meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Echo North]

Also important to note that on Jan 1 the Bush tax cuts expire and spending cuts take effect, not really the worst case scenario for most dems.  That leverage coupled with the fact that Boehner and the president were close on an agreement before, should be seen as promising.

If they cannot work something out in early 2013, then blame should be laid on BOTH parties.

Mike

 

[hodad]

Yes perspective matters. A couple hundred years ago that might be .1% or .01%.

There are some recent (income/wealth) trends moving in the wrong direction, but we have enjoyed a charmed existence for quite some time. Now we are competing with the entire world and they are smart and willing to work hard. If we don't, we will get what we get. I don't blame the rich, I blame globalization, which is a net positive for the whole world. For us it is a double edged sword. We get to buy stuff inexpensively (helping standard of living), but don't easily earn as much (hurting). In this new paradigm there are winners and losers, with the most productive and best skilled workers still doing OK. Unskilled, under educated workers not so well. The wealthy do better, because they are better equipped to deal with the changing economic environment.   

JR

The concentration of wealth at the top has been steadily increasing at least since the Clinton years, even though the middle class seemed a lot stronger then.  I agree that part of the issue is that we are in a global economy--our lower-skilled workers are competing with folks making less than a dollar an hour, who work in places where you can still get away with poisoning rivers and choking the air with filth--not to mention workplace hazards.  At some point you have to wonder if this is a net positive at all. 

We have a global economy that rests on the fact that Americans buy a lot of junk.  Our consumerism is the fire that feeds the engine of global economic/industrial growth and corporate bottom lines.  It's premised, at this point, on planned obsolescence and the US consumer's thirst for the latest & greatest crap. 

The flip side to corporate dependence on American consumerism is a tendency to squash the middle class--folks are working harder and getting poorer here--that way US labor becomes more competitive globally.  While obviously motives are mixed, I think part of the push for perfomance-based evaluations of teachers is wage compression--to take down the top salaries of teachers--because if all the teachers performed at a top level, you know the performance rewards will become ever more unattainable and likely disappear completely over time. 

Of course, you can find plenty of examples of this sort of stuff in the private sector as well--folks subtly coerced into working unpaid overtime, or not being allowed to clock enough hours to qualify as full time. 

And what, after all, is the net positive?  What are we gaining by treating laborers like crap and polluting the global environment so we can all get a great deal on the latest ipad?  The rich are getting richer, sure, but for what?  And at what cost?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I hope DC drops the partisan nonsense and stops fighting long enough to avoid the fiscal cliff...  Budgets and spending are actually important to all of us. 

You're right, the budget situation (I won't say crisis) DEFINITELY matters.  As I said earlier, the house and the president know they are stuck with one another and probably for 4 years, I think they'll get it done.  Maybe not by Jan 1, but most agree that as long as progress is being made, the markets will not react negatively.  I might also be very naive.

The markets are already heading for the hills, predicting this won't go smoothly. (and expected tax increases leading people to sell off some winners to lock in the lower rates). 

But the markets, are just the canary in the coal mine, predicting the "probable" future. Bernanke has been pumping liquidity into the system artificially making the market look better than other asset classes for now.  (He is actually trying to improve housing trajectory but stock market is the indirect vehicle to increase personal wealth and the direct beneficiary). At some point he will have to withdraw all that liquidity (quantitative easing)  to prevent hyper-inflation. When we finally hit bedrock and actually start recovering. So even a full recovery will be muted by unwinding his money supply medicine, to prevent run away inflation. 

We have already had our sovereign debt downgraded once and are on notice for a second pending credit status review by rating agencies. I hope DC acts adult, but we are already too late to avoid consequences from this. Tax withholding tables, are just one example of things that can't be changed on a dime, not to mention the costs involved from dithering.

There are only some 15 working days left for congress this year so I don't feel lucky. Business and government must behave based on the law that is in place right now, not expectation that compromise will occur next year. 

I hate to spew so much doom and gloom, I am generally an optimistic guy, but we have dug a pretty deep hole here, and this is all self-inflicted. The result of our recent years handling of fiscal matters by kicking the can down the road.

