Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
The more I think about it, the more I can't believe that a Democrat or Republican would be willing to vote against this bill. It would seem to me that that would be political suicide. Your opinion just seems to reinforce that. She wants me to call and lobby Assmeblymembers for it, but it seesm like a waste of time (or maybe I am just rationalizing my laziness).

Your campaigns contributions from Coke, Kraft, Little Debbie, etc. go flying out the window if you vote for it. Similar legislation came up in Texas. Didn't make it out of committee. Bad for business, you know.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
They are pro-business, but they are often not pro-free market, particularly when it means being anti-free market. Look at the appointment of Cox to the SEC. Do you really think the "free market" will function better under Cox than Donaldson? Surely not, but regulated businesses had Bush's ear and wanted a friendlier regime. You see this pattern again and again with Bush Republicans.

I think both the deregulation of the phone industry and the airline industry was a good thing. I actually know cox pretty well and trust his judegment.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And your view of Democrats is a caricature.

Yes but an accurate one.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop You cannot be serious. What threat are trial lawyers to the free market? And unions? Off the top of my head, more serious threats to the free market include:

Deficit spending's effects on interest rates
A permissive SEC allowing future Enrons
The effects of rising oil prices
Health care costs
Pension regulation (or the lack thereof)

Small business are the back bone of the economy. That is where the new jobs come from and also the future Microsofts. They are also the most attached to free trade. Almost every Chamber of commerce in the Bay Area is a Republican strong hold. Most small business owners I have met, their biggest complaint is liability. Fear of Lawsuits. Any reform in this area is always obstructed by the trial lawyers. The California Chamber of Commerce and the National Chamber of commerce almost always back the Republicans. And that is because Republicans are most pro-business.

As far as unions are concerned almost everything they support I am against. When Davis was Governor they passed laws that did not allow Silicon Valley companys to have a four day work week (with ten hour days). They pushed through a bill that would not allow Costco to sell food (luckily even Davis couldn't stomach that one), and they are always trying to limit the state governments ability to do competitive bidding for contracts. In addition, on a national scale the biggest road blocks to free trade deals (NAFTA, WTO and not the Central American Free Trade act) are the Unions. Unions don't care about creating new jobs, they just care about holding on to the ones that exist - no matter what the cost.

Privatising Social Secuirty is the biggest free market issue of the day. And we know which side the Democrats are on in that.

Deficit spending's effects on interest rates
The effects of rising oil prices
Health care costs
Pension regulation (or the lack thereof)

On the above issues I don't see how the Dems are any better than the Republicans.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Your campaigns contributions from Coke, Kraft, Little Debbie, etc. go flying out the window if you vote for it. Similar legislation came up in Texas. Didn't make it out of committee. Bad for business, you know.

Wow - that is surprizing. Are you saying I have to get off my lazy ass and make these calls. What if the local school kids find out what I am doing? Won't they come over here and egg my car because they can't buy hohos at school anymore? I know I would have been angry if my school had cut off my patoto chip supply.

[Spanky]

Well I am off the hook. It passed. That prior email was from late last night. I guess Bonnie wanted me to talk to the Assembly members early this morning (clearly she is not familiar with my hours). See if I had not procrastinated I would have wasted my time calling Assembly members, when my lobbying was not needed for passing. And I wouldn't have been able to share all my wisdom with you guys (no snickering).

Children of California Get Much Needed Assistance

AB 569 Passes Assembly Floor

SACRAMENTO—AB 569, authored by Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, to address school nutrition received bipartisan support in the Assembly today. The bill would attack the epidemic of childhood obesity head on by requiring foods sold during breakfast and lunch periods to be sold as full meals. It would also restrict the sale of junk foods such as chips, candies and soft drinks and encourage the sale of fresh fruits and vegetables instead.


"The statistics are frightening and action is needed now to reduce the incidence of childhood obesity, diabetes and heart disease," stated Garcia. "The action taken by the California State Assembly sends a message that we will make children's health a priority over profits gained from fatty, greasy foods."


