Paul Krugman is still advocating the wonderfulness of inflation. In a New York Times editorial today he is being critical of those who decry Ben Bernanke, because while he says that the most recent Fed policy is “far from being a panacea for the economy’s troubles,” it is “still a welcome move.” His language is a little confusing, as his language usually is, because he seems to rather thoroughly despise Ben Bernanke but is forced to defend the actions that Bernanke is taking.
One of the hopeful results he foresees is that, “potential home buyers will be encouraged by the prospect of moderately higher inflation that will make their debt easier to repay.”
Economists are really fond of that thought, but I have never figured out why the fact that gasoline went up to $4.67 per gallon, or hamburger to $3.95 per pound, is going to make my mortgage easier to pay. That “inflation will make debt easier to pay” is possibly one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard economists say.
Rising wages would make my mortgage easier to pay and, sitting there in their ivory towers, economists probably make an assumption that wages always rise along with inflation, in which case they should say that “Rising wages which accompany inflation would…” But there are several flies in that ointment. The first is that wages don’t always rise with inflation, or they rise at amount which is lower than the rate of inflation.
The next problem is that the inflation upon which raises are based, and upon which the Social Security cost of living increase is based, do not include food and energy and are therefor often less than real inflation in terms of what people have to spend in order to live. That makes a mortgage harder to pay, not easier, because even though my income rose, I’m having to spend a higher portion of my income on food and energy.
Finally, even when the income increase does match real inflation, that additional income is taxed at a higher rate due to our tax system, which is not as progressive as it should be but is not a flat tax. The first $3800 of a person’s income is not taxed at all, the next $8500 is taxed at 10%, etc. The portion of income which is the increase may be taxed at a rate as high as 33% under the present system, so increased wages after taxation is not going to make one’s mortgage easier to pay.
Let’s say that my total income tax averaged out at 14% of my gross income, but my additional income was in the 29% bracket. Then only 85% of that new income would be available to contribute to the increased cost of living caused by inflation, the other 15% of that increase would have to come out of my preexisting income, and my mortgage payment is now harder to make.
There is simply no way that “moderately higher inflation will make debt easier to repay” unless one receives an increase in income which is significantly higher than that inflation, an event which is unlikely in the extreme. Even if it did happen, it was the higher income which made the mortgage easier to repay, not inflation.
What higher inflation will do is make savings worth less money, so that when savers pull that money out of savings and spend it, that money will by less in the way of goods and services. Inflation punishes people who save money.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Spending, Wealth and Income
In discussing the new QE3 plans by the Fed, Ben Bernanke says that it
will help reduce unemployment because if people see their 401K plans becoming more healthy and their home values increasing they will feel better about resuming their spending habits again. As Bill Clinton said, “that’s how we got into this mess in the first place.” Bernanke apparently does not understand that you cannot spend wealth without either liquidating the asset or assuming an equal and offsetting debt against it. In either case, you no longer have the wealth.
So Bernanke’s case is that QE3 will presumably create an increase in people’s wealth and that people will feel so much better about that increase in their wealth that they will promptly get rid it. The sad part is, of course, that he may very well be right. That is, after all, precisely what the general public did with the wealth created by the housing bubble.
What you can spend is income, which is the result of people having jobs. This whole nonsense of creating a boom of consumer spending in order to create jobs is putting the cart before the horse. Carts don’t pull horses, and people without jobs don’t spend money. People who have jobs spend money, so we have to create the jobs first and an increase in consumer spending will result from that. What part of that is so hard to understand?
Daily Finance chimes in, saying that the Fed “also wants to make people feel wealthier — and more willing to spend.” It then proceeds to say that any feeling of increased wealth created by this move will be delusion, that stock price increases will benefit only the wealthiest 10% of the population, and that low interest rates on homes are pretty useless when people don’t have the 20% down payment that is required to obtain those rates. It does not say, but clearly implies, that any willingness to increase spending that comes out of this Fed action would be the result of insanity.
I’m glad somebody is living in reality these days.
will help reduce unemployment because if people see their 401K plans becoming more healthy and their home values increasing they will feel better about resuming their spending habits again. As Bill Clinton said, “that’s how we got into this mess in the first place.” Bernanke apparently does not understand that you cannot spend wealth without either liquidating the asset or assuming an equal and offsetting debt against it. In either case, you no longer have the wealth.
So Bernanke’s case is that QE3 will presumably create an increase in people’s wealth and that people will feel so much better about that increase in their wealth that they will promptly get rid it. The sad part is, of course, that he may very well be right. That is, after all, precisely what the general public did with the wealth created by the housing bubble.
What you can spend is income, which is the result of people having jobs. This whole nonsense of creating a boom of consumer spending in order to create jobs is putting the cart before the horse. Carts don’t pull horses, and people without jobs don’t spend money. People who have jobs spend money, so we have to create the jobs first and an increase in consumer spending will result from that. What part of that is so hard to understand?
Daily Finance chimes in, saying that the Fed “also wants to make people feel wealthier — and more willing to spend.” It then proceeds to say that any feeling of increased wealth created by this move will be delusion, that stock price increases will benefit only the wealthiest 10% of the population, and that low interest rates on homes are pretty useless when people don’t have the 20% down payment that is required to obtain those rates. It does not say, but clearly implies, that any willingness to increase spending that comes out of this Fed action would be the result of insanity.
I’m glad somebody is living in reality these days.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Feeling Better?
Ted McLaughlin, at his Jobsanger blog, has a post today about how “Most People See The Economy As Improving,” in which he refers to a Pew Research poll. I’m sure Ted is reading the poll correctly, but all it does for me is point out the idiocy of the media’s fantasy of having “man on the street” interviews on matters of importance.
The stock market is up, corporate profits are up and interest rates are still near zero. That is pretty much the extent of good news, none of which in any way benefits the middle class or the poor in our society.
