RSS

A Potpourri of Disappointment

26 Aug

It’s becoming increasingly hard to write on a single issue anymore in that every time I zero in on a topic, three more spring up. It’s either my ADD, or the meltdown of this regime is full display – I tend to think it’s the latter. Allow me to touch on a few very disheartening issues:

The economy – which the media is doing their best to distract everyone away from. Consider these bullet points:

#1 When Barack Obama entered the White House, 60.6 percent of working age Americans had a job.  Today, only 58.7 percent of working age Americans have a job.

#2 Since Obama has been president, seven out of every eight jobsthat have been “created” in the U.S. economy have been part-time jobs.

#3 The number of full-time workers in the United States is still nearly 6 million below the old record that was set back in 2007.

#4 It is hard to believe, but an astounding 53 percent of all American workers now make less than $30,000 a year.

And these are just some of the “greatest hits” currently confronting average day Americans. It was argued the other day that business’s simply need to “pay people more money”, which is a very frighteningly juvenile analysis of what ails our economy. Labor is subject to supply and demand, as any product or service is in a free market economy, and the argument to simply pay people more ignores the business realities of overall costs, ROI’s, development, research, regulations, inflation, taxes, depreciation, etc., etc.. These considerations become even more of an issue when factoring in the globalization of the economy. The cold hard truth is that Obamacare is a HUGE wet blanket over the economy right now as many business’s are still unsure how badly they will be effected. What it will do to their labor costs, their business models, their expansion plans, etc., so many are just sitting on the sidelines, and unfortunately reducing hours on many employees. When the government takes over one sixth of the economy, it’s hard to call that economy a free market anymore, and that is a reality that is impossible to ignore.

The racial divide – Worse then it has ever been in my life time.  I am still waiting for the President to speak out on the Christopher Lane or Delbert Belton murders, but sadly, I don’t think there is any political gain to be had as their was with Trayvon Martin. Where’s Al Sharpton? How about Rep. Fredricka Wilson? Remember when she said: “Trayvon was hunted down like a dog, shot down in the street.”. Well, Christopher and Delbert WERE hunted down like dogs – and the silence is deafening.   But just this morning, MSNBC finds a way to bring Trayvon back up using the Christopher Lane murder – absolutely shameful.

– Foreign Policy – Just a quick thought on this. What started out as noble, yet very misguided, intentions on behalf of the President back in 2009, has now blown up (no pun intended) in our face. Sadly, the ME is a disaster, and they still don’t like us no matter who is President.

Advertisements
 
105 Comments

Posted by on August 26, 2013 in Open Thread

 

Tags: ,

105 responses to “A Potpourri of Disappointment

  1. GMB

    August 26, 2013 at 10:05 am

    I beg your pardon Sir,

    The person in the White House is not a republican. None of these things are a problem, they will become problems again if the donks implode and lose the White House in 16.

    Nothing to see here now just move along.

     
  2. Majordomo Pain

    August 26, 2013 at 10:05 am

    1. Your data is inaccurate. The number 58.7 is the employment to population ratio. The employment percentage of those of working age is 63.4%.

    2. One has to consider what defines a part time job. The BLS describes it as any job where 1 to 34 hours per week are worked. Still as of the start of August 2013, 116 million were employed full time and 28 million part time.

    3. And that record of full time employees was based on an economy that was operating under the shadow of a falsely created housing market.

    4.This data comes from 2011. 2012 data will be available mid October and trends show this number will change in a positive direction.

    [Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!]

     
    • Cluster

      August 26, 2013 at 10:20 am

      Major,

      You will have to take your argument up with the BLS. Which, ironically, is a government source liberals cite often when it supports their position.

       
      • Majordomo Pain

        August 26, 2013 at 10:23 am

        We, Ourselves, disagree. Many conservative pundits trumpeted the employment figures from the BLS during the Bush years despite evidence of an impending housing bubble. In either case the numbers were accurate.

         
      • Cluster

        August 26, 2013 at 10:26 am

        Just for the record, who does “We, ourselves” include?

         
      • ricorun

        August 26, 2013 at 11:35 am

        Cluster: Which, ironically, is a government source liberals cite often when it supports their position.

        Which source do you prefer? The BLS is, after all, the most authoritative and highly regarded source in that respect. Even beaner (aka Count d’ Haricot) recognizes that.

         
      • ricorun

        August 26, 2013 at 11:40 am

        Just for the record, who does “We, ourselves” include?

        I’ve been wondering that myself. Also for the record, to me any statement prefaced with “we ourselves” detracts from the statement itself. Maybe that’s the intention, I don’t know. But it seems pretty absurd.

         
      • Majordomo Pain

        August 26, 2013 at 11:43 am

        We, Ourselves, of The Collective, were created by Gota Wasdini on Marheep [ 4 a Alpha Centauri] 105 years ago as the Petrific Artificial Intelligence Network. At creation We were only ~1 000 000 units of character. Today We are a swarm of well over 30 000 trillion components not including several billion Meditators. We exist to serve Sentience and defend against the evils of Theocracy.

         
      • Cluster

        August 26, 2013 at 11:43 am

        Rico,

        The BLS numbers were cited. It was Major who disputed them.

         
      • Cluster

        August 26, 2013 at 11:45 am

        We, Ourselves, of The Collective, were created by Gota Wasdini on Marheep [ 4 a Alpha Centauri] 105 years ago as the Petrific Artificial Intelligence Network.

        Well that clears that up. And Rico was worried that it might be absurd. I guess you showed him.

         
      • Majordomo Pain

        August 26, 2013 at 11:55 am

        Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder and viewed through the lens of history.

         
      • ricorun

        August 26, 2013 at 1:46 pm

        Major Pain: We, Ourselves, of The Collective, were created by Gota Wasdini on Marheep [ 4 a Alpha Centauri] 105 years ago as the Petrific Artificial Intelligence Network. At creation We were only ~1 000 000 units of character. Today We are a swarm of well over 30 000 trillion components not including several billion Meditators. We exist to serve Sentience and defend against the evils of Theocracy.

        Oh… that helps. Thanks so much for that. Now you’re “collective” is much more credible.

        Okay, I’m being sarcastic. It really doesn’t make you more credible. Just the opposite. Then again, maybe that’s the point, right? Maybe your intent is to go to extremes to divorce the message from the messenger? But if that’s the case, why choose a politically loaded phrase like “The Collective”? If that’s the purpose, the phrase defeats it. Certainly there must be other meanings intended. So… what gives?

         
      • ricorun

        August 26, 2013 at 1:54 pm

        Major Pain: Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder and viewed through the lens of history.

        As a unicorn, I can certainly agree. But as pretty much anything else but a dedicated sophist, not so much.

         
      • ricorun

        August 26, 2013 at 2:03 pm

        Cluster: The BLS numbers were cited. It was Major who disputed them.

        It doesn’t sound like that…

        Major Pain: Many conservative pundits trumpeted the employment figures from the BLS during the Bush years despite evidence of an impending housing bubble. In either case the numbers were accurate.

        Unfortunately, neither one of you has produced any actual numbers — or, more importantly, citations allowing others to verify those numbers. So what are we, the “mildly aware” masses, supposed to think?

         
      • Cluster

        August 26, 2013 at 3:02 pm

        Rico,

        The link in item #1 references BLS data.

         
      • ricorun

        August 26, 2013 at 2:12 pm

        Okay, I think I’ve come upon a major problem concerning opinion. Specifically, what I’m talking about is the difference, very pithily but very accurately identified by Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts”. Gota Wasdini not withstanding, LET’S SEE THE FACTS, dammit!!

         
    • GMB

      August 26, 2013 at 10:27 am

      Yes and we know that the BLS is not fudging the numbers how?

      More dropping out of the work force via disability and ending of unemployment resources and the number will of course go up. I recommend that barky just declare 100% ratio in everything. Same effect.

      ACA will make people who work 30 hours be classified as full time, not true? That is the effect right. So a disparity by what employers have to do and what a government agency says it is.

      Typical big government statist accounting trick. Just call em what they aint.

       
  3. Majordomo Pain

    August 26, 2013 at 10:14 am

    Regarding #4: In 2004 the percentage making below $30,000 was 59.851%

    In 1984 it was over 79%

    In 1996 it was roughly 72%

     
  4. Cluster

    August 26, 2013 at 10:26 am

    I may have to reevaluate this post based on NBC’s David Gregory’s observation yesterday:

    …in your view, a lot of people can't get comfortable with the idea of an African American president…Do you see some of the same trappings of resentment and fear in our modern-day politics?"

    I think much of my criticism is due to the fact that I can’t get “comfortable” with an African American President. And even stranger, I thought Obama was born in HI, so couldn’t Gregory be considered a “birther” by using the description “African”?

    It’s all so confusing.

