Double-Digit Unemployment Poses Political Danger for Obama

posted by John Nichols on 06/06/2009 @ 06:52am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (113)

Subscribe Now

America already has double-digit unemployment.

In fact, the real unemployment rate, as opposed to the official rate, is well over 15 percent.

That's because the official unemployment rate -- which as of Friday stood at at 9.4 percent, following another leap in jobless claims for May -- is not, as economist John Williams has noted, "figured in the way that that the average person thinks of unemployment, meaning figured the way it was estimated back during the Great Depression."

What happens when we include people who have stopped looking for work because they do not believe there are jobs to be found, along with part-time workers who would like to be working full-time?

Then, we start looking not at the unsettling 10 percent figure but the far more frightening 20 percent number.

As economist Howard Rosen told NPR after official unemployment topped 8 percent in February: "Today we learned that there are 12.5 million people who are unemployed, and we have another 8.6 million people who are working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs. Now, you're talking about 20 million people in this country who are either unemployed or underemployed. I don't want to freak out people, but the unemployed number, we start talking about 15, 16 percent."

Since February, of course, the official unemployment rate has spiked dramatically, as has the real rate.

These are the numbers that make an urgent social and economic case for the additional stimulus that my wise colleagues and other concerned commentators are suggesting.

But it is the smaller official rate that makes the political case for both more stimulus and a radical rethink of the Obama administration's ill-thought auto bankruptcy and bailout scheme.

When the federal government actually acknowledges that the country has a double-digit unemployment rate, when a figure that is above 10 percent becomes that official number -- something that the trend lines suggest could happen this summer -- the country reaches an emotional and political tipping point.

"Ten is a tangible, very clear reminder that this is a severe recession," explains Ohio State University economics professor Bruce Weinberg. "Ten becomes something psychological. People will say: 'Whoa, we've got a double-digit unemployment rate.'"

Politically, it is the point at which people start looking for someone to blame. Obama and his people will blame the president's predecessor. This is appropriate, as George Bush's economic and regulatory policies were incredibly unsound and destructive.

The problem, of course, is that the blame game gets harder when it becomes possible to link a sitting president's actions to soaring unemployment figures.

States that have been especially hard hit by the current recession -- Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, among others -- and urban areas that have been devastated by it (according to the Labor Department, 93 metropolitan areas registering an unemployment rate of at least 10 percent in April) now face the prospect of significant additional job losses in the coming months as a result of the administration's auto bailout scheme.

As the bankruptcy and bailout projects for Chrysler and General Motors now stand, the companies plan to shutter 25 factories and warehouses across the United States (14 factories and three warehouses for GM, eight factories for Chrysler). That will eliminate the jobs of roughly 30,000 auto workers.

Additionally, the companies plan to shutter roughly 3,000 car dealerships could cost as many as 150,000 additional jobs.

Thus, the administration-backed "restructuring" of the auto companies -- which is to be supported with as much as $65 billion from the U.S. Treasury -- will add significantly to unemployment rates at precisely the time when it hurts the most. A "bailout" that promotes plant and dealership closings and mass layoffs may play well on Wall Street -- where job cutting and offshoring tends to be rewarded, while job creation and long-term planning tends to be punished -- but it is not the right plan for a country (or a president) that would prefer to avoid the highest unemployment rates in decades.

This is something those members of his team who recognize that they were given power with a mandate for change, not putting a "D" label on bad trade and fiscal policies, should be thinking about.

Blaming Bush is legitimate -- as is blaming Bill Clinton, who gave us the job-killing North American Free Trade Agreement and permanent normalization of trade relations with China.

But there comes a time when a president "owns" his recession.

If the country is socked with a double-digit unemployment rate, and if the actions of the administration that is in charge are seen as feeding the increase in joblessness, that's the political point of no return.

Voters, especially in Great Lakes battleground states where Democrats picked up lots of House seats and electoral votes in 2006 and 2008, will start looking for alternatives. And even Republicans who have not come up with much more than a monosyllabic message -- "no" -- could start to look wise, if not particularly articulate.

Obama and his political aides ought to be smart enough to recognize this fact. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be calling the shots.

The current "deciders" appear to be members of Obama's economic team -- led by the likes of Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and rest of the "public servants" formerly known as Wall Street insiders. Their bad calls, especially on the auto bailout, could give America a "jobless recovery" and a politically-vulnerable president.

Comments (113)

i wish the best for obama, hope he's on the right track...

but perhaps there is not right track, if right track means that within a short year or two we will be back to the days of taking out gigantic lines of individual credit because its easy and we want the stuff that we need to buy in order to ensure ever growing quarterly profits for...

companies who ship ever more gobs of production and service overseas where folks pay their wage slaves like real wage slaves so they can sell more things and stuff to be consumed by...

a pack of american schmuks struggling to live as well or better than their parents while the jobs that enabled their parents' prosperity are outsourced by corporate executives who pay themselves a significant chunk of their companies' profits while ever CHEEZING OUT the awful horrible whiney bitchy useless schmuk who...

ENRICHES THEM BUY BUYING THE CRAP THEY DON'T EVEN REALLY MAKE ANY MORE!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/06/2009 @ 1:47pm
Double-Digit Unemployment Poses Political Danger for Obama

NEWSFLASH!

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/06/2009 @ 2:01pm
"But it is the smaller official rate that makes the political case for both more stimulus and a radical rethink of the Obama administration's ill-thought auto bankruptcy and bailout scheme."

mere pennies compared to citi...

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/06/2009 @ 2:02pm
ENRICHES THEM BUY BUYING THE CRAP THEY DON'T EVEN REALLY MAKE ANY MORE!!!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/06/2009 @ 1:47pm

i think you'll "enjoy" this little synopsis:

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjune09/depression06-09.html

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/06/2009 @ 2:07pm
KVH and NICHOLS are right in calling for more investment in re-tooling and transforming our nation.

an old dinosaur of a social-economic interaction model is dying and stating to stink up the joint. the hard core ideological soldiers of this discredited paradigm will continue croaking out their hollow mantras - they are too invested to do otherwise...and represent roughly a third of the electorate, if that, anyhoos...

time to take a third way that involves a-ideological, scientific approaches to solving problems and charting a future. ideas should not be rejected because they do not fit into preconceived ideological canon. the nation (all viable nations, actually) needs to be mobilized for some purpose other than war, like "saving the world", but in order to "save the world" we need to get our own house in order.

its not going to be easy folks...old ways are hard to change.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/06/2009 @ 2:13pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/06/2009 @ 2:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

yup. love/hated it. pretty solid stuff there.

notice how fast obama is going gray?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/06/2009 @ 2:15pm
At this rate, Obama is sure to be seriously challenged in a '12 Dem primary. He'll probably retain the nomination ... but he may then have to face multibillionaire Bloomberg who'll have just bought himself the GOP nomination & without flinching could shell out of his own pocket twice what Obama could spend on TV. '12 could prove to be an awfully interesting election. Stress awfully.

Posted by sloper at 06/06/2009 @ 2:19pm
KVH and NICHOLS are right in calling for more investment in re-tooling and transforming our nation.

•• ah, but from where to extricate the funds?

an old dinosaur of a social-economic interaction model is dying and stating to stink up the joint.

•• actually, it's been fetid since 1981

the hard core ideological soldiers of this discredited paradigm will continue croaking out their hollow mantras

•• OBAMAGARCHS UNITE!

- they are too invested to do otherwise...

•• milk that cow!

and represent roughly a third of the electorate, if that, anyhoos...

•• the electorate? what's that?

time to take a third way that involves a-ideological, scientific approaches to solving problems and charting a future.

•• that's commie talk. let randomness reign!

ideas should not be rejected because they do not fit into preconceived ideological canon.

