[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

You don't have a clue. What rock were you sleeping under for the past 20 years?

The Rock of Reality. I didn't sit in front of my TV, intently watching some pseudo-cowboy spew his fancy rhetoric, telling me what I wanted to hear, and then asking my mommy to confirm his statements. It's easy to believe authority figures; it saves having to do your own learning, and questioning. That's exactly what the governments of the past several decades are hoping for. They like sheep.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The Rock of Reality. I didn't sit in front of my TV, intently watching some pseudo-cowboy spew his fancy rhetoric, telling me what I wanted to hear, and then asking my mommy to confirm his statements. It's easy to believe authority figures; it saves having to do your own learning, and questioning. That's exactly what the governments of the past several decades are hoping for. They like sheep.

The problem with this position is that it wasn't just "fancy rhetoric." Words and deeds. The Soviet Union could have hobbled along for years with an administration that didn't challenge them or force their hands. Reagan did that. That's pretty much as simple as it can be stated.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The reason the world is collapsing now is the lack of support Obama is giving to the rest of the world, except his radical idols, Muslim extremists, dictators and the like.

lolwut?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So, they are waiting for cooler heads to prevail before investing again.

It's all about uncertainty. People are worried enough that "what comes next" is a complete terror. Because given what's happened under Pelosi, Reid and Obama (with Obama having the LEAST input on it thus far) there is no way to tell WTF is coming next.

As for the deification of Ronald Reagan, he deserves a pretty high place in the fall of the USSR. So does the pope. And Thatcher. There is no question that the USSR was collapsing under its own weight, but it took one good kick to knock the whole mess down. We didn't set them up for failure, that was Marx/Lenin/Stalin and a host of plenty of others, most of them without any real learning behind their socialist "theories" within the infrastructure.

Don't believe me? Look how fast China interlocked its future to the West's future after all that happened in Europe. Some of that was in process way back when, but it really picked up steam post-'89. Just because they are pinko commie slavers doesn't mean they're stupid.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Agreed. The fall of the Soviet Union, as it existed, was likely inevitable, but there were several factors that accelerated it.

Getting back on topic , I can see patterns emerging for the US for political stability issues with this shooting being a result of more unrest between 2 sides. The shooter himself might not have been a political person but using the growing split between left and right as a excuse to shoot some one but its still the same. Several factors from corrupt governments, corporations, world terror are eating at the fabrics of the US. 50 years from now as China is the new super power we might be having the same discussion on how the US went broke, how terrorist changed the society and how loan gun man shot politicians to lead to the fall of the US as the only super power.

[ebuddy]

Whu?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The problem with this position is that it wasn't just "fancy rhetoric." Words and deeds. The Soviet Union could have hobbled along for years with an administration that didn't challenge them or force their hands. Reagan did that. That's pretty much as simple as it can be stated.

Your opinion is duly noted, and if you think his words had any effect on the collapse, there's no further help for you. IMO, it's more likely that his words just happened to be spoken as the Soviet Union was crumbling anyway. I know it's fashionable, by many, to think that the U. S. is the shining beacon of hope for the entire planet, and we have abilities that only we can have, but reality is much different. The rest of the world is slowly, but surely, realizing that they don't need us as much anymore, and when they realize they don't need our dollar, we'll be doing like they did in Germany when my mother was a child there; going to the grocery store with armfuls of money, just to buy a loaf of bread.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Your opinion is duly noted, and if you think his words had any effect on the collapse, there's no further help for you. IMO, it's more likely that his words just happened to be spoken as the Soviet Union was crumbling anyway. I know it's fashionable, by many, to think that the U. S. is the shining beacon of hope for the entire planet, and we have abilities that only we can have, but reality is much different. The rest of the world is slowly, but surely, realizing that they don't need us as much anymore, and when they realize they don't need our dollar, we'll be doing like they did in Germany when my mother was a child there; going to the grocery store with armfuls of money, just to buy a loaf of bread.

So... it's either American Exceptionalism or abject pessimism; the world is moving on without us and we'll all be standing in bread lines? Okay... unless... what? I mean, are we going to be standing in bread lines because we're Americans and deserve it or is it something else? If it's the product of failed governance, what is your ideal that would keep us from the bread lines? Unless of course, you happen to appreciate a good bread line or find the self-loathing thing more productive.

Tell me great thinker of thoughts, how shall we avoid OldMan's quattrain of doom and misery?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Tell me great thinker of thoughts, how shall we avoid OldMan's quattrain of doom and misery?

Kneel before me.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Your opinion is duly noted, and if you think his words had any effect on the collapse, there's no further help for you. IMO, it's more likely that his words just happened to be spoken as the Soviet Union was crumbling anyway.

