New Campaign Slogan has ties to Socialism/Marxism

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Why don't we focus on the real sinners - people working on Sunday?

Should we stone them today, or is that righteous deed considered work? Maybe we should wait to stone them on Monday, just to be safe.

Originally Posted by BLADEMDA

I see. Yes, gay couples lack the same treatment as married coupes. But, as individuals they have the same rights as any other single man or woman.

Yes, but you're side stepping the whole point.

If a patient is dying and the hospital restricts visitors to only family in the ICU, don't you think a long term gay partner should fall into that category and be allowed to say goodbye?

This kind of stuff could be covered by civil unions, but then you would need to fight to make sure organizations with religious objections would honor the civil unions.

Originally Posted by pgg

Should we stone them today, or is that righteous deed considered work? Maybe we should wait to stone them on Monday, just to be safe.

I think it's safe to get stoned on Sunday.

Originally Posted by pgg

Should we stone them today, or is that righteous deed considered work? Maybe we should wait to stone them on Monday, just to be safe.

As long as you're not getting paid to throw the rocks I think it checks out.

Originally Posted by BLADEMDA

They already have equal rights. We simply disagree on marriage as a right

No, not at all. You believe marriage is a right for you and me, plain and simple. And not for gays. That's not the definition of equal rights.

Originally Posted by vector2

Sorry dude, but stigmatizing, otherizing, or "hating" someone else's consensual, private behavior just because your book of choice says to do so is no less bigoted. You can say you love your brother all you want, but I suspect you'd still be voting 'no' on any proposition creating equal civil rights for gays.

BRILLIANTLY WORDED AND STATED POST, one of the best I've ever read on SDN.

Originally Posted by BLADEMDA

I see. Yes, gay couples lack the same treatment as married coupes. But, as individuals they have the same rights as any other single man or woman.

No, they don't. One of your rights is the ability to get married. One of their rights is NOT the universal ability to get married. Stop playing word games. Gay rights are making progress, but they are not afforded the same rights - at least in the US that is.

D712

.

Originally Posted by vector2

Yes, we disagree exactly because of religious bigotry. It's funny how those with libertarian slants seem to only invoke libertarianism only in the name of economic issues, but yet stand rife with hypocrisy when it comes to issues of freedom they find subjectively immoral or yucky.

Then they're not libertarians.

wear a bikini at your middle eastern pool...


if you do that, you're gonna be in the afterlife sooner than you'd like!

Originally Posted by pgg

Then they're not libertarians.

Indeed, Ron and Rand aren't real libertarians. Invoking the mantra of "states' rights" when minority civil rights are being suppressed at the state level makes you a coward, not a defender of personal liberties.

Originally Posted by vector2

Indeed, Ron and Rand aren't real libertarians. Invoking the mantra of "states' rights" when minority civil rights are being suppressed at the state level makes you a coward, not a defender of personal liberties.

The dirty secret of total liberty (and absolutist libertarians) is that you're on your own ...

I think they're wrong, and have many bones to pick with state righters in general, but I wouldn't go so far as to call those two guys cowards who don't value personal liberty. They're simply very rigid in their anti-federal bias.

If a federal official declared that kittens were cute and fuzzy, they'd say he was overstepping his Constitutional authority and misusing his public office.

Originally Posted by pgg

The dirty secret of total liberty (and absolutist libertarians) is that you're on your own ...

I think they're wrong, and have many bones to pick with state righters in general, but I wouldn't go so far as to call those two guys cowards who don't value personal liberty. They're simply very rigid in their anti-federal bias.

If a federal official declared that kittens were cute and fuzzy, they'd say he was overstepping his Constitutional authority and misusing his public office.

Rand is an outright bigot, but maybe 'coward' wasn't accurate enough. Let's try 'ideologically inflexible to the point of idiocy / defacto bigotry'

see: Ron Paul and Lawrence v Texas

.

Originally Posted by Narcotized

The country is in a horrendous debt driven economic tailspin, and the media is using these relatively meaningless issues as a sideshow to distract you. And it's working.

Originally Posted by Narcotized

The country is in a horrendous debt driven economic tailspin, and the media is using these relatively meaningless issues as a sideshow to distract you. And it's working.

That's simply not true. If it were, no one would be buying US treasury bonds.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

That's simply not true. If it were, no one would be buying US treasury bonds.