•• adam was the real winner.

the nation (all viable nations, actually) needs to be mobilized for some purpose other than war,

•• and technology will develop just fine without the military.

like "saving the world",

•• of course you mean "saving our butts".

but in order to "save the world" we need to get our own house in order.

•• alas, from where to extricate the funds?

its not going to be easy folks...old ways are hard to change.

•• man, my analog tv's gonna be junk......... how am i gonna watch "good times"?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/06/2009 @ 2:13pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/06/2009 @ 2:31pm
notice how fast obama is going gray?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/06/2009 @ 2:15pm

no green shoots there.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/06/2009 @ 2:32pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/06/2009 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

that sounded like some kind of weird beat-rap poetry...

lol

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/06/2009 @ 3:37pm
I told you so!

Double-digit unemployment before year end, WITH the Pork bill.

As the Feds buy its own debt to the tune of hundreds of more Billions, very few private business investments will take place.

You reap what you sow......as I reap what I have sown, HAPPILY!

Posted by Happy at 06/06/2009 @ 5:45pm
You reap what you sow......as I reap what I have sown, HAPPILY!

Posted by Happy at 06/06/2009 @ 5:45pm

and secretary gramm?

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/06/2009 @ 5:47pm
Does anyone remember Magic proclaimed that WITHOUT his Pork bill, unemployment will shoot up to 9%?

How does one grade the present case where UE is at 9.4%, forget "the far more frightening 20 percent number" Nichols clings to, AND Hussein did get his Pork bill?

A big, capital letter F!

Posted by Happy at 06/06/2009 @ 5:53pm
NICHOLS: "These are the numbers that make an urgent social and economic case for the additional stimulus that my wise colleagues and other concerned commentators are suggesting."

Is this your way to CYA (to Katrina) for your posting "Bipartisan Objections to a Bad Bailouts"?

Curiously, you didn't offer any thoughts as to what new Magical "stimulus" we need?

Posted by Happy at 06/06/2009 @ 6:01pm
The common sense kind; cost reduction.

Start by legalizing drugs, rolling up the DEA payroll (pun only intended within SF city limits), and saving the money spent to incarcerate people for growing, selling, and smoking plants.

Will it cover the whole $24B shortfall for CA?

Probably not, but it could cover 8-10% between expenditure reduction and increased sin-tax revenue and it is a surefire way to generate 'demand' for more of that awful cornfood Frosty is always denegrating.

And if it works, then the potheads can all pay for the healthcare of the aliens (illegal or otherwise) who help them harvest their 'cash crop' and we can lower taxes for people who have better things to do with their minds.

Deal?

Posted by snowball666 at 06/06/2009 @ 7:31pm

You Yanks aren't as economically silly as some of the less thoughtful imagine. The incarceration industry is one of your great employers and as well it provides many Americans with good safe housing three good meals a day, gyms, libraries and all free of charge. Some are so lucky to have that guaranteed for life.

It seems that unless you let the Europeans or Asians run your auto industry it is kaput so do you also want to close down another great employer that provides such great social security benefits for so many misunderstood Americans?

Then of course there are the cops who make their living out of catching potheads. Perhaps you could send them down to GM for a job, sort of having a laugh at the pigs expense.

I know de-incarceration of pot smokers would swell liberal ranks, on the outside, Triple6 but we've all got to make deep sacrifices in these difficult economic times.

Posted by lrjones4 at 06/06/2009 @ 9:41pm
Posted by Happy at 06/06/2009 @ 5:53pm

Happy we had a very boastful lefty PM, Paul Keating who kept telling us his safe hands were on the country's economic levers. It became pretty obvious, after a while, that the levers weren't connected to anything apart from his hands.

My thinking is that politicians can't do much to fix up a sick economy but "an aspirin and a bit of time in bed", like with a cold works wonders. It sort of heals itself in time if the body's systems are functional. The only thing politicians can do is facilitate that healing process by not getting in the way.

Signs are looking better from our perspective. And in the region generally. We had 0.4% GDP growth last quarter (Jan-Mar 09) which means we are technically not yet in recession. Krudd has assured us, in different terms though- no levers this time, that he is responsible for that via his stimulus package. Some of us are thinking more like thanks to China. It looks like that country is going to be a power house that will help drive the world's economies in the next boom.

Posted by lrjones4 at 06/06/2009 @ 10:21pm
What's so wrong with 20% unemployment? More QT with friends and family. Besides many of the 20% are working tax free under the table. Plus breaking your back for an oppressive multinational is reserved for "working class whites". Not to put too fine a point on it.

Posted by winyahn at 06/06/2009 @ 10:23pm
posted by John Nichols on 06/06/2009 @ 06:52am – in part:

Blaming Bush is legitimate -- as is blaming Bill Clinton, who gave us the job-killing North American Free Trade Agreement and permanent normalization of trade relations (PNTR) with China.

Blaming Bush or anyone else is getting old. The fact that Obama wanted the job, knew what was in store and still whines about it is weak. Did Obama vote against any domestic spending package or policy when he was in the senate? NO.

Man-Up and fix the problem, that's why we voted for you!!

Posted by Incoming at 06/07/2009 @ 12:17am
Curiously, you didn't offer any thoughts as to what new Magical "stimulus" we need?

Posted by Happy at 06/06/2009 @ 6:01pm

and you have yet to address my secretary gramm query.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/07/2009 @ 12:27am
Here's an idea:

Let GM die. Save the Treasury the money. GM has been slowly, steadily, and inexorably run into the ground over the last 40 years. Its monster market share in the 60's has gone ever downward.

Sell its incompetent, unimaginative executives to Ford, Honda, or Renault like so much chattel. Let 'em start at entry level. Let the assembly workers get jobs in Tennessee, Kentucky, or Canada. They can start at entry level, too. They might not get their cushy GM retirement, but let them work until age 55 or 60, instead of retiring with full benefits at age 50.

Tear down the factories. If there was ever a dinosaur that should be allowed to go extinct, it's GM. I can't imagine a worse scenario for the auto industry, than propping GM up with government money, which will make the government willing to take any legislative step to protect its investment. Whats more, it will promulgate the culture of failure, incompetence, and bureaucracy at the worst-run company in the US. Break up GM! Save Michigan!

Posted by twillie at 06/07/2009 @ 12:51am
Time for protectionism.

Don't give me this crap that it won't work. China needs us more than we need China. We need tariffs on products that are subsidized by the Chinese govt, we need tariffs until they stop devaluing their currency. We need tariffs on products that are produced without worker rights, environmental controls and with child labor.

We need to cancel Chinas MFN status, this week!

We need to start making things again, employing our own people.

The people that are going to poo-poo this are many of the same ones that told us globilization was THE answer. I guess the question was "How do we kill of the middle class in America and re-create a new Gilded Age of three classes in America, oligarchs, the poor, and the destitute. "

We were told that "the service economy" was going to replace the manufacturing economy. Guess what? Hospitals- laying off

Financial sector- laying off

Restaurant industry- laying off

Maids/cleaners/landscapers- not hiring

Why? Because if you don't make anything, you cannot have a growing economy.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 08:32am
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/06/2009 @ 9:41pm

I'm sure slaveowners used to make the same arguments.

Posted by winyahn at 06/06/2009 @ 10:23pm

"Not to put too fine a point on it."

Inevitably uttered when someone is putting too fine a point on it.

Posted by Incoming at 06/07/2009 @ 12:17am

The problem is that most Americans don't think in long enough timelines. You don't become a doctor in a day. You don't learn a language in a day. You don't fix an economy in a day - nor destroy one. Nothing to "Man, up" about here beyond acknowledging that these are intractable problems that don't get fixed with a flick of the pen and a day at the ranch.

Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 10:22am
It's really a matter of ending the subsidizing of a war that cannot be won...with plowshares (sorry, couldn't resist) to be had in the bargain.

