Politics & Economics Open Thread

Talk about politics and the global/national economy to your heart’s content, as much as it takes to get it out of your system so the rest of the site can stick to real estate and housing.

For previous economic open threads, click here.

As of 09/07/2010, global economic comments that do not directly relate to Seattle-area real estate go only in threads designated for this specific subject.


About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

472 comments:

  1. 1
    Macro Investor says:

    I would like to point we have new data on the Seattle median price, and it’s great news for folks waiting for better prices. Maybe banks are really discounting the shadow inventory to blow it out the door, or higher end houses aren’t selling as well. Either way, it’s a good 10% lower than it was a year ago. And this is with the lowest rates in history and a somewhat functional economy.

    Happy new year, and be careful out there. The bubble has a long, long way to go:

    (see altos chart on Tim’s home page for details)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  2. 2
    Scotsman says:

    I’m surprised I beat pfffffft to this one:

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  3. 3

    Here’s a story I find interesting on how individual people deal with economic issues.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/01/20121119555928543.html

    Nigeria is ending its subsidy of gasoline, previously at 44 cents a liter. The masses are apparently upset, apparently thinking that’s where they want their government benefits to go.

    Politically it doesn’t seem too wise because they didn’t announce anything to pair with it. Perhaps a nice annual rebate check, like Alaska has (had?).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  4. 4
    Pegasus says:

    For pfft: Krugman: Time For A Skullf%c*ing

    This fool continues to prove that having a Nobel is actually a sign of stupidity rather than intelligence.

    It would be nice if Krugman, before shooting off his mouth with statements that have a basis in fact (you’re fine so long as you increase output more than you increase debt) would actually look to see whether the nation has managed to do this at any time in the last 30 years on an aggregate basis. If he had, he would have recognized, using nothing other than the Fed Z1 and BEA GDP series, that it had not and thus his claimed tonic was a crock.

    And so, once again, is Krugman.

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=199975

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  5. 5
    pfft says:

    the demise of the dollar has been greatly exaggerated.

    Dollar Demise Refuted With 13% Gain Since 2008
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-02/dollar-s-demise-exaggerated-as-13-gain-since-2008-proves-currency-s-value.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  6. 6
    pfft says:

    By Macro Investor @ 1:

    I would like to point we have new data on the Seattle median price, and it’s great news for folks waiting for better prices. Maybe banks are really discounting the shadow inventory to blow it out the door, or higher end houses aren’t selling as well. Either way, it’s a good 10% lower than it was a year ago. And this is with the lowest rates in history and a somewhat functional economy.

    Happy new year, and be careful out there. The bubble has a long, long way to go:

    (see altos chart on Tim’s home page for details)

    I’ve started to wonder lately if people are listing homes only because sentiment. how many people will take their homes off the market if we get a slowing of the decline or even an outright upturn prices?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  7. 7
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 2:

    I’m surprised I beat pfffffft to this one:

    months old. funny though.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  8. 8
    pfft says:

    By Pegasus @ 4:

    For pfft: Krugman: Time For A Skullf%c*ing

    This fool continues to prove that having a Nobel is actually a sign of stupidity rather than intelligence.

    It would be nice if Krugman, before shooting off his mouth with statements that have a basis in fact (you’re fine so long as you increase output more than you increase debt) would actually look to see whether the nation has managed to do this at any time in the last 30 years on an aggregate basis. If he had, he would have recognized, using nothing other than the Fed Z1 and BEA GDP series, that it had not and thus his claimed tonic was a crock.

    And so, once again, is Krugman.

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=199975

    krugman has been more right about this crisis than almost all so-called gurus like peter schiff or ron paul. these people have been disastrously wrong while krugman has been right the whole time.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  9. 9
    pfft says:

    green shoots long since vindicated.

    PMI went into expansion and has been there since the summer of 2009 when the recession ended.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ruc6uiFwoaE/TwMYfOS6wJI/AAAAAAAALxc/b5VE2byays4/s1600/ISMMfgDec2011.jpg

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  10. 10
  11. 11

    I can’t find the thread, but last week there was some discussion of the effect of inflation on government, where I brought up the fact that inflation benefits the government somewhat, in that they pay back the debt in devalued dollars (which offsets to some extent their higher borrowing costs going forward).

    One thing that has since occurred to me is that in such a market, people are going to be wanting out of their existing government bond investments. Those people will need other investors to buy their bonds, at the same time the government is trying to sell bonds to fund existing operations. Obviously the government has been through this in the past, but not with so many bonds outstanding. I could see it starting a vicious circle, because the government would have to offer higher rates, which could lead to even more selling.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  12. 12
    pfft says:

    how did I miss this?

    A Christmas Message From America’s Rich
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-christmas-message-from-americas-rich-20111222

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  13. 13
  14. 14

    RE: One Eyed Man @ 13 – Maybe other things are countering that news, like Europe and Iran.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  15. 15
    pfft says:

    preach it keynes!

    “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.” So declared John Maynard Keynes in 1937, even as F.D.R. was about to prove him right by trying to balance the budget too soon, sending the United States economy — which had been steadily recovering up to that point — into a severe recession. Slashing government spending in a depressed economy depresses the economy further; austerity should wait until a strong recovery is well under way.

    Keynes Was Right
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/keynes-was-right.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  16. 16
    David Losh says:

    On NPR the Mexico City correspondent for the New York Times made an observation about immigration in Central America. People are coming down from the hills to work in urban centers on construction of housing units.

    He used Oaxaca Mexico as an example. They are converting close in farm land into residential building lots. That sounds very familiar.

    Next we will be hearing about the number of people who are behind on mortgage payments in Oaxaca, and that will be a crisis for the financial markets.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  17. 17
    David Losh says:

    RE: Macro Investor @ 1

    As long as I’m here “new data on the Seattle median price” is completely meaningless. It always has been, always will be.

    Unlike those ETrade stock picks that everybody loves to play with, Real Estate, each unit, has a value. Real Estate has an economic viability.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  18. 18

    By David Losh @ 17:

    As long as I’m here “new data on the Seattle median price” is completely meaningless. It always has been, always will be.

    Not completely. It is an indicator of market health.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  19. 19
    Blurtman says:

    RE: pfft @ 5 – Great news if you want to buy foreign currencies.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  20. 20
    Scotsman says:

    A pictoral history of the duration of the world’s reserve currencies:

    http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/20120103_jpm_reserve.png?w=500&h=423

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  21. 21
    Scotsman says:

    30 year Treasury yields- time for a rebound? (it’s a picture, pfffft)

    http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/untitled.jpg

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  22. 22
    whatsmyname says:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/things-were-supposed-to-be-quiet-about/

    Working harder, getting less? Well don’t be spouting off at the 1%; that’s just envy. It’s not like they were taking it from you. Or were they?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  23. 23
    NESeattleSeller says:

    Commercial office space increasingly absorbed and rents rising:
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017234515_office14.html

    Unemployment is down. Boeing is moving some jobs to the PNW. SFR house rents are rising. It seem like, however slowly, the economy here is improving.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  24. 24
    Scotsman says:

    RE: NESeattleSeller @ 23

    Indeed, indeed! Bears to the right and left are cpitulating and admitting their mistakes, even CHS:

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjan12/wrong-about-everything01-12.html

    “The economy has not just dodged recession, it’s in full-blown recovery. The only two indicators that are going down are the VIX volatility index, which might just fall to near-zero as investors realize there’s no longer any downside in the market and therefore no need to buy hedges, and the unemployment rate, which is steadily declining.

    2012 is like 1956, 1964, 1984 and 1996: the economy is booming, and a sitting president has wisely overseen the application of brilliant policies by the Pentagon, the State and Treasury departments and the Federal Reserve. The policies were simple: when “more of the same” didn’t work, do even more of the same. That did the trick in everything from waging war to finding new energy sources to stabilizing the financial and housing markets.

    This quote from President Calvin Coolidge neatly sums up 2012: If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you. All we as a nation had to do to get through the rough patch of 2007-2011 was just do more of what we were doing before. And voila, all our troubles ran into the ditch. We have abundant energy, expanding opportunity, a growing economy, limitless credit and enjoy the highest possible levels of political liberty and human freedom.

    And it’s now obvious that this renewed prosperity will easily last to 2022 and beyond. The only question for the coming decade is how much better everything will be for everyone in 2022

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  25. 25

    From 18 Months Later Thread:

    By softwarengineer @ 37:

    RE: Scotsman @ 20

    There’s Two Sides to This “Tax the Rich” Conundrum

    The billionaire Buffet side is the rich don’t pay enough taxes, including Romney at $41M income …

    More than two sides.

    I think you need to distinguish between Romney, who pays 14+ percent because it’s largely investment income, and Gingrich, who pays over 30% because it’s largely income from services.

    If you tax those like Romney more, fewer people will be employed in the private sector so that the public sector can spend more. And the increased spending will likely be necessary–for unemployment benefits.

    If you tax those like Gingrich more, there will also be a decrease in employment in the private sector, but it will be indirect and likely less. Fewer people will be employed at Tiffany’s (assuming he’s still married to the wife with the $500,000 account there).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  26. 26
    Scotsman says:

    The debt generation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnDyXrSwJnA

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  27. 27
    Trigger says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 26 – Scotsman – if there is no debt there is no money in circulation. If everybody paid off the debt there would be no money in circulation. So we are in a debt driven economy. This is normal.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  28. 28

    When you don’t have any ideas, break laws. Yeah, that will work to sway public opinion. Morons.

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/28/10260959-oakland-assesses-city-hall-damage-after-occupy-break-in

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  29. 29
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 28:

    When you don’t have any ideas, break laws.

    you did a rick perry oops!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  30. 30
  31. 31
    Scotsman says:

    So the FOMC is saying that it would like inflation to be about 2% annually, but is expecting it only to be 1.4 to 2.0% over the next 3 years. Putting 2 and (less than) 2 together, the FOMC is telling us that, based on its price stability objective alone, the Fed is expecting inflation to be lower than it would like. In other words, even if the economy were at full employment, a little more stimulus would be called for. And of course, nobody thinks the U.S. is anywhere close to full employment. The Fed’s forecast is for an unemployment rate between 7.4 and 8.1% for 2013.

    Interpretation: the Fed is expecting to exert some additional stimulus. Large-scale asset purchases– referred to popularly as more “quantitative easing”– are the primary tool available. So, if your motto is “don’t bet against the Fed,” then I wouldn’t bet against more QE during 2012

    http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/01/inflation_expec_1.html

    .

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  32. 32
    David Losh says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 31

    Actually, it appears more stimulus is deflationary.

    Had the fed done nothing, had they stayed out of the way, there may, or may not have been a collapse of the financial markets. That would have been extremely inflationary.

    As it is there is so much money in the system, money that makes money by just being there, that there is no need to drive up the cost of goods. As a matter of fact there is so much much cash in the system globally no one knows how to spend it all.

    We have global wealth.

    I know you like to talk about debt, but debt is money, debt makes money. Debt is attempting to suck cash out of the economy, and that isn’t working.

    What happened? Computers happened, accounting got easier, and we can track the smallest movement in any market.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  33. 33

    By pfft @ 29:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 28:
    When you don’t have any ideas, break laws.

    you did a rick perry oops!

    Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2012/01/31/MN7E1N0JU1.DTL

    Even those within the movement have a problem with what I was complaining about.

    Although in your defense, I did have two more links to share, but I can’t remember what they are. ;-)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  34. 34
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 33:

    By pfft @ 29:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 28:
    When you don’t have any ideas, break laws.

    you did a rick perry oops!

    Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2012/01/31/MN7E1N0JU1.DTL

    Even those within the movement have a problem with what I was complaining about.

    Although in your defense, I did have two more links to share, but I can’t remember what they are. ;-)

    so go to a GA and and put in a proposal that they propose ideas. looks like you might be there awhile though.

    http://occupyoakland.org/generalassembly/ga-proposals/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  35. 35

    RE: pfft @ 34

    My first proposal would be to rethink the whole idea of having a 24/7 protest during a period of high unemployment. You just attract homeless unemployed people, and appear to be the same. Also, two 12 hour protests weeks apart would be more effective than a 24/7 protest during that same timeframe.

    My second proposal would be to try to find someone who actually has a job, and find out who employs them. Try to avoid coming up with proposals thereafter that would simply cost people jobs (e.g. their don’t buy things campaign and trying to shut down ports).

    My third proposal would be that if there really all that concerned about high income people, attack it from a shareholder perspective, using shareholder rights. I doubt they’d get too far, but they would accomplish more than the nothing they’ve accomplished before.

    My fourth proposal would be for them to realize that while attacking income of corporate officers might be a good thing, that there’s nothing that you can do to prevent the wealthy from having power. By definition they will have better stuff and be able to do more things. For example, you can tell just by looking that this guy is not a greeter at Walmart.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2012/01/rupert_murdoch_wendi_deng.jpg

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  36. 36
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 35

    The wealthy have no power, they have fear. Once you stop playing by the rules the world is completely open to you.

    You can call it criminal, or anarchy, or illegal, but I know for a fact, I can walk out the door today, and live well, for the rest of my life without a JOB. It takes no money, or savings, or government hand outs.

    It’s the same life that corporate leaders live. They take.

    Rather than accumulate you just use what you need, and move on. It’s been going on for decades in other parts of the world, we are just late to the party, and it is a party.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  37. 37
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 35:

    RE: pfft @ 34

    My first proposal would be to rethink the whole idea of having a 24/7 protest during a period of high unemployment. You just attract homeless unemployed people, and appear to be the same. Also, two 12 hour protests weeks apart would be more effective than a 24/7 protest during that same timeframe.

    My second proposal would be to try to find someone who actually has a job, and find out who employs them. Try to avoid coming up with proposals thereafter that would simply cost people jobs (e.g. their don’t buy things campaign and trying to shut down ports).

    My third proposal would be that if there really all that concerned about high income people, attack it from a shareholder perspective, using shareholder rights. I doubt they’d get too far, but they would accomplish more than the nothing they’ve accomplished before.

    My fourth proposal would be for them to realize that while attacking income of corporate officers might be a good thing, that there’s nothing that you can do to prevent the wealthy from having power. By definition they will have better stuff and be able to do more things. For example, you can tell just by looking that this guy is not a greeter at Walmart.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2012/01/rupert_murdoch_wendi_deng.jpg

    Occupy Oakland should become a corporation then you’ll make every excuse in the world for whatever they do!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  38. 38

    RE: pfft @ 37 – Nice non-responsive answer. Just go on pretending that OWS is an effective organization.

    I don’t care for the Tea Party either, but at least they accomplish things they set out to accomplish. Wait, it goes beyond that. At least they have something they want to accomplish.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  39. 39
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 38

    Let’s go way back to 1968. There was nothing in that era about peace, or love. It was a time of militancy. The President of the United States had been assasinated, his brother killed, and the leader of the non violent African American movement was also killed. It was a time of riots that elected Nixon on a law, and order platform. He went on to bomb the heck out of Laos, and Cambodia.

    1968 also gave us the rise of the Black Panther Movement.

    It all kind of fell apart with Woodstock, but the premise was the same. Militancy was the only way to make change.

    The Tea Party is a disaster, for America. It high lights everything that is wrong with the world today. They are self interest with no regard for who gets hurt along the way.

    The anarchy movement on the other hand is about no leaders, no government, no Wall Street. That’s who you have in the streets today. It is kind of masked by the huge homeless population, but the movement is still there.

    Now you should be gratefull for the anarchists. They are the ones that are keeping everything together. The problem that is coming is militant. It’s already happened in Europe, Africa, South America, Mexico, and small parts of Asia, including Russia.

    It hasn’t happened here because we are all so fat, and happy. God forbid if we ever have a growing poverty rate. Oops.

    Did you not see that coming? It’s anarchists. It’s not occupy anything, it’s anarchists. That movement has been growing for decades. It is well organized, just look at WTO here in Seattle. It’s also global.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  40. 40

    By David Losh @ 39:

    The anarchy movement on the other hand is about no leaders, no government, no Wall Street. That’s who you have in the streets today. It is kind of masked by the huge homeless population, but the movement is still there.

    That would lead to virtually everyone being virtually homeless, like a third world country, which is part of my problem with OWS. They don’t know what their goals are or what their policies should be. They’re very naive.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  41. 41

    Is the 243,000 net jobs added for January a non-seasonally adjusted number? If so, that seems really strong for January.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  42. 42
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 41

    TrimTabs: “Actual jobs outstanding, not seasonally adjusted, are down 2.9 million over the past two months”

    More black box numbers for public consumption. It’s all total B.S.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  43. 43
    Your boss at Centcom says:

    Pffft,

    I’ll bet you spend a lot of time finding and thinking about items to post here. How many hours per week do you do this on various web sites like this one?

    I found an article I think you will like.

    U.S. military says Metal Gear sock puppets are real
    http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/54733-us-military-says-metal-gear-sock-puppets-are-real

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  44. 44
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 28 – Maybe they were searching for WMD’s.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  45. 45
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 38:

    RE: pfft @ 37 – Nice non-responsive answer. Just go on pretending that OWS is an effective organization.

    I don’t care for the Tea Party either, but at least they accomplish things they set out to accomplish. Wait, it goes beyond that. At least they have something they want to accomplish.

    income inequality wasn’t on the radar before OWS. now even Republicans are going all OWS. deal with it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  46. 46
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 42:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 41

    TrimTabs: “Actual jobs outstanding, not seasonally adjusted, are down 2.9 million over the past two months”

    More black box numbers for public consumption. It’s all total B.S.

    of course it is. it isn’t what scotsman wants so he invents yet another bogus stat nobody has ever heard of.

    “TrimTabs: “Actual jobs outstanding, not seasonally adjusted, are down 2.9 million over the past two months”

    huh? who even cares? who has even heard that number before?

    don’t act like seasonal adjustments are some blackbox that was just invented. didn’t you brag about going to MIT?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  47. 47
    pfft says:

    By Your boss at Centcom @ 43:

    Pffft,

    I’ll bet you spend a lot of time finding and thinking about items to post here. How many hours per week do you do this on various web sites like this one?

    I found an article I think you will like.

    U.S. military says Metal Gear sock puppets are real
    http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/54733-us-military-says-metal-gear-sock-puppets-are-real

    how many hours per week do you care about what I post? get over it. I have a different opinion than you.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  48. 48
    pfft says:

    I will be enjoying another 4 years of obama!

    Unemployment Rate Drops to 8.3%; Payrolls Jump
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/payrolls-in-u-s-jumped-243-000-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-.html

    in the last 5 months 1 million private sector jobs have been created.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  49. 49
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pfft @ 46

    Stupid facts, ruining pfffffffffts day again:

    “Either there is something massively changed in the income tax collection world, or there is something very, very suspicious about today’s BLS hugely positive number,” adding, “Actual jobs, not seasonally adjusted, are down 2.9 million over the past two months. It is only after seasonal adjustments – made at the sole discretion of the Bureau of Labor Statistics economists – that 2.9 million fewer jobs gets translated into 446,000 new seasonally adjusted jobs.” A 3.3 million “adjustment” solely at the discretion of the BLS? ”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/trimtabs-explains-why-todays-very-very-suspicious-nfp-number-really-down-29-million-past-2-mont

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  50. 50
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 49:

    RE: pfft @ 46

    Stupid facts, ruining pfffffffffts day again:

    “Either there is something massively changed in the income tax collection world, or there is something very, very suspicious about todayâ��s BLS hugely positive number,” adding, “Actual jobs, not seasonally adjusted, are down 2.9 million over the past two months. It is only after seasonal adjustments â�� made at the sole discretion of the Bureau of Labor Statistics economists â�� that 2.9 million fewer jobs gets translated into 446,000 new seasonally adjusted jobs.” A 3.3 million “adjustment” solely at the discretion of the BLS? ”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/trimtabs-explains-why-todays-very-very-suspicious-nfp-number-really-down-29-million-past-2-mont

    no so! did you ever stop and think wow that is a really large number? maybe it isn’t true?

    Employment: The “Not in Labor Force” actually declined in January
    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/02/employment-not-in-labor-force-actually.html

    but hey you are in good company- zerohedge and rick santelli. just your crowd.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  51. 51
    Blurtman says:

    RE: pfft @ 48 – Wake me when it is 5 and sustainable.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  52. 52
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 40

    The Occupy Wall Street movement is very organized, with goals, and accomplishments. Number one it is global. We have seen demonstrations in Europe at the same time as protests here. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-15/world/world_europe_occupy-europe_1_protesters-black-bloc-anarchists?_s=PM:EUROPE

    The goal is the disruption of the financial markets. They won before they ever started. Occupy Wall Street is just a slogan to a much longer political presence.