During this year, including during the last two months in which time the “man on the street” is becoming more optimistic, the middle class has shrunk, the average income of the middle class has dropped, the number of people living in poverty has increased, the percentage of the population in the labor force has declined dramatically, the number of new jobs being created has declined, the number of people being laid off has increased, the number of people unemployed with no unemployment benefits has skyrocketed, inflation in food and energy has increased, the nation’s trade deficit has increased, exports have fallen, consumer debt has begun to rise again, and severe drought across the nation has taken a deeper and deeper toll with no end in sight.
None of these things are generalities or demagoguery, they are all facts reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economics Administration, and the Energy Department. These are not about how people feel, they are accumulations of fact.
“Most people,” in itself a vague and meaningless term, don’t “feel better” about the economy because they know a damned thing about it. The “man on the street” is typically a complete idiot. They feel better because they are listening to politicians in campaign mode who are telling them what they want to hear. Obama is painting a rosy picture about a “slow path the recovery,” and both candidates are making promises which they cannot keep, and which they would not keep after elected even if they could.
The chart which Ted presents shows 60% of Republicans hearing bad news and only 15% of Democrats doing likewise, which is proof that "feelings" about the economy are not based on facts but are the result of listening to the prating of politicians. Republicans are listening to Romney trying to gain the presidency while Democrats are listening to Obama defending his past performance and trying to retain the presidency. It never occurs to “the man on the street” that both candidates are lying their asses off, which is why we have the disastrous government that we do.
The stock market is up, corporate profits are up and interest rates are still near zero. That is pretty much the extent of good news, none of which in any way benefits the middle class or the poor in our society.
During this year, including during the last two months in which time the “man on the street” is becoming more optimistic, the middle class has shrunk, the average income of the middle class has dropped, the number of people living in poverty has increased, the percentage of the population in the labor force has declined dramatically, the number of new jobs being created has declined, the number of people being laid off has increased, the number of people unemployed with no unemployment benefits has skyrocketed, inflation in food and energy has increased, the nation’s trade deficit has increased, exports have fallen, consumer debt has begun to rise again, and severe drought across the nation has taken a deeper and deeper toll with no end in sight.
None of these things are generalities or demagoguery, they are all facts reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economics Administration, and the Energy Department. These are not about how people feel, they are accumulations of fact.
“Most people,” in itself a vague and meaningless term, don’t “feel better” about the economy because they know a damned thing about it. The “man on the street” is typically a complete idiot. They feel better because they are listening to politicians in campaign mode who are telling them what they want to hear. Obama is painting a rosy picture about a “slow path the recovery,” and both candidates are making promises which they cannot keep, and which they would not keep after elected even if they could.
The chart which Ted presents shows 60% of Republicans hearing bad news and only 15% of Democrats doing likewise, which is proof that "feelings" about the economy are not based on facts but are the result of listening to the prating of politicians. Republicans are listening to Romney trying to gain the presidency while Democrats are listening to Obama defending his past performance and trying to retain the presidency. It never occurs to “the man on the street” that both candidates are lying their asses off, which is why we have the disastrous government that we do.
Note to the Cabbie
I had to give up on your "prove you're not a robot" thing, but I wanted to suggest sending them to taxicab driving school.
Sillyness Abounds
Almost immediately after the attack on our consulate in Libya we started seeing reports that it was not just a spontaneous mob, but that a terrorist group had used the mob as cover for a planned attack in revenge for the drone killing of an al-Qaeda leader in June. I was, to say the least, skeptical because we scream “terrorist” every time some high school kid forgets his backpack at the bus stop.
Or every time some nut job has a plan to knock corporate logos off of buildings and an FBI plant can persuade him to buy some play-doh and stick it against a freeway overpass so that the DOJ can charge him with “deploying weapons of mass destruction.”
When I read that there were RPG’s and a couple hundred armed guys involved I had a few second thoughts to the effect that maybe this was planned, and then I realized this is Libya. There are probably more weapons floating around this country than anywhere else in the world, and to round up 200 weapons, including RPG’s, and guys who know how to use them in Libya is almost certainly a matter of minutes.
Meanwhile, before the “planned terrorist attack” meme began to circulate, Hillary Clinton waxed poetic with rhetorical questions about “how this could happen in a nation which we liberated” and especially “in a city which we saved from violence.”
She might want to ask how this could happen in a nation which we bombed the shit out of, actually, and she might want to ask the people of Benghazi how much violence they experienced. From what I read it was quite a lot. Fortunately she was asking herself the questions, apparently, so she didn’t expect any meaningful answers.
Or every time some nut job has a plan to knock corporate logos off of buildings and an FBI plant can persuade him to buy some play-doh and stick it against a freeway overpass so that the DOJ can charge him with “deploying weapons of mass destruction.”
When I read that there were RPG’s and a couple hundred armed guys involved I had a few second thoughts to the effect that maybe this was planned, and then I realized this is Libya. There are probably more weapons floating around this country than anywhere else in the world, and to round up 200 weapons, including RPG’s, and guys who know how to use them in Libya is almost certainly a matter of minutes.
Meanwhile, before the “planned terrorist attack” meme began to circulate, Hillary Clinton waxed poetic with rhetorical questions about “how this could happen in a nation which we liberated” and especially “in a city which we saved from violence.”
She might want to ask how this could happen in a nation which we bombed the shit out of, actually, and she might want to ask the people of Benghazi how much violence they experienced. From what I read it was quite a lot. Fortunately she was asking herself the questions, apparently, so she didn’t expect any meaningful answers.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Apples and Bowling Balls
Dean Baker in an economist, so I hardly expect him to be logical very frequently, if at all, but he is particularly silly today as he discusses the Chicago teachers strike. I admit to some prejudice against public service unions, but I generally side with workers and I never make up my mind until I have some facts with which to do so. I came across his nonsense in the course of that, so far, fruitless search.
He compares the average Chicago teacher’s salary of $71,000 to the current income of the Chicago Mayor, which is $16.5 million, to the same guy’s salary as director of Freddie Mac at $274,284, and for some odd reason to the salary of Erskine Bowles as director of Morgan Stanley in 2008 at $335,000. The last one was four years ago, was in finance rather than public service, and was in New York rather than Chicago, so why he included it eludes me, but he is, after all, an economist.