Posted by snowball666 at 06/07/2009 @ 08:02am

Hydroponic plowshares? No. I don't believe it.....sounds dopey......you Americans.

Posted by lrjones4 at 06/07/2009 @ 10:52am
We would still catch all the less-than-discrete members of the underclass, so the police would still have something to do should we run out of burglars, rapists, murderers, and Bernie Madoff.....

Posted by snowball666 at 06/07/2009 @ 08:02am

....now ya talkin my language. Right wif ya matey. Got a few suggestions of my own but better keep them to myself. May get sent to old the sin bin.

Posted by lrjones4 at 06/07/2009 @ 10:59am
Happy we had a very boastful lefty PM, Paul Keating who kept telling us his safe hands were on the country's economic levers. It became pretty obvious, after a while, that the levers weren't connected to anything apart from his hands.

Posted by lrjones4 at 06/06/2009 @ 10:21pm

In our case w/Magic, the "economic levers" were only connected to his nice stash of Teleprompters and of course, his mouth!

I think at some point within 12 months, our country will be itching to push the "Reset" button.

On China, it's share of global demand of commodities (that you folks produce by the shit load) is at ~9% while developed economies command almost 50%. It alone, will not cure all of our ills......the countries that adapts the best, the Aussies and maybe even the awakening Euros like the Netherlands and Frace, will forge ahead. I almost envy the Euros as they veer Right while we stumble, drunk w/Kool-aid, Leftward.

Posted by Happy at 06/07/2009 @ 11:21am
We need to start making things again, employing our own people

Posted by crabwalk at 06/07/2009 @ 08:32am

Like what? What can you build here for the progressive wet dream $72/hr to sell to the rest of the world?

Posted by sntauri at 06/07/2009 @ 11:22am
and you have yet to address my secretary gramm query.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/07/2009 @ 12:27am

He has no effect on my investments forward, or backward....not interested, sorry!

Posted by Happy at 06/07/2009 @ 11:23am
Deal?

Posted by snowball666 at 06/06/2009 @ 7:31pm

Funny, what came up in my mind was a conversation I had at a blue-collar sports bar where half of the cars outside are pickups, like mine, watching the Rockets' playoff.....the guy was feeling fine.....from him, I learned that the price of a lid today, is around $400~$500......I thought, wow, doesn't sound like a "deal" to me! Time for users (w/out children) to go big-time primitive and grow ones' own!

Posted by Happy at 06/07/2009 @ 11:32am
...Obama wanted the job, knew what was in store and still whines about it is weak....

Man-Up and fix the problem, that's why we voted for you!!

Posted by Incoming at 06/07/2009 @ 12:17am

What Magic knew "was in store", was of limited dimensions.....power and control geared toward redistribution and favored causes (ie, the Greens) and nary a thought or concern (other than his Teleprompter) was given to actual economic recovery and enhancing future growth of the full-spectrum of our livelihood.

Posted by Happy at 06/07/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 10:22am

You'll have to fill me in on that SR. Don't keep slaves (except for the missus, so she tells me).

SR I'm not a crim but I know a fair bit about them because my 25 yo son is a Bandido bikie and thus I get to meet some of the classiest crims in Australia. Drugs, extortion, bashing for cash, theft of bikes and rebadging of stolen cars, prostitution, you name it they do it.

Gaol time for them is a badge of honor and when it gets a bit hectic outside, such as a contract being out on one of them for fooling around with say a Hell's Angels moll, then they make sure they get caught with a gun or a few sticks of C4 and get locked up pronto. All of them are on bail or good behaviour bonds. (Not my son who is in it for the wind in his face on his Harley and the mateship, so he says. Waiting for that knock on the door one night).

The reality is that gaol, for many of these and lesser crims , is a safe home away from home which many take to in repeat doses like a duck to water. Though I was trying to be humorous it is surprising how much gaol is enjoyed/tolerated by many of them. They've always got some mates in the can and apparently drugs are pretty freely available and they have status. So gaol (jail) 2009 isn't quite a slave plantation experience for many crims.

Posted by lrjones4 at 06/07/2009 @ 11:41am
Posted by lrjones4 at 06/07/2009 @ 11:41am

Take a look at the section on prison conditions on the Incarceration in the United States Wikipedia page. Coerced sex in a population with a 20-40% rate of Hep C. Couple that with gang violence, imprisonment as a form of social control (1 in 100 are in prisons in the U.S.) and privatized prisons running for profit - partly by exploiting the prison population as a work force, and it doesn't sound like good times to me.

I'm sure it is cozy for people in gangs, such as the biker gangs you refer to, and they make it less so for everyone else. But, that's the exception that proves the rule.

Posted by srjenkins at 06/07/2009 @ 12:31pm
>>>Their bad calls, especially on the auto bailout, could give America a "jobless recovery" and a politically-vulnerable president. <<<

I am not a big fan of Summers and Geithner either, as they do not appear to understand much more than Wall Street institutions and how to save them for the benefit of the economy.

While it is true that the US does need a viable banking sector - and to a certain extent this must be a priority since other sectors depend upon it - there are other sectors of the economy that are also critical to economic recovery, and I am not confident at all that Summers-Geithner understand how to jump-start these sectors at all.

But the problem with your critique, JOHN NICHOLS, is that it does NOT PROPOSE ANY ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS - only that more jobs should be saved.

If we had let the American auto industry vanish, A LOT more jobs would have been lost, so WHAT are you proposing, NICHOLS, that you believe would have produced less impact on job loss?

Posted by Metteyya at 06/07/2009 @ 1:04pm
Although Obama ran on a theme of optimism, five months into his Presidency civilians are beginning to realize how disingenuous this rhetoric was. Many regretfully understand they were baited with meaningless pretenses. National elections are now determined each two or four year cycle by candidates pledging themselves to the business sector despite whatever populist words they may utter.

Today, the United States is governed by a industrial plutocracy who pay political administrators for protection. Party affiliation is irrelevent. The only requirement is the free market economic system must be left intact. The mainstream press fosters this notion without deliberation because its survival banks on it.

Peace, Cosmic

Posted by Cosmic at 06/07/2009 @ 4:39pm
Obama is like watching a train wreck in slowmotion. Printing phoney money, GM, Chrysler, political giveaways, residtribution is causing capital to flee the U.S. with crushing tax schemes. He has not even passed his first budget! Health care is the next debacle. Cant wait till the midterms. Did you notice his smile is gone?

Posted by mike63 at 06/07/2009 @ 6:24pm
At this rate, Obama is sure to be seriously challenged in a '12 Dem primary. ----Posted by sloper at 06/06/2009 @ 2:19pm

Give us a name, sloper, of a "serious challenger"?

Posted by Mask at 06/07/2009 @ 8:03pm
Does anyone here find anything in the world of politics to be refreshing or surprising (really-truly -sans sarcasm)?

There's so much predicting of established perspectives!

Red meme neocons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics) like blustery, fake Happy (Mr. Exclamation Mark) is forever predicting all sorts of downward trends for dems.

Orange meme types (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics) like the esteemed Mask make sure to temper all enthusiasms whilst keeping the liars from below in constant check.

Posted by winyahn at 06/07/2009 @ 9:54pm
Latest cover story in the print edition of CounterPunch: STABBED IN THE BACK How the U.S. Press Helped Destroy the Auto Industry

"Eamonn Fingleton gives a stunning account of how the elite press – the Wall Street Journal, The Economist, the New York Times and Washington Post - pilloried US autworkers while systematically concealing the hidden subsidies which have allowed Japan and Korea to destroy Detroit. All this with the connivance of the US government."

Some amazing information in this piece. As bad as GM management has been, it's the financial sector and the free trade jihadists who bear the brunt of the blame for the off-shoring of manufacturing from this country.