    It’s now a common topic that even the right wing nut crowd discusses.

    The Tea Party on the other hand is what is wrong with the world today. This negative group seized on health care as an economic burden. They formed a political branch to be elected, and we now have members of Congress obstructing legislation in order to promote a personal agenda. They’ll have to be voted out, but will cost the tax payers billions of dollars in the process.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  53. 53
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pfft @ 50

    Nope- try it will real verifiable numbers:

    http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=201459

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  54. 54

    By pfft @ 48:

    I will be enjoying another 4 years of obama!

    Unemployment Rate Drops to 8.3%; Payrolls Jump
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/payrolls-in-u-s-jumped-243-000-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-.html

    in the last 5 months 1 million private sector jobs have been created.

    Jobs created and unemployment are two different things, even if you don’t accept Scotsman’s numbers. I don’t think there’s much doubt that most of the drop in unemployment is due to people simply giving up. I’m basing that on the claim that you need something like 200,000 jobs a month just to keep even with population growth.

    If you accept that, a lot of people are still unemployed, so the lower unemployment numbers won’t affect that many votes. People will know that they’re still unemployed, that family members are still unemployed and that friends are still unemployed. Now maybe they won’t be able to afford the gas to go vote, but other than that, I think it’s reality that drives things when you’re dealing with a voter component which is larger than 5% of the population.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  55. 55

    By David Losh @ 52:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 40

    The Occupy Wall Street movement is very organized, with goals, and accomplishments.

    . . .

    The goal is the disruption of the financial markets.

    That’s one way to end economic inequality. Make everyone lower than welfare destitute!

    Reminds me of the joke about the guy who when granted three wishes asked that his dick would hit the ground, and the next day woke up with 4″ legs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  56. 56

    By David Losh @ 52:

    The Tea Party on the other hand is what is wrong with the world today. This negative group seized on health care as an economic burden. They formed a political branch to be elected, and we now have members of Congress obstructing legislation in order to promote a personal agenda. They’ll have to be voted out, but will cost the tax payers billions of dollars in the process.

    I wouldn’t attack the Tea Party here. A lot of the posters here agree with it. What the Tea Party is against is deficit spending, as are many here.

    They also don’t like Obamacare, but not based on economic reasons as you claim. They believe it’s unconstitutional. I think it’s both unconstitutional and an economic time bomb.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  57. 57
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 51:

    RE: pfft @ 48 – Wake me when it is 5 and sustainable.

    you just hate the fact that things are getting better.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  58. 58
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 55:

    By David Losh @ 52:
    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 40

    The Occupy Wall Street movement is very organized, with goals, and accomplishments.

    . . .

    The goal is the disruption of the financial markets.

    That’s one way to end economic inequality.

    higher taxes on the rich.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  59. 59
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 56:

    By David Losh @ 52:
    The Tea Party on the other hand is what is wrong with the world today. This negative group seized on health care as an economic burden. They formed a political branch to be elected, and we now have members of Congress obstructing legislation in order to promote a personal agenda. They’ll have to be voted out, but will cost the tax payers billions of dollars in the process.

    I wouldn’t attack the Tea Party here. A lot of the posters here agree with it.

    that explains a lot.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  60. 60
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 54:

    By pfft @ 48:
    I will be enjoying another 4 years of obama!

    Unemployment Rate Drops to 8.3%; Payrolls Jump
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/payrolls-in-u-s-jumped-243-000-in-january-unemployment-rate-drops-to-8-3-.html

    in the last 5 months 1 million private sector jobs have been created.

    Jobs created and unemployment are two different things, even if you don’t accept Scotsman’s numbers. I don’t think there’s much doubt that most of the drop in unemployment is due to people simply giving up. I’m basing that on the claim that you need something like 200,000 jobs a month just to keep even with population growth.

    If you accept that, a lot of people are still unemployed, so the lower unemployment numbers won’t affect that many votes. People will know that they’re still unemployed, that family members are still unemployed and that friends are still unemployed. Now maybe they won’t be able to afford the gas to go vote, but other than that, I think it’s reality that drives things when you’re dealing with a voter component which is larger than 5% of the population.

    in the article above.

    1) The decline in the participation rate was entirely due to the population change.
    2) The employment-population ration would have increased 0.3 (good news) without the population change.

    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/02/employment-not-in-labor-force-actually.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  61. 61
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 55

    There is no welfare in anarchy. The Tea Party, on the other hand is asking the government to fix everything.

    And I wish you would stop using the term ObamaCare. Obama proposed a 10 page legislation that was looking very much like single payer insurance. Republicans didn’t like that, and went on a summer long campaign to insert a lot of nonsense, that probably is unConstitutional. That’s when the Tea Party was inflicted on us.

    The Republican Party is trying desperately to make Obama a bad guy. He’s not. He has done a hundred time more than I ever expected.

    As far as the economy of health care goes we will have to have an expansion of the Veterans Administration, and public health systems. The sooner that is accomplished the better it will be for Medicare, and Medicaid, which are economic time bombs.

    The government system of health care is already in place, it is a reality, and we should all be allowed access to it. Denying access to government administrated health care, as a matter of national security, is another gift Republicans want to give to the private Insurance Industry.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  62. 62

    By David Losh @ 60:

    There is no welfare in anarchy.

    That’s why I said they would make everyone lower than welfare destitute. If there were welfare, that would be the minimum level (Romney’s “safety net”) but without a functioning financial system, there would not be welfare.

    There would be nothing. No electricity, no public water or sewer, nothing.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  63. 63
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 62

    How do you figure that?

    Do you think that at this late stage of the game all things would cease? No food, no water, no electricity, because the bank wouldn’t be in control? This is like your argument that businesses would fail without credit. You mean banks would fail without credit. Banks aren’t business. Insurance isn’t business. The financial markets aren’t business. They aren’t commerce.

    Banks, Insurance, and financial markets are the leeches of society. They are the welfare state that all politicians want to perpetuate. That’s why the Tea Party is such a sham. The Tea Party got scared that they would lose the welfare system they hold on to.

    Read the Constitution. There is nothing in there about banks, insurance companies, or the financial markets. Those people wrapped themselves in the flag while they loot the American People.

    It’s interesting that you are basing an argument on “There would be nothing. No electricity, no public water or sewer, nothing.” Those are government built projects that are now a part of the over all financial system. How did that happen?

    We need to take our country back from the financial marketeers. The anarchist of the 1700s may have advocated dismantling the government, but today most people recognize the financial markets as the true enemy to eliminate.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  64. 64
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 62

    Let me put this article here from 2001, http://monthlyreview.org/2001/09/01/anarchism-and-the-anti-globalization-movement#top it explains more about today’s anarchy movement, but obviously a lot has changed since it was published. Number one was a global economic collapse. It was a goal.

    I always like to include that here in the United States we have the problem of the Bill of Rights that says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    We are a shining light in the libertarian, socialist, and anarchist movement.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  65. 65

    By David Losh @ 63:

    How do you figure that?

    Do you think that at this late stage of the game all things would cease? No food, no water, no electricity, because the bank wouldn’t be in control? This is like your argument that businesses would fail without credit. You mean banks would fail without credit. Banks aren’t business. Insurance isn’t business. The financial markets aren’t business.

    Without those things there is very little business. Small shops like in third world countries.

    Why do you think there are corporations? So people can pool their resources and accomplish more than by themselves.

    Why do you think that within about 5 days of 9/11, Congress passed the victims’ compensation act? It wasn’t for the victims. Congress wouldn’t act that quickly for mere victims. It was to save the insurance industry, because without insurance, almost all business would cease.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  66. 66

    By David Losh @ 63:

    Read the Constitution. There is nothing in there about banks, insurance companies. . .

    What? There’s no mention of farms either. Do you think farms are illegal?

    As to banks, the decision allowing national banks (as opposed to state banks) is almost 200 years old.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  67. 67
    pfft says:

    green shoots? nah, so 3 years ago. slow recovery? yes.

    Recovery Measures
    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/02/recovery-measures.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  68. 68
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 65

    You are right that it was to save the insurance industry, one of the greatest bail outs ever performed, and set the stage for all future bail outs. Then we had Hurricane Katrina, which was another insurance industry give away.

    Propping up these corporate structured entities is the welfare system of the United States. It’s a very failed socialist system that in the 1950s was going to take care of the citizens from cradle to grave. It didn’t work.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  69. 69
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 66

    There is nothing illegal about banks. Banks have the full protection of the law. They just have be broken up, have a higher standard of regulation, and be closely monitored.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  70. 70
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 65

    Let me also say that the Third World has a very sophisticated way of doing business that is much more in tune with who they serve. It has been going on for thousands of years rather than a couple of hundred.

    Most people forgot about, or ignored, the anti globalization movement that goes back to the 1970s. They win, you lose, and it’s just getting started.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  71. 71

    By David Losh @ 68:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 65

    You are right that it was to save the insurance industry, one of the greatest bail outs ever performed, and set the stage for all future bail outs. Then we had Hurricane Katrina, which was another insurance industry give away. .

    911 compensation wasn’t that big. Not sure why you think Katrina involved an insurance industry give away. People are not covered for what they to not buy coverage for (flooding).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  72. 72

    By David Losh @ 69:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 66

    There is nothing illegal about banks. Banks have the full protection of the law. They just have be broken up. . .

    I would agree, and have made similar comments here. Your problem isn’t with the Constitution, it’s with the lax enforcement of anti-trust laws (both in banking and other areas).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  73. 73
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 72RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 71

    I’ll take both of these because they are related. The twin tower lawsuit is just now being resolved, however all of the individual lawsuits, or pay outs were a complete joke. We will never be made whole from the damage done by the actions committed. It depends on the policies, but I suspect this was considered an act of war.

    Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster. The insurance industry should have been made to pay. The trick they used was flooding by causes off site of the property. It’s a tawdry trick, and there is an instance where our government should have intervened.

    You like the health insurance debate which was also gifted with the ability not to pay claims concerning AIDS. That was really the first salvo to an over all corrupt insurance system.

    Last, but hardly least is the insurance on mortgages. Where’s that? Oh yeah it’s the old 80%, 20% to avoid insurance pay outs. No one saw that one coming, except for the fact those mortgage backed securities were insured against losses, like at AIG. Even Geithner said that the insurance department of AIG was the strongest part.

    Taken all together, with what I’m sure are millions of example, the insurance industry collects money, spends it on expenses, like bonuses, fancy offices, Lear Jets, executive pay, and administration, but will quibble over paying claims.

    The system of insurance is broken, along with banking. It has nothing to do with anti trust. It is simply a broken system designed to pay executives excessively. The net drain to our economy is what is at issue.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  74. 74

    By David Losh @ 73:

    I’ll take both of these because they are related. The twin tower lawsuit is just now being resolved, however all of the individual lawsuits, or pay outs were a complete joke. We will never be made whole from the damage done by the actions committed. It depends on the policies, but I suspect this was considered an act of war.

    Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster. The insurance industry should have been made to pay. The trick they used was flooding by causes off site of the property. It’s a tawdry trick, and there is an instance where our government should have intervened. .

    What twin tower lawsuits? Most if not all the victims took the government fund money, and the condition of doing so was not suing. That was the point of the program. Imagine how much money the insurance companies would have spent just defending the actions, and while they had, their solvency would have been called into question. Being insured by a possibly insolvent entity is not being insured, and that’s why it would have affected business.

    As to Katrina, flooding “causes off site of the property?” If you want flood insurance, you have to buy flood insurance. Same with earthquake. It’s not like you just buy homeowners’ insurance and are then covered no matter what happens to your house.

    As to AIG, most of that company was strong. It was one department which took it down.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  75. 75
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 74

    The lawsuit for the twin towers was with Larry Silverstein, and the Port Authority. It only took ten years, and the reputation of the United States to get that settled. About the same amount of time it took us to get out of Iraq.

    Natural disaster is different than flooding, but again this was another indication that the United States is incapable of taking care of itself. We let a huge section of our country fall into bull dozable disrepair so insurance companies could hide behind the wording in a sales instrument.

    Well if AIG was so healthy, what was the problem? Surely they were insured against losses.

    We are exporting our insurance system to other parts of the world, just like we did with mortgages. Insurance companies take in pools of money, for what I have no idea, probably to invest. The whole thing is a house of cards.

    The anti globalization movement is now concentrated on excessive payments made to corporate executives. The ultimate goal is the collapse of this farce of creating an illusion that money is scarce. There is tons of money for everything, it’s being withheld, off market, in all of these schemes, that include taxation.

    Look at the facts. Workers pay into a system of mortgages, insurance, and taxation, and get nothing. Corporations play fast, and loose with the tax code, and get the full protection of the government. Corporations pay less, for everything, and get more.

    The Occupy Wall Street movement is now focused on the hive where these scams begin, and are played out. It’s a long time in the making, after decades of political wrangling.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  76. 76

    By David Losh @ 75:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 74 – The lawsuit for the twin towers was with Larry Silverstein, and the Port Authority. It only took ten years, and the reputation of the United States to get that settled. About the same amount of time it took us to get out of Iraq.

    I’m addressing the many lawsuits which would have been filed by the roughly 5,000 victims’ families, not just a suit over the building, which is what I assume you’re referring to.

    Natural disaster is different than flooding, but again this was another indication that the United States is incapable of taking care of itself. We let a huge section of our country fall into bull dozable disrepair so insurance companies could hide behind the wording in a sales instrument.

    Huh? Flooding is most typically a natural disaster. Flooding that isn’t (e.g. your refrigerator starts to leak) most likely would be covered.

    Well if AIG was so healthy, what was the problem? Surely they were insured against losses.

    Huh, again? They basically took the wrong side on mortgage derivatives. They weren’t insured against that, but I understand some of the parties on the other side of those contracts did take insurance on AIG performing. That wouldn’t help AIG, however, because their insurance companies would be subrogated to the rights of the insured, and could still sue AIG.

    You seem to have a hard time with accounting concepts. One part of a company can suffer losses so massive that it will bring down an entire entity. I think it was Orange County down in California where one trader made unauthorized trades which sent the county into bankruptcy. That’s basically what happened at AIG.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  77. 77
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 76 – One poorly performing division taking down an entire company is not that unusual. What is unusual is the government bail out. Recall in the AIG bail out, we bailed out folks who knowingly created toxic securities and insured the crap out of them, utlimately destroying AIG. We also bailed out speculators who did not own the underlying security and placed bets with AIG that the securities would tank. If a casino in Vegas goes under and you cannot collect on your Super Bowl bet, is the USG/taxpayer going to bail out the casino so that you can collect your winnings?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  78. 78

    By Blurtman @ 77:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 76 – One poorly performing division taking down an entire company is not that unusual.

    I would agree. I was just pointing out to Dave what happened, and giving another example.

    Perhaps explaining derivatives would be useful for Dave. Buying a call option on a stock is not that risky. All you can lose is your initial investment. Selling a call option (uncovered) is much more risky. Your loss is theoretically unlimited. AIG was taking more risky positions. Their potential loss was far greater than the revenue from each transaction, which was relatively low for each transaction.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  79. 79
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 78 – Yes, but if the seller of the call option (counter party) goes under, the loss from your unhedged position can be painful. And the CDS that AIG offered were not options, but something like insurance, with potentially unlimited losses to the insurer. Did AIG re-insure?

    Now imagine if you are the CEO of a company, and you take out a massive amount of puts on the company’s stock, and purposely execute a strategy that will destroy the company. What happens? Why, in addition to becoming fabulously wealthy, you get to become Treasury Secretary of the USA.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  80. 80
    David Losh says:

    RE: Blurtman @ 79RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 78RE: Blurtman @ 77RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 76

    The two of you are brilliantly playing out the Occupy Wall Street movement, right here, in your comments.

    There was, and is, more than enough of a cash position to pay for any losses, from the twin towers, hurricane Katrina, and AIG, it’s just that no one wanted to pay.

    The language of the sales contracts was vague enough to stop payment.

    So we, the tax payers are on the hook, but the insurance industry gets a free pass, once again.

    If you want to talk about call options that is another can of worms that will be regulated, the way they are in some other countries.

    Kary, what you were claiming is that the Occupy Wall Street movement was disorganized, and without goals, or purpose. You are explaining the reason we need the Occupy Wall Street movement, and that it is exactly on target.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  81. 81
    Blurtman says:

    RE: David Losh @ 80 – But Dave, leather clad dominatrix Suzie Ormand said to bail out AIG.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  82. 82
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 78

    I understand the derivatives market extremely well. It now stands at $1.2 Quadrillion.

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/09/risk-quadrillion-derivatives-market-gdp/

    What do you think the cash position is? and why don’t we simply tax the trades in derivatives, globally?

    Look it, I just picked the insurance industry as another example of a failed financial system, other than mortgages, which are a sham of over pricing asset values. Now you brought up derivatives. How much further do we need to go to demonstrate the need for financial reform?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  83. 83

    By David Losh @ 80:

    There was, and is, more than enough of a cash position to pay for any losses, from the twin towers, hurricane Katrina, and AIG, it’s just that no one wanted to pay..

    The twin towers was possibly more about uncertainty, but some insurers might very well have gone under.

    Katrina is obvious. No one wants to pay for something they are not contractually obligated to pay. If you feel differently, why don’t you go down to LA and find victims and give them as much money as you have.

    AIG there was not enough money. They were insolvent by several billion dollars. Their insolvency threatened the solvency of many other entities.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  84. 84
    Blurtman says:

    RE: David Losh @ 80 – There likely was enough value in the break-up of AIG to pay off the gamblers who purchased the AIG FP CDS. But that would have taken considerable time, and Goldman Sachs would have imploded under the weight of the toxic dreck they had created purposely to short using AIG FP. So their criminal ex-CEO, who just happened to be the US Treasury Secretary, had the US taxpayer bail out Goldman Sachs via AIG. Many other banks were also so bailed out.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  85. 85

    By David Losh @ 82:

    How much further do we need to go to demonstrate the need for financial reform?

    We may need financial reform, but nothing you have discussed indicates that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  86. 86

    By Blurtman @ 84:

    RE: David Losh @ 80 – There likely was enough value in the break-up of AIG to pay off the gamblers who purchased the AIG FP CDS..

    That was before President Obama’s verbal attacks on AIG, which at the time the government effectively owned, and before the government’s running of AIG reduced the value even further as time went on.

    Has anyone seen any news reports of the talent drain at AIG? There were well publicized reports on what happened at their airplane leasing company, but I’d suspect the same thing happened throughout the company.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  87. 87
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 85

    Your discussion with Blurtman is demonstrating the need for financial reform. I’ve only pointed out discrepancies that should indicate the need.

    As far as contractual obligations that’s what lawsuits are made of, and we have plenty of those clogging our system.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  88. 88

    By David Losh @ 87:

    As far as contractual obligations that’s what lawsuits are made of, and we have plenty of those clogging our system.

    Yes we do, but the discussion is often biased toward the result of having the insurance company pay being a good thing. It’s as if insurance companies magically create money out of thin air. In fact, the money they pay comes from their customers, and the more they pay out the more they have to charge. The more things you cover, the higher the cost of insurance.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  89. 89
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 88

    Or insurance companies are pools of money used for investment. Of course the consumer, once again, pays for any losses the company may have.

    I’m just pointing out a broken system that may well be insolvent. Our government keeps propping it up. Lawsuits are another strain on our tax resources, but insurance companies can afford that.

    This is a discussion about the Occupy Wall Street movement. You were saying these people, who ever they may be, are intermingled with the homeless. The homeless are a canary in the mine shaft. The more desperation there is, the more the movement will morph into militancy.

    It’s just a fact of life. The Occupy Wall Street movement is growing out of, or is a result of, a global economic collapse. The financial markets are out of control. The more focus that can be placed at the source of the problem the better.

    On the other hand, asking our government, or any government, to fix a financial market’s problem is wrong. The financial markets have enough cash to resolve the damages they have created, and they should be to ones to pay, and pay back the governments who bailed them out.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  90. 90

    By David Losh @ 89:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 88 – Or insurance companies are pools of money used for investment. Of course the consumer, once again, pays for any losses the company may have.