He does link to another article written by an economics reporter, rather than an economist, who compares the salaries of teachers to those paid to other people who have similar college degrees. She finds that teachers typically earn 62% to 80% of the amount earned by other college educated people, which is far more useful than knowing how their salaries compare to three selected millionaires. She does not have information regarding the pay scale of Chicago teachers specifically.
In any case, Baker, like most of the media, is stressing pay scales and implying that the teachers union turned down the pay raise, and it is my impression that they did not, but rather that it was other conditions of teacher evaluation and job security over which they struck. So far I can find no publication which will say what the specifics of those terms are, other than that they involve student tests in some unspecified manner.
The role of the media is not to inform, but rather to inflame.
Update, Wednesday, 12:00 noon: You might know it would be the San Francisco Chronicle, perhaps the only real newspaper left in this country, that would shed some light on the Chicago teachers strike. It's not about the money the article says, it's about how to measure performance of teachers. I don't know enough to weigh in on the subject, but it makes more sense than the money does, so it's time for the idiotic pundits to quit bleating about who makes how much money.
He compares the average Chicago teacher’s salary of $71,000 to the current income of the Chicago Mayor, which is $16.5 million, to the same guy’s salary as director of Freddie Mac at $274,284, and for some odd reason to the salary of Erskine Bowles as director of Morgan Stanley in 2008 at $335,000. The last one was four years ago, was in finance rather than public service, and was in New York rather than Chicago, so why he included it eludes me, but he is, after all, an economist.
He does link to another article written by an economics reporter, rather than an economist, who compares the salaries of teachers to those paid to other people who have similar college degrees. She finds that teachers typically earn 62% to 80% of the amount earned by other college educated people, which is far more useful than knowing how their salaries compare to three selected millionaires. She does not have information regarding the pay scale of Chicago teachers specifically.
In any case, Baker, like most of the media, is stressing pay scales and implying that the teachers union turned down the pay raise, and it is my impression that they did not, but rather that it was other conditions of teacher evaluation and job security over which they struck. So far I can find no publication which will say what the specifics of those terms are, other than that they involve student tests in some unspecified manner.
The role of the media is not to inform, but rather to inflame.
Update, Wednesday, 12:00 noon: You might know it would be the San Francisco Chronicle, perhaps the only real newspaper left in this country, that would shed some light on the Chicago teachers strike. It's not about the money the article says, it's about how to measure performance of teachers. I don't know enough to weigh in on the subject, but it makes more sense than the money does, so it's time for the idiotic pundits to quit bleating about who makes how much money.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Perennial Victims
After eleven years it is time for this nation to get back on its feet, live as a nation made whole and quit living as a nation with an unhealed hole which defines and weakens us. Just as a beaten wife must finally redefine herself, we must redefine this nation. The law can take away the abusive husband and put him away, but it is the woman who must accept the responsibility at some point to cast off the role of victim and accept the role of a whole person who can stand on her feet and face life on life’s terms.
It is time for America to cast off the role of 9/11 victim in which we spend more on punishment and protection than we do on development and advancement of our own people; all out of an unending sense of victimhood framed by pictures of burning towers and the words “never forget.” In such focus is the wallowing role of the victim that says, “never move on.”
Such was the role of “Occupy Wall Street” who, rather than marching on Washington to demand that something be done to improve the lot of the middle class, focused on sitting placid and mired in inaction on Wall Street in order to point the finger of blame and bemoan the fate that had been imposed upon them by “the one percent.” They preferred the safe role of victim to the difficult and dangerous role of activist.
The nation cries out for taxation of the rich as redress for the victimization
of the "99%" by the "1%," a chorus of victimization which drowns out any voices demanding action to improve the lot of the middle class and concerted action to improve jobs. We are more focused on how we have been mistreated than we are on action which could improve the conditions in which we work and live.
Such is the role of today’s labor movement, which looks to Congress to pass laws such as “card check” which make unionism easier for them and then cries foul and accepts a declining middle class when Congress fails to do so. What few labor protests which do occur are by single unions and are not accompanied by concerted action on the part of labor as a whole, and so they fail for lack of support and labor and the middle class resort to the whimpering victimhood of unfair treatment by government, unwilling to act in concert in their own behalf.
The labor movement in Poland rose up with weapons no more potent than axe handles and faced down a Communist government backed by armies which had machine guns and tanks. American labor cannot even face down a state governor with a divided legislature who is armed only with words. Utterly pathetic.
It is time for America to cast off the role of 9/11 victim in which we spend more on punishment and protection than we do on development and advancement of our own people; all out of an unending sense of victimhood framed by pictures of burning towers and the words “never forget.” In such focus is the wallowing role of the victim that says, “never move on.”
Such was the role of “Occupy Wall Street” who, rather than marching on Washington to demand that something be done to improve the lot of the middle class, focused on sitting placid and mired in inaction on Wall Street in order to point the finger of blame and bemoan the fate that had been imposed upon them by “the one percent.” They preferred the safe role of victim to the difficult and dangerous role of activist.
The nation cries out for taxation of the rich as redress for the victimization
of the "99%" by the "1%," a chorus of victimization which drowns out any voices demanding action to improve the lot of the middle class and concerted action to improve jobs. We are more focused on how we have been mistreated than we are on action which could improve the conditions in which we work and live.
Such is the role of today’s labor movement, which looks to Congress to pass laws such as “card check” which make unionism easier for them and then cries foul and accepts a declining middle class when Congress fails to do so. What few labor protests which do occur are by single unions and are not accompanied by concerted action on the part of labor as a whole, and so they fail for lack of support and labor and the middle class resort to the whimpering victimhood of unfair treatment by government, unwilling to act in concert in their own behalf.
The labor movement in Poland rose up with weapons no more potent than axe handles and faced down a Communist government backed by armies which had machine guns and tanks. American labor cannot even face down a state governor with a divided legislature who is armed only with words. Utterly pathetic.
Making Your Case
For the most part I support private sector unions and am opposed to public sector unions, and am following the Chicago School Teachers strike with a somewhat jaundiced eye and an open mind. While I know there are other issues, up to now the only fact I have is that the teachers have turned down an offer of a 4% raise each of the next four years from a present average wage of $71,000 per year, which doesn’t exactly make me want to carry a sign in support of their cause.