Posted by cka2nd at 06/07/2009 @ 11:45pm
Obama is like watching a train wreck in slowmotion. Printing phoney money, GM, Chrysler, political giveaways, residtribution is causing capital to flee the U.S. with crushing tax schemes. He has not even passed his first budget! Health care is the next debacle. Cant wait till the midterms. Did you notice his smile is gone?

Posted by mike63 at 06/07/2009 @ 6:24pm

I'd still prefer the slow motion train wreck to the full warp speed cataclysm that was all but a certainty this past fall.

GM, Chrysler, AIG, Goldmann Sachs, Citi-corp et al...Debacles maybe, but what was the alternative.

The economy took a nosedive when Lehman Bros. failed and no one will ever know how bad it would have been without the bailouts.

Posted by koroviev at 06/08/2009 @ 12:18am
Oh, you meant 'boom' in a GOOD way. My guess is that if they manage to provide your boom they may very well assure the other as well.

Does the drought make the minerals easier to get at?

Posted by snowball666 at 06/07/2009 @ 08:15a

In a boom and bust way. We think the Chinese like us but just in case we have a pretty good defence alliance with you know who.

Funny country, Australia, I live in Victoria which is experiencing its longest period (about a decade) of lowest annual average rainfall on record. Still got enough water for our gardens and lawns though.

Northern most state on the Eastern Seaboard, Queensland, has just had its highest late summer and autumn rains on record. Many square kms were under water for weeks.

Most of our mining is done in the states of Qld and Western Australia, on the western seaboard (Indian Ocean). Neither are in drought.

Posted by lrjones4 at 06/08/2009 @ 04:12am
Posted by snowball666 at 06/08/2009 @ 08:52am

Actually, I like tangerines...but a good naval will do in a pinch.

Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 09:13am
Posted by snowball666 at 06/08/2009 @ 09:14am

slope won't name a name. His political acumen doesn't run deep enough to float an earthworm.

As for Dorgan, no way...nor any other primary challenger, for numerous reasons.

Posted by snowball666 at 06/08/2009 @ 09:21am

BTW, not sure I fit windy's Spiral theory, as I have a tendency to "raise the ire of important others", namely a few of the editors and the HEAD editor here at "TN".

Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 10:03am
The 15 to 16% "actual" rate of unemployment is underestimated. I believe the actual rate is more like 20 to 25%, if you factor in people who have fallen off the charts and are no longer seeking employment, as well as the people who hold 2 to 3 jobs and still don't get 40 hours a week. "The Under-Employed".

These people in most cases have no health insurance, no union protection, no vacation time, no type of pension program and no savings. If they have credit cards they are maxed out. If they have a mortgage they are barely hanging on to their house, and it is mortgaged to the hilt. They will soon fail and become homeless.

This is not the time for grand rhetoric and soaring speeches. It is the time to put people to work. Even if the government needs to be the employer.

Trade policies need to be adjusted to bring more jobs back home.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 10:40am
I think Obama is more concerned about people liking him than he is about helping people. Frankly I'm tired of hearing him. Hurts my ears, and my brain.

We don't need some jabberwockey. We need a President and a Leader. Obama is not showing me he is equal to the job ahead of him.

I want a REAL President. Where can I find one?

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 10:46am
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought -- So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.

Anyone else gone through the looking glass?

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 10:58am
I think Obama is more concerned about people liking him than he is about helping people.----Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 10:46am

So your theory is...if he helped them, they wouldn't like him?!?!?!??!??

Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 11:25am
So your theory is...if he helped them, they wouldn't like him?!?!?!??!??

Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 11:25am

I don't think I advanced any theory here. Personally I think he genuinely wants everyone to like him. That is the sort of hubris that I can understand in everyday life. We all know people like that. They usually have a high opinion of themselves and want others to validate it.

But in a President I would prefer to see someone who cares not about his/her legacy or popularity per se. But sincerely wants to change the status quo, regardless of who it pisses off. I'm starting to think that Obama is more enamoured with his self than he is in exacting any meaningfull social and political change.

In other words he is to full of himself and his position and influence than he is in changing anything. He is an appeaser. We don't need that, it is immature and not suited to providing the American people with the instruments of change to actually make any difference in our lives.

This guy is like a little kid in a candy store. Just my opinion.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 11:51am
chaoszen,

You asked "......I want a REAL President. Where can I find one?...."

Answer: The State Capitol Building in Juneau, Alaska.

Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 12:06pm
chaoszen,

You commented: "......But in a President I would prefer to see someone who cares not about his/her legacy or popularity per se. But sincerely wants to change the status quo, regardless of who it pisses off......"

My comment: We had such a President from 2001- 2009.

Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 12:14pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 12:06pm

Nice try scherm. I assume you are speaking of Palin. But there are other worms wiggeling around dead things in Alaska.

If I am mistaken please correct me. If I'm not mistaken, you are insane..

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 12:18pm
chaoszen,

I guess any argument between you and me is moot anyway, because you won't have to go looking for a real President.

President Palin will be taking the oath of office January 20, 2013. I doubt she will wait until you find her.

This will happen regardless of any back and forth arguing between you and me.

============

1. No, Mask, I am not going to make a bet.

2. Yes, Mask, John McCain spoke out in favor of "fighting" global warming.

3. Yes, Mask I voted for John McCain anyway.

4. No, Mask I am not going to bet on whether Sarah Palin comments about Global Warming during the 2012 campaign.

Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 12:24pm
My comment: We had such a President from 2001- 2009.

Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 12:14pm

We had no President from 2001-2009, we had a Moron. Elected by the Supreme Court and sponsored by Fascists.

Just because I criticise Obama does not in any way mean that I would swim with pond scum like you.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 12:26pm
But in a President I would prefer to see someone who cares not about his/her legacy or popularity per se.----Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 11:51am

Okay, so you want him to do things that would cost him his re-election in 2012, because the things YOU want would be...

unpopular????

Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 12:27pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 12:24pm

1. Because you have no real confidence in her either winning the general election or likely even the primaries.

2. Because he wasn't stupid and myopic.

3. Because you and Rush are so far Right you can't even get a candidate you like the nomination.

4. Because if she agreed with you Deniers, she'd lose....so she'll stay quiet, because she cares more about winning than honesty. And you'd support that.

Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 12:30pm
Okay, so you want him to do things that would cost him his re-election in 2012, because the things YOU want would be...

unpopular????

Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 12:27pm

I don't think that the things that I personally want to see happen are all that unpopular. They are unpopular with the corporate world. They are unpopular with the politicians that are bought and paid for. But they are not unpopular with the American people.

Is single payer healthcare unpopular? No. In fact it is by and large popular, check the polls.

Are publicly funded elections unpopular? No, check the polls.

Is ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan unpopular? Nope.

Are sane and responsible trade policies to bring jobs back to this country unpopular? No again.

Is the Employee free choice act unpopular? No again.

Is free education through college unpopular? No once more.

By and large the American people are light years ahead of the Government.

Will we get what we want? Nope.

Why? Because we have a weak President who is not willing to stand up for the people because he is afraid his owners will not like him.

What a shame...

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 12:53pm
chaoszen,

You claim "......We had no President from 2001-2009, we had a Moron......"

Besides being wrong, you use a word that has a different meaning.

Moron, or rather it's plural, Morons, refers to one thing - the NFL football team that shares a stadium with the New York Jets in New Jersey.

And the Morons were never President of the United States. It is bad enough that they were Super Bowl champions in 2008.

That situation, fortunately, was corrected by Donovan McNabb and the Philadelphia Eagles, who insured that the Morons were through for this past year - and then the championship was gained by it's rightful owners, the six time winners Steelers, greatest football team ever.

Just thought I would clarify that for you.

Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 1:00pm
If Obama really wanted to insure his re-election in 2012, he would stand by the people that elected him. But he will not do that because he is playing the odds that the Demons that currently whisper in his ear will get him there. He is deluded at the moment.