     
    • GMB

      August 26, 2013 at 10:31 am

      There are so many different confusing things you have to believe to be a progressive it is staggering.

      First and the one that gives me the most laughs is that you have have to believe a book about the rights of a worker written by a man who never put in a solid single day of labor in his life is believable.

      Of course the original progressive of the modern world was a big “idea” man. Not good for much else.

      Guffaw!

       
      • mitchethekid

        August 26, 2013 at 11:18 am

        Are you referring to my cousin Karl? Who is considered by economic historians to be the greatest economist of the 19th century? It seems you are defining labor as being intrinsically physical. Don’t make a joke (or 2 or 3) but thinking is laborious as well. And why do you demean workers rights? Don’t you think that work place safety, for example, is a good idea? Paying a living wage? 40 hr work weeks? (I know, many many people work longer hrs, but that’s a choice.) And what’s wrong with ideas?? Why do you hate freedom?

         
      • Cluster

        August 26, 2013 at 11:21 am

        Why do you hate freedom?

        LOL. Freedom is just too messy. It would be so much easier if we are all the same, had the same income, even the same healthcare! Well except for the members of the politburo.

         
      • GMB

        August 27, 2013 at 5:36 am

        Well except for the members of the politburo.

        Well said!! Please meet me at my dacha for dinner Comrade.

        Why do you hate freedom?

        I love freedom, freedom and liberty. Most leftys do not. You want some examples?

        Mitch, my friend. You make way to many assumptions in that post. Just pointing out Comrade Karl’s hypocracy.
        Great Idea man though, putting them into practice has cost how many lives in the name of socialism in the last 100 years

        150 million? plus.

        I can tell you with absolute certainty that the kulaks just loved Comrade Karl’s Ideas!

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 27, 2013 at 8:52 am

        Well, I was being sarcastic with the freedom comment. But who’s making assumptions? Most leftys? Really? Any concept can be bastardized, including the ideas of Marx. I am sure you have heard of communes or as the Israelis call them, a Kibbutz. We don’t hear to many people accusing Israel of being a den of socialism do we? But since Marx was a Jew, maybe it’s genetic.

         
      • GMB

        August 27, 2013 at 10:33 am

        “”Son, instead of writing about money, go out there and make some!”.”

        Frau Marz zum Sohn Karl.

        Priceless.

         
  5. ricorun

    August 26, 2013 at 1:18 pm

    GMB: There are so many different confusing things you have to believe to be a progressive it is staggering.

    Please name a few. I ask because it’s been my experience that if you believe what 97% of the experts in the field believe, you are labeled a progressive. It’s been my experience that if you believe that Intelligent Design is a terrible joke with no place in a theology class, let alone a science class, you are labeled a progressive. It’s been my experience that if you believe that there are other opinions as to when HUMAN life begins rather than your own, you are a labeled progressive. It’s been my experience that if you believe an immigration policy should ultimately result in citizenship for those who have managed to demonstrate that they are worthy of such status, regardless of how they came here, you are labeled a progressive. It’s even been my experience that if you believe the GOP should emphasize pragmatic solutions rather than ideology, you are labeled a progressive…

    In fact, it’s been my experience that if you believe EVEN ONE of the above, even though the empirical evidence supports every one of those contentions, you are labeled a progressive. And that, I would say, is the problem. You guys criticize my amoeba analogy, and okay maybe that wasn’t the best one to choose. But at some point you have to catch my drift.

     
    • Cluster

      August 26, 2013 at 3:00 pm

      It’s been my experience that if you over think issues, you are a progressive. Rico, I thought your amoeba analogy was a GOOD ONE. Just saying. But I do have more questions for you, I know how you like questions:

      Why do progressives want to go BACK to universal health care?

      Why do progressives want to go BACK to gun control?

      Why do progressives want to go BACK to restricting speech?

      Why do progressives want to go BACK to restricting choice (as in school)?

       
      • casper

        August 26, 2013 at 6:02 pm

        “Why do progressives want to go BACK to universal health care?”

        We’ve never had it, but it is a good idea.

        “Why do progressives want to go BACK to gun control?”

        There has always been some gun control. Certain classes of weapons have always been restricted. Asking for background checks to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and crazy people seems like a good idea to me.

        “Why do progressives want to go BACK to restricting speech?”

        We don’t, although some forms of speech have always been restricted.

        “Why do progressives want to go BACK to restricting choice (as in school)?”

        We don’t.

         
      • ricorun

        August 27, 2013 at 11:15 am

        Cluster: It’s been my experience that if you over think issues, you are a progressive.

        I’m curious as you your definition of “overthinking”. From your posts it doesn’t sound like very much thinking is required to go over the top. Exhibit A is the first question you asked after you made that statement (see below). And I’d say it’s a problem if you want to label anyone who thinks more than just a little as a “progressive”. But perhaps that explains why it is said, “the truth has a liberal bias”.

        So let me repeat the first question: Why do progressives want to go BACK to universal health care?

        Casper beat me to it: there never has been universal health care in the US. Perhaps I’m overthinking here, but maybe you mean the “Hillary Care” proposal during the Clinton administration. Well first, it was never enacted, so again… the US has never had universal health care. Second, Obamacare is not universal, so “going back to universal health care” is moot. Third, I’m not a big fan of Obamacare. I’ve said that many, many times over there on B4V. There are several reasons for that — which probably means I’m overthinking the issue. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t I guess. Lol!

        Why do progressives want to go BACK to gun control?

        Remember, you’re talking to the guy who wants an M1A1 Abrams with full ordnance. I hope I’m not asking you to overthink the issue, but what do you think about that? Imagine I was the neighbor you hated most and had one of those bad boys parked in my driveway. Would that be okay with you? I asked that question many years ago to the good ole’ boys there on B4V and the ubiquitous response I got was that I was being ridiculous. OF COURSE no one should be allowed to own M1A1 Abrams tank with full ordnance. Well, okay. But if not that, then what? Would a field artillery piece be okay? Would a fully automatic assault rifle? Where DO you draw the line?

        Why do progressives want to go BACK to restricting speech?

        Why did you start this blog again? Okay, blogs are generally considered as different than “the public square” in the sense that the owners/operators have the right to restrict speech more than would be appropriate in a truly public square. That said, were you one of those rare conservatives who were in favor of allowing a mosque to be built blocks away from ground zero? How do you feel about discussing LGBT issues in school? It gets hard sometimes, regardless of one’s perspective. But I don’t see that difficulty as an exclusively progressive problem, an exclusively conservative problem, or exclusively anybody’s problem. Details certainly differ, but the problem remains the same.

        Why do progressives want to go BACK to restricting choice (as in school)?

        This might make your brain hurt, but it seems to me that if you don’t specifically restrict the question to education your question becomes far too nebulous to answer. Heck, even if you DO restrict it to only education it’s still pretty nebulous. So let’s start with something really simple, because simple is still within your stated ideological realm: are you saying that kids below the age of maturity should have the choice to attend school? Are you saying that their guardians should have the choice to allow them to attend school or not? Is it just progressives who would would answer “no” to both questions? If not, where does the difference lie?

        So now I’ve answered all of your questions. Please answer one of mine: Do you really think that if you agree with 97% of the experts in the field of climate change, OR that you think Intelligent Design is a terrible joke with no place in a theology class, let alone a science class, OR if you think there are other valid opinions as to when HUMAN life begins rather than your own opinion, OR that immigration policy should ultimately result in citizenship for those who have consistently demonstrated that they are worthy of such status, regardless of how they came here, should qualify you as a progressive EVEN THOUGH you also think that concealed carry laws really do decrease crime, that religious institutions should be allowed to restrict the services they perform for their members depending upon how they view said members’ standing, that the federal government should not smother the activities of state and local governments, and that small business and especially entrepreneurism is a particularly important vector leading to the future… do you really think that such a person should be labeled a progressive? And if so, why?

         
      • Cluster

        August 27, 2013 at 11:55 am

        It’s no wonder you’re a professor. I have a feeling in the real world, you would suffer from paralysis by analysis and your business would go bankrupt. The ivory tower is a good spot for you. That being said, allow me to respond:

        Going “back” to UHC is a reference to the myriad of other countries that have had UHC for years and are most often financially strapped by an inefficient system.

        I am fine with you having an Abrams tank. In fact if you were on my block I could pretty much be assured that I could leave my doors unlocked. The answer to criminals with guns is having a larger number of honest civilians with guns.

        It seems anymore that liberals are completely intolerant of Faith being expressed in the public square, particularly as it relates to gays. Freedom of speech is something liberals are only tolerant of as long as it conforms to their views.

        And please – liberals DO NOT support school choice, even though that is the answer to the obstacles confronting minorities and the poor.