You still seemed confused in your stand. I already conceded that the Soviet Union was in bad shape. I stated that WORDS AND DEEDS probably did have a huge effect at pushing them over the brink were they had to react - not just "his words." It's not my belief that the U.S.S.R. collapsed just because Reagan told it to. It's my belief that as Reagan was telling it to, he was also implementing policy which made it harder and harder for them to exist in the world as they knew it then. They were on top of the cliff and they had gotten themselves there. They were far enough away from the edge that they could have stayed safely for awhile, but Reagan kept pushing, and pushing, and pushing and they finally jumped.

I know it's fashionable, by many, to think that the U. S. is the shining beacon of hope for the entire planet, and we have abilities that only we can have, but reality is much different. The rest of the world is slowly, but surely, realizing that they don't need us as much anymore, and when they realize they don't need our dollar, we'll be doing like they did in Germany when my mother was a child there; going to the grocery store with armfuls of money, just to buy a loaf of bread.

The reality is that the US is still "different" than all of the other countries in many unique and important ways. While the other countries may very well don't see us AS important as they did a few years ago due to some mismanagement issues (which I'm pretty sure are going to sort themselves out in the next couple of years), we are still really the worlds only superpower. We've got places we can put pressure points on that no other country can. While the current administration may very well see the future "new norm" as us standing buying a loaf of bread with armfuls of money (as they apparently currently due in regards to high unemployment and low economic growth), I think that the rest of the country has had enough and will be more than glad to put people in office that will implement responsible economic policies.

Money talks. The rest, not so much. The rest of the world talks tough until it hurts their pocketbooks, and dissing the US while it's "reorganizing it's books" is in fashion now. Think Apple.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Your opinion is duly noted, and if you think his words had any effect on the collapse, there's no further help for you. IMO, it's more likely that his words just happened to be spoken as the Soviet Union was crumbling anyway. I know it's fashionable, by many, to think that the U. S. is the shining beacon of hope for the entire planet, and we have abilities that only we can have, but reality is much different. The rest of the world is slowly, but surely, realizing that they don't need us as much anymore, and when they realize they don't need our dollar, we'll be doing like they did in Germany when my mother was a child there; going to the grocery store with armfuls of money, just to buy a loaf of bread.

I suggest that it is the Liberal policies that have made the US less powerful and desirable. This has been going on for decades. The financial collapse started by trying to get the unqualified into home ownership. It has been a slow path to destruction, and our current administration has wasted trillions with little to show for it, because of the same kind of flawed policies. We have quit manufacturing the best possible goods because union labor is too expensive, yet no better than non-union labor. Another down side to unions is they ruin the financial standings of the various industries they have invaded and make the products cost more than they would otherwise.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The reality is that the US is still "different" than all of the other countries in many unique and important ways. While the other countries may very well don't see us AS important as they did a few years ago due to some mismanagement issues (which I'm pretty sure are going to sort themselves out in the next couple of years), we are still really the worlds only superpower.

We are the world's superpower, but not for long. China will eclipse us shortly, and our mismanagement issues are too severe to correct, at this point. If you study history, you would realize that all countries' times come to an end eventually, and, IMO, we are beginning that end.

We've got places we can put pressure points on that no other country can.

We used to have those pressure points. The world is slowly realizing that it can get a bigger piece of the pie that we've had for many decades. That's why we shipped our manufacturing overseas; because people will work for less money elsewhere, and they're creating their own middle class economies, while we're unable to fathom why ours is disappearing.

While the current administration may very well see the future "new norm" as us standing buying a loaf of bread with armfuls of money (as they apparently currently due in regards to high unemployment and low economic growth), I think that the rest of the country has had enough and will be more than glad to put people in office that will implement responsible economic policies.

Responsible economic policies aren't formulated by mega corporations, who are busy buying the U. S., state, and local governments. People have been duped into bringing people into power who are only interested in enriching themselves, and the empty rhetoric the disaffected have been spewing has been provided by those powerful enough to manipulate the disaffected into keeping them frothing at the mouth, while not realizing they're being duped.

[quoteMoney talks. The rest, not so much. The rest of the world talks tough until it hurts their pocketbooks, and dissing the US while it's "reorganizing it's books" is in fashion now. Think Apple.[/QUOTE]

There is no parallel between Apple and the U. S., other than that Apple has become a very successful corporation (while paying many of its employees marginal wages, yet accumulating many billions in cash).

The problem you, and many others, fail to recognize is that the middle class, which is the engine of growth in the U. S., is rapidly declining. One can point to unemployment percentages, and say that the numbers are getting better. That's useless drivel. The real issue is underemployment, and the slicing of wages and benefits, which allow the middle class to buy the junk that keeps us going. For a good chunk of the last century, the U. S. was in a fortunate position, to be able to loot the world's resources and build a grand middle class (the likes of which has never been seen before). The rest of the world, however, absorbed our technologies and realized they too could have a shot at a middle class, which is what we're seeing in China (and India, if it gets its house in order). They're willing to work for less to improve their lives; if we work for less, our economic growth declines, because we can't continue consuming at previous levels. The very wealthy don't care where their money is made; if they can't make it off the backs of working Americans, they'll move it somewhere else. They have no patriotic loyalty to American workers.

