On Thursday night, the Vanguard had 285 people show up to our wildly successful event. Despite that showing, we had a massive amount of leftover food that we could not store. So my wife decided it was a good idea to donate it to those more needy than ourselves.
She posted on Facebook: “Just took 2 trays of delicious tortellini to Occupy folks so they could have a delicious lunch/dinner tomorrow.”
For some reason, that was the impetus for her more conservative side of the family to start objecting to the donation of food.
One person wrote, “Well then they should go find jobs to buy those tents and thermals.” Another added, “They should all go find jobs, then they would not have time to Occupy. then they could support themselves.”
First of all, not everyone in the Occupy Movement is homeless. A lot are activists and students. But the problem, as I pointed out, is there just are not a lot of jobs out there.
One person responded, “Im seriously tired of hearing there r no jobs ive never had any problem finding work and thats with the economy how it is ive always been able to find more work than i could handle and this ‘occupy’ crap they dont even know what they want they just want something.”
I pointed out that the unemployment rate is two or three times what it was just a few years ago.
My wife’s family responded, “Look i dont know why unemployemt is the way its is everyone has an opinion on why or how to fix it. so far nothing works and i know some jobs have all but dried up but there are jobs out there. I see places hiring every day.”
Another added, “People are starting to leave susanville because there is work elsewhere. They need to grow up and try and find jobs elsewhere even if it means going ou[t] of state.”
As one person told me later, “You can’t just tell millions of people to ‘go get a job at McDonalds’ or tell people who can’t afford food to just pack up and move to where the jobs are.”
That is exactly right, and I remember it was not long ago that a few job openings at McDonalds spurred hundreds of people to wait in line to apply. That doesn’t seem to register on people.
The sad part is that the people I am arguing with are people who, for the most part, are disadvantaged by the current structure of the economic system.
In a lot of ways, it reminds me of the exploitative system in the Jim Crow south, where the only group that really prospered from segregation were the rich plantations owners who had a steady flow of very low wage laborers – white and black.
They were able to control the political system to their advantage by convincing the poor whites that the cause of their problems were the “colored” folks. It was to the poor whites’ advantage to join with the blacks and use their political power to create a more equitable distribution of land and wealth, but the racial hatred kept that from occurring.
My wife’s relative say, “stop blaming rich.”
I see two issues at play here. One is the fact that the cause of this recession was, in part, the collapse of Wall Street, particularly Lehman Brothers. Once they declared bankruptcy, due completely to risky borrowing and leveraging of assets along with the collapse of the housing market, the economy collapsed in this country.
What I think few people really understood at the time, and few understand completely now, is that the western financial system almost collapsed in September 2008 and then again in late 2008 and early in 2009.
It is an oversimplification of a very complex process to say that the rich, as embodied by Wall Street financiers and profiteers, caused the problem, but the target in the Occupation is at least directed at the right place, Wall Street.
The crisis was averted by rewarding the same companies that nearly killed this nation and the world’s economy, in an effort to stabilize things. That is part of what is generating the anger, the fact the wealthiest one percent are flourishing financially as the rest of the economy is slogging along.
Where I probably differ with the movement people is that I don’t see anything else that could have been done. That said, the idea of bonuses and huge executive salaries should have been dealt with much better.
Moreover, the Obama administration made a huge error by stacking their economic teams with a bunch of conservative to moderate Wall Street people.
The influence of money in politics has rendered the system nearly incapable of solving problems. The level of partisanship has prevented major reforms and has hindered economic recovery.
And the idea that you cannot raise taxes on the rich because that will hurt the economy is also paralyzing all efforts.
My wife’s family sees this as an issue of just “stop blaming the rich and everyone else and take responsibility.” The problem is that the rich need to take responsibility, specifically the Wall Street class, and they need to pay their share.
My wife’s family responds, “Why do you want to go after the rich when their the one that make the job??? and pay for us to do thing.”
They don’t seem to get the point here and that’s fine. It’s not a matter of going after the rich, it’s a matter of holding those responsible for the economic crisis, responsible. Just because they create jobs, does not mean they are not accountable for their actions.
Moreover, the idea of asking one group of people who are fairly well off to pay their share does not constitute “going after them.”
But that is really a digression from the main point here. The point is that the idea that we can solve, during this crisis, the massive problems of unemployment through individually finding a job is ludicrous. It ignores the structural problems in the system.
My wife’s family simply does not understand this concept. They have been programmed to believe that, in all times, individual actions are to blame for individual problems. There are certainly individual-based contributing factors, but for millions of people, they are not going to improve their lot by simply going and finding a job, because there are very few jobs to be had.
Until we change the structure of things, these problems will persist. And they may even get worse. And the frustration you see is not laziness of the poor, it’s frustration of many.
Frustration can be a bold and empowering thing or it can be a very dangerous thing. So far, the Occupy movement has been peaceful and non-violent, but unless things change, it could radicalize.
It is sad that a simple act of giving away food to those less fortunate could not have been viewed by my wife’s family as the act of generosity it was, and treated with gratitude. But I guess those are the times we live in.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Moreover, the Obama administration made a huge error by stacking their economic teams with a bunch of conservative to moderate Wall Street people.
The influence of money in politics has rendered the system nearly incapable of solving problems. The level of partisanship has prevented major reforms and has hindered economic recovery.[/quote]
[b]Wall Street gave more money to Barack Obama than any other candidate in history[/b]
Yes, about 8% came from private industry…
[b]few say that ALL our problems are Obama’s fault. Yet his progressive “solutions” to said problems [he reportedly inherited] appear to be akin to ‘blowing a hole in the side of a sinking ship in hopes of letting the water out.’ [/b]
Speaking of…[i][b][u]”They” [/i][/b][/u]don’t seem to get the point here…
Let us recall, just 1 of a multitude of comments, e.g., Vice President Joe Biden recently “doubled down” on his “if Republicans don’t pass the president’s ‘jobs’ bill, rapes and murders will increase exponentially” vitriol.
However consider – “Progressives” opine to the effect: the system is “corrupt,” yet never seem to mention Solyndra, Fisker, et al. Whereas, reality tells us “people” are “corrupt.” Nevertheless, such as it is – it doesn’t “fit” the agenda of progressives. Ergo, one is not very likely to hear about it. Regardless, the foregoing is in fact, the heart of the problem.
Think back to the “racists” who at one juncture looked to “eugenics” to “rid the world” of “undesirables.” Said ‘shot-callers” elected to tell the world that “they” were “superior” — in thought and deed. Consequently “they” felt they were “uniquely qualified” to decide who was “worthy” of “what” in society.