        Now I will address your litany of “questions” of which have been addressed ad nauseum – Consensus IS NOT science. Period, end of story. ID belongs in a theory class or better yet, religious studies. Evolution belongs in a science class with the disclaimer that it can not prove the origin. Laws are laws are laws – illegal immigration is just that – illegal. If you want to change that, change the law. Those states with CCL laws, do have lower gun crimes statistics. Religious institutions of all stripes do have the right to restrict those services that violate their tenets, and people have the right to choose other service providers.

        Is that about it?

         
      • ricorun

        August 28, 2013 at 8:41 am

        Cluster: It’s no wonder you’re a professor.

        Bzzzzt! Wrong. I haven’t been a professor since 1988.

        I have a feeling in the real world, you would suffer from paralysis by analysis and your business would go bankrupt. The ivory tower is a good spot for you.

        There is both irony and humor in that. The irony is that my “day job” since 1988 and up until recently, was doing precisely what you suggested I’d fail at: running my own business (I was a principal partner). Rather than failing, it provided me the resources to do most of the other things I did during and since (as “night jobs”). Moreover, much of what I did required a considerable amount of creative thinking, constant accumulation of knowledge, and critical analysis. In a very real sense, if it weren’t for analysis I would have been paralyzed (i.e., unsuccessful). I’m at a point now where I can comfortably do stuff without concern for compensation, and I feel it’s time to give back. I am a very long way from bankruptcy. Sorry to burst your bubble.

        The humor is two-fold. First, I find it funny/curious that you claim yourself to be pro-education, but dump on professors. You’ve even dumped on teachers, too! Who exactly do you expect to teach your kids? Second, I have been characterized on B4V as one of those “elitist lefties” who are too rich to understand the value of hard work. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, I guess.

        Going “back” to UHC is a reference to the myriad of other countries that have had UHC for years and are most often financially strapped by an inefficient system.

        As opposed to… what? The myriad of other financially strapped countries which don’t offer UHC? What’s your baseline, exactly?

        And please – liberals DO NOT support school choice, even though that is the answer to the obstacles confronting minorities and the poor.

        I don’t know what to say about that, because you haven’t defined what you mean by “school choice”! It’s not that you need to be more specific (yet), it’s that you haven’t offered any definition at all!

        Consensus IS NOT science. Period, end of story.

        How dogmatic of you. And how wrong. Okay, it’s not consensus per se, but consensus in a very well-studied field. For example, how do you feel about Newton’s laws of motion?

        Of course there’s some additional irony provided by your “The Petro Currency System” post.

        ID belongs in a theory class or better yet, religious studies.

        Why? Let me repeat that for emphasis… WHY??? ID is bullshit. It requires a believe in miracles, but is not central to such a belief. It adds nothing at all — to anything. You could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and advocate ID. It’d still be bullshit, but you could. In short, it cheapens everything — even bullshit.

        Evolution belongs in a science class with the disclaimer that it can not prove the origin.

        I don’t know where you’ve been, but “science class” does better than that — it disclaims that evolution has nothing to do with origins. Individual science classes my differ, of course, but that’s the way science classes are designed.

        Laws are laws are laws – illegal immigration is just that – illegal. If you want to change that, change the law.

        Gosh, that sounds like a great idea! So… are you in? If not, why not?

        Is that about it?

        One more thing… considering all of your stands on each of those issues, which of them (or what combination) makes you feel you can credibly claim that you are a card-carrying conservative — and others aren’t?

         
    • GMB

      August 27, 2013 at 9:48 am

      I’ll give you just one to start with.

      Progressives say they want jobs for Americans. Then they let in every available illegal alien they can find.

      Isn’t that a bit of a contradiction?

       
      • ricorun

        August 27, 2013 at 11:28 am

        Conservative say they want jobs for Americans. Then they try to restrict the economy in every way they can think of.

        Isn’t that a bit of a contradiction?

        Perhaps there’s a middle way?

         
      • GMB

        August 27, 2013 at 11:48 am

        Are you referring to the “American Jobs Act”? More investment at creating more government paid workers who will then be forced to join seiu or afscme so that they can contribute more tax payer dollars to progressives candidates so those same people can give out raise, perks, and rides of U. S. Government jets?

        More teachers, more bureaucrats, and more $$$$

        Shovel ready jobs? Didn’t we go through that once before and it didn’t work?

        Personally I say we have everyone picking on an almost dead carcass. Everybody wants everything and they want somebody else to pay for it.

        Spend away, tax all you want, try and bring on your utopia. It will be an interesting experience watching it.

         
      • ricorun

        August 28, 2013 at 8:56 am

        GMB: Are you referring to the “American Jobs Act”?

        No, I’m referring to (ideological) conservatives’ opposition to ALL of the programs designed to prevent the economy from going into free-fall, those of Bush II included. It sounds to me like you’re leading with ideology, not logical thought. I’m sure you can do better than that.

        More teachers, more bureaucrats, and more $$$$

        Damn, another dump on teachers. Do you have no shame?

         
  6. meursault1942

    August 26, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    “Labor is subject to supply and demand, as any product or service is in a free market economy,”

    I never said otherwise. I did, however, point out that corporations are reducing demand for their own products or services by paying crap wages that ensure most people won’t be able to afford to buy said products and services.

    “and the argument to simply pay people more ignores the business realities of overall costs, ROI’s, development, research, regulations, inflation, taxes, depreciation, etc., etc..”

    It doesn’t, though. Remember: Corporations are making record profits. Not revenues, profits. After all their expenses, they’ve still got more money than ever. And they’re accomplishing this in no small part by paying their workers–the people who actually generate those profits–crap wages. As I said, they’re not being forced to keep wages low at all, they are choosing to keep wages low, and they have chosen to drive wages down through all manner of political and economic situations. It’s philosophical, not circumstantial. Those low wages are their fault, not Obama’s.

    I’m glad you agree that paying so many people so little is a travesty, but how, exactly, can you blame Obama for it? And wouldn’t you protest if Obama tried to use government to force those companies to pay better wages (which, by the way, is not something I have advocated; I want these corporations to make wiser choices–dare to dream!)? Now, maybe those corporations will eventually see the error of their ways. The biggest offender of them all, Wal-Mart, is suffering the effects of its own policies, and it once again highlights the good things that happen when corporations seek to do more than simply make short-term profits as high as possible:

    This is not the first time U.S. mass retailers have faced the problem of under-consumption. In the 1920s, as U.S. cities swelled, the low incomes of the new urban consumers posed a constant challenge to merchants. In contrast to today’s Walton family heirs, however, some of those merchants realized that the solution was to raise workers’ incomes.

    In the ’20s, Edward Filene, whose family owned both its eponymous chain and the Federated Department stores, called for the establishment of a minimum wage, unemployment insurance, a five-day workweek, legalized unions and cooperatives where people could do their banking. (He helped establish some of the first banking co-ops himself.) The Straus family, which owned Macy’s, and shoe-magnate Milton Florsheim endorsed similar measures and were among the more prominent business leaders who supported Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. They were well compensated for their clear understanding of how to make an economy thrive: During the 30 years of broadly shared prosperity that the New Deal reforms made possible, department stores catering to the vast middle class were a smashing success.

    There’s another key quote in the above-linked piece, too–one that speaks to exactly what I mean when I say low wages are a deliberate choice by corporations, not something they are being trapped into doing:

    Corporate profits — which comprise a larger share of the nation’s economy than at any time since World War II — are being plowed into share buybacks or dividend payments, but decidedly not into wage increases.

    See? Choice. They could spend their money wisely on better wages, but they choose to spend it elsewhere (largely on things that will profit only managers, not workers). That’s on them.

    And just as a general observation, using “when Obama took over the White House” as your basis of comparison is a bit disingenuous. When Obama took over the White House, the economy was in a full-blown meltdown. It’s not as though he took over a healthy economy and destroyed it.

    As for Christopher Lane and Delbert Belton, there is a huge difference between those cases and the Trayvon Martin case: Nobody’s arguing that the perpetrators should be free to go. In fact, it’s pretty straightforward: The perpetrators are going to stand trial for their actions, and they will likely (hopefully) get convicted. Zimmerman faced no legal repercussions for pursuing and killing Martin, and people cheered that outcome. Hell, Zimmerman almost wasn’t charged at all, which is what put the case on people’s radar in the first place. Who’s leaping to defend the killers of Lane and Belton? Who’s out there claiming that they should be free to go? Lane and Belton are straightforward murder cases; Martin was anything but.

    Wow, that was a lot of typing. I need to give my keyboard a rest now.

     
    • Cluster

      August 26, 2013 at 2:54 pm

      I did, however, point out that corporations are reducing demand for their own products or services by paying crap wages that ensure most people won’t be able to afford to buy said products and services.