If you think that the economy is going to sustain previous levels of growth, while people make less and less, you fail to see what's happening.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I suggest that it is the Liberal policies that have made the US less powerful and desirable. This has been going on for decades. The financial collapse started by trying to get the unqualified into home ownership. It has been a slow path to destruction, and our current administration has wasted trillions with little to show for it, because of the same kind of flawed policies. We have quit manufacturing the best possible goods because union labor is too expensive, yet no better than non-union labor. Another down side to unions is they ruin the financial standings of the various industries they have invaded and make the products cost more than they would otherwise.

You also fail to understand what's happening, grabbing a quick and easy answer that can be deduced by anyone at the water cooler, and extrapolating it out to suit your position. You obviously don't understand the real ebb and flow of world powers, preferring to blame it instead on unions, which are an infinitesimally small part of the problem. Auto workers, which were the first to organize large scale unions in America, wouldn't have been able to buy the cars they made, and the houses they bought in large numbers after WWII, and the cottages, and many of the other niceties of what became a surging middle class in America. You seem not to realize that one begets the other, instead preferring to simplify your responses by grabbing a quick and easy answer. You have to reach past simplistic answers and realize that there are global dynamics at work here. Other countries' populations now want the same middle class (think China and its exploding auto market), and they are willing to work for less to achieve that. We can't keep working for less, without giving up much of what we've accumulated over the last century, and that's a problem no one here seems to understand.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Getting back on topic , I can see patterns emerging for the US for political stability issues with this shooting being a result of more unrest between 2 sides. The shooter himself might not have been a political person but using the growing split between left and right as a excuse to shoot some one but its still the same. Several factors from corrupt governments, corporations, world terror are eating at the fabrics of the US. 50 years from now as China is the new super power we might be having the same discussion on how the US went broke, how terrorist changed the society and how loan gun man shot politicians to lead to the fall of the US as the only super power.

And that is the KoolAid flavor of the week, folks. All this divisiveness is killing us, one blog post at a time. No justice, no peace.

[SpaceMonkey]

Outside of a few notable industries (automobiles being the obvious one) unions have never been less powerful in the private sector since their rise after the Great Depression. Union membership in the private sector is now well under 10% and the largest areas of unionization are in the public sector: police, teachers, etc. We have not "quit manufacturing the best possible goods" because union labor is too expensive. We have lost manufacturing jobs because American labor is too expensive, period. Would you be willing to accept a lower standard of living if it meant that the United States would have a larger manufacturing sector? I doubt it.

There was an interesting piece in the New Yorker recently about the transition to viewing unions as just another interest group, as opposed to a larger public benefit, and its relationship to the decline of unionization generally in America: Public support for labor unions hits a new low : The New Yorker

[Doofy]

You've lost manufacturing base because, by and large, your products are shite. Chinese build quality far surpasses yours. You've been trading on brand name, not product quality... ...for a long, long time.

You got fat and weak. You lay on a bed in your hotel room while charlie squatted in the bush.
You told yourselves that products were good because they had a little spangled banner on them, but only you believed it and the rest of the world saw through the BS.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You've lost manufacturing base because, by and large, your products are shite. Chinese build quality far surpasses yours. You've been trading on brand name, not product quality... ...for a long, long time.

You got fat and weak. You lay on a bed in your hotel room while charlie squatted in the bush.
You told yourselves that products were good because they had a little spangled banner on them, but only you believed it and the rest of the world saw through the BS.

Depends on the industry. In general, at least in terms of consumer products destined for the U.S. market, the trajectory has been: American labor costs too high --> look for alternatives that are "good enough." As greater investment is poured into countries like China, their build quality goes up, and "good enough" may become "better than."

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You got fat

"Try SweatShop™ brand economy and watch those pounds just melt away!"

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Depends on the industry. In general, at least in terms of consumer products destined for the U.S. market, the trajectory has been: American labor costs too high --> look for alternatives that are "good enough." As greater investment is poured into countries like China, their build quality goes up, and "good enough" may become "better than."

Exactly. Instead of finding better, newer, more efficient manufacturing methods, you lay on the bed getting fat.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Exactly. Instead of finding better, newer, more efficient manufacturing methods, you lay on the bed getting fat.

Recent economic problems aside (which don't have much directly to do with the decline of a manufacturing sector) I'm not sure that it's necessary for us to do anything about it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Recent economic problems aside (which don't have much directly to do with the decline of a manufacturing sector) I'm not sure that it's necessary for us to do anything about it.

I'm not sure it's possible for you to do anything about it. Point of no return has been passed.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The financial collapse started by trying to get the unqualified into home ownership.