Health experts claim since the early 1970’s, childhood obesity rates has more than doubled for preschoolers aged 2-5 and tripled for teenagers aged 12 to 19 years. According to the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, 26.5% of children in grades 5, 7 and 9 in California are overweight. The consequences for these children are many, including low self-esteem, poor body image, discrimination and poor health.


The bill will now move to the Senate Education Committee for a hearing before moving to the Senate Floor for a vote.



# # #

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think both the deregulation of the phone industry and the airline industry was a good thing.

And that has what to do with how the SEC balances the interests of businesses and investors?

I actually know cox pretty well and trust his judegment.

I have much respect for Cox, but he has strong views about the securities regulation that make me, as an investor, concerned. Setting aside what you know about Cox personally, have you not seen any of the coverage about why Bush dumped Donaldson and picked Cox? I'm talking about the business press here.

Yes but an accurate one.

Of some Democrats, maybe. But not all Republicans are Christian fundamentalists, either, as I'm sure you appreciate.

Small business are the back bone of the economy. That is where the new jobs come from and also the future Microsofts. They are also the most attached to free trade. Almost every Chamber of commerce in the Bay Area is a Republican strong hold. Most small business owners I have met, their biggest complaint is liability. Fear of Lawsuits. Any reform in this area is always obstructed by the trial lawyers. The California Chamber of Commerce and the National Chamber of commerce almost always back the Republicans. And that is because Republicans are most pro-business.

What you have here is a set of Chamber of Commerce talking points, but telling me that small business owners who are active in the GOP want tort reform is a long, long way from establishing that trial lawyers are a major threat to the free market. Try again.

As far as unions are concerned almost everything they support I am against. When Davis was Governor they passed laws that did not allow Silicon Valley companys to have a four day work week (with ten hour days). They pushed through a bill that would not allow Costco to sell food (luckily even Davis couldn't stomach that one), and they are always trying to limit the state governments ability to do competitive bidding for contracts. In addition, on a national scale the biggest road blocks to free trade deals (NAFTA, WTO and not the Central American Free Trade act) are the Unions. Unions don't care about creating new jobs, they just care about holding on to the ones that exist - no matter what the cost.

OK, and likewise businesses support an awful lot of measures that are harmful to competition even as they serve the narrow self-interest of those businesses. Government should strike a balance between the interests of labor and capital. A government that errs too far to either side (e.g., California state government, and the current federal government) will give us less than optimum markets.

Privatising Social Secuirty is the biggest free market issue of the day. And we know which side the Democrats are on in that.

Privatizing Social Security has very little to do with whether market participants are able to transact freely with each other. It's about whether consumers are able to obtain a sort of social insurance that the market is unable to provide. People like Social Security. It's a funny sort of free-market doctrine that tries to tell people that they can't have a government program they overwhelmingly support.

• Deficit spending's effects on interest rates
  The effects of rising oil prices
  Health care costs
  Pension regulation (or the lack thereof)

On the above issues I don't see how the Dems are any better than the Republicans.

You have the current crop of Republicans and their drunken-sailor spending policies to thank for the deficits.

I have a hard time faulting the GOP for rising oil prices, but would not that both prongs of the Admininstration's energy policy vis-a-vis oil -- invading Iraq and drilling in ANWR -- are terrible policy.

On health-care, please go back and compare the GOP drug benefit to the (cheaper, and more effective) alternative the Dems were pushing. The GOP plan was all about subsidizing big pharma -- exactly the sort of corporate giveaway that your party is now all about. Meanwhile, they have no plan to do anything about health care costs.

And the next time we meet, I'll see if you can tell me with a straight face that Republicans are just as interested as Democrats in forcing companies to properly fund pension plans.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And that has what to do with how the SEC balances the interests of businesses and investors?

I thought the subject who is more free market the Dems or the Repubs. You said that SEC was not requlating enough. My point was that it is better to err on the side of less regulation than too much regulation.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have much respect for Cox, but he has strong views about the securities regulation that make me, as an investor, concerned. Setting aside what you know about Cox personally, have you not seen any of the coverage about why Bush dumped Donaldson and picked Cox? I'm talking about the business press here.

Whatever the press says, I think that the Republican are more free market when it comes to regulation. Cox's appointment supports that position.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Of some Democrats, maybe. But not all Republicans are Christian fundamentalists, either, as I'm sure you appreciate..

