Greek debt default timebomb set to explode mid July?

[Roadtrip]

Um, I know 6 American ex-pats, 2 in Germany, 1 in UK and 3 in Canada, and all of them are very, very happy. Then again, they are non-dogmatic, intelligent and flexibly-minded, which is kinda outside the Gopper mind-set, especially compared to the conservative working-class and lower white-collar, who are slavish in their knee-jerk adoration of the GOP oligarchy.

 

I love it! This is exactly the kind of condescending rhetoric -- not to mention "elitist" attitude -- that helped the GOP to gain 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats in the 2010 mid-term election.

 

American voters do not respond well to condescending/negative rhetoric (see Jimmy Carter's election results in 1980). It's a lesson the liberal "elitists" never seem to learn. They were sitting in the catbird seat last fall, with majorities in the House and Senate and with an ultra-liberal president. What happened? They over-reached, tried to do too much, too fast. And they shot a lot of nasty condescending rhetoric at their opponents along the way (i.e., Nancy Pelosi: "We'll find out what's in the [ObamaCare] bill when we pass it" -- as in, "That's not something you need to know. We are smarter than you, so trust us.").

 

But there are penalties for over-zealousness and over-reaching. In baseball, it's a Cardinal sin to record the first out or the third out at third base. It's a result of over-zealousness and over-reaching, and it can cost you the ball game. In terms of the 2010 election, the Democrats made the equivalent of recording both the first out AND the third out at third base. They blew what could have been a big inning and a possible blowout and irreversible lead. Instead they are faced with a stalemate, because the voters responded with a Republican-led Congress that is not about to pass any more of Obama's leftist agenda.

 

So keep talking, not just you Edstock, but leftists everywhere: Keep spewing your hateful, crass, and condescending rhetoric. By doing so, you are not only energizing your opponents, you are alienating the independent voters -- those same independent voters who ultimately decide presidential elections.

 

One other thing. Sun Tzu would not approve of your attitude, either. But then again, you're the smart one, for whom humility is a non-existent and therefore unnecessary character trait. Good luck with that.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Roadtrip

[retro-man]

You're a bit confused about who

are. But that's the way they want you to be.

[jpd80]

I'm a complete outsider on this topic but you know what I think most people outside the USA see?

 

A country full of people ready to blame others for their financial imperilment, very few people prepared to stand up

and say that America has to take bitter medicine if it is to become whole again and even fewer prepared to do it.

 

So when all the Liberals and conservatives are finished arguing amongst them selves,

they might want to turn their attention to the real problem, that +$14 trillion debt......

 

My god people you're treating the national debt like some platinum credit car that can be increased at will.

Edited July 17, 2011 by jpd80

[Edstock]

I love it! This is exactly the kind of condescending rhetoric -- not to mention "elitist" attitude

 

So keep talking, not just you Edstock, but leftists everywhere: Keep spewing your hateful, crass, and condescending rhetoric. By doing so, you are not only energizing your opponents, you are alienating the independent voters -- those same independent voters who ultimately decide presidential elections.

 

Aw, Roadtrip, you've got to get over your inferiority complex. You said that American ex-pats were generally miserable. I replied that this was not so, in my experience, and I indicated why.

 

Nothing elitist about it. For an ex-pat to make a happy life in another culture, they CANNOT be dogmatic, and must be intelligent enough to be flexibly minded.

 

No matter how much you protest otherwise, these are NOT characteristics of the lower-income conservatives. And yes, the GOP is run by and organized for the benefit of the American economic élite — and those people are by definition, oligarchs.

 

One other thing. Sun Tzu would not approve of your attitude, either.

Great book, by a non-dogmatic, flexibly-minded, intelligent author. As to whether or not he would approve of my attitude, well, you're entitled to your opinion. Have you read any works by Col. John Boyd? A USAF colonel, his works have been adopted by the USMC. He wasn't dogmatic, either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)

 

But then again, you're the smart one, for whom humility is a non-existent and therefore unnecessary character trait. Good luck with that.

[RangerM]

Name-calling and finger pointing will get us nowhere.

 

Both sides need to face it.

