j_b

It's a wonder how you manage to go about the intertubes, herr stormtrooper.

That may be him but why are you condoning his creepy behavior? Why should I care about one of my machines being logged in?

No, you and Fairweather are the creepy type here. Your obsessive keeping track of who is logged in is proof of it.

Deregulate a regressive fuck and he'll put a probe up your ass because it "seemed like the thing to do". They should try that kind of advertising on Fox. Honestly, these kind of folks ought to be figuratively neutered.

what a bunch of good little stormtroopers! you better call the John Birch Society, scumbags.

sigh

and the blithering stupidity goes on ad eternam. It can't be ad-hom since I am exactly describing your behavior: the only thing you do is take stupid potshots at people you don't like. That is a form of harassment, or fascistic behavior, jackass.

says the fascistic moron who goes from thread to thread taking stupid potshots at people without ever actually making a point relevant to the discussion.

I don't have to make do with the cards handed to us by neoliberals. Neolibs winning today in no way implies that I (or you) should take the responsibility of making impossible choices and bear the brunt of these choices not being popular. Bureaucrats will make the cuts that need be but let's not pretend that it'll solve anything equitably.

I already told you I wouldn't split the problem into state and federal levels because they are undissociable and I do not intend to caution the narrative that we can start getting out of this hole by tightening the belt of public employees. Whatever cuts are needed for us to waddle through until our next opportunity to make satisfactory changes should be done but I think that getting rid of pension plans for market dependent 401k is ill-advised, especially when many state employees do not get SS.

so, folks shouldn't try to tell the market who is boss yet they should tell the banksters threatening to sink our economy that they won't be bailed out. Did I get this right? Doesn't it strike you as contradictory?

That's rich coming from you. This is what we have been telling you for years while you argued that guzzlers, fossil fuels, overfishing, etc were our future. You could have at least the decency to explain what made you come over to our side instead of pretending to give lessons on this matter.

what? didn't you know that in 2011 there will be progress relative to today because 2011 is greater than 2010?

Bullshit! People are simply weary of the finance vultures restructuring the debt further to their advantage.

Are you forgetting that your sheet of music is what got us where we are? Give it up dude, your cred has been in the shitter for a very long time already.

Not to give any credibility to the storyline that austerity is the way out of this economic mayhem. You have a choice: stand with a) JayB and Obama and his catfood commission or with b) Robert Reich (for example) Robert Reich Fmr. Secretary of Labor; Professor at Berkeley; Author, Aftershock: 'The Next Economy and America's Future' The Big Economic Story, and Why Obama Isn't Telling It Quiz: What's responsible for the lousy economy most Americans continue to wallow in? A. Big government, bureaucrats, and the cultural and intellectual elites who back them. B. Big business, Wall Street, and the powerful and privileged who represent them. These are the two competing stories Americans are telling one another. Yes, I know: It's more complicated than this. In reality, the lousy economy is due to insufficient demand -- the result of the nation's almost unprecedented concentration of income at the top. The very rich don't spend as much of their income as the middle. And since the housing bubble burst, the middle class hasn't had the buying power to keep the economy going. That concentration of income, in turn, is due to globalization and technological change -- along with unprecedented campaign contributions and lobbying designed to make the rich even richer and do nothing to help average Americans, insider trading, and political bribery. So B is closer to the truth. But A is the story Republicans and right-wingers tell. It's a dangerous story because it deflects attention from the real problem and makes it harder for America to focus on the real solution -- which is more widely shared prosperity. (I get into how we might do this in my new book, Aftershock.) A is also the story President Obama is telling, indirectly, through his deficit commission, his freeze on federal pay, his freeze on discretionary spending, and his wavering on extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Most other Washington Democrats are falling into the same trap. If Obama and the Democrats were serious about story A they'd at least mention it. They'd tell the nation that income and wealth haven't been this concentrated at the top since 1928, the year before the Great Crash. They'd be indignant about the secret money funneled into midterm campaigns. They'd demand Congress pass the Disclose Act so the public would know where the money comes from. They'd introduce legislation to curb Wall Street bonuses -- exactly what European leaders are doing with their financial firms. They'd demand that the big banks, now profitable after taxpayer bailouts, reorganize the mortgage debt of distressed homeowners. They'd call for a new WPA to put the unemployed back to work, and pay for it with a tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million. They'd insist on extended unemployment benefits for log-term jobless who are now exhausting their benefits. And they'd hang tough on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- daring Republicans to vote against extending the cuts for everyone else. But Obama is doing none of this. Instead, he's telling story A. Making a big deal out of the deficit -- appointing a deficit commission and letting them grandstand with a plan to cut $4 trillion out of the projected deficit over the next ten years -- $3 of government spending for every $1 of tax increase -- is telling story A. What the public hears is that our economic problems stem from too much government and that if we reduce government spending we'll be fine. Announcing a two-year freeze on federal salaries - explaining that "I did not reach this decision easily... these are people's lives" -- is also telling story A. What the public hears is government bureaucrats are being paid too much, and that if we get the federal payroll under control we'll all be better off. Proposing a freeze on discretionary (non-defense) spending is telling story A. So is signaling a willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts to the top. So is appointing his top economic advisor from Wall Street (as apparently he's about to do). In fact, the unwillingness of the President and Washington Democrats to tell story B itself promotes story A, because in the absence of an alternative narrative the Republican story is the only one the public hears. Obama's advisors explain that the president's moves are designed to "preempt" the resurgent Republicans -- just like Bill Clinton preempted the Gingrich crowd by announcing "the era of big government is over" and then tacking right. They're wrong. By telling story A and burying story B, the president legitimizes everything the right has been saying. He doesn't preempt them; he fuels them. He gives them more grounds for voting against raising the debt ceiling in a few weeks. He strengthens their argument against additional spending for extended unemployment benefits. He legitimizes their argument against additional stimulus spending. Bill Clinton had a rapidly expanding economy to fall back on, so his appeasement of Republicans didn't legitimize the Republican world view. Obama doesn't have that luxury. The American public is still hurting and they want to know why. Unless the President and Democrats explain why the economy still stinks for most Americans and offer a plan to fix it, the Republican explanation and solution -- it's big government's fault, and all we need do is shrink it -- will prevail. That will mean more hardship for tens of millions of Americans. It will make it harder to remedy the bad economy. And it will set Republicans up for bigger wins in the future. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/post_1362_b_790614.html