    But people forget that over and over and over. Legislators add more and more things to what health insurance has to cover, and then they complain that health insurance is rising faster than the rate of inflation. Duh!

    You could require homeowners’ insurance cover flooding damages for those living under sea level in New Orleans, but then the cost of insurance there would skyrocket, making it less affordable to live and causing property values to plummet.

    Sometimes the change is relatively minor, like requiring uninsured/underinsured auto coverage to include incidents where the other driver is committing a criminal act like trying to run into someone. Those incidents are so rare I don’t really have a problem with that one. But other changes are significant to the people who have to pay the insurance bills–consumers.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  91. 91
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 90

    You by passed the $1.2 Quadrillion in the derivatives market http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/09/risk-quadrillion-derivatives-market-gdp/
    and focussed instead on the insurance industry. We can live, and live well without insurance, but if we have insurance it would need to be government run. There needs to be some accountability.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  92. 92

    RE: David Losh @ 91 – Sorry, didn’t mean to avoid derivatives. They are beneficial and risky, in the way the stock market is beneficial and risky. I’m not sure I buy the argument that they allow too much risk to be taken, but that’s possible. I think there’s more risk though from having one or a handful of entities becoming too big, where their success or failure determines the success or failure of the entire economy, or the economies of virtually every significant country in the world.

    As to insurance, it is a heavily regulated industry. People just don’t understand that due to incomplete information. For example, despite what has probably been 10%+ increases in rates for 5+ years, Primera has less in reserves than it did five years ago. Rising premiums aren’t the problem, they are the symptom.

    And to throw in what I know is your favorite topic, it’s like California during the energy crisis, where consumers got mad at their utilities, even though they were losing billions and billions of dollars to keep the lights on. The consumers didn’t understand the difference between a utility and a producer of electricity. Fairly simple concepts really, but totally over their heads.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  93. 93
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 92

    The energy producers are the target. The fact the government fails to regulate energy is another indication of a need for the Occupy Wall Street movement. More to the point would be that governments fail to adequately tax energy producers so they can fund further research into alternative energy resources. Had government taxed the heck out of oil, coal, and natural gas we would be in a much better place today, economically.

    Occupy Wall Street is demanding over sight of the financial markets. Health Care Reform is an excellent example, but small potatoes in the Quadrillion Dollar scheme of things.

    We have excessive new construction of state of the art health care facilities. We have doctors making obscene amounts of money, nurses who demand more collective bargaining while being over worked, and supported by Certified Nurses Assistance who help to cut costs. Put all of that aside and look at administrative costs over seen by executive directors, and boards who get paid billions of dollars. Throw in Insurance executives who make the other billions, and you don’t have profit, just excessive expenses.

    Occupy Wall Street first targeted executive pay. Today I think they can expand on that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  94. 94

    By David Losh @ 93:

    The energy producers are the target. The fact the government fails to regulate energy is another indication of a need for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

    Energy regulation in California costs everyone billions of dollars, and your response to that is calling for more regulation? LOL.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  95. 95
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 94

    The topic is the Occupy Wall Street movement. Executive pay in energy is very much on target.

    Your having a hard time with the topic itself, but keep bringing up examples of the need for reforms. I also followed up with the need to use taxation to bring large corporate entities in line with the greater public good.

    If you want to keep throwing out examples the next one would be agribusiness. There is a distinction between the family farm, and those attempting to create a monopoly.

    The people need more protection from today’s financial system. We need more protection from corporation that work against the public good in favor of creating wealth for a very few.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  96. 96

    RE: David Losh @ 95 – Executive pay is a nonsense issue. Why the F should they care what companies they don’t own pay anyone? As I mentioned, if they want to take on that issue they should do it as shareholders, using shareholder rights. They’ll soon discover though that their position is likely a minority position.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  97. 97
    David Losh says:

    This is like beating my head against a wall twice a day.

    What tangible nonsense are they going to go after? Let’s be more direct, who are the 1%?

    They are people you will never see. You can go back to the 1970s, or 1980s, and rehash a bunch of conspiracy theories, or you can pick the person in front of you.

    Shareholders have no rights, they will never vote in a large enough block. You know that, so why bring it up?

    The discussion is the Occupy Wall Street movement. What about that movement don’t you understand, and why do you think the Tea Party has made any differences at all?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  98. 98

    By David Losh @ 97:

    The discussion is the Occupy Wall Street movement. What about that movement don’t you understand, and why do you think the Tea Party has made any differences at all?

    The Tea Party had solid things they were against (e.g. deficit spending), not just whining that they didn’t like their relative level of success in the world, and jealousy of others’ success.

    The Tea Party got candidates elected. Some of them were Democrats, because they managed to get too conservative of candidate through the primaries. It this point I don’t see OWS affecting a single race in the entire country–either positively or negatively to what they want to accomplish.

    OWS needs a viable platform, with specifics, and they need to actually accomplish something besides getting the attention of the press. It’s easy to get the attention of the press, but you don’t accomplish anything.

    http://www.lifewhile.com/news/139460/detail.html

    Finally, a reminder I don’t like either group. I’m just pointing out that one is somewhat effective and one totally ineffective.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  99. 99
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 98

    First, you can agree that the Tea Party was a response to the Obama Health Care Reform. You said so earlier. That much is true. The deficit spending debate is hindering progress, it is whining, for whining sake.

    I suppose Ara Tripp, a performer, has something to do with this discussion. You are probably talking about publicity, which is different than protesting.

    I always love discussing the jealousy of other people’s success. It is the Republican response when people object to abuses of our financial system.

    Financial success is pretty easy. You just have to play. You need to know the rules, and follow them. Following the rules is a bizarre way to gage success. I just love it when some wall streeter, or Donald Trump starts in on the dog eat dog world they live in. Now there is some publicity, or publicist at work.

    The successful are the ones who get out of poverty to live well. It’s the other 1% who make it in the world, even if it is only having food on the table, and kids in college. That is success.

    The guy working two jobs, one at Safeway while he learns to do tax return for H & R Block, he’s the success story.

    Some Harvard guy who gets a million a year for doing nothing, but signing papers, or knowing which papers to sign, is a complete loser in the big scheme of things. All the trust funders in the world today? Have you met them? Come on, where’s the success in that? Calling your buddy at Goldman Sachs for today’s tip? Come on.

    How can you not see what a farce our financial system is?

    The Occupy Wall Street movement, are a highly organized global protest. You are only looking at year one in a decade long set of protests, that have all next summer to build on. We need them to be highly successful in this coming year.

    As long as we are throwing out random information: “Consumer borrowing rose by $19.3 billion in December after a $20.4 billion gain in November, the Federal Reserve said Tuesday. The two increases were the biggest monthly gains in a decade.”

    You’re a bankruptcy attorney, can you see the problem we have here. It needs to be fixed. The government won’t, or can’t fix it, so it will be up to the people.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  100. 100

    By David Losh @ 99:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 98 -First, you can agree that the Tea Party was a response to the Obama Health Care Reform. You said so earlier. That much is true. The deficit spending debate is hindering progress, it is whining, for whining sake.

    I always love discussing the jealousy of other people’s success. It is the Republican response when people object to abuses of our financial system.

    It’s probably both Obamacare and deficit spending. More the latter than the former IMHO, but really both.

    As to the jealousy comment, that’s focused on the fact that they don’t have any solutions! That’s my biggest problem with OWS. All they do is complain about the status quo without offering solutions. Their solutions should be aimed at helping people rise up. Thus for example, and very oddly, perhaps they should take a page from Stantorum’s (sp?) economic policy book, and develop a proposed tax policy that would encourage employment in this country, rather than just taxing all high income people more, which could hurt employment. Probably though all OWS people about Santorum is that he’s an extreme right winger, which is true. But he, of all people, has proposed something that would help lower income people more than anything OWS has done. (To be clear though, I’m not talking about his entire tax plan, just part of it).

    BTW, how many people do you think the top 1% is responsible for employing? How many people do Buffett entities employ? How many people do Gates’ entities employ?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  101. 101
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 77:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 76 – One poorly performing division taking down an entire company is not that unusual. What is unusual is the government bail out. Recall in the AIG bail out, we bailed out folks who knowingly created toxic securities and insured the crap out of them, utlimately destroying AIG. We also bailed out speculators who did not own the underlying security and placed bets with AIG that the securities would tank. If a casino in Vegas goes under and you cannot collect on your Super Bowl bet, is the USG/taxpayer going to bail out the casino so that you can collect your winnings?

    if it would severly impact the economy- yes.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  102. 102
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 84:

    RE: David Losh @ 80 – There likely was enough value in the break-up of AIG to pay off the gamblers who purchased the AIG FP CDS. But that would have taken considerable time, and Goldman Sachs would have imploded under the weight of the toxic dreck they had created purposely to short using AIG FP. So their criminal ex-CEO, who just happened to be the US Treasury Secretary, had the US taxpayer bail out Goldman Sachs via AIG. Many other banks were also so bailed out.

    GS hedged it’s hedges…

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  103. 103
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 94:

    By David Losh @ 93:
    The energy producers are the target. The fact the government fails to regulate energy is another indication of a need for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

    Energy regulation in California costs everyone billions of dollars, and your response to that is calling for more regulation? LOL.

    huh?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  104. 104

    RE: pfft @ 103 – California forced utilities to sell of generation capacity and prevented them from entering into long term contracts.

    California regulated consumer prices on electricity at very low levels, like China and some third world countries regulate the price of gasoline.

    Those regulations drove up the price of energy, and cost the west coast billions of dollars.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  105. 105

    News on one of our favorite topics–student loan debt–this time in the context of bankruptcy.

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/story/2012-02-08/student-debt-looming-economic-bomb/53010440/1

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  106. 106
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 98:

    By David Losh @ 97:
    The discussion is the Occupy Wall Street movement. What about that movement don’t you understand, and why do you think the Tea Party has made any differences at all?

    The Tea Party had solid things they were against (e.g. deficit spending), not just whining that they didn’t like their relative level of success in the world, and jealousy of others’ success.

    man you couldn’t be more wrong. do you not have google?

    http://occupywallst.org/about/

    the tea party hurt the republican party more than it helped. they probably lost the Senate because of the tea party.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  107. 107
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 100:

    By David Losh @ 99:
    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 98 -First, you can agree that the Tea Party was a response to the Obama Health Care Reform. You said so earlier. That much is true. The deficit spending debate is hindering progress, it is whining, for whining sake.

    I always love discussing the jealousy of other people’s success. It is the Republican response when people object to abuses of our financial system.

    rather than just taxing all high income people more, which could hurt employment.

    it won’t hurt employment. studies show the rich don’t respond much to higher taxes. we raised taxes in the 90s on those people. how did that work out?

    we lowered taxes on those people in the 2000s, how did that work out?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  108. 108
    Blurtman says:

    RE: pfft @ 102 – I bet I can provide more sources that GS would have gone BK without the AIG bailout than you can provide supporting the opposite position.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  109. 109
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 4:

    RE: pfft @ 103 – California forced utilities to sell of generation capacity and prevented them from entering into long term contracts.

    California regulated consumer prices on electricity at very low levels, like China and some third world countries regulate the price of gasoline.

    Those regulations drove up the price of energy, and cost the west coast billions of dollars.

    1. source.

    2. we aren’t going over this again. power companies like enron caused the energy crisis in california. that’s been proven.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  110. 110
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 8:

    RE: pfft @ 102 – I bet I can provide more sources that GS would have gone BK without the AIG bailout than you can provide supporting the opposite position.

    GS had hedges on hedges. we all would be bankrupt if AIG went under.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  111. 111

    By pfft @ 106:

    the tea party hurt the republican party more than it helped. they probably lost the Senate because of the tea party.

    I noted above that they managed to get some Democrats elected by getting too conservative of a Republican on the ballot.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  112. 112

    By pfft @ 9:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 4:
    RE: pfft @ 103 – California forced utilities to sell of generation capacity and prevented them from entering into long term contracts.

    California regulated consumer prices on electricity at very low levels, like China and some third world countries regulate the price of gasoline.

    Those regulations drove up the price of energy, and cost the west coast billions of dollars.

    1. source.

    2. we aren’t going over this again. power companies like enron caused the energy crisis in california. that’s been proven.

    You aren’t even familiar with the California energy legislation which lead to the crisis, but you somehow think you know what caused it! LOL

    You swallowed the story told by the Democrats and Republicans which passed the legislation nearly unanimously.

    What caused the crisis was too low of retail prices. Enron took advantage of that to some extent, but not 20+ billion. What solved the crises was raising retail prices. That was proven.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  113. 113

    By pfft @ 6:

    http://occupywallst.org/about/

    Is there something there I’m supposed to look at which indicates OWS has accomplished anything? Or is it just that they created a website? I’ll give you that accomplishment–they have a website.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  114. 114

    By pfft @ 109:

    1. source.

    Read this section (four paragraphs):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#Effects_of_partial_deregulation

    “involved the partial divestiture in March 1998 of electricity generation stations by the incumbent utilities,” In other words they had to sell off capacity.

    “he utilities were then required to buy their electricity from the newly created day-ahead only market, the California Power Exchange” In other words, no long term contracts.

    “When electricity wholesale prices exceeded retail prices, end user demand was unaffected, but the incumbent utility companies still had to purchase power, albeit at a loss. This allowed independent producers to manipulate prices in the electricity market by withholding electricity generation, ” In other words, the low prices allowed market manipulation to take place.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  115. 115

    By pfft @ 107:

    it won’t hurt employment. studies show the rich don’t respond much to higher taxes.

    You’re not listening. I don’t have a problem with raising taxes on people who earn more money. I’m talking about only lowering taxes on entities that employ people in their business.

    So, if you make $2,000,000 a year as a CEO, higher taxes. As I’ve said before, that will only have minor indirect impact in that purchases will be less at Tiffany’s, and the pool boy will come by less frequently.

    If you’re a company that makes $2,000,000 a year employing people in your business, lower taxes.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  116. 116
    Blurtman says:

    RE: pfft @ 110RE: pfft @ 110 – Proof, please. And we all would not have been BK if AIG went under. If you really believe such fairy tales, you should lobby the the break-up of the much larger TBTF’s.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  117. 117
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 112:

    By pfft @ 9:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 4:
    RE: pfft @ 103Enron took advantage of that to some extent,

    to some extent? purposefully taking working power plants offline at the worst possible time to jack up prices isn’t evidence enough for you?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  118. 118
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 13:

    By pfft @ 6:
    http://occupywallst.org/about/

    Is there something there I’m supposed to look at which indicates OWS has accomplished anything? Or is it just that they created a website? I’ll give you that accomplishment–they have a website.

    you said what do they stand for. I posted what they stand for.

    maybe you should go to their General Assembly and speak to the group and ask what they stand for.

    if they were a corporation you would defend them.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  119. 119
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 14:

    By pfft @ 109:
    1. source.

    Read this section (four paragraphs):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#Effects_of_partial_deregulation

    “involved the partial divestiture in March 1998 of electricity generation stations by the incumbent utilities,” In other words they had to sell off capacity.

    “he utilities were then required to buy their electricity from the newly created day-ahead only market, the California Power Exchange” In other words, no long term contracts.

    “When electricity wholesale prices exceeded retail prices, end user demand was unaffected, but the incumbent utility companies still had to purchase power, albeit at a loss. This allowed independent producers to manipulate prices in the electricity market by withholding electricity generation, ” In other words, the low prices allowed market manipulation to take place.

    NO!!!!!!!! they took capacity off.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  120. 120
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 16:

    RE: pfft @ 110RE: pfft @ 110 – Proof, please. And we all would not have been BK if AIG went under. If you really believe such fairy tales, you should lobby the the break-up of the much larger TBTF’s.

    first of all we don’t know for sure so I could say to you prove they would lose $10 billion. secondly these contracts are usually cash settled so at the end of each day AIG would have to post billions in collateral so the loses would have been less than $10 billion.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  121. 121

    By pfft @ 117:

    :
    RE: pfft @ 103Enron took advantage of that to some extent,

    to some extent? purposefully taking working power plants offline at the worst possible time to jack up prices isn’t evidence enough for you?

    Are you being purposefully dense? But for the low retail prices, taking plants off line and all of the other things (routing power to appear it came from out of state, etc.) would not have been done, because it would not have accomplished anything.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  122. 122

    RE: pfft @ 18 – I was asking what part indicates what they stand for? I’m not going to read an entire website. I read the page that you linked and it didn’t say squat. What link and I supposed to click?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  123. 123

    RE: pfft @ 19 – There’s a comment awaiting moderation, but the price restrictions came first. Without them none of the market manipulation stuff would have happened, because it wouldn’t have done anything.

    You needed to have a shortage first, and the shortage was caused by too low of retail prices.

    This is really basic economics. Economics 101.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  124. 124

    pfft, maybe this will make you understand.

    In the 70s, as a result of the OPEC oil embargo, the government instituted price controls. Those price controls resulted in long gasoline lines and rationing. As a result, some people did things to get around the rationing and to profit from the shortage.

    If you had been around back then, commenting on the situation, you’d be arguing that those getting around the rationing and profiting had cause the shortages! They didn’t. They were just reacting to the market conditions.

    In both cases (California and 70s gas) the problem (blackout and lines) were caused by too low of retail prices. As a result of those too low of prices, bad things happened.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  125. 125
    David Losh says:

    Thank you for the link to Occupy Wall Street dot org.

    The web site clearly sets out the how to of protest. It also states that this is a global movement. It may be nothing here in the United States, but in other parts of the world it has much greater impact.

    This is kind of like those people who protested for a decade against the Iraq war. It was a much smaller group that kept up awareness about the war. We need much more awareness of the financial markets, and the damage they are doing.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  126. 126

    By David Losh @ 25:

    The web site clearly sets out the how to of protest.

    LOL. The most inefficient and ineffective (if not counterproductive) protest of your lifetime and you’re going to use their site as a how to guide?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  127. 127

    OWS, contributing to putting people out of work.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/02/09/state/n065041S55.DTL

    “Oakland has been rocked by Occupy protests that have cost the city more than $3 million and recently cut 105 jobs and $28 million from its budget.”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  128. 128
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 127 – I wonder how many folks the American Revolution put out out of work? Is that the new metric for what is right?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  129. 129

    By Blurtman @ 128:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 127 – I wonder how many folks the American Revolution put out out of work? Is that the new metric for what is right?

    The difference is the revolution had a chance of accomplishing something, and they had a plan.

    If OWS developed a plan I’d cut them a little slack.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  130. 130
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 126

    You really are grasping at anything to make a mockery of one of our rights that most countries don’t embrace, it’s the right to assemble.

    You are also not familiar with what the web site is saying. It goes back to the 1970s. It’s a how to peacefully protest web site. In this case the Occupy Wall Street also points out that this is a global protest.

    Where have you ever seen that before? You haven’t, no one has, it’s something new.

    The internet is a powerful tool. It’s currently being used to organize a global protest. It’s one of the good things we are exporting, rather than the financial scams we call an economy.

    They win, you lose.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  131. 131
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 129

    This morning I posted a comment on http://www.occupywallstreet.com/ it was a very barren site.

    This afternoon it sprouted into what you see now, interesting, huh?

    When I don’t understand something I try to learn about it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  132. 132

    RE: David Losh @ 31RE: David Losh @ 30 – What is it with you and pfft and posting links to websites? Is it that hard to post a link to a specific page?

    It would be like if I did this:

    Here’s a really interesting story on real estate.

    https://www.google.com/

    BTW, did love how the protest site wants you to log in through FB.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  133. 133

    By David Losh @ 130:

    You really are grasping at anything to make a mockery of one of our rights that most countries don’t embrace, it’s the right to assemble.

    I do find it a bit ironic that one of the reasons they assemble is to attack the First Amendment (the Citizens’ United case).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  134. 134
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 133

    Like I said, really grasping.

    The first Amendment calls for us to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

    PAC money is very much to the point of a corporation’s ability to skewe an election. Our fore fathers would be horrified by the size of corporations today.

    You still haven’t looked at, or responded to $1.2 Quadrillion in derivatives. Corporations have out grown government.

    In my opinion generational wealth are the new monarchies, but that is a personal view, and nothing to do with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

    You are throwing out one red herring after another to divert attention from, or be dimissive of, a very powerful, and effective protest.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  135. 135
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 32

    Geez, you didn’t read my comment.

    Yesterday morning http://www.occupywallstreet.com had nothing on the page. I posted a comment there, and in the afternoon the page had grown. If you look at it today it has grown again.

