Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't drive a hybrid because I don't like them. When they make one that's as comfortable as my truck, I'll buy one. That decision will have nothing to do with Al Gore.

Would it change your opinion to learn that global warming is having a negative impact on Attican bedshitting?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Would it change your opinion to learn that global warming is having a negative impact on Attican bedshitting?

The price creep in recent years has been consistent with historical trends.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ebay? on ebay you have to post pictures and lots of the really poor are ugly. not saleable.

I'm just talking about babies and everybody knows that babies, poor and rich, all look like bald chimps.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
There is no wealth redistribution cure for poverty. Nor is there a market or political/governmental cure. See: Communism, Socialism. The best we have is band-aids like welfare, which I support. What we need is a plan that also stops new poor from being created. There will always be people with a lot and people with none. That's the human animal in action. Using that reality as a baseline, isn't the better course to try to lower the population of the poor? If there are less poor people reproducing there are less poor people.

"Curing" poverty in the sense any politician or policy wonk talks about is just, I don't know... Some sort of crazy utopian gibberish. Nonsense that makes people think such a war on human nature is even worth fighting. Its one of those dumb fictions a lot of people refuse to give up because they don;t want to look at reality and what we are and what kind of societies we naturally create. Silliness. Yes, we can and should do something about it. But curing it?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight -- voting for economic policies that might benefit the working class? Redistribution of income, socialism, 1970s era liberalism, bad, foolish, against the laws of economics, etc. Voting for economic policies that favor the rich? Wise, economically sound, American, the right thing to do, etc. Got it.

Snark aside, here's an example -- NAFTA. Free trade is a great thing for the country overall, I agree, but really bad for certain segments of the economy and really good for certain segments of the economy. The current political reality holds that anyone who says "hey, wait a minute -- these textile workers in South Carolina who lost their jobs when their boss relocated to Hondorus need some help" are accused of class warfare. But the idea of cutting the capital gains tax for the factory owner is applauded.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you think Petraeus and his job should be above politics, you're barking up the wrong tree. Try this article:
[list]The risks of playing politics with the military
By Bruce Ackerman

The pertinent parts are:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It was Maj Gen Lynch who was making the giant step into forbidden territory. He had no business engaging in a public debate with a US senator. His remarks represent an assault on the principle of civilian control - the most blatant so far during the Iraq war.

The Financial Times should understand that civilian control of the military, means the president and the secretary of defense, civilians, control the military. Do you really want to quote an article that says a General should not disagree with a Senator. A Senator who is pandering to get votes and a General who really knows what is going on? If the General had said we were losing the war, no liberals would have a problem with it. He just had the temerity to question that we are not making progress so the liberals are running amuck.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Once again, nobody is noticing the threat to civilian control. Mr. Bush has pushed Gen Petraeus into the foreground to shore up his badly damaged credibility. But in doing so, he has made himself a hostage. He needs the general more than the general needs him. Despite the president's grandiose pretensions as commander-in-chief, the future of the Iraq war is up to Gen Petraeus.

Is this a bad thing? You liberals were saying that the General can’t be trusted because he is being spoon fed by the administration. But now this statement admits that the General can tell the truth. Isn’t that what we want. Isn’t this what you liberals want all along. A General who is not afraid to state it like it is. Oh wait, that is only if the General has something negative to say. If he has something positive to say – it is a threat to our constitution. Are you really worried that General Petraeus is going to become the next dictator of the United States? Congress voted this guy in unanimously, and now they don’t like what he has to say. And to say that he is only feeding them Bush’s propaganda is calling him a liar. When a general of the army swears that he is telling the truth I tend to believe him over any Democrat in Congress trying to score political points. Iraq could be completely pacified and the Democrats would still find a way to say that Petraeus was lying and things were still a mess. They don’t want us to succeed because that would be bad for their political futures. It is that simple.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
The pertinent parts are:



The Financial Times should understand that civilian control of the military, means the president and the secretary of defense, civilians, control the military. Do you really want to quote an article that says a General should not disagree with a Senator. A Senator who is pandering to get votes and a General who really knows what is going on? If the General had said we were losing the war, no liberals would have a problem with it. He just had the temerity to question that we are not making progress so the liberals are running amuck.