Today along comes Attywood, who is a strong unionist and shows a picture of Sally Field holding a “Union” sign. All well and good, but she was fighting the owners of textile mills, not public service and the taxpayers.
Then he tells me that I should know the teachers are on the side of the angels because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are supporting Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel. Those guys, of course, never support anything but the wrong side, so… Sorry, it’s called “guilt by association,” and that kind of argument doesn’t sway me.
Then he brings out his big guns and says this,
Wow. All of that is in a four year teacher’s contract in Chicago? Can you say hyperbole? It isn’t about the teachers at all, apparently, the contract that the teachers are being asked to sign is actually about freedom, apple pie and the American way, all of which will be destroyed if they sign it.
Then he says not to listen to him, which strikes me as a pretty good idea, and lets a teacher speak for the teachers, Presumably a teacher who is involved in the contract talks will be able to give us somewhat ,more precise detail on what the dispute is about so that we may make an informed decision as to whom to back.
Okay, maybe not. Sounded like more of Attywood’s “It’s the giant corporations trying to suck the life out of freedom, apple pie and the American way,” and so far we still have no actual fact other than that the teachers turned 4% per year for four years. This is not really the way to sell your case to thinking people.
It certainly is not selling the Chicaho teachers' case to me.
Today along comes Attywood, who is a strong unionist and shows a picture of Sally Field holding a “Union” sign. All well and good, but she was fighting the owners of textile mills, not public service and the taxpayers.
Then he tells me that I should know the teachers are on the side of the angels because Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are supporting Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel. Those guys, of course, never support anything but the wrong side, so… Sorry, it’s called “guilt by association,” and that kind of argument doesn’t sway me.
Then he brings out his big guns and says this,
But that's not even what this strike is about, anyway. At its core, the teachers in Chicago are fighting the same bullcrap we're fighting in Philadelphia and in New York and in most other big cities -- the corporatization of American schools by the same geniuses who brought us the housing bubble and the student loan bubble.. We're talking about the hedge-fund know-it-alls and charter school charlatans and campaign-cash-craving politicians who for a variety of reasons -- some perhaps naive, others intentionally corrupt -- want to blow up the thing that made America the envy of the world back in the 20th Century, our system of public education for all.
Wow. All of that is in a four year teacher’s contract in Chicago? Can you say hyperbole? It isn’t about the teachers at all, apparently, the contract that the teachers are being asked to sign is actually about freedom, apple pie and the American way, all of which will be destroyed if they sign it.
Then he says not to listen to him, which strikes me as a pretty good idea, and lets a teacher speak for the teachers, Presumably a teacher who is involved in the contract talks will be able to give us somewhat ,more precise detail on what the dispute is about so that we may make an informed decision as to whom to back.
When you support Mayor Emanuel’s TIF program in diverting hundreds of millions of dollars of school funds into to the pockets of wealthy developers like billionaire member of your school board, Penny Pritzker so she can build more hotels, that not only hurts kids, but somebody should be going to jail.
Okay, maybe not. Sounded like more of Attywood’s “It’s the giant corporations trying to suck the life out of freedom, apple pie and the American way,” and so far we still have no actual fact other than that the teachers turned 4% per year for four years. This is not really the way to sell your case to thinking people.
It certainly is not selling the Chicaho teachers' case to me.
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Name Of The Game Is...
All over the sports blogs we see discussions about the NFL “replacement officials.” During the games on television the announcers are constantly yammering about the replacement officials and dissecting their calls. How many times did you buy tickets and tell your friend, “Hey, I have tickets to go down to Qualcomm Stadium and watch the officiating tonight.” I don’t know about you, but I watch the football game, you know, the guys wearing helmets. I don’t go to watch the officiating.
Let's stop with the replacement officials thing. Both teams get the same officiating, so it's a "level playing field." If the officials make mistakes, and even the regular ones do, they will make as many favoring one side as they do the other. One commenter said, "the error was always in favor of the offense, no matter the team," which proves my point. The errors are to the advantage of both teams equally and it evens out, so who cares?
The name of the game is “football;” it isn’t called “officiating.”
Let's stop with the replacement officials thing. Both teams get the same officiating, so it's a "level playing field." If the officials make mistakes, and even the regular ones do, they will make as many favoring one side as they do the other. One commenter said, "the error was always in favor of the offense, no matter the team," which proves my point. The errors are to the advantage of both teams equally and it evens out, so who cares?
The name of the game is “football;” it isn’t called “officiating.”
Defining The Enemy
I’m a bit late to the party on this because I have been studying articles for several days, trying to find out the basis upon which the United States is declaring the Haqqanis as a terrorist network. So far I see nothing which I think justifies that designation.
They have made attacks on US forces in Afghanistan and on the American embassy there, but that seems to me to be a legitimate effort by insurgents to drive an occupying army out of their land. I know we regard that as “terrorism,” but I don’t think it fits the actual definition of the word. They engage, our government says, in extortion, bribery, kidnapping and smuggling to fund their operations. Those certainly are criminal acts, but are not terrorism by any definition of the word.
We claim that they “are affiliated with Al Queda in Yemen,” but don’t provide any actual evidence of that other than the statement itself. Of course in the modern American system of justice, a mere accusation is sufficient to proceed to execution, so perhaps that is all that is needed to put them on the terrorist list – a government declaration that they “are affiliated” with some terrorist group or another.
We’ve been killing them for several years, in Pakistan using Hellfire missiles fired from unmanned drones, based on them being “militants” or “insurgents,” so with this declaration we can use our missiles and kill them for being terrorists. More importantly, in addition to killing them, if they are terrorists we can take any money they have in bank accounts, while if they are militants or insurgents we have to leave their money alone.
They have made attacks on US forces in Afghanistan and on the American embassy there, but that seems to me to be a legitimate effort by insurgents to drive an occupying army out of their land. I know we regard that as “terrorism,” but I don’t think it fits the actual definition of the word. They engage, our government says, in extortion, bribery, kidnapping and smuggling to fund their operations. Those certainly are criminal acts, but are not terrorism by any definition of the word.