You have just reenforced the notion that the sideshow to distract you is working. This idea of huge demand for our debt at low interest rates simply is a lie. 61% of all treasury purchases in 2011 were by the FED with imaginary made-up counterfeit money.

http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/fe...3/28/id/434106

When the selling starts and kills whatever upward momentum is left... oh man, better grab a chair before the next guy when that music stops.

Originally Posted by Narcotized

You have just reenforced the notion that the sideshow to distract you is working. This idea of huge demand for our debt at low interest rates simply is a lie. 61% of all treasury purchases in 2011 were by the FED with imaginary made-up counterfeit money.

http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/fe...3/28/id/434106

When the selling starts and kills whatever upward momentum is left... oh man, better grab a chair before the next guy when that music stops.

I dunno. I keep buying em knowing that these dollars represent a real negative after tax return.. They keep going up. I buy them for diversification purposes and to maintain a store of value when equity markets sell off. The Japanese 10yr has been sub 2% for 15+ years. It can happen here. The best predictor of tomorrow's yield curve is today's yield curve.

Narco, I have no doubt that in the long run that you will be proved right. But in the long run we are all dead. I just doubt that the timing of the end game can be done and how it ill play out can be predicted within my time horizon. You belittled me about two years ago for saying that deflation was a real possibility. Well markets are now calling deflation. So far Bernanke and Krugman have been proved right. If you print money and it doesn't go anywhere (velocity of money) NO INFLATION.

Originally Posted by dr doze

I dunno. I keep buying em knowing that these dollars represent a real negative after tax return.. They keep going up. I buy them for diversification purposes and to maintain a store of value when equity markets sell off. The Japanese 10yr has been sub 2% for 15+ years. It can happen here. The best predictor of tomorrow's yield curve is today's yield curve.

Narco, I have no doubt that in the long run that you will be proved right. But in the long run we are all dead. I just doubt that the timing of the end game can be done and how it ill play out can be predicted within my time horizon. You belittled me about two years ago for saying that deflation was a real possibility. Well markets are now calling deflation. So far Bernanke and Krugman have been proved right. If you print money and it doesn't go anywhere (velocity of money) NO INFLATION.

I would say that was more of a mutually contentious discussion and I would say Bernanke and Krugman have definitely been proven wrong. Their policies (spending and printing) and have been in place resulting in an economy that was never allowed to correct and has a 5 trillion dollar worse foundation than before. The house of cards simply has a deeper hole.

Originally Posted by Narcotized

I would say that was more of a mutually contentious discussion and I would say Bernanke and Krugman have definitely been proven wrong. Their policies (spending and printing) and have been in place resulting in an economy that was never allowed to correct and has a 5 trillion dollar worse foundation than before. The house of cards simply has a deeper hole.

They won't be proven wrong until such time as significant inflation materializes. You get to gloat when that happens. not before.

Originally Posted by dr doze

They won't be proven wrong until such time as significant inflation materializes. You get to gloat when that happens. not before.

It's not really worth arguing with him. He's been predicting massive inflation for years and doesn't mind being continuously proven wrong (or starts talking about how inflation numbers are all lies).

Whether you agree with him or not, you have to admit that Krugman's only motivation is that he thinks he's right and that the public discourse has mainly been giving credence to false economic theories. If the evidence proved him wrong, he would admit it. So far it has not.

.

Originally Posted by Narcotized

Gee, an insult from Mr Credibility. Keep telling us about the imaginary huge demand for American debt at low interest rates.

http://www.moneynews.com/Headline/fe...3/28/id/434106

Since you're quoting WSJ opinion articles from the "Center for Financial Stability", let me just add this...

To quote David Frum:

"Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Wall Street Journal editorial page between 2000 and 2011, and someone in the same period who read only the collected columns of Paul Krugman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of the current economic crisis? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?"

What has Krugman written about for the past 12 years? When I watch him I feel like he's playing off of one side of the isle; however, I didn't read any of his work prior to the current administration.

PS: Johnnydrama, do you ever watch a show called "Game of Thrones"?

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Since you're quoting WSJ opinion articles from the "Center for Financial Stability", let me just add this...

To quote David Frum:

"Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Wall Street Journal editorial page between 2000 and 2011, and someone in the same period who read only the collected columns of Paul Krugman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of the current economic crisis? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?"