You ignored the part where Republicans removed regulation enabling banks and investment firms to offer the ridiculous loans in the first place.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

It has been a slow path to destruction, and our current administration has wasted trillions with little to show for it, because of the same kind of flawed policies.

Obama didn't start the war or create TARP. Also, the market is at a 3 year high since the economic downturn with very impressive gains.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

We have quit manufacturing the best possible goods because union labor is too expensive, yet no better than non-union labor.

You ignored the 1.3 billion Chinese people offering the same labor at a cost U.S. labor can not compete with.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Another down side to unions is they ruin the financial standings of the various industries they have invaded and make the products cost more than they would otherwise.

Those industries ruined themselves through incompetence. Unions are only as powerful as the agreements they make. The door swings both ways, that's why it's called collective bargaining.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You ignored the part where Republicans removed regulation enabling banks and investment firms to offer the ridiculous loans in the first place.

you ignore the damage Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the like did to push us over the edge as for political reasons. HOW MUCH is FANNIE and FREDDIE in the hole for? 15 Billion? 20 billion? Those were mismanaged since '07 by the Democrats.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Obama didn't start the war or create TARP. Also, the market is at a 3 year high since the economic downturn with very impressive gains.

Oh yeah, he voted 'present'. The Democrats and Republicans voted to go to war against Iraq. TARP wouldn't have been needed if the Democrats hadn't mismanaged the banking and mortgage industries in the first place. Even Obama was shaking down lenders with a phony study that blacks were being discriminated against. When the originator of that study finally said he made it all up, Obama had to find other ways to make a buck.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You ignored the 1.3 billion Chinese people offering the same labor at a cost U.S. labor can not compete with.

You mean expensive UNION Labor?

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Those industries ruined themselves through incompetence. Unions are only as powerful as the agreements they make. The door swings both ways, that's why it's called collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining means ALL THE LABORERS were the collective, not the various business owners. And for all that, they are no better than non-union workers, just more expensive. We saw the greedy auto workers with their grubby hands out, not caring if the auto manufacturers went out of business as long as they got their pensions. The greed of the union dolts is what killed the auto industry.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

you ignore the damage Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the like did to push us over the edge as for political reasons. HOW MUCH is FANNIE and FREDDIE in the hole for? 15 Billion? 20 billion? Those were mismanaged since '07 by the Democrats.

No I didn't, because I never blamed the the problems of our country on a single political party or ideology. That's apparently your job.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

TARP wouldn't have been needed if the Democrats hadn't mismanaged the banking and mortgage industries in the first place.

It's been, what, 5 minutes and you've gone back to ignoring the deregulation I brought up. Way to stick to them guns.

Yes, the Democrats were completely incompetent, but that isn't an excuse for Republicans and their lobbyists to completely exploit the situation.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You mean expensive UNION Labor?

No.

Federal Minimum Hourly Wage: $7.25
China's Minimum Hourly Wage: $.39

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Collective bargaining means ALL THE LABORERS were the collective, not the various business owners.

OK.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

We saw the greedy auto workers with their grubby hands out, not caring if the auto manufacturers went out of business as long as they got their pensions.

The U.S. went through this thing called The Great Depression. To increase labor workforce for U.S. industries following the depression, the companies (e.g. not unions) competed by offering retirement packages and health benefits.

Fast forward 50 years. 1980s roll around and CEOs are now making 130 times the equivalent executive pay for a company that is relying on a business plan set 70 years ago. What chance does an industry have if its corporate management is stuck in the 1930s?

Furthermore, considering that the larger unions actually hold stocks in the companies they work for, what possible incentive is there for a labor union to force the company to go out of business?

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The greed of the union dolts is what killed the auto industry.

No. It had a part, but it wasn't the reason.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

you ignore the damage Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the like did to push us over the edge as for political reasons. HOW MUCH is FANNIE and FREDDIE in the hole for? 15 Billion? 20 billion? Those were mismanaged since '07 by the Democrats.

Your hatred for Democrats and "liberals" consistently clouds your judgement and ability to think. Do you really think this all happened since 2007?

Oh yeah, he voted 'present'. The Democrats and Republicans voted to go to war against Iraq. TARP wouldn't have been needed if the Democrats hadn't mismanaged the banking and mortgage industries in the first place. Even Obama was shaking down lenders with a phony study that blacks were being discriminated against. When the originator of that study finally said he made it all up, Obama had to find other ways to make a buck.

Citation, please, on this study. I hate to be the bearer of the truth to you (because you probably won't believe it anyway, with your state of denial), but the majority of banking execs are Republicans, who happen to believe in less regulation (so they can make more money).

You mean expensive UNION Labor?

No, labor, period. Unions haven't been a dominant force in America for decades and, as others have pointed out (but which you'd rather conveniently ignore), unions are somewhere around 10% of the work force. Yet you'll continue to insist that it was them that threw this country down the river, because it's one of the few things you know to grab on to when you need a quick answer.