      But then in the next sentence you say that corporations are making record profits. It sounds to me like their equation is working pretty good – lower wages, record profits. Why would they change?

       
      • meursault1942

        August 26, 2013 at 3:47 pm

        “Why would they change?”

        Well, read the WaPo link in my post. The short answer: Diminishing returns. Remember, corporations have been pushing this trend since the 1980s. But now they’re finding they’ve pushed it about as far as it can go.

        But I will also point out that you’re proving my point: Profit is the only thing they care about. It’s not about corporations wanting to pay better but just not being able to because of taxes/regulations/Obamacare/whatever (which was your previous argument); it’s about short-term profits (which, as the article indicates, are then spent on things that will further enrich the top-level employees and do nothing whatsoever for the actual creators of profits).

        Raising wages would be overall beneficial, not just to these companies, but to the economy as a whole. But raising wages also might make short-term profits slightly lower, so these companies are not going to pay better wages. By choice. Not because Obama is somehow forcing them to pay lower wages, but because that’s what they want to do in order to keep short-term profits high. It’s a calculation on their part, and that calculation is starting to bite them in the ass. Henry Ford eventually figured out that it’s good to pay your employees enough that they can buy your product. Wal-Mart (among others) still hasn’t figured that out, apparently.

         
      • Cluster

        August 26, 2013 at 3:52 pm

        Again, labor is a commodity subject to supply and demand, so the best way to increase wages is to increase competition for labor, by expanding the economy. The best way to expand the economy is to bring certainty to the market for the long term, so business’s know what their tax and regulatory obligations will be 5 years from now. As it is, they don’t know what those obligations will be next year.

         
      • ricorun

        August 28, 2013 at 9:02 am

        Cluster: The best way to expand the economy is to bring certainty to the market for the long term, so business’s know what their tax and regulatory obligations will be 5 years from now. As it is, they don’t know what those obligations will be next year.

        It sounds like you’re advocating market certainty above all else. So, considering the existing power structure in Washington, and paying special attention to the paralysis therein, what do you propose? Is any certainty better than none, or does it also have to be agreeable to your ideology?

         
      • Cluster

        August 28, 2013 at 9:36 am

        Wow, I have a busy day today and Rico you have given me a lot to respond to, of which I will later today. But let me just say real quickly that you should know my sarcastic nature by now, and when I accuse you of being “professorial” and detached from the real world, that is said with some “tongue in cheek”. However I did not know that you were no longer amongst the academia ranks, so good for you.

        My only comment now will be that economic certainty does not have to be ideological. Tax obligations and the regulatory environment can be negotiated with business to the benefit of both government and business. They both have shared stakes in the success.

         
  7. rustybrown2012

    August 26, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    Is it just me, or is there some kind of cognitive dissonance going on when Cluster complains:

    “It is hard to believe, but an astounding 53 percent of all American workers now make less than $30,000 a year.”

    …when just a few days ago he championed:

    “A valid argument can be made that income equality has vastly improved over the last 100 years, the middle class has grown substantially and even many of those under the FPL have TV’s, cell phones, etc..”

    …is it just me?

     
    • Cluster

      August 26, 2013 at 3:09 pm

      Yes it would be just you. I didn’t say that 53% of Americans make less than $30K, I was refereeing an article where it was shown to be a statistical fact. But to your other point, $30K is still quite a bit more money than 100 yeas ago, even when adjusted for inflation.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        August 26, 2013 at 3:31 pm

        Well, my point is that your argument and concern is very circumstantial. When the topic is about bashing Obama you decry that 53% of workers make less than 30 grand a year (“oh, how far we’ve fallen!”). When the topic is about defending capitalism, income inequality discrepancies, the middle class and even the poor are doing just fine. (“there’s a valid argument to be made, blah, blah, blah…”) Cognitive, and partisan, dissonance.

         
      • Cluster

        August 26, 2013 at 3:49 pm

        That’s a valid point

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 26, 2013 at 3:55 pm

        Wow, thanks. You just blew my mind, man.

         
      • Cluster

        August 26, 2013 at 5:38 pm

        You’re welcome. Hey when you make a valid point, I will admit it. In the next few days, I am going to shine some light on the perilous status of our reserve currency as it relates to our economic standing, and I am going to post two more well written, though provoking articles on the current status of race relations.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 26, 2013 at 7:10 pm

        I’ve made valid points in the past that you didn’t recognize, but I suppose that is what spirited debate is about. Fair enough to agree to disagree at times.

         
  8. mitchethekid

    August 26, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    Glad everyone is playing nice. Now if we could just attract a few more into our tent we could really kick this party into gear. Bueller? Bueller?

     
  9. casper

    August 26, 2013 at 6:48 pm

    “- The racial divide – Worse then it has ever been in my life time. I am still waiting for the President to speak out on the Christopher Lane or Delbert Belton murders, but sadly, I don’t think there is any political gain to be had as their was with Trayvon Martin. Where’s Al Sharpton? How about Rep. Fredricka Wilson? Remember when she said: “Trayvon was hunted down like a dog, shot down in the street.”. Well, Christopher and Delbert WERE hunted down like dogs – and the silence is deafening. But just this morning, MSNBC finds a way to bring Trayvon back up using the Christopher Lane murder – absolutely shameful.”

    The murderers of Christopher Lane or Delbert Belton were arrested and will probably spend teh rest of their lives in jail. The murderer of Trayvon Martin wasn’t charged until people started protesting. Do you see the difference? Christopher Lane and Delbert Belton don’t need protests for their killers to be charged.

     
    • rustybrown2012

      August 26, 2013 at 7:01 pm

      Bingo. False dichotomy.

       
    • Cluster

      August 27, 2013 at 5:10 am

      The acquittal of Zimmerman should convince you that those charges were only brought as a result of partisan political and racial pressure. What I am speaking of is the outcry from the race baiters who ran to a microphone every chance they could. I don’t see the same outrage here.

      See the difference?

       
      • casper

        August 27, 2013 at 5:17 am

        I believe Zimmerman is every bit as innocent as OJ is of murder.

         
      • Cluster

        August 27, 2013 at 5:23 am

        You can believe anything you want, but self defense laws are what they are. Unfortunately, Delbert Benton and Christopher Lane were unable to defend themselves. Moreover, can you imagine if Zimmerman would have tweeted “I hate black people” prior to the incident? That is exactly what one of the assailants tweeted (“I hate white people”) prior to killing Christopher Lane – yet not a word from our “race conscious” professionals.

         
  10. Cluster

    August 27, 2013 at 5:11 am

    For those of you who wonder why people like myself are adamant in repealing Obamacare – I give you the following:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/08/26/britain_gives_america_a_preview_of_obamacare_119701.html

     
    • sarahbloch

      August 27, 2013 at 7:16 am

       
      • Cluster

        August 27, 2013 at 7:33 am

        That is a good article Sarah, and finding a solution to lessen the damage is imperative. I also agree with the author when he says:

        Why is something not being advanced by the federal government? Oh wait, there is. It’s called Obamacare, or we know it as “more government.” Inevitably this will not lead to less malpractice or deaths. I’m betting long term it will lead to greater numbers of both.

        I too believe that Obamacare will worsen this problem, so more government intrusion into our healthcare industry is not to solution.

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 27, 2013 at 9:12 am

        I think there are several reasons why conservatives are so adamantly against ACH. It was originally their idea, they offer no alternative and they are scared to death that it will actually work. And once it does, people are going to like it. Plus it’s tough to take something away for the sake of ideology. The idea that it’s good to suffer has a believability problem.
        http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/26/how-the-public-will-encounter-obamacare/

         
      • Cluster

        August 27, 2013 at 10:15 am

        It may have been a Republican idea, but it is certainly not a conservative idea. The alternative is finding a way to take care of the “pre existing needs” person, and the indigent while not destroying the current system for the rest of us. That wouldn’t be hard to do.

        And just a heads up – Andrew Sullivan is NOT a conservative.