Originally Posted by yappy

What has Krugman written about for the past 12 years? When I watch him I feel like he's playing off of one side of the isle; however, I didn't read any of his work prior to the current administration.

He isn't really partisan in the traditional sense. He's not really batting for the Democrats, he's pushing for what he sees as honest economic discourse.

He was a pretty boring apolitical economics guy until the 2000 election, when he was basically offended by some of the funny math used by Bush during his campaign (and even more by the lack of questioning by the rest of the media). So he began writing very angry columns against the Bush administration because he basically saw them as liars due to their misrepresentation of economic facts. So Republicans dismiss him as a partisan hack, but if you read his stuff about Obama during the 2008 primary and early in his presidency, it's really not that clear cut.

His main economic focus in the past decade has been the Japan crisis in the late 1990's. He basically thinks we're in the same boat now as they were. You should check out his blog - even if you disagree with him it should be interesting.

PS: Johnnydrama, do you ever watch a show called "Game of Thrones"?

Of course, my avatar is Tyrion.

I cannot say I disagree with him. I don't feel like I know enough econ to have a real opinion on anything other than my household budget. I took micro and macro in college and left it at that.

If he is encouraging a real economic discussion in DC I see that as a positive. I was watching some public access one day (to this day I dont know why) and I was discouraged at how the elected officials viewed economists as strictly political rather than appreciating their arguments for the science that it is. The news does not help this because I feel that there is a whole segment of the population that is more comfortable with listening to Glenn Beck than a real practicing economists when it comes to our fiscal issues. I guess that comes down to entertainment, anti-elitism, and that the real/rigorously treated subject of economics could be viewed as boring by prime time standards.

I'll have to check out his Blog. By your Japan reference he must of felt that we didn't do enough intervention to prevent a lost decade?

Originally Posted by yappy

I'll have to check out his Blog. By your Japan reference he must of felt that we didn't do enough intervention to prevent a lost decade?

Precisely.

He can get shrill with people who he does not believe are arguing honestly, so he doesn't win many political friends.

People are just starting to listen to him in Europe, so he's getting a bit more outspoken these days. Usually people go on a tour like this to sell their book, but I kind of think he wrote his book to go on tour instead of vice versa (and try to get people to finally listen to him).

Originally Posted by dr doze

They won't be proven wrong until such time as significant inflation materializes. You get to gloat when that happens. not before.

Price inflation is a relative term compared to where prices would be without monetary inflation. In a dead weak economy prices should be falling. Deflation in a recession is a good thing. Significant monetary inflation is holding prices up, and rising in many instances.

On a simplistic level, and not be being condescending but asking a real question, if printing money doesn't devalue currency, why not do what little kids say and just print a bunch of money and make everyone a millionaire? Deep down you know the obvious answer. Some people here are arguing that the ultimate free lunch really does exist.

Since we have built the richest country on earth it's hard for people to understand that bad policy can be hurting us. Not everyone grasps or will admit we would be a lot better off without every locale, state, and federal level on the fiscal brink paying people to do Krugman nonproductive work. They look around and say, if we aren't falling off a cliff and relatively a rich country then policies must be working.

Along with inflation, printing money to prop up the debt game continues to misuse resources in a very inefficient manner. Programs and businesses that poorly utilize resources are artificially continued at everyone's expense. But sooner or latter math always wins. No matter how many credit lines MC Hammer were to get, the tricks will eventually run out out and all you are left with is a deeper hole.

One way or another the piper will get paid. That is inescapable.

.

June 3, 2012

This Republican Economy
By PAUL KRUGMAN

What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won’t notice is that that’s precisely the policy we’ve been following the past couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican dreams.

So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game: it depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Obama hasn’t followed (in large part because the G.O.P. wouldn’t let him), and that our woes can be cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed.

For some reason, however, neither the press nor Mr. Obama’s political team has done a very good job of exposing the con.

What do I mean by saying that this is already a Republican economy? Look first at total government spending — federal, state and local. Adjusted for population growth and inflation, such spending has recently been falling at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the Korean War.

How is that possible? Isn’t Mr. Obama a big spender? Actually, no; there was a brief burst of spending in late 2009 and early 2010 as the stimulus kicked in, but that boost is long behind us. Since then it has been all downhill. Cash-strapped state and local governments have laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers; meanwhile, unemployment benefits have been trailing off even though unemployment remains extremely high.