Collective bargaining means ALL THE LABORERS were the collective, not the various business owners. And for all that, they are no better than non-union workers, just more expensive. We saw the greedy auto workers with their grubby hands out, not caring if the auto manufacturers went out of business as long as they got their pensions. The greed of the union dolts is what killed the auto industry.

Sigh. You understand so little about business that it's almost painful to try to explain things to you. Management is in charge of running a company, and that includes determining what pay and benefits the company can afford to give its employees. During the heyday of the American automobile industry, it was short-sighted management that made the decision to give the employees fat paychecks and great benefits, because management thought their rose-colored view was going to last forever. When it didn't, it was the workers who started suffering, while executives continued to outpace their employees in rates of raises and increase in benefits, even though their ships were taking on water! A few short decades ago, a CEO of an average company earned 20 to thirty times what an average worker earned; today they "earn" 300 to four hundred times (or more) the same employee, yet you're no doubt going to continue blathering on about union workers, and how it's all their fault!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No I didn't, because I never blamed the the problems of our country on a single political party or ideology. That's apparently your job.

You claimed that "Republicans removed regulation". This isn't true. First of all, the GLB only repealed part of Glass-Steagall. In fact, the legislation authored by Republicans and passed by Clinton actually tasked the Federal Reserve with oversight (regulation) over the same financial activities that had always been regulated prior. The least diversified were among the first to fail, the most diversified survived. By your logic, Europe should've led the way of mortgage meltdowns because they had no Glass-Steagall Act. The "high-risk" paper being pushed would not have been available without a push from government for lending institutions to grant them. It's the government's sandbox, players are merely building their castles in it.

It's been, what, 5 minutes and you've gone back to ignoring the deregulation I brought up. Way to stick to them guns.

It's correct that he should ignore it. This is factually incorrect. Republicans pushed for regulating the single, largest players in this mess and Democrats opposed it. I'm not saying both parties aren't to blame, but you seem to be going from one direction all the way to the other.

Federal Minimum Hourly Wage: $7.25
China's Minimum Hourly Wage: $.39

So we can count on your "no" vote the next time a minimum wage hike is proposed?

The U.S. went through this thing called The Great Depression. To increase labor workforce for U.S. industries following the depression, the companies (e.g. not unions) competed by offering retirement packages and health benefits.

Fast forward 50 years. 1980s roll around and CEOs are now making 130 times the equivalent executive pay for a company that is relying on a business plan set 70 years ago. What chance does an industry have if its corporate management is stuck in the 1930s?

Furthermore, considering that the larger unions actually hold stocks in the companies they work for, what possible incentive is there for a labor union to force the company to go out of business?

Unions had their time. We are a much more informed and litigious society and as such, unions have outlived their usefulness. They reward mediocrity, cut 10% on average off the bottom-line of a company, drive up costs of products across the board, and are among the largest culprits of US outsourcing labor. Union bennies and pay to government employees are driving cities into bankruptcy and their educational counterparts with greater concern for tenure than student achievement are driving our children into intellectual poverty. I say good riddance. Whatever pros they have are no longer worth the cons.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Unions had their time. We are a much more informed and litigious society and as such, unions have outlived their usefulness. They reward mediocrity, cut 10% on average off the bottom-line of a company, drive up costs of products across the board, and are among the largest culprits of US outsourcing labor. Union bennies and pay to government employees are driving cities into bankruptcy and their educational counterparts with greater concern for tenure than student achievement are driving our children into intellectual poverty. I say good riddance. Whatever pros they have are no longer worth the cons.

Only one governor and state have the balls to say this out-loud and confront it head on. Lately I wish I lived in NJ.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Unions had their time. We are a much more informed and litigious society and as such, unions have outlived their usefulness. They reward mediocrity, cut 10% on average off the bottom-line of a company, drive up costs of products across the board, and are among the largest culprits of US outsourcing labor. Union bennies and pay to government employees are driving cities into bankruptcy and their educational counterparts with greater concern for tenure than student achievement are driving our children into intellectual poverty. I say good riddance. Whatever pros they have are no longer worth the cons.

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

Only one governor and state have the balls to say this out-loud and confront it head on. Lately I wish I lived in NJ.

Look at the states where the "foreign" automakers are building their plants, in right to work states. Honda, Toyota, Subaru, and others all have plants in the south, and to my knowledge, none in Michigan.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Look at the states where the "foreign" automakers are building their plants, in right to work states. Honda, Toyota, Subaru, and others all have plants in the south, and to my knowledge, none in Michigan.

Detroit has been a Liberal Haven for 40+ Years. How is that working out for them? lol.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Tell me great thinker of thoughts, how shall we avoid OldMan's quattrain of doom and misery?

