Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[The Larry Davis Experience]

I found this article in today's WSJ about the chronology of events on 9/11 to be interesting:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...aKeBm4,00.html

By the way, did anyone see video of Powell's press conference in Iraq last Friday? All of the Iraqi and foreign journalists walked out in protest over the deaths of two Iraqi reporters who were following up on a bombing story, which kind of presented an obstacle for the Let's Celebrate Iraq tone the admin was going for last week. Powell's subsequent statement was quite entertaining, in a jet laggy is-he-going-to-snap sort of way. I think it would have gotten more attention but it kind of got lost in the Friday news shuffle.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, this is a politics board, for one, and, for another, it was my impression that the statement was put forth in a manner designed to characterize the current state of the economy - in other words, my perception was that a partisan point was being asserted.

If Wonk was simply saying, we don't save enough, and we never have saved enough, well, then, . . .

You need to pick a lane here, big guy.* Either it was (a) a political point, in which case it is perceptions that count because how people are going to vote is going to depend not on whether they actually could eke it out a couple months without a paycheck, or (b) a factual point, in which case in theory it could be proven or disproven but there probably aren't going to be any definitive studies on it, and if there were, the studies would undoubtedly contain some kind of assumption that you could argue with.

I have to believe you know that someone posting an assertion like that in an attempt to sway the opinion of anyone on this board is going to be fruitless, so in the sense it is that kind of political statement it's meaningless.



*Incidentally you looked fab (other than the belly) in that Uff Da shirt at the local country & western bar this weekend.

[Not Me]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGABML305SD.html

Arafat Concerned He Might Be Next in Line After Yassin Assassination

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat fears he's next on Israel's hit list after the assassination Monday of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin, aides said. Israeli security officials say their focus is on Hamas - for now.

The missile strike that killed Yassin may have shaken Arafat in more ways than one. The killing sparked huge demonstrations throughout the West Bank and Gaza, showing just how formidable a rival Hamas has become to Arafat's Palestinian Authority.

Some 15,000 Palestinians expressed their condolences at a wake arranged by Hamas in Ramallah. A similar event hosted by Arafat at his nearby headquarters drew only about 1,500 people, many of them Palestinian Authority officials.

After Yassin's killing, Arafat expressed concern he, too, might be targeted. "Arafat feels he is threatened, and we feel he's threatened because when they target Sheik Yassin, they are not far from Arafat," said Palestinian Communications Minister Azzam Ahmed.

Palestinian minister Saeb Erekat said Arafat's safety was discussed during an emergency Cabinet meeting Monday. "Of course there is concern," he said. "This might be the end of the game, destroying the Palestinian Authority and killing President Arafat."

Roni Daniel, military correspondent for Israel's Channel Two TV, cited a senior Israeli defense official as saying Arafat could be a target soon.

However, a security official told The Associated Press that Israel's campaign would focus on Hamas. The official said strikes were expected to intensify.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, this is a politics board, for one, and, for another, it was my impression that the statement was put forth in a manner designed to characterize the current state of the economy - in other words, my perception was that a partisan point was being asserted.

If Wonk was simply saying, we don't save enough, and we never have saved enough, well, then, . . .

My point, which was actually supporting another poster (at this point I forget who) who suggested that more voters are worried about maintaining their jobs than they are about fostering growth, and that they would be more likely to vote that way.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You need to pick a lane here, big guy.*

I resent this.

I'm dieting, okay?

[fufu]

Originally posted by Not Me
but the reason that they cannot afford it is because they spend their money on other things and since they are healthy, don't feel they need health insurance.

They might be healthy but what happens if they are involved in an MVA, or in my town, some idiot runs a red light. They are looking at thousands of dollars in medical bills.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, this is a politics board, for one, and, for another, it was my impression that the statement was put forth in a manner designed to characterize the current state of the economy - in other words, my perception was that a partisan point was being asserted.

If Wonk was simply saying, we don't save enough, and we never have saved enough, well, then, . . .

(a) "It was a political argument" doesn't really help me make the logical jump you're describing.

(b) So what if it was a political point? Atticus paraphrased the statement this way (Wonk, speak now if this is wrong).

Wonk's point was that the vast majority of American workers are living paycheck to paycheck, and fear job loss far more than they fear macroeconomic inefficiencies or suboptimal GDP growth. They will vote accordingly. Is that seriously in dispute?

Bilmore, if I understand your response it's something along the lines of:

(1) No, nowhere near the vast majority of American workers are living paycheck to paycheck. (This assertion does not accurately reflect the state of the economy.)