In fact our most optimistic possible outcome in the short term is kicking that can for another year.  As I have long argued, these temporary tax policies hurt long term planning.

JR

PS: Not only Bush/Obama tax cuts, but AMT review, Sequester mandates and Debt Celling increase/fight, and some more Affordable Care Act costs, start phasing in. Some suggest this is more of a fiscal slope than a cliff. Whatever we call it, I don't like the direction (economic contraction from this already reduced base). 

 

[JohnRoberts]

 
And what, after all, is the net positive?  What are we gaining by treating laborers like crap and polluting the global environment so we can all get a great deal on the latest ipad?  The rich are getting richer, sure, but for what?  And at what cost?

I don't agree with your characterization but won't waste more time on a point by point. I would only be repeating myself.

For a positive, I submit the massive increase in worker wealth in these new offshore manufacturing centers. The stereotypes about China are as hollow as the stereotypes about Romney and Scrooge McDuck.

To throw you one bone from recent news, Hon Hai the large contract manufacturer who builds Apple product among many others,  just got caught with a handful of underage workers In one northern factory. It turns out the local school was complicit and as soon as the mistake was identified the children were returned to school. This appears to be the exception not the common practice as so many believe.

I don't recall what the current wage is over there. It has been rising for years and actually is higher in the South where there are more jobs than skilled workers, so they can improve their lot by jumping between employers. Wages are lower in the less populated regions were jobs are scarce. That's why everybody is building new factories away from the population centers.

But I digress, I have met young chinese professionals who now have a future and a far better life than they did 10 years ago. I have seen young workers earning and saving money in a factory job, so they can return home in a few years and buy some land, changing their life for the better.

There are still abuses in China and the party bosses are enriching themselves disproportionately, but it is impossible to not see that the general population is better off today than they were a decade ago.

This is not a completely zero sum game (new wealth is being created so pie is larger). We do not lose 1:1 for their every gain, but we do have to compete a lot harder than before.

JR

PS: I find it a little ironic that we are about to impose import duties on Chinese solar cells. If this green energy is so worthwhile we should encourage China to sell it to us as cheaply as possible. Chinese solar companies are already losing money (running on bank loans), so tariffs will not be accepted as a friendly gesture.  Solar cell markets have been distorted by government incentives for so long that we now have a worldwide over-capacity glut, without the government incentives prices are in free fall. Supply and demand babeee.  8)

 

[Phrazemaster]

In all this discussion, has anyone considered that we may not even honestly know WHO was rightly elected? Voting machines are now mostly electronic. Not only can they be hacked, they have been hacked and shown to be able to have whatever outcome is desired. And believe that or not, in fact there have been some highly suspicious "irregularities" coming from these machines, such as one county that showed a voting tape with -9000 votes (yes, NEGATIVE votes!).

And although none of you are talking about this, prop 37 here in CA that supposedly "lost" still has millions of uncounted votes - way beyond the margin of error.

I'm all for democracy. But democracy doesn't work when the will of the people (the ACTUAL votes) are not counted or are purposefully changed.

For a terrific film on this very subject, watch Hacking Democracy: http://www.hackingdemocracy.com/

You can rent it for $2.99 through google youtube; absolutely chilling video if you consider what it really means.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I've been the poster boy for sour grapes, and I won't go there.  I don't doubt there was some low level funny business, but the election was stolen in plain sight by Obama running a more effective (albeit rather negative)  campaign, it appear they didn't really stop some aspects of the campaign, 4 years ago.

Some may ask why all the negative campaign ads? Perhaps because they work! A surprising number of people believe the character assassination of Romney. :'(

Vote accuracy needs to be vetted at state level, with an eye toward systemic improvement, now that the election is over and calmer minds "should" prevail.

The vote is over and it is time to focus on the actual work that needs to be accomplished by "our" elected leader. I perceive a not so subtle difference in messaging. The raising taxes on only the top 1% seems to have morphed into "only the top 2%" (100% increase). I hope this is just a classic negotiation technique where you start really high so you have something to give up and make both sides feel like they won something during the negotiation. It is pretty safe to ASSume when a politician says something they rarely (ever?) mean literally what they say. While I suspect he would happily take a more than 1$T tax increase, that might actually cover his budget.