You are posturing. You never supported anybody who told creditors or the IMF to take a hike. In fact, you are more likely to argue that contracts are sacrosanct. stop waging war on government and we'll rein you in to a comfortable level. wow, wow Jay where is the efficiently self-regulating bullshit today?

The solutions you propose ought to necessarily depend on the nature of the systemic failure. For example, you are not suggesting to gut or privatize SS like the nutjobs do because SS is mostly sound (among the most successful program ever). You are free to try to make neat little divisions between federal and state levels but count me out because state finances are strongly dependent on federal programs and subsidies, especially during economic hard times. We'll have to cut outlay in the immediate future but no permanent restructuring should occur without the tax structure (including tax evasion) and the military budget also being on the line.

your ass' still hurting, jackass?

Mopping floors is such a worthy activity that Fairweather uses the image to disparage his opponents, then he later innocently asks: "So picking up a mop to earn a living is beneath you & yours? Interesting". Like always it is unclear whether it is intentional that internet Brutus turns out to be a clown.

Yep folks, dimwitted commentary is the nature of the beast. "Picking up a mop to not earn a living is the way of the future irrespective of your experience and education, so you better start enjoying it if you aren't already like all good Christians"

BREAKING: SURGEON CHARGES DOUBLE THE RATE TO REMOVE INGROWN PUBIC HAIR: CANADIAN SHOSHALIST SYSTEM SHOWN TO BE A FAILURE

err, the brute will pretend to crack a joke about 55 y.o. professionals or some other having to pick up a mop to not earn a living? I ask again who'd want to tie in with the fucker?

Exacty. Should have scrolled down a few more posts before posting. Actually, you did scroll down or you wouldn’t have answered my second post in lieu of the first one. Libertarians display a full-blown case of schizophrenia regarding bailouts. They claim to want to let it burn even though you won’t find one who supported Argentina when it told the IMF and creditors to take a hike (what do you think libertarians usually say when people tell global capital their usury rates won't do?). Despite their posturing they are almost all for enforcing the neoliberal order of submitting to market dictated debt restructuring. I doubt that JayB’s position is fundamentally different from orthodoxy when push come to shove.

Jay isn’t actually answering the post of mine he cited. He is answering the next post I wrote in which I briefly compare neoliberal propaganda regarding Greece versus Ireland and their tries to draw a parallel with our situation to target everything public, continue their war against the commons and dismiss all attempts at controlling a financial sector gone rogue. Jay isn’t directly answering my comment because what I said cannot be denied. Government budget shortfall that regressives wring their hands in despair about is almost all due to speculation in the financial sector, the market crash that ensued, its effect on the real economy and resulting decreasing capacity to raise revenue (not entirely new thanks to their long-term war against government). Regressives only offer solutions meant to decrease public spending as if there were a relation between the medicine they suggest and our economic health but they have shown no such relation and they haven’t shown any benefit for OUR economy; on the contrary, cutting spending like wages, unemployment benefits, job programs, etc will surely deepen the crisis as shown by Ireland and others. Perhaps, but not for the reason you mentioned, Greece’s debt arose because of a culture of systemic corruption and failure to raise revenue (remember: retirees paid more taxes than attorneys and doctors, and public funds were hijacked for private profit). Public spending is bound to translate into public debt when private interests capture the revenue stream irrespective of the need for reform. Insolvency follows when financial speculators smell blood and cause the interest on the debt to balloon to unsustainable levels.