Archive through September 22, 2010

 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15166
Registered: May-04
.

"Critical of my misuse of 'there / their' is certainly germane to any argument you may make."

I didn't say it was, leo. But it is one of those constant irritants I find extremely annoying when seemingly educated people cannot differentiate between an adverb and a possessive pronoun. Kind of like when you look at the car sitting next to you at a light and see the driver picking their nose. I don't care what you do in private but at least have the civil courtesy not to offend me in public. If you've made it beyond 6th grade, you should know the proper useage of both words. Not to use them properly indicates possibly you weren't really paying attention all the time you were in school. If you weren't paying attention in school, what am I to suppose when you claim to know what you're talking about now?


"My Latina wife will be interested in your (implied) charges of racism, too.

Yet another "argument from authority"!!! You really rack them up in a discussion, don't you, leo? If it was your wife who automatically assumed any discussion of immigration must be about "mexicans", then, yes, she too is treading on the thin ice of myopic xenophobia. If it was you who put the idea in her head that this discussion was only about "mexicans", then you still get to wear the button, leo.



"The cure for what you surely feel is over taxation of lower income earners ... "


Over taxation is your constant issue, leo, not mine. I haven't stated I feel anyone is "over taxed" and I challenge you to find the statement which would prove your completely irrational conclusion.



"The politically infeasible solution of actually spending less!"


It seems silly that I have to remind you of the Forbes article which you introduced. "In short, there is no evidence that it is politically possible to cut spending enough to make more than a trivial difference in our nation's fiscal problems ... Those who continue to insist otherwise are living in a dream world and deserve no attention from serious people."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/17/federal-budget-spending-opinions-columnists-bru ce-bartlett.html

There is so little in the YTD budgets that can actually be cut without impacting our economy and the future of millions of individuals that simply crying for "cut spending" is not a real solution. Anyone who has done any serious research into the budget should realize this "cut spending" cry is merely "wishful thinking" as Bartlett rightly points out. Ending a few wars would be nice place to start since we are running those wars on money borrowed from those who do not have our best interests at heart. But even that would barely put a dent in the overall deficits/debt when $0.40 of every dollar currently alloted by the US budget goes to paying down existing debt and that, at this time, we have run out of most of the viable solutions to massive borrowing. And, should I have to remind you, most of that debt was created under Republican Presidents and, during the years when the Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, spending and borrowing occurred at breath taking speed without a thought to the future other than what benefitted the spenders short term.

That is what this thread is about, leo, facts. Not your feelings about "mexicans" or making uninformed yet constant wishful rants about cutting spending. Here's a fact you can research, leo; how many spending bills did GWB veto during his eight years in office?

Posting that fact alone would get this thread back on track.

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15167
Registered: May-04
.

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/08/10/Gates_announces_major_cuts_in_military_spe nding/


Unfortunately, the spending cuts also involve thousands who will be laid off or retired. There's no easy solution to the problems we face, take one from this column and you loose two from over in that column. Over the last fifty years we've lost a very large per centage of what built this Nation during the period when the USD became the world's trading currrency. Our manufacturing base has been minimized and we tend to find the "Made in USA" label on things more like high end coffee filters and $20k power amplifier and less on the goods capable of sustaining a major portion of a global economy. 2008 was the first time I actually wondered why anyone would want the job as President of the USA.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1512
Registered: Oct-07
There is apparently enough of a distinction between 'dual citizenship' and 'dual nationality' to warrant both terms. I'm no lawyer, but this comes into play since the US is not a dual citizenship country. You is or ain't.

The father? please see link to CDC statistics. Is the CDC an acceptable source?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm
The problem is that men in general are not 'manning up' to fathering children. The single mom birthrate in the US is over 38%. While 100% of births are to women. It is a choice as to where to give birth. I am not picking on women, though you'd prefer it if I were.
I think everyone not only has a story, but is effected. I hate to get back to taxes, but our tax money is funneled into various support schemes (not in perjorative sense) for persons who make bad choices. Before you go nuts, not ALL people getting public money have made 'bad' choices to get there. If people, INCLUDING men were responsible, this money could go to other uses or simply not be collected at all, giving people more disposable wealth.

Working from memory, I'd say GWB vetoed exactly ZERO spending bills! I don't think he ever met a spending bill he didn't like. I don't know if the data is current, but wasn't NIXON the last President to submit a balanced budget? Don't worry, I'm not going to mention GWB tax cuts. Bad idea than, not good now, but letting them lapse? I don't know the consequences of letting them lapse, though lapse they will.

And yes, the wealth of this country is being squandered. Surplus wealth being defined as the wealth over and above that needed to feed and clothe you..... The US with about 5% of the worlds 6 Billion+ persons consumes a huge proportion of the worlds resources.

As a matter of further looking, We've both seen IRS stats. That is federal, though totals, counting regressive or non-progressive taxation is worse, especially counting all taxation. Totals of spending per person is wacky huge, being over 12000$ per person at all levels.
In just looking at world statistics, they mimic US stats. What do I mean? Well, on the face of it, the lowest 1/3 of world population have about a 3% resource share. Sound familiar? The top countries, the 'developed' which constitute about 1/6th the worlds population have about a 80% share. These numbers are close to the fan down in the US. The upper 1% own some huge percentage of everything. The world, being poorer, also has less evenly distributed wealth. I'd love to see a chart of GDP / Per Capita / Wealth distribution by country.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/236
I don't know if the link is to a nutjob group or what, but the numbers jibe with stuff you hear. I'd go so far as to wager that the poorest countries have an upper class similar or even worse than the wealth distribution in THIS country.

Worlds richest guy, as of this printing? From Mexico!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257129/Forbes-rich-list-2010-Carlos-Sli m-Helu-worlds-richest-man-35-7billion.html

Mexico has maybe 8 or 10 billionaires and a couple contenders. A very high percentage. The rest of the list? Billionaires are popping up at a pretty good clip. The US? over 400. Even China has a bunch.

The gap between rich and poor apparently continues to grow. Resources are squabbled over and will be the source of continuing conflict. Enviromentalists will be forced to give ground to allow continued resource exploitation. BP oil spill? It'll happen again. US Shale Oil? We'll be forced to dig that up. The US Strategic Oil Reserve? Could never be enough.

More later:: gotta run. Places to go / things to do.....
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1513
Registered: Oct-07
quicky::
Jan in your post 15111 you answer something I said about limits of gov. control.....I asked the question about what CAN'T they control if they can control health care.
Well, there ARE strict enumerated powers given to the fed, all others to the states or people.

I just read (old news by now) where Bill Gates wants every major wealth holder to donate / give away HALF his/her wealth. I like this much better than government 'programs'.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15168
Registered: May-04
.

I don't see any answer on my part in that post, just case law. I'm not responsible for what case law says. If that case law bothers you, remember it dates back to the early 1900's. I'm sure you can find a trail of bread crumbs which will tie it all together with your overriding dislike for the US government and how they spend "your" money. But, there was no answer to any question on my part and fabrication on your part will remain just that. Beyond that, case law is unikely to have any backing in the Robert's unless it concurs with the set opinions of those so called "originalists" on the Court.

.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1514
Registered: Oct-07
Jan,
Why is 'your' in quotes? Isn't it my money until it is permanently borrowed?('permanently borrowed' replaced 'confiscated') And while the government has no real interest in value for (essentially unlimited $$) dollar, I sure do. Are you grateful for what the government allows you to keep?
Doesn't everyone, at least in principle, like to know where their money goes? Are you an exception? I'm sure not.

Just read the NYT aritcle from #15111 about the liberal / conservative bent of the Supreme Court. That I don't agree with some of the court decisions, as described in that and other posts, is a given. That I believe the NYT as arbiter of 'conservative' vs 'liberal' is not going to happen. The mytical 'median judge' is probably a pretty nice guy.


Yes, you did indeed mention case law. A case which while affirming the right of the government to make you take a pill, says nothing about the larger issue of government run health care.
The fallacy? Maybe a 'Red Herring' argument. I simply fail to see what making people get innoculations has to do with compelling a national health care plan. Could you please help me connect the dots? Where's Sulzberger when you really need him? If you want, Jan, I'll send you my copy of 'The Kingdom and the Power' by G. Talese..... While published in '69, it is one heck of an insiders look at the NYT and you may actually find it of some interest.

http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/talese/books/kingdom.html
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1515
Registered: Oct-07
Jan,
One final point. You said something about an argument from authority when I said I was going to tell my Latina wife about what you said.
Well, one of the provisos of such authority is that you know something about what you are commissioned to speak upon. That my wife was born / raised in Mexico and didn't move here until in her 30's may actually qualify her for such expert rating.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1516
Registered: Oct-07
A perspective on Mexican immigration and residency::

http://www.fredoneverything.net/ImmigrationIntoMexico.shtml
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15169
Registered: May-04
.

"That I believe the NYT as arbiter of 'conservative' vs 'liberal' is not going to happen."


No one is asking you to believe anything, leo, though the NYT is still considered a "newspaper of record" and your "perspective on Mexican immigration" is not. You don't have to like the NYT and you are absolutely free to introduce any facts which are in disagreement with the NYT's articles from any of the conservative "newspapers of record". (Good luck finding one now that Murdoch has the WSJ in his hip pocket; http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008160046) Early on I stated what I thought were acceptable sources of information. They do not have to agree with my opinion, they only need to be considered worthy of consideration. The CATO Institute and similar "think tanks" on either side of an issue fall outside of those boundaries as their's is an obviously partisan viewpoint. As I said, I'm not presenting any commentary from groups such as MoveOn.org and I would appreciate you doing likewise. Please remember I began this thread to present facts and not just factless partisan rants which elaborate on an already factless or distorted partisan rant made by either party.

What I presented amounts to a factual accounting of the Roberts Court. The NYT wrote the body of the article of course but the graphics included come from sources outside the NYT. Ignore the article if you prefer but do study the graphics as they are from non-partisan sources. I'm finding you not really that interested in exploring facts when they do not coincide with those things you already agree with. Go back and look at the sources for the scoring of the courts and their individual judges, you'll find they come from three groups independent of the NYT;

http://www.abanet.org/

"Sources: For conservative voting rates, Lee Epstein (Northwestern University), William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner (University of Chicago Law School) and Harold J. Spaeth (Michigan State University). For justice scores, Andrew D. Martin (Washington University in St. Louis) and Kevin M. Quinn (UC Berkeley School of Law")

At this point, leo, I don't expect you to agree with anything. You've made up your mind about all of this long ago and no fact I present is going to get in your way of believing you are the sole source of correctness in this whole affair. You would rather rant than stick to facts.

"Luckily more of us won't let "facts" get in the way of reason ... "






As to agreeing with the Supreme Court decisions, one side, the loosing side, is never going to agree with any court decision. If you happen to be on the loosing side and you don't have the where with all to stop and take a look at why the decision was made as it went down, then you can live your life being a chronic malcontent unencumbered by knowledge, wisdom or facts. As we've dicussed there are opinions in agreement and dissenting opinions posted on each Supreme Court decision. IMO it would be wise to read and consider each and not just those which conform to your own small world view.

Regarding your wife's personal history and arguments from authority, two things. 1) Read how an argument from authority works. 2) Your wife's personal history still has no bearing on the topic at hand. Remember, I asked about "jurisdiction" and nothing more. Once again, let me remind you that you stated you didn't know much about the 14th Amendment and the issue of "jurisdiction" and then you proceeded to launch into a rant about "illegals", "Mexicans", women and why they should be given the boot after the government - who you say should have very limited governance over individual rights - has stripped her of the child or should make a criminal of the child and force it outside of the Nation where it is a rightful citizen.

Until your wife wishes to enter an opinion regarding "jurisdiction" and its application to the 14th Amendment, none of what you have brought into this thread matters one diddlywhoop. That you see government as a limited agent when it appeals to you and yet also see government as an all powerful entity which can rip children from their mother's arms is fairly typical of what I see in most arguments made by the so called "Constitutionalists". The Terri Schiavo case is still with us when the government has no right to dictate what the woman does in one situation yet becomes all powerful in another. "Originalists" are only so when their interpretation works in their favor and against their political foes. And that is what weakens the entire issue for those seeing the hypocrisy of "limited government".


Can we move on now? No more about your opinions of "Mexicans".



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1518
Registered: Oct-07
Jan,
You continue to misrepresent my view on undocumented persons.
Here is link to the legal ways it can occur.
http://www.immigrationvisa.org/

Where did I say the CHILD was illegal or criminal or in any way to be held responsible for crimes committed by the parent or parents? or lacked 14th amendment protections?
please show me. The mother has several options. Keep her child and be returned to her country of origin. Leave her child in the country of its citizenship. She can also apply for political asylum. What could be simpler than that? The child will retain American Citizenship in any event and at majority can begin making independent decisions. Try that south of the border. Do I want more Orphans? NO. Do I want to split up families? 100% NO. Would I like Mexico to take care of its own? Yes!
Currently 'choice #4' is what happens. Taxpayers pick up bill.
The principle involved is one of profiting from a crime. It IS a crime to cross into the US without proper documentation still, isn't it? Not a felony, under most circumstances. Nobody is going to 'rip children from their mother's arms'. The mother can make any choice she wants. Just not here.

'All the news that's fit to print' eh? or is it 'We print all the news that fits'? All your 'facts' about Lib/Cons judges is opinion. and wouldn't you agree that the NYT is just another 'argument from authority'? That judges 'lean' one way or another is true. That Congress vets each judge is also true. Past performance as NO guarantee of future judgments is true again. Judges would seem to change, at least slightly, over time.