As i predicted he is claiming a "mandate" from his narrow victory, without winning the house. Political strategists argue that Obama has the advantage since Republicans will be blamed by the public if we go over the fiscal cliff. I will only ask who gets blamed for what happens to the economy if/when he gets his way? Time will tell. I would love to be wrong.
------

Interesting how some on the other side of the aisle seem to be embracing the Romney camp's idea of capping deductions as a progressive way to reduce tax expenditures (deductions). They seem to be forgetting that Romney proposed this in combination with lower nominal rates as part of revenue neutral complete tax overhaul that would broaden the tax base and help grow the economy. I hear precious little talk about addressing spending. There has been some lip service to reform of business tax policy, but it is instructive to see who was invited to the white house business leaders summit. Large multi-nationals, and no (?) small business representatives. So it looks like more potential crony capitalism where the big get bigger and we all pay. The business tax policy changes that Jeff Immelt (GE) would embrace will be different than what helps Mom's Bakery. 

Also lost on the Tax raisers, is that static revue of revenue raised from tax policy changes are ignoring that the recipients of these tax increases will change their behavior. The trend of companies paying out increasing dividends will surely reverse if the tax rate in those dividends erodes the value. Companies will instead return that profit to stock holders (company owners) by buying back stock on the open market. This reduces the denominator for P/E calculations which will raise the stock price proportionately. Stockholders still take the hit as a capital gain from higher price when they finally sell, but this is not a huge concern to long term buy and hold investors. Reducing the value of dividends, effectively reduces the value/price of high dividend stocks so companies will adjust to protect their market capitalization.

Of course retired people on fixed income, have been suffering diminished returns for years due to low interest rate policy. So this will just continue to erode income sources for them.

JR

PS: I converted all my retirement account to ROTH years ago so these sc___bags can't tax it when I withdraw it, but I am still nervous they will figure some other way. I plan to die broke and I'm on that trajectory.  8)

 

[ppa]

I have not read this thread , so I don't know if the following subject is inside your posts.
There are mods scheduled by Obama on Community Reinvestement Act (CRA)?

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have not read this thread , so I don't know if the following subject is inside your posts.
There are mods scheduled by Obama on Community Reinvestement Act (CRA)?

No, re-inspection of the CRA (1977) is not consistent with campaign themes.

I haven't heard anything at all about it recently. I did see one small bank (In CA IIRC) get charged under that act a few months ago... Ironically perhaps it was a very conservative lender that did not lower their standards to participate in the housing bubble, "nothing down" home mortgage nonsense. Instead they had a very good mortgage portfolio history with near zero defaults, but then got charged for not making enough loans to the target minority neighborhoods. Perhaps they didn't receive any mortgage applications from those neighborhoods that met their standards. If none of the applicants meet their lending standards I guess they are expected to lower their loan requirements or suffer the wrath of the feds.    ???  Most of the big bank settlements related to mortgage malfeasance was for making those crap loans.
-----
Fannie and Freddie still have something like a $1.5T housing loan portfolio, and $5T or so of loan guarantees, that is not included in the taxpayer public debt calculus. Dodd-Frank, apparently didn't think this was important enough to address when they "fixed" the banking industry with Dodd-Frank.

If you have a specific point, you will need to make it. I only have rather old news on the topic.

This (CRA) is routinely blamed by some as causing the housing bubble. I suspect it certainly contributed to relaxed lending standards. The housing bubble and subsequent economic collapse had many sperm donors. Including a public that was all to happy to look the other way while the music was playing and appearing to raise all boats. Only later did we discover that it was a freak rogue tide and all that wealth washed away again. We are still paying for the excesses enjoyed when we all thought we were "house" wealthy (not me of course  8) ).

JR

 

[ppa]

Yes, I have some specific points to ask you about CRA.

To reduce the rising prices that is consequent for increased demand of houses, Does CRA regulate with laws the rules of building companies and estate agents too?

Bill Clinton did some important mods to CRA, but from Republican Party did started important proposals to change it during Obama's gov.?, too. Maybe did They agree Bernanke's proposals?   