Over all, the picture for America in 2012 bears a stunning resemblance to the great mistake of 1937, when F.D.R. prematurely slashed spending, sending the U.S. economy — which had actually been recovering fairly fast until that point — into the second leg of the Great Depression. In F.D.R.’s case, however, this was an unforced error, since he had a solidly Democratic Congress. In President Obama’s case, much though not all of the responsibility for the policy wrong turn lies with a completely obstructionist Republican majority in the House.

That same obstructionist House majority effectively blackmailed the president into continuing all the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so that federal taxes as a share of G.D.P. are near historic lows — much lower, in particular, than at any point during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

As I said, for all practical purposes this is already a Republican economy.

As an aside, I think it’s worth pointing out that although the economy’s performance has been disappointing, to say the least, none of the disasters Republicans predicted have come to pass. Remember all those assertions that budget deficits would lead to soaring interest rates? Well, U.S. borrowing costs have just hit a record low. And remember those dire warnings about inflation and the “debasement” of the dollar? Well, inflation remains low, and the dollar has been stronger than it was in the Bush years.

Put it this way: Republicans have been warning that we were about to turn into Greece because President Obama was doing too much to boost the economy; Keynesian economists like myself warned that we were, on the contrary, at risk of turning into Japan because he was doing too little. And Japanification it is, except with a level of misery the Japanese never had to endure.

So why don’t voters know any of this?

Part of the answer is that far too much economic reporting is still of the he-said, she-said variety, with dueling quotes from hired guns on either side. But it’s also true that the Obama team has consistently failed to highlight Republican obstruction, perhaps out of a fear of seeming weak. Instead, the president’s advisers keep turning to happy talk, seizing on a few months’ good economic news as proof that their policies are working — and then ending up looking foolish when the numbers turn down again. Remarkably, they’ve made this mistake three times in a row: in 2010, 2011 and now once again.

At this point, however, Mr. Obama and his political team don’t seem to have much choice. They can point with pride to some big economic achievements, above all the successful rescue of the auto industry, which is responsible for a large part of whatever job growth we are managing to get. But they’re not going to be able to sell a narrative of overall economic success. Their best bet, surely, is to do a Harry Truman, to run against the “do-nothing” Republican Congress that has, in reality, blocked proposals — for tax cuts as well as more spending — that would have made 2012 a much better year than it’s turning out to be.

For that, in the end, is the best argument against Republicans’ claims that they can fix the economy. The fact is that we have already seen the Republican economic future — and it doesn’t work.

.

Originally Posted by Narcotized

Price inflation is a relative term compared to where prices would be without monetary inflation. In a dead weak economy prices should be falling. Deflation in a recession is a good thing. Significant monetary inflation is holding prices up, and rising in many instances.

On a simplistic level, and not be being condescending but asking a real question, if printing money doesn't devalue currency, why not do what little kids say and just print a bunch of money and make everyone a millionaire? Deep down you know the obvious answer. Some people here are arguing that the ultimate free lunch really does exist.

Since we have built the richest country on earth it's hard for people to understand that bad policy can be hurting us. Not everyone grasps or will admit we would be a lot better off without every locale, state, and federal level on the fiscal brink paying people to do Krugman nonproductive work. They look around and say, if we aren't falling off a cliff and relatively a rich country then policies must be working.

Along with inflation, printing money to prop up the debt game continues to misuse resources in a very inefficient manner. Programs and businesses that poorly utilize resources are artificially continued at everyone's expense. But sooner or latter math always wins. No matter how many credit lines MC Hammer were to get, the tricks will eventually run out out and all you are left with is a deeper hole.

One way or another the piper will get paid. That is inescapable.

I agree that the piper will get paid. I just don't think that when and how can be accurately predicted.

There is no free lunch. For 10 years Plus both Bernanke and Greenspan (whose arrogance and overconfidence worsened the mess that we are in) have been warning about the dangers of unbalanced budgets. I am not arguing that a free lunch exists. I am simply arguing given the tools thant Bernanke has at his disposal he has done well to avoid the collapse of the financial system. He has given the Congress more time (which they have not used) to inspire some confidence and start the country on the long hard road. Simpson Bowles would have been a nice first step.