 

We aren't going to tax our way to prosperity, and unless we can grow our economy at an unprecedented rate we likely aren't going to sustain ourselves (even with cuts) without more revenue coming into the government coffers.

 

Taxes don't provide sustainable growth, but growth WILL provide more revenue.

 

We need a growth economy, and what we've been doing (and what we're doing now) isn't working because 1.8% growth isn't going to cut it.

Edited July 17, 2011 by RangerM

[retro-man]

What you're saying doesn't make any sense (to me), since I don't know anyone who is advocating that.

You're right. Imputing extreme motives where none exist is counterproductive and distracts from the real problem (as jpd has pointed out). And makes us all look like nincompoops. It is too tempting (for both sides) to follow an apparent line of reasoning through to its logical conclusion - communism or anarchy. Meantime, while we bicker.........

[RangerM]

You're right. Imputing extreme motives where none exist is counterproductive and distracts from the real problem (as jpd has pointed out). And makes us all look like nincompoops. It is too tempting (for both sides) to follow an apparent line of reasoning through to its logical conclusion - communism or anarchy. Meantime, while we bicker.........

This is how you get headlines like this....

Light-bulb standards equal energy efficiency

Resistance to light-bulb efficiency standards is foolish and contrary to the nation's goal of energy independence.

 

Just because I don't want the government dictating what lightbulb I can (legally) purchase, doesn't mean I'm against energy efficiency.

 

Just because I don't want government controlling my healthcare, doesn't mean I don't want (or care) that someone else doesn't get any.

 

Just because I don't want government artificially limiting our use of our domestic resources, doesn't mean I don't care about the planet or I intend to purchase a Ford F-GIGANTIC that gets 5 mpg.

 

I could go on and on, and I'm sure you can think of some from your perspective, as well.

Edited July 18, 2011 by RangerM

[grbeck]

Um, I know 6 American ex-pats, 2 in Germany, 1 in UK and 3 in Canada, and all of them are very, very happy. Then again, they are non-dogmatic, intelligent and flexibly-minded, which is kinda outside the Gopper mind-set, especially compared to the conservative working-class and lower white-collar, who are slavish in their knee-jerk adoration of the GOP oligarchy.

 

Can't buy this.

 

It's part of my job to speak to people of ALL political strips and beliefs. Conservative Republicans do not have a monopoly on close-minded attitudes or dogmatic beliefs. If anything, the most parochial, close-minded people I've met tend to be liberals who have spent most of their lives in Philadelphia (or other urban areas) or their professional lives in higher education. Some of their views on rural Pennsylvania, and the people who live there, are so clueless as to be almost laughable.

 

Some of the most open-minded, reasonable people? Evangelical Christians, as many of them have performed mission work in foreign nations, or in the poorer regions of the U.S. The liberals who visit overseas tend to either hit the upscale tourist spots, or stay with friends and relatives who think and speak exactly like they do. The Christians tend to visit the poorer areas filled with people who aren't featured in the ads intended to lure tourists.

 

Number two? Members of the military who, again, have overseas experience, and also have firsthand exposure to how large, bureaucratic organizations really work (or don't work).

[retro-man]

Wow. Even Frum is feeling the need to speak up: LINK

Edited July 18, 2011 by retro-man

[Roadtrip]

This is how you get headlines like this....

Light-bulb standards equal energy efficiency

Resistance to light-bulb efficiency standards is foolish and contrary to the nation's goal of energy independence.

 

Just because I don't want the government dictating what lightbulb I can (legally) purchase, doesn't mean I'm against energy efficiency.

 

Just because I don't want government controlling my healthcare, doesn't mean I don't want (or care) that someone else doesn't get any.

 

Just because I don't want government artificially limiting our use of our domestic resources, doesn't mean I don't care about the planet or I intend to purchase a Ford F-GIGANTIC that gets 5 mpg.

 

I could go on and on, and I'm sure you can think of some from your perspective, as well.

 

Just because I don't want old people to die poor, it doesn't mean that I believe that the government can prevent that from happening. Case in point: Social Security.