Maybe initially (when things got fine) did Democratic Party (and at this point Republican Party too) think to increase of the US gross domestic product with a strong use of CRA to reduce US financial crisis, killing two birds with one stone (social mission and economic performance).


thanks

Pier Paolo

   

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'll try to keep this short...

Yes, I have some specific points to ask you about CRA.

To reduce the rising prices that is consequent for increased demand of houses, Does CRA regulate with laws the rules of building companies and estate agents too?

No the congress only had influence to apply pressure on banks because they were already heavily regulated.

CRA does not directly increase demand for houses. The legislation was written to address "red lining" a practice where banks avoided lending to entire neighborhoods that they determined to be a bad credit risk. Congress in their infinite wisdom decided all they needed to do was stop banks from stereotyping entire neighborhoods, and prosperity would break out.

Of course home loan need to be paid back. so just being given a loan does not insure a positive long term outcome. 

Bill Clinton did some important mods to CRA, but from Republican Party did started important proposals to change it during Obama's gov.?, too. Maybe did They agree Bernanke's proposals?   

The legislation has been modified multiple times over the decades, not to mention other related legislation to pump money into the housing market mostly through guarantees but as I mention earlier Fannie & Freddie hold more than $1T in mortgage paper.

Maybe initially (when things got fine) did Democratic Party (and at this point Republican Party too) think to increase of the US gross domestic product with a strong use of CRA to reduce US financial crisis, killing two birds with one stone (social mission and economic performance).


thanks

Pier Paolo

 

Yes, everybody was pleased with the results up until the early 2000s when it became apparent to some (a minority)  that the market was getting overheated.  The increased home sales, stimulated excessive new home building (unfilled demand leads to increased supply), that we are just now slowly working through all this excess new housing inventory. Of course not everybody wanted to stop or slow the music. Bush was re-buffed in his later attempts to rein in F & F, he is not without sin, having done his share of promoting it all earlier.  Where it really got out of control, not that F & F were not suitably out of control, was when Wall street started bundling and repacking traunches of mortgages to sell as pure investment debt instruments. Everybody was happy to buy and flip these mortgage derivatives, while they were still going up, but eventually they ran out of suckers and sanity returned, the music stopped, and the house of cards crumbled. 

Yes the housing bubble contributed to measured economic growth and GDP, but as I have offered before this wealth was not completely real, so when housing prices collapsed, we were left with still having to pay for all the toys and crap we bought when we thought we were rich.  While I haven't mentioned this lately, the low interbank rate that the FED is still maintaining (since 2008?) is still pumping capital onto (US) bank balance sheets. I am sure the government pukes feels entitled to tell the banks how to lend that capital back out. 

I don't know if this answers your question, my sense is that CRA (and other interventions into the mortgage lending market) contributed to causing the financial crisis, and is/was not a technique to resolve it.

JR

PS: FWIW I tried to buy a house in the late '70s (in CT) and even applied for FHA assistance. I got no love from my bank, that didn't think I was a good enough loan risk (self employed kit business and some product design consulting). I guess I was just in the housing market a little too early.  ;D ;D  a couple decades later, I could have gotten a much larger home mortgage with little more than a wink and a smile. 

[edit] I just saw a report that the FHA (federal Housing Authority) created in the '30s during the depression to help home ownership by guaranteeing home loans, is out of money. First time since it's creation that it is broke, and in need of a congressional bail out. Right now, even though F & F were put into conservatorship a few years ago, they still guarantee some 9 out of every 10 owner occupied home loans.  Conservatorship is a little odd, kind of like a living bankruptcy, where they were determined to be unable to run themselves sensibly, but not quite ready to dissolve them, obviously with 90% of mortgage participation, government is trying to keep that wobbly plate spinning. [/edit]

PPS: Smart people are looking for the next bubble(s). The economic accommodation from Bernanke (quantitative easing) is creating liquidity that is putting upward pressure on asset prices. Farm land is one bubble candidate, but there are several.

 

[hodad]

CRA is a red herring.  The newfound thirst for housing debt generated by CDOs and other smoke-and-mirrors style debt instruments, extremely low interest rates, and the Bush administration's push for housing spending drove everything farm more than the CRA.  The folks buying up all the mortgages were desperate for more crap to feed to their customers.  They didn't give two hoots about the quality or security of a mortgage, and many  if not most loan originators were more than happy to supply them with any old mortgage they could come up with. 