The main problem I have with the Keynesian 'spend during the recession' crowd is that one of their core assumptions is that a return to real, sustained economic growth is both possible and likely. And that such a recovery will be able to pay for (indeed - offset!) the stimulus costs.

I don't believe that can happen. For one thing, existing debt (not even counting more nebulous unfunded future liabilities to SS & Medicare) has already reached the point where a solution must involve substantial currency devaluation. And this isn't just another recession; the problems start and end with energy costs, which aren't going to get any lower.

10 years ago, oil was $20/barrel. Now, in the teeth of the worst global economic slowdown in many decades, with demand in the toilet, it's over $100/barrel. US demand and consumption is down a lot. Global oil production has been flat since roughly 2005, despite unprecedented prices and motivation to explore and develop new supplies. Any rebound to the global economy will result in rapidly climbing oil prices past previous highs.

The recent substantial decreases in oil prices aren't a good sign for the economy; it signals further weakening of demand. So goes oil consumption, so goes the economy.

I'm fully cognizant that my words sound eerily like the "this time is different" mantra bubble-pumpers chant, and that each of the last half-dozen generations has thought the world was going to hell in a handbasket because the previous generation blew their inheritance on trinkets and wars.

I'm critical of the Keynesians because they're going all-in on a naive prayer. It's not so much that the notion of stimulus during a recession is an inherently flawed idea - more that their only possible exit strategy (a rebound to sustained real growth) is based on wildly optimistic and unrealistic assumptions.


Is there a point at which the Keynesians will ever admit that borrowing/printing and spending more is NOT the correct path? It appears not. Their answer is ALWAYS borrow/spend more. Not working? It's because we didn't borrow/spend enough, or we haven't borrowed/spent long enough.


I completely agree with dr doze though, actually predicting how long we can keep doubling down before the house cuts our line of credit is simply an impossible, frustrating endeavor. As I've consistently written on this forum the last few years, it would't surprise me if the powers that be could keep the shell game going for a very long time, 5-10+ years ...

I hope it's a long time, because I've got a couple things to do first.

Originally Posted by Narcotized

On a simplistic level, and not be being condescending but asking a real question, if printing money doesn't devalue currency, why not do what little kids say and just print a bunch of money and make everyone a millionaire?

Straw man.

Obviously printing money can cause inflation, but your economic model is overly simplistic. Why is printing money not causing inflation now?

Think of the economy as a patient in septic shock. There is more than enough fluid in the body, it's just in the wrong place. Do you just shrug your shoulders and say there's nothing more to do? No, you pump them full of saline. Eventually they need to get rid of the excess salt you've added, but in the short term you need to keep them alive.

If you think waiting is an option, look at what happens to people who graduate from college and cannot find a job - on average they never really recover. We are losing an entire generation to a lifetime of decreased wages if we do not focus on unemployment.

As Krugman will freely volunteer, he's happy to be a fiscal hawk during a boom. During a recession/depression, you're just causing more harm.

Cutback on salt intake in the outpatient setting, don't restrict saline when the patient is crashing.

Google the IS-LM model and read up on liquidity crises.

Originally Posted by pgg

I'm critical of the Keynesians because they're going all-in on a naive prayer. It's not so much that the notion of stimulus during a recession is an inherently flawed idea - more that their only possible exit strategy (a rebound to sustained real growth) is based on wildly optimistic and unrealistic assumptions.


Is there a point at which the Keynesians will ever admit that borrowing/printing and spending more is NOT the correct path? It appears not. Their answer is ALWAYS borrow/spend more. Not working? It's because we didn't borrow/spend enough, or we haven't borrowed/spent long enough.

Krugman actually gave a specific number (and he gave it before the stimulus package). The money would need to go directly into the economy though and not into ill-conceived tax breaks. He calculated it by looking at the gap between expected an actual economic output, but I don't know enough to give details (should be easy to find). If we had spent that much or more, he would have recanted had it not worked.

The one thing that is clear is that cutting does not work in a recession. The people who argue that it will increase confidence are basically making things up - businesses are not hiring due to lack of demand, not fear of regulations or future taxes or the debt.

I'll give you credit for having a different critique than the usually anti-stimulus argument, but if you really assume things will never get better we're already screwed no matter what we do.

What we should do right now is give the states money to rehire all of their fired teachers, police officers, and firefighters. Shrinking government employment does not make sense with unemployment this high (unless you really just want to shrink the government and don't care about jobs).