Isn't it inconsistent to bring the Terri Schiavo case into this mess? You use a similar case of the guy being forced to innoculate his child as 'reasoning' behind mandatory national health care! You, too, can't have it both ways. even IF I could figure out your tenuous reasoning in how the original case referred to national health care.

What do you think would happen if US immigration law 'mirrored' Mexican law? As a thought experiment, just ignore some of the obvious illegalities for a moment. What do we do with the 38% of women who birth fatherless children? Just as important, what do we do with the MEN who are responsible as only sperm doners?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15170
Registered: May-04
.

Can we move on now?
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1519
Registered: Oct-07
Sure,
What else do you want to discuss? Chinese trade imbalance? or Conditions of Chinese workers? 'T' Party manifesto? Presidents comments on 'Mosque' near Ground Zero? Best Fast Food? Favorite adult beverage? Favorite vacation spot?

Wanna borrow my copy of 'The Kingdom and the Power'? How about 'Free to Choose'....a book by Milton Freedman which I read well before ANY of the current furor or he said / she said nonsense on talk radio or stuffed shirt TV. Or maybe my copy of Ralph Nader's 'Unsafe At Any Speed'?

Did you ever see even a minute of that awful thing Rush did on TV? A train wreck wearing a decent suit. And a complete failure which could not simply be blamed on poor time slot. I wrote a letter suggesting a re-do of 'The Advocates'.....Did you ever see that? Wow, was that good. Format was 90 minutes and each show covered a SINGLE issue of some import. 2x30 minutes segments. Each segment ran by an 'advocate' of a certain position. Pro or Con..... Each side called 'witnesses', gave 'evidence' and tried there best to 'make a case' for there viewpoint. The moderator than ran the 3rd segment of questions.....sort of back and forth debate style.
A Landmark TV show, which we would be well served to remember.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200106/ai_n8981772/

If Rush wants to be remembered as anything but a gassy hack, he'd be well advised to get involved with something at this level. I think Tavis Smiley would make a good foil. I've followed his career since he was a sometimes guy on local talk radio....KFI in Los Angles, methinks.

What's a 'diddlywhoop'?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15171
Registered: May-04
.

"Recovery Progress Report:
As of August 11, $426.1 billion of the $787 billion stimulus has been committed to states; $275.2 billion has been paid out."
http://www.c-span.org/Stimulus/

"GOP declares stimulus a 'failure'From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The Republican National Committee declares the stimulus a 'failure'" ...


" ... if we keep doing the same things, we're going to get the same dismal results ... " National Response to Presidential Radio Address by Congressman Charles Djou on Saturday, August 21, 2010 at 1:30pm http://www.facebook.com/notes/congressman-charles-djou/national-response-to-pres idential-radio-address/144428845590348

Yet the largest portion of the Stimulus Bill went to tax cuts and tax benefits; http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/08/18/business/20100818_Stimulus_graphic. html?ref=business

While much of the Stimulus Monies have been committed, much is yet to the allocated; http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

Where money has already flowed to states for "shovel ready" jobs their unemployment is reported as ... http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/08/18/business/20100818_Stimulus_graphic. html?ref=business


So when the Republicans ask, "Where are the jobs?", tell them doing the same ol' thing (tax cuts) didn't bring them.

Despite taking Federal $$$'s, the Republicans can't see the new State Highway for the ideological blinders they are wearing.

"Leery of Washington, Alaska Feasts on Its Dollars
Published: August 18, 2010
PALMER, Alaska -- Backed by a blue row of saw-toothed mountain peaks, the Republican state lawmaker Carl Gatto finds himself on a fine roll ...

'I've introduced legislation to roll back the federal government,' he says. 'They don't have solutions; they just have taxes.'

And what of the federal stimulus, from which Alaska receives the most money per capita in the nation? Would he reject it?

Mr. Gatto, 72 and wiry, smiles and shakes his head: 'I'll give the federal government credit: they sure give us a ton of money. For every $1 we give them in taxes for highways, they give us back $5.76.'

He points to a new federally financed highway, stretching toward distant spruce trees. 'Man, beautiful, right?'

Alaskans tend to live with their contradictions in these recessionary times. No place benefits more from federal largess than this state, where the Republican governor decries 'intrusive' federal policies, officials sue to overturn the health care legislation and Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, voted against the stimulus bill ...

The state avoided the unemployment devastation visited on the Lower 48 in part because federal dollars support a third of Alaskan jobs, according to a university study.

Not that this has assuaged antigovernment rancor. The Alaskan Representative Don Young, a Republican, denounced the stimulus as appalling, done under the cover of night and without full disclosure. He also promised Alaskans that 'if there are earmarks, we will have our fingerprints on them.'

(Curiously, that pattern plays out in Louisiana, Wyoming and the Dakotas, states relatively low in unemployment but high in per capita stimulus aid and growling antigovernment animus.)

Sitting in valleys rimmed by mountains, glaciers and a vast alluvial delta, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, with its 83,000 residents, is a sub-Arctic suburb of Anchorage. Its largest city, Wasilla, is home to Sarah Palin. A year ago, while still governor, she took a stab at rejecting $28.6 million in federal stimulus for weatherization. As Alaska incurs a notable winter, Republican and Democratic state legislators overruled her and accepted the money.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough officials received about $111 million in federal stimulus, according to Pro Publica. There was $28 million for schools and $900,000 for a park-and-ride lot for commuters heading to Anchorage

(Wasillans have a practiced eye for federal dollars; when Ms. Palin was mayor, she hired a lobbying firm that reeled in $25 million in federal earmarks for a city of fewer than 7,000 residents.)

Fairbanks, Alaska's second-biggest city behind Anchorage, pulled in more than $4,000 per capita in stimulus aid. But Jay Ramras, its Republican state representative, who is running for lieutenant governor, says he feels a tug of suspicion as he looks at that cash.

'If you want to feed us federal money like it's a narcotic and make the state into a junkie of the U.S. Treasury, O.K.,' he allows. 'But we would like to be an Emersonian Alaska and just get control of our resources.'

Here is the cognitive dissonance. More and more Alaskans, particularly of the Republican stripe, identify the federal government and pork-barrel spending as the enemy, although Alaska was built by both.

Alaska's appetite for federal dollars has always been voracious and is not confined to the stimulus. A study by Prof. Scott Goldsmith of the University of Alaska, Anchorage, noted that an 'extraordinary increase' in federal spending drove the state's pile-driver growth of the last 15 years ...

Still, many see strings attached. Lynn Gattis, a Republican Party official, lives by a lake in Wasilla, surrounded by aspens ...

'It just feels like the federal government intrudes everywhere,' Ms. Gattis said. 'Enough Ivy League lawyers -- let's get people who can dig a mine and run a business.' ...

This sentiment baffles Tony Knowles, a long drink of a man who worked on the North Slope oil rigs before becoming the governor of Alaska in 1994 as a Democrat. He understands the frustration that comes with bumping into federal officials at each turn. But the trade-off is not so terrible, he notes, such as having the feds pay to put broadband in Alaskan villages.

'Nobody likes to have all their eggs in one basket, and so you do feel vulnerable,' he said. 'But Ted Stevens, who was a Republican and beloved, was never shy about bringing money in' ...

'There's all this verbiage that says we're the frontier, rough and ready,' says Mr. Fischer, lithe and sardonic in his mid-80s. 'The Feds paid for everything, but the conflict runs through our history.' ...

When Professor Goldsmith looks out his window, he sees more buildings than in the past. But the landscape -- the snow-capped volcanoes and waters of Cook Inlet -- is overpowering.

'Californians wait for a new entrepreneurial wave to lift them,' Mr. Goldsmith says. 'For us, the traditional extraction economy still rules.'

That is why, he adds, 'historically, we take whatever largess comes our way. A federal dollar is a good dollar.'


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/business/19stimulus.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=t h



And so the Republicans insist on doing the same ol' thing ...
"Republicans block small business plan in Senate
Thu Jul 29, 7:38 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Senate Republicans blocked a $30-billion plan to help community banks boost lending to small businesses, dealing a blow to President Barack Obama's election-year battle to reduce unemployment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100729/pl_nm/us_usa_congress_smallbusiness_6


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15172
Registered: May-04
.

How Much Stimulus Funding is Going to Your County?
http://bailout.propublica.org/list/index



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15173
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/aug/20/fact-checking-ground -zero-mosque-debate/


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1526
Registered: Oct-07
Cutting taxes without cutting spending is insane. Debt is transferred, at interest, to the future. This sets a floor under inflation, which even if it doesn't 'inflate' you tomorrow, will catch up.....at a later date, and with a vengeance. Interest is a 'compound' problem in more ways than one. For lack of an economics degree, I'd have to call this elementary economics. Large economies generally do not grow as quickly as a small economy CAN grow at least expressed at a percentage though the leverage of size can make huge dollar gains out of small movements. The relationship between growth, debt, inflation, budget and policy is very complex and worthy of a library's worth of books.

A good reference for what is currently wrong with excess Federal spending can be found in this book by Nobel awarded Milton Freedman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_to_Choose
I have owned a copy of this book since the way-early '80s, long before the current talk radio / Fox News vogue. contrary to previous accusations. (or is that prior?)

Before I start pasting graphs, here is a couple numbers to ponder.

In 1947, a year picked at random, being immediately post WWII, Per Capita spending at ALL levels of government was about $315.70 per person in the US, of a population of about 144,126,000 persons. Using a CPI calculator that is $2602.73 in 2003 dollars.

NOTE: CPI is 'Consumer Price Index' and not to be confused with inflation, though they apparently ARE related. I'll dig out an inflation calculator and see how well the numbers agree.

For 2003, it is a little different. Per Capita spending at all levels of government worked out to $11272.16 or over 35 times MORE per person than the 1947 total. The 2003 sum when converted to 1947 dollars is $2604.88 or well over 4 times the 1947 sum.

Between 1947 and 2003 the US population has more than doubled. So, the total expenditure at all levels of government has increased over 8.8x in 2003 dollars. The real number is scary big.
The total outlay of all government in 1947 was $45.5 BILLION. Peanuts, by todays standards. Corrected using the CPI calculator, available online, the new total in 2003 dollars is $375.43 BILLION. Total of all governments expenditures in 2003 was well over $3 TRILLION. Do the math and it is well over 8x 'corrected' using the CPI index.
That is, over 4x per capita and 2x population, for those keeping score. Actual final value=8.83

They are all complicit. Blame Republicans? Blame Democrats? In the 56 years from 1947 to 2003 I don't see a decrease in Per Capita government spending except for the years 48->49 which dropped just a few dollars per person in CPI corrected spending. The CPI corrected drop from '48 to '49 was about 4$. This was wiped out by 1950 which was even higher than 1947, in CPI corrected value.
'53->'54 also showed a drop as did '54->'55. This is in uncorrected numbers. Even in those years of calculated decrease, The CPI calculated number increased, but slowly. By 1957 the annual increases were back. There was a recession at this time, if memory serves.

No additional drops of spending were noted. During the Vaunted Reagan Years, Per Capita spending rose from $3700 to nearly $6900 in uncorrected dollars. No matter how wacky the CPI, I'm sure the real increase was also pretty high.

As I can dig up the 2003 ->2010 numbers, I'll add them to my spreadsheet and do the additional calculations. Very interesting stuff.

Point being? One of the FEW Points Jan and I agree on is that spending will not go down. There exists NO political will....or won't, if you please. Since it will not go down, it can only go UP or stay LEVEL. I've tried to think up the 'other' path. We can't tax our way out of this one. I'm going to add a column to my spreadsheet and try to get a good number for tax revenues broken out by Federal and all State and Local revenues combined. The difference between what comes in and what goes out is called DEBT and must at some time be payed back....or maybe not? I will also add an inflation number, and see how good or bad the CPI number really is.....to the extent that anything is 'real'.

I wish I could run my own life at this level of debt.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1527
Registered: Oct-07
In the interests of 'equal pork' time:

From the Washington Post.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301782. html

It would appear they article picks on both Rs and Ds about equally.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15174
Registered: May-04
.

I wish it were as simple as you make it out to be. Let's all stay at 1947 levels of everything, that's what would be best, eh? 91% tax rates on the highest earners to get us out of the debt from WWII worked as planned, no? Now that's not a bad idea today since the highest earners (GWB's so called "base") contributed enormously to the current recession and will continue to drain Federal income coffers which could be used to lift revenues should the 2001/2003 Bush Tax Cuts be allowed to expire (http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/12/pf/taxes/bush_tax_cuts_almost_rich/index.htm - as dictated by the Republican Congress at the time of the bill's signing. They knew this day would come and now they are trying to use it as a political weapon against Democrats who are only saying the law should stand as written by the Republicans. Of course, these tax cuts were passed at the same time GWB was telling us we would have a balanced budget by 2009 - and at the same time he was running 1/2 to 3/4 trillion dollar deficits each and every year while using "supplementals" to finance two wars, thereby keeping their monetary cost out of the YTD budgets.