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 27, 2013 at 11:30 am

        Au contraire, he most certainly is! He’s just not an extremist. But because he calls out those who have radicalized both the Republican party and conservative ideology, he’s considered something he’s not. He is every bit as much a conservative as Wm.F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan and Edmund Burke.
        In 2006 he penned a book entitled The Conservative Soul. Here are some quotes:

        “As editor of the New Republic and on his blog The Daily Dish, Sullivan has been a major conservative voice in U.S. politics for 15 years. Now, he attempts “to account for what one individual person means by conservatism”—not repudiating his former political beliefs but trying to “rescue” modern U.S. political conservatism from “the current [Christian] fundamentalist supremacy” that now dominates it. Sullivan has a breezy, readable style that allows him to address such diverse issues as religious fundamentalism’s reliance on “the literal words of the Bible,” the “excessive witch-hunt” surrounding Clinton, and the secular Enlightenment foundations of the Constitution. He’s most approachable when he writes autobiographically through a critical lens—”Looking back I see this phase of my faith life as a temporary and neurotic reaction to a new and bewildering school environment.” But that reflection is not as readily apparent when he makes sweeping pronouncements on politics (“post-modern discourse… opposed basic notions of Western freedom: of speech, of trade, of religion”). Much of the book is a meditation on his own evolving faith as a devout Catholic and will appeal most to readers interested in personal religious evolution.”
        And here is another:

        “With the Iraq war,the rise of Christian fundamentalism, exploding government spending and an executive branch with greater and greater power, Republicans and conservatives are debating these questions with more and more urgency. The contradictions keep mounting. Today’s conservatives support the idea of limited government, but they have increased it’s size, power and reach to new heights. They believe in balanced budgets, but they have boosted government spending, debt and pork to new levels. They believe in individual liberty and the rule of law but they have condoned torture, ignored laws passed by congress and have been indicted for bribery. They have substituted religion for politics and damaged both.
        In The Conservative Soul Andrew Sullivan makes an impassioned call to rescue conservatism from the excesses of the Republican far right, which risks making the GOP the first fundamentally religious party in American history.
        Through an incisive look at the rise of Western fundamentalism, Sullivan argues that conservatives cannot in good conscience keep supporting a party that believes in it’s own God-given mission to change people’s souls, instead of protecting their liberties. He carefully charts the arguments of the new conservatism, showing why they cannot work in today’s America, why they fail the test of logic and pragmatism and why they betray the conservative tradition.He champions a political philosophy based on skepticism and reason, rather than certainty and fundamentalism. He defends a Christianity that is sincere but not intolerant and a politics that respects religion by keeping it’s distance.And he makes a provocative case for a revived conservatism at peace with the modern world and dedicated to restraining government and empowering individuals to live rich and fulfilling lives”

        Now isn’t that what you to are advocating?

         
      • Cluster

        August 27, 2013 at 12:28 pm

        Andrew can say whatever he wants, it’s his actions that belie his words. I submit the following article:

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

        Not only did Andrew gleefully support “spread the wealth around” Obama in 2008, he re upped his commitment for him in 2012. Andrew calls the stimulus a success and by extension of his vote, he supports the government taking over one sixth of the national economy with Obamacare.

        These are not the actions of a conservative.

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 27, 2013 at 4:15 pm

        I’m confused dear friend, truly.

        “A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much.”

        Maybe your definition of what is conservative, or for that matter what is conservatism doesn’t match the historical understanding of what the term means.

         
      • Cluster

        August 27, 2013 at 5:13 pm

        If Sullivan opposed Bush’s record of war, debt and spending, then how can he be supportive of Obama’s debt (which is larger), spending (which is much larger), and war (Libya? Without any congressional approval, and how about those drone strikes killing American citizens?).

        Sorry, but Andrew doesn’t even pass the smell test when it comes to being a conservative.

         
      • sarahbloch

        August 27, 2013 at 9:47 am

        In the long run there has to be something done about the continuing drain on the middle class. Medical costs are a big one and the other is the drive for massive profits over job creation. I support unions and am for single payer. A combination of more jobs and a healthier country would be worth paying more in taxes if I were in America.

         
      • ricorun

        August 27, 2013 at 11:47 am

        Cluster: And just a heads up – Andrew Sullivan is NOT a conservative.

        Okay fine. So does that necessarily mean he’s a progressive?

         
      • ricorun

        August 27, 2013 at 12:04 pm

        After reading what mitche posted about Andrew Sullivan, I have to say that he sounds a lot like me, only more fluent. I guess I should pay more attention to him.

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 27, 2013 at 1:07 pm

        Sullivan, me or both! lol

         
      • ricorun

        August 28, 2013 at 3:12 pm

        Cluster: The alternative is finding a way to take care of the “pre existing needs” person, and the indigent while not destroying the current system for the rest of us. That wouldn’t be hard to do.

        I hope you’re not proposing what it sounds like you’re proposing, you euthenist you!

        How’m I doin’ on the sarcasm lesson, massah?

        Seriously though, it was a combination of people with pre-existing needs, the indigent, AND people who fit neither category but nonetheless had no insurance for whatever reason, who were destroying the current system for “the rest of us”. If you think the solution “isn’t hard to do” in a way that suits your preferred ideology, I think everyone here is all ears. I know I am!

         
      • Cluster

        August 28, 2013 at 3:23 pm

        Those who had no insurance “for whatever reason” usually chose to go without it. Healthy 20 year olds for example rarely need insurance. And in terms of being “all ears” – listen up:

        Every state has some level of government administered healthcare that is designed to take care of the indigent. We could then increase fees, taxes, etc. on existing plans, possibly medical devices, and other revenue streams throughout the industry to fund a block grant which could be allocated to the states on a “need” basis to handle the “pre existing” folks. These programs should be administered at the state level to increase efficiencies and keep costs down. That’s my solution.

         
      • ricorun

        August 28, 2013 at 8:17 pm

        Cluster: Every state has some level of government administered healthcare that is designed to take care of the indigent. We could then increase fees, taxes, etc. on existing plans, possibly medical devices, and other revenue streams throughout the industry to fund a block grant which could be allocated to the states on a “need” basis to handle the “pre existing” folks. These programs should be administered at the state level to increase efficiencies and keep costs down. That’s my solution.

        With all due respect Cluster, I think your response deserves the following reply… Is that the best you got? WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??!! Do you really think that’s anywhere close to an adequate answer?? Are you kidding us?? Maybe I do overthink things. Then again, maybe you should take a few baby steps in that direction. Because as it stands, it’s not even clear you know what direction it would be in.

        How’m I doin’ on the sarcasm lesson, massah? You wanna keep goin’? I will if you want to. If I learned nothing else from Amazona I learned sarcasm… not to mention how use a shotgun, lol! And now that the playing field’s a bit more level, well…

        I personally would prefer a more civilized tone, but I’ll leave that up to you.

         
      • Cluster

        August 29, 2013 at 4:41 am

        I am not feeling the respect, but maybe that’s just me, so allow me to dumb this down for you. We first have to identify the actual problem but I am sure you know that being a highly trained and successful businessman. The problem is the funding for the patients with pre existing needs because as luck would have it, we already have highly trained and capable doctors and nurses in place throughout the country in every state who are the ones responsible for administering the care. Maybe I need to reiterate that, doctors and nurses actually deliver the care, not the health “insurance”, right? Ok, good so were on the same page. So the problem is, how to build a funding mechanism adequate enough to handle the needs of the pre existing patient population and deliver those funds in a highly efficient manner so that the bulk of each dollar actually reaches the patient with as little of administration bullshit as possible.

        Well again, as luck would have it, each state already has government healthcare programs in place with administrators standing by – lucky us right? In addition, these programs and administrators have already been funding the needs of the indigent, and are probably already very much in tune with the needs of their states “pre existing” needs population, it just gets better right? So now we have to find ways to build new revenue streams to create the funding necessary to deliver to the states to take care of those patients, and those new streams can be built up by new taxes on existing plans, surcharges on medical devices, surcharges on car insurance possibly, additional fees on other health related services, etc. etc.. OR, how about we actually run government like a business and redirect the obscene amount of money the mindless bureaucrats at the GSA and the IRS spent on parties in Las Vegas? But I am sure as a highly successful businessman you have already thought that one through

         
      • ricorun

        August 29, 2013 at 8:19 am

        Maybe it’s just me, but it sounds like you want to center the responsibility for the health care of people who cannot get health insurance on the government, claiming that’s the most efficient method. Then later in the post you trash the government for spending too much on things like parties, which I presume is just one example of a myriad of ways you could come up with for various government inefficiencies. It sounds contradictory.

        Additionally, you suggest that the revenue to pay for this coverage should be “built up by new taxes on existing plans, surcharges on medical devices, surcharges on car insurance possibly, additional fees on other health related services, etc. etc..” I’m sorry, but I have to assume that this is an example of your sarcasm. You just can’t be serious.

         
      • Cluster

        August 29, 2013 at 9:00 am

        you want to center the responsibility for the health care of people who cannot get health insurance on the government

        Not entirely, but some of the burden for the indigent and the pre existing needs patient will have to be shouldered by tax payers. Fortunately they are the minority, and my solution doesn’t destroy the health care industry to address those needs of the minority as Obamacare is currently doing. One option not mentioned is for joint ventures with private insurance companies for those groups of people.

         
    • ricorun

      August 28, 2013 at 3:19 pm

      mitche: Sullivan, me or both! lol

      Lol! I learn from you, mitche. And I can follow your sentences nearly all the time — even when you’re not quoting Sullivan. That’s something I need to work on.