—
Largest wealth destruction in American history: Net Wealth Lost 2009-2011 –$8.7 Trillion
Highest sustained Unemployment in decades: 9.1% [currently 9.0%]
Brutal Unemployment for minorities: Black Americans : 16.7%
Unprecedented Unemployment: Black Teenage Americans :46.5%
Historic loss in American credit: U.S. Credit Rating drops to: AA-plus
Historic jump in Number of people in U.S. on Foodstamps : 45.8 Million
Quixotic investment in mythic Green Jobs : $80 billion
· Supposed Number of Green Jobs Created : 255,000
· Approximate Cost of each Green Job: $313,725.50
Stimulus Program: TARP : $475 Billion
Stimulus Program: Shovel Ready projects : $787 Billion
Stimulus Programs: Cash for Clunkers : $3 billion
Stimulus Programs: Cash for Caulkers : $10 Billion
Changes in Unemployment after $1.5 Trillion of government stimulus: +3% change
Averaged cost of a gallon of gas : $3.45 +$1.25 change
New Regulations 2009-2011 : 75 Major New Regulations, 1,827 Rules Amended
Executive Orders signed by Obama : 98
Cost of New Regulations : + $1.75 Trillion annually
Public Debt : $18.8 Trillion
2012 Federal Budget Proposed by Obama : $3.73 Trillion
Percentage of Americans that pay no federal taxes: 51%
Percentage of Federal Spending required from borrowing: 40%
Percentage of Government Spending on Entitlements: 60%
Number of Obama proposals to limit entitlement spending: ZERO
[quote]Where I probably differ with the movement people, is that I don’t see anything else that could have been done. That said, the idea of bonuses and huge executive salaries should have been dealt with much cleaner.[/quote]
I agree a bailout was probably necessary, but it should have had huge strings attached – but it did not. Instead it has been business as usual, including at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The abhorrent practice of robo-signing by banks in the foreclosure industry is still rampant. Just as one example of how little the system has changed:
The SEC started an investigation of Deutshe Bank for insider trading and fraud. The investigator assigned to the case was given a cushy job at Deutshe Bank a few months after the investigation opened. As soon as the investigator left, the investigation of Deutshe Bank by the SEC ceased. There is a notorious revolving door between the SEC and the very banks it is supposed to be regulating.
So we the taxpayers are footing the bill for an SEC, that is essentially in bed with the very entities it is supposed to be investigating. There is something very wrong with this picture, and the Obama administration, Democrats and Republicans want to point fingers elsewhere instead of addressing the very real problem of corruption/collusion in our federal gov’t. The same sort of thing has gone on at the oil regulation agencies, the solar industry as noted above by AdRemmer, etc ad nauseum. The fact of the matter is that taxing the rich will not resolve even a scintilla of the overarching problem of gov’t corruption.
[quote]So far the occupy movement has been peaceful and non-violent, but unless things change, it could radicalize.[/quote]
Frankly, the Occupy Wall Street movement has not done a single thing to address the very real problems of gov’t corruption… instead turning violent and destructive themselves, so they are becoming very much a part of the problem rather than the solution…
“So far, the Occupy movement has been peaceful and non-violent, but unless things change, it could radicalize.”
Ha, are you kidding? David, quit watching MSNBC which tries to downplay the violence and watch some real news and you’ll know that the movement is already getting more radical and violent.
Isn’t it lovely for Davis families to bring their children and grandkids to to Central Park so they can see and ask questions about the drug addicts and homeless occupying the grounds. Once again, it’s time for Davis to move the Occupiers from Central Park. The longer they let them stay the harder it’s going to get the slime out.
Obama Inherited
AAA credit rating
7.1 % official unemployment rate
$1.85 gas prices
10 trillion dollar debt
26 week unemployment benefits
a budget
304,761,895 population
13,524,982 actual unemployed people
People on food stamps —————-31.79 million
Debt per CITIZEN $33,600
Debt per TAXPAYER $94,360
NOW
AA+ credit rating ————— down ONE A
9.2% unemployment rate ——— up 2.1 percentage points up 29.5%
$3.29 gas prices ———- up $1.44
14.73 trillion debt ————- up $4.73 TRILLION
99 week unemployment benis ——————— up 73 weeks
no budget 870+ days
312,137,944 population ————————–up 7,376,049
24,865,661 actual unemployed people ——up 11,340,679
People on food stamps —————-45.712million up just under 14 MILLION
Debt per CITIZEN $47,199 ——————-up $13,599
Debt per TAXPAYER $131,420 ————— up $37,060
A brief history lesson:
1977: Jimmy Carter (D) signs the Community Reinvestment Act, guaranteeing homes loans to low-income families.
1999: Bill Clinton (D) puts the CRA on steroids by pushing Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (F&F) to increase the number of sub-prime loans (owning a home is now a ‘right’.).
1999 (September): New York Times publishes an article, ‘Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending’, which warned of the coming crisis due to lax lending policies of the Clinton (D) administration.
2003: White House calls Fannie and Freddie a “systemic risk”. The Bush (R) administration pushes Congress to enact new regulations.
2003: Barney Frank (D) says F&F are “not in a crisis” and bashes Republicans for crying wolf and calls F&F “Financially Sound” Democrats block Republican sponsored regulation legislation.
2005: Fed Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan voices warning over F&F accounting “We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk”
2005: Sen Charles Schumer (D) says “I think F & F over the years have done an incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world.”.
2006 Sen. John McCain (R) again calls for reform of the regulatory structure that governs F&F.
2006: Democrats again block reform legislation.
2008: Housing market collapses: Democrats blame the Republicans.
2009: democrats push through one half billion dollars to a failing “green” company Solyndra, touted by Obama as the “model” for
GREEN…. Sept 2011 bankrupt…..
If they are the 99% and they are [quote]those more needy than ourselves.[/quote] doesn’t that imply that you part of the 1%?
It’s hard to keep the narrative straight when it is based on nonsense.
Thanks AdRemmer for the “straight talk”…
Good point J.R.!
AdRemmer: If you’re going to cut and paste, you should at least credit the source.
JR,
“If they are the 99% and they are
‘those more needy than ourselves.’(DMG)
doesn’t that imply that you part of the 1%?
It’s hard to keep the narrative straight when it is based on nonsense.”
Nonsense? If 1-you assume that there are not various levels of “need” within the 99%, insofar as someone can’t be among the referenced 99% and have a surplus of food and 2-if a person or group of people are more in need than others (ie David), the latter must be among the 1%.
I believe your have erroneously inferred that David’s family is “part of the 1%” as surely it was neither implied nor follows logically to conclude as you have here.
A somewhat different view of the origins of the financial crisis:
[url]http://tonysblog.co/wordpress/the-economy/who-is-to-blame-for-the-state-of-our-economy/[/url]
Anyone who just puts the (D)’s on one side, and the (R)’s on the other, is just posting a polemic.
[quote]…at least credit the source.[/quote]
Sure: “Unknown” author…
Now I can expect you to require same from other posters, correct?
It’s not unknown, AdRemmer. I found the author.
What I wonder is, from a conservative point of view here, what is one supposed to do with the 2 trays of delicious tortellini? Throw it away so as to not enable someone who doesn’t appear to be working?
And if I happen to have a spare tent in my garage that I haven’t used in eight years, and maybe some thermals as well, it would be better to throw those out, too, or see if I could get money for them in a garage sale?
Is that also a position advocating that we should stay away from volunteering at soup kitchens or homeless shelters? Most especially because they may have contrary political views?
[i]It’s not unknown, AdRemmer. I found the author.[/i]
But remember, Don, if you post the source for AdRemmer, you’ll just be enabling a conservative to not do his own research.