If no one had been so eager to buy the debt, many of the mortgages never would have happened.  If Gramm hadn't sneaked in a key bit of deregulation to a banking bill, financial institutions would not have been able to screw up so badly.  CRA is just a tiny, tiny bit of the picture. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

CRA is a red herring.

Agreed a small part of the mess... while not completely a red herring, it was well intentioned but nonsense legislation, trying to remedy the symptom ignoring the cause. Originally passed in 1977 it predates the largest nonsense while it was amended several times over the decades. 

The newfound thirst for housing debt generated by CDOs and other smoke-and-mirrors style debt instruments, extremely low interest rates, and the Bush administration's push for housing spending drove everything farm more than the CRA.

I appreciate in some circles is is popular to blame everything on Bush, and like Kerry he was "for it before he was against it". The republicans made a principled stand against the excesses of F & F after Bush lost control of congress during his last 2 years in office, and their proposals to correct abuses at F & F were tabled by a democratic chairman and never got out of committee or voted on.  Of course later F & F melted down and were put into conservatorship. So there were actual attempts before the meltdown to rein it in, but arguably late in the game.  This housing monster has both republican and democrat DNA in it, so no one gets a free pass.

The folks buying up all the mortgages were desperate for more crap to feed to their customers.  They didn't give two hoots about the quality or security of a mortgage, and many  if not most loan originators were more than happy to supply them with any old mortgage they could come up with. 

There was a failure of regulation and breakdown in basic morality (not to mention common sense) at all levels of the housing/lending business. Just like China expanding the solar cell manufacturing capacity without questioning where all the demand was coming from, homebuilders kept building more and more homes, until the customers dried up. Since these industries can't stop on a dime and pause for years at a time, it has taken longer than it should for inventory to correct to match true demand.

Lending money when you have no skin in the game and no negative consequences for making bad loans is a recipe for exactly what we got. (duh) But nobody up the chain cared or understood the business well enough to be afraid, so the demand for crap paper continued way too long.

If no one had been so eager to buy the debt, many of the mortgages never would have happened.  If Gramm hadn't sneaked in a key bit of deregulation to a banking bill, financial institutions would not have been able to screw up so badly.  CRA is just a tiny, tiny bit of the picture.

That isn't the only old regulation that got reversed with bad effect. I think the old short selling rules (short sales only on upticks) would calm down some market volatility too.  It is hard (for me) to understand the tolerance by SEC for high speed trading that smells like a scam to siphon wealth from the market a fraction of a penny at a time.

JR

 

[tonycamp]

JR :, you lost the election, Obama's a good man who will do the best he can for this country he loves, you're spreading of mostly nonsense is unhelpful, give us a break already

 

[JohnRoberts]

JR :, you lost the election, Obama's a good man who will do the best he can for this country he loves, you're spreading of mostly nonsense is unhelpful, give us a break already

I agree that I lost. Congrats to everybody who is happy with this outcome.

I'm a two-time loser now...  :'(

Good luck to us all...  and lets give thanks for our past success and blessings.

JR

PS: I rarely start these threads, but feel compelled to share about topics I have information to offer about. I have nothing personal against Obama, I would love to play basketball and drink home-brew beer with him. I just disagree about his leadership of "our" country. I will try to suffer in silence but no promises if future posts invite comment. I do not share most of my thoughts here, and could put the time I do spend talking about politics and governance, to better use.

PPS: There is an interesting discussion going on about what to do with the huge data-base Obama's campaign has collected with personal information about potential voters, that they used for targeted appeals using social media. I don't expect that valuable political asset to be discarded. Interesting times. I'm just glad I didn't live in a swing state. 

 

[bluebird]

@tonycamp... I too feel Obama is a good man. I'm pretty left in my political views. I tend to run with the livingsounds Gold, hodad crew while reading these threads BUT I find JR's commentary (facts AND opinions) absolutely fascinating. I've been reading this forum for years now. I mostly only come to the BREWERY these days and actually get really excited when I see JohnRoberts on a political post. I know I'm about to get a serious education. I'm 40 with 2 kids and a mortgage. I fancy my self pretty up on most things going on in the world but John takes it to another level. Its hard to find someone as even tempered and educated as John on the right to have such interesting and evocative forum discussions with.