True - but I would rather share my party with fundamentalists than with socialists.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop What you have here is a set of Chamber of Commerce talking points, but telling me that small business owners who are active in the GOP want tort reform is a long, long way from establishing that trial lawyers are a major threat to the free market. Try again.

I think small business owners, be on the front lines, are the best judges of what the biggest threat is to the running of their business profitably. If they tell me litigation. I believe them. Their biggest foe is the Trial lawyers. It is easy to be an armchair quarterback, but when the soldier in the field tells you what the biggest problem is you had better listen.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop OK, and likewise businesses support an awful lot of measures that are harmful to competition even as they serve the narrow self-interest of those businesses. ?

Wrong - specific industries may support a lot of anticompetitive stuff, but the business community in aggregate supports what is best for business. In other words what is best for growth.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Government should strike a balance between the interests of labor and capital. A government that errs too far to either side (e.g., California state government, and the current federal government) will give us less than optimum markets.?

The government should support what creates the most growth. Business want to grow and like a growing economy. Unions don't care about growth or a growing economy. They just care about protecting the jobs of the members of their unions.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Privatizing Social Security has very little to do with whether market participants are able to transact freely with each other. .?

Wrong - it is about whether the government or you is the best person to decide what to do with the money you have earned.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop It's about whether consumers are able to obtain a sort of social insurance that the market is unable to provide.

You don't think the private market can provide a better system than Social Security. How much are you depending on social security for your retirement?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop People like Social Security. It's a funny sort of free-market doctrine that tries to tell people that they can't have a government program they overwhelmingly support.

So if in a democracy, if the people decide to nationalize all industry, that is really free market doctrine? Free Market doctrine is very different than majority rules.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop You have the current crop of Republicans and their drunken-sailor spending policies to thank for the deficits..

And the Dems have such a strong record of balancing budgets. Remember it took the election of a Republican congress in 1994 to stop the red ink that had been going on since the last time the Repubicans held the Congress.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I have a hard time faulting the GOP for rising oil prices, but would not that both prongs of the Admininstration's energy policy vis-a-vis oil -- invading Iraq and drilling in ANWR -- are terrible policy.?

As far as drilling in ANWAR - do you think increased supply is going to raise oil prices?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop On health-care, please go back and compare the GOP drug benefit to the (cheaper, and more effective) alternative the Dems were pushing. The GOP plan was all about subsidizing big pharma -- exactly the sort of corporate giveaway that your party is now all about. Meanwhile, they have no plan to do anything about health care costs..?

Health Care costs in the hands of the Democrats will bring down costs. I just don't buy it.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And the next time we meet, I'll see if you can tell me with a straight face that Republicans are just as interested as Democrats in forcing companies to properly fund pension plans.

What has this got to do with how free the market is. I will tell you with a straight face that Republicans are much more pro free market than Dems.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And the next time we meet, I'll see if you can tell me with a straight face that Republicans are just as interested as Democrats in forcing companies to properly fund pension plans.

First both of y'all need to read several really long articles on the realities of corporate pension funding issues, have an understanding of what has led to the laws that are in place today. Then you can be in a position to evaluate the proposals and comment on them intelligently, rather than just using them as a prop for your grandstanding. There are some pretty major tax advantaging considerations that tend to drive companies' thinking (and what they tell their lobbyists to push Congress to do) that really aren't ever mentioned in the debate, which is framed in simplistic terms. As are all of the debates. Oh, fuck it, nevermind.

Mmmmm, chocolate cake.

[chad87655]

Am I the only one who finds it vomitizing that the same bunch of pseudo-faux-intellectual numnutted left-winged euro-american pussies that are up in arms about the toilet flushing of the vile Koran are the same idiots that thought "Piss Christ" was art?