 

Social Security "may" have been started with good intentions. I put "may" in quotes because Social Security is a tax, and as such, it is a revenue stream for the government, ripe for the pickings for corruption, fraud, and abuse. In any case, those good intentions went awry with passage of the Unified Budget Act of 1968, which allowed Congress -- or shall I say, Congress allowed itself -- to raid the Social Security Trust Fund and its incoming revenues and apply them to the general federal budget, a practice that continues to this day. That money has been replaced by special federal government bonds (earning a miniscule rate of return), backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

 

By placing what was supposed to be a public trust into the general budget, the United States government and its politicians have engaged in the largest accounting fraud in history -- currently at about $2.5 trillion, and with tens of trillions more in future unfunded liabilities. Unfunded liabilities are promises to pay with no accounting for where the revenues are supposed to come from to pay for those promises/liabilities. In other words, Social Security has become a Ponzi scheme so large that it makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker.

 

It didn't have to be that way. Consider a present-day 22-year-old college graduate entering the workforce and starting at $25,000 per year. That worker is paying 6.2 percent and his employer is matching that 6.2 percent towards Social Security, for a total of 12.4 percent, or $3,100, contributed towards that worker's Social Security account.

 

Now, let's make some assumptions (ignoring that the government didn't just spend the worker's money . . .).

 

Assume the worker works 40 years and, on average, receives a 2.5 percent increase in pay throughout his career.

 

Assume his Social Security contributions, had he been able to invest them himself, returned a mere five percent (which is well below the historical average) throughout his career.

 

Assume an inflation rate of three percent (slightly above the historical average) throughout his career.

 

So you get an annual rate of return of 2.5 percent increase in pay plus five percent return in the market minus a three percent discount for inflation, for a present value of 4.5 percent rate of return.

 

Thus: {[(1.045^40) - 1] / 0.045} = 107.03 (Future value of annuity factor) X the original contribution of $3,100 = a present value of $331,794 in this worker's future Social Security retirement account (as if such a thing actually existed). Not too bad, starting off at a mere $25,000 a year.

 

But NO! That worker's retirement money never has a chance to grow, because the government spends it as fast as it comes in.

 

Even more egregious is the fact that, once the worker and his spouse dies, that money is gone -- that is, it is just one tiny liability that the federal government no longer has to account for. Were he able to invest that money and keep that money on his own -- it's his money, his property, the fruits of his labor -- well, in a society that supposedly allows economic freedom, one would think that it would allow that worker to will the proceeds as he chooses.

 

But the government dictates otherwise.

 

I could go on and on too. . . .

[RangerM]

Just because I don't want old people to die poor, it doesn't mean that I believe that the government can prevent that from happening. Case in point: Social Security.

 

Social Security "may" have been started with good intentions........

Good Things

Life has many good things. The problem is that most of these good things can be gotten only by sacrificing other good things. We all recognize this in our daily lives. It is only in politics that this simple, common sense fact is routinely ignored.

 

In politics, there are not simply good things but some special Good Things -- with a capital G and capital T -- which are considered always better to have more of.

 

Many of the things advocated by environmental extremists, for example, are things that most of us might think of as good things. But, in politics, they become Good Things whose repercussions and costs are brushed aside as unworthy considerations.

 

Nobody wants to breathe dirty air or drink dirty water. But, if either becomes 98 percent pure, 99 percent pure or 99.9 percent pure, there is some point beyond which the costs skyrocket and the benefits become meager or non-existent.

 

If the slightest trace of any impurity were fatal, the human race would have become extinct thousands of years ago.

 

Not only does the body have defenses to neutralize small amounts of some impurities, some things that are dangerous, or even fatal, in substantial amounts can become harmless or even beneficial in extremely minute amounts, arsenic being one example. As an old adage put it: "It is the dose that makes the poison."

 

In other words, removing arsenic from our drinking water should obviously be a very high priority -- but not after we have gotten it down to some extremely minute trace. There is never going to be 100 percent clean water or air and, the closer we get to that, the more costly it is to remove extremely minute traces of anything. But none of this matters to those who see ever higher standards of "clean water" or "clean air" as a Good Thing.

 

One of the things that have ruined our economy is the notion that both Democrats and Republicans in Washington pushed for years, that a higher rate of home ownership is a Good Thing.