Don,
Great link. I agree with all of it. There is much “blame” to go around. I don’t assess more blame to Democrats over Republicans per se, as I do assess more blame to liberal ideology over conservative ideology related to domestic social and economic policy. The former being the mindset of top-down control of outcomes through social engineering and the later being the mindset of individual freedom and personal consequences through self-determination. I think the differences between these two mindsets are subtle… for example I would say that you and I probably agree with much more than we disagree on even though you might identify yourself as being politically left of center, and I might identify myself as being politically right of center.
In my view this “right” or “left” label does not really matter except for understanding certain sensitivities we might have. What matters more to me is the base collection of ideas, assumptions and principles we make our decisions from. This is where our debates should rage because, IMO, this is the root determination of our success or failure at the great American experiment.
I recently convinced my brother to read Atlas Shrugged. As Pat Buchannan said “I had to flog myself to get through it”, and my brother agreed that it was a long-winded tome. He has been calling me almost daily as he alarmingly notes the fictional story unfolding for in real time. Recently we talked about the length of the book and both agreed that this had something to do with the state of our economic situation today. It relates to our growing inability to consume any deep thinking about the state of overall happiness and fulfillment. Our founders completed what was probably the most well thought-out design of human governance in the history of mankind, and they we promptly set about to erode and eventually destroy all that hard work… because hard work sucks and “I want it easy and I want it now!”
The benefits and design of a world of individual, but principled, freedom and competition in a shared moral context is much more difficult to explain. It is made more difficult as our political decision making has been drastically corrupted by the devolution of our media as an objective source of news. It is all about the sound bite… it is why the anonymous claims of sexual harassment against Herman Cain get all the media attention for his Presidential run, and not his ideas for taxation and governance. This tendency for our media and society to shrug delayed gratification has given rise to the wrong type of politician: the populist egomaniac… the same type that gravitates toward the stage and the applause. A population trained to reject hard thinking and difficult messages combined with a corrupt media prone to sound bites and politician-actors lacking real leadership skills… this is our reality and our recipe for decline and eventual failure.
We see it unfolding in Europe; yet it seems we cannot stop ourselves from meeting the same fate. The Occupy crowd is both evidence of the problem and a source of the problem.
Almost 50% of the population does not pay a penny of federal income tax. Almost 50% receive food stamps. This includes families making $50,000. Families making $50,000 are in the top 5% of the global income percentile yet in the US we are still compelled to take from families making $75,000 to redistribute to them.
Recently Alabama passed legislation to be tougher on illegal immigrants. This resulted in a reduced supply of farm workers. Legal Americans are not replacing these lost illegal workers in great enough numbers. Why? Because they get so many government benefits that there is no incentive to do the hard work. Liberal politician-actors like Obama use this as evidence that we need more government income redistribution and charity: more illegal immigrants and more benefits to those poor $50k families. This is the cycle of irrational thinking (i.e., insanity) similar to what started the housing crises.
You should not be enabled to receive a home loan until you have develop adequate income stability, credit history and enough financial acumen to understand what the hell you are signing. Before we should accept your rants about greedy corporations and your demands for more social benefits, you should first have spent a few years working for a living… that means flipping burgers and picking crops if you don’t have better options. The Occupy crowd is mostly the spoiled children of the “greatest embarrassment” Baby Boomer generation that demanded everyone owned a house and then gorged on equity. Yes, we screwed up and made a mess of things. However, these kids are screwed up in what they are demanding: more of the same. What they really need is tough love… a one-way ticket to Alabama cotton and poultry farms to learn the value of hard work.
[i]”But remember, Don, if you post the source for AdRemmer, you’ll just be enabling a conservative to not do his own research.”[/i]
Don or anonymous: instead of energy spent on applying your rules of journalism on other’s posts, how about using it to debate the facts. I agree that it is better to quote the author; however I have saved validated information that I am comfortable restating even lacking a source. Facts are facts no matter who first stated them, right?
It is a common tactic of the politican left to ignore facts not serving their political agenda or worldview and just demonoize and discredit the source. Conservatives, on the other hand, are much more comfortable debating the facts first and foremost. For example, the left gets their news from Jon Stewart, David Letterman and SNL; institutions that make their living attacking, demonizing and discrediting mostly people on the political right. However, Fox News, where many conservative go to get their news, invites all prominant lefties on their shows to debate facts and ideas.
JB,
“For example, the left gets their news from Jon Stewart, David Letterman and SNL;”
Speaking of “facts,” have you anything to support this assertion? Does the above fall under “validated information that I (JB) am comfortable restating even lacking a source.”
“However, Fox News, where many conservative go to get their news, invites all prominant lefties on their shows to debate facts and ideas.”
So what you’re saying is both liberals and conservatives seek out entertainers as their primary news sources?
Where people get their news (scroll down to News Habits of the Typology Groups):
[url]http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/section-3-demographics-and-news-sources/[/url]
Fox News doesn’t invite “lefties” on. Fox commentators sometimes do. Or so I’ve heard. Jon Stewart regularly has “righties” on as well, and much to his credit posts long versions of his interviews (too long for the 30 min segment) on their website. The interview with Condoleeza Rice the other day was very interesting.
I don’t know what facts I’m supposed to debate with AdRemmer. The long list of statistics that he/she posted (which you can find verbatim on blogs all over the place) is in the service of the analysis that Obama has somehow made everything worse (including such extraneous things as the total population). I could go through point by point, but we’d just get lost in the weeds. I don’t agree that fiscal policies since 2008 have made things worse, necessarily. And since the congressional Democrats haven’t been able to implement any fiscal policy for the last two years, nor have Republicans, it is difficult to blame either of them for the current economic conditions. Blame impasse if you like. Nobody owns this economy at this point, unfortunately.
I don’t think anything being proposed by Republican candidates will make anything better.
I consider Atlas Shrugged to be one of the worst books I never finished.
DAVID: [i]”One is the fact that [b]the cause of this recession was, in part, the collapse of Wall Street[/b], particularly Lehman Brothers. Once they declared bankruptcy, due completely to risky borrowing and leveraging of assets along with the collapse of the housing market, the economy collapsed in this country.”[/i]
No, that was the effect. The cause was indisputably the overbuilt and overpriced housing sector. There is not a respected economist in this country–not even a far-left columnist for the New York Times–who would disagree with what brought on the recession.
The Wall Street meltdown–of a number of large investment banks and others heavily invested in the housing market and the primary and secondary mortgage market–came as a result of the housing price bubble bursting.
Yet despite the absolute consensus on what lies at the heart of our economic troubles–the excess housing inventory, a large percentage of it undercapitalized–the Obama Administration, now almost 3 full years in, has never put forward any legislation to deal with that problem. They have wrongly assumed that by handing money to cities like Davis so we could build better sidewalks at our downtown intersections, that would so stimulate the economy that the economic malady would be cured. As I noted before the Obama stimulus package was voted on, it would surely fail. And it has failed spectacularly.
The answer to our current national economic troubles today is the same I called for in early 2009: we need to incentivize those with capital to purchase every foreclosed and every upside-down property. That is not that hard to achieve; and achieving it will bring on a new period of strong growth.