[Spanky]

Another reason why I support Republicans and not Democrats. From Assemblyman Mark Wyland - Republican

SCORE THIS ONE: UNIONS 1, EVERYBODY ELSE 0


A funny thing happened in the Labor & Employment Committee on April 20, 2005. I presented a bill to the committee which says simply that every regulation and posting required to be posted in the workplace or at the jobsite pursuant to state law shall be written in plain language so that the content is easily understandable by both the employer and every employee. You’d think that a labor union would want their workers to understand their rights, but when a compromise was proposed in committee by the labor-friendly chairman, the idea got vetoed. No, the common sense reform was not vetoed by the Governor, but by a representative of a public employee union who stood up in the back of the committee room--off camera--and made gestures to liberal committee members to ensure that all discussion of compromise was quashed. Everybody in the room saw what she did. And the majority quickly killed discussion and the bill died 2-5 on a strict party-line vote.

This is what I mean by Special Interests controlling your government in Sacramento.


AND THIS ONE: LAWYERS 246 BILLION, TAXPAYER 0


According to a recent study, the U.S. tort system cost taxpayers $246 billion in 2003, which translates to an $845 per person tax, plus billions more in indirect costs. The sum is based on benefits paid or expected to be paid to third parties, defense costs, and administrative expenses and is passed on to consumers through increased costs for good and services. U.S. consumers pay directly for the high cost of going to court in higher liability insurance premiums because liability insurance rates reflect what insurance companies pay out for their policyholders’ legal defense and any judgments against them. And they pay indirectly in higher prices for goods and services since businesses pass on to consumers the expenses they incur in protecting themselves against lawsuits, including the cost of commercial liability insurance. I think the following facts speak for themselves:

California’s legal system was ranked the 5th worst in the country in a recent survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. [Source: Harris Interactive Inc. 2004 State Liability Rankings Study, March, 2004]

At current levels, U.S. tort costs are equivalent to a 5% tax on wages. [Source: Tillinghast-Towers Perrin U.S. Tort Costs: 2003 Update. Trends and Findings on the U.S. Tort System, December, 2003]

1.5 million lawsuits were filed in California in 2002. [Source: 2003 Court Statistics Report by the Judicial Council of California]

California school districts spend $80 million annually to defend, inure, and pay for tort and other liability claims. [Source: Cal-Tax Digest, "Local Government Liability: A Major Cost and Exposure," February 1999]

California has dropped from 39th to 44th on the list of small-business friendly states due in part to its litigation environment according to a study compiled by the Small Business Survival Committee [Source: Orange County Register, August 13, 2001]

If the earnings of trial lawyers were combined, they would amass 50% more than Microsoft or Intel and twice that of Coca-Cola [Source: Trial Lawyers, Inc., A Report on the Lawsuit Industry in America, 2003]

*source: Insurance Information Institute; Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I thought the subject who is more free market the Dems or the Repubs. You said that SEC was not requlating enough. My point was that it is better to err on the side of less regulation than too much regulation.

Do you invest in the markets? I cannot understand why anyone who is investing in the stock market would rather have a laissez faire SEC. Donaldson was a Republican interested in striking a balance. Cox, not so much.

True - but I would rather share my party with fundamentalists than with socialists.

You have a party dominated by fundamentalists, but I'm not sure who the socialist Dems are.

I think small business owners, be on the front lines, are the best judges of what the biggest threat is to the running of their business profitably. If they tell me litigation. I believe them. Their biggest foe is the Trial lawyers. It is easy to be an armchair quarterback, but when the soldier in the field tells you what the biggest problem is you had better listen.

I honestly cannot tell what the hell you are talking about, and I say that as someone who has spent a lot of time litigating on the defense side. Small business owners who are worrying about trial lawyers ought to be worrying about other things.

Wrong - specific industries may support a lot of anticompetitive stuff, but the business community in aggregate supports what is best for business. In other words what is best for growth.

Yeah, whatever. When this Congress passes something of that sort, you just let me know.

The government should support what creates the most growth. Business want to grow and like a growing economy. Unions don't care about growth or a growing economy. They just care about protecting the jobs of the members of their unions.

That's wrong, but since you seem to be reading off the Chamber of Commerce's talking points, I'm hardly surprised.

Wrong - it is about whether the government or you is the best person to decide what to do with the money you have earned.

That's such horseshit. People like Social Security because they want a component of their retirement income to be safe from what happens in the market. I want a balanced portfolio, and so do other people. People like Social Security, which is why they're not signing on to dumping it. It fills a need the market can't.