    The post pfft made was to http://www.occupywallstreet.org I looked up the dot com to find out what happed to that domain name.

    This is a growing protest movement. It’s not going away or petering out.

    Seriously Kary, what point are you trying to make.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  136. 136

    You seriously think those two website homepages are some sort of a major accomplishment?

    I guess I’ll have to admit, OWS has changed the world in a dramatic fashion. /sarcasm.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  137. 137

    By David Losh @ 34:

    PAC money is very much to the point of a corporation’s ability to skewe an election. Our fore fathers would be horrified by the size of corporations today.

    You are throwing out one red herring after another to divert attention from, or be dimissive of, a very powerful, and effective protest.

    The founding fathers would have been horrified by Congress and the President enacting a law restricting free speech prior to an election, and then having the Supreme Court hold that as being constitutional. They would have been relieved that decision only lasted less than 10 years.

    Neither you nor pfft has made any demonstration as to how OWS has been in any way effective. Merely saying it is effective does not make it effective. You have to point to something they have done (besides create a webpage).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  138. 138
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 113:

    By pfft @ 6:
    http://occupywallst.org/about/

    Is there something there I’m supposed to look at which indicates OWS has accomplished anything? Or is it just that they created a website? I’ll give you that accomplishment–they have a website.

    you’re just too old to understand!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  139. 139
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 136

    You aren’t reading the blog site, or the Twitter feeds.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  140. 140
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 37

    PACs advertize. Advertisement is different than free speach. Number one, the PAC is a blind trust. Actually I can’t even believe I’m buying into this tangent.

    The Supreme Court recognized corporations as entities with individual rights. That’s something totally different from PACs using those rights to run political ad campaigns. It is however one of the points that should keep the focus of this protest movement on Wall Street, rather than government.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  141. 141

    By pfft @ 38:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 113:
    By pfft @ 6:
    http://occupywallst.org/about/

    Is there something there I’m supposed to look at which indicates OWS has accomplished anything? Or is it just that they created a website? I’ll give you that accomplishment–they have a website.

    you’re just too old to understand!

    If you want to claim that they have accomplished something, you need to say what it is. And then post a link to a specific webpage that indicates that is true.

    Deflecting the attention to something else merely indicates I am right. OWS is a completely ineffective organization which has not only failed to accomplish anything, they’ve failed to even come up with an idea of how to accomplish what they want to accomplish.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  142. 142

    By David Losh @ 40:

    PACs advertize. Advertisement is different than free speach.

    The Supreme Court recognized corporations as entities with individual rights. That’s something totally different from PACs using those rights to run political ad campaigns. It is however one of the points that should keep the focus of this protest movement on Wall Street, rather than government.

    Wrong. There is commercial speech, where say Macy’s advertises. That is given a lower level of protection. PACs are clearly political speech. Speech is not somehow given less protection because it’s in a TV commercial.

    As to the second paragraph, that’s not totally different. That’s what Citizen’s United was about.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  143. 143
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 141

    Now you are discussing your own red herring? Speaking of red, it’s interesting you chose Macy’s as an example. That’s the company that uses the red star of China as a logo.

    We have all been duped by the financial markets. It is a global concern for all citizens. It’s not contained in this country, but the financial systems we established here are the global problem.

    Our government failed to regulate the financial markets. Those markets went global, and began moving cash to where ever it would make the most, with the least tax consequence. Our government reacted by continually lowering taxes, and giving away tax incentives.

    Government all over the world are being held hostage by financial interests.

    Greece is stuck because they need business. There is nothing the government can do other than play ball. Greece thought they were to be included in the European Community, but they were only used as another place to genereate interest income. Our form of financial engineering created consumer loans, mortgages, and encouraged the government to pay for infrastructure with other borrowed dollars.

    Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Italy followed.

    Our political system is for, and by the People. Any time a person, or entity threatens our way of life we have the duty to revolt. It’s our duty, and honor.

    The 1% won’t be allowed to keep money from a global swindle. That is a fact of life. There are way more People than there are a 1%. You can talk, the conservative movement can talk, games can be played, but ultimately anarchy is coming out ahead.

    Read the blogs, and the Twitter feeds. The Citizen United movement has a long ways to go to catch up. They are late to the game, and wasted a ton of time playing politics in an arena where politics are the enemy.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  144. 144

    By David Losh @ 143:

    Read the blogs, and the Twitter feeds. The Citizen United movement has a long ways to go to catch up. They are late to the game, and wasted a ton of time playing politics in an arena where politics are the enemy.

    Huh? Citizen’s United is the Supreme Court case which allowed free speech by PACs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  145. 145
  146. 146

    This is from President Obama’s weekly address:

    And this tax cut is common-sense. If you’re a family making about $50,000 a year, this tax cut amounts to about $1,000 a year. That’s about $40 in every paycheck. I know there are some folks in this town who think $40 isn’t a lot of money. But to a student or a senior who’s trying to stretch the budget a little bit further? . . . To them, $40 can make all the difference in the world.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/11/weekly-address-extending-payroll-tax-cut-middle-class

    I remember one of the presidents (HWB???) had a hard time at a check out stand, because he hadn’t faced that reality. Does the current president think that students are making $50,000 a years?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  147. 147

    By David Losh @ 145:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 144

    http://www.citizensunited.org/

    Okay, why are you throwing that out there.

    The issue is whether OWS has been at all effective. You can’t prove they are effective by claiming some other entity isn’t. What you have to do is show that they have a policy they want to implement and that they’ve made some progress in implementing it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  148. 148
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 147

    This is your red herring, that you threw out, I just wanted you to see it.

    The accomplishment of Occupy Wall Street, the same as all protest movements, is to increase awareness of an issue.

    While most people are focussed on government bail outs, or what the govermnet will do to “fix” things, like the job market, Occupy Wall Street has continued to protest against the problem of the financial markets.

    Today the protests are in Greece, and I expect those to go on for some time. Italy, France, and Spain also have protest movements similarly linked by sites like I showed you. France is by far the most militant of the European group, they are also the oldest, and most organized.

    In the few next months we’ll see what the main event will be here in the United States, but the call, today, from the link of http://www.occupywallstreet.com is Chicago on May 1st. We’ll see because the movement is fluid.

    By the way, telling anarchists to be more organized is off the point. A protest is to increase awareness of the problem.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  149. 149

    A lot of people have cancer. My prior sentence just made more people aware of that. I’ve accomplished something in the fight against cancer.

    I’m sorry, but if you don’t at least offer a solution, you haven’t accomplished squat.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  150. 150
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 149:

    A lot of people have cancer. My prior sentence just made more people aware of that. I’ve accomplished something in the fight against cancer.

    I’m sorry, but if you don’t at least offer a solution, you haven’t accomplished squat.

    yet you refuse to acknowledge they have positions when I post a list of what they want…

    nobody is this obtuse. you say you disagree with them yet you don’t know what they stand for.

    I repeat again. as soon as OWS is incorporated you’ll defend them…

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  151. 151

    By pfft @ 50:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 149:
    A lot of people have cancer. My prior sentence just made more people aware of that. I’ve accomplished something in the fight against cancer.

    I’m sorry, but if you don’t at least offer a solution, you haven’t accomplished squat.

    yet you refuse to acknowledge they have positions when I post a list of what they want…
    .

    Post a link to where you did that. The reason I haven’t acknowledged that is because you haven’t done that. I’ve asked repeatedly. I’m sorry if I somehow missed it, but if I did, post a link to that post, or if it is in this thread, give a post number.

    Oh, and btw, making wealth distribution more equal doesn’t count. I want to see how they propose to do that, not that they want to.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  152. 152
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 151:

    By pfft @ 50:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 149:
    A lot of people have cancer. My prior sentence just made more people aware of that. I’ve accomplished something in the fight against cancer.

    I’m sorry, but if you don’t at least offer a solution, you haven’t accomplished squat.

    yet you refuse to acknowledge they have positions when I post a list of what they want…
    .

    Oh, and btw, making wealth distribution more equal doesn’t count. I want to see how they propose to do that, not that they want to.

    gosh you really don’t pay attention. they want higher taxes on the rich.

    why are you making this so hard? I can give many accomplishments. renewed focus on inequality. In NY Cuomo was going to let the millionaires tax expire but OWS helped bring that issue to light. all of the sudden the President is giving OWS-sounding speeches. Even Republicans are sounding like OWS. OWS is bringing attention to fracking and to the militarization of police forces. the list goes on and on. if you want a long set of demands and protestors to run for office you’re missing the point.

    you’re still to old and corporate to understand.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  153. 153
    pfft says:

    I can’t believe you can’t figure out what OWS is about. I posted this link and you even discussed it. the only conclusion I can come to is you don’t want to understand….

    http://occupywallst.org/about/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  154. 154
    David Losh says:

    RE: pfft @ 152

    Then you’re to young to understand.

    New York City General Assembly is a problem of confused complaints without solutions.

    Occupy Wall Street allowed them to speak for them. It’s what causes a lot of the confusion that the public has. It’s called red baiting. The term socialist gets thrown around, but ultimately the conservative movement falls back on Cold War tactics of labeling people communists.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  155. 155

    By pfft @ 52:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 151:
    By pfft @ 50:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 149:
    A lot of people have cancer. My prior sentence just made more people aware of that. I’ve accomplished something in the fight against cancer.

    I’m sorry, but if you don’t at least offer a solution, you haven’t accomplished squat.

    yet you refuse to acknowledge they have positions when I post a list of what they want…
    .

    Oh, and btw, making wealth distribution more equal doesn’t count. I want to see how they propose to do that, not that they want to.

    gosh you really don’t pay attention. they want higher taxes on the rich..

    So this organization which started in 2011 has accomplished getting President Obama to ask for something he has been asking for since 2009? Wow, I had no idea how incredibly effective OWS has been. /sarc

    Also, you really don’t pay attention! I’ve said they need to ask for things which are not counter-productive. Things which cost jobs. So if they want to ask for higher taxes, fine, but then need to finesse that in a way that doesn’t put people out of work.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  156. 156

    By pfft @ 53:

    I can’t believe you can’t figure out what OWS is about. I posted this link and you even discussed it. the only conclusion I can come to is you don’t want to understand….

    http://occupywallst.org/about/

    I haven’t asked what they’re about. I’ve asked what they’ve accomplished. Apparently you don’t want to understand. I’m claiming they haven’t accomplished a thing, and you have failed to refute that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  157. 157

    By pfft @ 52:

    B In NY Cuomo was going to let the millionaires tax expire but OWS helped bring that issue to light. .

    We now have one accomplishment posted here. A tax extension at a lower level which was initially opposed because of concerns it would cost jobs in NY. At least that is an accomplishment. Whether it’s good or bad is debatable.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  158. 158
    Scotsman says:

    Pictures of the Obama Recovery for pfffffffft.

    http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?singlepost=2867309

    I know, I know- millions, maybe billions, of jobs saved.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  159. 159
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 158 – Looks like Obama inherited a chocolate sandwich.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  160. 160
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 157

    If you are looking for a daily list of accomplishments I’d suggest you subscribe to some of these sites.

    http://occupyseattle.org/

    Today it was shutting down the Port of Seattle. It took about a month.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  161. 161
    David Losh says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 158

    Do you look at these graphs before you put the links in your comment?

    These graphs are showing a recovery.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  162. 162

    RE: David Losh @ 60 – Shutting down the port is not an accomplishment. It just puts people out of work, increases expenses to governments already struggling to provide services, and does little harm to any large entity.

    It’s like the tax issue in NY. What they may have accomplished is fewer jobs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  163. 163
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 162

    An accomplishment is realizing a goal. This is something that they set out to do, and accomplished that. It’s an odd issue, and one I was never aware of until they brought it up, but yes the truckers have been getting short changed.

    Did you know that about the truckers? Did you even think about Port services? Because while I was growing up truckers were getting pretty well paid. Costs go up, the price of gas goes up. Did you ever think about these small business owners?

    I never did, It was never on my radar, but it is now. That’s one little thing in a global effort.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  164. 164

    RE: David Losh @ 63 – I think it’s a real stretch to give OWS credit for the trucker issue. I didn’t even know that’s what you were talking about when you said shut down the port. I thought it was one of their protests. The Teamsters have more to do with than than OWS.

    But accomplishment isn’t merely realizing a goal if the goal is pointless. If that was the case, they’ve achieved their goal of being unemployed for months by spending time in public parks. Not an accomplishment.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  165. 165

    This might create more jobs in this country. If you read far enough down, Apple might not be able to export iPads from China!

    http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/15/10416453-is-apple-over-a-chinese-ibarrel

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  166. 166
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 164

    Take another look today http://occupywallstreet.com/

    That’s less than a week later.

    You’ve obviously never been involved in a movement. You don’t see the mechanics of it, so you dismiss it until something else happens. Then you say “oh my Goodness, how could this Happen?”

    It’s like Health Care Reform. You don’t understand how millions of people worked for decades to get some legislation, any legislation, in place to stop private insurance from murdering people for profit.

    You don’t understand that the world is a brutal vicious place that demands strong reaction in order to advance causes. You’ve always played it safe so you never experience the other side of risk.

    Some people do sacrifice time, money, and their lives to causes.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  167. 167
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 158:

    Pictures of the Obama Recovery for pfffffffft.

    http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?singlepost=2867309

    I know, I know- millions, maybe billions, of jobs saved.

    millions of jobs saved and millions added the last 20+ moths. karl is a joke.

    Factories Churning Out More Goods Buoy U.S. Growth: Economy
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-15/production-at-u-s-factories-climbs-on-demand-for-automobiles-machinery.html

    who said that manufacturing would make a comeback? oh that was me!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  168. 168
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 57:

    By pfft @ 52:
    B In NY Cuomo was going to let the millionaires tax expire but OWS helped bring that issue to light. .

    We now have one accomplishment posted here. A tax extension at a lower level which was initially opposed because of concerns it would cost jobs in NY. At least that is an accomplishment. Whether it’s good or bad is debatable.

    you forgot the other 4 things I listed.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  169. 169
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 62:

    RE: David Losh @ 60 – Shutting down the port is not an accomplishment. It just puts people out of work, increases expenses to governments already struggling to provide services, and does little harm to any large entity.

    It’s like the tax issue in NY. What they may have accomplished is fewer jobs.

    no it means they don’t have to cut programs like school funding. higher taxes on the rich doesn’t impact jobs because they have a lot of disposable income. studies show that countries with a higher progressive tax rate do better.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  170. 170
    pfft says:

    By David Losh @ 66:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 164

    Take another look today http://occupywallstreet.com/

    That’s less than a week later.

    You’ve obviously never been involved in a movement. You don’t see the mechanics of it, so you dismiss it until something else happens. Then you say “oh my Goodness, how could this Happen?”

    It’s like Health Care Reform. You don’t understand how millions of people worked for decades to get some legislation, any legislation, in place to stop private insurance from murdering people for profit.

    You don’t understand that the world is a brutal vicious place that demands strong reaction in order to advance causes. You’ve always played it safe so you never experience the other side of risk.

    Some people do sacrifice time, money, and their lives to causes.

    amen brother.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  171. 171
    Scotsman says:

    “The fact that we’re here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means ‘The buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

    –Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

    Senate Floor Speech

    2006

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  172. 172
    David Losh says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 171

    I was just reading about the Real Estate market in Spain which collapsed in 2008. The Real Estate market is still strong in South America, and China?

    There is also the report today that GM had the highest profits since it’s record in 1997, while they are also cutting the pension programs.

    GM, record profits, cuts pension plan. Who’s going to pick up that slack? Now multiply that with the millions of Americans who lost billions of dollars in this last economic collapse of the past decade.

    Pay attention, because all that economic prosperity from 1998 to today is as false as today’s economic recovery. Tending to our budget is very short sighted, and will only benefit about 1%? of our population?

    If the deficit is a problem then all of those very wealthy, really smart, innovative, tax deferred, tax break, government subsidized, and protected, corporations should be having a conference to figure out what to do. They won’t because they would prefer you pay for it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  173. 173

    By David Losh @ 66:

    It’s like Health Care Reform. You don’t understand how millions of people worked for decades to get some legislation, any legislation, in place to stop private insurance from murdering people for profit. .

    So you think Obamacare, which calls for more insurance, somehow prevents that?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  174. 174

    By pfft @ 68:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 57:
    By pfft @ 52:
    B In NY Cuomo was going to let the millionaires tax expire but OWS helped bring that issue to light. .

    We now have one accomplishment posted here. A tax extension at a lower level which was initially opposed because of concerns it would cost jobs in NY. At least that is an accomplishment. Whether it’s good or bad is debatable.

    you forgot the other 4 things I listed.

    No. I read them and didn’t agree they were an OWS accomplishment. In fact as to Obama, OWS sounds like him and his anti-business rhetoric from 2009.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  175. 175

    By pfft @ 69:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 62:
    RE: David Losh @ 60 – Shutting down the port is not an accomplishment. It just puts people out of work, increases expenses to governments already struggling to provide services, and does little harm to any large entity.

    It’s like the tax issue in NY. What they may have accomplished is fewer jobs.

    no it means they don’t have to cut programs like school funding. higher taxes on the rich doesn’t impact jobs because they have a lot of disposable income. studies show that countries with a higher progressive tax rate do better.

    Do better on what scale? What country with a more progressive tax rate has more jobs or produces more goods than the US?

    Jobs tend to go to countries with lower tax rates. That’s why manufacturing jobs have been moving out of the US. But go ahead and pretend things are somehow better with higher tax rates.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  176. 176
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 175

    and it just gets better. You presented another straw man that is exactly on point. I’ll address that later.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  177. 177
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 73

    We never got ObamaCare, we got the Tea Party, Republican gift to the Health Insurance Industry. It is however now a part of the public debate.

    We need single payer, extension of VA, and Public Health options. It’s one step at a time.

    The one step at a time is the part you ignore. It’s a movement.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  178. 178

    RE: David Losh @ 76 – Good luck with that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  179. 179

    By David Losh @ 77:

    We never got ObamaCare, we got the Tea Party, Republican gift to the Health Insurance Industry. It is however now a part of the public debate. .

    Wow, what planet are you from? You think the Tea Party wanted Obamacare?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  180. 180
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 179

    I’m guessing this one- the unicorns are just out of the frame, to the left, on land:

    http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgwiz01433+dolphin-universe-planets-waves-and-moonlight-poster.jpg

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  181. 181
    Scotsman says:

    “Geithner: Why, no, our new budget does nothing to address America’s long-term fiscal crisis”

    They know it’s going to die, but they do nothing.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/16/geithner-why-no-our-new-budget-does-nothing-to-address-americas-long-term-fiscal-crisis/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  182. 182
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 179

    How quickly we forget that Obamacare was a ten page piece of legislation Obama wanted passed before the summer break. Over the summer the Tea party formed, and Republicans came back with a counter proposal which is what we got.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  183. 183
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 75

    It’s also financial products tax laws that attract business. What do you think generates more profit, manufacuring flat screens, or financing them?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  184. 184
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 171:

    “The fact that we’re here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means ‘The buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

    –Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

    Senate Floor Speech

    2006

    we weren’t in a liquidity trap back then. now if we didn’t deficit spend we’d be adding to our short-term and long-term debt.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  185. 185
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 74:

    By pfft @ 68:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 57:
    By pfft @ 52:
    B In NY Cuomo was going to let the millionaires tax expire but OWS helped bring that issue to light. .

    We now have one accomplishment posted here. A tax extension at a lower level which was initially opposed because of concerns it would cost jobs in NY. At least that is an accomplishment. Whether it’s good or bad is debatable.

    you forgot the other 4 things I listed.

    No. I read them and didn’t agree they were an OWS accomplishment. In fact as to Obama, OWS sounds like him and his anti-business rhetoric from 2009.

    oh don’t forget that OWS helped get rid of debit card fees. They also helped with bank transfer day.

    if you don’t think that OWS didn’t unmask the militarization of police forces I don’t really know what to tell you.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  186. 186
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 75:

    By pfft @ 69:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 62:
    RE: David Losh @ 60 – Shutting down the port is not an accomplishment. It just puts people out of work, increases expenses to governments already struggling to provide services, and does little harm to any large entity.

    It’s like the tax issue in NY. What they may have accomplished is fewer jobs.

    no it means they don’t have to cut programs like school funding. higher taxes on the rich doesn’t impact jobs because they have a lot of disposable income. studies show that countries with a higher progressive tax rate do better.