We claim that they “are affiliated with Al Queda in Yemen,” but don’t provide any actual evidence of that other than the statement itself. Of course in the modern American system of justice, a mere accusation is sufficient to proceed to execution, so perhaps that is all that is needed to put them on the terrorist list – a government declaration that they “are affiliated” with some terrorist group or another.
We’ve been killing them for several years, in Pakistan using Hellfire missiles fired from unmanned drones, based on them being “militants” or “insurgents,” so with this declaration we can use our missiles and kill them for being terrorists. More importantly, in addition to killing them, if they are terrorists we can take any money they have in bank accounts, while if they are militants or insurgents we have to leave their money alone.
Predicting Outcomes
Steve Kornacki proclaims at Salon.com that “Obama is Winning” and that he has been all along. In his article he mentions that the ineffable pollster Nate Silver, who has never been wrong, puts Obama’s chances of reelection at 80% as of this week. Obama got a “popularity bounce” from the Democratic convention, while Romney did not from the Republican one.
The Obama sycophant crowd is beginning to remind me of the Republican crowd of the 1990's led by Newt Gingrich, in which the Republican Party was going to control the government for the next 100 years. They lost the White House and both houses of Congress within six years.
Pride goeth before a fall.
Keep honking about that 80% chance of a win, and more and more Democrats will believe that their vote will not be needed. If it's raining or something good is on the television they'll stay home because Obama will win easily without their vote. Kornacki said so.
The Obama sycophant crowd is beginning to remind me of the Republican crowd of the 1990's led by Newt Gingrich, in which the Republican Party was going to control the government for the next 100 years. They lost the White House and both houses of Congress within six years.
Pride goeth before a fall.
Keep honking about that 80% chance of a win, and more and more Democrats will believe that their vote will not be needed. If it's raining or something good is on the television they'll stay home because Obama will win easily without their vote. Kornacki said so.
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Miscarriage of Justice
An arbitration panel overturned the suspension of NFL players who took bounty money for deliberately attempting to injure players on other teams, allowing those suspended players to participate in this weekend’s games and to receive full pay. The justification given for the reversal was that the reason for the suspension was not entirely clear; that the panel could not determine whether the monetary award was for the intention to injure players on other teams, or if it was a ruse to circumvent the salary cap.
That is without a doubt the most stupid, idiotic excuse to justify criminal activity that I have ever heard in my entire life. It is an insult to everyone who has ever played the game, or who has even enjoyed it as a spectator.
I at one time had a great deal of respect for Drew Brees, but recently he has more and more been impressing me as nothing more than just another celebrity asshole. He pretty much completed that journey with his delighted reaction to this decision, when he said that “It pretty much makes you feel that justice has been served.”
The man is an animal if he thinks that coaches should be punished for offering cash payment for deliberate attempts to injure to opposing players, but that the players who took the cash and actually inflicted the injuries should not be punished. Drew Brees has a really, really sick definition of “justice.” I hope New Orleans loses a lot of games.
That is without a doubt the most stupid, idiotic excuse to justify criminal activity that I have ever heard in my entire life. It is an insult to everyone who has ever played the game, or who has even enjoyed it as a spectator.
I at one time had a great deal of respect for Drew Brees, but recently he has more and more been impressing me as nothing more than just another celebrity asshole. He pretty much completed that journey with his delighted reaction to this decision, when he said that “It pretty much makes you feel that justice has been served.”
The man is an animal if he thinks that coaches should be punished for offering cash payment for deliberate attempts to injure to opposing players, but that the players who took the cash and actually inflicted the injuries should not be punished. Drew Brees has a really, really sick definition of “justice.” I hope New Orleans loses a lot of games.
Friday, September 07, 2012
Empty Words
I didn’t listen to Obama’s speech last night for the simple reason that, having watched him govern, I simply cannot bear to watch him campaign.
Having watched him assassinate people in seven countries based only on activity which he decides is “suspicious” and not knowing who they actually are, having watched him execute American citizens without due process of law, having watched him take America to war in Libya without consulting Congress, having watched him make an unparalleled fortress of government secrecy, I cannot listen to him thunder from the podium about noble principles of “American exceptionalism,” Christian and family values, and the “great American dream.”
I don’t need fact checkers to verify his accuracy, small phrases tell me just how empty his words are. When he says, “I will take the money we are no longer spending on wars and use it to pay down our debt…” I don’t need a fact checker to tell me that the phrase is hot air. The money we are spending on war is borrowed money, so he is proposing to pay down debt with borrowed money. Did he even go to high school?
He promises that, “When American families can no longer be tricked into signing mortgages which they cannot afford…” our economy will be better off or some such thing. Every con man knows that you cannot con an honest man; you can only trick a person when he is engaged in trying to take advantage of you. That’s how a con works; you try to make the target think he is pulling a fast one on you.
It is not the responsibility of the lender to know what a borrower can afford, it is the responsibility of all of us to bite off only that which we are able to chew. Obama tells homeowners that their position is not their fault, which is what they want to hear, and then he says, “You did not elect me to tell you what you want to hear, you elected me to tell you the truth.”
You notice, in that statement, that he doesn’t actually promise to tell us the truth, only that he knows we elected him to do so. Only we didn’t of course; we elected him because he told us the lies we wanted us to hear, and we will reelect him only if he keeps on doing so.
He says that it's an American core belief that, “We're not entitled to success. We have to earn it.” In the next breath he is talking about how,
“…the little girl who's offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or
a grant for college could become the next Steve Jobs.” We have to earn it unless we can get someone to give it to us.
I’ve read the entire speech, more than once, and there are a lot of fine words, but nothing about what he plans to actually do. He talks about paying down debt, and at the same time talks about reducing deficit spending by only 25% in the next ten years. How do you keep borrowing money and pay down debt at the same time?
Democratic speeches same as Republican speeches. Empty words.