You don't think the private market can provide a better system than Social Security. How much are you depending on social security for your retirement?

No one should count on Social Security for all of it, but the only people who are indifferent to whether it's there are those who have much more many than most Americans. Bush is pushing a great program for the fatcats, but not for most people.

So if in a democracy, if the people decide to nationalize all industry, that is really free market doctrine? Free Market doctrine is very different than majority rules.

I think we're testing whether you're belief in free markets trumps whatever democratic principles you subscribe to. So far, the answer is yes. Meaning that people who want to vote to regulate markets should not be allowed to, in your book.

And the Dems have such a strong record of balancing budgets. Remember it took the election of a Republican congress in 1994 to stop the red ink that had been going on since the last time the Repubicans held the Congress.

That is such bullshit. I will concede that it's easier to balance the budget when Congress and the Executive Branch are controlled by different parties, since it tends to stem the flow of pork, but the fact is that Clinton and a Democratic Congress -- without a single GOP vote -- voted to take the crucial first step in 1993. Meanwhile, check out what GOP Congresses have done in recent years. It's a disgrace. Now that moderate Republicans from the Northeast are a vanishing breed, and the South has gone over to the GOP, the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility, and the GOP is the party of spending, waste, and deficits. /It's your party -- get used to it. They're not changing their stripes, but you can still leave.

As far as drilling in ANWAR - do you think increased supply is going to raise oil prices?

Increased supply would tend to reduce prices.

Health Care costs in the hands of the Democrats will bring down costs. I just don't buy it.

No, because -- like the rest of the GOP -- you see no need to consider policy, since you've got a nice ideology to turn to.

What has this got to do with how free the market is. I will tell you with a straight face that Republicans are much more pro free market than Dems.

You have workers who are not getting the pension plans they bargained for, and government regulators who are letting corporations abandon their obligations, and you think that has nothing to do with the operation of a free market? Apparently in your free market, only large corporations get to enjoy the benefits of entering into deals.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
In his interview with NPR this morning, they mentioned that he's been so busy since he was elected Chair of the DNC that he hasn't had time to move to DC yet.

R(helpful)T

"Not only are we going to look for a house in Georgetown.," Dean said, his voice rising. "We're going to look in Dupont Circle and Capitol Hill and Adams Morgan, and we're going to Arlington and Alexandria and Reston. And we're going to Chevy Chase and Bethesda and Potomac. And then we're going to pick out the Right House."

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have workers who are not getting the pension plans they bargained for, and government regulators who are letting corporations abandon their obligations, and you think that has nothing to do with the operation of a free market? Apparently in your free market, only large corporations get to enjoy the benefits of entering into deals.

OK, this is you drinking the Koolaid to an extent. Currently, pensions are protected up to a limit -- so the only people having their pensions reduced when a company turns the underfunded pension over to the PBGC are your "fat cats" -- people whose incomes were pretty fucking high. I will be behind you 100% if you want to say that all non-broad based pensions have to be eliminated, and the funds put into the broad-based plans, before a company can boot the broad-based plan over to the PBGC, but it's not the case that anyone other than the cream of the employees are really adversely affected by United sending the pensions to the PBGC.

On the defined benefit side, the largest plans are on the whole quite well funded. I don't have data on smaller plans (from smaller employers), but the largest plans cover the majority of people who have a defined benefit pension anyway -- smaller employers with smaller plans tend to terminate the plans if they move from defined benefit to defined contribution.

I'm not sure the system right now has the right balance between letting employers fund more heavily in good years to protect them against the lean years, when the value of investments in the pension fund will fall, leading to underfunding, but the company is dealing with a bad economy and is not in the best position to put money there. On the other hand, when the funding rules were looser, companies would use their pension plans as a tax shelter -- funds they put in were deductible.

I have to say that while I question some of the things IBM did with their pension plan, the uninformed witch-hunt on cash balance plans in Congress led to them taking the rather extreme step of stopping future accruals under the defined benefit plan altogether, and putting everone in a (richer) defined contribution plan. This is effectively doing to their employees what Bush wants to do to SS -- making their retirements dependent on their own investment abilities and the whims of the market.