[i]”I consider Atlas Shrugged to be one of the worst books I never finished.”[/i]
Apparently off-topic comments are okay, today. To wit, I give my odds on who wins the Republican nomination for president and in parentheses if that person wins the GOP slot, will he or she beat Mr. Obama in the general election:
Bachmann 3.3% (no)
Cain 6.3% (no)
Gingrich 7.6% (no)
Huntsman 1.1% (yes)
Johnson 0.2% (yes)
Paul 5.5% (no)
Perry 28.8% (yes)*
Roemer 0.1% (no)
Romney 44.2% (yes)
Santorum 2.9% (no)
*Perry is a close call. He is running now as if our country at large is more right-wing than his state of Texas is. He will have to greatly moderate his views to beat Obama. Yet, given the terrible economy (based on high unemployment), Perry will be able to edge out Obama. It will be an easier task for Huntsman, Johnson and Romney, all of whom are center-rightists in the mainstream. Of course, Johnson and Huntsman won’t win the Republican primary vote.
[i]Don: “I don’t agree that fiscal policies since 2008 have made things worse, necessarily. And since the congressional Democrats haven’t been able to implement any fiscal policy for the last two years, nor have Republicans, it is difficult to blame either of them for the current economic conditions. Blame impasse if you like. Nobody owns this economy at this point, unfortunately.”[/i]
AdRemmer gives you a long list of facts and you just say they are unquoted, common and too numerous to debate and throw out your unsubstantiated opinion of the opposite. I hope you can recognize the absurdity of that approach.
By every historical precedent Obama is a massive failure of a President. I think the people that still cling to him must have a predisposition to stay in an abusive relationship.
Rich,
Interesting odds. I’m not sure I agree with all of them, but most of them. I think you might underestimate the strength of conservatives and the Tea Party for the GOP nomination and the number of voters itching for real change to get the economy back on track. I assume your odds are based on some assumption as to where the economy will be come election 2012. My opinion is that it will be a bit better but that the average person will not yet feel better off… and by that time there will be much less support for Obama and the Democrats.
Related to this… what do you expect to happen to Congress in election 2012?
What am I supposed to debate, Jeff?
Obama didn’t cause the credit rating to fall.
Unemployment is persistent and is a result of the recession. Obama didn’t cause the recession.
Obama isn’t responsible for gas prices.
The debt is a shared responsibility of Bush, Obama, and several years of Congress under both party’s leaderships
I support extension of unemployment benefits as long as unemployment is high. I support continuing the safety net during periods of severe recession.
Obama isn’t responsible for the budget.
I’m not sure why the US population increase is being cited.
I don’t care how many people are on food stamps. I consider that symptom of the recession. The number should alarm you for what it shows about how bad the economic situation is — that so many people need food assistance.
The last numbers are just reinforcements of the debt issue; see above.
Obama is doing as well as can be expected with a very bad economy, a divided congress, an opposition which refuses to compromise on any issue, and a divided country. His foreign policy alone is nearly sufficient reason to re-elect him. But that is another topic.
The only candidate I would give even a qualified (yes) to on Rich’s list is Romney, and I am very doubtful he could beat Obama. I think Obama would handily beat the others, at least those likely to survive the primaries and actually get nominated.
Have fun with this map: [url]http://www.270towin.com/[/url]
There are only about 7 – 8 states that are really in play in 2012. I see few combinations that lead to a Republican victory.
—–
[i]AA+ credit rating ————— down ONE A
9.2% unemployment rate ——— up 2.1 percentage points up 29.5%
$3.29 gas prices ———- up $1.44
14.73 trillion debt ————- up $4.73 TRILLION
99 week unemployment benis ——————— up 73 weeks
no budget 870+ days
312,137,944 population ————————–up 7,376,049
24,865,661 actual unemployed people ——up 11,340,679
People on food stamps —————-45.712million up just under 14 MILLION
Debt per CITIZEN $47,199 ——————-up $13,599
Debt per TAXPAYER $131,420 ————— up $37,060 [/i]
David,
Every bit as interesting as your observations on the Occupy Movement was your articulated frustration with your wife’s family and their polar opposite political leanings from your own. I feel the same frustration every time I travel to Montana and talk politics with many of the far right wing ranchers there. You must have a strong relationship with Cecelia lest you be spending the next month sleeping on the couch!
By the way, congrats on your successful fund raiser!
[i]what do you expect to happen to Congress in election 2012?[/i]
Democrats will likely pick back up some of the seats they lost in 2010, but not enough to control the House. 13 to 14 seats, most likely. They might lose control of the Senate, but probably not. More likely a closer margin, possibly even a 50:50 split.
“[i]a predisposition to stay in an abusive relationship.[/i]”
Yeah, right.
It would be interesting to find the areas of agreement between the Tea Party and the Occupy crowd. I’m guessing that might happen at a fair number of Thanksgiving tables this month.
Don: Obama is failing to fix anything related to the economy. It is all happening on his watch. Democrats owned both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government his first two years in office, and that was coming off a prior two years of Dem-controlled Congress.
You can’t keep making these types of excuses for him and not have your objectivity questioned. Bush got skewered when gas prices hit $4k. They have been at or near $4 for all of Obama’s term. You might like this because you think it will help spur a move to alternative energy. Well then, how is that working for all the people unemployed and freezing because of the high price of fossil fuels?
What has Obama’s leadership or policies done to help the economy? If your excuse is that Congress is too partisan, then that too is Obama’s fault. It is unprecedented how he continues to jab conservatives and the GOP. He is the most partisan President ever, and he has been completely ineffective at bring the two sides to gether. You seem to drink the left media Koolaid that it is all the GOP’s fault for blocking, blocking, blocking. You are either bling to, or ignorant of, the expect role of a President to unite and negotiate. To reach out to those that might have a different view to incorporate them into the decison process. Obama consistently makes it clear that there are two teams and his team is the righteous and worthy one, and the other is just too stupid to get it. Then he whines and complains that they don’t help him win the popularity game he so craves.
Obama is absolutely the worse President ever in my lifetime. He is destoying the country by his actions and his lack of actions. I would take Jimmy Carter back in a heartbeat to get rid of him.
Note… sorry agout the typos… I was in a hurry… my wife was glaring at me for blogging to much! =/
I completely disagree with your assessment.
The president doesn’t have anything to do with the price of gasoline. I don’t think Bush caused $4 a gallon gas, nor did Obama. Nor would I support any kind of energy policy that had as a goal reducing the cost of gasoline. Would you?
Obama has bent over backwards to compromise with the Republicans. I think much of what David would argue is that he thinks Obama has compromised too much. On health care, on the Bush tax cuts, on deficit reduction: all those major issues, Republicans completely refused to compromise. Completely. He negotiated, they walked. The far left thinks he “caved” on all those issues.
[i]”Democrats owned both the legislative and executive branches”[/i]
It only took 40 votes to block everything. And the Republicans used that time and time again. They just did it again with his jobs proposal.
The filibuster:
[url]http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/11/chart-day-republicans-and-filibuster[/url]
And his foreign policy is balanced and effective. Just looking at who is advising Romney, not to mention the other candidates, gives me serious pause.