John I've literally been reading you for years here and you have really changed my view on the political debate. Your arguments are always logical and factual (unless you honestly just get something wrong). I think where I differ from you is in a realm of spiritual subjectivity and blind human equality. BUT when push comes to shove with paying the bills and feeding the kids... spirituality and equality often fly out the window. For a moment I see myself as the money/fear fueled reactionary robot I tend to judge conservatives as. I also see how things I do in every day life from using paper towels to shopping at Target and buying gasoline, feed the very corporate/political monster I hate. I see myself driving the world from the bottom up.

By reading Johns posts I have learned to stop pointing the finger so aggressively and to start listening (reading) more closely. Will I ever vote Republican? Probably not  ;D but I have learned to listen to other points of view and consider other ways of thinking which has enriched my world view.

So tonycamp, please keep reading these kinds of posts and pay attention to what John says. If you don't you will be the one who loses. 

 

[tonycamp]

Hey Bluebird, learn this, JR is wrong!, I would have let  it go, but your post has caused the following:

This is a cumulative response to a bunch of Jr's posts. First off, he needs to get his facts straight, if i were him, i wouldn't worry about the demographic vote breakdown, the GOP's got much bigger problems. I am an independent voter, i turned away from the republican party this time round because they've strayed way to far from reality. The fact is, they burned down the  financial house of the entire world in 2008, and now they are unhappy with the pace of the recovery they're actively trying to obstruct? Thats a real shame for them, the foundation and first floor have been rebuilt, but they wanted voters to give them another book of matches to play with? Sorry, it takes time to rebuild something thats been literally destroyed, it took upwards of 15 years for the US to recover from the great depression, by that standard alone, Obama doesn't suck, his people come 1st agenda mirrors FDR and is the proper agenda.
 
Here are some fact fixes for you, Obama had 1% more of the youth vote in 2012 than in 2008. I also read Jr's other post blaming fanny and freddie for the housing/financial crisis, wrong again. This is a complete crock, The truth is the opposite as framed by republicans. Fannie and Freddie got into subprime mortgages in mid 2005 when they were already rollin, and only because they were losing so much market share to Wall Street. The banks were rating just about anything that was not a 30 year fixed mortgage as “subprime.” The reality is that Fannie and Freddie followed the private sector off the cliff instead of the other way around. It doesn't make them any less culpable in my view, but ultimately fanny/freddie were responsible for less than 20% of mortgage defaults(still trying to figure out the numbers), that leaves at least 80% of the blood on the hands of the private market wall street banks. Not to mention, a sole private market bank could sell me package x saying "its gonna make $" and sell you the same package x saying "it's gonna lose $"(ultra convoluted default swaps, CDO's), how the F@#k is that legal on any planet? (This was the main catalyst for the financial meltdown, look it up) Previously existing regulations that were stripped by republicans, and some dems, are what created the circumstances that led to the crash. Unregulated Capitalism is a proven FAIL, when you leave the wolves to guard the henhouse (see US/world financial crisis 2008)

Another correction for Jr, Obama won the popular vote by more than 3 million votes, or roughly 50 NFL football stadiums full of people. He also won the electoral college by 126 votes, 332 to 206, an electoral whooping! Here's some more reality, when GW Bush took office in 2000, the debt was just over 4.5 trillion $, when he left, it was almost 11 trillion $, with another trillion in general burdens(unfunded wars) bailouts he initiated to be saddled on Obama's fiscal record as he tried to clean up the sh*t storm. Bush also expanded government at a higher rate than any administration in US history!, including Obamas admin(look it up) The republicans under Bush, as a matter of fact, were the most expansive big government, fiscally irresponsible party in the history of the USA. Where were all you fiscal responsibility, small govmnt activists then???