(2) No, surveys that mention that majorities of workers earning under $50k feel this way doesn't mean that they really *are* so living. (I am willing to concede that they might *feel* that way, though).

(3) No, the data on the savings rate being low doesn't count here because it's not historically too different from how we've saved in the past.

Look, I understand the sense of comfort derived from being able to trace a trend from 20 years ago (or so) to today to reflect how or why things are different*, and by extension how if we don't see that empirical data, then really all must be OK with the world, and people -- including those participating in the study -- are merely suffering from external, mass hallucinations perpetuated by partisan groups.

But I *still* don't understand how "I thought a partisan point was being asserted" explains the jump in logic that people who say they're living paycheck to paycheck must simply be mistaken about the true state of their personal finances. Because it signifies only what they "feel" about their finances and not something objective, once something bad happens, they'll be fine, right?

Gattigap

*Maybe this could be found through an analysis of increasing levels of consumer debt in recent years, but I'm afraid I'm done researching for the day.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
I resent this.

I'm dieting, okay?

That was such a substantive response, it makes me feel I should apologize to you in response to all the times you have bitched about non-substantive responses, in particular mine. Were you the one who complained about how women aren't around here because they are busy discussing blow jobs and/or reality TV?*

Which is it, (a) or (b)? Or are you conceding that you are foolish enough to have taken the third option?


*I honestly don't remember if that was your comment or someone else's.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
My point, which was actually supporting another poster (at this point I forget who) who suggested that more voters are worried about maintaining their jobs than they are about fostering growth, and that they would be more likely to vote that way.

I think there is definitely a subset of voter who feel this way. I don't know if they outnumber those who are interested in growth. The retired population, for instance, wants to see growth more as do those who feel secure in their jobs. The reason is that growth is likely to increase the value of their retirement funds/assets.

I am sure there is a subset of voters who do not feel secure in their jobs. I just don't know how large the group is in relation to those more concerned with growth.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by fufu
They might be healthy but what happens if they are involved in an MVA, or in my town, some idiot runs a red light. They are looking at thousands of dollars in medical bills.

Auto insurance? Their health insurance may well refuse to pay b/c they can recover thru auto insurance.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
(a) "It was a political argument" doesn't really help me make the logical jump you're describing.

I read it as implying that this "paycheck to paycheck" thing represented an insecurity to workers now more than other times in the past. That's why I included the temporal comment.

If the statement was, that's how it's always been, then that's four minutes of my life I'll never get back.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My bad. Maybe it was the whole "WHICH WILL IMPACT HOW PEOPLE VOTE" language that confused me into thinking some partisan point was being made.

I hope you've caught up by now. Your graduate degree in "SCIENCE" must have adversely impacted your reaeding comp.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I grew up lower middle class. I know about the things you lot read about in your blogs.

OK, Will Hunting.

How do you know where we came from? Look at Ty -- he's mean enough that he obviously grew up fighting stray dogs for scraps of meat in the alley.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Look at Ty -- he's mean enough that he obviously grew up fighting stray dogs for scraps of meat in the alley.

The only way I can form that particular picture involves him wearing a suit, tie, and shorts from boarding school.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by fufu
They might be healthy but what happens if they are involved in an MVA, or in my town, some idiot runs a red light. They are looking at thousands of dollars in medical bills.

They get treated in an ER just like those without insurance. Then they get a big bill, don't pay it, get a collection agency after them, and declare bankruptcy and discharge the debt. Then the rest of us payer higher insurance costs because the hospitals have to increase their fees to the paying patients to cover the care provided to those who don't pay, i.e., cross-subsidization.

This is why we need to pass legislation requiring everyone to carry at least catastrophic coverage with vouchers for those who really cannot afford the premiums.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I read it as implying that this "paycheck to paycheck" thing represented an insecurity to workers now more than other times in the past. That's why I included the temporal comment.

If the statement was, that's how it's always been, then that's four minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Touchy, touchy. Where did Club and Skekky go? They're the ones fighting over whether the voters have any interest in marginal GDP growth under trade agreements, when that theoretical growth is weighed against offshoring of jobs.

I think Skekky's got the better half of that one. When it's said people will vote their wallets, I don't think that means they vote the national purse --- it means they are risk averse and selfish, which tends toward protectionism. NAFTA got the support it did because nobody really thought their job would be exported. I think they didn't realize that Indians are just as smart as Alabamans and have better phone skills.