    Do better on what scale? What country with a more progressive tax rate has more jobs or produces more goods than the US?

    Jobs tend to go to countries with lower tax rates. That’s why manufacturing jobs have been moving out of the US. But go ahead and pretend things are somehow better with higher tax rates.

    uh jobs are moving back to the US. read the paper…

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  187. 187
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 81:

    “Geithner: Why, no, our new budget does nothing to address Americaâ��s long-term fiscal crisis”

    They know it’s going to die, but they do nothing.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/16/geithner-why-no-our-new-budget-does-nothing-to-address-americas-long-term-fiscal-crisis/

    it doesn’t do anything for our long-term fiscal “crisis” because it’s a 2012 budget, not a long-term budget.

    doesn’t it let the bush tax cuts expire though? that does help our long-term deficits.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  188. 188

    By pfft @ 85:

    oh don’t forget that OWS helped get rid of debit card fees.

    Wow. Using your criteria for determining what OWS has accomplished, they’ve made the sun rise in the east for the past 9 months.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  189. 189

    RE: pfft @ 86 – This is a discussion of economics at the margin. It’s over your head.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  190. 190

    By David Losh @ 182:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 179

    How quickly we forget that Obamacare was a ten page piece of legislation Obama wanted passed before the summer break. Over the summer the Tea party formed, and Republicans came back with a counter proposal which is what we got.

    This is a complete fabrication of reality. Obamacare passed with very little support (votes) from Republicans in Congress. Changes were made to get some minor amount of votes from Republicans and Democratic holdouts, but to claim that the bill is somehow a Republican scheme is really twisting reality. Republicans have been trying to repeal it almost since it was enacted.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  191. 191
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 190

    Absolutely they want to repeal it, they never wanted it. Public health, or single payer health insurance would shut down a major source of revenue for millions of companies that have a free pass to do any kind of business they choose.

    Private health Insurance kills millions of people while these companies make obscene profits. The Republicans came back from summer break with enough pork to kill Health Care Reform. They never thought it would move forward, but they didn’t have the votes to stop it. They did get the Tea party out of the whole deal. How’s that working?

    What Obama said is he wanted the same Health Insurance Congress enjoys to be available to the public. We didn’t get anything near that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  192. 192

    By David Losh @ 91:

    What Obama said is he wanted the same Health Insurance Congress enjoys to be available to the public. We didn’t get anything near that.

    President Obama was extremely hands off in the negotiations regarding changes to the bill. The reason he didn’t get what he wanted is he didn’t try to get what he wanted.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  193. 193

    This could potentially be big news for the economy–probably negative.

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/article/global-bank-hub-ready-to-implement-iran/2121420/
    It will speed up the impact of sanctions on Iran, possibly resulting in higher oil prices. Maybe faster will be better in the long run, but it’s risky.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  194. 194
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 192

    Not the case at all, Obama made his push before the summer break. The summer break gave us the Tea Party antics, and bolstered the Republican Party.

    Obama was smart to stay out of the way. The Republicans got what they wanted, and we got a Health Care Reform. Health care reform will change dramatically by public demand. Don’t worry we will get it right, but we needed the first step which many Presidents have wanted, and none achieved.

    But this discussion isn’t about health care, it’s about how a movement progresses. It’s incremental steps, and you will be amazed at what Occupy Wall Street is bringing us.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  195. 195

    By David Losh @ 194:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 192 – Not the case at all, Obama made his push before the summer break. The summer break gave us the Tea Party antics, and bolstered the Republican Party.

    Again, even accepting that as true, how does it possibly get you to Republicans wanting Obamacare?

    Are you also trying to claim that it’s the Tea Party behind the recent rule on contraceptive coverage for employees of Catholic hospitals? Using the same non-logic, that would appear to be the case.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  196. 196
    David Losh says:

    RE: David Losh @ 191RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 195

    I said was: “Absolutely they want to repeal it, they never wanted it. Public health, or single payer health insurance would shut down a major source of revenue for millions of companies that have a free pass to do any kind of business they choose.”

    Republicans threw in every stone they could to derail progress of Health Care Reform.

    You are trying to make arguments in this thread that have nothing to do with the discussion of protest movements.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  197. 197
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 190:

    By David Losh @ 182:
    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 179

    How quickly we forget that Obamacare was a ten page piece of legislation Obama wanted passed before the summer break. Over the summer the Tea party formed, and Republicans came back with a counter proposal which is what we got.

    This is a complete fabrication of reality. Obamacare passed with very little support (votes) from Republicans in Congress. Changes were made to get some minor amount of votes from Republicans and Democratic holdouts, but to claim that the bill is somehow a Republican scheme is really twisting reality. Republicans have been trying to repeal it almost since it was enacted.

    the individual mandate was endorsed by many many republicans years ago.

    The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  198. 198
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 89:

    RE: pfft @ 86 – This is a discussion of economics at the margin. It’s over your head.

    enlighten me oh corporate one.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  199. 199
    Trigger says:

    Scotsman – So do you think there are people on the forum still who believe that we cannot inflate our way out of the crisis?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  200. 200

    By pfft @ 98:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 89:
    RE: pfft @ 86 – This is a discussion of economics at the margin. It’s over your head.

    enlighten me oh corporate one.

    I’m talking about the types of things that will be major factors in deciding where new jobs are created or jobs relocated. Tax rates are one of those things. Wages are one of those things. Quality of work force is one of those things. Transportation systems is one of those things. A country (or state) can lose on one or even two of those things, but if you’re losing on all of them, you’re in trouble.

    But by on the margin what I mean is focusing on things we need to do to win more of those decisions. We could cut the minimum wage to get more jobs here, but somehow that doesn’t sit well with anyone, and for good reason. So one quick alternative is cutting taxes. That is done frequently to get jobs to an area, because governments realize that what they lose in taxes from the corporation they: (1) Won’t get if the jobs are not located there; and (2) Will largely be made up in taxes from the new employees. More to the point I’m trying to make, they realize that those employees with jobs are far better off than if they don’t have them.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  201. 201
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 200

    Let me redirect you, again, to the point of this particular discussion. This clip is from Spain where millions of people were encouraged to buy homes, but lost them when the economy tanked: http://occupywallstreet.com/spains-indignados-and-the-globalization-of-dissent-youtube/

    This is what some people call the beginning of the Occupy movement that began in 2007.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  202. 202

    RE: David Losh @ 201 – Let me direct you. Columbus set sail in 1492. That started the Occupy movement.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  203. 203
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 202

    Watch the clip so you have some basic understanding of the situation. In Spain there is no walking away from a mortgage, the same in Greece, and Italy. The situations there will get much worse, and any news report that tells you there is a deal in place, or that there is a solution, is only political. It doesn’t address the very real devastation it has done to the people of those countries.

    So talking around the issue of how we can fix anything with the United States political system is naive.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  204. 204
    David Losh says:

    and this is what’s going on today:

    “MADRID — Hundreds of thousands of protesters were marching throughout Spain on Sunday in the first large-scale show of anger over new labor reforms that make it easier for companies to fire workers and pull out of collective bargaining agreements.

    Spain’s main trade unions organized marches in 57 cities, beginning midmorning in southern Cordoba. Some events that had been planned for later in the day, such as in eastern Valencia, had to be brought forward because of the early buildup of large crowds.

    Union organizers said around 1 million people had marched by mid-afternoon, but official figures were not released.”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  205. 205

    RE: David Losh @ 204 – So you think the Occupy movement is responsible for the existence of unions?

    BTW, that type of protest makes a lot more sense than camping out in a park for months on end.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  206. 206
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 205

    The camping out started in Spain, if you would look at the first link: http://occupywallstreet.com/spains-indignados-and-the-globalization-of-dissent-youtube/

    That protest was also broken up, and since 2007 politicians have caved into business interests. This last protest was about collective bargaining rights, and worker rights. Evidently those rights are being eroded so that Spain can get employers a better deal in order to compete.

    Like I said, you are throwing out repeated red herrings, or it may just be red baiting in general. If the wealthy want workers, they need to pay them a living wage. The way things are going we are going to have an under paid global work force so a very few can profit.

    It’s not going to work out.

    Maybe you are unfamiliar with how things work in Europe. When workers want something they shut down services. Trains, planes, and boats routinely stop for hours on end. What this new legislation does is make it easier to fire people who protest.

    As I said, many comments in the past, protest is better than militancy.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  207. 207

    RE: David Losh @ 6 – Me throwing stuff out? You’re the one throwing out all these things that have nothing to do with accomplishments of the OWS movement.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  208. 208
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 207

    You don’t want to understand. The accomplishmnets are daily, incremental, and constant. It’s a global movement of educating people.

    The demonstration in Spain is an accomplishment. You don’t want to see it. You don’t want to see that millions of people want a fair deal. They are tired of paying taxes so a very few can benefit.

    So while the Tea Party is having meetings, and the one goal they have is being elected, the Occupy Wall Street movement has developed a global network. I, personally, am kind of impressed by the impact they are having.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  209. 209
    Trigger says:

    The problem with Spain is that they are not following the US remedy: Print, Then Print some more and then go for a hike and relax. Id sb has a cash flow problem – give him some cash and then the cash flow problem is fixed.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  210. 210

    By David Losh @ 208:

    The demonstration in Spain is an accomplishment. You don’t want to see it.

    I don’t have a problem seeing some accomplishment there. What I have a problem with is attributing anything of that to OWS. It’s a union issue, not some fringe political movement.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  211. 211
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 210

    Click the first link, and watch the video. http://occupywallstreet.com/spains-indignados-and-the-globalization-of-dissent-youtube/

    You’ll see Occupy Wall Street is an extension of a more established movement.

    The second part is about worker rights.

    Occupy Wall Street is more than a fringe group. It’s a long established movement that is a part of something global. I’d say the world will change, but we know it won’t. It will be next time, and the time after that.

    What I do know is that Occupy Wall Street will attempt to influence the elections. In my opinion that’s why they started last year.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  212. 212
    Trigger says:

    RE: David Losh @ 211 – David – the problem with this group is that they do not like bankers to have a lot of bonuses. But in modern economy the capital determines who gets employed, which company makes it. Bankers rule the world and this is why they were the first to get bailed out. This is also why we print and then print some more cash. It is all for a good cause. People do not realize how bankers are important to all of us and we should cherish them as much as possible. We should all hope bankers get bigger bonuses next year and you should as well.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  213. 213
    pfft says:

    By Trigger @ 209:

    The problem with Spain is that they are not following the US remedy: Print, Then Print some more and then go for a hike and relax. Id sb has a cash flow problem – give him some cash and then the cash flow problem is fixed.

    you are right. don’t print though, just sell new bonds. worked here. don’t go for a hike though because you now have a job.

    almost 2 years into austerity and it’s failed miserable. that is not in dispute.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  214. 214
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 10:

    By David Losh @ 208:
    The demonstration in Spain is an accomplishment. You don’t want to see it.

    I don’t have a problem seeing some accomplishment there. What I have a problem with is attributing anything of that to OWS. It’s a union issue, not some fringe political movement.

    OWS had union involvement…it;s like you don’t want to know anything about the movement.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  215. 215
    pfft says:

    By Trigger @ 12:

    RE: David Losh @ 211 – David – the problem with this group is that they do not like bankers to have a lot of bonuses. But in modern economy the capital determines who gets employed, which company makes it. Bankers rule the world and this is why they were the first to get bailed out. This is also why we print and then print some more cash. It is all for a good cause. People do not realize how bankers are important to all of us and we should cherish them as much as possible. We should all hope bankers get bigger bonuses next year and you should as well.

    “print money” – the most overused and useless phrase ever.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  216. 216
    pfft says:

    oh yeah, inflation last year was around 3% I think? OMG LOL they are printing money$$$!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  217. 217

    By pfft @ 14:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 10:
    By David Losh @ 208:
    The demonstration in Spain is an accomplishment. You don’t want to see it.

    I don’t have a problem seeing some accomplishment there. What I have a problem with is attributing anything of that to OWS. It’s a union issue, not some fringe political movement.

    OWS had union involvement…it;s like you don’t want to know anything about the movement.

    Undoubtedly they share some goals. The difference is, unions have accomplished things.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  218. 218

    President Obama is borrowing tax policy from Santorum.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46476720/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/#.T0T5poeWfcE

    His corporate tax policy proposal looks a little like Santorum’s but doesn’t go as far. It even includes a special lower rate for manufacturers.

    What’s crazy is corporate tax reform should have been a priority for democrats and republicans in 2009. Here it is 2012 and we’re just getting around to discussing it. It’s almost as if neither party cares about unemployment.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  219. 219
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 218

    How quickly we forget that there have been constant battles concerning Obama himself, rather than any policies. There was no focus from the Republican Party on anything other than Obama. They had to get rid of Obama. OMG, how dare he shoulder the economic issues we had in those days. OMG, he spent money again!, OMG, he wants to take a trip to Asia!. OMG! It was a complete joke, a farce, but he made it through.

    Now on the eve of a reelection he has a 6 point lead over any Republican candidate, when Republicans were polled. He’s winning the Republican Presidential nomination, and this corporate tax rate ought to put him over the top.

    The guy seems to be playing politics pretty good, for a rookie.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  220. 220
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 17

    I’m going to point out again that the Occupy Wall Street movement started in Spain in 2007. It’s in the clip. Second is that it is a union movement in Europe, always has been a union movement. In Europe people can afford to sit for days, and weeks, because they are on the dole. We don’t have a safety net here in the United States, as much as many want to claim that we do. We have welfare for work, we have no health care, we set crazy people loose out on the street, literally, every day. We give away food stamps readily because it is the corner stone of the farms subsidy program.

    In other words we were late to the Occupy movement.

    Now that we are there the objection is that we have only fringe elements representing the movement in the streets. The homeless, criminals, and disabled are the only ones who can afford to spend months in the streets. I personally support that, because I’m well aware that welfare fraud is a corporate crime, committed by corporations, to benefit corporations.

    However unions are just now starting to catch on that having bodies in the street other than membership can have huge impacts. We’ll see what happens this summer.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  221. 221

    By David Losh @ 220:

    I’m going to point out again that the Occupy Wall Street movement started in Spain in 2007.

    Is that Wall Street, Madrid? I’m not finding that on Google Maps. ;-)

    I have no doubt that OWS tries to claim some roots other than its own, just as it tries to claim accomplishments other than its own (e.g. the recent Seattle trucker strike).

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  222. 222

    By David Losh @ 219:

    <The guy seems to be playing politics pretty good, for a rookie.

    He’s sort of crazy, like a fox.

    On the recent health insurance coverage for contraceptives issue, he made a move that is almost universally viewed as bone-headed, but then the next day comes up with a change he calls a compromise (even though it wasn’t negotiated with anyone). Then he somehow morphs a First Amendment issue into a birth control issue, and gains the upper hand.

    I’m not a big fan of religious organizations, as opposed to religion, and would even tax them. But I find his maneuvering to be incredible in light of recent Supreme Court opinions on religion and other issues.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  223. 223
    Scotsman says:

    Coming soon to the U.S.- another failed economic policy. Everytime taxes are raised revenues go down. But they keep on trying.

    “the UK did exactly what Obama and the Democrats propose to do here — pass a surtax on high-income earners. The new tax rate of 50%, which took effect at the beginning of the year, was expected to raise a billion pounds in extra revenue each month. So how did that work out? Tax revenues dropped by more than £500 million:”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/22/surtax-on-wealthy-in-uk-results-in-lower-revenue/

    What’s the definition of insanity again? Is insane leadership better than no leadership at all?

    Can you steer a parked car?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  224. 224
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 221

    You never looked at the link yet you’re still making comments? I posted it there for you more than a couple of times. You have no clue about the movement, what it is, or what they are doing. You haven’t read any of my comments, so I guess you are just commenting for the sake of making a comment.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  225. 225
    David Losh says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 23

    Yeah, as fun as it is to look at the Hot Air web site, they are exactly right, the entrepenuers left, thank God, let them go. They are probably over in golly Ireland, yeah, that’s where I would want my money, Ireland, they have a low tax rate.

    Maybe every one forgets how the upper tax rate was 90% in England, and every one had to lower that until they could attract more revenue. It was a European tax game; hmmm, I think Germany won that.

    It makes no difference, these leeches need to be taxed to the full extent of the law where ever they go. If they leave they shouldn’t be allowed back. If the money leaves it should be fair game to any government that can freeze it.

    What if England failed to defend the business interests of the people who were attempting this kind of threat? I’l bet you would hear some squelling about that.

    That post is very much to the heart of the issue. We need to tax the heck out of these guys and get the money they have moving. Every government should be on board with this, and see how these guys like having money stuck in Switzerland.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  226. 226

    RE: David Losh @ 24 – I’m not going to watch a 10 minute Youtube video to see if you proved your point. That’s even worse than just pointing to the homepage of some website. At least in that situation there’s a chance I could find a link and only waste 2 minutes of my time.

    Let’s say instead that you had posted a Youtube link to that foreclosure scam thing you found recently. Would watching 10 minutes of that prove a point you claimed about MERS? Not at all.

    In any case your point is absurd. You think the idea that there’s a problem with the unequal distribution of wealth somehow started in Spain in 2007? That idea goes back decades. In any case, Occupy Wall Street started in this country.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  227. 227

    By David Losh @ 25:

    Maybe every one forgets how the upper tax rate was 90% in England . . ..

    It was actually 95%. And to show you how you prove a point, here’s a link. Read the first 3 lines of the song (or six lines if you prefer subtraction to division). ;-)

    http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Taxman%20Lyrics.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  228. 228
    David Losh says:

    So you do just make comments to make comments. Why? What’s the point?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  229. 229
    doug says:

    RE: David Losh @ 228

    Because whoever posts most wins!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  230. 230
    doug says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 23

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/12/tax-rates-and-gdp-growth/

    There doesn’t seem to be much of a correlation, actually.

    Obama’s corporate tax plan is very interesting. It’s the kind of aggressively pro-American-worker budget the GOP really should have come up with on their own. But, since Obama proposed it, it will be demonized somehow. See: Obamacare, invented by Republicans.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  231. 231

    RE: doug @ 30 – Santorum proposed something similar, but possibly more aggressive. If I recall right, it was 0% for manufacturing activity.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  232. 232

    By David Losh @ 228:

    So you do just make comments to make comments. Why? What’s the point?

    I missed this. Two points.

    1. The rate was worse than you said–an incredible rate by today’s thinking.

    2. It was to show you how to prove a point. You don’t prove a point by making a claim and then citing a link that makes people do a ton of work, such as: https://www.google.com/

    Seriously, the points should have been obvious. Are you trying to purposefully be dense?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  233. 233
    doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 231

    Did Santorum’s plan do anything to broaden the tax base to compensate? That might be a really interesting idea, if so. (And if it was for domestic manufacturing only.)

    If Santorum stuck to the economy, he might actually have a chance. He can’t resist being a culture warrior, though.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  234. 234

    By doug @ 33:

    Did Santorum’s plan do anything to broaden the tax base to compensate? That might be a really interesting idea, if so. (And if it was for domestic manufacturing only.)

    I don’t know, although I’m pretty sure it was domestic manufacturing only. Not a fan of Santorum. I just remember him saying that during one of the two debates I watched part of.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  235. 235
    doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 234

    I’m not either… but he’s up against a pretty weak field. A little restraint and he’d win.

    I think with a pro-‘insourcing’ tax plan, we could really have a manufacturing renaissance in this country. It’s something the whole country could actually get behind and feel passionately about. A guy can dream, right?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  236. 236

    RE: doug @ 235 – If I want an incumbent President out of office I usually prefer to have a governor run against them. Senators and ex-Senators don’t tend to get elected.

    But it would be really hard for me to support Santorum just due to his economic policy, given his social policies.

    But hey, he’s not that much worse than President Obama. President Obama is making two separate attacks on the First Amendment, sort of reminiscent of Republicans after the Supreme Court decision on flag burning. Very hard for me to support a candidate who wants to amend the Bill of Rights, and doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  237. 237
    doug says:

    Explain how he’s attacking the first amendment?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  238. 238

    RE: doug @ 237 – 1. Attacking Citizen’s United decision, which struck down incumbent protection legislation. 2. Requiring Catholic non-profits to buy health insurance which covers contraception.