[i]”Related to this… what do you expect to happen to Congress in election 2012?”[/i]
I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other. I do expect, if Romney is the GOP nominee and if the unemployment rate does not drop quite a lot (-3%) in the next year, Obama will lose the White House and that will help Republicans down the ticket, picking up Senate seats and House seats in Congress.
But there are three factors which should make those GOP pick-ups a bit smaller: one, they already knocked off a lot of vulnerable Democrats in 2010, when they took the House and gained seats in the Senate. So that limits the numer of vulnerable candidates to knock off in 2012; two, the congressional Republicans are even more unpopular in the current opinion polls than the congressional Democrats or the president is. So that suggests to me, even though I think it will be a Republican year, it won’t be a replay of 1994; and three, in some states–California being the most salient and most important in this respect–the post-2010 Census redistricting works against Republican gains. They will lose quite a few seats in California, just on the redistricting basis alone. I don’t know if there are other states which will erase that loss for the Republicans.
One thing I am sure of: the California legislature, which has had a terrible, brutal and horrible year when it comes to governing our state, when it comes to writing legislation which is good for the common people of our state (but at the same time great for the prospects of organized labor) will be overwhelmingly Democratic. And with a pliant governor who has signed all those terrible bills that labor purchased with huge campaign donations to people like Gov. Brown and Mariko Yamada, the public employees will continue to run our state and our counties and our cities and our school districts and our community college districts into the ground. We are doomed.
Don Shor:
“It only took 40 votes to block everything. And the Republicans used that time and time again. They just did it again with his jobs proposal.”
In all fairness Mr. Shor, there’s two sides to that story:
“The Republican led House has approved more than 15 bills that, if enacted, would immediately help to grow the economy without more failed stimulus spending. These bills are currently stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate and the president has not encouraged the Senate to act.”
I still chuckle when I think of the Occupy sign I saw at Farmers market:
“Everything for everybody”
@ rusty: and here they are, the bills passed by the House. Gee, I can’t imagine why they aren’t going anywhere.
… amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to clarify that the Administrator of the … EPA or a state [b]may not require a permit[/b] under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act[b] for the application of pesticides [/b]regulated under FIFRA. The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act would ensure that pesticide users are not faced with unnecessary regulations that harm job growth.
… would strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.
,,, would [b]prohibit[/b] the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) [b]from imposing net neutrality[/b] regulations on Internet providers
…would [b]reduce[/b] the federal government’s [b]power over individual state’s water quality standards [/b]to help increase job growth.
… to strengthen the review authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council of regulations issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
… would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from ordering any employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstance
… would establish an 11-member committee, chaired by the Department of Commerce, to analyze the impacts of a number of major Environment Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.
… would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations from coming into effect which would place [b]burdensome regulations on the cement industry.[/b]
… would help to [b]curtail [/b]the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Boiler MACT [b]regulations on boilers and industrial incinerators.[/b]
… would [b]prohibit the EPA from regulating coal ash as a toxic waste[/b] in any state which prefers to develop its own plans in that regard.
… would establish statutory [b]deadlines for sales of certain oil and gas leases[/b] in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
… would [b]jump start offshore oil drilling[/b] by implementing a 30-day deadline in which the secretary of the U.S. Interior Department would have to make a decision on the [b]Gulf of Mexico [/b]drilling permit applications.
… would reverse President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act…
… off the coast of Alaska. … the EPA will be required to take final action – granting or denying a permit – within six months.
… The bill would require the President to issue a final order granting or denying the Presidential Permit for Keystone XL 30 days after the issuance of the final environmental impact statement, but in no event later than November 1, 2011.
Don Shor, if you’re going to cut and past at least credit the source.
Here’s the true take on the proposed bills from GOP.gov:
“The “Forgotten Fifteen”
1) H.R. 872—Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act: The bill would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state may not require a permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the application of pesticides regulated under FIFRA. By removing duplicative requirements, the bill would reduce overlapping and unnecessary regulation on pesticides that are already regulated, thereby reducing costs to both farmers and small business owners.
2) H.R. 910—Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011: H.R. 910 would prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases to address climate change under the Clean Air Act. More specifically, the bill would prohibit the EPA from regulating: water vapor; carbon dioxide; methane; nitrous oxide; and any other substance subject to regulation, action or consideration under the Clean Air Act to address climate change. The bill would prevent a needless increase in energy prices for American households and businesses.
3) H.J.Res. 37—Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices: The bill would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from implementing a net-neutrality rule which would prohibit Internet providers from slowing or blocking legal websites or Internet services because of concerns over bandwidth. In May 2010, seventy-four House Democrats sent a letter to FCC Chairman Genachowski making the case that net-neutrality rules will “jeopardize jobs” and “should not be done without additional direction from Congress.”
4) H.R. 1230—Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act: H.R. 1230 would require the Department of the Interior (DOI) to auction offshore oil and gas leases in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, as well as in an area off the coast of Virginia. The bill would help to reduce energy prices and promote job creation by expediting offshore oil and natural gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and the Virginia coast.
5) H.R. 1229—Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act: H.R. 1229 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to require that any lessee operating under an approved exploration plan obtain a permit before drilling any well, and obtain a new permit before drilling any well of a design that is significantly different than the design for which an existing permit was issued. The bill would prohibit the Secretary from issuing a permit without ensuring that the proposed drilling operations meet all critical safety system requirements (including blowout prevention), and oil spill response and containment requirements.
6) H.R. 1231—Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act: H.R. 1231 would require that each five-year offshore oil and gas leasing program offer leasing in the areas with the most prospective oil and gas resources, and would establish a domestic oil and natural gas production goal. The bill would essentially lift the President’s ban on new offshore drilling by requiring the Administration to move forward on American energy production in areas estimated to contain the most oil and natural gas resources.
7) H.R. 2021—The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011: H.R. 2021 would eliminate needless permitting delays that have stalled important energy production opportunities off the coast of Alaska. The bill would also eliminate the permitting back-and-forth that occurs between the EPA and its Environmental Appeals Board. Rather than having exploration air permits repeatedly approved and rescinded by the agency and its review board, the EPA will be required to take final action – granting or denying a permit—within six months.
8) H.R. 2018—Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011: H.R. 2018 would a restrict the EPA ability to issue a revised or new water quality standard for a pollutant whenever a state has adopted and EPA already has approved a water quality standard for that pollutant, unless the state concurs with the EPA Administrator’s determination that the revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The bill would prevent unilateral actions by the EPA that second-guess the decisions of the state regulatory agency.
9) H.R. 1315—Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act: H.R. 1315 would improve consumer protection and provides greater economic stability by allowing the Financial Stability Oversight Council to vote to set aside any harmful federal regulation.
10) H.R. 1938— North American-Made Energy Security Act: H.R. 1938 would direct the President, acting through the Secretary of Energy, to coordinate with all federal agencies responsible for an aspect of the President’s National Interest Determination and Presidential Permit decision regarding construction and operation of Keystone XL, to ensure that all necessary actions are taken on an expedited schedule. The bill would promote job creation and energy security by ending the needless delay of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline.
11) H.R. 2587—Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act: H.R. 2587 would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance.