The people will get him there, if only he would ignore the subtle whispers of the Demons that he currently keeps council with.

The sad truth.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 1:01pm
chaoszen,

You said ".....By and large the American people are light years ahead of the Government. ......"

No Kidding! This is absolutely true, always has been.

But then, why are you on the left always pushing "solutions" involving more and more government?

Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 1:02pm
What can you build here for the progressive wet dream $72/hr to sell to the rest of the world? Posted by sntauri at 06/07/2009 @ 11:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

this is a slogan, not an argument.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/08/2009 @ 1:06pm
By and large the American people are light years ahead of the Government.-------Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 12:53pm

Yet, again, according to YOUR theory, Obama can't do anything for them or enact an agenda they like, or he loses popularity?!??!?!?!?

Or are you so far, that you think "the Corporations" would prevent the re-election of a President who's popular with the American people????

Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 1:39pm
But then, why are you on the left always pushing "solutions" involving more and more government?

Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 1:02pm

We don't need more and more government. More and more government only feeds the destruction of our freedoms.

What we need is the leadership necessary to produce "good government". Which happens when the needs of the people are met. Not the needs of empire. Not the needs of the rich, who have already benefitted by the power to subvert government.

For years we have been assualted by people who wish to subvert good government in order to poison the minds of the people for their own personal gain.

This has to stop. We are the government, we are the people. And we should be able to extract from our goverment the things we need to be productive. As it is we are the victims of a capiltalistic system that seeks to suck out the very marrow of our existence.

They seek to make us slaves. They have succeeded. We are like cattle. But we are not cattle, we are people. Fight! Men fight, cattle do not.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 1:41pm
For years we have been assualted by people who wish to subvert good government in order to poison the minds of the people for their own personal gain.

This has to stop. We are the government, we are the people. And we should be able to extract from our goverment the things we need to be productive. As it is we are the victims of a capiltalistic system that seeks to suck out the very marrow of our existence.

They seek to make us slaves. They have succeeded. We are like cattle. But we are not cattle, we are people. Fight! Men fight, cattle do not.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 1:41pm

Thanks for the laugh.

And I agree on this one:

<For years we have been assualted by people who wish to subvert good government in order to poison the minds of the people for their own personal gain.>

What a great description of public education.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:16pm
You said ".....By and large the American people are light years ahead of the Government. ......"

No Kidding! This is absolutely true, always has been."----Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 1:02pm |

So, you aren't in the "They were fooled" camp...on the elections of 2006 and 2008?

Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 2:24pm
Why? Because we have a weak President who is not willing to stand up for the people because he is afraid his owners will not like him. What a shame... Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 12:53pm

Alas, all too true.

No joke, but we may have to watch multibillionaire Bllomberg buy the GOP '12 nomination & then the White House. A member of the owners' club will have then cut out the middle man.

Posted by sloper at 06/08/2009 @ 2:27pm
<No joke, but we may have to watch multibillionaire Bllomberg buy the GOP '12 nomination & then the White House. A member of the owners' club will have then cut out the middle man.

Posted by sloper at 06/08/2009 @ 2:27pm>

I guarantee that Bloomberg will not be the Republican nominee in 2012. It will not, nor could not happen.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:34pm
chaoszen,

You said (in your first sentince, up above) ".....We don't need more and more government. More and more government only feeds the destruction of our freedoms....."

You were doing great at that point, you really were!

But then you kept going and ruined it....

Posted by sjchermak at 06/08/2009 @ 2:35pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:34pm

Larry, one of those rare moments where we totally agree.

sloper's "insight" is Criswellian. (See: Criswell Predicts)

Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 3:37pm
<For years we have been assualted by people who wish to subvert good government in order to poison the minds of the people for their own personal gain.>

What a great description of public education.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:16pm

You missed my point Larry. Then you drove around the block. Thought about and decided to do a drive by.

Public education is probably one of the most important aspects of good government. To ensure that the people are properly educated through college, in order to ensure that the elite do not hold all the cards.

In your world only those who have the financial resources to provide a proper education (the private sector) deserve to become all they can be. You would decide who gets educated and who does not. Like the caste system in India for instance.

Fotunately we still live in an egalitarian society which does not impose such class distinctions.

But our public education system has been so undermined and underfunded by Republican ideology over the years that it is easy to trash public education.

That is it in a nutshell. Good government has no chance when some are determined to destroy it.

You are despicable.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 3:55pm
I guarantee that Bloomberg will not be the Republican nominee in 2012. It will not, nor could not happen.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 2:34pm

along with MASK, ditto!

For Governor of New York after his next mayorship.....perfect!

Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 4:00pm
Public education is probably one of the most important aspects of good government. To ensure that the people are properly educated through college, in order to ensure that the elite do not hold all the cards.

In your world only those who have the financial resources to provide a proper education (the private sector) deserve to become all they can be. You would decide who gets educated and who does not. Like the caste system in India for instance.

Fotunately we still live in an egalitarian society which does not impose such class distinctions.

But our public education system has been so undermined and underfunded by Republican ideology over the years that it is easy to trash public education.

That is it in a nutshell. Good government has no chance when some are determined to destroy it.

You are despicable.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 3:55pm

Your comments reveal that you are extremely ignorant on the subject of education.

You have one mindset and that is public education, even though it is a complete failure in this country.

As I've noted on many occasions, home schoolers have overall higher test scores on entrance exams, win more national spelling bees, have as high if not higher college graduate rates, and do so at a fraction of the cost of public schools.

Despite your ad hominem and red herring attack, I actually care a great deal about education and our youth. That's why I'm so passionately against the system that fails them. You on the other hand are just another sellout to the teachers unions and their power grabs.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 4:08pm
It looks like we are competing with China for unemployment figures. Neither China , the U.S., or any other country will fix their respective economies with "Free Trade". Every country needs tariff barriers, behind which, they can create or recreate their national economies.

Posted by pjcasey at 06/08/2009 @ 4:12pm
Washington DC and the state of CA have the highest expenditures per student, at well over 30% above the national average......their students must be tops....pass the Kool-aid!

Posted by Happy at 06/08/2009 @ 4:13pm
Answer this.

Why are some so determined to destroy everything that has made this country great?

Why is Public Health, Education, Jobs and a strong and vibrant middle class etc, so abhorrent to certain people?

Simply because it threatens to make us all equal. We are all equal in the eyes of God, are we not? But these same people claim to know God. And at the same time want to maintain the class distinctions that make them "special".

No matter how hard I try I cannot translate Gods idea of equal into the human need to be somehow superior to ones brothers and sisters.

Any sane person understands that all people deserve the same chance in life. A level playing field to pursue the joys of living.

And personally I don't even believe in "God". But I know if one existed he would want a level playing field.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 4:15pm
Posted by snowball666 at 06/08/2009 @ 4:18pm

Sad stats.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 4:32pm
I've got savings and am looking up trustee info for auctions in a couple nice developments in the good school district.

I do feel for teachers our here though. They do good work despite the load that the pop. density drops in their laps.

When my folks moved out here in '85, I had a junior high biology teacher who had to take moonlighting gigs as an underwater-welder to make rent because Prop 13 had gutted school funding. Not cool.

Posted by snowball666 at 06/08/2009 @ 6:05pm

Snow, there are some great deals in the Bay area. My youngest son who is a fireman in Oakland, bought 2 homes at foreclosure sales in the past 7 months. Both were over 300k 1 1/2 yrs ago. He bought one for 60k and one for 80k. He put about 15k in remodeling in each one and now rents them for $1200 a month.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 6:32pm
As a guy who tried to start a company a couple years ago, I can tell you where the problem is. It's the organized crime syndicate known as our banking industry. These di*&^ags have made it known since the mid '60s that they are not interested in employing people, they're interested in taking the money generated by employed people. When I wrote business plan after business plan, developed prototype after prototype, got endorsements from users, suppliers, patent people, etc. and still had to endure the rants of mobsters wanting to charge me 20% interest, it took all my dedication to pacifism not to seek immediate vigilante justice. While I understand the terror that banking professionals feel over the prospect of having to do productive labor instead of raping the working class, what I can't understand is how working people have become so powerless and / or stupid to have allowed it to get this far. And with the Larry Summers' and Timothy Geithners of the New World Order running the show, it's only going to get worse.