Just a guess, but I think it's something like we embrace a whole bunch of ideas that have already collapsed and failed miserably when tried. Just this time around, the slogans need to be Hopier and Changeier.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's the government's sandbox, players are merely building their castles in it.

So it's OK to exploit a situation so long as you can point fingers at someone else?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's correct that he should ignore it. This is factually incorrect. Republicans pushed for regulating the single, largest players in this mess and Democrats opposed it. I'm not saying both parties aren't to blame, but you seem to be going from one direction all the way to the other.

Wrong decade. I'm referring to events leading up to the savings and loan crisis which preempted the current crash, something neither side apparently learned from. Carter seriously screwed up with the DIDMCA, but Reagan even further f*cked it up with the Garn St. Germain bill.

Allowing the banks to merge with investment companies, then removing their liability and interest rate cap? That has the to be the two most ridiculous blunders in banking history in which both Democrats and Republicans equally responsible.

I applaud Republican representatives promoting more oversight in recent years, which had to be difficult because conservatives are anti-regulation. The point I was making to BadKosh is that it wasn't just libdems.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So we can count on your "no" vote the next time a minimum wage hike is proposed?

If China magically ups their wages to $8.00/hour, yes.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Unions had their time. We are a much more informed and litigious society and as such, unions have outlived their usefulness. They reward mediocrity, cut 10% on average off the bottom-line of a company, drive up costs of products across the board, and are among the largest culprits of US outsourcing labor. Union bennies and pay to government employees are driving cities into bankruptcy and their educational counterparts with greater concern for tenure than student achievement are driving our children into intellectual poverty. I say good riddance. Whatever pros they have are no longer worth the cons.

Apparently my two-way door analogy is not working.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Wrong decade. I'm referring to events leading up to the savings and loan crisis which preempted the current crash, something neither side apparently learned from. Carter seriously screwed up with the DIDMCA, but Reagan even further f*cked it up with the Garn St. Germain bill.

Allowing the banks to merge with investment companies, then removing their liability and interest rate cap? That has the to be the two most ridiculous blunders in banking history in which both Democrats and Republicans equally responsible.

But do you know how tiring it was listening to media talk about how the S&L crisis was Reagan's fault, way back when? Blaming Reagan for raising the deposit insurance cap to $100k. Did anyone ever take them to task for it, and point out how stupid that was to say? Nope.

I'd argue that the artificial interest rate caps (designed to try and help S&Ls compete, in order to develop and industry that promoted home ownership via the Federal Home Loan Bank structure) were out of date to begin with. It was removal of investment and mortgage-creation restrictions that let them take more risk (Garn-St Germaine, in part) BUT the fact that Congress put those in place to start with meant that something had to be done.

Regulation is created to match the climate (Depression? Insurance and safety. Booming Economy? Flow of capital to borrowers.) The complete disregard for economic principles ended up getting us where we are today: say, if we just give people a mortgage who've never had one (and likely have no family tradition of having one) then it will MAGICALLY improve their standard of living and they'll be better off. Never mind that their career choices won't support payments on that house outside of the teaser period. Never mind that they work on the other side of town, so their family life will suffer (if they had any to start with). Never mind that default will be a crushing blow to their ego, and depressing for their family and children for years to come.

Education has been treated the same way (EVERYONE needs to go to college, even if they can't yet write a coherent paragraph or add 2 and 2). Look at what's happened to the value of college degrees.

It's that type of ignorance that has permeated the system in the name of "fairness" or whatever, and that's what is destroying this country as it dilutes the value of everything.

Now back to our regularly-scheduled program.

[lpkmckenna]

Youtube: Glenn Beck advocates shooting "radicals and communists" in the head, on 6/10/10. I don't watch Fox, so this kind of violent rhetoric really surprises me. Scary wingnut.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Youtube: Glenn Beck advocates shooting "radicals and communists" in the head, on 6/10/10. I don't watch Fox, so this kind of violent rhetoric really surprises me. Scary wingnut.

22 Seconds of a 15-20 Minute Section of the show. If you watch the full episode, he is actually exposing how the radical left justifies violence and why it is never the answer.

Four Parts.
The Daily Beck- Watch The Glenn Beck Show- June 10, 2010: The End Game For Radicals

[lpkmckenna]

I knew someone would try the "out of context" card. So now I'm downloading an entire Beck show.

And how can violence "never" be the answer? I can name a few revolutions and wars where violence was exactly what was necessary.

[besson3c]

This might be my most popular thread ever!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So it's OK to exploit a situation so long as you can point fingers at someone else?

This is such a broad complaint that it can apply to just about anything. The short answer of course is "yes"; it is critical that businesses exploit opportunities to remain solvent. Fear of insolvency or failure is one of the things that separates private from public spending and earning activity. As far as pointing the finger at someone else, well... no legislation will solve that.