12) H.R. 2401—Transparency In Regulatory Analysis Of Impacts On The Nation: H.R. 2401 would require analyses of the cumulative and incremental impacts of certain rules and actions of the Environmental EPA. Specifically, the bill would require the President to establish the Committee for the Cumulative Analysis of Regulations that Impact Energy and Manufacturing. The Committee would be charged with analyzing and reporting on the cumulative and incremental impacts of covered rules and actions of the EPA concerning air, waste, water, and climate change. The bill would establish the interagency committee to evaluate the economic impacts of EPA regulations and delay the final dates for both the maximum achievable control technology (Utility MACT) standards and the cross-state air pollution rule (CSAPR) until the full impact has been studied. Both regulations would cost consumers and businesses $184 billion from 2011-2030 and would cause electrical prices to skyrocket.
13) H.R. 2681—Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act: H.R. 2681 would provide a legislative stay of three EPA emissions standards that apply to cement manufacturing plants and are known as the “Cement MACT rules.” The bill would also provide for the implementation of effective regulation that protects communities both environmentally and economically.
14) H.R. 2250—EPA Regulatory Relief Act: H.R. 2250 would provide a legislative stay of four interrelated EPA rules, commonly referred to as the “Boiler MACT rules,” that govern emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from approximately 200,000 boilers and incinerators nationwide. The bill would remove this excessive regulatory burden placed on employers by the EPA’s Boiler MACT rules, potentially costing companies $14 billion and 224,000 American jobs, and replace them with sensible, achievable rules that do not destroy jobs.
15) H.R. 2273—Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act: H.R. 2273 would utilize the framework and requirements of an existing federal regulatory program developed by the EPA under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA) as the basis for enforceable minimum federal standards for the regulation of a waste stream known as coal ash. The bill would include enforceable federal standards, but would leave regulation and enforcement to the states. The bill would also provide consistent, safe management of coal combustion residuals in a way that protects jobs and encourages recycling and beneficial use.”
They were from freedomworks.org. What you posted, of course, is from the GOP web site and is filled with their spin. Their ideas all seem to involve increasing pollution and speeding up energy production regardless of the consequences.
Just to take one example, I can’t see how protecting the cable and telephone companies from the FCC’s regulation of net neutrality has anything to do with creating jobs.
This is interesting Don. Obama rode in on a white horse domestic agenda, and while in Congress and on the campaign trail he and his supporters skewered Bush for his foreign policy. Obama has kept Bush’s foreign policy related to the war on terrorism and didn’t pull out of Iraq like he said he would, and I think he has earned praise for this (even though it was a big flip-flop from his election position). However, Iran and Israel are heading for war, North Korea is still a powder keg and Afghanistan is still a mess.
You still don’t get it about the GOP not cooperating with Obama. You don’t understand the role of a leader. Obama blew it. You cannot stand up there taking pot shots, making enemies of people you exclude and demonize, and then expect to have sympathy because these same people do not support you. You cannot recover from that approach. Obama is not an affirmative action charity case; he is the President of the US. The performance bar should be very high, don’t you think? The GOP dislikes Obama. He is two-faced and divisive. He is a silver-tongued, egotistical, Chicago politics thug. He talks compromise and then he goes on air and stabs his opponents in the back. He makes commitments toward cooperation, and then takes every opportunity to exploit his power to win battles against the people he disagrees with. Those that might have been persuaded to work with him have grown consider him a danger to the country and our way of life. They do not trust him (thanks to Obama’s words and actions), they see him as a leftist ideologue, a weak populist leader, and they want him gone.
When you make a list of the things that tend to make the US population disapprove of their President… Obama gets checks on most.
Rich: “We are doomed”
I think California will be the advanced play of Atlas Shrugged. Only the damn great weather and fantastic scenery prevent it from happening today. However, the wealthy will continue to locate elsewhere to retain more of their earnings, and the middle class will continue to be priced out or have to move to find adequate employment, and all that will be left is politicians, public-sector union employees (the new wealthy) and a mass of people with their hand out.
It is interesting… similar to Europe… many of the most beautiful placed on the earth falling apart at the seams. Maybe there is some correlation.
I am thinking about North Dakota. Terrible weather, not so beautiful, and likely economically and politically stable.
Related to Rich’s prediction that California is doomed:
[quote]Orange County Register: A life-size statue of Ronald Reagan was damaged during an attempted theft from a memorial at Bonita Canyon Sports Park early Sunday, police said.[/quote]
Related to Don’s support of Obama:
[quote]On This Week: “Arianna Huffington remarking on Obama’s attempt to create infrastructure jobs “Its all a show!”[/quote]
“David, quit watching MSNBC which tries to downplay the violence and watch some real news and you’ll know that the movement is already getting more radical and violent.”
I can honestly tell you, the only TV I have watched in the last six months is sprout or sports.
“Isn’t it lovely for Davis families to bring their children and grandkids to to Central Park so they can see and ask questions about the drug addicts and homeless occupying the grounds. “
Have you talked to the people in the park, most are not that. I do find it odd that people are so accepting of having homeless people in the wealthiest society in the world.
[quote]I think much of what David would argue is that he thinks Obama has compromised too much. On health care, on the Bush tax cuts, on deficit reduction: all those major issues, Republicans completely refused to compromise. Completely. He negotiated, they walked. The far left thinks he “caved” on all those issues. [/quote]
Who walked out? From politico.com:
[quote]President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of a stormy debt-limit meeting with congressional leaders Wednesday, a dramatic setback to the already shaky negotiations…[/quote]
[quote]I can honestly tell you, the only TV I have watched in the last six months is sprout or sports.[/quote]
The violence of the Occupy Wall Street movement has been all over the internet…
Examples of things that Obama says that grow partisanship and classism… remember folks; this is supposed to be your President and my President…
[quote]” So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”[/quote]
[quote]” Has anybody been watching the debates lately? You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change. It’s true. You’ve got audiences cheering at the prospect of somebody dying because they don’t have health care and booing a service member in Iraq because they’re gay.”[/quote]
[quote]” “The alternative I think is an approach to government that would fundamentally cripple America in meeting the challenges of the 21st Century and that’s not the kind of society that I want to bequeath to Malia and Sasha, and your children and your grandchildren.”[/quote]
[quote]” “I have no problem with folks saying ‘Obama Cares.’ I do care. If the other side wants to be the folks who don’t care, that’s fine with me.”[/quote]
[quote]” “Before we ask our seniors to pay more for Medicare, before we cut our children’s schools, we should ask corporate jet owners to pay more. I don’t think that’s real radical. I think the majority of Americans agree with that.”[/quote]
[quote]” “If you are a wealthy CEO … your taxes are lower than they’ve ever been. You can still afford to ride on your private jet, you’re just going to have to pay a little more.”[/quote]
[quote]”From the moment I took office, what we’ve seen is a constant ideological pushback against any kind of sensible reforms that would make our economy work better and give people more opportunity”[/quote]
[quote]”Republicans want to “cut taxes for folks who don’t need it”[/quote]
[quote]” Republicans, including the field of presidential hopefuls, would eliminate vital regulations, leave the country with dirtier air and let the banks do whatever they want”[/quote]
[quote]” Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.”[/quote]
[quote]AdRemmer: If you’re going to cut and paste, you should at least credit the source. [/quote]
Don, ROFL…Said Mr. Pot to Mr. Kettle…
BTW, the author is ‘unknown’ to [b][u] me [/b][/u], as I don’t recall from where I found the saved info thus… to whom to cite.
