A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm told that this speech by Howard Dean about the Democratic Party kicks ass. Those who are unlikely to like a speech by Howard Dean about the Democratic Party probably should not bother to read it, however.

This is funny:

• Here in Washington, it seems that after every losing election, there's a consensus reached among decision-makers in the Democratic Party is that the way to win is to be more like Republicans.
  
  I suppose you could call that philosophy: if you didn't beat 'em, join them.
  
  I'm not one for making predictions -- but if we accept that philosophy this time around, another Democrat will be standing here in four years giving this same speech. we cannot win by being "Republican-lite." We've tried it; it doesn't work.
  The question is not whether we move left or right. It's not about our direction. What we need to start focusing on... is the destination.

Isn't that exactly how Clinton won?

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Which reminds me -- I wonder what conclusions we are to draw about the state of Palestinian democracy if they end up electing a president whose jail sentence is not yet completed.

That his campaign manager used to work for Marion Barry?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
% who attend services at least once a week:

• U.S.A. 45%
  Turkey 38%
  Saudi Arabia 28%
  Iran 27%

Ezra Klein

Oh, this is pure rubbish.

What is the % then, in those same respective countries, of people who drop onto their knees in public places to pray?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Oh, this is pure rubbish.

What is the % then, in those same respective countries, of people who drop onto their knees in public places to pray?

What's the percentage in those same respective countries of people who speak in tongues and lay on hands?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What's the percentage in those same respective countries of people who speak in tongues and lay on hands?

I was thinking the same thing. I'm guessing slave has never been to an Assembly of God or Pentecostal service. Freaky shit.

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
What's the percentage in those same respective countries of people who speak in tongues and lay on hands?

Perhaps lower in the Muslim countries, since the women aren't allowed to speak unless spoken to.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
I was thinking the same thing. I'm guessing slave has never been to an Assembly of God or Pentecostal service. Freaky shit.

I've been to a Reverend Horton Heat show. Does that count?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Perhaps lower in the Muslim countries, since the women aren't allowed to speak unless spoken to.

Surrendered wives?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Commentators in the American world have long been wondering what this country is doing to promote the voting rights of Arabs living under regimes we support, from Morocco to Egypt to Saudi Arabia.

Not killing people in them? Just a guess.

Oh, and it was Ty who actually proved something to Fluff, not me (that is Not Hank- not me might be Fluff).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
% who attend services at least once a week:

• U.S.A. 45%
  Turkey 38%
  Saudi Arabia 28%
  Iran 27%

Ezra Klein

did Tim McVeigh attend chuch? its not the going to church that scares people, it when it causes them to go to flight school or something like that when I get nervous.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Not killing people in them? Just a guess.

Oh, and it was Ty who actually proved something to Fluff, not me (that is Not Hank- not me might be Fluff).

So, if "not killing people in a given country" is a way of supporting voting rights in that country, we must not be supporting voting rights in Iraq.

Did you switch sides? Cool.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So, if "not killing people in a given country" is a way of supporting voting rights in that country, we must not be supporting voting rights in Iraq.

Its a way, not the only way. And we only kill the ones who probably wouldn't vote for our guy- like the extreme example of what Ty and them think happened in Ohio.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Its a way, not the only way. And we only kill the ones who probably wouldn't vote for our guy- like the extreme example of what Ty and them think happened in Ohio.

So, the presence or absence of killing says nothing about relative levels of support for voting rights.

So, your post about "not killing people" was utterly non-responsive and pointless.

Par for the course. I can go home happy.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you think they'll give him a library once he's left office?

Only if he balances the budget...

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Kevin Drum has a particularly good pair of posts here and here about the assumptions behind the numbers used to sell Social Security privatization.

In brief, the projection that Social Security will go insolvent in (e.g.) 2042 is based on assumptions about GDP -- that GDP will decline because, inter alia, population growth will decline. On the other hand, the projection that privatization can plug the gap is based on assumptions about annual returns -- that annual returns will be at least 5% and (according to most advocates) 6%-7%. But these are not independent variables, and it would seem to be difficult to conjure up a world in which the economy is growing at less than 2% but investments are steadily gaining 7%.

As Drum says in the comments to one of those posts:

• Historical real returns on stocks have been in the neighborhood of 4.5-5%. However, that's because (a) GDP growth has been about 3.5% and (b) PE ratios have increased, meaning that stock prices have grown even faster than GDP.
  
  However, lower population growth means lower GDP growth. No way around that. And there's no good reason to think that PE ratios are going to go up yet again. In fact, it's more likely that they're going to fall a bit.
  
  But privatization advocates keep claiming that stock returns can be high withough acknowledging that this assumes continuing high GDP growth. And even if they're right, this high GDP growth negates the very reason for private accounts.
  
  It's a real shell game.
  
  (FWIW, productivity growth has been very high for the past few years, and it's possible that it might stay higher than historical averages for a long time. If it does, GDP growth might very well be in the 2.5-3% range. I find this quite plausible myself — although I don't know if I want to bet the farm on it just yet — but if it's true then Social Security is in great shape. No need to do anything at all.)

Admittedly, I didn't read all the details, but isn't this only relevant if you believe the only reason to privitize is a bail out. One could also argue that privitization will allow people to earn higher (any) returns and retire with greater resources.

The other thing is that privitization would also lead billions into the market, thus meaning that it might be possible in the short term to have continued returns even with declining growth in GDP.