Wrong decade. I'm referring to events leading up to the savings and loan crisis which preempted the current crash, something neither side apparently learned from. Carter seriously screwed up with the DIDMCA, but Reagan even further f*cked it up with the Garn St. Germain bill.

Apologies. If I recall, both the measures above enjoyed substantial, bipartisan support and in fact deregulating gains isn't nearly as destructive IMO as bailing out losses; exacerbating risky behaviors. It seems to me that one should be able to demonstrate that the least diversified holders fared better than the most diversified or demonstrate why this model of an unregulated market did not lead to the same failures in other systems. Perhaps one of a long line of government overreactions to economic problems, not unlike this reaction to stagflation of the 70's.

Allowing the banks to merge with investment companies, then removing their liability and interest rate cap? That has the to be the two most ridiculous blunders in banking history in which both Democrats and Republicans equally responsible.

We're no strangers to government overreaction to market corrections and/or the poorer policies preceding it. We're still doing it today. The SEC is a regulatory body, surfing porn during market meltdown. The MMS is a regulatory body asleep at the wheel during BP spill. The NHTSA is a regulatory body that sat on reports of careening Toyotas. FHFA is a regulatory body that sat idly by during the housing crisis, etc... all expensive reactionary agencies with a battery of legislation at their disposal that would rather collect from regulations than enforce them. Again, folks like to present false dichotomies such as; "Conservatives are anti-regulation" when in reality conservatives are against meaningless legislation that simply creates more do-nothing bureaucracy.

I applaud Republican representatives promoting more oversight in recent years, which had to be difficult because conservatives are anti-regulation. The point I was making to BadKosh is that it wasn't just libdems.

In this I agree, too often it was also librepubs.

If China magically ups their wages to $8.00/hour, yes.

My point was that it would be ideologically inconsistent to repeatedly cite the dichotomy of wages between China and the US while continuing to support minimum wage increases in the US.

Apparently my two-way door analogy is not working.

Probably not.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

22 Seconds of a 15-20 Minute Section of the show. If you watch the full episode, he is actually exposing how the radical left justifies violence and why it is never the answer.

Four Parts.
The Daily Beck- Watch The Glenn Beck Show- June 10, 2010: The End Game For Radicals

He's still trying to perpetuate the "scary wingnut" hypothesis because of course these people are dangerous to the Preferred speech of the disenfranchised, sour-grapes progressives holding on to the failed ideals of yesteryear.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My point was that it would be ideologically inconsistent to repeatedly cite the dichotomy of wages between China and the US while continuing to support minimum wage increases in the US.

It's only inconsistent if your goal is to get those particular jobs "back" in the United States. Since much of what the United States buys from China has not been produced in the U.S. for decades -- and we've still had periods of low national unemployment in the interim -- I don't see that as necessarily the desired goal.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I knew someone would try the "out of context" card. So now I'm downloading an entire Beck show.

And how can violence "never" be the answer? I can name a few revolutions and wars where violence was exactly what was necessary.

Context, in case downloading was too rough on you.

http://patterico.com/2011/01/20/no-c...e-in-the-head/

'Glenn Beck': Party's Over for Democrats? - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He's still trying to perpetuate the "scary wingnut" hypothesis because of course these people are dangerous to the Preferred speech of the disenfranchised, sour-grapes progressives holding on to the failed ideals of yesteryear.

I know. It's pathetic.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Youtube: Glenn Beck advocates shooting "radicals and communists" in the head, on 6/10/10. I don't watch Fox, so this kind of violent rhetoric really surprises me. Scary wingnut.

Nice, BTW that is one of my older brothers YouTube vids.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I knew someone would try the "out of context" card. So now I'm downloading an entire Beck show.

Translation: "I can't be bothered with investigation of the whole truth."

I don't really care for Glenn Beck but those who claim he is dangerous are laughable. That his comments and opinions are so often taken out of context is telling.

And how can violence "never" be the answer? I can name a few revolutions and wars where violence was exactly what was necessary.

We agree on this. "Violence is never the answer" is just a silly, mindless platitude.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Youtube: Glenn Beck advocates shooting "radicals and communists" in the head, on 6/10/10. I don't watch Fox, so this kind of violent rhetoric really surprises me. Scary wingnut.

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

22 Seconds of a 15-20 Minute Section of the show. If you watch the full episode, he is actually exposing how the radical left justifies violence and why it is never the answer.

That's what you saw in Beck's rant? "Violence is never the answer." You are inferring something Beck never says, implies, concedes, or gets close to in any way. Are you illiterate or something?

Yes, he advocates violence. He says the moderate Democrats are gonna have to kill the communist revolutionaries they have made common cause with ( ), or the commies are gonna kill them first. There's no other way to read it.

The fact that he is advocating violence to Democrats (not Republicans or conservatives or teabaggers) makes no difference to the substance of his advocacy of violence. My original point stands uncontested.