Thanks for playin’ tho…
SM wrote: [quote]…Fox News, where many conservative go to get their news…[/quote]
Can you now use YOUR own standard to supply substantiation re: “Many.”
How ‘many’ is ‘many,’ SM? In a world of approx. 7 Billion, a country of 350 Million, a state of 38 Million, a county of 200 thousand, would the number of people who showed for Vanguard dinner or the number of protesters in Sacramento or those who “Marched” in support of Navarro be “many?”
Huh?
[i]” I do find it odd that people are so accepting of having homeless people in the wealthiest society in the world.”[/i]
A great percentage of our nation’s long-term homeless are mentally ill people. I do find it odder that civil libertarians (like you) are so accepting of having mentally ill people living in our gutters in one of the wealthiest societies in the world.
What we ought to be doing is forcibly picking up the mentally ill who are homeless or uncared for. We need to have psychiatrists examine them and diagnose them. We need mental health professionals to recommend a course of treatment. And in those cases where the patients are severely mentally ill and unable or unwilling to be treated on their own, we need to force treatment upon them (under the jurisdiction of a court order and some sort of public guardianship).
If we did that, we would solve a large fraction of the homeless problem in the United States. Notably this problem blew up in the 1970s in the wake of our courts and lawmakers choosing to close mental hospitals all over the country. If we did what I suggest, those severely mentally ill people who are living in gutters or cardboard boxes or in urban alcoves would start to live in dignity. … But alas, we have a civil libertarian ethic which thinks that these homeless choose to live in horrible conditions. That is the real shame: that so many Americans value civil liberties for the mentally ill over basic dignity.
Rich: I don’t support that approach but I do agree it is unacceptable that we allow homeless people (39 to 45% have some form of mental illness, 20 to 25% have serious mental illness) live in the streets.
One of the big issues with regard to the mentally ill is the stigma of severe psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar manic depression (aka bipolar disorder). According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness*, the number one source of stigmatization to the mentally ill comes from the behaviors of the homeless mentally ill. That is, people are (rightly so) scared of them.
So unless we take the homeless mentally ill off the streets and make sure they get treatment, all mentally ill people will continue to be stigmatized.
*Sadly NAMI is infused with left-wing psychologists who appear to me to be more intent on making money than they are on solving problems.
@ AdRemmer: Lurita Doan is usually credited with the article that you posted.
[url]http://townhall.com/columnists/luritadoan/2011/10/10/obama–the_numbers_dont_lie/page/full/[/url]
More about Lurita Doan here:
[url]http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/lurita_doan/[/url]
AdRemmer wrote,
“SM wrote:
…Fox News, where many conservative go to get their news…
Can you now use YOUR own standard to supply substantiation re: ‘Many.’
How ‘many’ is ‘many,’ SM? In a world of approx. 7 Billion, a country of 350 Million, a state of 38 Million, a county of 200 thousand, would the number of people who showed for Vanguard dinner or the number of protesters in Sacramento or those who ‘Marched’ in support of Navarro be ‘many?’
Huh?”
@AdRemmer-If you seek substantiation with respect to the above quote incorrectly attributed to me, it would be best to ask its author, Jeff Boone.
[i]”If you seek substantiation with respect to the above quote incorrectly attributed to me, it would be best to ask its author, Jeff Boone.”[/i]
Don Shor posted a resource to check where people with different political leanings get their news. Interesting that 54% conservatives get their news from Fox, while 55% of liberals get their news from the combination of NPR and The Daily Show. It is also interesting that moderate Dems and Reps get their news from Fox at about the same percentage (35% and 37% respectively).
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/news.jpg[/img]
SM, thanks for clearing that up. In my haste, your republising methodology threw me.
Don Shor thanks for the link. Never read that article, ever.
Jeff Boone,
“It is also interesting that moderate Dems and Reps get their news from Fox at about the same percentage (35% and 37% respectively).”
Are “Hard-Pressed Dems” and “Main Street Reps” both considered moderates for the purposes of this study?
In light of these figures, your assertion that “For example, the left gets their news from Jon Stewart, David Letterman and SNL;” which you used to support your argument, would you say your stated fact re: where the “left” gets their news is accurate? Is it fair to say that the truth is more varied, in terms of where people get their news?
Very few “staunch conservatives” get their news from NPR–8% according to that graphic. Despite that, I know a community where about 95% of the voters are Republicans, most are born-again Christians or at least church-affilliated Christians and most probably describe themselves as conservatives, but virutally everyone back when I lived there got their news from NPR (though perhaps that has changed in the last 25 years).
The place I am speaking of is Petersburg, Alaska, a small fishing town in the Southeast of Alaska, south of Juneau, on a small island near the Canadian mainland. Their one radio station played a lot of NPR programs, as well as church music and weather reports.
Petersburg also had a local newspaper, the Pilot ([url]http://www.petersburgpilot.com/default.htm[/url]), but it was mostly good just to read for the island’s crime stories, which largely revolved around the latest drunk driving accidents and bar fights. Lots of bar fights.
When I lived in Petersburg–I worked as a deckhand on a few salmon Seiners–the state of Alaska paid most of the NPR bills for remote communities, so they could get state, national and international news. But at that time, some state representative was pushing a bill to cut state funding for NPR, because “it’s a dern communist outfit.” Little communities like Petersburg, Sitka, Wrangell and Ketchikan–the town where the bridge to nowhere would have gone*–were outraged at the idea that they would no longer have NPR. They did have satellite TV, then. (This was long before Al Gore gave us the internet.) But TV was not as valuable, because most people in Petersburg worked long hours on their boats, and they had their radios on. So despite their conservative views and NPR’s much more liberal perspective, the right-wing people of Petersburg were pleased when that bill to defund left-wing NPR was defeated.
————-
*That bridge to nowhere was to connect Ketchikan to nearby Gravina Island, where the Ketchikan Airport is. The only way to get to the airport is by ferry.
As it happens, I once was flying back to Sacramento from Petersburg and my Alaska Airlines plane broke down on Gravina Island. So I got stuck in that airport for 15 hours, waiting to see if they could fix the hydraulics and then waiting for a new plane to arrive from Seattle.
If they had that bridge to nowhere, I could have taken a taxi over to Ketchikan and gotten drunk. So I never was one to worry about the fibs that Sarah Palin told regarding the bridge to nowhere ([url]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/sarah_palin_and_the_bridge_to.html[/url]). I know how important it can be to get drunk sometimes.
“If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire.The claims that the ultra-rich 1% make for themselves – that they are possessed of unique intelligence or creativity or drive – are examples of the self-attribution fallacy. This means crediting yourself with outcomes for which you weren’t responsible. Many of those who are rich today got there because they were able to capture certain jobs. This capture owes less to talent and intelligence than to a combination of the ruthless exploitation of others and accidents of birth, as such jobs are taken disproportionately by people born in certain places and into certain classes.