Nonetheless, Medicare and corporate retiree health coverage and, by extension, healthcare in general are by far the more pressing problems. I wish people would fucking stop focusing so exclusively on SS and pensions.

Yes, Ty, I know you mentioned healthcare. I meant in general.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you invest in the markets? I cannot understand why anyone who is investing in the stock market would rather have a laissez faire SEC. Donaldson was a Republican interested in striking a balance. Cox, not so much.

I do invest, and I like it when my stocks go up.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have a party dominated by fundamentalists, but I'm not sure who the socialist Dems are.

When it comes to the passage of free trade agreements you can see where people loyalties lay. When Bush asked for Fast Track Authority very few Dems helped. For the central America free trade treaty, supposedly free trade Dems, like Ellen Tausher, are on the wrong side.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I honestly cannot tell what the hell you are talking about, and I say that as someone who has spent a lot of time litigating on the defense side. Small business owners who are worrying about trial lawyers ought to be worrying about other things.

There are two stalwart Republican groups in my area. Doctors and small business owners. And their common gripe is litigation and liability. Usually people are pretty good at looking out after their own intersts so I tend to believe them. The entire board of the Republican party in the Silicon Valley is either doctors or small business owners. Are they all delusional?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yeah, whatever. When this Congress passes something of that sort, you just let me know.

Yes like a free trade act.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop That's wrong, but since you seem to be reading off the Chamber of Commerce's talking points, I'm hardly surprised.

I have never read their talking points. And you think that you understand what is in the interest of American Businesses than the Chamber of Commerce? And if Unions are so concerned about job growth why are they against every free trade act? Considering how many jobs are dependant on international trade. And if they are so concerned about unemployment why do they hold up the German and French models that make it so hard to fire people, and thus give those countries their chronic unemployment.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop That's such horseshit. People like Social Security because they want a component of their retirement income to be safe from what happens in the market. I want a balanced portfolio, and so do other people. People like Social Security, which is why they're not signing on to dumping it. It fills a need the market can't.

Most people believe their money sits in a little account and is not touched by the government. They don't understand that is not the case, and don't understand, than if put into private accounts the returns would be much better. The Chilean system provides much better returns than our system. Oh, but wait, we can't use that one as a comparison, because even if it works really wwll, it was put in place by a brutal dictator so it must be ignored.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop No one should count on Social Security for all of it, but the only people who are indifferent to whether it's there are those who have much more many than most Americans. Bush is pushing a great program for the fatcats, but not for most people.

People would be able to count on Social Security if it was invested properly. And how does Bush's plan only benefit the fat cats? You are the one reading talking points now.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I think we're testing whether you're belief in free markets trumps whatever democratic principles you subscribe to. So far, the answer is yes. Meaning that people who want to vote to regulate markets should not be allowed to, in your book.

The whole Bill of Rights is anti-Democratic. It stops the majority from passing laws that infringe on people rights. Similarly, I don't believe that any policy, if supported by the majority, is necessarily right. If the majority is for policies that don't make economic sense, I don't have to like it. However, in the end, I believe my democratic principles are stronger than yours because I promote policies that create stable democracies, where you promote policies that may allow short term democracies, but in then end produce permanent dictatorhships.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop That is such bullshit. I will concede that it's easier to balance the budget when Congress and the Executive Branch are controlled by different parties, since it tends to stem the flow of pork, but the fact is that Clinton and a Democratic Congress -- without a single GOP vote -- voted to take the crucial first step in 1993. Meanwhile, check out what GOP Congresses have done in recent years. It's a disgrace. Now that moderate Republicans from the Northeast are a vanishing breed, and the South has gone over to the GOP, the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility, and the GOP is the party of spending, waste, and deficits. /It's your party -- get used to it. They're not changing their stripes, but you can still leave.