Denying reality, doesn't make reality. Facts matter, Since the creation of Social security, welfare fraud doesn't even equal a 1/4 of 1% of the trillions of $ given in corporate bank welfare, along with trillions of $ handed over for unfunded republican wars and bailouts to prevent the economy from vanishing into thin air. Under the bush administration, Americans were stripped of $17,000,000,000,000 of wealth! You're swatting at fly's while a grizzly bear is holding you upside down by your feet! The mythical welfare Queen, free ride, hand out thing is race baited BS, You are buying into a narrative that was created by a republican strategist in the early 80's to outrage "angry white men" designed to fool you into voting against your own best interest. It worked, and your being played like a fiddle! look it up, and read this http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=102223
  Although i don't agree with a lot of what Obama does, i believe he is well intended and is doing a reasonable job in the face of an utter economic catastrophe, while being obstructed by the same old playbook and players that crashed the whole thing to begin with.

In their bubble, Republicans honestly believe their own BS, they honestly believed they were going to win the election, despite every single poll stating the opposite. Nate Silver at 538.com, has nailed his predictions for the last 3 elections, republicans laughed him off??, and he nailed it again! Karl "same ol player" Rove, was denying the outcome election night, even as his own pulpit at fox noise was insisting the math called it for Obama! Really? delusional!

Reality has to count at some point, the republicans will never win again unless they wake up to the fact that they are in denial, and their BS has finally caught up with them.

I am routing for them to get healthy, because the USA and world will be better and stronger with 2 competing parties of good faith. They have seriously lost their way.

Please, enough with the selective memory, phony outrage and parroting of nonsense, look up the facts before repeating what you hear on Faux News, which incidentally has also been proven to be inaccurate 38% of the time! Look it up

Ok bluebird?

Ps This is my last post in a political thread on this site, i appreciate this place enormously, and will respect it by using it for the main purposes it was created. For some reason, i just had to respond to the inaccurate and ridiculous GOP talking points that have been parroted by some here. Respect reality for what it is, not for what's been fed to you by your tribe. And most importantly, think about from where your soul speaks. Life is not about "whats in it for me", It's about helping our brothers and sisters along the way.

Peace

 

[JohnRoberts]

Wow... thanks for the kind words...  ;D

Since at least one person seems interested, here's what I've been chewing on lately.

I have long been paying attention to how modern media interacts with the political process, for better and worse.  Televising congressional hearings routinely turns into posturing for the cameras with every speaker striving to get the day's talking points into the sound bite du jour.

Our founders protected a free press to keep the government honest, and allow an outlet for dissent and discussion.

Camera phones should be a positive force to help keep campaigns honest when candidates talk a different talk for different audiences, and so far this has evolved to be more a vehicle for got'cha moments, like Obama's quip about voters clutching their guns and bibles, or Romney's 47% comment... not really slips, just revealing a little too much truth about the real candidates to the broader audience, so more good than bad.

A new technology development that isn't being fully grasped by the mainstream is twitter and the like...In the middle east, and in  oppressive regions it can be a very effective way to share information in almost real time,,, A good thing for managing revolutions.  8)

One perversion of social media is a development no doubt crafted by merchants to sell products using the medium. They use cookies or the equivalent to access personal information about the receiver of the social media content so they can craft a personalized message, based on that individuals likes and dislikes. OK, what does this have to do with politics? Well it solves the age old problem of a candidate being limited to only one message at a time. Using social media, with the ability to know in advance what the receivers would prefer to hear (and not hear), one message could be turned into 10s of different messages tweaked to appeal to different fractions of the voting public, and not simultaneously turn off potential voters with something they don't like that you support.

Reportedly there were (at least) 4 different social media invitations sent out for one $40k/plate campaign fundraiser, based on personalized appeals to the different money bags.

There is nothing illegal or immoral(?) about this, especially if the voters are smart enough to know what is going on, and approved giving the politicians access to their personal data about likes and dislikes. I think social media is still new enough that many don't realize they may just be seeing a reflection or echo of themselves in their candidate's messaging.

A few weeks back somebody was arguing with me about Romney's position on something... I went to his website but refused to sign up, because I didn't want to subject myself to the political internet fun and games, while Romney was only playing catch-up against a 4 year head start.

This will be interesting to see how it evolves. This, or these (2, 3?) political databases of voters, with their personal likes and dislikes, becomes a valuable political asset for use in future election cycles. They didn't press delete-all after 2008, and won't now.