Is this a bad thing? You liberals were saying that the General can’t be trusted because he is being spoon fed by the administration. But now this statement admits that the General can tell the truth. Isn’t that what we want. Isn’t this what you liberals want all along. A General who is not afraid to state it like it is. Oh wait, that is only if the General has something negative to say. If he has something positive to say – it is a threat to our constitution. Are you really worried that General Petraeus is going to become the next dictator of the United States? Congress voted this guy in unanimously, and now they don’t like what he has to say. And to say that he is only feeding them Bush’s propaganda is calling him a liar. When a general of the army swears that he is telling the truth I tend to believe him over any Democrat in Congress trying to score political points. Iraq could be completely pacified and the Democrats would still find a way to say that Petraeus was lying and things were still a mess. They don’t want us to succeed because that would be bad for their political futures. It is that simple.

i basically said the same thing to him, just shorter and snide. Ty and his toadies all told me it is becasue I can't read well. Prepare for that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight -- voting for economic policies that might benefit the working class? Redistribution of income, socialism, 1970s era liberalism, bad, foolish, against the laws of economics, etc. Voting for economic policies that favor the rich? Wise, economically sound, American, the right thing to do, etc. Got it.

Snark aside, here's an example -- NAFTA. Free trade is a great thing for the country overall, I agree, but really bad for certain segments of the economy and really good for certain segments of the economy. The current political reality holds that anyone who says "hey, wait a minute -- these textile workers in South Carolina who lost their jobs when their boss relocated to Hondorus need some help" are accused of class warfare. But the idea of cutting the capital gains tax for the factory owner is applauded.

Globalization is a reality no one can escape. It is hitting the white collar worker just as hard as the blue. Your argument's a few years late.

Pssst... A lot of those people who worked in manufacturing jobs own stock. You've a pretty snotty view of those you claim to want to help. But by all means, give them some sort of benefit with one hand while you increase their capital gains rates on the other.

Bush isn't helping the rich. He's just not handcuffing them as you'd seem to like.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What you're talking about is the negative income tax Milton Friedman first came up with and Nixon adopted. It's one of the smartest ideas the man ever had.

It didn't pay people not to have babies; it just didn't provide a system that paid more to a mother who had more children. If you truly want to provide an economic incentive for putting children up for adoption, which is really nothing more than trafficking in children, why not just let the mothers put them up for auction on Ebay, and charge a withholding tax on the proceeds?

The stipend for not having children would be have to be considerably higher than the one for putting them for adoption.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The stipend for not having children would be have to be considerably higher than the one for putting them for adoption.

That's socialism. My auction idea allows the free market to effect a rational distribution of infants. Not only that, but it solves Not Bob's Nafta crisis. Sure, the factory was shut down and replaced with a maquila in Piedras Negras, but Momma can pop out another kid for the couples that waited until they were 50 to decide they wanted a family to bid on. If the kid is white, blond, and blue-eyed, they can probably make enough to cover rent, food, and get a big-screen tv. Fucking's a lot more fun than operating a punch press, and you don't even need to put down your beer if you can get the wife to do a reverse cowboy durng the halftime show.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i basically said the same thing to him, just shorter and snide. Ty and his toadies all told me it is becasue I can't read well. Prepare for that.

I noticed that. That is why I repeated what you said but took the direct quotes. Hard to argue with your reading comprehension when the sentence you are referring to is rightin front off their noses.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Globalization is a reality no one can escape. It is hitting the white collar worker just as hard as the blue. Your argument's a few years late.

Sure one can escape it. Well, countries can. Slap up a huge tarriff a la Smoot-Hawley, and presto. Autarky may not be good policy, but it is possible for a state to attempt it. I doubt that the Chinese will be sending gunboats up our rivers to enforce the will of the modern day version of United Fruit.

More importantly, it is not necessary to reject the idea of globalization to appreciate the fact that the good that it brings to our economy is an overall one, not a universal one. Why shouldn't those who disproportionately benefit from the policies that created that benefit pay a portion of their gains to help those who disproportionately suffered from it?