    Nancy Pelosi has actually mentioned amending the First Amendment after President Obama gets re-elected. For political reasons though, she just referred to it as amending the Constitution, not amending the Bill of Rights. But the Bill of Rights is under clear attack from Democrats.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  239. 239
    doug says:

    OH PLEASE, Kary.
    1. Obama is far from the first president to disagree with a Supremes ruling, and you KNOW it. If this were disrespect for the constitution, every politician who campaigned against abortion would be ‘disrespecting the constitution’. That’s a RIDICULOUS argument. It’s made in bad faith. I seriously cannot believe you would trot that out.

    2. The health care law in no way impinges upon someone’s right to practice religion. I’m a Christian and I was deeply opposed to the war in Iraq on moral grounds, yet my tax dollars were spent on it. Whatever! I guess I don’t count! We’re compelled to spend money on things we don’t agree with all the time.

    3. The law does not force people to use birth control. It does not establish a state religion. Therefore, it does not violate the first amendment. You can’t cloak any argument in religiosity and automatically win.

    4. Laws mandating provisions for employees’ health and welfare have been around for ages. Get used to it. You can come up for religious justifications for opposing child labor laws, or worker safety laws, or blood transfusions, or cancer treatments. It doesn’t mean you get to decide for all your employees what they get to practice. SORRY. What a bunch of babies. “Oh, oh, I’m Amish and I pay tax money for infrastructure projects! You’re violating my constitutional rights!” No one else makes that argument. You know why? It’s preposterous!

    5. On a side note, my wife is very conservative, and we’re both Christians. She’s incredibly insulted by the birth control stuff (We’ll be fruitful and multiply when we’re good and ready, thank you very much) and will be voting for Obama, something she seriously didn’t think was in the realm of possibility.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  240. 240
    doug says:

    From TPM:

    “One thing I think is crystal clear — there is no First Amendment violation by this law,” Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told TPM. “The Supreme Court was very clear in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, written by none other than Antonin Scalia, that religious believers and institutions are not entitled to an exemption from generally applicable laws.”

    The Reagan-appointed conservative justice authored the majority opinion in the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, a critical precedent to the birth control case, decreeing that religious liberty is insufficient grounds for being exempt from laws. The Supreme Court said Oregon may deny unemployment benefits to people who were fired for consuming peyote as part of a religious tradition, seeing as the drug was illegal in the state.

    “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself,” wrote Scalia, an avowed Catholic and social conservative, quoting from a century-old Supreme Court decision and giving it new life. His opinion was cosigned by four other justices.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  241. 241
    doug says:

    Also: Considering amending the constitution is not an attack on the Constitution. It’s a pretty difficult thing to do! That First Amendment that you an I love so much is the First AMENDMENT. The first change to the Constitution of the United States.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  242. 242

    By doug @ 239:

    OH PLEASE, Kary.
    1. Obama is far from the first president to disagree with a Supremes ruling, and you KNOW it.

    How many Presidents have called out the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address? IMHO, they should have all stood up, walked out and boycotted the rest of his addresses going forward.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  243. 243

    By doug @ 39:

    2. The health care law in no way impinges upon someone’s right to practice religion. I’m a Christian and I was deeply opposed to the war in Iraq on moral grounds, yet my tax dollars were spent on it. Whatever! I guess I don’t count! We’re compelled to spend money on things we don’t agree with all the time. .

    It tells a religious organization what to do.

    As to the tax argument, why do you think we don’t tax religious entities? It’s to not force them to pay for things they disagree with. Health insurance is no different.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  244. 244

    By doug @ 39:

    What a bunch of babies. “Oh, oh, I’m Amish and I pay tax money for infrastructure projects! You’re violating my constitutional rights!” No one else makes that argument. You know why? It’s preposterous!

    Yes, that would be preposterous. But we’re not talking about whether an employer who happens to be Catholic can avoid buying such insurance, or whether people who are Amish can avoid paying taxes. We’re talking about forcing religious organizations to do things that they don’t agree with.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  245. 245

    By doug @ 39:

    5. On a side note, my wife is very conservative, and we’re both Christians. She’s incredibly insulted by the birth control stuff (We’ll be fruitful and multiply when we’re good and ready, thank you very much) and will be voting for Obama, something she seriously didn’t think was in the realm of possibility.

    On a side note I hate the Catholic church and am pro-choice. I’m also pro-Bill of Rights.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  246. 246

    By doug @ 41:

    Also: Considering amending the constitution is not an attack on the Constitution. It’s a pretty difficult thing to do! That First Amendment that you an I love so much is the First AMENDMENT. The first change to the Constitution of the United States.

    I said attacking the First Amendment, not attacking the Constitution.

    BTW, the opinion of one person about the First Amendment means little. Just look how many legal scholars couldn’t read and thought that the Second Amendment was not an individual right.

    Also, I would note that but for the Bill of Rights the Constitution would likely have never been ratified. The existing constitution was not the first constitution. So in a way, attacking any part of the Bill of Rights is an attack on the Constitution.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  247. 247
    doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 242RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 244

    You’re changing the topic. It doesn’t matter whether he did it in the state of the union or not. Presidents disagree with SC rulings all. The. Time. Doing so does not mean you are attacking the constitution.

    Read the 2004 SotU anyway:

    “Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.”

    Wow. That’s exactly what you just described.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  248. 248
    doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 44

    Again, read “Employment Division Vs. Smith.” They have to obey the law. That simple. Whether you feel it’s right or not, it’s NOT a violation of the first Amendment. You can’t sacrifice animals in pursuit of your religion.

    Either way, even if you feel it’s a gray area (and I don’t) it hardly amounts to ‘attacking the Bill of Rights’. What overblown hyperbole.

    You know how Obama is violating the Constitution? Indefinite detention without trial. Now there is a clear violation.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  249. 249

    By doug @ 247:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 242RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 244

    You’re changing the topic. It doesn’t matter whether he did it in the state of the union or not. Presidents disagree with SC rulings all. The. Time. Doing so does not mean you are attacking the constitution.

    Read the 2004 SotU anyway:

    “Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.”

    Wow. That’s exactly what you just described.

    I am not changing the topic. I am claiming President Obama is attacking the Bill of Rights. I could go further and note that he’s attacking the Bill of Rights too with the Individual Mandate, which probably violates the 10th Amendment. The man has no respect for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I consider him the most dangerous President when it comes to the Constitution since Roosevelt.

    The quote from the 2004 State of the Union, in contrast, is changing the topic, because constitutional interpretation in general, or with respect to marriage is not an attack on the Bill of Rights. Nor was it an attack on any Supreme Court decision that I recall. Other than that, it’s exactly the same! ;-)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  250. 250

    By doug @ 48:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 44 – Again, read “Employment Division Vs. Smith.” They have to obey the law. That simple. Whether you feel it’s right or not, it’s NOT a violation of the first Amendment. You can’t sacrifice animals in pursuit of your religion.

    You know how Obama is violating the Constitution? Indefinite detention without trial. Now there is a clear violation.

    I would agree with the second point, at least in some instances.

    As to the first point, you can’t be so broad. Clearly they are not protected if having violent love with underage males. What if they passed a law requiring Jewish organizations to serve pork at all of their ceremonies, and require everyone attending to partake?

    To try to claim that it’s a provision in a statute so it’s constitutional is circular at best. The point of judicial review is to determine whether a statute is constitutional. You can’t just take a decision stating a broad principle and say everything is constitutional if enacted into law.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  251. 251

    By doug @ 248:

    Again, read “Employment Division Vs. Smith.” They have to obey the law.

    BTW, clearly distinguishable. It’s dealing with whether a religion can override a statutory prohibition when it comes to individual acts. So can a member of a religion use otherwise illegal drugs.

    To be on point with that decision you would have to have a law prohibiting the use of contraceptives, and a religion which required or encouraged them to be used. Under the Smith decision, the use of the contraceptives would be illegal, but clearly that is a completely different fact pattern.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  252. 252
    doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 249

    How is it any different than attacking Roe v Wade? It is not. Whether he does it during a SotU, or in a press conference is irrelevant, it is changing the topic. Is attacking Roe v Wade, saying it was wrong, attacking the Bill of Rights? If so, it’s just as ‘dangerous’ as Obama attacking CU, which is not at all.

    The only person who is ‘dangerous’ in this regard was Gingrich, who said he’d use executive power to just override judicial authority.

    News flash Kary: laws pass ALL THE TIME that are unconstitutional. sometimes it is blatant, sometimes not. This is the ENTIRE point of having a judicial body. If the Constitution were completely clear and in no need of interpretation, the founding fathers would not have established a Supreme Court, and not established a clear (but difficult) way to amend the constitution.

    Bush’s quote is regarding the establishment of a constitutional amendment in reaction to judicial decisions that he disagreed with. Exactly what you were so worried about. Whether is was a Supremes decision or not is irrelevant. The President can’t override a state judge any more than he can override a Supreme Court decision. But he’s certainly free to express his displeasure. And he’s free to pursue a constitutional amendment. I’m 110% for the right of gays to marry, but I don’t think that Bush was trying to topple the Republic.

    Nor should you get upset that Obama got disgruntled about a judicial decision (that reversed previous practice that was accepted as law) on the 2nd amendment. It’s his right. It’s his right to vocally do it too! Under the same 2nd amendment! If he decided he could just overrule it, now that would be trouble. But he hasn’t. In fact, he’s got his very own super PAC. Lighten up. Your freedom is not being taken away because Obama got indecorously grumpy.

    In short: you either have a basic misconception of the way this government works, or you’re just all worked up and you’re stubbornly digging in now.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  253. 253
    doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 51

    Smoking peyote is illegal, just like refusing to provide birth control coverage is illegal under the ACA. It is a broadly defined law not intended to pick on Catholics. It in no way prohibits them from worshiping freely. Finding a law immoral is not grounds to disobey it.

    No one is compelling Catholics to use birth control, so the kosher analogy doesn’t hold up at all.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  254. 254

    By doug @ 252:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 249 – How is it any different than attacking Roe v Wade? It is not.

    Roe v. Wade is not a decision based on the Bill of Rights.

    You seem to assume I have a problem with amending the Constitution. I don’t. Amendments are expressly provided for, and a most of the Amendments have been good. The exception would be Prohibition, but there might be others.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  255. 255

    By doug @ 53:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 51

    Smoking peyote is illegal, just like refusing to provide birth control coverage is illegal under the ACA.

    No one is compelling Catholics to use birth control, so the kosher analogy doesn’t hold up at all.

    First, there was no kosher analogy in that post. I did address in another post how if you assume a law prohibiting contraception (which requires ignoring Roe v. wade), religious beliefs promoting their use wouldn’t stand up to that law (again, which ignores Roe v. Wade).

    As to the first sentence, not parallel at all. In the first case (peyote) you’re prohibiting someone from doing something. In the second case (contraceptives) you’re requiring them to do something (provide coverage, not take contraceptives). Other than paying taxes, and serve in war, the federal government can’t typically force people to do things.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  256. 256
    doug says:

    Ok, let’s split it into two issues, because I do think I get your objection to the birth control thing, but it’s combining two distinct issues.

    Issue 1: Is the ACA mandate constitutional? Maybe! Compelling individuals and organizations to buy health care may or may not be Constitutional. It’ll probably make it’s way to the Supreme Court.

    It’s definitely up for debate, and I understand arguments on both sides. Either way, signing it doesn’t make Obama dangerous, or unique. Again, laws are declared unconstitutional with some regularity, sometimes after decades of being on the books. Interpretations change.

    Issue 2: Should the Catholic Church be immune from provisions of the ACA? And here, I think it’s a clear ‘no’. If the ACA is the law of the land, then everyone must obey it. Religious exemptions can be written in (as they often are in laws) but that doesn’t mean the church gets to flout the law.

    If the law is unconstitutional, it’s not because of birth control, or any religious issues. If it’s unconstitutional, it’s because of the mandate, and it will be decided as such.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  257. 257

    RE: doug @ 256 – I would agree with your analysis of the Individual mandate. I would only note though that if the individual mandate is constitutional, that would be a huge expansion of federal power.

    On that topic there are two issues. Is the individual mandate a good idea and is it constitutional. Some think it’s a good idea because it deals with the freerider issue, but I think it’s a bad idea because I think it will be highly inflationary. The Supreme Court will not strike it down because they think it’s bad policy. The very well might strike it down as not being within the government’s power. Personally I think that is somewhat likely given some of their other decisions the past ten years or so, but it will probably be a 5-4 decision either way.

    On the other I continue to disagree. The court can find the rule on contraceptives constitutional as applied to everyone but religious organizations. The case you cited earlier clearly doesn’t address it. If you have another to look at, let me know. But it would need to be something requiring a religious organization to do something that violated their principles. So just having to pay minimum wage, for example, wouldn’t cut it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  258. 258

    Not a Supreme Court decision, and it’s older, but you might want to look at this case dealing with minimum wage law:

    http://openjurist.org/899/f2d/1389/dole-v-shenandoah-baptist-church-c-d-b-m-s-f-p-t-i-t-t-r-l-c-t-m-dole

    Paragraph 45.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  259. 259
    doug says:

    I think the law itself is a good idea, but don’t necessarily think it’s constitutional. It could certainly lead to bad things.

    Do you get upset about warrant-less searches and wire taps, the Patriot Act, private prisons and private military groups? That’s what gets ME scared. Bad stuff is happening with those issues now, not in the future. And since we’re all so scared, it just gets swept under the rug. The SC won’t even hear arguments in some cases.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  260. 260

    RE: doug @ 259 -Sticking to Bill of Rights issues:

    Searches, wiretaps depend on the circumstances. Technology makes that very difficult. For example, I didn’t have a problem with putting a GPS device on a car, because it tracks the movement in public, and that could be done by having cops follow, using a helicopter, etc. The court didn’t agree, however, and possibly because apparently surveillance can become so intrusive to be unconstitutional (not sure).

    On the other hand, using infrared detectors to look inside houses for drugs, clearly bad IMHO.

    BTW, historically the court hasn’t been that strong in protecting against search and seizure. Our Washington State Supreme Court has been much more restrictive, and I would agree more with what they do.

    As to locking people up, I’ve already indicated a problem with that in some situations.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  261. 261
    doug says:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-12-09/news/0512090161_1_mitt-romney-abandoned-plans-private-hospitals-public-health-commissioner

    Is this that different?

    Again, I would say this kind of thing is not at all unprecedented. We seem to be splitting some pretty fine hairs here, and once we’re drawing distinctions this fine, it’s really hard to say that Obama doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights.

    I personally think that CU is contrary to original intent. If money is speech, how is bribery or blackmail illegal? It’s all just speech. But I wouldn’t say the Supreme Court doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  262. 262
    David Losh says:

    RE: doug @ 261

    You are fighting a good fight, that will get you nowhere. You’ve made excellent points, but you will find the conversation circular, on many small points.

    In my opinion you are correct, and have made an excellent presentation.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  263. 263

    By doug @ 261:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-12-09/news/0512090161_1_mitt-romney-abandoned-plans-private-hospitals-public-health-commissioner

    Is this that different?

    I don’t know what the state constitution looks like in Massachusetts. They might not have any clause pertaining to freedom of religion, and then you’d have to resort back to arguing one of the amendments to the US Constitution applied to them.

    Similarly, Romneycare might be constitutional under their constitution. That in fact is more likely. That still wouldn’t mean it was a good idea, and judging by their medical costs there it wasn’t. But at least that’s a distinction Romney could raise.

    It’s like what I was addressing on the search and seizure issue, where Washington decisions on the restrictions are more restrictive on police powers. In that case it’s not based differences in the language of the two constitutions, where in the case of Romneycare or the issue in your article, it very well might be.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  264. 264

    By doug @ 261:

    I personally think that CU is contrary to original intent. If money is speech, how is bribery or blackmail illegal? It’s all just speech. But I wouldn’t say the Supreme Court doesn’t respect the Bill of Rights.

    It’s not that money is speech. What the money pays for is speech. There’s a message there, and the law which was struck down prevented certain groups from speaking the weeks prior to an election. I was shocked when the Supreme Court found that constitutional several years before CU.

    What I also find amazing is how willing the press is to go along with this attacks on the First Amendment. They describe the CU decision as applying to corporations, because people don’t like corporations. In discussing the more recent issue, they address it as being about contraception rather than religious rights, even though all it’s about is religious rights. No one is talking about taking away anyone’s contraception. Back during Clinton they acted as if claiming the Second Amendment was an individual right was an absurd idea. And during Bush, on your issue, they hardly covered the Patriot Act and the people locked up.

    The press is going to regret being so in bed with the politicians when the politicians turn their sights on the press. But judging by what passes as news these days, I think it will be a long time before the politicians decide that they even care what the press has to say.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  265. 265
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 264

    What I heard Doug to say is that the Citizen’s United decision was contrary to the original intent of the 1st Amendment.

    Many people consider the Bill of Rights to be Individual rights, or the Rights of the People.

    What the decision does is further extend the rights of organizations, like the Nazi Party, Republican Party, Democrats, Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, Jewish Defense League, Anti Defamation League, the Communist Party, Socialist Party, or any other organization that can raise money.

    More to my point is that I consider Citizens United to be a hate group.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  266. 266
    doug says:

    “I don’t know what the state constitution looks like in Massachusetts. They might not have any clause pertaining to freedom of religion, and then you’d have to resort back to arguing one of the amendments to the US Constitution applied to them.”

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. State laws have to obey the U.S. Constitution for Goodness sake.

    And re: Citizens United, the point I was trying to raise was not that it’s a bad decision, but that I wouldn’t describe the court as disrespecting Constitutional rights, as you did with Obama. When I point out all the times VERY similar things have happened, you draw finer and finer distinctions (Well, it was at the State of the Union! Well, that was the 9th Amendment not the 1st! I said Bill of Rights, not Constitution!)

    So yes, no other president of the United States wrote the ACA, and no other President disagreed with THAT specific decision at a State of the Union, because it hadn’t been written yet. I cannot argue otherwise. Why should I have to?

    When you make your argument this specific, it loses all meaning, and you can’t draw the conclusion that Obama has no respect for the Constitution.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  267. 267

    By doug @ 266:

    “I donâ��t know what the state constitution looks like in Massachusetts. They might not have any clause pertaining to freedom of religion, and then youâ��d have to resort back to arguing one of the amendments to the US Constitution applied to them.”

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. State laws have to obey the U.S. Constitution for Goodness sake..

    Only in certain instances, and only where there’s a conflict with federal law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

    If the First Amendment says that the Federal Government shall not enact a law with restricts the freedom of religion, then that wouldn’t stop the states from enacting such a laws. You would need to have some other amendment to the constitution loop back and have the First Amendment apply to the states. That would possibly be the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Off the top of my head I’m not sure which parts have been held to apply to the states. You can read about it here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

    Applied to Obamacare (the big issue, not the contraceptive issue) it’s an entirely different argument. The question isn’t whether the Constitution prohibits Obamacare, but whether the Constitution gives the federal government the power because the federal government has limited powers. The argument against Obamacare is that the federal government doesn’t have the power to force people to buy things. If the state constitution has such powers in Massachusetts, it’s entirely possible that Obamacare would be unconstitutional but Romneycare constitutional.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  268. 268

    By doug @ 66:

    And re: Citizens United, the point I was trying to raise was not that it’s a bad decision, but that I wouldn’t describe the court as disrespecting Constitutional rights, as you did with Obama. When I point out all the times VERY similar things have happened, you draw finer and finer distinctions (Well, it was at the State of the Union! Well, that was the 9th Amendment not the 1st! I said Bill of Rights, not Constitution!)

    Of course CU is not disrepecting Constitutional rights. It’s giving greater constitutional rights. The case which disrespected the Bill of Rights was the decision a few years earlier which was overruled by CU. That earlier decision said people could not get together jointly and put a message on TV saying that they did not like an incumbent politician. Very clear violation of the freedom of speech. I don’t know how it could be any clearer, and I don’t understand how that earlier decision could have reached the decision it did.

    And again, you’ve yet to give an example of a President so disrespecting the First Amendment. That may be cutting hairs, but complaining about Roe v. Wade is not attacking the First Amendment or the Bill of Rights, because Roe v. Wade is not based on either. For the record though, I don’t like those references in a State of the Union address either. The idea that judges are restricted in interpreting the Constitution is absurd. For example, there’s no way you could have strict construction and rule on using GPS devices being attached to cars.