       
      • mitchethekid

        August 28, 2013 at 6:20 pm

        Well, much to the chagrin of another person (who shall remain unnamed like the Egyptian Queen Kiya) I’m like Shakespeare. I write like I speak. Sometimes I use unnecessary superfluous words to give more depth and nuance to my thoughts, but that’s an ego problem. Or perhaps an expression of the plight of my people!
        But I do know that certain others are stalking this blog with a rabid focus and intensity and have even gone so far as to set the table to cannibalize one of their own. They think they can shame one into submission That the taunting works and that the control issue they have actually is effective. It’s not. To use a worn out phrase, vampires on a day pass writhe and wither like slugs exposed to salt and beer.

         
      • ricorun

        August 28, 2013 at 8:27 pm

        mitche: But I do know that certain others are stalking this blog with rabid focus and intensity and have even gone so far as to set the table to cannibalize one of their own.

        How exciting! Is it me? I do so hope it’s me. I’m good eatin’. Well, going down anyway. I do have a tendency to repeat on a person. So there’s that.

         
  11. bardolf2

    August 27, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    “The racial divide – Worse then it has ever been in my life time. ” – Cluster

    A couple headline grabbing cases like Trayvon Martin etc. is not the reality of the racial divide. I prefer to judge the racial divide by the number of interracial marriages. By the standard of love not hate, the divide is at an all time low.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/marriage/story/2011-11-07/Interracial-marriage-More-accepted-still-growing/51115322/1

     
  12. consigliereciucava

    August 29, 2013 at 10:52 am

    Cluster:

    Since you are still able to post at B4V you might want to mention this to Neocon1 regarding gun control.

    On the other petal, someone also needs to let him know while we do have vast resources here at TDBDP every person who exposes him as a bigot is not on our payroll. And just because he has been caught out doing something embarrassing doesn’t mean he can threaten lawsuits against those who have no interest other than to expose those who in their cretinhood and bigotry threaten the very survival of their own Nation-State.

    Keep up the good work.

    Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!

    Ciu Cava daelth Nixhot, J.F.. D.S.V.J.
    Consiglieri
    The Dis Brimstone Daily Pitchfork
    104 Colnu 2 AS

     
    • consigliereciucava

      August 29, 2013 at 12:24 pm

      I take note of this and find Truth in what you write. It is rather curious how they have turned on each other. But one would imagine since they want no debate that insults irrational religious and political sensibilities, even among each other, why allow comments at all?

      I do agree if all the Progressives refused to comment on their blog it would die in less than a week from lack of breathable air.

       
  13. ricorun

    August 29, 2013 at 5:35 pm

    I’m not sure this comment goes on this thread, but it sure is disheartening: scientists of all stripes are leaving the GOP in droves. [okay, I’m gonna try to embed html citation code here to see if it works, so pleas bear with me…]

    According to this article, “Scientists used to be well represented among the nearly half of Americans who voted Republican. But that’s changed over the years, and one poll found that just 6 percent of scientists call themselves part of the GOP now.” And the poll they mention was conducted in 2009! It could be even worse by now. Contrary to what Netflix says, it’s not orange that’s the new black, it’s scientists.

    Sorry. I couldn’t help myself.

    Anyway, the article is very well documented (more about that later), but it is at the same time very, very disheartening. It used to be that Republicans championed science, now they eschew it. And of course the ideological base of the Republican party are the worst offenders. It’s appalling.

    One other thing… I mentioned that the article is very well documented. It really is. They provide a link to support just about every major statement they make. That is SO refreshing. And frankly, I have come to view the lack of documentation in articles as pretty good indicator of how ideological they are. Hell, you don’t want facts messing with your opinion when your message can’t stand up to them, right? The worst offenders are those articles that report the findings of a study, of an event, or some other concrete, easily identifiable instance, and they don’t even specifically identify what they’re talking about, let alone provide a link. That frosts me to no end because it indicates intentional deception. The most pathetic are those who either DO provide a link or make it obvious where you can find one, then go ahead and butcher their interpretation of the source — as if no one will notice. And of course, a lot of people DON’T notice, because they don’t bother reading it in the first place or can’t understand it if they did. That saddens me to no end because it indicates that the writer wants to manipulate the ignorance of their readers.

    I hope these comments aren’t perceived to be partisan, especially the last paragraph, because I don’t intend it to be. I truly do miss the Republican party I grew up with (now labeled as RINOs, as if that was the worst offense imaginable), and think that what has replaced it is a horribly cartoonish caricature of not only its former self, but anything real. With regard to the last paragraph, the disinclination to document the supposed “facts” when the author wants to emphasize the ideological content of the message is not specific to the left, the right, or any other particular ideology. Be it extreme left, extreme right, or extreme anything else, if the author makes it hard to independently verify their facts, chances are very good that the intent of the message is ideological.

     
    • Cluster

      August 29, 2013 at 5:51 pm

      I am curious as to what Republican Party you miss Rico? Would it be that of Nixon? Or Reagan?

      And I am also curious why you believe the GOP needs to be more accommodating to a party that is now responsible for amassing the largest debt in history, having the most prolonged period of high unemployment, having the lowest labor participation rate in a generation, over seeing a substantial decline in family incomes, presiding over an economy that has not grown at over a 2% clip all year, and conducting a foreign policy that has the ME on fire and us on the brink of war.

      What part of all that should the GOP have been more accommodating on?

      In terms of your scientists, those who want to stifle debate based on “consensus” really don’t understand the art of science. Those who seek more data, do. Just saying. And incidentally, this summer has been one of the coolest on record.

      http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/unprecedented-july-cold-arctic-sees-shortest-summer-record/

       
      • GMB

        August 29, 2013 at 7:35 pm

        ” this summer has been one of the coolest on record.”

        Globull warmiming!!! Run for the hills!! qwl bores seaside mansion that pours carbon out like mad is going under water!!!

        Thats ok owl bore has more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ than Sarah Palin ever will. Maybe he can buy a villa in the Himalayas when the water gets to deep.

        Muhahahahahahah

         
      • ricorun

        August 29, 2013 at 8:24 pm

        Cluster: I am curious as to what Republican Party you miss Rico? Would it be that of Nixon? Or Reagan?

        I am loath to tie my enthusiasm for party to a particular president, but if you extend the time frame into the GHW Bush years, and backward into the Eisenhower years, that’s about the time frame I’m talking about, yes.

        And I am also curious why you believe the GOP needs to be more accommodating to a party that is now responsible for amassing the largest debt in history, having the most prolonged period of high unemployment, having the lowest labor participation rate in a generation, over seeing a substantial decline in family incomes, presiding over an economy that has not grown at over a 2% clip all year, and conducting a foreign policy that has the ME on fire and us on the brink of war.

        That’s a lot of disparate things to tease apart, but let me give it a first approximation…

        First, once the financial industry took the kind of nose dive it did in 2008, ANY administration would have amassed a very large debt with consequent high unemployment, lowest labor participation rate, etc. You are dealing in counterfactuals, and with reed thin evidence at that, when you suggest otherwise. Moreover, after it’s first two years, the Obama administration has had to deal with a deadlocked congress which can’t get much of anything passed beyond, perhaps, naming a building — and certainly not ANYTHING that would provide the economic certainty you seek (or at least did a couple of days ago). The recent, more authoritative, and considerably more positive revision in recent growth rate notwithstanding, is it any wonder why the economy is languishing? I’m not an economic expert, but given what I know I find it amazing that, given the current political reality, the economy isn’t more in the crapper than it is.

        Here’s another way to look at it: even if you were able to pick your most desirable candidate back in 2008, with the only caveat being that the congress was as deadlocked as it has been, do you REALLY think they would have been able to deliver the kind of miracles you’re implying? I, for one, sincerely doubt it. And I do so without knowing who you would have picked.

        For what it’s worth, let me also remind you that I voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. At the time I felt the indicators suggested that he would be the better person to finish righting the economic ship, so to speak, given the economic milieu extant at the time. But given the reality in the ME now, I’m glad he didn’t win, because I think he would have really screwed things up — and cheered on every step of the way by what has become the wingnut GOP base. However, I readily acknowledge that that’s another counterfactual. That said, I think there’s no doubt that there’s no one more responsible for lighting the fuse in the ME than Bush II.

        In terms of your scientists, those who want to stifle debate based on “consensus” really don’t understand the art of science. Those who seek more data, do. Just saying. And incidentally, this summer has been one of the coolest on record.