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan had an epiphany. His Treasury Secretary informed him that Reagan's former employer, General Electric, and dozens of other major American corporations did not "pay a penny in taxes to the United States government." In fact, the Treasury Secretary added, "your secretary paid more federal taxes last year than all of those giant companies put together."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Tax_Justice

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbpi.pdf

"As a result of the first three major tax cuts enacted at President Bush's instigation in 2001, 2002 and 2003, taxes on the best off one per cent of Americans will fall by 17 per cent by the end of this decade. For the remaining 99 per cent of taxpayers, the average reduction will be 5 per cent."
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/allbushcut.pdf


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1528
Registered: Oct-07
I think we're getting somewhere.
I'll check those links out, later.
It isn't as simple as 'I make it out'. That is a very superficial, first pass analysis. I have just described something without conclusion. I admit that without question. BUT, that being said, the data has much more to tell us, but it'll take a while to dig out. Each level suggests another test. Not to worry, more to come.

Some of this stuff is incredible convoluted. Going thru IRS tables is pretty thick stuff. And That's just the index. When you get to the data, you need to know some special terms. For EXAMPLE, what is the difference between 'real' and 'nominal' GDP? Best of luck.

That is what I meant by 'hidden data' and the need for analysis, not just a reliance on 'fact'. The study from the St. Louis Fed is a wealth of ideas. They have bunches of articles which can be mined. The Truth IS out there, but sometime buried in statistical muck.

However, I do NOT believe the problem is unequal collection of tax. It is that NO MATTER how much money is collected, those bums can always figure out a way to spend MORE. Simple as that.
I believe the data, at least so far, supports THAT statement.

How big is the JV national debt? You, of course, don't have to say, but I'll bet you aren't in debt to even a fraction of the percentage of our country. You are simply too responsible. I carry exactly 1 credit card. Wife and I had a blender party more than a decade ago. Plastic doesn't make good mulch.

I don't have the total wealth numbers at my fingertips, but just CONFISCATE whatever it takes to ZERO the DEBT, from say the top 3% or 4%of all wealth holders. Make that the top 10%, if you think that's what it'd take......say a couple TRILLION or ????? In a couple years, we'd be back in the SAME boat, with the same LEAK. Meanwhile, the loss of that wealth is subject to the LAW of unintended consequences. All that money 'gone' will be missed sooner or later?

I'm going thru the data I have from '47 to '03 and will add more later. If you want the SpreadSheet I'm working on, I'll be glad to ship you off the whole darn thing. I AM going to add a column of R or D for who is in office at that time. AND who controlled Congress. When I get around to doing say....a per capita increase in spending VS what party is in office, I'll be able to do a Spearman's Rho statistical test. I'll see if there is any relationship between which party is in presidential power and the rate of increase DURING that term. So far, and it is way preliminary, Reagan Stands Out as a huge increase. I'll check his data against CPI calculations and see. But, the CPI would have to be going up wacky hi to make up for his spending increases. First things, first and see where the data leads.

Once again, Bush II fits my model. Tax decrease= GOOD, right? Well, not necessarily, since during his term SPENDING went UP. Debt increased which has to be paid off....just do it after I'm DEAD and BURIED. Did I get the correct answer to your question about BushII and spending Bills? would that be ......Yes or......Yes?
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1529
Registered: Oct-07
Should I add a column for 'highest marginal tax rate', by year?

Leaving everything as 1947? Who knows. If US TOTAL government spending per capita were only the 2600$ indicated by retaining the 315$ per person spending of 1947 you'd see a HUGE surplus. Current spending is over 4x that rate....and we still haven't spent ourselves to prosperity.

Another bit of data I haven't factored in.......GDP in 1947 was about $12323.25 and about $40727.62 in 2003. I don't know what these incomes are corrected for the OTHER end of the time range in question VIA CPI calculator. I also don't know how tax rates have changed, either federal or in the US as a whole, not to mention 'Rate Crawl', when rates stay fixed and income rises into higher tax brackets, a net loss of purchasing power.

Please be 'fair'. BushII DID cut taxes. BUT, he also increased spending. One sells like hotcakes, the other, not so much. Even if he hadn't cut taxes a single penny, he STILL would have run up the debt. REMIND ME to try to figure out the numbers. IF they are available and not buried.

If I had a nickel for everytime it was predicted 'we will balance the budget by xxx' I could retire to the Bahamas and buy myself an island........

And speaking of Off-Budget.....Wasn't Social Security money collected thru the withholding Ponzi Scheme once Off Budget? Who was it.....? Nixon? Johnson? Who made sure it was included in money available and that we'd just 'write ourselves a check'......????? The mythical Social Security Trust Fund.... I WANT TO SEE THE BOOKS.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1530
Registered: Oct-07
A couple posts back I, in a throwaway line mentioned 'unintended consequences'.
I consider myself expert at this, since after 35+ years in manufacturing I've seen all sorts of cures for all sorts of ailments. Got an ingrown big toe nail? Amputate, darn it, that'll fix it! Of course, other things result....balance issues, infection, got the wrong toe.....you name it.

What I mean, short form, is that EVERY cure carries its own risk. Higher taxation and even simple confiscation of enough wealth to ZERO the debt will have unintended downstream effects. Once you take that money and pay off debt, where is it? Has the money been destroyed or somehow lost its manna? No, it's been transferred to the debt holders who are now wealthier, but can no longer look forward to receiving that monthly debt payment. They may even have to (God Forbid), get a job! Those who receive the payments, in one big gigantic LUMP SUM may also be liable for the Tax Bill from you-know-where. They will try to HIDE this money, as legally as they can and by other means if they MUST. Money shipped to bondholders around the world is now dollars redeemable for American Stuff or depending on its value, exchanged among other countries to buy or sell stuff to each other. How much money do we owe say.......China, the EU, and OPEC totaled up? Would the value of the dollar rise or fall?
One possible solution? Perhaps, take the debt service portion of the budget away. make it disappear. Now, the budget is much smaller. Taxes can than be adjusted downward to 'balance' the budget. Argue later about who gets what benefit. Maybe go to some kind of flat tax, with those earning less than a certain amount, simply exempt from filing. INDEX the rate to the CPI so inflation doesn't eat into income THAN bump you into a tax paying bracket, making you even POORER.

Anyway, beware of unintended consequences. Years ago, when I'd start training engineers on how to work in a fab and not kill people, I'd ask em to compute water pressure at say.....1200 feet. It's easy if you know water is pretty much NON-compressible. The few who couldn't do that easy calculation soon proved themselves as goofballs and were either promoted or fired. Than after they came up with a pretty large number, I'd ask 'em about a small leak on a submarine at that depth. For the ones with brains, they'd realize that NO small leaks exist on a sub at that depth. Same applies to any rigidly controlled system. Fault tolerance goes down and the consequences, unintended or NOT goes up. You must make sure of the consequences before you start messing with things.... Engineers had to test any and all intended process changes before releasing any such changes to production and making sure of any and all downstream effects.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15175
Registered: May-04
.

You sure can rant for someone whose only issues are "cut spending" and "go get those illegals on the other side of the parking lot".


"Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney, 2002

You need to figure out why any sane person would say that. Hint: spending drives GDP. It's in the statistics I provided at the beginning ot the thread, leo.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1531
Registered: Oct-07
Cutting spending is indeed an issue. I'll work taxes collected, GDP, taxes as percent of GDP and debt into another table.

Cheney? He's an idiot. Look at his record over the years. Deficits may NOT matter, but paying them off sure does.
You keep dragging Reagan, Cheny, Bush into all this thinking I'm some kind of Republican Clone or something and trying to piss me off. Well, sorry, These guys didn't do much for me. Bush I was head of CIA for a while ('76?). That is, to me, a red flag and just another reason he didn't get my vote. Looking at the rest of his resume` scares me, too.
Remember, it's NOT the fall, but the sudden STOP.

Don't try to spread and diffuse the discussion. Plenty of time to drag other issues into this rather than try for a simply incendiary crack. I'm going to try to confine myself to a 'follow the money' plan, just like Woodward and Bernstein.

You really should think about unintended consequences. This is probably one of the more difficult assertions to prove. You almost have to prove a negative. The negative hypothesis may be stated as 'Policy and Law effect only the subject matter of the law or policy.' Approaching things from this view may give a result.
I have heard some buzz about either a VAT or removing home interest credit. Now that'll raise some money, now won't it? Not regressive in the least, either. At least apartment rents will firm up.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15176
Registered: May-04
.

"You keep dragging Reagan, Cheny, Bush into all this thinking I'm some kind of Republican Clone or something and trying to piss me off."



Ahem ...

"I'll see if there is any relationship between which party is in presidential power and the rate of increase DURING that term. So far, and it is way preliminary, Reagan Stands Out as a huge increase. I'll check his data against CPI calculations and see. But, the CPI would have to be going up wacky hi to make up for his spending increases."

"Once again, Bush II fits my model. Tax decrease= GOOD, right? Well, not necessarily, since during his term SPENDING went UP."

"BushII DID cut taxes. BUT, he also increased spending."



That's just from the above three posts you made!

Christ, leo! you keep dragging Reagan, Bush (I & II) and Cheney into this and then you have the balls to say I'm baiting you by using exactly what you've already mentioned a dozen times?!!! Now, who exactly is trying to p!ss off the other here? Like you said, let's be fair.


You want to know who raided Social Security? Take a look; http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=reagan%20raids%20social% 20security%20trust%20fund&type=


That's quite a list of "fact" based opinions there, many just repeating the "non-facts" they've had planted in their heads by the bunch who understands repeating a big lie often enough makes it an accepted "fact" for those willing to take the bait. Some of the links come from the left and some from the right, some more or less from the middle. You'll see there's no real consensus on the issue until you get to Bush II who in 2000, as you should remember, famously derided Gore for campaigning on a "Social Security Lock Box" which would have frozen the government's ability to reach into the general fund whenever it required extra cash to, say, push the idea tax cuts on the order of Reagan's actually raise revenue. I would, personally, pay attention to the Thom Hartman article in the first link. IMO he's one of the brightest commentators out there and doesn't rely strictly on demagoging issues to make his point. He's a progressive liberal but I think he's generally fair in most of his assessments and is certainly the anti-Rushbo/Hannity/Savage/etc. of radio.

Here's a page which might prove useful and clear up many of the misconceptions you seem to have about Social Security; http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html


Here's a simple(?) table from the government you might find useful; http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR08/VI_cyoper_history.html#159726

Go down to "Table VI.A4.--Historical Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds,
Calendar Years 1957-2007 [Amounts in billions]". It's rather complicated but you keep saying you're good at reading this sort of stuff, so have at it. The numbers are though only "statistics".


http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=Combined%20OASI%20and%20 DI%20Trust%20Funds&type=


One more thing, while you're reading these articles you might remember that Alan Greenspan (appointed by Reagan and held over by Bush I, Clinton and Bush II) also kept a copy of Friedman's book with him. IMO Friedmand's theories have been all but totally discredited by the "free market" approach to laissez faire governing heralded as the economic hinge pin of the Republican Party.

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15177
Registered: May-04
.

"Don't try to spread and diffuse the discussion. Plenty of time to drag other issues into this rather than try for a simply incendiary crack. I'm going to try to confine myself to a 'follow the money' plan, just like Woodward and Bernstein."



Once again I have to say "". I am doing no such thing. I am simply presenting facts which I find useful - which is more than I can say for your constant rants which have no facts what so ever attached to them. That my "facts" are more encompassing than your simplistic "cut spending" and "go get those illegals on the other side of the parking lot" is, IMO, a good thing. I thought we'd already established through Bartlett's article (which you introduced) that the simple minded "cut spending" advocates need not be paid any attention as they are totally out of touch with reality. And while your xeonophobic nature is something "you love" to have pointed out, that too is not my fault.


I don't want to discourage your search for statistics but I do expect your "table" to already have reached a conclusion you are only trying to support with chosen numbers. As we both agree, leo, statisitcs require analysis and more than shear numbers or tables. Facts are facts however.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1532
Registered: Oct-07
Jan said:
Now that's not a bad idea today since the highest earners (GWB's so called "base") contributed enormously to the current recession and will continue to drain Federal income coffers which could be used to lift revenues should the 2001/2003 Bush Tax Cuts be allowed to expire

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney, 2002

I'm certain you'd never stoop to cherry picking data to support you point.....

Here is something you may be interested in:
Between 1947 and 2003 the Total of all government spending rose dramatically, as everyone knows.
In 1947 ALL government spent about 45.5 billion dollars.
If, using a CPI calculator, that number was translated to 2003 'purchasing power', it would be around 375 billion dollars.
That is over 8.8 times the 'real' cost of budget. There appears to be NO difference between increases in Republican or Democratic Presidencies. The number just keeps getting larger. Same for per capita spending......a mirror.

I'm serious.....Where does all the money go? Why the huge increase in recent years? Why wasn't a portion of SS privatized? Just a superficial overlook of 2009 numbers shows that entitlements....SS, Medicare, and more amounted to well over 50% of the budget. That would appear to be the 'floor'. No wonder they can't cut spending.

I'm not sure what I'll find. I already don't like it, though. The feeling it gives me is the here-we-go feeling you get when a tire blows out....in a turn.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15178
Registered: May-04
.

"I'm certain you'd never stoop to cherry picking data to support you point..... "


Leo, "Now that's not a bad idea today since the highest earners (GWB's so called "base") contributed enormously to the current recession and will continue to drain Federal income coffers which could be used to lift revenues should the 2001/2003 Bush Tax Cuts be allowed to expire", and, ""Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney, 2002", are not "data".


"Here is something you may be interested in:"

Nope, I'm not. Even though this is what? the third time you've posted the same thing.