 

There is no question that there are benefits to home ownership. And there should be no question that there are costs as well. But costs get lost in the shuffle.

 

Among the things that Washington politicians of both parties did for years was come up with more and more laws, rules and pressures on private lenders to lower the qualifications standards required for people to get a mortgage to buy a home.

 

It was a full-court press from Congressional legislation to regulations and policies created by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Federal Reserve, not to mention the buying of the resulting risky mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the original lenders -- and even threats of prosecution by the Department of Justice if the racial mixture of people who were approved for mortgages didn't match their expectations.

 

The media chimed in with expressions of outrage when data showed that black applicants for mortgage loans were turned down more often than white applicants. Seldom was it even mentioned that white applicants were turned down more often than Asian American applicants.

 

Nor was it mentioned that white applicants averaged higher credit ratings than black applicants, and Asian American applicants averaged higher credit ratings than white applicants -- or that black applicants were turned down at least as often by black-owned banks as by white-owned banks.

 

Such distracting details would have spoiled the story that racial discrimination was the reason why some people did not get the Good Thing of home ownership as often as others.

 

Even after the risky mortgages that were made under government pressure led to huge bankruptcies and bailouts, as well as disasters for home owners in general and black home owners in particular, home ownership remains a Good Thing. The Justice Department is again threatening lenders who don't lower their standards to let more minority applicants get mortgage loans.

 

Higher miles per gallon for cars is a Good Thing in politics, even if it leads to cars too lightly built to protect occupants when there is a crash. More students going to college is another Good Thing, even if lowering standards to get them admitted results in lower educational quality for others.

 

There will always be someone who gets less healthcare treatment (even in a socialized system). There will always be someone poorer (even when you "distribute the wealth"). There will always be someone hungry, cold, lonely, ignorant, jobless, and generally more miserable than his or her peers.

 

Liberals think this can be overcome, and must be, at any cost. Conservatives know this means at every cost, since it'll never be accomplished. The only thing that can be provided is the door (read: opportunity). Only the person can decide to walk through it. Some people choose not to.

Edited July 19, 2011 by RangerM

[Edstock]

Wow. Even Frum is feeling the need to speak up: LINK

It's really rather fascinating, a political auto-da-fé. The Goppers just don't get it. The Goppers are so fixated on Obama (cf: Sprinter, Tea Party) they cannot think logically.

[fmccap]

It's really rather fascinating, a political auto-da-fé. The Goppers just don't get it. The Goppers are so fixated on Obama (cf: Sprinter, Tea Party) they cannot think logically.

Nobody is thinking logically in DC, except Ron Paul and his son that is.

[Roadtrip]

Good Things

 

 

There will always be someone who gets less healthcare treatment (even in a socialized system). There will always be someone poorer (even when you "distribute the wealth"). There will always be someone hungry, cold, lonely, ignorant, jobless, and generally more miserable than his or her peers.

 

Liberals think this can be overcome, and must be, at any cost. Conservatives know this means at every cost, since it'll never be accomplished. The only thing that can be provided is the door (read: opportunity). Only the person can decide to walk through it. Some people choose not to.

 

But, but . . . If all those expensive programs could save only one life, wouldn't they be worth it?

 

I mean, think of all the traffic accidents and highway fatalities that occur every year. If we reduce the speed limit to 1 mph, just think of all the lives that could be saved!

[RangerM]

But, but . . . If all those expensive programs could save only one life, wouldn't they be worth it?

(This is going to sound harsh)

 

Just because it may be worth it to me (or you), doesn't mean it's worth it to you (or me).

Edited July 20, 2011 by RangerM

[Roadtrip]

(This is going to sound harsh)

 

Just because it may be worth it to me (or you), doesn't mean it's worth it to you (or me).

 

No harshness inferred.

 

That's one of the beauties of economic freedom -- that we as individuals are allowed to decide on the worth (or value) of something or some endeavor, as opposed to the government dictating that worth (or value) to us.

 

And I was being facetious in my last post, but you know that.

[pedroboy]

Politics in DC are just simply a mess, and they certainly wont get better until after the 2012 election. It seems all that is thought about these days is the "next election". Is anything ever going to get done again in this country?