Having watched him assassinate people in seven countries based only on activity which he decides is “suspicious” and not knowing who they actually are, having watched him execute American citizens without due process of law, having watched him take America to war in Libya without consulting Congress, having watched him make an unparalleled fortress of government secrecy, I cannot listen to him thunder from the podium about noble principles of “American exceptionalism,” Christian and family values, and the “great American dream.”
I don’t need fact checkers to verify his accuracy, small phrases tell me just how empty his words are. When he says, “I will take the money we are no longer spending on wars and use it to pay down our debt…” I don’t need a fact checker to tell me that the phrase is hot air. The money we are spending on war is borrowed money, so he is proposing to pay down debt with borrowed money. Did he even go to high school?
He promises that, “When American families can no longer be tricked into signing mortgages which they cannot afford…” our economy will be better off or some such thing. Every con man knows that you cannot con an honest man; you can only trick a person when he is engaged in trying to take advantage of you. That’s how a con works; you try to make the target think he is pulling a fast one on you.
It is not the responsibility of the lender to know what a borrower can afford, it is the responsibility of all of us to bite off only that which we are able to chew. Obama tells homeowners that their position is not their fault, which is what they want to hear, and then he says, “You did not elect me to tell you what you want to hear, you elected me to tell you the truth.”
You notice, in that statement, that he doesn’t actually promise to tell us the truth, only that he knows we elected him to do so. Only we didn’t of course; we elected him because he told us the lies we wanted us to hear, and we will reelect him only if he keeps on doing so.
He says that it's an American core belief that, “We're not entitled to success. We have to earn it.” In the next breath he is talking about how,
“…the little girl who's offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or
a grant for college could become the next Steve Jobs.” We have to earn it unless we can get someone to give it to us.
I’ve read the entire speech, more than once, and there are a lot of fine words, but nothing about what he plans to actually do. He talks about paying down debt, and at the same time talks about reducing deficit spending by only 25% in the next ten years. How do you keep borrowing money and pay down debt at the same time?
Democratic speeches same as Republican speeches. Empty words.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
How Democracy Works
Party platforms are pretty meaningless documents, really, and I don’t usually pay any attention to them. They are much bandied about during conventions and much ado is made over them, and then everyone forgets that they even exist until four years later when it’s convention time again. Their content is utterly meaningless, but sometimes the process of adding or removing content can be revealing.
This year’s Democratic platform omitted language supporting a commitment to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and any language about God, omissions which I happen to think were good ideas. Jerusalem is a holy site to Muslims and making it the capital of Israel is highly controversial and is none of our business, and I strongly support keeping politics secular.
Obama was not having it, he wanted both things restored to the platform, so he sent a former state governor to the convention who declared that, “as an ordained United Methodist minister I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the values we’ve expressed in our party’s platform.” That pretty much defines the Democratic Party as theocratic, so if you don’t want a religious state…
Jonathan Turley describes in detail the voting process that resulted in the “planks” being added to the platform, and much more detail on the issues involved. There were three voice votes involved, each one more clearly negative than the one preceding it, but the chair pronounced the measure passed anyway.
Thus the convention is revealed as “sounding brass, filled with noise and fury, signifying nothing.” What votes are held are merely for show, because all decisions are made at party headquarters, and the party members who make up the “democracy” of the political organization are there only to fill the seats and make things look good.
The main stream media is so busy reporting on how “Michelle Obama wowed them” and “Bill Clinton knocked their socks off” that they have no time to report on little insignificant things such as this utter failure of democracy, and there is little evidence that anyone would care even if they did report it.
The third comment in the discussion following Turley’s post, I think, sums up the state of our electorate. After saying that this whole thing was a “non-issue,” the commenter went on to say that, “The Clinton speech was fabulous,“ and that, “So far the convention has been a huge success.”
So we don’t see democracy as having our voices heard, or making our opinions count; democracy is about being entertained by great speeches.
This year’s Democratic platform omitted language supporting a commitment to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and any language about God, omissions which I happen to think were good ideas. Jerusalem is a holy site to Muslims and making it the capital of Israel is highly controversial and is none of our business, and I strongly support keeping politics secular.
Obama was not having it, he wanted both things restored to the platform, so he sent a former state governor to the convention who declared that, “as an ordained United Methodist minister I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story and informs the values we’ve expressed in our party’s platform.” That pretty much defines the Democratic Party as theocratic, so if you don’t want a religious state…
Jonathan Turley describes in detail the voting process that resulted in the “planks” being added to the platform, and much more detail on the issues involved. There were three voice votes involved, each one more clearly negative than the one preceding it, but the chair pronounced the measure passed anyway.
Thus the convention is revealed as “sounding brass, filled with noise and fury, signifying nothing.” What votes are held are merely for show, because all decisions are made at party headquarters, and the party members who make up the “democracy” of the political organization are there only to fill the seats and make things look good.
The main stream media is so busy reporting on how “Michelle Obama wowed them” and “Bill Clinton knocked their socks off” that they have no time to report on little insignificant things such as this utter failure of democracy, and there is little evidence that anyone would care even if they did report it.
The third comment in the discussion following Turley’s post, I think, sums up the state of our electorate. After saying that this whole thing was a “non-issue,” the commenter went on to say that, “The Clinton speech was fabulous,“ and that, “So far the convention has been a huge success.”
So we don’t see democracy as having our voices heard, or making our opinions count; democracy is about being entertained by great speeches.
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Wrong Questions
Dean Baker raises a point for those who ask if we are better off than we were four years ago, using an analogy of a burning house. He says the question is like asking the fireman if the house is better off with the fire put out or while it was burning, and that a better questions would be to ask did the fireman bring enough hose, or was his hose big enough, did they have a big enough crew, and was the water pressure sufficient?
Colonel Lang said in a comment at his own place Sic Semper Tyrannis of people like Dean Baker that, “Academics understand little of reality. They are engaged in unending mutual mental masturbation with their colleagues and by and large have never been in the fray.”
Having once credited him with that masterpiece, I am going to use it repeatedly as if it were my own, because it is a work of sheer genius. I wish I could say that our colonel is typical of our military mind, but I fear such might not be the case.