"'m serious.....Where does all the money go?"

Maybe if you stopped ranting for awhile and did some real looking, you'd find out. There's some fairly significant stuff that occurred between 1947 and 2003. That it didn't suit you any more than those Supreme Court decisions you disagree with isn't the issue, it happened and it cost money.


"No wonder they can't cut spending."

Maybe if you tried sticking to facts, you'd get somewhere and you wouldn't have to repeat the same thing - "cut spending" - all the time. What you just posted was in the Bartlett article quite a ways back.

Pay attention to the Republicans, they don't have anything they can name that they would cut other than the loonies who want to dismantle Social security and the Department of Education, OSHA and the EPA. That's why they are resorting to the Muslim BS and the same old fear tactics that have ginned up the social conservative base for the last three decades. C'mon, leo, this ain't rocket science.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1533
Registered: Oct-07
Now who's going from conclusion to reasons?

Spending has risen nearly steadily, peaking during the Reagan '80s
and During BushI's only term at about 32% of per capita income. The number has since fallen to around 29% as of the first 3 years of BushII. I'll pursue more current numbers, later. In 1947 all levels of government together spent a 'mere' 18.6% of per capita income per person of population.

I didn't leave it there. In CPI calculator corrected dollars, what was left of your earnings in 1947, about $1378 has a 2003 purchasing power of only about $11,400 in 2003, which is much less than the over $27,000 remaining in the 2003 per capita income after subtracting the over $11,000 of totaled government spending.

I believe that when I factor debt back into the numbers, the balance may change. The little ad at the bottom of the page, here, claims a debt of $13,000,000,000,000 which is a pretty huge number, no matter how you slice it.

Those who want to delete entire federal departments are those who read the Constitution and simply wonder where the authority to do some things comes from. How, for example, does the Federal Government come to have such a huge influence in education? The Federal government has strictly enumerated powers, which in their opinion, have been exceeded. Those who believe those who wrote the Constitution were 'just kidding around', of course, have quite a different opinion.

Now, I'm really curious. Follow the money. All the rest is pretty much smokescreen and mis direction.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1535
Registered: Oct-07
http://theplaintruth.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3315092


Article, linked above, is a real good reason to NOT let the government run anything.
They (IRS) was apparently unable to run a brothel at a profit and ended up auctioning the whole thing off.....IRS claimed over $10million in back taxes and settled for <$0.15 on the dollar. I think they did better when they seized most of what Willie Nelson owned.

Disclaimer:
No FactCheck.org verification, though I have seen several interviews with real participants and a special on Discovery. (?)History?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15179
Registered: May-04
.

"Those who believe those who wrote the Constitution were 'just kidding around', of course, have quite a different opinion."


We're back to "f'off, leo". These rants of yours continue to be offensive and they continue to be so just for the sake of you getting to be offensive. As has been shown both parties partake in legislature that is not strictly "in the Constitution", Schiavo being a prime example of what the Republicans will use to pander to a few extremists in order to divert attention away from what they are truly doing in plain sight. I'm not going to debate Schiavo other than to say if you do not see the difference between a Supreme Court decision (case law) which upheld Constitutional powers and a pandering piece of "emergency" legislature which intruded on one individual's life and death, then you and I will never see eye to eye on anything.

The point is those shouters about "originalists" are the very ones who have no real regard for the original intent. We've shown the word "corporation" was never included into the work but the self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" have signed our lives over to the corporations and the financial institutions - also not in the original document - to pay back their top 2% donors. So, yes, legislators do things which are not in the original document all the time and have from the very beginning of the Nation. Get over it! You can be p!ssed and you can wear your three cornered hat anywhere and anytime you wish but you are not going to change the way these things work just by screaming "cut spending" and "go get the illegals". If that truly is your idea of how to "take back" this country, then you have bought a sorry nag to ride home on. You are, as Bartlett points out, not to be paid attention to because you are simply to easy to fool all the time.

Why? Because you buy into the BS you are being fed about the IRS not being able to run a brothel. Do you really want the IRS to be able to run a "Socialist" brothel?! I don't! I want a government that is responsive to the people before it is responsive to the banks and the corporations - particularly as we find ourself in a global economy where foreign interests can now invest in our elections through proxy donations which do not need to be reported to anyone - which is also not in the Constitution. But transparency about how monies control our elections is being blocked by one party; http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=republicans%20block%20tr ansparency%20legisation&type=.

AIG just gave $900 million to the RNC. Newscorp - Murdoch's outfit - also just gave millions to the RNC. I suppose you know Newscorp's second largest investor is a Saudi Prince who also happens to own a large portion of CitiBank. I'm hoping you can see where I'm going with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#2010_RGA_Donation_and_Controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal

Yet you are being told to focus on the IRS not being able to run a confiscated brothel - and you buy into it! Leo, surely at this stage you must understand how a magician or a street hustler gets away with their scams. The Founding Fathers all of you shouters are so fond of recalling are no more what you have been told they were than was Ronald Reagan (who probably would not have satisfied the majority of the shouters who think he did the Country so much good and adhered so closely to the "Constitution" which you should know by now he did not). They disagreed amongst themself about the role of government, which is exactly what should happen in a free society. At times any one of them might have written something which is contradictory to any of the quotes you guys are so fond of pulling out of your @ss. Why? Because it was a free flowing discussion, not a block of stone. Discussion which continued for decades until the last of them died and then was picked up by the next generation and the next and the next and which will continue until this Nation ceases to exist.

Get your head out of the 1947 CPI numbers. Things change and the world changes with them. You've shown an article - which you now continue to ignore - the one which states frankly "cut spending" is a narrow minded diversion which isn't going to happen. Not because of the difference between 1947 incomes and 2010 incomes but because the scammers who are shouting about "original document" and "cut spedning" are the very ones holding out their hand to anyone willing to line it with cash. As has been pointed out - but you ignored this also - " ... we take whatever largess comes our way. A federal dollar is a good dollar."

Now, that's my rant. I don't intend to make another and I don't intend to "discuss" this with you. Rants are not why I began this thread. But you've ignored everything I've posted and you continue to rant on about inconsequential things when you have only BS numbers to prattle on about 1947. If you really and truly cannot see just a few of the things which have occurred which are sucessful and popular programs providing benefits to all Americans in a "socialistic" way since 1947, then this thread is a waste of time. All you will do is continue to chase your own tail down the exact same 1947 rat hole. In that I have no interest what so ever.


If you do not cease your constant rants, the thread is over. The thread is about facts, not about 1947 CPI as if the world stopped operating that year. You cannot, no matter how hard you try, drag the world back into 1947. It is not about illegals you can spot from across the parking lot. If you cannot bring actual useable facts to the thread, then I stop posting and you can go on ranting to yourself - which will be no more than what you've done for the past however many weeks. I'm done, leo, I'm tired of your constant rants. Facts or nothing.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1536
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, it's a little early here.

Let me get this straight....You are the designated ranter? I'll butt out, than, and let you continue to have your rant. I'm sure you would find just as much to beef about tracking down the stats on nearly ANY big power guy in Washington, but you insist on the Democratic Mantra.
Find out about Demoncratic Financial dealings, too.

And, it's not BS. The IRS took over the brothel for tax reasons. So far, so good. However, they apparently didn't turn a profit and sold it at auction to recoup the extensive tax debt. I'm sure they would have liked more than about $.15 on the dollar. The original owner is now living in Brazil or something.

If you think there is not more data in comparing stats over time, you are wrong. One thing I've seen is that spending always increases. In bad times, deficits to help things get better and in good, since tax revenues are up. California had money in the bank for a couple years, now is billions in debt. And the budget? Keeps rising.
http://www.sen.ca.gov/budget/budgethistory.pdf
I may look, later, at which party was in office and how much the budget changed during those years, but for now, I see that Arnie sure did well. He makes Grey Davis look competent. Grey was given the boot for a car tax tripling. People went nuts, than the energy 'thing' and the Bush FERC simply IGNORED the whole thing. I'd love the real story of THAT and to see the phone / memo trail.

ALL studies over time use the 'base year' method so you have a 'stake in the ground' from which to judge the new data. I see the numbers move in ONLY 1 direction without regard to who is in office. I'm glad you can sit on your throne and complain about someone talking about comparing a data string starting at 1947 without ever having actually seen the data. I'll renew my offer to send you a copy of the spreadsheet. I'm nowhere near done and don't see an end. But you can work on the same dataset and happy hunting.

As for the Constitution? It is just 'advisory' then? All Presidents (many, anyway.....and some good ones) were at odds with either or both of the other 2 branches. Sometimes it came to a head, sometimes new law and less often, a Constitutional amendment. If you want some more backstory, I'm certain you know of and have extensively read 'The Federalist'. As a source document which was probably read by many of the founders, I'd suggest 'The Republic' of Plato.

I'm going to make myself some coffee, finish the dishes and go up to school to buy a parking pass.
Woodworking class starts in a few days. I've got a few ideas to work on. Long term project.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1537
Registered: Oct-07
You'll enjoy this one!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002194230_collegerepublicans02m .html

Rip-Off fundraising.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1538
Registered: Oct-07
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000076

some 'donation' data. ATT gave something like 45 million over time.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1539
Registered: Oct-07
You'll like this, too.
AIG contributions....a few years old, but still 'post bailout'.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7110145&page=1
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15180
Registered: May-04
.

Once again you prefer to rant rather than pay attention. No, I'm not the ranter in chief, I'm the one trying to get rants out of this thread. No, I do not push the Democratic line, I push what I feel is obvious at the moment, the Republicans are the party crying for everyone to watch their right hand while their left hand does the pocket picking. Paying attention to the last few decades of facts has proven to me they are the party with the least to offer to people on the whole. The least jobs and the most long term debt. The loudest crys for de-regulation and the most corruption as the result.

"Less regulation" and "individual freedom" translates into "don't get in my way while I'm trying to make a profit". As we have been shown quite correctly - and repeatedly - over the last few years (and remember I lived with GWB as my Governor for six years before he "rose to power") and which you point out correctly when you say, " ... Bush FERC simply IGNORED the whole thing", profit is all too often taken at the expense of those with no power. People want to know their eggs are safe and their water doesn't ignite when you hold a match under the spout. IMO that means the Consitution forms the roots and trunk of our government. What grows from that rootstock is up to the people - not up to the corporations or the banks or those doing their bidding. So back off this sh!t about the Constitution and how you hold some magic understanding of what was meant which escapes poor deluded little me!


Yes, I showed you "Open Secrets" back on July 27th. The others are historical pieces which you are trying to use to cover your lack of facts on the issues. Anyone can stick "political corruption" in a search engine and pull up such things. They serve a minimal purpose when it comes to instructing the public unless you can show a pattern of deception which is consistent with deceiving the people. Your ABC story? As the two parties have both fallen into the arms of the monied interests, the money follows the party in power or about to be in power. It really was a pretty safe bet the Democrats were going to win the 2008 series just by virtue of not being Bush or Delay. The same thing happened in 2000 when Bush was not Clinton (though there's much more of a story to that one) and money and influence went to the liassez faire, all regulations are strictly "voluntary" Republican. It's what occurs after the election which counts and so far the Dems have not gone the K-Street route which ended in numerous convictions and the dismantling of the Congressional Ethics Committee. If you look, you will find no one in politics or business or religion or anything else is pure. I'm not trying to be ideological, just factual.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15181
Registered: May-04
.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1540
Registered: Oct-07
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000123

AIG seems to be about evenly split between R and D. Maybe they couldn't make up their corporate mind.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1541
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, I've LIVED thru the California power 'crisis'. Check out the special on 'The Smartest Men In The Room'. Enron is disgrace to the human race (pls ignore rhyme). I was back East (NH / VT) post 9-11 on a leaf peepers vacation and was going thru the paper at breakfast one morning. Sure 'nuff..... Maine was paying about $.05 per KwH for power. At that time I was paying over 2x that rate. Now? I'm scared to look at my bill. The FERC 'incident' was a real wakeup call. It is clear they were bought off or told to simply ignore California.....a Democratic state, by and large. It is also clear that the 'F' in FERC is Federal and implies national powers. What a Crock of XXXX


I'm on record with my friends here....and it is a minority opinion.....that the capitalist model needs some kind of revision. The 'greed is good' philosophy at the expense of human welfare must cease. Most people are not comfortable looking at the excesses of our system.

All in all, not a bad rant, Jan. I pretty much can't argue, especially with your last paragraph...and don't want to, with your follow the money conclusions.....haven't I said that? Didn't I quote 'Deep Throat'? That is the simpliest statement possible of the theory....'Follow the Money'.
The TEST of any theory is that you can make verifiable predictions using it. Well, 'ya don't gotta be no Rocket Scientist to see the 'mothers milk of politics' is sour.
Glad to see we ....sort of.....agree on something.....
OH! I didn't mention it, but yes, the AIG monies in the above article do bend with the direction of the 'winner'.

I'm not going to the trouble of finding the quote....I THINK it was Eric Hoffer, but the idea is that
Before an election the people are smart, able to make good decisions etc/etc. After the election, it is shut up and do as you're told time. Politicians LIKE a dependent population.
Now, go ahead and say it....that you are glad, too.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15182
Registered: May-04
.