Posted by DejaVu at 06/08/2009 @ 6:34pm
I do feel for teachers our here though. They do good work despite the load that the pop. density drops in their laps.

When my folks moved out here in '85, I had a junior high biology teacher who had to take moonlighting gigs as an underwater-welder to make rent because Prop 13 had gutted school funding. Not cool.

Posted by snowball666 at 06/08/2009 @ 6:05pm

However, CA teachers are the highest paid in the US. They average $67k here and have received a 20% increase in pay over the last 4 years, even though net enrollment is down.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 6:34pm
I think if you look at the histo that determines that 'average' value, you'll see two lobes...one with my high-school French teacher in it, and another with some fresh-faced elementary teacher not making nearly as much while paying back student loans.

That 20% was payback for many years of non-COLI adjustments, IIRC, so it looks good in the short-term, but was basically inflation over the longer horizon.

Posted by snowball666 at 06/08/2009 @ 6:46pm

Sorry, but I think they are overpaid.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 7:41pm
Born and raised in California. Moved to the midwest. If California is too expensive, leave. When enough people leave, wages will go up. I guarantee it. Why shouldn't an employer pay rock bottom wages when there is a steady flow of job seekers new in town? And, why would someone move to a state with such a high cost of living?

Posted by twillie at 06/08/2009 @ 8:54pm
Is single payer healthcare unpopular? No. In fact it is by and large popular, check the polls. Are publicly funded elections unpopular? No, check the polls. Is the Employee free choice act unpopular? No again. Is free education through college unpopular? No once more. By and large the American people are light years ahead of the Government. Will we get what we want? Nope. Why? Because we have a weak President who is not willing to stand up for the people because he is afraid his owners will not like him. What a shame... Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 12:53pm

Is free stuff unpopular? Never. People will always want stuff that other people are paying for.

The idea of free college education would seem popular, but about half of all people eligible for college financial aid DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO FILL OUT FAFSA, the federal form needed to access almost all free money for education.

If someone wants a "free" education, let them earn it themselves with service.

Posted by twillie at 06/08/2009 @ 9:05pm
You have one mindset and that is public education, even though it is a complete failure in this country.----Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 4:08pm

A COMPLETE failure? So you, your wife, and all your kids and grandkids...were educated in private institutions?

Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 9:12pm
The Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats have sounded the death knell of the American economy and national pre-eminence of world nations.

This is the guy that was an "empty suit" of senseless rhetoric in campaign mode reeling in all the fools for the Demoncrats. Enjoy the fruits of your political labor!

Blame Bush who had NOTHING to do with all the banking and finance laws passed by Demoncrats that created this financial blackhole, yea thats the ticket!

Posted by BigPasture at 06/08/2009 @ 10:34pm
hmm, 10% unemployment...hows that 'hope and change' thing working out for you?

Posted by pyeatte at 06/08/2009 @ 11:34pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/08/2009 @ 6:32pm

I'm just a little curious. How does a fireman who probably makes less than $50,000 a year spend $140,000 plus $15K for renovations on that salary? Something is amiss here.

I make over 50K a year, and there is no way I could afford to buy real estate. I rent a little hovel 1 bedroom apt here and pay the usual bills for a single person. And I have very little money to spare. Just wondering.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 12:36am
If someone wants a "free" education, let them earn it themselves with service.

Posted by twillie at 06/08/2009 @ 9:05pm

Read the above statement twillie. Look at it closely. And then understand that a number of countries throughout the world provide education up to and including college. Why? Because it is an investment in the commons that pays returns over and over.

Any society that educates it's people to the maximum of their individual abilities reaps long term benefits that are incalcuable. It is not so much that education should be free, but that it is a "right" in any civilized society. Just like health care should be. These things are not something that need to be earned. But are a right of birth.

I never cease to be amazed that people like you even exist. Anyone with a wit of sense should know that a healthy well educated society pays divedends far and above the cost of such programs.

The only possible reason that people should believe as you do is the fear that you would lose the advantage in such a world. Because on a level playing field the likes of you might have to compete. Coward.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 12:57am
Like what? What can you build here for the progressive wet dream $72/hr to sell to the rest of the world?

Posted by sntauri at 06/07/2009 @ 11:22am

Why does the $72/hr wage offend so? Of course it's not really true, after all. $72 is not the auto worker's actual hourly pay. The figure takes into account health benefits and retirement benefits.

But still, why the concern?

Investment bankers make millions and are still raking the taxpayers.

CEOs make millions while their companies go bankrupt and it is considered communist to question the absurdity of it all.

Posted by koroviev at 06/09/2009 @ 05:14am
Public education is probably one of the most important aspects of good government. To ensure that the people are properly educated through college, in order to ensure that the elite do not hold all the cards.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/08/2009 @ 3:55pm

I would say universal education is important to a healthy society, but it doesn't have to be public. If people had to pay of their children's eductation, they'd value it more than they currently do.

Also, you do not understand the difference between "intelligence" and "education".

Intelligence is the ability to learn. Between 50% and 80% of our intelligence is determined by our genes. Only 20% to 50% of our intelligence is determined by environment. And our intelligence doesn't change after adolecence (middle school).

You talked about the Caste system of India. It is a rigid social class system that segregates society. It prevents social mobility. The US is the most socially mobile society in the world. However, we self segregate by IQ. The inner city schools that have 40% dropout rates are schools that have 40% of their students with IQs below 85.

You wanted everyone to receive a college degree? In order to successfully complete college, you need an IQ of at least 105. If you make 100% of Americans attend college, 55% of them will flunk out.

Why are you such a bigot that you devalue tech school? What's wrong with trade school? What's wrong with a person with an IQ of 90 going immediately from high school to work for GM or Ford or Chrysler or Catapiller or Good Year?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/09/2009 @ 07:10am
Any society that educates it's people to the maximum of their individual abilities reaps long term benefits that are incalcuable.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 12:57am

I like what you said in this statement.

Only about 40% of our population would benefit from a four-year college degree. (Less than 10% will benefit from an advanced degree.) An additional 10% - 15% will benefit from two-year nursing and other degrees.

Others will benefit from trade school.

For some, the knowlege gained is high school is the maximum of thier abilities.

And for a very small percentage, say less than 5%, high school is beyond their abilities. That may sound harsh, but our abilities exist on a continuum, and setting a minimum threshold that is so low that every single person can attain it makes it so low as to be meaningless.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/09/2009 @ 07:44am
It is not so much that education should be free, but that it is a "right" in any civilized society. Just like health care should be. These things are not something that need to be earned. But are a right of birth.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 12:57am

I very much disagree with this statement.

I think you are confusing "rights" with "needs". Maybe you believe that you have a "right" to anything you "need". I don't.

I stated recently that needs are subjective. A need is a desire with an unpleasant consequence. Because not everyone agrees on what is unpleasant, "need" is subjective. Without food, clothing and shelter, we die. Death is a particularly unpleasant consequence. So all but the suicidal would agree that these are needs.

Without education, transportation, and healthcare, one is not able to be a productive member of an industrialized society. Most Americans would agree that this is an unpleasant consequence and characterize education, transportation, and healthcare as needs. However, there are tribes in the Amazon that would disagree (because it's not industrialized society). Also, there are cults, like the Branch Davidians, who segregate themselves from industrialized society who would also dispute that these are needs.