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

As Krugman will freely volunteer, he's happy to be a fiscal hawk during a boom.

Krugman might want to be a fiscal hawk during a boom, but that hasn't happened historically. Again this is a flaw with the borrow/spend during recession plan; it assumes that when the economy recovers, there'll actually be some countercyclic belt-tightening.

When has this ever happened? Historically, it hasn't. Post WWII/Depression, things worked out, because there was a very long period of very strong real economic growth, and the notion that growth could turn crippling debt into sustainable/manageable debt had merit.

Before the dot-com bubble collapsed, when everyone was in a wildly self-congratulatory mood, was there a concerted effort to cut debt and build up a buffer for the next recession? No. Everything was going to be great forever.

Before the housing bubble collapsed, when everyone had forgotten the dot-com bubble and was re-exercising their self-congratulatory muscles, was there a concerted effort to cut debt and build up a buffer for the next recession? Of course not. On the contrary, we got Medicare Part D!

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Cutback on salt intake in the outpatient setting, don't restrict saline when the patient is crashing.

And doctors might preach salt hawkery during outpatient times, but the patients just go back to eating potato chips and family-size Dinty Moore cans right away.

Then they come back in a worse crisis, rinse & repeat, until they end up sucking a ventilator to suffer through their final outrageously expensive days as those same doctors delude themselves into thinking that it's not a terminal event.

You're just not taking the analogy far enough.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

I'll give you credit for having a different critique than the usually anti-stimulus argument, but if you really assume things will never get better we're already screwed no matter what we do.

I don't assume things will never get better, though it probably seems like I'm a hopeless pessimist.

I assume that, barring some paradigm-shifting development in clean energy production, that the days of "healthy" year-over-year 3-4% growth are OVER for the next 20-30 years.

I assume that this lack of real growth will unmask the crippling effect even "healthy" year-over-year 3-4% inflation has - though in reality I think we'll suffer from worse than that.

I assume that the poor will bear the brunt of the inevitable monetary manipulation to keep the shells in the shell game moving.

I assume that future stability, security, and basic human happiness in modern western countries is going to have to come from a plan that doesn't depend on eternal exponential growth.


There's no reason we can't have peace, prosperity, liberty, and happiness without 3% annual growth. We will get there. Math, energy costs, and economic reality will force our hand. We'll have to delearn the "inflation is good" mantra (after we inflate/default away most of our debt, anyway).

We're not so bad off in the grand scheme of things. As boned up as the world is, there's no place better to ride out hard times and build better ones than the USA. We grow our own food and have a bunch of nuclear weapons. We'll get by.

Originally Posted by dr doze

I agree that the piper will get paid. I just don't think that when and how can be accurately predicted.

Does it matter when or how? Isn't it still immoral to blow other people's money to keep up the current standard when some future group will be left with the bill? Isn't it wrong to hopefully kick the can down the road long enough to be dead before serious consequences are felt?

Rather ironic that those most interested in leaving something of the environment to the future could care less about leaving them a fiscal catastrophe (and vice versa). Gotta love how hypocritical both sides are.

Originally Posted by pgg

The main problem I have with the Keynesian 'spend during the recession' crowd is that one of their core assumptions is that a return to real, sustained economic growth is both possible and likely. And that such a recovery will be able to pay for (indeed - offset!) the stimulus costs.

PGG, there is a big difference between you saying economic growth has been partially able to cover the irresponsible wasteful spending of government, and those in fantasyland that contend wasteful irresponsible government spending is magically responsible for economic growth.

Originally Posted by Narcotized

Does it matter when or how? Isn't it still immoral to blow other people's money to keep up the current standard when some future group will be left with the bill? Isn't it wrong to hopefully kick the can down the road long enough to be dead before serious consequences are felt?

Rather ironic that those most interested in leaving something of the environment to the future could care less about leaving them a fiscal catastrophe (and vice versa). Gotta love how hypocritical both sides are.

I agree that it is immoral and wrong. But other than my voting and making an occasional campaign contribution I can't change the course that we are on.

When and how does matter to us personally. I can try to learn and prepare so that the damage to my retirement and children's funds won't be devastated. And that I can hopefully help them out in the future.

Originally Posted by dr doze

I agree that it is immoral and wrong. But other than my voting and making an occasional campaign contribution I can't change the course that we are on.