" It is also clear that the 'F' in FERC is Federal and implies national powers. What a Crock of XXXX"

OK, now I'm going to get ideological on you. If you are convinced the Federal Government should have no power, you will invest it with no power. For the most part the Federal Government due to its size and complexity is largely reactive rather than pro-active. The guys out in the capitalist sector are moving far more swiftly to dismantle whatever the Feds can construct than the policy makers can manage. Therefore, when the power of the Fed is taken to zero by the incompetent cronyism and overdriven ideology of a Bush/Cheney/Delay/Rove/etc. you get the Enron's and the Katrinas and the bursting of bubbles. (Yesterday I read an article in the conservative Dallas Morning News which suggested there should be no more regulations simply because Bush proved regulators are poor at what they should be doing. Our Governor is refusing to debate his opponent based on debates being "a waste of time" for the governor.) Or you get the deficits and the spending of a Reagan. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help (myself to your grandchildren's future)."

I'm not against anyone having an opinion different from my own but I am against those who are spending their time whistling past the graveyard of past events just because someone is waving a flag in their face.


"Politicians LIKE a dependent population."


Some, but dependency comes in many forms. Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd were masters of the earmark and in their time that was what made them popular. Spending drives GDP and tax growth. Bringing 64 jobs to a out of the way portion of a state can mean survival for many by simply increasing the revenue stream. For the most part I have no real problem with that principle.

Politicians like a distracted population. That's where we have come to today. 24/7 talking heads ginning up nonsense issues which distract from what is being done by the powerful. IMO that's where opensecrets and Politifact have their power. Otherwise, someone in Alabama is going to be voting based on who does and doesn't want to stop a religious community center in Downtown New York City.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15183
Registered: May-04
.

"Clean Water Act Violations: The Enforcement Record"

Use these charts; http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/09/13/us/0913-water.html "Figures were compiled by asking states to verify data initially provided by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Any time officials disputed the data, they were asked to provide alternative figures, which were substituted."

Click "1", "2" and "3" at the top to see the number of registered facilites, the number of violations of the Clean Water Act and the number of enforcement actions taken. If you are convinced the Federal Government should have no power, you will invest it with no power.

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15184
Registered: May-04
.

http://dcbureau.org/Environment/gasland.html
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1544
Registered: Oct-07
I am of 2 minds.

The IDEALIST in me would have no need for government. People would behave in a civil manner without need of violence, coercion, threats or sanctions. Business profits would not be nutty yet would provide a decent wage to employees. Cops would take drunks home rather than get punitive and go for the revenue. If anyone got hurt, you would be suitably punished. Many lawsuits would simply never get filed due to peaceful, fair resolution. Business / factories wouldn't pollute since they'd know it was their OWN cage they'd be shXttng' in. and the future's. People COULD carry firearms, but would choose not to.

The REALIST in me sees people without self control. Laws futile efforts to keep up as people continue to invent new ways to be cruel to one another. The freest society (argument alert) is perhaps also the most criminalized. People are free to the extent they exhibit self control.
California has LEGAL unloaded Open Carry laws. Did you know that? You can carry an unloaded firearm out, in open on the hip. Bullets? You can have a pocket full, just NONE in the gun. The only gun shootouts you hear about are people in process of criminal activities, anyway. No Open Carry person has been part of that ....nuttiness. Rules? Not in a government building, NEAR a school and some other restrictions. You must surrender you gun for inspection to a lawful peace officer UPON DEMAND. works fine.

RE: FERC. If you can't follow the rules you've got, why make more rules? It's on the books, so I've got to go with it. Don't you think FERC should have REacted to a direct request from the State Of California? If someone jumps me in the parking lot I'm not going to threaten them with my attorney. But stuff like yet more elaborate campaign finance rules or more complex, lawyer-written EPA rules are a joke. Built in, technical loop holes. Time or distance limits. Lie-With-Big-Smile exclusion.
Pretty weird, huh?
Your last paragraph is specifically why I've stayed out of the Mosque (or is it?) 'debate'.
2 groups shouting at one another from across a wide street. Good sense not to built an Islamic edifice there? Expression of religious or cultural dominion? Who's side is that Iman guy on? (name withheld due to simply can't remember) Is the Greek Orthodox Church across the street which hasn't been rebuilt germane to the chat? Real Church or just made up? Wanna talk Saudi Arabia? How many Mosques in Israel? Is Egypt's seeming tolerance of the 10% Christian population an example to us all?
While in London's Whitechappel district taking the 'Jack The Ripper' walking tour, I saw an obviously religious building. It had a Star of David cornerstone. Well, Whitechappel has always been a poor / migrant area. The Jews, when they moved out were replaced by others and now after who knows how many exchanges it is an Islamic neighborhood. So, the former synagog is NOW a Mosque! Man, do the little eateries smell GOOD.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1549
Registered: Oct-07
Just looked at.....glanced, really, the clean water article and it is appalling.
This kind of behavior is common in a non-accountable bureaucracy. A Washington pol of 25 years (self) service in Congress, ends up on some major committee. He retires and ends up working part time, as a lobbyist, for the industry he regulated or his committee dealt with....and none too harshly, at that.
I think there is a provision in the lobbyist laws about a time period between service? Look up a list of who is on the various boards or act as consultants to the hundreds of Washington lobby firms. They are like cockroaches. Can't kill 'em. They Breed like rats. They do good for mainly themselves.
Here in California we had MTBE in our gasoline for years. Cost a fortune to refit refineries to do whatever to add that sh*t to the gas. Toxic as hell and NOW in the well water in a lot of places. Wells were shut down, if I remember right. Gone. Disappeared. No longer 'news'. It took several years after the conclusive evidence was 'in' to get that stuff out of the gas.

I'll bet California uses different formulations than Texas. We have 91 octane max with regular down around 87. Please see link to local 'hate' group. I've been a fan for years, watching corporate machinations for the local market.

http://www.ucan.org/


Jan, you know the rule, right? If you have to refer to a chemical by its initials, it is really bad.
Start reading food labels, too, for a real wake up. Are you a healthy food person? Organic, or the like?

Now you're beginning to see why I'm such a cynic.
 

Gold Member
Username: Dakulis

Spokane, Washington United States

Post Number: 1101
Registered: May-05
So,

What's the best speaker I can buy for under $500 each? And, are they made with union labor or my scabs?
 

Gold Member
Username: Dakulis

Spokane, Washington United States

Post Number: 1102
Registered: May-05
. . . or by scabs?
 

Gold Member
Username: Chitown

Post Number: 1509
Registered: Apr-05
Dak, in the context of this conversation of course you mean "best speaker of the house I can buy for $500" right?

Folks interesting conversation and I couldn't read all of it. It seems to me though looking at what I purchase, be it consumer goods or food, it is all coming from somewhere else. US is becoming a third world nation of users rather than producers. No amount of tax cuts, nor government spending cuts are going to make up for the fact that we have become better at negotiation shipping rates (being a large 300 million population) to get our stuff from somewhere else, rather than building/growing it ourselves. Does it not say anything that one of our largest non-military export is Hollywood films (as bad as they are)?

US will not be able to get back to a healthy economy unless we go back to creating, innovating and reacting to how the world is changing regardless of left/right ideology. This is not to say that a consumer based economy is self sustaining over a long period of time, but that new ideas in food production, transportation, health care, and alternative energy are needed and all that begins with more investment into education.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15189
Registered: May-04
.

"The IDEALIST in me would have no need for government. People would behave in a civil manner without need of violence, coercion, threats or sanctions. Business profits would not be nutty yet would provide a decent wage to employees."


Take away the need for revolution (which they saw as necessary to achieve your/their idealistic state) and you have the basis for what Engels and Marx theorized as the original communist philosophy.


"Marxism is the antithesis of capitalism which is defined by Encarta as 'an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.' Marxism is the system of socialism of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange ...

Under capitalism, Marx continues, the workers, in order to support their families are paid a bare minimum wage or salary. The worker is alienated because he has no control over the labor or product which he produces. The capitalists sell the products produced by the workers at a proportional value as related to the labor involved. Surplus value is the difference between what the worker is paid and the price for which the product is sold.

An increasing immiseration of the proletariat occurs as the result of economic recessions; these recessions result because the working class is unable to buy the full product of their labors and the ruling capitalists do not consume all of the surplus value. A proletariat or socialist revolution must occur, according to Marx, where the state (the means by which the ruling class forcibly maintains rule over the other classes) is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism evolves from socialism out of this progression: the socialist slogan is 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.' The communist slogan varies thusly: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'"
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-marxism-faq.htm

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15190
Registered: May-04
.

"California has LEGAL unloaded Open Carry laws. Did you know that?"

http://crime.about.com/library/blgunquiz_tx.htm

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_cap_pun_tot_inm_on_dea_row-punishment-total -inmates-death-row

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/offendersondrow.htm

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_cap_pun_tot_exe-punishment-total-executions -1977-2006

http://www.cppp.org/files/2/POP300%20State%20of%20Working%20Texas%202007.pdf


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15191
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

The metal parts of a speaker were probably touched by a union member somewhere along the line. The rest of the system? Probably not.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Dakulis

Spokane, Washington United States

Post Number: 1103
Registered: May-05
Stof and Jan,

I just threw in the "scab" comment at the end so Jan wouldn't accuse me of hijacking the thread. LOL
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1550
Registered: Oct-07
http://www.californiaopencarry.org/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf

As long as you don't break 'concealed' laws or are a felon or several other things.....including proximity to schools, no entrance to government buildings, not loaded (you OR gun).......you should be OK.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1551
Registered: Oct-07
Later news:

http://www.examiner.com/populist-in-national/ban-on-open-carry-passed-california -assembly

people are 'frightened'......
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1552
Registered: Oct-07
Wobblies of the world, unite!
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1553
Registered: Oct-07
Also, just a thought....
Is their a relationship between population, incarceration rate and number of persons on death row?
What is mean time, of STAY on death row? For quite a while California had a Zero Execution policy, basically lead by the California Supreme court, which may 'tip' the numbers.
Texas at #2 apparently has a pretty vigorous policy of executions which may make there numbers a little low, compared to California.

Also, what percentage of those on Death Row can eventually face the ultimate punishment?
A strict, simple listing of numbers is of little or no use.


Fictional account: Please see ::

The Life Of David Gale a 2003 movie starring Kevin Spacey.

It'll leave you speechless.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1554
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, you're going to have to prove a causal connection between California open carry and what?
Does Texas have open carry?
This is some pretty meaningless innuendo....
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15196
Registered: May-04
.


"This is some pretty meaningless innuendo.... "

Probably not if you're the one on Death Row in Texas or you are the victim. I have a client who does pro bono work for inmates in Texas. Think about that job for awhile. Most Texas judges here think "DNA" is a model of Chevy.


How'bout we get back to something more informative today ...
http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml

"A new study shows that super-rich candidates who personally bankroll their own campaigns almost always lose.

Sam Pizzigati: "The study identifies 6,171 campaigns for state office where candidates received over half their campaign contributions from themselves or their immediate families. These candidates, from 2000 through last year, gave their campaigns $700.6 million of their own money. In the end, they won only 11 percent of their races." The study also found that, "candidates who collected and spent more campaign cash than their rivals, won 87 percent of their races."




.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1556
Registered: Oct-07
The 'waste' of $700,000,000 on losing campaigns was probably good for the economy. All that advertising revenue, production costs, printing, mailing costs and admin overhead. Lots of people employed, at least for 'campaign' season. And the 'rich' people probably got a reasonable tax deduction while all the money they spent was taxed in some fashion or another....

That the money collection winner was the election winner in 87% of elections should be disquieting to fans of 'democracy'. The 'contest of ideas' has turned into a contest of who can afford the most and loudest megaphones.

I'd again love to see some more data. Do people NOT vote for these people because they are perceived as 'rich' or because the people really DO NOT like the positions taken by the candidate? Were any of the 11% of 'winners' in 'safe' districts or areas? Meaning that they were of the party which 'couldn't lose'?

I'll check out the link later.....I've got to light the grill. Than go polish the Bentley. But provisionally, a good example for 'Follow the Money' fans everywhere.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15202
Registered: May-04
.

"American taxpayers are already poised to make unexpected billions from rescuing the nation's banks. Now, they could reap another sizable profit from a government program devised to purge troubled real estate assets from the financial system ...

Nine months into the program, the eight investment funds chosen by the Treasury Department have generated an estimated return of about 15.5 percent for taxpayers, according to an analysis of their results through the end of June by Linus Wilson, an assistant professor of finance at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette.

Two of the investment funds -- one operated by an Angelo, Gordon-GE Capital consortium and another by BlackRock -- have gotten off to even stronger starts, posting returns of more than 20 percent.

That translates into a paper profit of roughly $657 million for taxpayers. Some Wall Street analysts project that taxpayers could earn as much as $6.2 billion on these investments over the next nine years, from an investment of about $22 billion."


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/business/27toxic.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/08/27/business/27toxicgfc.html?ref=busine ss

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15203
Registered: May-04
.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/25/news/economy/Gleckman_Bush_tax_cuts/index.htm?se ction=money_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/ money_latest+(Latest+News)

.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1563
Registered: Oct-07
Let's just say that the $6.2 billion profit actually materializes? I'll wait the full 9 years....
Are they going to cut me a check in proportion to my tax burden?
OR will they use the money to fuel further spending?
OR will they use the money to pay down debt?
COULD they use the money to increase the solvent lifetime of SS?

Follow the Money!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15207
Registered: May-04
.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100906/bs_nm/us_markets_global
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15208
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Let's take "How we know the sun isn't causing global warming". Click on the link to a few of the authors mentioned (Wang, Lean and Sheeley in particular) and we get "Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC".