Another way to think of this is when you see "need" look for "to". I NEED food TO keep living. I NEED an education TO earn a living. I NEED a car, bicycle or public transportation TO get to my job and doctor.

Just because you need something doesn't give you a right to it. Our rights are spelled out in the Constitution: Freedom of speech, religion, to bear arms, no unreasonable search, etc. They do not entitle us to the labor or property of others.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/09/2009 @ 07:44am
Continued

From my personal experiences, I see that we tend to devalue things that are free. One of my core beliefs regarding limited government is that the government must not do something for a person when that person can do it for himself.

If you can afford college, you should have to pay for it. If you can afford transportation, you should have to pay for it. If you can afford healthcare, you should have to pay for it. When things are free we waste them.

I grant you that there are people who lack the resources and abilities to secure the things they need. I think the government should subsidize these people. I don't have a problem with Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid. These are wildly successful programs that have greatly reduced poverty among the elderly and poor.

If I were to change Social Security ad Medicare, I would make it means tested for people who don't absolutely need it. (Medicaid already is means tested.)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/09/2009 @ 07:44am
Continued

Finally, I'm starting to split hairs here, but there are different ways for the government to subsidize people. In the USA today, if you have the itellectual ability to make it through college, there is a 99% chance that you will get funding either through gov grants, scholarships, etc. But if your parrent have money, they'll have to pay.

Medicaid is different. Here if you meet the needs test, you are "statutorily entitled" to recieve benefits. Sometimes, this is called a "legal right". This type of right is different from a Constitutional right. Legal rights can be taken away by changing the law. Constitutional rights can only be taken away by amending the Consitution. A natural right (Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness), cannot be taken away. They can only be violated by others.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/09/2009 @ 07:56am
Read the above statement twillie. Look at it closely. And then understand that a number of countries throughout the world provide education up to and including college. Why? Because it is an investment in the commons that pays returns over and over. Any society that educates it's people to the maximum of their individual abilities reaps long term benefits that are incalcuable. It is not so much that education should be free, but that it is a "right" in any civilized society. Just like health care should be. These things are not something that need to be earned I never cease to be amazed that people like you even exist. Anyone with a wit of sense should know that a healthy well educated society pays divedends far and above the cost of such programs. The only possible reason that people should believe as you do is the fear that you would lose the advantage in such a world. Because on a level playing field the likes of you might have to compete. Coward. Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 12:57am

You know nothing about me. I've competed, and benefited from the meritocracy, which rewards those who excel, not those who whine. I've played on a level playing field my whole life.

Anyone with a WHIT of sense would know that people value most, what they have to earn. As I said earlier, half the people who are eligible for FREE college aid don't even BOTHER to fill out the application. So, spare me the proggy bullshit, that the people want, they need, a college education. Those who want one, get off their ass and get one.

And, what do you know about free education in other countries? Do all those countries give students free rein to study what they want? Or do they direct students to study what will benefit the state the most? You may want to educate yourself a bit.

Posted by twillie at 06/09/2009 @ 09:26am
If Anti's son rents them for $1200 each, he pockets $480/mo for the trouble of the upgrades and the management of the units.

Posted by snowball666 at 06/09/2009 @ 09:32am

Thanks for the info. Firefighter pay nationwide averages about $42K a year. In the bay area (which is expensive to live in) most departments don't have a top step firefighter at 100K. Fire Medics may make as much as 100K. Your estimates are more than a bit high. I get the your point though. I don't buy anything on credit. If I can't pay for it I don't need it. So I wasn't thinking in terms of a loan. In other words then Anti's son doesn't own anything. The bank does. O.K. I was just thinking how long it would take me to save $170K.

About 17 years if I lived like a hermit.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 10:28am
Double digits is just the start. When will it sink in that the times of "prosperity" that the US enjoyed in the 60s and 70s will NEVER come back.

The light crude isn't lying around in Texas to drive the way out, and cars, suburbs and malls are all but over. The debts are bigger than ever, and the manufacturing capacity has dwindled proportionately. Climate change is coming, along with big food and water problems. The unpaid costs of the earlier prosperity, in the form of polluted land, water and air, are now presenting themselves. Americans moved from manufacturing to service, not imagining that the Chinese and Indians would soon enough go there too, and cheaper. Now they have even less to sell.

Even if Obama could walk on water, divide loaves and fishes and heal the blind as well as those who will not see, he can never re-create the capitalist system of the last century.

The future is light, sustainable, village-centered and structured around public transport and renewable energy. Populations are relatively low, and consumerism is a story we tell about the Big Mistake.

How will we get there? We will be driven there as the big, clunky, unsustainable things and systems collapse of their own unsustainability. It will be nasty.

Or, if we are smart, we will design ways to get there elegantly. But never ever, will the old system function in the old way again. Things have changed. It's Darwin's year, and evolution is once again culling the unsustainable.

Posted by mikecope at 06/09/2009 @ 10:33am
To Troll n' Twillie.

I will repeat that healthcare and education should be "rights" and not "privledges". In all other industrialized western countries this is the case. It is only common sense that members of a society should be provided these things. I have already given the advantages. In countries that provide free education through college, most of them also subsidize the living expenses of students. In order to move into higher education students must demonstrate the ability to handle the course load. Not everyone gets a degree. How high you go is performance based.

As far as healthcare goes it should be obvious that a healthy society has many advantages for the state aswell as the people. In every other western industrialized society "For profit healthcare" is illegal and considered a crime. Which it is. But here in the United States it is perfectly legal to profit from anothers misery.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 10:56am
A COMPLETE failure? So you, your wife, and all your kids and grandkids...were educated in private institutions?

Posted by Mask at 06/08/2009 @ 9:12pm

mix of public and home schooling for me. El Salvador schools for my wife. home schooling for my kids. I grandchild in public school, 3 in private schools.

But the public schools of 50 years ago bear little resemblance to current public education.

We had corporal punishment. No marxist teachers. My German teacher as an example was a Holocaust survivor. In my high school, girls could not wear pants, skirts and dresses had to come to the knees (and female teachers and counselors carried yardsticks to check). Boys could not wear T-shirts without a jacket over it. Only dress shoes allowed. Shorts were never allowed. No mustaches, sideburns, or hair over the ears. We wore ties at least 2-3 days per week. Teachers were called sir, or maam, or by their formal name. A very different world from today.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 11:05am
I'm just a little curious. How does a fireman who probably makes less than $50,000 a year spend $140,000 plus $15K for renovations on that salary? Something is amiss here.

I make over 50K a year, and there is no way I could afford to buy real estate. I rent a little hovel 1 bedroom apt here and pay the usual bills for a single person. And I have very little money to spare. Just wondering.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 12:36am

Because you are way off on the salary. My son passed up working in Southern California to move to Oakland because they are the highest paid Firemen in CA. He also is a Paramedic. He earns over $150k per year. Besides his properties, he has started an import business and a handyman business (he has 3 employees in that business). He has done all of that in just 3 years. He just turned 30 and is well on his way to his lifetime goals. And has done this despite being a mixed race minority (so much for disadvantaged minorities-it is still the individuals desire and persistance that matters most). We are very proud of him. His fiancee is a beautiful African American woman originally from Antigua. She just graduated from Law School and is going to intern beginning in August in NYC with a large law firm. And she worked while going to law school. We're proud of her also.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 11:12am
It's Darwin's year, and evolution is once again culling the unsustainable. Posted by mikecope at 06/09/2009 @ 10:33am

I sense a little optimism in your vison. Mine is much darker. I would like to see the emergence of a technological agrarian society. But I fear the nightmarish scenario that would take us there.

In any case you are correct that the current situation is unsustainable and sooner or later Nature and Darwinian principles will balance the scales.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 11:12am
But the public schools of 50 years ago bear little resemblance to current public education.Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 11:05am |

They bear little resemblance to current public education because of nearly 30 years of conservative ideology attempting to destroy public education. Laissez-faire capitalism in attempting to transform the commons into a for profit system has undermined and nearly destroyed our public education system.