In 1993 budget was not a crucial first step. It raised taxes and raised spending. And it raised spending more than it raised taxes. Many Dems were against it because it did nothing about fiscal responsiblity. Every reasonable predicter said that the budget was not going to get us anywhere. When the Republicans took over everything changed. It was not a matter of if the budget was going to be balanced it was a matter of when. The Bond market, seeing that something was finally going to be done, dropped their long term interest rates. And Clinton did everything in his power to keep the budget unbalanced. Have you not forgotten that Clinton's whole gripe that shut the government down was that the Republicans were trimming the budget too much. "They were cutting medicare" actually reducing the growth, but that is not the point". Clinton wielded his veto, not for fiscal responsiblity, for against budget cuts. You may have agreed that "saving these programs" was more important than balancing the budget, but to say that Clinton was responsible for balancing the budget is pure denial. He spent his whole relection campaign critisizing the Republicans for making the cuts that were necessary to balance the budget.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Increased supply would tend to reduce prices..

No, because -- like the rest of the GOP -- you see no need to consider policy, since you've got a nice ideology to turn to.[/QUOTE]

Yes that irrational ideology that says that it is a bad idea to have health care run by the same group that runs the DMV and the Post Office.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have workers who are not getting the pension plans they bargained for, and government regulators who are letting corporations abandon their obligations, and you think that has nothing to do with the operation of a free market? Apparently in your free market, only large corporations get to enjoy the benefits of entering into deals.

When you don't like my point you just change the subject. We were talking about which party policies favor free market principles that lead to growth. This is just something you don't like about Republicans but is not on point. In order to have growth you need to have a business climate that promotes the growth of new and small businesses. That is where all the new growth and job creation comes from. Almost all the organizations that represent entrepeneurs and small businesses favor the Republicans. The biggest problem in this state for small business was worker's compensation. Alomost every business that was leaving California cited workers comp as the main problem. It was the number one priority for every business group in California. When Schwarzenegger tried to reform workers comp. the biggest obstacles to reform were the Unions and Trial Lawyers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
When it comes to the passage of free trade agreements you can see where people loyalties lay. When Bush asked for Fast Track Authority very few Dems helped. For the central America free trade treaty, supposedly free trade Dems, like Ellen Tausher, are on the wrong side.

You and I have talked about this. As I said before, the M.O. of this Administration, and this Congress, are to draft bills like that one to try to divide moderate Democrats from the business community. They don't want a bipartisan approach. They are trying to craft things so that reasonable Dems won't be able to sign on. That means "free trade" agreements designed to undermine environmental and labor protections, and so on.

There are two stalwart Republican groups in my area. Doctors and small business owners. And their common gripe is litigation and liability. Usually people are pretty good at looking out after their own intersts so I tend to believe them. The entire board of the Republican party in the Silicon Valley is either doctors or small business owners. Are they all delusional?

No, but neither does that prove that there is much a problem, nor that it is one of the free market's biggest problems. Doctors commit malpractice sometimes. They cannot police themselves. The legal system has to do it. If you tell me that the legal system doesn't do a particularly good job of that, I might agree, but the reforms proposed -- esp. limiting pain and suffering awards -- don't address the problem. Trial lawyers are filling a need.

Yes like a free trade act.

They started with a massive giveaway to the credit-card industry.

I have never read their talking points. And you think that you understand what is in the interest of American Businesses than the Chamber of Commerce? And if Unions are so concerned about job growth why are they against every free trade act? Considering how many jobs are dependant on international trade. And if they are so concerned about unemployment why do they hold up the German and French models that make it so hard to fire people, and thus give those countries their chronic unemployment.

Both businesses and unions support things that narrowly benefit themselves at the expense of the public good. We have all sorts of protections for various industries that your free-trade pals won't touch. Unions are no more prone to acting out of self-interest than businesses are.

Most people believe their money sits in a little account and is not touched by the government. They don't understand that is not the case, and don't understand, than if put into private accounts the returns would be much better.

They do understand that, but want the safety of Social Security, and to invest in the market on top of that.

The Chilean system provides much better returns than our system.

The only way to pretend that that's true is to really manipulate the figures and ignore what's actually happening in Chile.

[/QUOTE]
People would be able to count on Social Security if it was invested properly. And how does Bush's plan only benefit the fat cats? You are the one reading talking points now.
[QUOTE]

People can count on Social Security because the government guarantees it. If you privitize things, there are no guarantees. Fat cats would not be harmed by this, because they have other resources to fall back on if SS isn't there. But most people want the insurance SS provides.