If you investigate the Meehl article, you will find it was from work performed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Following that lead you should find this ...

"NCAR Mesa Lab, Boulder, ColoradoThe National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR, pronounced "EN-car"[1]) is a nongovernmental institute in the United States that conducts collaborative research in atmospheric and Earth system science. The center has multiple facilities, including the I. M. Pei-designed Mesa Laboratory headquarters in Boulder, Colorado. NCAR is managed by the nonprofit University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Studies include meteorology, climate science, atmospheric chemistry, solar-terrestrial interactions, environmental and societal impacts.



Research, services, and facilities
NCAR provides a broad array of tools and technologies to the scientific community for studying Earth's atmosphere, including[2], [3]

Specialized instruments to measure atmospheric processes
Research aircraft
High-performance computing and cyberinfrastructure, including supercomputers
Mauna Loa Solar Observatory
Cooperative field campaigns
Atmospheric models of weather, chemical, solar, and climate processes, including cooperatively developed models such as:
Community Climate System Model (CCSM)
Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF)
Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM)
Technology transfer to support societal needs
Data sets, data services, and other resources
The center is staffed by scientists, engineers, technicians, and support personnel who develop and extend these capabilities.[1] Key research areas include [4]

Climate (Earth's past, present, and future climate; the greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change; El Niño, La Niña, and other large-scale atmospheric patterns; drought, wildfires)
Meteorology/Weather (short-term forecasts; weather forecasting and predictability; weather's effect on climate; hurricanes, tornadoes, and other severe storms; physical processes)
Environmental and societal impacts (impacts of climate change on the natural and managed environment; interactions of weather, climate, and society; weather hazard systems for aviation and ground transportation; national security)
Pollution and air chemistry (air pollution on local, regional, and global scales; air chemistry and climate; chemical evolution and transport in the atmosphere)
the Sun and space weather (the structure of the Sun, from its interior to sunspots to the solar corona; the solar cycle; the Sun's effect on Earth's weather and climate; space weather)
Other components of the Earth system (the effects on weather and climate of interactions with: the oceans and other components of Earth's water cycle, including sea ice, glaciers, and the rest of the cryosphere; forests, agriculture, urbanization and other types of land use)
NCAR is organized into five laboratories and two programs:[5]

Laboratories

Computational & Information Systems Laboratory (CISL)
Earth Observing Laboratory (EOL)
High Altitude Observatory (HAO)
NCAR Earth System Laboratory (NESL)
Research Applications Laboratory (RAL)
Programs

Advanced Study Program (ASP)
Integrated Science Program (ISP)
NCAR's service to the universities and larger geosciences community is reinforced by the offerings of UCAR's community programs.[6], [7]

[edit] Participation in 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
Many NCAR scientists participate in national and international collaborations, projects, assessments, and panels. Notable among these is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Scores of NCAR researchers and technical staff have contributed time and expertise to the IPCC assessments of climate change[8] since they began in 1990, and all of them shared with colleagues around the world in the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC.[9]

Funding and management
NCAR is managed by the nonprofit UCAR and is one of the NSF's Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, with approximately 95% of its funding coming from the federal government. However, NCAR is not a federal agency and its employees are not part of the federal personnel system.[1] NCAR employs about 1,000 staff. Its annual expenditures in fiscal year 2008 were $181 million.[1] Roger Wakimoto became director of NCAR in 2010.[14]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Atmospheric_Research#Funding_and_management



Should you examine "Ocean cooling: skeptic arguments drowned by data", you will eventually be lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Geophysical_Union.

I invite you do to some actual research into this group.

Click the "About Us" link on the main page of articles and you will get ...

About Skeptical Science
"The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - 'it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism'. As one person put it, 'the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove'. However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife."



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1581
Registered: Oct-07
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/national_world&id=5072659

ABC new article about Al Gore's Electric Bill.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15210
Registered: May-04
.

From the linked article ...

"But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday ... "




The Tennessee who? Oh, I see ...

Links
Links from TCPR's website include the following right-wing and libertarian think tanks: [7]

American Enterprise Institute
Cato Institute
Center for Public Integrity
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Fraser Institute
Heartland Institute
Heritage Foundation
Independence Institute
Independent Institute
Manhattan Institute
National Center for Policy Analysis
Pacific Research Institute
Reason Foundation

Funding
The TCPR is a non-profit 501©3 organization but does not disclose the sources of funding on its website. In its 2005 annual IRS return for 2005, TCPR states that its total income was $104,908 with expenditure of $76,673. [8] (Pdf)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tennessee_Center_for_Policy_Research


Well, that's a shocker, isn't it? Any of those names sound familiar, leo? It's just one more shell (shill?) organization that will not disclose its source(s) of funding. That tells me this is a group whose funding comes from other organizations and people who are trying their best to hide their identity (and their agenda) from the public by using second and third rank groups to do their dirty work. If you looked hard enough, I bet you'd find the name Koch in their funding.

Leo, how about doing some leg work and reporting the funding sources and political alignments for just a few of those listed groups linked to the Tennessee whatever?

Again, from the linked article ...

"The press release from Johnson's group, an obscure conservative think tank founded by Johnson in 2004 when he was 24, was given splashy attention on the highly-trafficked Drudge Report Monday evening, and former Gore aides saw it as part of a piece, along with an Fox News Channel investigation from earlier this month of Gore's use of private planes in 2000. Last year, a seemingly amateurish Youtube video mocking the "An Inconvenient Truth" turned out to have been produced by slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client."


You've got to do some research into why a group like this would issue Gore's ultiliy bills. Did you read the entire article, Leo?


Whadda'ya do, just look for the first article you could find to respond to the climate change link? What Gore spends has nothing to do with the issue of climate change and is not going to change the course of what the climate actually does. How much do you think other households - say, conservative households like those linked to this group - spend on their utility bills. Just pointing your finger at Gore is unseemly without also providing some perspective on the issue you seem to want to discuss. That's poor work on your part, leo. It amounts to nothing more than "lookee what I found" when you can find nothing else you can use to refute the link I provided. Maybe you don't see it this way but, from my perspective the ABC story is more about the conservative groups trying to drag Gore down than it is about anything else. When do the right wing nut jobs stop attacking the person/group and actually get down to talking about policy? According to them, we're supposed to forget Bush as President but they want us to pay attention to Gore. Now, any resonable preson can figure out who has been out of office for the longer time.


"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson ... "


What do you think? Would he care of this was a household run by one of the Bush or Cheney families?



Consider this, leo, there are numerous right wing groups which are nothing more than money laundering participants in one political party's attempts to disguise their funding and support (if not actually saying what to report) in efforts to attack the other party with mostly false accusations. (See ACORN and the NAACP for perspective.) The SC's campaign finance decision which made corporations and unions able to pump unrestricted monies to either party contained no order for transparency in such funding. The GOP has since refused to allow a Democratic supported transparency bill to pass. Any ideas - using this article as a basis for thought - as to why the GOP would not want a transparency in voting bill to become law?


Let's see, how do I wad up and toss in the trash an online link?


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1584
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, it's not any of those hate groups electric bill. It is Al Gore's, the point man in the 'save the planet' movement. But, all in all, don't you think the best leadership is that of 'by example'?
Killing the messenger won't help the fact that many of the very people who urge conservation are their own worst enemies. And yes, I'd care if it was Bush or Cheney or even one of Dick's survivors.

My personal usage is about 5000kwh / yr. I lived in a house without AC, in a very mild climate for 20+ years. AC installed last year.
Owned some 6cyl autos, mostly 4s and 1@ 8 cyl auto.

I doubt I know anybody that knows anybody with access to a corporate jet.

I would, without reservation support a strong law making it mandatory for EVERY group, including lobbyists, to report the source of all funds. For those groups acting as Pass-Thrus, this would still apply. Soft money? Hard money? Gooey money? Milk money?
This would require some fine tuning, but a law should be considered simply banning former legislative and execute staff (above a certain level) from ANY lobby activity ever. Nobody seems to have any heartburn about a guy from FDA sitting out a few years in some holding pattern position at a 'special interest' firm, than starting to work the phones on behalf of 'drug interests'.
I would also support campaign finance reform. My version would be that there are simply spending limits. Such limits would be based on what the office is. The limit would be, for example, a certain amount *per registered voter*. Presidential candidates would be allowed more than Senate candidates who could spend more than a Congressman. Any individual could give as much as they wanted to any candidate as long as the contribution was published.

My point in posting that link was that they are ALL crooks. That kind of information about a single individual simply was no 'accident'. Somebody looked for some muck and found it.

Jan Wrote:
What Gore spends has nothing to do with the issue of climate change and is not going to change the course of what the climate actually does.

Couldn't agree more, Jan. NOTHING is going to change the future. The pendulum of climate change is a natural cycle. Sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler, and driven by many factors. Man has come along to nudge it to the warm side on a warm cycle. Bad juju. If the human race stopped emitting CO2 except for breathing right this minute, we'd still go into overshoot mode, continue the meltdown and end up with a bunch of new beachfront.
The snap back will be cool. Literally.
Lay article on chaos, chaos theory and perhaps why it is important to introduce this concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15215
Registered: May-04
.

"Jan, it's not any of those hate groups electric bill. It is Al Gore's, the point man in the 'save the planet' movement. But, all in all, don't you think the best leadership is that of 'by example'?"




Christ, Leo! Did it ever occur to you how tired I get doing the leg work for those who simply don't care about the facts?

It took me two clicks of my mouse to find this ...

"Gore completes renovations to Tenn. home
Posted 12/14/2007

By Erik Schelzig, Associated Press Writer
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly.
The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

Gore's improvements cut the home's summer electrical consumption by 11 percent compared with a year ago, according to utility records reviewed by The Associated Press. Most Nashville homes used 20 percent to 30 percent more electricity during the same period because of a record heat wave.

Shinn said Gore's renovations are impressive because his home, which is more than 80 years old, had to meet the same rigorous standards as new construction.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-13-2104219017_x.htm


I'm not even going to bother with any individual links as there are too many to follow. But, for the sake of knowing just a partial, tiny, segmented fraction of a fact, look at these pages ...

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=gore%20completes%20renov ations%20to&type=

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=al%20gore%27s%20energy%2 0consumption&type=


Now why couldn't you have done just a little bit of research before you began the personal attacks on someone? Do you just not understand that distraction is most often the game being played here? Once again let me remind you the con man's favorite game is to distract your attention from what is important and then prey on your own prejudices, self-righteous thinking and greed. If you are so convinced your version of the truth is all you need to know that you will not even entertain the idea there might be something more going on in the story, then you will forever do your thinking without a single fact getting in your way. If you are forever paying attention to things that do not matter, then you will not be paying any attention what so ever to the things that do matter. That's what they are counting on.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15216
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42135.html
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1585
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, Gore's reduction in usage is indeed admirable.
It would mean more if the baseline number wasn't so far off-scale.
OVER 220,000kwh is called out...in the article.
Even If I double Gore's 'savings' to 20%, in what would appear to be a high usage summer, he is still well over 175,000kwh. And furthermore, if he is in a 'net metering' state, like California, the bill we SEE is his Billed usage ONLY, and is always lower than his TOTAL consumption which is with his 'solar' added back in. So, in reality his reduction in consumption is LESS than the 11% advertised. This is about 45x my annual consumption and still over 17x the national average.
I could reduce my electric bill by 50% or more by getting all my daytime power thru solar. My meter would 'spin backwards' during the low consumption day and than the normal direction after sundown. All I need is about 6 or 7 kwh per day for a near-50% reduction. I won't even go into the environmental costs of manufacturing solar cells. The chemicals, the electricity used and the rest of a fabrication facility and factory.

Keeping in mind Gore's 'total carbon footprint', the ridiculous becomes sublime. It would probably be cheaper for Gore to buy up 4 or 5 rows of first class to ensure his privacy and distance from the riff-raff, while lowering his environmental silhouette, than fly the nice, freebie corporate jets he's probably used to.

I'm much more impressed by the few people I know who live off-grid.

Do as I say, not as I do. I am being fairly environmentally conscience in SPITE of people like Gore 'leading the movement'. Recycle? yes. Green waste? check Aluminum / paper / glass containers? can do. Hi value, low consumption cars? done. Good driving/combine trips. yep. I even car pooled to work and school when feasible. Sorry, Gore is a stuffed shirt.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15218
Registered: May-04
.


"Sorry, Gore is a stuffed shirt."

Really, leo? Funny, last time I spoke with Gore, he said he had read one of your responses to this thread and he thought the same thing about you.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/politics/16poll.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&e mc=th


http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-new-york-timescbs-news- poll-mood-of-the-country-as-midterms-approach?ref=politics

.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1589
Registered: Oct-07
1st link not good.

2nd link will require some time. good survey data, on the face of it. Not sure what to make of it, though, given your opinion of the information level of most people.

good comeback, by the way. I'm sure you and Al have a lot to talk about. Certainly, Jan, you realize that a politician looses credibility when people sense phoniness in their position.
A preacher, advocating a clean sex life than getting caught with a hooker has lost everybody's interest. Al Gore as advocate of an environmentally sane future doesn't help his case or credibility by having a house / estate using as much electricity as an apartment building.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15221
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM156_battleground_questionnaire.html
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15222
Registered: May-04
.