    BTW, the argument that the individual mandate is unconstitutional is also a Bill of Rights issue–the Tenth Amendment. If you throw that in, then President Obama is attacking the Bill of Rights on three fronts. Personally, I wouldn’t go that far because I don’t think you need to get to the 10th to rule Obamacare unconstitutional.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  269. 269
    doug says:

    States have to obey the 1st Amendment. This is settled law. It’s clearly stated in the very link you copied above.

    And you’re mixing your arguments again. I already granted you that the ACA may not be able to compel people to buy things. But if it does, then you can’t refuse coverage on religious grounds.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  270. 270

    Look at the law struck down by CU and tell me it doesn’t violate the Freedom of Speech:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/441b

    Subpart (a) provides:

    It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, or for any corporation whatever, or any labor organization, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which presidential and vice presidential electors or a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, Congress are to be voted for, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any of the foregoing offices, or for any candidate, political committee, or other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this section, or any officer or any director of any corporation or any national bank or any officer of any labor organization to consent to any contribution or expenditure by the corporation, national bank, or labor organization, as the case may be, prohibited by this section.

    Clearly it’s incumbent protection legislation. And remember, the issue which gave rise to the CU decision was a documentary on Hillary. Now you can argue that the documentary wasn’t somehow factual, but neither are Michael Moore documentaries. That doesn’t mean Congress can pass laws preventing those documentaries from being seen.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  271. 271
    doug says:

    Roe v Wade = 9th Amendment = Bill of Rights.

    And again, I believe I’ve shown that this is not an attack on 1st amendment rights at all. I REALLY don’t think it is. The existence of contraception does not establish a state religion, or forbid the practice of a religion, much like war being waged with my tax dollars does not forbid my practice of religion. You can’t exempt yourself from Federal Law on moral grounds.

    If you think the federal government has never imposed its will on a religion, read up on Mormonism and polygamy.

    The law doesn’t apply to churches. Churches don’t have to hire women priests either. But once you go to businesses where the primary mode of operation is not the practice of religion: hospitals, schools, what have you, the Catholic Church has to obey federal law! Period! Otherwise, you’d probably have every corporation setting itself up as a religious entity to get out of federal regs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  272. 272
    doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 70

    It doesn’t mean that Obama can’t speak out against it if he thinks it’s wrong. It doesn’t mean that presidents speaking against SC decisions is unprecedented.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  273. 273

    By doug @ 271:

    Roe v Wade = 9th Amendment = Bill of Rights.

    I don’t think so. From the Opinion:

    This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

    The lower court based it on the Ninth but the Supreme Court based it on the 14th.

    See also the discussion here of the 9th vs. 14th:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  274. 274

    By doug @ 71:The existence of contraception does not establish a state religion, or forbid the practice of a religion, much like war being waged with my tax dollars does not forbid my practice of religion..

    This isn’t about the “existence of contraception.” That’s how the press has tried to frame the issue to claim it is not a First Amendment issue. It’s about forcing a religious organization pay for insurance which provides for contraception services.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  275. 275

    By doug @ 72:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 70

    It doesn’t mean that Obama can’t speak out against it if he thinks it’s wrong. It doesn’t mean that presidents speaking against SC decisions is unprecedented.

    It would be rather hypocritical for me to claim that he couldn’t do that. As a President he has First Amendment rights too.

    That doesn’t mean that in doing so, he isn’t attacking the First Amendment, which was my point. I don’t know why you think I should exclude a particular event of his attacking the First Amendment as being evidence that he’s attacking the First Amendment. That’s the point I’m trying to prove!

    As to the speech, that other Presidents have complained about then long standing decisions or “liberal judges” in the State of the Union address doesn’t mean that President Obama being critical of the Court in the very next State of the Union address isn’t something the Court should take sitting down. As I said, they should have walked out on him, and boycotted the rest of his speeches. That would be their right under the First Amendment too.

    Finally, on the topic of being hypocritical, look how much money President Obama spent in 2008 getting elected. He’s not against spending money to sway elections. He just wants to limit that power to politicians.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  276. 276
    doug says:

    Because Obama was rude, he is a danger to the country?

    ” It’s about forcing a religious organization pay for insurance which provides for contraception services.”

    There is absolutely no difference, in my mind, between forcing Catholic hospitals or bookstores to comply with this law than forcing non-discrimination of employees and customers, throwing polygamists in jail, or upholding the right to fire someone for smoking marijuana or peyote for religious purposes.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  277. 277

    By doug @ 276:

    Because Obama was rude, he is a danger to the country?

    No, it’s because he is attacking the First Amendment. I don’t care about his manners, I care about his positions.

    BTW, I voted for Clinton in 1992, but after learning that he would repeatedly attack the Second Amendment I didn’t vote for him in 1996, nor did I vote for his VP in 2000, nor would I have voted for his wife in 2008 if that had happened. I take attacking the Bill of Rights very seriously.

    ” Itâ��s about forcing a religious organization pay for insurance which provides for contraception services.”

    There is absolutely no difference, in my mind, between forcing Catholic hospitals or bookstores to comply with this law than forcing non-discrimination of employees and customers, throwing polygamists in jail, or upholding the right to fire someone for smoking marijuana or peyote for religious purposes.

    RE: doug @ 276

    As explained in the Court of Appeals decision, discrimination of employees is not a core value of a religion (at least the one in the case, which I believe was Catholic). And as I explained above on peyote, there’s a difference between forcing a religious organization to do something, and preventing an individual from doing something. Organization/individual. Force to act/prevent from acting. Not even close to being on point.

    As to the polygamy issue, I would question whether that is the right decision, but I would note that is also preventing an individual from doing something, and so therefore clearly not the same thing as this health insurance issue.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  278. 278

    On one of your topics, imprisonment without trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/29/MNKS1NDCIE.DTL

    Of course, President Obama only signed the law because “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” As if it has a sunset provision, that only made it applicable while he was in office.

    BTW, that’s probably a Fifth Amendment violation. I would assume “liberty” would include not being imprisoned.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  279. 279
    doug says:

    It’s pretty clear that you hold the right of companies and organizations to be far more important than the rights of individuals. That’s just mind-blowing to me.

    It shouldn’t matter whether it’s a core religious belief or not. These entities are acting in the public sphere and have to comply with federal laws regulations. My company is forced to comply with innumerable federal regulations, and can’t get out of it with some broadly-defined Bill of Rights argument. Religious organizations operating in the public sphere get a lot of leeway, but that is at the government’s discretion. Else all small business owners could define themselves as religious organizations, disobey the laws, and the courts would spend all their time litigating who has genuinely held beliefs and who doesn’t, exactly the kind of thing that the 1st Amendment is supposed to prevent!

    “Your coal company isn’t getting permits / following pollution laws!”
    “Well God said man is to have dominion over the earth, and you’re violating my God-given authority to exert my dominion!”

    Still not seeing why the 9th Amendment, and attacks on Roe V Wade isn’t important in your eyes, if interpretations of the Bill of Rights are so sacrosanct in your eyes.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  280. 280
    doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 78

    Yes, that is truly awful. I take such issues very seriously, and I would most likely vote for any Republican who was against such laws. There aren’t any, aside from Paul.

    It’s clear that there are cases to be made for and against the ACA. Isn’t this the very reason for a Supreme Court? Shouldn’t you withhold your judgment until it’s decided?

    Just like you think it’s obvious that CU is constitutional, it’s obvious to others that it’s not. These things are complicated. Accusing Obama for not respecting the Constitution and its Amendments is insulting. He doesn’t respect your subjective interpretation of the Constitution. That’s not a put-down, all interpretations of the Constitution are somewhat subjective.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  281. 281
  282. 282

    By doug @ 279:

    It’s pretty clear that you hold the right of companies and organizations to be far more important than the rights of individuals. That’s just mind-blowing to me.

    I didn’t say they were more important. I said it was a way of distinguishing the case law.

    It shouldn’t matter whether it’s a core religious belief or not.

    I would disagree.

    Still not seeing why the 9th Amendment, and attacks on Roe V Wade isn’t important in your eyes, if interpretations of the Bill of Rights are so sacrosanct in your eyes.

    Because as I explained, it’s not a Ninth Amendment case. It’s a 14th Amendment case.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  283. 283

    By doug @ 80:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 78 – It’s clear that there are cases to be made for and against the ACA. Isn’t this the very reason for a Supreme Court? Shouldn’t you withhold your judgment until it’s decided?

    There are two separate issues there. Whether the individual mandate is constitutional and whether the contraception mandate is constitutional. Only the former involves the First Amendment. But I don’t understand why I should withhold judgment until there’s a court ruling? There are several conflicting rulings in lower courts on the individual mandate issue. The issue is well framed.

    Just like you think it’s obvious that CU is constitutional, it’s obvious to others that it’s not. These things are complicated. Accusing Obama for not respecting the Constitution and its Amendments is insulting. He doesn’t respect your subjective interpretation of the Constitution. That’s not a put-down, all interpretations of the Constitution are somewhat subjective.

    He was critical of a decision which struck down a statute which arguably would have prevented a documentary about a politician from being shown. I’m sorry, but I don’t think you can just say that is subjective and leave it at that. If that is not a clear violation of the First Amendment, I don’t know what is. My concern though is over further erosion of the rights in the Bill of Rights. That’s why I prefer the decisions of the Washington Supreme Court over the decisions of the United States Supreme Court when it comes to search and seizure issues. And remember, the US Supreme Court once held it was okay to lock up Japanese and others during WWII. It’s not like they have an unblemished record.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  284. 284

    By doug @ 81:

    Also, too:

    http://www.fcan.org/Health_care/law_professors_ACA.pdf

    Again I would point out that you could have found the same type of thing on the Second Amendment issue. People have different opinions on legal issues, and no one is necessarily right until the Supreme Court rules (and possibly even then in the case of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission).

    The problem comes about when people let their political views color their decisions on constitutional issues. It was a horrible result allowing Nazis to protest, but that decision really helped make the First Amendment stronger. So with healthcare, your analysis of whether or not it’s constitutional should not be colored by whether or not you think more health insurance should exist. Or to decide a freedom of religion issue based on what you think of contraception. The analysis should not be result driven.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  285. 285

    By doug @ 80:

    That’s not a put-down, all interpretations of the Constitution are somewhat subjective.

    BTW, no offense taken. I’ve appreciated this civil debate. I hope I haven’t said anything to offend you, and if I did, I’m sorry.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  286. 286

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 283 – I missed the edit window by a second. Only the insurance coverage issue involves the FA. I wrote former when I meant latter.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  287. 287
    doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 284

    I certainly agree with that. I honestly don’t know enough about Constitutional law to know if the individual mandate is proper. If I’d had my druthers we’d have single-payer.

    I’ll say while I disagree with the Catholic Church on the issue, I also strongly believe that the law should apply to them. If you think the bill of rights are eroding, worker protection is eroding far faster.

    I truly believe that religious entities, when employing people for reasons other than running a place of worship, should act in full faith and accordance with federal and state law. Their freedom to practice their religion is not harmed by their obligation to their workers.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  288. 288
    doug says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 85

    No, you haven’t offended me, and I hope I’ve caused no offense as well :-)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  289. 289

    RE: doug @ 287 – I’m not sure if you’d call it single payer, but I’d open up something like the VA system, alongside what we have now. Back in college at the UW they had “Hall Health” which students could go to for free. If students had insurance (or money) they could also go to a regular doctor. On topic, if I recall correctly, women could even get diaphragms fitted, and IUDs at Hall Health.

    As to the religious organization acting as a non-core area employer being required to obtain certain health coverage, I would agree that wouldn’t be the worst erosion of the Bill of Rights. And I’ll agree that when it comes to contraceptive coverage, that is really splitting hairs, but that’s the way I would split the hair.

    The bigger issue to me is the Free Speech issue, and when i hear Democrats are considering amending the First Amendment to limit free speech (and protect future politicians), I react to that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  290. 290

    The conservatives are playing right into President Obama’s hand. The Senate tries to pass something so broad that it clearly would be unreasonable, and then Russ Limbaugh goes off an an absurd rage about paying for others’ birth control so that they can have violent love, as if that’s really a financial hardship for him. Somehow, I don’t recall him complaining about insurance companies covering Viagra.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  291. 291
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 290 – So let’s try this thought experiment. You eat at McDonalds a lot, and your doc has prescribed statins to lower your cholesterol. Your employer believes that eating cows is a sin, and refuses to cover your statin prescription on religious grounds, believing that it would enable you to continue to consume quarter pounders.

    Your husband beats you because he believes you wear provocative clothing. You seek psychiatric treatment for your depression, but your employer’s religious beliefs cause you to be regarded as a shameless whore, who should be stoned to death, and your employer refuses to cover your psychiatric treatment on religious grounds.

    Of course. nobody would give a crap about the validity of these religious beliefs, because they are false religions. Christianity made this country great, and the rule of the gun, by God!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  292. 292

    RE: Blurtman @ 91 – You’re explaining why the proposed Senate bill was too broad. Amazing they got 49 Senators to vote for that. Strike that. It’s not amazing given the fact that we’re dealing with Senators who are idiots.

    BTW, Rush Limbaugh is continuing to make this even worse. Now he’s expanding this from contraception into pre-marital violent love. He needs to just STFU, but saying stupid things is how he makes money to pay for his own vices.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  293. 293

    The Senate Amendment is apparently called the Blunt Amendment. Jon Stewart claims that’s because you’d have to be really F’n high to think the thing had a chance of passing! ;-)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  294. 294

    At least Rush is getting hit in the pocketbook for his asinine, ignorant comments. He’s lost seven advertisers!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46620985/ns/business-us_business/#.T1PrHoeWfcE

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  295. 295
    Haybaler says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 231

    I watched Santorum make a speech in which he stated that his plan would have higher taxes on Corporate profits because the corporations should pay for the privilege and benefits of existing in our country BUT in the next breath he stated that he would entice manufacturing to come back to this country by reducing tax rates to 0 when companies bring their jobs back to the US.

    I remember thinking that when that idea gains traction we’ll see a bidding war develop between candidates….the next candidate will up the ante to guarantee a profit, like the energy subsidies. ” I’ll give em 2%”…” I’ll give em 5%”…”I’m the jobs candidate, we’ll give em 10%”

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  296. 296
    doug says:

    RE: Haybaler @ 295

    Yeah, I’ve always found the idea of a ‘tax holiday’ to repatriate wealth kind of repugnant.

    “Hey, here’s your reward for abusing the law and dodging taxes! You were so clever!”

    Rather, the U.S. can and should enact laws that prevent the tax havens from being abused int he first place. If you have billions in the Caymen Islands, you better have a proportional number of employees, production, and administration there.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  297. 297

    By doug @ 296:

    RE: Haybaler @ 295

    Yeah, I’ve always found the idea of a ‘tax holiday’ to repatriate wealth kind of repugnant.

    “Hey, here’s your reward for abusing the law and dodging taxes! You were so clever!”.

    Not sure which program you’re referring to. If the “dodge” was something perfectly legal, I wouldn’t have a problem at all with a policy which reversed the trend of prior stupid government policy.

    If they were doing something illegal, however, at most I’d only support the penalties being waived if they voluntarily show up and pay the tax owing, with interest.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  298. 298
  299. 299
    whatsmyname says:

    The Cato Institute gets a taste of the prescription they thought was good for the rest of us. They don’t like it much.

    http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/08/the-koch-brothers-the-cato-institute-and-why-nations-fail/?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  300. 300
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 298:

    Inflation lurks ahead, if we survive:

    http://azizonomics.com/2012/03/09/sterilised-qe-analysis/

    http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=203238

    the Fed can just raise rates.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  301. 301

    This is largely a test to see if this thread is locked at 300.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that the problem with the stimulus is that it wasn’t put into enough productive assets. We have a lot of new lanes of road, but little else.

    The government’s investment in the solar panel company has been largely panned, but that type of investment would have been much better. Instead of investing in the company though, we should have been buying its products, and then those products would have been producing energy for the future.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  302. 302
    The Tim says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 301 – As far as I know the comment threads should be able to go on forever. I set it up to page them at 100 comments per page because much over that and the pages would time out and never load on some browsers.

    I figure if the comments can page, why bother starting a new economic thread every month. Just have the conversation go on in the same post indefinitely.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  303. 303

    RE: The Tim @ 302 – I was just wondering because it had been stuck at 300 for a few weeks!

    Locked perhaps wasn’t the right word. Limited might have been better.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  304. 304
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 301

    “the problem with the stimulus is that it wasn’t put into enough productive assets”

    That’s part of it. Hard to find projects that were productive enough to overcome the fact that each borrowed dollar of stimulus spending had a negative net return. All it did was dig the hole we were in deeper. tons of studies all over the net showing this, but people still won’t believe.

    Cue pffffft: “millions of jobs created, just wasn’t big enough, blah, blah, blah.”

    http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=1846

    http://market-ticker.org/uploads/2010/Mar/Diminishing-Prod.jpg

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  305. 305
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 304:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 301

    “the problem with the stimulus is that it wasnâ��t put into enough productive assets”

    That’s part of it. Hard to find projects that were productive enough to overcome the fact that each borrowed dollar of stimulus spending had a negative net return. All it did was dig the hole we were in deeper. tons of studies all over the net showing this, but people still won’t believe.

    no. almost no studies show this. almost all show that stimulus spending has a positive multiplier.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  306. 306
    Doug says:

    Scotsman, I’ve been wondering this for a while. With your outlook on this, what’s your prescription? Austerity? Lower taxes? Total deregulation? Hire a professional hand-shaker vulture capitalist like Romney?

    I’m genuinely interested on your outlook. Having followed Zero Hedge and other apocalyptic outlets for a while, I simply come away with the fact that it’s easier to tear something down than to build it up again.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  307. 307

    Yet another way President Obama has not lived up to his promises:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/17/BUD41O40O4.DTL

    The too big to fail banks are now bigger!

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  308. 308
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 307 – The fate of the free world is at stake. We need larger, more powerful banks.

    Obama is going to lose some of his base.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  309. 309

    By Blurtman @ 308:

    Obama is going to lose some of his base.

    But not Gitmo. ;-)

    He promised to lose that base, but didn’t live up to that promise either.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  310. 310
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 307:

    Yet another way President Obama has not lived up to his promises:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/17/BUD41O40O4.DTL

    The too big to fail banks are now bigger!

    banks are bigger in part due to an oversupply of savings. people are putting their money into banks instead of the stock market. corporations have cash like crazy.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  311. 311
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 8:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 307 – The fate of the free world is at stake. We need larger, more powerful banks.

    Obama is going to lose some of his base.

    breaking up the banks is a joke. when the losses show up what does it matter if the 100 banks have $1 trillion in losses or 10 banks do?

    does anyone remember the savings and loan crisis? just as bad for all intents and purposes and those weren’t large banks.

    there are two things to do. one is to make sure banks have enough capital. the other to that thanks do dodd frank banks will have a plan to be broken up.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  312. 312
    Blurtman says:

    RE: pfft @ 311 – Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Re-instate Glass-Steagal and protect depositors’ money from the destructive gambling on Wall Street. Remove any critical functions from investment banks so that when they melt down, we can have a party. And speaking of the S&L scandal, let’s elect a president who will make it a priority to prosecute the criminal bankers.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  313. 313
    whatsmyname says:

    By Blurtman @ 312:

    RE: pfft @ 311 – Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Re-instate Glass-Steagal and protect depositors’ money from the destructive gambling on Wall Street. Remove any critical functions from investment banks so that when they melt down, we can have a party. And speaking of the S&L scandal, let’s elect a president who will make it a priority to prosecute the criminal bankers.

    It should shock every financially literate American that after all this time, Glass-Steagal hasn’t even been seriously debated in Congress, let alone reinstated.

    In fairness to the S&Ls, the industry was based on classic mismatched maturities. The Reagan era financial market deregulation made them insolvent overnight. The bone they were thrown was the opportunity to try and save themselves by quickly expanding into higher yielding, more risky business where they didn’t have any business being. Desperate times and all that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  314. 314
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 312:

    RE: pfft @ 311 – Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Re-instate Glass-Steagal and protect depositors’ money from the destructive gambling on Wall Street..

    that wasn’t the subject we were talking about.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  315. 315
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 9:

    By Blurtman @ 308:
    Obama is going to lose some of his base.

    But not Gitmo. ;-)

    He promised to lose that base, but didn’t live up to that promise either.

    congress blocked it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  316. 316
    pfft says:

    By whatsmyname @ 13:

    By Blurtman @ 312:
    RE: pfft @ 311 – Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Re-instate Glass-Steagal and protect depositors’ money from the destructive gambling on Wall Street. Remove any critical functions from investment banks so that when they melt down, we can have a party. And speaking of the S&L scandal, let’s elect a president who will make it a priority to prosecute the criminal bankers.