When and how does matter to us personally. I can try to learn and prepare so that the damage to my retirement and children's funds won't be devastated. And that I can hopefully help them out in the future.

This is the best any of us can do. Make hay while the sun is shining, and try to position yourself so that when the bill comes due, you and yours are as prepared and insulated from it as you can be.

Narcotized calls it his 7F plan; I do some of that. Your disciplined, unemotional financial planning is something I try to emulate.

Originally Posted by pgg

This is the best any of us can do. Make hay while the sun is shining, and try to position yourself so that when the bill comes due, you and yours are as prepared and insulated from it as you can be.

Narcotized calls it his 7F plan; I do some of that. Your disciplined, unemotional financial planning is something I try to emulate.

Thanks. BTW, Yesterday sold VEA to harvest the tax loss and immediately bought SCHF and added dollars to the position since international has dropped more than US stocks recently and I was light on Internatioonal.

Originally Posted by dr doze

Thanks. BTW, Yesterday sold VEA to harvest the tax loss and immediately bought SCHF and added dollars to the position since international has dropped more than US stocks recently and I was light on Internatioonal.

Doze,

Could I sell an s and p 500 etf for a loss then buy a similar s and p 500 etf from another firm that same day? Would that be acceptable to the IRS?

Originally Posted by BLADEMDA

Doze,

Could I sell an s and p 500 etf for a loss then buy a similar s and p 500 etf from another firm that same day? Would that be acceptable to the IRS?

IMO that would be a "NO" and violate the wash sale rules.

For tax loss flipping funds and ETFs I use this site: Click on the "here" next to each asset class for a full description of reasonable choices.

The first link is the home page of the site.

The second goes to your specific question and shows many reasonable alternatives that are highly correlated with SP500 but should probably hold up to an IRS audit as not violating wash sale rules.

http://www.altruistfa.com/dfavanguard.htm

http://www.altruistfa.com/USlargecapfunds.htm

Maybe there is a glimmer of hope?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47699263

At the very least it's encouraging to see at least some Americans don't believe the free lunch spending myth, that the path to riches is as easy as blowing money you don't have. Let's hope this is a sign of things to come.

Originally Posted by Narcotized

Maybe there is a glimmer of hope?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47699263

At the very least it's encouraging to see at least some Americans don't believe the free lunch spending myth, that the path to riches is as easy as blowing money you don't have. Let's hope this is a sign of things to come.

Um, what you're saying had nothing to do with that election.

It was all about unionization laws, which is a completely different debate.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Um, what you're saying had nothing to do with that election.

It was all about unionization laws, which is a completely different debate.

For once I actually agree with Narco. Unions are the secondary issue. This election was about living within means and making hard choices and realizing that there is no free lunch.
It is and always will be about the dollars.

Everybody wants to keep promises that were made.
Everybody supports teachers and police offiers and firefighters.
This vote was terrible and shameful but necessary.

It was necesary because of the incompetence and/or corruption of the people 10,20,30 years ago who were on both sides of the negotiation table and made promises that they knew or should have known could not be kept. (they are not the only ones at fault-they just deserve the biggest slice of blame)

Walker pisses me off. Worthless puppet. People like him, who are critical of public service compensation, cannot see beyond their own interests and hypocritically lead their own professional careers thinking that everyone should work for beans while they pull for every increase in pay they can possible muster [Not a bad thing to do but why would you not expect others to do the same?].

I have friends who are firefighters making 44k/yr. They are extremely skilled and dedicated to their profession and hold paramedic credentials along with several certifications to handle hazardous materials emergencies. In an analogous profession in the private sector their skills would be compensated greater. For example contractors with Blackwater make 150k+ as emergency workers. Walker demonizes public employees and then makes promises that demand nothing from the public but everything from the scapegoat public employees. This is no different than the government cutting medicare or caid and demonizing physicians.

Originally Posted by yappy

Walker pisses me off. Worthless puppet. People like him, who are critical of public service compensation, cannot see beyond their own interests and hypocritically lead their own professional careers thinking that everyone should work for beans while they pull for every increase in pay they can possible muster [Not a bad thing to do but why would you not expect others to do the same?].

