hear!
Agreed. And I would add: in this comment you show your true character, and it’s a very fine one.
Agreed. And I would add: in this comment you show your true character, and it’s a very fine one.
what Marty said, so very graciously.
a safe and happy Memorial Day to all. may we never forget the folks who stepped up and put themselves in harms way.
a shout out to Andy’s family, if they still read our scribblings. he was a remarkable man.
Beautifully said, Marty.
what Marty said, so very graciously.
a safe and happy Memorial Day to all. may we never forget the folks who stepped up and put themselves in harms way.
a shout out to Andy’s family, if they still read our scribblings. he was a remarkable man.
Beautifully said, Marty.
For all of those here who disagree with me in different ways and to different extents, perhaps sapient most but the list isn’t short, I will not complain about your criticism, or its vehemence, again. Our country has been built on the words and deeds of people of great heart and deep devotion.
I deeply appreciate this, Marty. Because I disagree with you so strongly, it’s difficult for me to maintain a civil tone. I will try to reciprocate your generosity.
For all of those here who disagree with me in different ways and to different extents, perhaps sapient most but the list isn’t short, I will not complain about your criticism, or its vehemence, again. Our country has been built on the words and deeds of people of great heart and deep devotion.
I deeply appreciate this, Marty. Because I disagree with you so strongly, it’s difficult for me to maintain a civil tone. I will try to reciprocate your generosity.
Well said, sapient.
And now further to my ongoing posting of the Observer’s pieces on breaches of election law in the US or UK using illicit big data, today’s piece (while squarely about the UK’s ongoing election campaign) gives some interesting insight into exactly how the resulting ads by the Conservatives are being used to drown out those of their opponents:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/conservatives-facebook-dark-ads-data-protection-election
Well said, sapient.
And now further to my ongoing posting of the Observer’s pieces on breaches of election law in the US or UK using illicit big data, today’s piece (while squarely about the UK’s ongoing election campaign) gives some interesting insight into exactly how the resulting ads by the Conservatives are being used to drown out those of their opponents:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/conservatives-facebook-dark-ads-data-protection-election
Thanks all for the kind words.
Thanks all for the kind words.
Thanks for that Marty. This thread is creaking under the weight of comments, so I’m going to close it and open up another thread.
Thanks for that Marty. This thread is creaking under the weight of comments, so I’m going to close it and open up another thread.