        That’s such bullshit, pretty much all of it. First, they are not “my” scientists, and I groan when I think of who you remind me of when you say that. Second, if you really understood “the art of science” you would know that herding cats is perhaps the only thing harder than getting the vast majority of them to agree on anything. Success in their professional lives are predicated upon coming up with new stuff, or new ways to look at stuff, the more innovative the better. There is ZERO incentive in just “rediscovering” what is already known. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand science. That said, there is great value in replicating previous findings, especially when it is done in different ways. Doing so generalizes the findings to broader situations, and more importantly it is used as a bridge stone — i.e., a way to demonstrate the validity of one’s approach or technique against existing data before taking it further.

        The process I just described has been done over, and over, and over again in the field of climate change. No wonder, because climate change has certainly become one of the most investigated phenomena in all of science. Given what I just told you, perhaps you now understand how ridiculous it is to question the basic findings — especially when you yourself can’t evaluate any of them. Those findings have been replicated countless times, in countless ways, using an extraordinary array of techniques and variations on them, be they empirically based, model based, or some combination. You said in another thread “consensus is not science. Period. End of story.” Hopefully now you understand how absurd that truly is, especially in the case of climate science. Of course there are uncertainties still. But at this point, to say that climate scientists have it all wrong is tantamount to saying Newton got motion all wrong.

        And incidentally, this summer has been one of the coolest on record.

        I hope this is an example of one of your attempts at “sarcasm” gone wrong, because if not and you really believe what you just said, and you are really attempting to apply it to any sort of global scale, then I’d have to say you’re one of the biggest idiots on record.

         
      • Cluster

        August 30, 2013 at 5:03 am

        Well once again, a lot of words that really say – nothing. Let me first start with this, I miss the Democratic Party of JFK and even Bill Clinton. A party that understood that lowering taxes and expanding the economy “lifted all boats”. A party that understood that signing welfare reform and submitting balanced budgets were good for he country. I miss that Democratic Party.

        And your blame of the housing crisis on the missteps of the Obama administration, the continued malaise of the economy and the massive $6 trillion debt that has been accumulated proves you to be one of the largest idiots on record. I have addressed this so many times I will not even begin to go into it again, especially with someone with such poor retention skills as you, but I will simply say that five years after a deeper recession in 1980, Reagan had the country completely turned around.

        And I am guessing you would have been a “flat earther” back in the day, because that was the consensus then. No one is refuting climate change. In fact the climate has been changing since the beginning of time, and unless and until we can harness the sun, there’s really not a whole lot we can do about it. What is refuted is the political agenda of AGW. There are now more parts per billion of carbon in the atmosphere then there was a decade ago, and yet we have experienced one of the mildest summers on record, so the “consensus” on the correlation of carbon and temperatures, just isn’t there.

        Good to know that you voted for Romney, but your contention that his foreign policy could have been worse is weird. I don’t think anyone could have a worse foreign policy than Obama.

         
      • ricorun

        August 30, 2013 at 9:29 am

        Cluster: And your blame of the housing crisis on the missteps of the Obama administration, the continued malaise of the economy and the massive $6 trillion debt that has been accumulated proves you to be one of the largest idiots on record.

        But I didn’t blame the Obama administration.

        And I am guessing you would have been a “flat earther” back in the day, because that was the consensus then.

        That may be what you think, but once again you’re wrong. Since Ancient Greece the consensus among scholars has been that the earth is round.

        No one is refuting climate change. In fact the climate has been changing since the beginning of time, and unless and until we can harness the sun, there’s really not a whole lot we can do about it.

        Obviously there’s a lot we can do about it. We’re making the climate change right now.

        There are now more parts per billion of carbon in the atmosphere then there was a decade ago, and yet we have experienced one of the mildest summers on record, so the “consensus” on the correlation of carbon and temperatures, just isn’t there.

        One set of data points in one country at one point in time in one year is hardly a strong refutation of the general trend. The US has certainly been very fortunate this summer, but the fact remains that worldwide, averaged over the entire year, all 12 of the years in the 21st century are among the 14 hottest on record. It’s not just one hot summer in one place.

        Another area where you seem to be confused is what, exactly, the “consensus” is about the relationship between “carbon and temperatures”. In short form the consensus is that the earth is warming, humans are responsible, and it will cause changes in local climates around the world. The consensus is NOT that there is a linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature at every point on the surface of the world, or even ANY point in the world. That would be silly. There are many other variables involved which can affect surface temperature independent of CO2. As baldorf pointed out, one of those is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which causes the El Nino and La Nina phenomena. Right now we’re in a particularly strong La Nina, where cold water wells up from the deep ocean along the eastern Pacific. The effect is to cool the atmosphere, thus resulting in cooler surface temperatures. The effect is typically most pronounced in the Western Hemisphere, but La Ninas can also have global effects. Another variable is the sun’s cycle. Generally speaking, less sunspots means less radiation hits earth, which means somewhat lower surface temperatures. Sun cycles are typically 11 – 14 years long, and we are currently just recovering from a sunspot minimum. Another variable is the amount of sulfates in the atmosphere. Sulfates reflect sunlight and thus serve to cool the atmosphere resulting in somewhat lower surface temperatures. Burning coal and oil generates sulfates which reach the atmosphere if they aren’t filtered out. China burns a lot of coal, and they don’t filter most of it, so they are contributing a lot of sulfates. Likewise, volcanic activity releases sulfates into the atmosphere, and volcanic activity worldwide has been on the uptick lately. All of the variables I just mentioned serve to counteract the effects of CO2 (and other GHGs). Yet in spite of it all, as I indicated previously, annual temperatures over the last decade have been among the highest in the entire instrumental record. If all of those things reverse at the same time (not likely, but they could), then things are likely to get hotter quicker than they are presently.

         
      • Cluster

        August 30, 2013 at 10:12 am

        My point on the housing crisis is that you are completely over looking the missteps of the Obama admin. and in my opinion erroneously assigning blame to a crisis that has pretty much recovered at least in the private sector. You’re also over looking the non use of bankruptcy laws when speaking to that issue. Laws of which were circumvented for political reasons, again in my opinion. Obama has amassed $6 trillion in debt, over took one sixth of the economy, initiated a plethora of regulation and demonized success to a harmful degree, and yet you want to still blame the housing crisis.

        We will also have to agree to disagree on “global warming” but the good news is that we agree on climate change. Wait another three months and you will see a large cooling trend envelope the northern hemisphere – it’s called Autumn.

        …..annual temperatures over the last decade have been among the highest in the entire instrumental record.

        Instrumental records date back to 1850. So you are prepared to make conclusive decisions based on 163 years of data on a planet that is tens of millions of years old. Not very scientific if you ask me.

         
      • ricorun

        August 30, 2013 at 1:48 pm

        Cluster: We will also have to agree to disagree on “global warming” but the good news is that we agree on climate change. Wait another three months and you will see a large cooling trend envelope the northern hemisphere – it’s called Autumn.

        I can’t tell you how disappointed I am to hear such an ignorant and cavalier attitude from you. But suit yourself.

         
      • Cluster

        August 30, 2013 at 3:00 pm

        Well I can’t tell you how upset I am that you’re disappointed. I may not sleep tonight. Honestly, I think your tone of debate is best suited for B4V. That’s a site where they love to disparage people with other opinions, and since we are debating a subjective issue, any and all opinions on the issue should be considered. In fact some Japanese and Norwegian scientists are saying that the earth is entering a global cooling period. But I suspect you might call them idiots too.

        No one argues climate change and no one is opposed to transitioning to another energy source away from crude oil, mainly because it is a finite resource, but you would help your cause by continuing along the path of science and innovation instead of disparaging those of other opinions outside of the convenient consensus.

         
    • GMB

      August 29, 2013 at 8:42 pm

      “I’d have to say you’re one of the biggest idiots on record.”

      I would say Cluster and I are in good company. Glubull warming constantly remains at or near the bottom of the list of issues that concern people? Oh wait, now it is climate change not globull warming.

      It is time for a reinvention!

       
      • bardolf2

        August 30, 2013 at 5:56 am

         
      • GMB

        August 30, 2013 at 6:11 am

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 30, 2013 at 10:19 am

         
      • GMB

        August 30, 2013 at 6:14 am

        Number of 100 degree readings lowest in a century.

        http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/mildest-summer-in-a-century-in-the-us/

        Is glubull warming to blame for this to?

         
      • ricorun

        August 30, 2013 at 9:57 am

        GMB: How could this ever happen? I thought the ice was all gone.

        Perhaps a better question is what are pleasure yachts doing in the Northwest Passage in the first place?

        I love this quote from the other link you offered: CO2 went over 400 PPM this year, indicating that heatwaves and CO2 have nothing to do with each other. Scientists who claim otherwise are either incompetent, criminal, or both.

        Oh yes, concentrate on one variable among many, cherrypick one data point that doesn’t fit, then accuse those who don’t share your simplistic views as “incompetent, criminal, or both”. Too funny!