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Pssst... A lot of those people who worked in manufacturing jobs own stock. You've a pretty snotty view of those you claim to want to help. But by all means, give them some sort of benefit with one hand while you increase their capital gains rates on the other.

I call bullshit. Show me some statistics on the incidence of stock ownership amongst former textile factory workers in South Carolina. Those guys weren't unionized, either, so it ain't like they even owned them indirectly via the pension plan.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Bush isn't helping the rich. He's just not handcuffing them as you'd seem to like.

You must be joking on this one, Mr. Warbucks. I guess all those tax cuts that your guy gave you were merely Not Handcuffs in your book, rather than bribes to get your vote.

Face it, buddy-boy: you are rich, and the government gives you all sorts of goodies. You will be first against the wall, come the Revolution.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That's socialism. My auction idea allows the free market to effect a rational distribution of infants. Not only that, but it solves Not Bob's Nafta crisis. Sure, the factory was shut down and replaced with a maquila in Piedras Negras, but Momma can pop out another kid for the couples that waited until they were 50 to decide they wanted a family to bid on. If the kid is white, blond, and blue-eyed, they can probably make enough to cover rent, food, and get a big-screen tv. Fucking's a lot more fun than operating a punch press, and you don't even need to put down your beer if you can get the wife to do a reverse cowboy durng the halftime show.

I am convinced. I support your framework.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Sure one can escape it. Well, countries can. Slap up a huge tarriff a la Smoot-Hawley, and presto. Autarky may not be good policy, but it is possible for a state to attempt it. I doubt that the Chinese will be sending gunboats up our rivers to enforce the will of the modern day version of United Fruit.

More importantly, it is not necessary to reject the idea of globalization to appreciate the fact that the good that it brings to our economy is an overall one, not a universal one. Why shouldn't those who disproportionately benefit from the policies that created that benefit pay a portion of their gains to help those who disproportionately suffered from it?

I call bullshit. Show me some statistics on the incidence of stock ownership amongst former textile factory workers in South Carolina. Those guys weren't unionized, either, so it ain't like they even owned them indirectly via the pension plan.

You must be joking on this one, Mr. Warbucks. I guess all those tax cuts that your guy gave you were merely Not Handcuffs in your book, rather than bribes to get your vote.

Face it, buddy-boy: you are rich, and the government gives you all sorts of goodies. You will be first against the wall, come the Revolution.

Yes, we should implement tariffs so we can totally fuck up the economy and make the cost of goods rise, to help Joe Manufacturer. Indeed. Lets do something that really screws up the retailers but good, so Wall Street can tank and drag a bunch of retirees portfolios and pensions funds down.

It's all tied together, Bob. You can't surgically redistribute wealth without adverse ripples everywhere. And you can't soak the rich. They're immune because of the way they have their money structured. You wind up soaking me and you.

We could play this bullshit game back and forth for weeks, and every solution you offer would have a counterbalancing painful effect on the pocketbooks of people you intend to help.

As to my insane wealth, I am thrilled to be so rich. If only somebody would just remind me where I put all those piles of money I'd sure appreciate it... I just seem to keep misplacing them. Terrible. Perhaps I'll have Jeeves tend to them in the future.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ebay? on ebay you have to post pictures and lots of the really poor are ugly. not saleable.

Previously, I had not suspected that your avatar photos were not Photoshopped.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you really want to quote an article that says a General should not disagree with a Senator. A Senator who is pandering to get votes and a General who really knows what is going on?

Yes, I do. Because the principle of civilian control of the military is important, and if the military gets sucked into fighting George Bush's fights because he is too weak to fight them himself, we'll all lose.

The ridiculousness of your position is illustrated by the fact that the Senator in question is John Warner, a Republican who is about the most respected Senator on military issues. People generally assume that he speaks for the services.

And we all know that Bush selects which generals speak for him. When the joint chiefs disagreed with his plans for Iraq, he went and found Petraeus. The generals who advocate for his policies are those who agree with him. The others don't give press conferences.