Now you're engaging in class envy, leo, and simple hatred for most everyone who has held political office. The man is a millionaire and owns a modest home by comparison with others in his tax bracket. In other words,leo, he ain't you and you are not doing anything to justify your comments - you're just producing "I don't need no stinkin' facts" type comments out of the wrong orifice of your body. I would strongly urge you to do some research and cease the uninformed slanders. No matter how much or how often I encourage you to stick to facts, you have an unending supply of nonsense rants.

What I had posted were a consensus of research performed by non-partisan groups and individuals. This diversion to attack Gore is ridiculous. If you have unbiased research to counter the evidence I've shown, then please make that available. Otherwise, more comments about Gore are unnecessary.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1592
Registered: Oct-07
Don't know what to make of you posting 'survey says' stuff, Jan.

You are so enamored of 'facts'. These are opinion surveys, but from reliable enough sources that these opinions can be considered as 'fact', in the land of opinion. So what is it? Fact? Opinion? Wrong opinion?

What's the take-away?
Did you mentally take the survey? How much do you agree or disagree with the results? The question about 'What is Sarah Palin up to?' cracked me up. What else WOULD she be doing but 'staying in the public eye'? She is an essentially unelectable pot-stirrer. She may make it all the way to 'distraction'.

Will you use these surveys to bolster some position or just to indicate how people are being lead around by the nose?

I am concerned with polling that is Republican or Democratic oriented. Nobody mentions any 3rd party activity, in this case the several small but active political parties. Green, Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, and others. Are their any Commies left? Is Tea Party really a party or would you consider it just a bash?

Sheesh, Jan, my letterhead continues to grow. Now I'm 'green' with envy. 'Diversion'? Not really. I really believe that people who preach something.....and environmentalism IS a religious movement, and don't follow their own tenants are hypocrites. Self restraint and sacrifice should be shared among all the stakeholders. Of course those whose mantra is 'tax the rich' couldn't possibly be engaging in class warfare.
I am expected to continue to do less with more. The company I worked for preached a 'lean' philosophy. Than, they hired a new guy to the board of directors. Total cost for the new guy will be a couple million a year and raised board costs about 10%. Didn't they get the memo? And Yes, I use Microsoft Orifice 2008 every day.
Here in California we will be electing a new Governor this fall. Just in time, since Arnie, the Pseudo Republican, has 'bout wore out his welcome. The one main thing I like about Jerry Brown is that the LAST time he ran the show, he was pretty eccentric. He didn't live in the governors mansion and he drove himself around in some regular guy car. Window dressing? Staged? Sure made a good impression, though, no matter what.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15224
Registered: May-04
.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/odonnell-in-2007-scientists-have-crea ted-mice-with-human-brains.php?ref=fpblg

Do click on the link at the bottom of the page.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15225
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0910/Fox_News_sues_Carnahan_over_ad.h tml


Watch the video here ...
http://mediamatters.org/research/201009170003



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1594
Registered: Oct-07
Wonder when the US is going to start its own Kraft durch Freude program.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15226
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/business/smallbusiness/18smallbiz.html?th&emc= th
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1597
Registered: Oct-07
Spending less, is of course, never an option.

That is how a politician can get away with saying stuff like THIS::
"The tax cuts at the high end have not produced any jobs; it only increased the deficit," Ms. Pelosi, a California Democrat, said Thursday. "We're still paying the price that they have contributed to the deficit all along."

To the extent that taxes inhibit job formation, I'm against them. Some of the really wealthy people who organize their affairs to minimize taxes? Well, that's part of the built-in gaming of the system encouraged by thousands of pages of Tax Code.
Some of the problems, which people on all sides of this complex issue agree on, could be mitigated thru a simplified, more rational tax code. I haven't yet got to the point of advocating a 'flat tax' but It could come to that. People below a certain income.....adjusted for inflation, would simply pay NO tax.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15228
Registered: May-04
.

Woweeee! another fact filled rant from leo.

OK, I'm convinced that if I posted a fact about which peanut butter had the most peanuts, you'd have a factless, rambling rant about that too. Something about the need to spend less on peanuts and how politicians have mislead us on legumes.

I can't decide, leo, whether it's horrible or wonderful to always see the bad side of everything. I think it's gotta be sort of like the inmate who always thinks the nurses are out to get them but that they have them outsmarted.

IMO, the problem with that kind of thinking is you make the easiest target for those who manipulate the truth, prey on fear and suck up to how smart you are to see through all those "other" people's plans.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1601
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, just for the sake of argument,
Tell me the upside of higher taxes? Will public debt go down? Will more money get spent smarter? Will the war on poverty be won? Will we be able to send more planes and stuff to the Saudis?

See the future? No, of course not. But, if history is any indication, than yes, as you've made of point of several times, spending will indeed continue to go up.
You have been reluctant to even speculate on an upper limit.
You see no limit to federal power, mocking the Constitution and those who wrote it.

What exactly was wrong with my last post? I quoted her highness, Nancy P.
I stated what even you agree is a fact, that spending will never decrease.
You have been careful to not say anything bad about the tax code, but we both know that's a fact, too. The tax code goes up for sale every few years. And I'm CERTAIN that you take NO STEPS to minimize your personal tax and indeed may even send Washington more than what you owe, just so they can spend it so wisely.
I expressed an opinion about the potential for flat tax. Done right? Maybe fair?

Jan, I think YOU are the paranoid. Every conservative thought is a plot to bring down your bright view of the future. That's why I love these little chats, Jan.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15229
Registered: May-04
.

This, "Will we be able to send more planes and stuff to the Saudis?", has nothing to do with this, "Tell me the upside of higher taxes? Will public debt go down?"


One more strawman argument from leo. Another bit of non-logical thinking from leo. Manufacturing weapons of mass destruction is the only industry which truly has never had down times in the US since WWI. I think there's a lesson to be learned there, particularly when we spread the manufacture of an unnecessary (and so far, after three decades of work, totally inneffective) weapon such as the V-22 over 26 states which ensures it will never be phased out even when the Secretary of Defense calls for its end. Or when we continue to pump billions into a "Star Wars" defense system that cannot find a target without being told where exactly to look. Particularly when we choose to invade impoverished and defenseless third world countries who cannot even get one airplane up in the air (assuming, of course, they are a Nation which actually has an Air Force and not broken weapons left over from the last broken promises we made to the Afghans/Kurds about supporting them) to defend against our pilots as we drop hundreds of tons of explosives on their civilians while we refuse to pay in any way for our own reckless actions and borrow endlessly from those who hate us. Or will spending go down while the two percent actually doing our fighting get emails from home not about the hardships of a Nation fighting two wars on the other side of the globe but about the great deal we got on a big screen TV and an X-Box at WallMart? Will spending go down if we continue to loose $8 billion in $100 bills and no one in Congress is willing to ask how, where and to whom? And will the deficits go down if the people screaming about out of control spending don't say a word until the secret corporatists funding their "revolution" point out we now have not only a Democratic President but a "black" one too (not to mention he's Muslim and Kenyan). Will public debt go down if we continue to have a defense budget that is outdated by two decades and which does not recognize our true, day to day on the gound potential enemy yet in total scope still surpassess all of the other Nations on this Earth put together? But once again distractions and lies win the day and the deficits for which we received no benefit soared. Will the deficits go down if we continue to rely on a limited resource we must buy from those who intend us no good will while demonizing the alternatives?

Will mindlessly screaming about "spending" create one single job for a Nation drowning in jobless casualties? Will it keep one more family in their home rather than sacrificing it to the free market b@stards who devised "derivatives swaps"? Will it lower the rapdily expanding poverty sector or the equally speedy resort for far too many to homeless shelters? Will it offer a quality education to anyone? Will it cure one disease? Will it give one hungry child hope?

Now, look over here (no, not at that hand, watch the other hand), we can appeal to the most myopic group - those who can only see government taking "their money" to "SPEND" on people who do not look like them as the real enemy. Have you heard one Tea Partier/Republican/conservative/libertarian mention cutting the run away defense budget? No. Simple answer, no. But you have heard them mentioning cutting Social Security and Medicare not to mention rolling back "Obama-care". Tell me, leo, will "your money" being spent by those nasty politicians go down for those who see immigrants everywhere (even across the parking lot at Home Depot) as an enemy? Will deficits go down as those who rail against immigrants will not take the job most immigrants are forced into? Will wasteful spending cease when they are told to look at a mosque being built or a liberal, g@y, "elitist", pro-choice, socialist, feminist or whatever-group-they're-being-told-to-hate-this-week comes into their sights. Will Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich ever again go hungry? And the hate and fear go on and on and on while those who cannot see the larger view lap it up with a spoon and continue to mindlessly scream about "spending" - and illegals and Muslims and g@ys in the military and an endless stream meant to distract you from what the real game is that's being played.

Turn the binoculars around, leo, and look at the big picture. Look at the map you're laying out for yourself and do some pre-planning instead of just following the guy with the stick he's willing to poke in someoone's eye. You don't have a solution by parroting "spending, spending, spending" all the time. Come up with real solutions - the kind you can support with hard facts not mindless rants. You want to run government like you run your household budget? Then you need a plan, not just "we need to stop spending so much" and yet never addressing the real problem of why spending has grown.

Otherwise, the fact remains this thread is about facts and not senseless and unsupported rants.


"You see no limit to federal power, mocking the Constitution and those who wrote it."

F*ck you, leo. That is a lie and you know it. The entirity of your pst is a lie and an insult which I do not enjoy. Anyone who wraps themself in the flag and impugns the other person as "mocking the Constitution" is an @sshole and not worth the respect I would give to an immigrant or the impoversished soul trying to make a better life for themself and their family. Since you've cannot control yourself with this sort of childish "uber-patriot" behavior, it's highly unlikely I'm about to engage you in anything other than repeated demands for facts not rants and the occasional attempt at pointing out just how silly you actually sound.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1604
Registered: Oct-07
Therein lies the rub.
In a totally free, rule-less economy, greed would indeed rule.

What you may call my 'pessimism' looks better all the time. It's just a matter of WHO wastes whose money on WHAT?
More foreign involvement? That's what got us hated in the first place. Just as an example, Iran was placed on the path it is now, by the cobbing together of states the members of which didn't necessarily like the guys in the other state. Stir in a 'Monarch' and by the time the kid took the throne, Saddam was pretty much ready to go. Fast forward to the 100 hour war and BushI couldn't keep the coalition together long enough to agree to remove Saddam. His 3rd son, Ebay, is still at large. Now, the Shia and Sunni are waiting to get back to the business of hating one another and doing the traditional power dance. They'll get around to the Kurds, later, as will apparently the Turkish.

You know, except for the personal Attack, I agree almost 100% with your first paragraph. Selling weapons to Saudi Arabia? Nutty and makes sense only as income transfer to the defense industry.
You imply however, that the American Consumer model must go. I FEAR you are correct.
Go Ahead, instead of insulting me, which you have done repeatedly and at length say someting nice about the Constitution. Anything will do. I made several quotes at the beginning of this love-fest which you completely ignored and blew off. When I said that Constitutional limits were being ignored, you started off on another rant. If I'm wrong, prove it and quote yourself about any such limits.
We are heading for a time when everything not mandatory will be forbidden and everything not forbidden will be mandatory.
Spending up or down? Well, in that article long ago about what drives the budget....that you for some reason also dissed as not being 'factual' enough for you or some such, 2 models were presented for consideration. While more reasons may exist, or some kind of hybrid (most likely) the 2 main schools of thought are, First, people demand more service or Government 'pushes' such services. But you were too busy asking for facts to consider reasons for those facts.

FACT ALERT::
Just do a youtube search for 'Pelosi Constitution' and have a listen. What ignorant crap.

This makes George Washington, in his undelivered farewell speech seem positively psychic.
link{http://www.100megspop3.com/bark/Beware.html,http://www.100megspop3.com/bark /Beware.html}
Read the bold section first.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15230
Registered: May-04
.

"You know, except for the personal Attack ... "


Oh, and I guess I was supposed to take, "You see no limit to federal power, mocking the Constitution and those who wrote it", and, "Jan, I think YOU are the paranoid. Every conservative thought is a plot to bring down your bright view of the future", as compliments. You are a sly one, Mister Grinch.



"We are heading for a time when everything not mandatory will be forbidden and everything not forbidden will be mandatory."



Fritz Lang did this better back in the 1920's. Pessimism will get you nowhere - and that's your problem.


Well, in that article long ago about what drives the budget....that you for some reason also dissed as not being 'factual' enough for you or some such ... "


Since I have no idea which "article" you are referring to and since you have a strong tendency not to interpret my responses correctly ("Luckily more of us won't let 'facts' get in the way of reason ... ") I have to ask, what are you talking about?


"But you were too busy asking for facts to consider reasons for those facts."


Yes, actual facts are hard to come by. That's why this thread exists.


"Just do a youtube search for 'Pelosi Constitution' and have a listen. What ignorant crap."


Let's see, do I want to waste my time with more BS rather than facts.


No, I do not.


" When I said that Constitutional limits were being ignored, you started off on another rant."


Gosh, now I'm the one ranting? You've taken to distortions since you cannot find facts to support you're silliness.


You're wasting my time, leo. The thread is about facts, try to use some.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1605
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, the record will show that YOU started with personal attacks. I suppose that coming down to your level makes me equally guilty.
For someone that throws around Brown Shirt and misogynist with equal abandon, you are thin skinned when called.