In any case, Baker’s put down of the question fails on several fronts. For one thing, a house that is burned out and waterlogged is hardly in better shape than one that is actively on fire, so the answer to “Is it in better shape than when you got here?” is obviously “No” and he’s hardly helping the Democrats very much.
Nor does it help Democrats to suggest that they brought a knife to a gunfight with, “Did you have a sufficient crew and were your hoses big enough?” I’m not going to go where you’re thinking with the thing about the size of their hoses.
An even better question than Dean Baker’s ones about the firefighters’ equipment would ask a question or two about their actions, which he did not suggest. Why, one might ask, did they not rescue the homeowners from the burning house, but instead leave in there to suffer whatever fate they might? Why instead of rescuing the homeowners, did they focus on trying to save the structure? Because that was the part on which the bank held the mortgage? And finally, what was the point of setting up deck chairs for the rescued homeowners to sit in when you weren’t, you know, saving the homeowners?
Sort of like, why are you making it possible for people to buy health insurance when you aren’t working on making it possible for them to have incomes with which to pay for that insurance?
Colonel Lang said in a comment at his own place Sic Semper Tyrannis of people like Dean Baker that, “Academics understand little of reality. They are engaged in unending mutual mental masturbation with their colleagues and by and large have never been in the fray.”
Having once credited him with that masterpiece, I am going to use it repeatedly as if it were my own, because it is a work of sheer genius. I wish I could say that our colonel is typical of our military mind, but I fear such might not be the case.
In any case, Baker’s put down of the question fails on several fronts. For one thing, a house that is burned out and waterlogged is hardly in better shape than one that is actively on fire, so the answer to “Is it in better shape than when you got here?” is obviously “No” and he’s hardly helping the Democrats very much.
Nor does it help Democrats to suggest that they brought a knife to a gunfight with, “Did you have a sufficient crew and were your hoses big enough?” I’m not going to go where you’re thinking with the thing about the size of their hoses.
An even better question than Dean Baker’s ones about the firefighters’ equipment would ask a question or two about their actions, which he did not suggest. Why, one might ask, did they not rescue the homeowners from the burning house, but instead leave in there to suffer whatever fate they might? Why instead of rescuing the homeowners, did they focus on trying to save the structure? Because that was the part on which the bank held the mortgage? And finally, what was the point of setting up deck chairs for the rescued homeowners to sit in when you weren’t, you know, saving the homeowners?
Sort of like, why are you making it possible for people to buy health insurance when you aren’t working on making it possible for them to have incomes with which to pay for that insurance?
Two Wars
In case everyone has forgotten, we have tens of thousands American soldiers and Marines fighting a war in Afghanistan, and some of them die in action almost every day. When was the last time that CBS Evening News carried a segment on that war, with an onsite reporter, progress reports, excited commentary during film clips, and a reminder of how many people have been killed in the ten years that war has raged across that land? Yeah, it’s been a long time.
And yet every single night we get that kind of report on the war in Syria, complete with scenes of bloody corpses and slaughtered children. Dramatic narrative accompanies “live footage” of massive explosions and firefights, and every day we are reminded of the total number of dead the war has caused. This is a war in which America has no strategic interests, in which we have nothing to gain or lose. No American lives are at stake. This is in no way “our war.”
Yet CBS reports it nightly, at great length and with great drama, and ignores the war in which our own men and women are dying; ignores the war that is, like it or not, “our war.” Simple question: why?
And yet every single night we get that kind of report on the war in Syria, complete with scenes of bloody corpses and slaughtered children. Dramatic narrative accompanies “live footage” of massive explosions and firefights, and every day we are reminded of the total number of dead the war has caused. This is a war in which America has no strategic interests, in which we have nothing to gain or lose. No American lives are at stake. This is in no way “our war.”
Yet CBS reports it nightly, at great length and with great drama, and ignores the war in which our own men and women are dying; ignores the war that is, like it or not, “our war.” Simple question: why?
Monday, September 03, 2012
What Used To Be
When I was in a labor union the basic purpose for labor unions was the simple cause portrayed by the movie Norma Rae, which was simply fair treatment of workers by the business which employed them. I can still see Sally Field standing tall, holding her cardboard sign reading “Union,” and the textile machines shutting down, one by one. Workers, united into a single voice, make a powerful force. Like those ladies in the textile mills, we asked for nothing; we made demands, and when that required standing at the factory gates with axe handles in our hands, that is precisely what we did.
Today workers are standing around waiting for government to restore the union movement for them, moaning and making the claim that government has passed laws that stack the deck in favor of “the other side.” They are like a crowd of homeless, holding out their tin cups and begging for alms.
The original unions were not formed by government, they were formed by workers with courage and a willingness to defy authority. Laws were passed supporting them because those workers had become so powerful that government was afraid to do otherwise. Government does not respond to weakness; it responds to those who buy it or to those who frighten it.
This is America today. We do not stand up on top of a machine and hold up a sign that defies authority. We cower and cravenly beg for authority to provide us with what we want. When they take away the rights provided by our constitution, we thank them for keeping us safe. We’re more afraid of losing what we have than we are willing to stand up for what could be. We have lost the ability to rise up in righteous anger and been made cowards by our own illusion of comfort.
Happy Labor Day? We don’t deserve a happy Labor Day. We have betrayed our workers and our workers have betrayed themselves.
Today workers are standing around waiting for government to restore the union movement for them, moaning and making the claim that government has passed laws that stack the deck in favor of “the other side.” They are like a crowd of homeless, holding out their tin cups and begging for alms.
The original unions were not formed by government, they were formed by workers with courage and a willingness to defy authority. Laws were passed supporting them because those workers had become so powerful that government was afraid to do otherwise. Government does not respond to weakness; it responds to those who buy it or to those who frighten it.
This is America today. We do not stand up on top of a machine and hold up a sign that defies authority. We cower and cravenly beg for authority to provide us with what we want. When they take away the rights provided by our constitution, we thank them for keeping us safe. We’re more afraid of losing what we have than we are willing to stand up for what could be. We have lost the ability to rise up in righteous anger and been made cowards by our own illusion of comfort.
Happy Labor Day? We don’t deserve a happy Labor Day. We have betrayed our workers and our workers have betrayed themselves.