This is an attempt to destroy the middle class and to maintain power for the elite. If the destruction of the middle class can be completed then the country will be divided between the working poor and the privileged elite.

The middle class has always been the conduit of social mobility. With it's destruction the power brokers will have less to worry about.

Frankly I am surprised that you support these policies. It looks like the admirable success of your family was brought about by a strong middle class.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 11:42am
The middle class is the buffer between the greedy elite and the working poor. Without the middle class we would be the victims of a terrible tyranny.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 12:03pm
They bear little resemblance to current public education because of nearly 30 years of conservative ideology attempting to destroy public education. Laissez-faire capitalism in attempting to transform the commons into a for profit system has undermined and nearly destroyed our public education system.

This is an attempt to destroy the middle class and to maintain power for the elite. If the destruction of the middle class can be completed then the country will be divided between the working poor and the privileged elite.

Frankly I am surprised that you support these policies. It looks like the admirable success of your family was brought about by a strong middle class.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 11:42am

I'm finding your comments so funny, it's keeping me laughing.

Conservativism is the best opportunity for the middle class and always has been. It represents how success is achieved in the US. Personal responsibility, self-initiative, low taxes, and keeping govt intervention out of the way of our efforts.

The my family background was not middle class. My father was an alcoholic who never earned over a $100 a week in his life. I had to work full time in my high school years to help support my mother and siblings. But I'm thankful for that because it helped shaped my views on personal responsibility.

Likewise, my wife and I never gave our children any financial help. They had to get jobs in high school if they wanted anything. They did it on their own. They didn't get toys or video games unless they bought them. We never helped them financially with cars or college.

I'm from the tough love school of parenting.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 12:05pm
Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 11:12am I sense a little optimism in your vison. Mine is much darker. I would like to see the emergence of a technological agrarian society. But I fear the nightmarish scenario that would take us there.

The way I see it is, we're going there anyway, or we're going nowhere. We can go willingly, and it will be easier, or we can fight against it, hoping for a return of the Halcyon days, in which case it will indeed be dark. Quite a few people are waking up to the choice - a life with less unsustainable junk in it, or hanging onto a system which is pulling us all down, and going down with it.

What we should be debating is the practicalities.

Posted by mikecope at 06/09/2009 @ 1:21pm
...a life with less unsustainable junk in it,...

Posted by mikecope at 06/09/2009 @ 1:21pm

Are you nuts? Apple just slashed the price on the iPhone 3G to $99.....even geezer me is tempted!

Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 1:34pm
Conservativism is the best opportunity for the middle class and always has been.Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 12:05pm

That line is bullshit. And I think you know it. And I find it ironic that you find my posts humourous. People always tend to laugh uncomfortably when they must face a truth. It is the chuckle of hubris. It is also the humor of ignorance. I see it all the time, people will laugh when confronted with their crimes or sins. It is an easy way for the mind to dismiss a confrontation.

Excuse my criticism, but you are one sick puppy. And no laughter here. Only horror.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 1:55pm
Are you nuts? Apple just slashed the price on the iPhone 3G to $99.....even geezer me is tempted! Posted by Happy at 06/09/2009 @ 1:34pm

As the owner of every gadget that amuses me. I must reluctantly agree. I own an iPod touch, it is absolutely the most amazing little piece of tech. Great gear.

But I don't see the contradiction. mikecope never intimated that an iPod was unsustainable junk. A technological agrarian society would take with it the best ideas and discard the worst.

Hopefully it would discard the likes of you aswell.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 2:06pm
Conservativism is the best opportunity for the middle class and always has been.Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 12:05pm

That line is bullshit. And I think you know it. And I find it ironic that you find my posts humourous. People always tend to laugh uncomfortably when they must face a truth. It is the chuckle of hubris. It is also the humor of ignorance. I see it all the time, people will laugh when confronted with their crimes or sins. It is an easy way for the mind to dismiss a confrontation.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 1:55pm

I stand by that post. It has anchored by my political beliefs for 50 years and I find it validated more and more with each passing year.

And I laugh at the silliness of the leftist argument. Far left thought is simply immature and reflects an unwillingness for personal responsibility and accountability. And yes I know that you believe you are being personally responsible and accountable. But you want the nation to abandon those moral principles.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:09pm
Far left thought is simply immature and reflects an unwillingness for personal responsibility and accountability.Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 2:09pm

Maybe you could expand on how leftist thought is immature. I don't see that at all. In fact I think that leftist thought is progressive and attempts to respond to the needs of the people.

Conservatism is mired in archaic ideas that are immovable and stagnant. Look at the Republican Party. No ideas and no solutions. Only the rhetoric of defeatism and criticism. It is dead. It is as dead as Ann Rand and Atlas Shrugged.

We have moved into another set of ideals. No more can we look at the world of individual responsibilty. We are a community of human beings who are interdependent on each other.

Interdependence is a dynamic of being mutally and physically responsible to and sharing a common sense of principles with others.

It is far past the time of rugged individualism. We are a community of people and an extended family. We should work together for the common good.

I don't see how these ideals are immature. In fact I see these ideals as being adult in how we deal with human problems.

You are stuck in the past and your mind is closed.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 2:50pm
Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 2:50pm

It's the classic dependency syndrome. It promotes dependency on others rather than personal responsibility and just as deadly, a lack of accountability.

No, we are and hopefully always will be individuals first, and community second. This is also fully compatible with Christianity. We are responsible to G-d first and foremost as individuals; and then to our brothers and sisters.

And the "lack of ideas or archaic ideas" is simply leftist spin.

I as well as most thinking conservatives admire, appreciate, and welcome change. Especially as regards technology and anything that will improve life as long as our principles are not sacrificed in the name of change.

For instance, I'm a life-long supporter and practicioner of green living. But I'm adamantly opposed to doing so through govt coercion. Whether our Federal govt or even more so due to international dictates. That is not freedom.

Posted by antisocialist at 06/09/2009 @ 3:06pm
To Troll n' Twillie.

I will repeat that healthcare and education should be "rights" and not "privledges". In all other industrialized western countries this is the case. It is only common sense that members of a society should be provided these things. ...

In every other western industrialized society "For profit healthcare" is illegal and considered a crime.

Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 10:56am

I will repeat that it is common sense that the government should not do for a man that which he ought to do for himself.

And that second part is not true. A couple of year ago the Canadian Supreme Court ruled laws against private insurance were unconstitutional.

The Canadian Charter on Rights and Freedoms creates a constitutional right to health care. The Canadian Supreme court ruled that access to a queue is not the same thing as access to healthcare. Since the system was failing to meet the obligations with it's ridiuclously long wait times, the court ruled it was unconstitutional to prohibit people from purchasing care on their own.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/09/2009 @ 3:48pm
In every other western industrialized society "For profit healthcare" is illegal and considered a crime. Posted by chaoszen at 06/09/2009 @ 10:56am

You know, when you make a blanket statement like that, it ought to be accurate. It's not. You're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. In GB, patients go around the NHS and pay for upgraded care routinely. It's not illegal. It's not considered crime.

Posted by twillie at 06/09/2009 @ 9:50pm
What's wrong with a person with an IQ of 90 going immediately from high school to work for GM or Ford or Chrysler or Catapiller or Good Year?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/09/2009 @ 07:10am

spelling usually limits their career choices.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2009 @ 11:55pm
I would like to see the emergence of a technological agrarian society.

say whaaat? I'd like to see black more white.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/11/2009 @ 08:31am
technological agrarian society.

an oxymoron. no not you.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/11/2009 @ 10:43am
Rush could be described as an oxy-contin-moron.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/11/2009 @ 2:05pm