I love this statement by Beck:

The media and the politician have all of this wrong. In every single walk of life — you want to know why TV doesn't reflect you? You want to know why Washington doesn't reflect you? Because they don't understand, from the radical revolutionaries to the Islamic extremists — and yes, DOJ, they do exist — to the Tea Party movements.

Does Beck really think the DOJ denies the existence of Islamic extremists? Regardless, it's very revealing that he grouped revolutionaries, extremists, and the Tea Party in the same phrase, because they are all violent wingnuts. The teabaggers aren't "clutching their guns and Bibles" with the expectation of a peace.

I'm going to show you the beginning of that civil war inside the Democratic Party, next.

The teabaggers are struggling to grab control of the Republican party, but it's the Democratic party on the verge of civil war? Projection much, Glenn?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

My original point stands uncontested.

I love Beck

Clearly.

Ask him out already, sheesh.

Only nutty lefties cling to his every word. I don't even know any conservatives that listen to him all that much. I swear, lefties are like 85% of his audience.

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's what you saw in Beck's rant? "Violence is never the answer." You are inferring something Beck never says, implies, concedes, or gets close to in any way. Are you illiterate or something?

Now I get it. You are really Keith Olbermann. I kinda feel bad you lost your job today. Especially since your love Glenn Beck predicted it.

YouTube - Glenn Beck: MSNBC Marked For Death; Newt Gingrich Suffers Spasm of Anti-MSNBC Paranoia!

Hello Comcast.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's only inconsistent if your goal is to get those particular jobs "back" in the United States.

You're sort of lamenting those "particular" jobs by citing the wage dichotomy no? Otherwise, why is China's minimum wage relevant?

Since much of what the United States buys from China has not been produced in the U.S. for decades -- and we've still had periods of low national unemployment in the interim -- I don't see that as necessarily the desired goal.

I'm inclined to agree, but then this type of environment places a burden on the system/jobs that remain. The example I used was the notion of regulating gains, but subsidizing (bailing out) losses. Another example would be an immigration policy on one end that allows for hundreds of thousands of new unskilled laborers annually while proposing policies on the other end that hamper innovation, risk (getting into business), advancement, and growth. Either way, it seems to me this is not effectively aligning policy with the desired goals.

Too often I find a "sock it to 'em" mentality with regard to free market players when IMO much of the problems originated from government tweaking and meddling.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Only nutty lefties cling to his every word. I don't even know any conservatives that listen to him all that much. I swear, lefties are like 85% of his audience.

I listen to his radio program when I get a chance. He is sarcastic, emotional, and driven to the nth degree. His research and the research of his team are exhaustive and the people he incites with indoctrination are among the most honest bloc of any you'll find in this country; equally as hard on Republicans as Democrats. You'll rarely hear anything of substance against him. I've illustrated this phenomena on MacNN repeatedly.

He gets ridiculed for decrying socialism and communism and there are generally two camps of opposition to his message;

1. Those who do not know what socialism or communism is that they can't see its principles at play in their own systems. They will often set up false dichotomies through sarcasm and ridicule as if a prevailing system of governance occurs overnight or that the only legitimate time to express concern is when Martial Law is invoked, everything else is black helicopter paranoia. They dislike Beck because he offends their partisan sensitivities and it has become fashionable to hate him; often without a clue of what he's talking about and offering zero by way of a substantive refutation. This camp manifests itself in the usual way via personal jabs.
2. Those that generally appreciate socialist/communist principles and feel it is important to give these principles a fair hearing. They'd rather Beck just STFU. What makes Beck dangerous to this ilk is certainly not any alleged advocation of violence. After all, their picture-book heros are wrought with those who would advocate social justice by any means necessary. While they too are missing substantive refutation and resort to the usual sarcasm and ridicule, they vocally exploit irrelevant daily events in an attempt to use the legislative process to curb speech and other rights.

While they can see that their opposition only bolsters the popularity of the figures they despise, they simply can't help themselves.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I listen to his radio program when I get a chance.
You'll rarely hear anything of substance against him. I've illustrated this phenomena on MacNN repeatedly.

Wow. that's so sad.
Try googling Glen Beck lies, but then nothing anyone says, even Beck's own words would change your mind.
Kinda like them birther loons.

[besson3c]

It seems so retarded to me that there people that will say emphatically that Glenn Beck doesn't lie or say stupid shit, and then go after Olbermann or Maddow or whomever, and the exact reverse as well (defending Olbermann/Maddow, going after Limbaugh/Beck/O'Reilly/whomever).

They all lie and say stupid shit, get over it. That is their job - to entertain, to provoke, to rile up, to draw attention to something in a grandstanding fashion, to stir ganja up. Ratings and all of that stuff.

So, cut it out with the act of surprise when "your guy/girl" is accused of something, and default to believing it, because it could very well be try.

Conversely, quit acting all surprised and shocked when somebody on the "other team" lies or says something stupid, you empower them by giving a shit.