I have friends who are firefighters making 44k/yr. They are extremely skilled and dedicated to their profession and hold paramedic credentials along with several certifications to handle hazardous materials emergencies. In an analogous profession in the private sector their skills would be compensated greater. For example contractors with Blackwater make 150k+ as emergency workers. Walker demonizes public employees and then makes promises that demand nothing from the public but everything from the scapegoat public employees. This is no different than the government cutting medicare or caid and demonizing physicians.

You are correct. But today's civil service union workers were also sold out by the last generation of workers. In an effort to stem the bleeding the salary and benefits to relatively recent hires are little compared with those who were hired in the past. There are only so many dollars to spend and the retirees and soon to be retirees traditionally get a big share at the expense of youner workers. This story is repeated throughout the country. The pie is only so big. Those who got there first take their fill. Happens in medicine too. Atleast as much.

Ask your friends about recent retirees, what their pension is as a percentage of salary? How many years of service to earn that? Health care paid (maybe spouse coverage too) for life or atleast till Medicare age? The total retiree package of a civil service worker is frequently over $1 million.

How would you fix the budget shortfall?

I guess I came across as too harsh. My thoughts are that if there is truly a budget shortfall the Gov. must do what is necessary to keep the state afloat. It just seems that, from what I saw on the news, many people take up the attitude that because it's not them they dont care. Effectively taking their 911 services for granted. I think Walker played to this and attempted to demonize these people as greedy while on average higher salaries are available in the private sector for those with analogous skills.

To remedy the situation I guess you would need to cut services or figure out a way to pay for them. I think this argument is consistent with health care services paid for by the state. The populous solution is to just pay doctors less while maintaining the same services. I think that's wrong. It's akin to a private firm saying to another "hey were low on funds give us that contract for X-Y instead of X". There is some room for negotiation but rarely is the farm given away.

Originally Posted by yappy

I have friends who are firefighters making 44k/yr. They are extremely skilled and dedicated to their profession and hold paramedic credentials along with several certifications to handle hazardous materials emergencies. In an analogous profession in the private sector their skills would be compensated greater.

Perhaps they should seek employment in the private sector then?

Believe me, as a government worker myself I'm acutely aware and moderately disgruntled with being underpaid relative to my private sector peers. But I chose to be here for the fringe benefits. Granted, the .mil is different than other .gov jobs ...

Originally Posted by yappy

For example contractors with Blackwater make 150k+ as emergency workers.

You can't really compare a globally-mobile mercenary "emergency worker" contractor with a firefighter-paramedic in a Wisconsin suburb. For lots of reasons.

(Not that it really matters, but Blackwater no longer exists; they restructured and changed their name a few years ago in the wake of some bad press from shooting up a bunch of Iraqi civilians.)

Originally Posted by yappy

Walker demonizes public employees and then makes promises that demand nothing from the public but everything from the scapegoat public employees. This is no different than the government cutting medicare or caid and demonizing physicians.

Yeah, Walker's kind of a tool.

Originally Posted by yappy

I think Walker played to this and attempted to demonize these people as greedy while on average higher salaries are available in the private sector for those with analogous skills.

Walker's toolishness aside, let's not pretend that these government workers chose the lower .gov paycheck out of patriotic altruism and an overdeveloped sense of civic duty. They're accepting a sub-market wage today in return for the longer term benefit of a .gov pension. At some point they thought the sub-market .gov wage was a better deal than their other options.

Originally Posted by pgg

Walker's toolishness aside, let's not pretend that these government workers chose the lower .gov paycheck out of patriotic altruism and an overdeveloped sense of civic duty. They're accepting a sub-market wage today in return for the longer term benefit of a .gov pension. At some point they thought the sub-market .gov wage was a better deal than their other options.

Not well-versed in the Wisconsin situation, but didn't the workers already agree to all of walkers cuts, just balked at the restrictions on the right to unionize?

Not particularly pro-union personally, and indifferent to Wisconsin in general.

The only thing that worries me about Wisconsin is the role of money in the election.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Not well-versed in the Wisconsin situation, but didn't the workers already agree to all of walkers cuts, just balked at the restrictions on the right to unionize?

I have to confess I'm not really much more informed than casual media coverage makes me, which probably means half of what I think is wrong.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Not particularly pro-union personally, and indifferent to Wisconsin in general.

The only thing that worries me about Wisconsin is the role of money in the election.

The only think I really know about Wisconsin is that this guy got the **** kicked out of him there once.