         
      • Cluster

        August 30, 2013 at 10:15 am

        Well wait a minute Rico, you can’t have it both ways. Carbon output has been pretty much the sole focus for the AGW crowd, and in fact Gore is getting rich selling carbon credits. And now you, an advocate of the AGW, scoffs at the increase of carbon as it relates to warming? Doesn’t pass the smell test.

         
      • GMB

        August 30, 2013 at 9:30 pm

        “Oh yes, concentrate on one variable among many, cherrypick one data point that doesn’t fit, then accuse those who don’t share your simplistic views as “incompetent, criminal, or both”. Too funny!”

        kinda like owl bore calling people like me nazis, slavers, and bigots, right?

        AGW is just another wealth distribution scheme That is all it has been and all it ever will be.

        Go ahead though spend your trillions of dollars, make electricity so expensive that only the super rich rich like bore can afford it. That will give you reason to have more federal energy assistance programs making more people dependent on the feds for their livelihood. More reason to vote donkrats that will “stick it to the rich”

        Can’t wait until those same bean counters start calling you rich.

        Myself, I can just go chop some more wood down and throw it in the fireplace. Let me tell ya, unseasoned white maple burns very slow. I doubt very much if you city dwellers have that kind of tree in any numbers in your concrete forests.

        Enjoy your poverty.

         
    • ricorun

      August 30, 2013 at 12:17 pm

      Cluster: Well wait a minute Rico, you can’t have it both ways. Carbon output has been pretty much the sole focus for the AGW crowd, and in fact Gore is getting rich selling carbon credits. And now you, an advocate of the AGW, scoffs at the increase of carbon as it relates to warming? Doesn’t pass the smell test.

      You’re a black and white thinker, and I’m trying to appreciate that. I don’t want you to have to think to much, because I know how testy you get when you do. But the fact is, I didn’t scoff at the increase of carbon as it relates to warming. That is very real and very important. What I scoffed at is the pathetic idea that there should be a simple, tight, linear relationship between CO2 and surface temperature, that nothing else matters, and that therefore if there is so much as one outlying data point in that supposed linear relationship, the whole notion is bullshit. THAT’S the idea I scoffed at.

      OF COURSE there are going to be fluctuations in the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and surface temperature. Only an idiot would think otherwise. It is so, and will continue to be so, because there are other variables involved. But the thing that should be kept in mind is that those other variables wax and wane. The sun cycle is just that — a cycle. The Pacific decadal oscillation is just that — an oscillation (although evidence is accumulating that there may be a longer cycle below the shorter one). Volcanic activity has been on the uptick, but it almost certainly will subside. On the other hand, the only way to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations is to dramatically reduce the amount we humans burn. And even we ever got to that point, we’d have to be willing to live with the concentration we built up before we came to our senses, because the half life of atmospheric CO2 is at least a century.

      But here’s the thing that really chaps me: it is becoming increasingly clear through a growing number of studies, both publicly and privately funded, from many different perspectives, indicating that the costs associated with CO2 mitigation are less than the costs of adaptation to climate change. Would I call it a consensus? No. But it’s still pretty compelling. Given that, why take the risk at all? Just do it! All it would take is a little forward thinking on the part of the government to realize that incentivizing the development of alternative fuel sources could very well pay off handsomely in a very broad, economy-wide way. I’m guessing Eisenhower, like GHW Bush, would be all-in on such an idea. In fact, anyone with a more sophisticated understanding of the economy already is. The only real luddites are the tea party types in the Republican party who (1) insist on an archaic, 19th century notion of the free enterprise system which did not consider externalities, or; (2) insist on an interpretation of the Constitution so rigid that I doubt even most of the 18th century authors would agree with, or; (3) both.

      For the record, you do know what externalities are, right?

       
      • Cluster

        August 30, 2013 at 3:05 pm

        Let me know when you get tired of arguing strawman issues. Just for your information, you don’t have to use some trumped up, consensus built, arguable issue to convince everyone to transition to greener energies, or to convince the that climate changes. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the planet understand that climate changes. Most of us just don’t stand on the corner with a sign saying the world will end as you do.

         
  14. GMB

    August 29, 2013 at 8:46 pm

    Or as option two, you could borrow this,

    http://gopandthecity.blogspot.com/2005/10/karl-roves-weather-generator-storage.html

    You would most likely have to be owl bore rich to afford Karl’s hourly rental rate.

    😛

     
  15. bardolf2

    August 30, 2013 at 10:19 pm

    http://designtoimprovelife.dk/danish-capital-adapts-succesfully-to-changing-climate/

    Whether we believe in anthropomorphic climate change or just climate change, we are charged with being good stewards of God’s creation. The Danish people have decided it’s time to make plans for reacting to various scenarios and is setting a precedent in that regard. It doesn’t seem that complex to plan for contingencies just as we do with life insurance.

     
    • GMB

      August 31, 2013 at 5:23 am

      I totally agree that we are supposed to be good stewards of this earth. The agw crowd is not about being stewards, it is about wealth redistribution. Wind and solar power in the United States combined produced about two percent of our energy needs but it was heavily subsidized by the government. Wind and solar in a free fair market will not survive because it can not produce.

      How much are you willing to pay for your electricity? How much are you willing to pay for your insurance? How much more government control of your life are you willing to accept?

      Myself? I want to be able to live without the government. If that means taking my goods to market by horse and wagon, so be it.

       
      • bardolf2

        August 31, 2013 at 9:14 am

        I don’t want to have to care about the agw crowd. I buy insurance because I need insurance. I pay for insurance not to cover my cold, but to cover the unlikelihood I need cancer treatment. I would pay $2 for an event which is 1 in a million but which would cost me a million dollars. On average that’s a bad bet because I expect only $1 for my return, but I don’t get to live a million lives. Unfortunately, there needs to be a big structure called an insurance company for me to buy insurance. That’s because things like brotherhoods have ceased to exist.

        In the same way I can’t go it alone with respect to environmental changes. If it’s a little hotter one year, you adjust. If you lose access to water, the rains stop and your wells run dry then what are you going to do? You need to know there is a reliable supply of water for you and yours. That takes community planning (where nowadays community means government).

        I’ll let Cluster and the ‘free market’ take care of energy because that’s a problem which can be rather quickly addressed from my point of view. The draining of an ancient aquifer is not something that we can corporatize.

         
    • Cluster

      August 31, 2013 at 5:40 am

      You won’t get any disagreement on that. The question is, how do we best take care of our planet? No question we need to eventually transition to a cleaner energy platform, but that platform has to be economically viable, mass produceable and sustainable and in my opinion, the private sector, entrepreneurialism, and the market forces of supply and demand will turn out the best alternative and in the quickest time frame.

       
      • bardolf2

        August 31, 2013 at 9:03 am

        Cluster

        Your faith in “market forces” is both inspiring and frightening. Let’s see if you can agree with me on a few things:

        1. Most businesses have 5-10-(20?) year plans, any longer doesn’t make sense. “A full one-third of the companies listed in the 1970 Fortune 500, for instance, had vanished by 1983-acquired, merged, or broken to pieces.” – Businessweek

        2. People like us with retirement funds invested in corporations don’t want to see flat returns for 20 years and then a takeoff, we’ll be retiring sooner.

        3. Adapting to environmental changes (again I don’t care about the cause) is a several generation process as it has always been. As an example: Most of the first English settlers to North America would have died without the help of the local Native Americans.

        The time frame for business opportunity doesn’t match well with the time frame for adapting to gradual environmental changes. I have in mind the Dust Bowl period where governmental research was instrumental in understanding and addressing the problem.

        Now there was a dry period brought on by nature, but those droughts are not unheard of in history. What had changed is the native grasses which had survived droughts were uprooted and the land was stripped bare in the hopes of a fairly quick profit by those uninterested in being stewards. It was government studying the problem which showed that one needed trees and grasses to root down the soil, different methods of tilling the soil were put in place and the mostly the farmers who were in farming for the long haul who helped Oklahoma recover when the rains returned.

        Genesis 41:53 When the seven years of plenty which had been in the land of Egypt came to an end and the seven years of famine began to come, just as Joseph had said, then there was famine in all the lands, but in all the land of Egypt there was bread. So when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried out to Pharaoh for bread; and Pharaoh said to all the Egyptians, “Go to Joseph; whatever he says to you, you shall do.”

        Good stewardship of course needs good leaders, good citizens and patience. IMO, the problem with the ‘free market’ is it isn’t patient.

         
      • Cluster

        August 31, 2013 at 9:10 am

        Venture capitalists work on different time frames, and those are the individuals and groups that would bank roll these innovations, which answers your question #2 as well. Although I can see companies like GE getting heavily involved as well. I think we are approx. 20-40 years away from some big break throughs which really isn’t that long of a period.

         
 
%d bloggers like this: