Greeks Bearing Gifts....

[j_b]

things can change direction but they won't because Obama is doing the same things he was doing in 2008-10. There will be reactions alright to 2.4 trillion in spending cuts including to medicare, fed employee pensions, etc ...

[tvashtarkatena]

Obama's less of a disappointment if you expected less from him.

 

Economically, I believe he's highly constrained by the Rfucks, by the deficit, and by the world economy. Remember, it's not just us in this thing.

 

I'm personally disappointed by his Gitmo/National Security/Secrecy policies and actions, or lack thereof, but heartened by the DOJ laying off gays and weed (I know, I know, gays and the War on Drugs are non-issues - those 2.3 million folks in jail can just rot, and those 15 million gays or however many their are can just find God and be done with it).

 

National politics play only a small part of everyone's daily lives, however. State and local seem to play a larger role, but mostly, people just make their own way. Still, a values based society recognizes that it has weaker members and gives them a compassionate hand. Libertarians sell that compassion cheap - real cheap. I have a problem with that.

 

Reagan era policies, pushed by every president since, coupled with Bush's disastrous war/tax cut one two punch fucked us. Ie, we fucked ourselves through short term thinking, worship of short term monetary gains, laziness regarding the public good, and willful ignorance, pretty much.

 

Now we're at least all talking about it, and that's a good thing.

[Jim]

for the thoughts as compared to, well, you know.....

[tvashtarkatena]

In the end, voters will have to choose who is more likely work with them for the world they want: Obama or Bachmann, Romney, etc...

 

Disappointments aside, that's not a difficult choice at all for me.

[j_b]

Obama's less of a disappointment if you expected less from him.

 

Economically, I believe he's highly constrained by the Rfucks, by the deficit, and by the world economy. Remember, it's not just us in this thing.

 

I'm personally disappointed by his Gitmo/National Security/Secrecy policies and actions, or lack thereof, but heartened by the DOJ laying off gays and weed (I know, I know, gays and the War on Drugs are non-issues - those 2.3 million folks in jail can just rot, and those 15 million gays or however many their are can just find God and be done with it).

 

National politics play only a small part of everyone's daily lives, however. State and local seem to play a larger role, but mostly, people just make their own way. Still, a values based society recognizes that it has weaker members and gives them a compassionate hand. Libertarians sell that compassion cheap - real cheap. I have a problem with that.

 

Reagan era policies, pushed by every president since, coupled with Bush's disastrous war/tax cut one two punch fucked us. Ie, we fucked ourselves through short term thinking, worship of short term monetary gains, laziness regarding the public good, and willful ignorance, pretty much.

 

Now we're at least all talking about it, and that's a good thing.

 

He is constrained now that he didn't appeal to the people who gave him a mandate to reign in Laissez Faire zealots all the while he appointed (and keeps appointing) the very same architects of these disastrous policies at critical posts of his administration or supported conservadems against progressive challenges. Furthermore, as has been pointed out by Dean Baker, PKrugman and others, there are things that he could do without going through congress.

 

You are confused w.r.t. to what was said about gay/weed. These are important issues but not to the detriment of working on the rest like the economy and foreign policy.

[j_b]

for the thoughts as compared to, well, you know.....

 

more passive aggressive behavior from you, but of course no specifics per usual.

[tvashtarkatena]

From personal observation, I believe that things have improved markedly over the years across the board - with the global environment accepted due to sheer population pressure and as a direct result of more consumption by previously poorer folks. Sometimes the good and the bad walk down the street hand in hand.

 

I also see those trends RAPIDLY reversing. The acceleration of wealth concentration in this country is serious and should be reversed for the health and well being of the society as a whole - including those wealthy people. Bigotry, misogyny, and xenophobia is all rage among our nation's beloved krackers and kooks. The religious right cleverly wrapped itself in fake fiscal conservative's garb and is currently screaming about The Constitution!

I learn from mistakes, and countries are probably no different. I see some positive results from all the troubles - decade or more hiatus for 'wars of choice', hopefully. A huge and powerful liberal backlash from the Bush years (ACLU membership and funding doubled - which enabled us to fund strong chapters in all 50 states (Ole Miss went from 1 overwhelmed person to 11 effective ones during in the past 6 years, for example, funded in no small part by good ole WA state). Non retards no longer argue that global warming isn't real or isn't caused by humans. Uncut globalism is under scrutiny. The deficit is under scrutiny. Green/healthy food is readily available. The huge, blue tarp that previously hid the obesity epidemic has been blown off.