The economic article to which I referred?
Here, for your perusal and consideration::

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/GarrettRhine.pdf

Linked article discusses 2 major views of government growth / models for same. I wouldn't come down hard on either side, but just remember the 2 models when watching how government grows.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15231
Registered: May-04
.

Sure, leo, blame me for starting this, I guess I'm supposed to take that as a compliment too. I don't remember ever using "Brown Shirt" but you deserved the misogynist title as you proved more than once.

I don't see what you find so attractive about that Fed article other than that was about the last time you even made an attempt at using a fact. Two models of government - great! that's two more to add to the dozens already in existence. "Models of government" is like walking down the cereal aisle in the store, there's dozens to choose from and most of them are bad for you or, at least, not to your taste.



Try a few more facts next time, leo, they'll do you good.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1607
Registered: Oct-07
Posting rules forbid the 'other' word for Brown Shirt.....or
National Socialist, for that matter.
Your meaning was clear. Do you deny it?

You totally misunderstand the article.....The reason I find it so 'attractive' is that it is a fine example of a combination of research, facts, understanding and modeling. Academics. As I said more than once in this ongoing fiasco, facts are fine, but need interpretation to add meaning. To just say that government grows by 'x% annually' is nice, but doesn't say much. Some people like to know WHY.
And it is not an article about 'government' but the GROWTH of government. Something which we should all have an interest in since we all pay the bills.
If you are serious about understanding the growth of government, you start by gathering facts.....Just an example of such a fact is that Federal Expenditures grow 'X%' faster than the rate of inflation. That can be thought of as 'real growth'. You like facts and should be good at this part of it.
Start looking or trying to think of reasons? Well, if enough people write to their Congress guy, than a law may be proposed dealing with the request / demand. The costs of that law, more government employees and spending money for whatever the law dealt with are shared among all the taxpayers. This is the people over government model. People in some fashion demand some outcome or service.
The second model involves the government 'pushing' a service or law, which also somehow entails raising taxes or maybe charging fees for service. Regulatory agencies are famous for this. More rules covering more behaviors. More rules lead to more employees and 'regulators', which leads to the need for more funding. The FDA is a good example of this approach. And boy, is their record stellar.

As an aside, a government service which is both fee based and publicly funded would be something like passports. Each application if accompanied by a check for say....150$ (not current on fee). EACH application must be so accompanied. When wife and I applied together for a passport, EACH application had its own check. As a double aside, when I first applied, their was a 'government shutdown'. I anticipated waiting 6 or 8 months and getting my passport JIT (just in time) for our planned trip. In reality? The passports arrived 1 day apart, in less than 3 weeks. So much for a shutdown.

I suppose I am alone here. I said that government was too large and you challenged me to 'prove' it.
Ridiculous, of course. Any proof or data I may offer is summarily rejected. In the simple data I collected, federal spending grew every year but 1. Federal spending has overall grown faster than inflation. People who have never met a government program they didn't like take this viewpoint. Myself, I'm curious as to how this view can prevail. I'm curious how a constitution which enumerates federal powers and remands all others to the people or states, can have grown so wacky and taken on so many responsibilities with no indication of constitutional mandate.
Causal proofs like the doubling of the number of cabinet positions in the years since the passing of the 16th amendment are taken as an indication that money (availability) fueled growth, which is an indicator that the 2nd growth model, above has some weight.

Jan, you appear to be one of those persons who like what we called in polysci classes as 'monocausality'. One reason for whatever. This rarely happens in the real world. Chaos and unexpected outcomes are the rule.

Please share a few more of the models of government growth, from the cereal aisle.

Enjoy the rest of your Sunday. 'Wait Until Dark' just came on so I'm going to watch a nice Sunday Nite movie with the wife. Good Times.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15232
Registered: May-04
.

"Posting rules forbid the 'other' word for Brown Shirt.....or
National Socialist, for that matter.
Your meaning was clear. Do you deny it?"



I don't remember it and considering how wrong you are about the intent of my posts I would guess it's safe to say, yes, I deny using any words which explicitly called you any such thing. And so what if I did? You surely deserved it if I called it. You're interpretation of my posts has shown you to be irrationally and exceptionally susceptible to believing only you have the ability to make sense of the words contained either in the Constitution or within my posts. That you now bring up a slight which you envisioned occuring weeks if not months in the past says you are harboring the very sort of grudges which I had hoped to avoid in this thread. Unfortunately, as I must endure your constant misconstructions of (original) intent and your stubborn refusal to budge off your singular protestation even when you are presented with multiple facts to the contrary, your cognitive powers have proven to be woefully inadequate in both cases. Now, if you must, go ahead and scramble back in time to find what you preceived then as an unpardonable slight. That will do so much to help this thread move forward rather than you posting actual facts as the title of the thread suggests everyone should be attempting.


As I said more than once in this ongoing fiasco, facts are fine, but need interpretation to add meaning. To just say that government grows by 'x% annually' is nice, but doesn't say much. Some people like to know WHY."

"If you are serious about understanding the growth of government, you start by gathering facts.....Just an example of such a fact is that Federal Expenditures grow 'X%' faster than the rate of inflation. That can be thought of as 'real growth'."



This is why I really wanted this thread to not descend into mindnumbing rants when one or more parties is not willing to think the other person might actually have a point. Such threads quickly devolve into personal slurs which are centered around, "You started this", which then engenders the willing concession to upping the ante in insults and the claims the other person somehow first called "Brown Shirt".


If you honestly beleive this thread to be a "fiasco" because I do not agree with your pipe dream fantasy of returning the US government in toto to 18th century constrictions while still existing in a 21st century global market place filled with all of the dangers and pitfalls, wars and battles, expansions and recessions the last three centuries have wrought, then I would strongly suggest you simply stop posting in this thread, leo. My intent in this thread is to post facts while your intent is to constantly rant without even brushing up against an actual fact. Quite possibly any similarity between a true "fiasco" and your inability to post real facts might find you are the very reason this "Hard (as possible) facts" thread is having problems progressing to a logical conclusion or developing an intelligent discussion that does not in some ubu-Rudy Guilliani-like distortion contain a noun, a verb and "Cut Spending". After nearly 300 posts you now want to return to the exact point you were at nearly 280 posts ago. So much for your entire sense of progress.

I've said I'm not here to change minds but it should be obvious I am also not here to continually regurgitate the same nonsense over and over and over without any factual basis for what is being said.




I post facts in this thread, leo. I do not pretend to interpret the facts for anyone nor would I be so presumptuous as to insist only my interpretation is valid. I plant a seed and it is up to whomever might come across that seed to then go out on their own to gather facts which either support or contradict what I have posted. It's not up to me to perform any sort of interpretation for anyone nor is it my job to continually rant about one singular, nonsense topic. Since you are apparently unable to post actual facts and you prefer to do nothing other than repeat the same BS denigrations over and over you insist the thread should operate on your rules of engagement and that your interpretations must be the guiding force of the thread. It's not going to work like that.

For instance, "Just an example of such a fact is that Federal Expenditures grow 'X%' faster than the rate of inflation. That can be thought of as 'real growth'" can more easily be thought of as nothing more than a very poorly reasoned attempt at justifying your own conclusions. You begin with a conclusion you wish to reach and then you find something which you can wrongly state as proof you are right. If your mind cannot assume that Federal spending can in most times not only fuel growth but in many times must grow faster than the rate of inflation, then you are searching for a penny in a piggy bank. You miss the entire issue due to your intransigence in seeing the larger picture when it comes to moving off the singular and small minded issue of "spending". And, as the Bartlett article which you introduced way back when states, anyone who has the limited thought process only to constantly shout, "Stop spending", as a final solution to our present fiscal misadventures is simply not well informed and therefore needs no more attention paid to them. Which provides me "your own" factual basis for not paying any attention to your uninformed rants. Just to be clear, I have no more intention to do so now than I did 280 posts ago. You've forced this thread to wander in a circular path right back once again to your touchstone issue without an ounce of logic on your part being shown to fuel the trip or a singular useful fact to be posted as to why you should be considered relevant in a thread which calls for "Hard (as possible) facts".


That is why I had hoped this thread would not devolve into just what you have made of it. Do us both a favor, leo, and give up on this "fiasco" if you have nothing more than constant rants about an illogical, meaningless issue which Bartlett clearly states has no basis in reality and which presents not a single useful solution nor does it create a single job or feed a single individual.



.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15233
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42398.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/09/19/weekinreview/19marsh.html?ref=week inreview

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/weekinreview/19steinhauer.html?_r=1&ref=weekin review

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/weekinreview/19zernike.html?ref=weekinreview

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/us/politics/19russo.html?th&emc=th


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15234
Registered: May-04
.

http://nymag.com/news/businessfinance/56151/


http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-ent erprises-obama-business-problem.html


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15235
Registered: May-04
.

http://center.montpelier.org/constitutional-survey

If you take the survey, separately track your own answers.


http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-20/understanding-constitution

.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1610
Registered: Oct-07
Read last 2, constitutional links. My copy of the Constitution is within reach as are my Great Books which don't include the Federalist Papers. Plato's 'Apology' is a work I highly recommend.

Took survey. Here is an example of a question i'm not overly fond of::

4. While it has been amended several times, America has had the same constitution for over 220 years. In your opinion, does the Constitution still work today, or do you think it's time for a new constitution?: *
Constitution still works today
Time for a new Constitution

Well, I'm of 2 minds. If 'we' called for a new constitutional convention....the provision is there, somewhere, it would toss the whole thing up for grabs. But yet, due to revisionism it is not quite working the way intended.

That being said, the survey ain't bad. I'd like to see the results. Opinion section and fact section.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1611
Registered: Oct-07
Article 5 calls out 2 ways to amend the Constitution.
1st, and to date, the only way it has been done, is thru Congressional action.
The 2nd way is if the States....like 2/3 of 'em request/demand such a convention. This hasn't happened yet, though close at least once.

In either event, 3/4 of the states are required to ratify an amendment for it to become part of 'the law of the land'.

Just my opinion, but if the states were to successfully call for a Constitutional Convention, all bets would be OFF. I see no subject matter requirement so apparently everything could be on the table.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1612
Registered: Oct-07
Well, Jan, Just read the Forbes article you linked::

What do you think? Fact? Fiction? Rant? The numbers, the verifiable ones, anyway, seem in order. Do they support the article's conclusions?
While the top 10 of US taxpayers PAY 70% of all tax, what is the INCOME %age they represent?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15238
Registered: May-04
.

"While the top 10 of US taxpayers PAY 70% of all tax, what is the INCOME %age they represent?"



Leo, what do I have to say to motivate you to find facts? Show your proof that the top 10 of US taxpayers pay 70% of all tax. IMO that is a completely bogus number fed to you through your less than believable sources.

After that you should have the ability to find the fact you're looking for when you ask about the income % they represent. That's the point I tried to make in my last post about planting a fact in this thread. No fact provided, then your guesses are suspicious and not to be taken too seriously. The resources are at your fingertips. You might have to follow a few search engines and a few links but you should be able to come up with a workable - and believable - figure within your alotted half hour.

So what do I have to say to get you to understand you could have found these facts and posted them here for others to see in about the roughly 30 minutes it took you to post your completely factless comments about things you cannot change and things which are not going to happen? Leo, do you just not care about facts at this point? Do some research.



I'm not here to do the work for you but, if you follow this link and click on the Robert Reich interview, he twice gives a starting number for your research ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc_tv-morning_joe/#39285329


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15239
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.politico.com/largevideobox.html?id=614010948001


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42457.html


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/sep/21/bachmann-and-truth-o -meter-collected-works/


http://mediamatters.org/research/201009160031


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15240
Registered: May-04
.

I would also suggest you spend some time with that link to the Dianne Rehm show which focusses on the Constitution and the survey taken. It's a truncated show as NPR stations are on a pledge drive week. There are numerous facts not included in the survey which are covered in the interview.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15241
Registered: May-04
.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11380955

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Photo-Highlight/ss/441/im:/100920/photos_us_rank_a fp/1f4ecaf0e939d53990d031c3b5157f1b/


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1615
Registered: Oct-07
Americans making $250,000 a year or more. The rich, Obama insists, aren't paying their "fair share." This by itself seems odd given that the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all federal income taxes; the next 9% of income earners pay another 30%. So the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes; the bottom 40% pays close to nothing. This does indeed seem unfair--to the rich.


Quote from the Forbes article YOU linked. An obvious plot to discredit somebody?
I'm not 'making anything up'.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 15242
Registered: May-04
.

OK, we might as well waste some more time. Here's your quote, "While the top 10 of US taxpayers PAY 70% of all tax ... " That is not what you just quoted from the Forbe's article - which has no factual basis other than the author says so. He also says a lot of other things which have been discredited. You might want to read what you're posting and you should find yourself a more reliable source.

You also asked, " ... what is the INCOME %age they represent?" Any "facts" there?


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 1618
Registered: Oct-07
Jan, you should read what you post or put a potential 'BS Alert' if haven't. I DIDN'T find the Forbes article YOU did! So, now I'm responsible for what you post? Are you calling your link/source a 'less than believable source(s).' ?


The question mark implies a query. A search for information. It is by its very nature open ended and can not by itself stand as a 'fact'. Fact is, I have a question? Whats wrong with that, other than it interferes with your fact finding mission?

WOW, a criminal offense. I missed the % sign in my quote. I should be shot.
If the messenger is to be shot, turn the weapon on yourself.
« Previous Thread Next Thread »



Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us