    It should shock every financially literate American that after all this time, Glass-Steagal hasn’t even been seriously debated in Congress, let alone reinstated.

    this isn’t true. the Volcker rule, irrespective of the London Whale, seems to be pretty punitive.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  317. 317
    Blurtman says:

    RE: pfft @ 316 – Nonsense. The Volcker Rule, for all its good intentions, will not end the need for future bailouts. A definitive firewall between depositors monies and the casino will, and only Glass-Steagal or something like it, can ensure this.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  318. 318
    whatsmyname says:

    RE: pfft @ 316 – It’s not about punitive. The system cannot simultaneously protect the commercial bank, and control the investment bank, especially within context of tbtf, because the investment bank spouse can take it down. It is the perfect hostage situation. Ordinarily, I agree with you. Here, I am with Blurtman.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  319. 319

    By pfft @ 315:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 9:
    By Blurtman @ 308:
    Obama is going to lose some of his base.

    But not Gitmo. ;-)

    He promised to lose that base, but didn’t live up to that promise either.

    congress blocked it.

    That was mainly a joke, but if you want to talk seriously about it.

    I know Congress blocked it. Mainly because it was a stupid idea. Congress actually got one right!

    Housing foreign terrorists on US soil. Trying them in NYC. Another example of Obama pandering for votes by saying stupid things. It worked three years ago, so that’s why he’s still doing it.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  320. 320

    Lots of bad news on California today. I don’t have the links handy, but they have 4 of the 5 cities with the highest unemployment rates (WSJ article) and lead the nation in the decline of tax revenue YOY for the quarter.

    California and its government really has been an anchor on the national economy for at least 12 years.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  321. 321

    This is ironic. The only US car company the government didn’t bail out is going to start making their cars out of money!

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/20/11270685-car-parts-made-from-cash-ford-tests-green-arm-rests-trays?lite

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  322. 322
    pfft says:

    By Blurtman @ 317:

    RE: pfft @ 316 – Nonsense. The Volcker Rule, for all its good intentions, will not end the need for future bailouts. A definitive firewall between depositors monies and the casino will, and only Glass-Steagal or something like it, can ensure this.

    I don’t think you understand. if it’s a choice between bailouts and the economy crashing they will choose bailouts. we can agree the Glass should be back but that won’t solve all of our problems.

    I should also point out that MF Global was not bailed out.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  323. 323
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 19:

    By pfft @ 315:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 9:
    By Blurtman @ 308:
    Obama is going to lose some of his base.

    But not Gitmo. ;-)

    He promised to lose that base, but didn’t live up to that promise either.

    congress blocked it.

    That was mainly a joke, but if you want to talk seriously about it.

    I know Congress blocked it. Mainly because it was a stupid idea. Congress actually got one right!

    Housing foreign terrorists on US soil. Trying them in NYC. Another example of Obama pandering for votes by saying stupid things. It worked three years ago, so that’s why he’s still doing it.

    We have plenty of terrorists in US jails on US soil.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  324. 324
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 21:

    This is ironic. The only US car company the government didn’t bail out is going to start making their cars out of money!

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/20/11270685-car-parts-made-from-cash-ford-tests-green-arm-rests-trays?lite

    Ford would have gone under too if the rest weren’t bailed.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  325. 325

    By pfft @ 323:

    We have plenty of terrorists in US jails on US soil.

    Irrelevant. By moving them to US soil they gain additional rights. But I guess a constitutional law professor who doesn’t know that the Supreme Court can enjoin the enforcement of unconstitutional legislation wouldn’t know that. /sarc

    Then there was the idea of trying them in NYC. Brilliant idea. /sarc

    I’ll make the point again. President Obama needs to stop pandering to voters by saying stupid things. He knows they are stupid, but he says them anyway to get votes. And it’s hurting him and his chances of being re-elected.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  326. 326

    By pfft @ 24:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 21:
    This is ironic. The only US car company the government didn’t bail out is going to start making their cars out of money!

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/20/11270685-car-parts-made-from-cash-ford-tests-green-arm-rests-trays?lite

    Ford would have gone under too if the rest weren’t bailed.

    I’m not sure what your logic is on that one. By having two major competitors stay in business, Ford would have been hurt? I could see some disruption of suppliers, but the suppliers could have stayed in operation with their own Chapter 11s if necessary, so over the long term it would have been a big plus for Ford and the other auto manufacturers.

    Interesting aside, Ford didn’t need the bailout because they had reorganized their financing before the crisis. Cramer wanted to short them because of that deal. So he wanted to short the only US car company which survived the crisis without a government bailout.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  327. 327

    Notice how this piece doesn’t even mention the Democrat’s payroll tax holiday as being a contributing factor toward the decline of Social Security.

    http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11355323-social-security-trustees-see-earlier-fund-depletion-date?lite

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  328. 328
  329. 329

    Which is worse? Four more years of anemic growth and out of control government spending under President Obama? Or four years of Romney telling jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  330. 330
    pfft says:

    data shows a clear recovery albeit a slow one in the US.

    Recovery Measures
    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/04/recovery-measures.html

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  331. 331
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 29:

    Which is worse? Four more years of anemic growth and out of control government spending under President Obama?

    obama is the most thrifty of all recent presidents. I don’t know where you get your data from.

    can you post it?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  332. 332

    RE: pfft @ 31 – Can you troll somewhere else? Seriously, jokes don’t require either analysis or a response.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  333. 333
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 332:

    RE: pfft @ 31 – Can you troll somewhere else? Seriously, jokes don’t require either analysis or a response.

    can you post your data? I am just waiting. I have at least 3 links proving my case.

    you move.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  334. 334

    RE: pfft @ 33 – Are you really that dense? You’re trying to get me to prove a joke?

    Get a life.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  335. 335
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 334:

    RE: pfft @ 33 – Are you really that dense? You’re trying to get me to prove a joke?

    Get a life.

    just provide a link. all I ask for is a just one link. I’ve got 3 waiting to disprove you.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  336. 336

    RE: pfft @ 35RE: pfft @ 31RE: pfft @ 33 – Three posts that prove you really are that dense.

    It’s a joke. How hard is that to understand?

    And the primary target of the joke wasn’t your precious President Obama, but instead Romney. You’re so dense you apparently didn’t even realize that! /shakes head

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  337. 337
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 336:

    RE: pfft @ 35RE: pfft @ 31RE: pfft @ 33 – Three posts that prove you really are that dense.

    It’s a joke. How hard is that to understand?

    And the primary target of the joke wasn’t your precious President Obama, but instead Romney. You’re so dense you apparently didn’t even realize that! /shakes head

    so are you going to post those links? I am confused.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  338. 338

    By pfft @ 37:

    I am confused.

    No, you’re a troll. Don’t pretend to be confused when you’re not.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  339. 339
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 338:

    By pfft @ 37:
    I am confused.

    No, you’re a troll. Don’t pretend to be confused when you’re not.

    I am confused.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  340. 340

    Rubio made a good point on Fox News this morning. I’ve been saying that President Obama’s repeated talk of tax increases retards increases in employment because businesses plan for the long term, and the talk of taxes makes them take on fewer new projects. That was his second point. His first point was massive spending creates fear of higher taxes in the future, resulting in less employment. IMHO, that type of thinking would influence small business more than big business, but small business can create a lot of jobs.

    Interesting argument because it cuts to the heart of stimulus spending, or at least long term stimulus spending.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  341. 341

    Yep, we’re clearly in the midst of a bad recession.

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404086,00.asp

    Seriously, ignoring the bad reporting of statistics there, I do think thing all that spending on smartphones and wireless data will have both short and long term problems for the economy and society.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  342. 342
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 340:

    Rubio made a good point on Fox News this morning. I’ve been saying that President Obama’s repeated talk of tax increases retards increases in employment because businesses plan for the long term, and the talk of taxes makes them take on fewer new projects. That was his second point. His first point was massive spending creates fear of higher taxes in the future, resulting in less employment. IMHO, that type of thinking would influence small business more than big business, but small business can create a lot of jobs.

    Interesting argument because it cuts to the heart of stimulus spending, or at least long term stimulus spending.

    how did those tax increases work for the Clinton admin?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  343. 343

    By pfft @ 42:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 340:
    Rubio made a good point on Fox News this morning. I’ve been saying that President Obama’s repeated talk of tax increases retards increases in employment because businesses plan for the long term, and the talk of taxes makes them take on fewer new projects. That was his second point. His first point was massive spending creates fear of higher taxes in the future, resulting in less employment. IMHO, that type of thinking would influence small business more than big business, but small business can create a lot of jobs.

    Interesting argument because it cuts to the heart of stimulus spending, or at least long term stimulus spending.

    how did those tax increases work for the Clinton admin?

    You really need to take that economics course so that you can think at the margin. There are many things that effect the economy. During Clinton there was a huge amount of progress made in computer tech and technology generally. That lead to both a huge increase in employee productivity as well as a huge increase in tax revenues from market activity. Those events far overshadowed whatever effect any change in tax policy would have had.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  344. 344
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 343:

    By pfft @ 42:
    By Kary L. Krismer @ 340:
    Rubio made a good point on Fox News this morning. I’ve been saying that President Obama’s repeated talk of tax increases retards increases in employment because businesses plan for the long term, and the talk of taxes makes them take on fewer new projects. That was his second point. His first point was massive spending creates fear of higher taxes in the future, resulting in less employment. IMHO, that type of thinking would influence small business more than big business, but small business can create a lot of jobs.

    Interesting argument because it cuts to the heart of stimulus spending, or at least long term stimulus spending.

    how did those tax increases work for the Clinton admin?

    You really need to take that economics course so that you can think at the margin. There are many things that effect the economy. During Clinton there was a huge amount of progress made in computer tech and technology generally. That lead to both a huge increase in employee productivity as well as a huge increase in tax revenues from market activity. Those events far overshadowed whatever effect any change in tax policy would have had.

    you are wrong and just can’t admit it. there are always advances. pick any era. guess what, the wealth affect from housing is bigger than it is from stock gains. bush had a bigger wind at his back than clinton did.

    the bottom line is studies show that done right tax increases don’t hurt the economy. clinton proved that. more importantly clinton raised taxes BEFORE the tech boom really took off.

    I was young then but I remember republicans saying it would cost as much as 10 million jobs. Clinton CREATED 10 million jobs. in fact he has the best jobs record in recent memory.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  345. 345

    RE: pfft @ 344 – You don’t know what you’re talking about. Yes there are always advances. It’s the rate of advances that is important, and what those advances are.

    Your logic is foolish. I had more hair back in 1992-2000, so the economy won’t do well until I have that much hair again. Clinton proved that.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  346. 346
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 345:

    RE: pfft @ 344 – You don’t know what you’re talking about. Yes there are always advances. It’s the rate of advances that is important, and what those advances are.

    Your logic is foolish. I had more hair back in 1992-2000, so the economy won’t do well until I have that much hair again. Clinton proved that.

    we were told that tax increases were going to crush the economy. they didn’t. we were told that the bush tax cuts would boost the economy. they didn’t.

    anyways studies back me up.

    and again. the wealth effect of the stock market is less than the wealth effect of the housing market.

    studies also show that some of the most heavily taxed nations are some of the best place to live and have the highest standards of living. see scandinavia. high taxes also do not affect social mobility or income equality.

    I’ve got tons of links to back all those claims up if you want me to.

    clinton created 23 million jobs. bush created almost none with this two unfunded tax cuts for the very rich.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  347. 347

    RE: pfft @ 46 – Again, the economy is has many things that impact it, not just one. It’s like the housing market.

    But tell me wise one, just what is your theory as to why higher taxes cause all this prosperity that you claim? /sarc

    If you think something does something, then how do you think it works?

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  348. 348
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 347:

    RE: pfft @ 46 – Again, the economy is has many things that impact it, not just one. It’s like the housing market.

    But tell me wise one, just what is your theory as to why higher taxes cause all this prosperity that you claim? /sarc

    If you think something does something, then how do you think it works?

    because socieity benefits from a strong safety net and from making investments in education and infrastructure. If the rich have a little less it doesn’t matter but at the lower end people who are poor spend their money(and often in poor areas with poor workers).

    The Reality of Raising Taxes at the Top, Part 5: Can Tax Increases Help Economic Growth?
    http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-reality-of-raising-taxes-at-the-top-part-5-can-tax-increases-help-economic-growth/

    Tax Cuts and Job Growth: They’re Just Not That Into Each Other
    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/tax-cuts-and-job-growth-theyre-just-not-that-into-each-other/

    Big governments, big people?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/big-governments-big-people/2011/07/11/gIQAyladaI_blog.html

    FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2010/08/10/173450/1993-quotes/

    The biggest driver of income inequality: capital gains
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-biggest-driver-of-income-inequality-capital-gains/2012/01/02/gIQA181EWP_blog.html

    The Reality of Raising Taxes at the Top, Part 4: Would Tax Increases Affect Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship?
    http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-reality-of-raising-taxes-at-the-top-part-4-would-tax-increases-affect-small-businesses-and-entrepreneurship/

    Study: States With Higher Taxes Are Better For Children
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/19/406378/study-states-with-higher-taxes-are-better-for-children/

    A More Complete Look at Inequality and Immobility
    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/a-more-complete-look-at-inequality-and-immobility/

    Inequality and Mobility, Revisited
    http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/inequality-and-mobility-revisited/

    that should keep you busy.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  349. 349

    By pfft @ 348:

    that should keep you busy.

    I got pretty board quickly. The first admitted they found no convincing proof. The second didn’t really say anything. The third is talking about the height of people! The fourth is addressing the Clinton era which we’ve already discussed.

    As to the fifth, I would agree capital gains rates make little sense now. They made more sense when the maximum tax rate was 70% and the gain necessarily occurred over multiple years to qualify for the special rate.

    The next one (Part 4) is total BS, apparently written by someone who doesn’t even understand taxes!

    They can fully deduct their investment costs, bringing the effective tax rate on new investment to zero, regardless of the statutory rate. [A total complete fabrication!]
    If they use debt to finance the investment, the interest payments would be tax deductible, making the effective tax rate negative. [Again a complete fabrication!]
    They can fully deduct wage payments, so the marginal tax rate should have minimal impact on hiring. [Okay, not only do they not understand taxes, they don’t understand business. Increased expenditures don’t become okay merely because they are deductible]

    That’s as far as I got.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  350. 350
    Former Poster Ben says:

    I love to read Tim’s posts.

    Pfft’s waste of space comments are what drove me away. If we could vote to ban posters in the name of sanity restoration, count me in. I’ve saved countless hours not reading this thread.

    TIM, if you are listening….

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  351. 351
    whatsmyname says:

    RE: Former Poster Ben @ 350 – The poster’s name in bold is the first part of every post. So posts that you could have easily ignored drove you away? They really drove you away? That may be the lamest comment ever to have graced the Bubble. Pfft must be doing God’s work. I wouldn’t want you banned, though. I live in hope that I may see you top yourself.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  352. 352

    I finally got around to watching This Week w/ George S. today (Tuesday). The liberals on the panel were making a big deal of consumer sentiment being high, as announced on the 25th. Today consumer confidence was announced to be lagging. I wonder which matters more for the election?

    One person (I forget who) said something which made a lot of sense. There are a lot of people who are disillusioned by President Obama’s record on social and economic issues. But they’re not ready to jump to Romney. I think the implication was that they might accept his economic positions, but not his social positions. They’re upset because President Obama isn’t liberal enough, so the solution for that isn’t Romney.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  353. 353

    Not even former President Clinton is buying President Obama’s attacks on Bain.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/06/clinton-calls-romneys-bain-career-sterling.html?mid=rss

    Seems like that has proven rather ineffective. I think pfft would have voted for President Obama anyway. ;-)

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  354. 354
    uwp says:

    The problem with Bain isn’t that it was a horrible company, it’s that Romney holds it up as his “Job Creation” credentials. That wasn’t what Bain was interested in. It was about making money (sometimes at the expense of the workers). If I was voting for someone to run my venture capitalist firm, I would surely pick Romney over Obama. Why doesn’t Romney want to talk about job creation when it was actually central to his job (Mass. Gov)? It’s obvious.

    Anyway, businesses aren’t expanding because there is no demand, not because of phantom taxes that could possibly maybe happen someday. We had a big over-hang of debt, and if everyone tries to pay it down at once it cripples the economy (as we’re experiencing right now, and Europe is doubling down on with full-on austerity).

    US interest rates are at all-time lows. Real interest rates are negative. Conservatives and business people have been saying for over 3 years that high interest rates are around the corner. Any day now. They are coming. Just wait. We’re going to get punished for our debt. It hasn’t happened.

    When times are bad, the private sector cuts back, and interest rates are low, that’s when the gov. should be stepping in. This is Econ 101.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  355. 355

    By uwp @ 354:

    The problem with Bain isn’t that it was a horrible company, it’s that Romney holds it up as his “Job Creation” credentials. That wasn’t what Bain was interested in. It was about making money (sometimes at the expense of the workers).

    That Democratic line is just the opposite of the Republican line claiming that the stimulus didn’t create jobs. Neither is true.

    You’re not going to create wealth without creating jobs. Sometimes, however, you don’t create at much wealth as what you would like, and when that happens fewer jobs are created or even jobs or lost.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  356. 356

    By uwp @ 54:

    Anyway, businesses aren’t expanding because there is no demand, not because of phantom taxes that could possibly maybe happen someday..

    It’s both, but for a recovery to take hold you need business to start spending first. Absent that happening a recovery would be impossible–there would only be downward spirals. Threats of increased taxes (and the reality of Obamacare) keep a recovery from happening, or at a minimum slow it down.

    Here’s three examples of why businesses are not hiring, and only one is related to demand, and that’s the artificial demand of government spending on infrastructure.

    http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/US-employers-waiting-and-watching-before-hiring-3604468.php

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  357. 357

    By uwp @ 54:

    When times are bad, the private sector cuts back, and interest rates are low, that’s when the gov. should be stepping in. This is Econ 101.

    Generally I would agree with that. But when we’ve had over three years of that “stepping in” and dismal results, that indicates something else is wrong.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  358. 358
    uwp says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 55:

    That Democratic line is just the opposite of the Republican line claiming that the stimulus didn’t create jobs. Neither is true.

    You’re not going to create wealth without creating jobs. Sometimes, however, you don’t create at much wealth as what you would like, and when that happens fewer jobs are created or even jobs or lost.

    So the stimulus both did and did not create jobs?

    Firms like Bain could create wealth for themselves without creating jobs by loading up struggling companies with debt, paying themselves high “management fees” with the borrowed money then watching the company fold under the weight of the debt. I would say a great deal of the finance world (which I actually work in, so I’m not completely anti-wallstreet) is about creating wealth without creating jobs.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  359. 359
    uwp says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 56:

    By uwp @ 54:
    Anyway, businesses aren’t expanding because there is no demand, not because of phantom taxes that could possibly maybe happen someday..

    It’s both, but for a recovery to take hold you need business to start spending first. Absent that happening a recovery would be impossible–there would only be downward spirals. Threats of increased taxes (and the reality of Obamacare) keep a recovery from happening, or at a minimum slow it down.

    Here’s three examples of why businesses are not hiring, and only one is related to demand, and that’s the artificial demand of government spending on infrastructure.

    http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/US-employers-waiting-and-watching-before-hiring-3604468.php

    Anecdotes are great and all, but every single survey I have ever seen has lack of demand/sales as the #1 issue. Businesses always whine about taxes and regulations. It’s an American Tradition.

    Rate this comment: Thumb up 0

  360. 360
    uwp says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 57:

    By uwp @ 54:
    When times are bad, the private sector cuts back, and interest rates are low, that’s when the gov. should be stepping in. This is Econ 101.

    Generally I would agree with that. But when we’ve had over three years of that “stepping in” and dismal results, that indicates something else is wrong.

    That something is a massive lack of demand, that was misjudged in 2008/2009. When Obama went to the stimulus well we didn’t have a full picture of how bad the situation was and he was too timid anyway. For some crazy reason, he thought Republicans wouldn’t fight him on every single thing he wants to do. They actually thought that if the initial stimulus was too small, they could go back for more later! Total miscalculation.

    Reply