You cannot run the numbers in a way that makes what Bush wants to do to SS look attractive to most people. That is why the more Bush talks, the fewer people support him on this. The only people who are solidly with him are those who -- like you, apparently -- have an ideological problem with Social Security itself. Average Americans are not with you on this. (Which Bush knows, which is why he barely talked about this issue until after the election.)

The whole Bill of Rights is anti-Democratic. It stops the majority from passing laws that infringe on people rights. Similarly, I don't believe that any policy, if supported by the majority, is necessarily right. If the majority is for policies that don't make economic sense, I don't have to like it. However, in the end, I believe my democratic principles are stronger than yours because I promote policies that create stable democracies, where you promote policies that may allow short term democracies, but in then end produce permanent dictatorhships.

So in your view, we should be overthrowing the elected government of Venezuela right now?

In 1993 budget was not a crucial first step. It raised taxes and raised spending. And it raised spending more than it raised taxes. Many Dems were against it because it did nothing about fiscal responsiblity. Every reasonable predicter said that the budget was not going to get us anywhere. When the Republicans took over everything changed. It was not a matter of if the budget was going to be balanced it was a matter of when. The Bond market, seeing that something was finally going to be done, dropped their long term interest rates. And Clinton did everything in his power to keep the budget unbalanced. Have you not forgotten that Clinton's whole gripe that shut the government down was that the Republicans were trimming the budget too much. "They were cutting medicare" actually reducing the growth, but that is not the point". Clinton wielded his veto, not for fiscal responsiblity, for against budget cuts. You may have agreed that "saving these programs" was more important than balancing the budget, but to say that Clinton was responsible for balancing the budget is pure denial. He spent his whole relection campaign critisizing the Republicans for making the cuts that were necessary to balance the budget.

As history has proven, you are simply wrong here. So wrong that it's hard to know where to begin. The simplest way to demonstrate this is that when Bush replaced Clinton, he and the Republican Congress went on a financial bender that has yet to stop, taking us from budget surpluses to massive deficits.

When you don't like my point you just change the subject. We were talking about which party policies favor free market principles that lead to growth....

No, we got to pensions because you were saying that trial lawyers and unions are the biggest threats to the free market around, and I listed a bunch of things that I thought posed much greater economic risks, including pension regulation.

I don't want get fringey going again (no mas, fringey, you win), so I will simply repeat my understanding that federal regulators have permitted companies to get away with underfunding their pensions, which will leave lots of workers (and the federal government) holding the bag. To the extent that the federal government is letting companies walk away from their obligations to these workers, there's a real problem.

...This is just something you don't like about Republicans but is not on point. In order to have growth you need to have a business climate that promotes the growth of new and small businesses. That is where all the new growth and job creation comes from. Almost all the organizations that represent entrepeneurs and small businesses favor the Republicans. The biggest problem in this state for small business was worker's compensation. Alomost every business that was leaving California cited workers comp as the main problem. It was the number one priority for every business group in California. When Schwarzenegger tried to reform workers comp. the biggest obstacles to reform were the Unions and Trial Lawyers.

First of all, I'm not interested in defending California's workers comp system. I hear stories, too.

That said, if you want to prove that something like workers comp is a problem for the economy, you're going to have to come up with something more than "they say it's a problem." Where there's smoke, sometimes there's a smoke machine.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


No, but neither does that prove that there is much a problem, nor that it is one of the free market's biggest problems. Doctors commit malpractice sometimes. They cannot police themselves. The legal system has to do it. If you tell me that the legal system doesn't do a particularly good job of that, I might agree, but the reforms proposed -- esp. limiting pain and suffering awards -- don't address the problem. Trial lawyers are filling a need.

Yet another middle ground that seems to elude all sides in this debate... why don't us Rs start demanding better policing of doctors? I don't have a problem with damage caps (and, in fact, I'm pretty much in favor of them across the board), but what's the point of any of this if we can't get the medical regulators (at the state level?) to start pulling licenses and taking names for the ones who are charged with more than a simple mistake?