Sunday, September 02, 2012
Good Sport & Poor Outcomes
Carl Edwards was taken out of the NASCAR race today due to a blown engine, an event which essentially ended his chances of "making the chase" for the championship. He was interviewed afterward and was philosophical about the whole thing, smiling while expressing regret for all of the ill fortune that the team has suffered this year and ended by saying, "Oh well, a bad day at the races is better than a good day at a real job."
Jimmy Johnson was taken out by a wreck, which was his own fault and which does not affect his "making the chase" and winning a championship this year. As he did two weeks ago when his car was wrecked, he was so pissed off that he left the speedway without speaking to reporters. Some people have class, some don't.
Danical Patrick, by the way, finished 29th, six laps down to the leader. The five places that she improved above the 34th place that she was running shortly after the start was due entirely to attrition as cars ahead of her wrecked or lost engines, as she was two laps behind the leaders after 60 laps. For once the announcers did not hyperventilate about how well she was doing during the race; even they could not spin this performance.
Jimmy Johnson was taken out by a wreck, which was his own fault and which does not affect his "making the chase" and winning a championship this year. As he did two weeks ago when his car was wrecked, he was so pissed off that he left the speedway without speaking to reporters. Some people have class, some don't.
Danical Patrick, by the way, finished 29th, six laps down to the leader. The five places that she improved above the 34th place that she was running shortly after the start was due entirely to attrition as cars ahead of her wrecked or lost engines, as she was two laps behind the leaders after 60 laps. For once the announcers did not hyperventilate about how well she was doing during the race; even they could not spin this performance.
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Football Notes
Michigan State was unimpressive in beating Boise State last night. Their defense was about as good as expected, but about all they had on offense was a running back with the number 24, who carried 43 times for 210 yards and caught passes for 55 more yards. His name is Le’Veon Bell; he packs 245 pounds on a 6’2” frame, and he reminds me to an astonishing degree of Ladanian Tomlinson. He has strength up the middle, he sidesteps like a ballet dancer, he rotates out of tackles, he accelerates like the space shuttle, leaps tacklers like a high hurdler, and he changes direction like a cutting horse. But more to the point, he just runs and moves like LT. This kid may be the most underrated player in college football.
There was some ill will here toward Brady Hoke when he left SDSU, but I’m not sure why. He made it clear when he took the job that his dream was to coach Michigan and that if he was offered that job he would take it. He was and he did; so why should we be surprised? It’s also not surprising that when two of his best two players violate the rules he doesn’t care that the next game is against Alabama, the suspension is effective with the upcoming game. That’s the kind of leader that Brady Hoke is; he is a man of character.
Contrast that with Texas A&M’s reaction when two of it’s starters are in violation; suspension for one game, but delayed until Oct 13th when they play Louisiana Tech. Bartender Cabbie and I are in agreement that the Aggies are not really of a caliber to play in the SEC, and I’d say this shows that they don’t really have the moral character to belong in that conference either.
Back to Michigan a moment, one of the suspended players, running back Fitz Toussaint, was arrested for drunk driving but pled to a charge of “driving while visually impaired.” What the hell kind of charge is that, and in what manner was he “visually impaired” do you suppose? Sounds like he might be draft material for the Chargers, though.
There was some ill will here toward Brady Hoke when he left SDSU, but I’m not sure why. He made it clear when he took the job that his dream was to coach Michigan and that if he was offered that job he would take it. He was and he did; so why should we be surprised? It’s also not surprising that when two of his best two players violate the rules he doesn’t care that the next game is against Alabama, the suspension is effective with the upcoming game. That’s the kind of leader that Brady Hoke is; he is a man of character.
Contrast that with Texas A&M’s reaction when two of it’s starters are in violation; suspension for one game, but delayed until Oct 13th when they play Louisiana Tech. Bartender Cabbie and I are in agreement that the Aggies are not really of a caliber to play in the SEC, and I’d say this shows that they don’t really have the moral character to belong in that conference either.
Back to Michigan a moment, one of the suspended players, running back Fitz Toussaint, was arrested for drunk driving but pled to a charge of “driving while visually impaired.” What the hell kind of charge is that, and in what manner was he “visually impaired” do you suppose? Sounds like he might be draft material for the Chargers, though.
Revising History
CBS Evening News did a segment last night on President Obama speaking to "the troops" at Fort Dix on the eve of the final departure of our armed forces from Iraq, which they referred to as “one of his major foreign policy triumphs.” I had a profound sense that I was looking at an Obama campaign piece rather than a news item.
In 2008, as one of his last acts in office, George W. Bush signed an agreement with Nouri al-Maliki setting a timetable for the full and complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. Democrats were outraged, and some Republicans, claiming that he was unreasonably committing his successor to a course of action and that such commitments were not supposed to be made by outgoing presidents.
For the first two years of his presidency, Barack Obama tried every measure he could think of to abrogate the agreement signed by Bush, and to extend the presence of our armed forces in Iraq past the timetable which had been agreed upon between the two nations. He was not able to do so, which would seem to me to be a foreign policy failure.
But now, by some Orwellian transformation, it was Obama who "ended the war in Iraq," and the final complete withdrawal of armed forces on the schedule set by George W. Bush, over Obama’s objections, is a “major foreign policy triumph” for Barack Obama.
In 2008, as one of his last acts in office, George W. Bush signed an agreement with Nouri al-Maliki setting a timetable for the full and complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. Democrats were outraged, and some Republicans, claiming that he was unreasonably committing his successor to a course of action and that such commitments were not supposed to be made by outgoing presidents.
For the first two years of his presidency, Barack Obama tried every measure he could think of to abrogate the agreement signed by Bush, and to extend the presence of our armed forces in Iraq past the timetable which had been agreed upon between the two nations. He was not able to do so, which would seem to me to be a foreign policy failure.
But now, by some Orwellian transformation, it was Obama who "ended the war in Iraq," and the final complete withdrawal of armed forces on the schedule set by George W. Bush, over Obama’s objections, is a “major foreign policy triumph” for Barack Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)