The findings of the psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of a Nobel economics prize, are devastating to the beliefs that financial high-fliers entertain about themselves. He discovered that their apparent success is a cognitive illusion. For example, he studied the results achieved by 25 wealth advisers across eight years. He found that the consistency of their performance was zero. “The results resembled what you would expect from a dice-rolling contest, not a game of skill.” Those who received the biggest bonuses had simply got lucky.
Such results have been widely replicated. They show that traders and fund managers throughout Wall Street receive their massive remuneration for doing no better than would a chimpanzee flipping a coin. When Kahneman tried to point this out, they blanked him. “The illusion of skill … is deeply ingrained in their culture.””
“It is to suggest that the economy has been rewarding the wrong skills. As the bosses have shaken off the trade unions and captured both regulators and tax authorities, the distinction between the productive and rentier upper classes has broken down.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers?fb=optOut
anonymous: Your post is solid evidence of that hostile envy that burns in the heart of every person lacking personal happiness and fulfillment and prone to agitation for holding back other “less-worthy” successful people only to feel better by comparison.
If a chimpanzee can do it, then what does it say about those who cannot?
The economy does not reward the wrong skills because the market determines the value of skills. The market rewards risk-taking; but only the winners. Those that do not take the risks can never win. Those that take the risks and get them wrong will lose… unless government comes along to bail them out.
Again, like the occupiers, your anger is misplaced. Direct it at your government… that same government that caused the housing bubble and spurred all the risky financial products and then prevented those that took risks and lost from experiencing the consequences.
Here is another consequence caused by government… as the feeding frenzy took hold following the Carter era Community Reinvestment Act and the subsequent push to force backs to lend to credit unworthy borrowers and the bank and financial industry retooling to help support the mass of subprime junk loans it generated, it created a career magnet for risk-takers. Instead of creating companies that make products and services to sell, our best and brightest out of the universities headed to Wall Street to make their killing.
You need to read the book “The Quants”. It will dispel this myth that Wall Street has been corrupted by a bunch of low-brow dice-rollers. It was the academic math-wiz nerds. They first went to conquer the casinos and then Well Street to satiate their gaming egos. They created computer programs that trade on the slimmest of margins and win only on economies of scale. The computerization of trading removed the transparency of risk from investment managers. The computer programs eliminated the utility of financial analysts that used to calculate risk. These math brains are much of the 1% that the looter and moocher class complain about today. It is ironic because it is their people that are the source of the economic mess.
[i]”Jon Stewart, David Letterman and SNL;” which you used to support your argument, would you say your stated fact re: where the “left” gets their news is accurate? Is it fair to say that the truth is more varied, in terms of where people get their news?”[/i]
Superfluous Man: Of course I was using extremes to make my point.
However, spend some time on the Huffington Post for example and note the source of much of their commentary; it comes from: Jon Stewart, SNL and David Letterman. Had SNL and David Letterman been included in the study, I think we would have seen measurable and notable numbers of lefties admit to getting their news there.
However, your point is well taken… where we get our news is varied even though there are clear ideological differences.
Jeff: [i]spend some time on the Huffington Post for example and note the source of much of their commentary; it comes from: Jon Stewart, SNL and David Letterman.[/i]
Huh? Not hardly.
[i]If a chimpanzee can do it, then what does it say about those who cannot?[/i]
Guess you completely missed the point, which was that the successful are lucky, not skillful. That would suggest that the unsuccessful are unlucky, not unskillful. I do think that luck has a great deal to do with acquiring wealth. Skill is involved in keeping it.
I don’t think that describing alternative theories about the origin of wealth indicates “hostile envy.”
I would say wealth has a lot to do with what family you were born into and who you know…
Elaine: Sure, the family you are born into and who you know are always factors in the achievement of success, but much, much less in this country than in all others and ever before.
It is frankly a myth that the wealth achievement deck is stacked in the US. The only deck is the one that erodes the self-determination of people and causes them to expect to be saved instead of saving themselves.
Wealth mobility is extremely high in this country. People are routinely moving up and down in income quintiles. What is interesting to me… how many young people are complaining about the wage gap.
There was a study completed recently that looked at career skills and concluded that for a person to be an “expert” at some discipline required an average of 10,000 hours devoted to it. Considering that there are about 1600 useful productive hours available for the regular 8-5 worker, it would take about 6.25 years before a person could become an expert and demand an expert’s wages. Of course, that assumes the person applied themselves to learning the role/trade, and that the role/trade they selected has a market value.
I look back on my situation working as an IT professional and the copious amount of extra time I put in to become an expert in several different disciplines. It was this developed expertise that eventually allowed me to make a good living… and to be demonized by the left for being reasonably successful (not wealthy, just comfortable) However, this level of success didn’t just happen overnight or because of luck. It took me years of persistent and strategic hard work competing and climbing the ladder of prosperity. However, that opportunity was/is open to me. It is not even an option for people living in most other parts of the world.
Remember “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”? How about we just start out be taking care of our country by taking care of ourselves?
Don: For every claim coming from the left that Fox News brainwashes viewers toward a conservative view, I can come with many more examples of the much more pervasive left media entertainment establishment brainwashing viewers toward a liberal view. What was the impact of SNL on Sarah Palin’s political career? The real VP (not the losing candidate) provides copious material for SNL writers and comedians, yet… nothing on Biden. SNL is now working on Rick Perry and Herman Cain. How much material did they write on Obama prior to the 2008 election? When they did it was much more respectful and light humor. Even today there is little material that would risk impacting his popularity as a cool dude… the image that idealistic and life-ignorant youth tend to vote for. The Democrat brand is propped up by the media-entertainment establishment, while the GOP brand is continually attacked. Liberals – especially the youth – get their news from entertainment.
And on your point about successful people being more lucky than skillful… that is the self-serving view of many unhappy and/or envious people lacking drive to go out and make something happen. Luck plays a part in just about everything. For example, I assume you were luckier than me being born with a greater capacity for academic achievement. I was possibly luckier to be born with athletic capacity. However, it is what you make of your God-given gifts that more often determines the level of success you attain… at least in this country. If we allow your favored egalitarian worldview to dominate, more success will be determined by those with the political power to control others. History has proven over and over again that collectivism to engineer equal outcomes result in the most human misery and suffering.
You do know that there is nothing stopping you but yourself from expanding Redwood Barn into an international brand and making you a very wealthy person, correct? Would a person that took the risk doing this just be lucky if he/she produced great wealth?
There is evidence of hostile envy with the Occupiers and in the tone of posts. If you want wealth, you can go compete and earn it. Luck is only a minority piece of the puzzle. But you cannot even consider luck if you don’t go try things. I find many of my friends on the bandwagon crying about the US wealth gap to be so terrified of making a mistake or failing a task that they are risk averse. Most successful people have failed many times before they are successful. They are skilled at not allowing the fear of failure to prevent them from trying.
Here is a great resource for analyzing class and income mobility:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html[/url]
Yea, Tom Coburn:
Tom Coburn: $30 Billion In Millionaires Aid Is ‘Sheer Washington Stupidity’
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/14/tom-coburn-30-billion-millionaires-tax-breaks_n_1092692.html[/url]