Another thing to watch is protection of personal privacy legislation. Most legislation and public discussion is about business abuse of cookies and personal information, or perhaps limiting government warrantless searches, but political party's re-election campaigns are not even on the radar screen.

Lets see how the foxes feel about legislating themselves out of that hen house? What are the odds of that? 

[edit] I just read that in Japan it is illegal to use social media or the Internet for political campaigning...  very interesting /edit]

maybe I just need to put on my tin foil hat....

JR 

@ tony nothing personal (I thought I was angry)... but I only parrot JR's talking points.  Obama won by 50 Football stadiums... nice, so a margin of 50 stadiums out of around 2,000 stadiums. Not sure what your point is with that metric. 

It seems we disagree on some history and more than a few facts, but I have better things to do than repeat myself and refute several comments attributed to me that I don't recall making..(You could cut and paste or respond to my actual posts. )

I have been openly critical of republicans too. If this is what Obama cleaning things up looks like, I am worried about what comes next... we are at $16T and climbing, he is only responsible for a little over $1T extra debt per year for the last 4 years, but we need to slow the bleeding with debt levels approaching southern European percentages of GDP, with future spending increases locked in.

I will ASSume his current public position on the fiscal cliff is just an opening negotiation. His tax increase on the rich with only superficial cuts will fund the government for several days.  I wish both sides would do less public posturing and go ahead with the crappy deal we know they will eventually make.  Tick-tock guys.   



 

 

[CJ]

for some reason, this stuff seems to be popular to rock climbers>

taking it to a new level, threats of violence included, pg13:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1641723&tn=39580

 

[JohnRoberts]

I miss the good old days when we could ignore the federal government between elections, but now they've made such a mess of things its difficult. This whole fiscal cliff is a self imposed train wreck... difficult decisions kicked down the road until after the next election, never get easier to fix or solve themselves, just fester and grow worse.

While there are no rules in politics, I try not to play at politics, instead I prefer to dissect and inspect it.  I have my own rules for how to do that without starting fights.  Politics is like a game that most people don't even realize they are involved in. Hopefully arming more people with knowledge about the game will give them some power to resist being manipulated,

#1 whenever possible focus on facts that can be measured or proved. (Hard when speculating about future outcomes). While statistics can get manipulated (lies, damn lies, and statistics), learn to make sense of how datum are presented to avoid perceptual influences. It's hard to grasp really big numbers. like $16T debt, unless you look at is compared to the entire GDP ($15T -2011  yes Virginia our debt = more than 100% of our estimated GDP).

#2 whenever possible discuss "what" a person has done, not "why" or some other un-knowable intangible motive. While we often judge a leader on what we think his motives are, we can't really know, even when they tell us.

#3 Try to avoid the many distractions. So much of the work of politics is to avoid dealing with real stuff that looks bad, so instead they invent wars against (women, poor, black, immigrants, ...... insert favorite sub category here) to divide us and take our eyes off the man behind the curtain pulling our levers.

#4 Form your own views and opinions about events you witness and live through. It makes me crazy to watch an important speech or debate on TV, and almost immediately the talking heads come on to tell us what to think about what was just said. Come on, we heard them say it only minutes ago, and understood all the words.

#5 Don't take my word for anything, and beware of opinion leaders trying to sway you one way or the other. I have been around and paying attention for a long time, but I do not have perfect knowledge. Two thoughtful people can experience the same exact history and draw different conclusions, that is just life.

JR

 

[living sounds]

I miss the good old days when we could ignore the federal government between elections, but now they've made such a mess of things its difficult.

When exactly were the good old days? 50-60 years ago, when states could discriminate against people based on skin color, gender, disability,...? Or 10 years ago, when a president took a nation to war on fabricated evidence, killing tens of thousands (at least), wasting billions, violating the Consitution left, right and center? Or 4 years ago, when decades of made-up economic "theory" culminated in a near-fatal crash of the world economy - problems of which we are all still suffering to this day?

Besides, in the last two years the legislative branch of the federal government has essentially done nothing thanks to unprecidented obstructionisim from the right.

Don't believe your own fairy tales...