 

Of course, it could all go wrong - we might all be doomed to endlessly watching The Road, over and over....

 

I'd like to pretend that I have a wee bit of say in the matter, however.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

for the thoughts as compared to, well, you know.....

 

more passive aggressive behavior from you, but of course no specifics per usual.

 

Jim seems more the openly aggressive type. More action, less talk...that kind of thing.

[tvashtarkatena]

Obama's less of a disappointment if you expected less from him.

 

Economically, I believe he's highly constrained by the Rfucks, by the deficit, and by the world economy. Remember, it's not just us in this thing.

 

I'm personally disappointed by his Gitmo/National Security/Secrecy policies and actions, or lack thereof, but heartened by the DOJ laying off gays and weed (I know, I know, gays and the War on Drugs are non-issues - those 2.3 million folks in jail can just rot, and those 15 million gays or however many their are can just find God and be done with it).

 

National politics play only a small part of everyone's daily lives, however. State and local seem to play a larger role, but mostly, people just make their own way. Still, a values based society recognizes that it has weaker members and gives them a compassionate hand. Libertarians sell that compassion cheap - real cheap. I have a problem with that.

 

Reagan era policies, pushed by every president since, coupled with Bush's disastrous war/tax cut one two punch fucked us. Ie, we fucked ourselves through short term thinking, worship of short term monetary gains, laziness regarding the public good, and willful ignorance, pretty much.

 

Now we're at least all talking about it, and that's a good thing.

 

He is constrained now that he didn't appeal to the people who gave him a mandate to reign in Laissez Faire zealots all the while he appointed (and keeps appointing) the very same architects of these disastrous policies at critical posts of his administration or supported conservadems against progressive challenges. Furthermore, as has been pointed out by Dean Baker, PKrugman and others, there are things that he could do without going through congress.

 

You are confused w.r.t. to what was said about gay/weed. These are important issues but not to the detriment of working on the rest like the economy and foreign policy.

 

I assure you, I'm not confused at all about what the DOJ has/hasn't done about gay weed under Obama.

 

I never mentioned what Obama thought on either issue, and, as long as his DOJ is towing the line, I don't much care.

[tvashtarkatena]

Now isn't this a whole lot more fun than being told to lick sack over and over by Attila the Knuckle Dragger?

[rob]

SERVICE GOON!

[tvashtarkatena]

I gotta go make a lamp...

 

...for Democracy!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Don't electrocute yourself.

[j_b]

You are confused w.r.t. to what was said about gay/weed. These are important issues but not to the detriment of working on the rest like the economy and foreign policy.

 

I assure you, I'm not confused at all about what the DOJ has/hasn't done about gay weed under Obama.

 

I never mentioned what Obama thought on either issue, and, as long as his DOJ is towing the line, I don't much care.

 

You are confused about what was said here. I don't believe anybody here said these issues didn't matter. What I said, and I believe prole also meant, is that progressives should also work on economic and foreign policy issues even if it means taking on the Democratic party (or at least its official narrative)

[j_b]

for the thoughts as compared to, well, you know.....

 

more passive aggressive behavior from you, but of course no specifics per usual.

 

Jim seems more the openly aggressive type. More action, less talk...that kind of thing.

 

not from my perspective since I have been the recipient of countless personal attacks below the belt from him mostly without any explanation. He seems to be playing the same game Attila plays.

[tvashtarkatena]

You are confused w.r.t. to what was said about gay/weed. These are important issues but not to the detriment of working on the rest like the economy and foreign policy.

 

I assure you, I'm not confused at all about what the DOJ has/hasn't done about gay weed under Obama.

 

I never mentioned what Obama thought on either issue, and, as long as his DOJ is towing the line, I don't much care.

 

You are confused about what was said here. I don't believe anybody here said these issues didn't matter. What I said, and I believe prole also meant, is that progressives should also work on economic and foreign policy issues even if it means taking on the Democratic party (or at least its official narrative)

 

I'd love to here the specifics of that plan. What policy/legislative changes are sought, at what gubmint level, by whom, how?

[JayB]

Financial aid does provide a huge subsidy for lower income kids (thank god). But despite Jay's protestations to the contrary, higher education more often than not leads to better outcomes and not just in terms of income. Unless you subscribe to the dumb-and-proud-because-corporations-and-government-know-what's-best-for-me version of social engineering, we still need an educated, informed citizenry that's capable of critical thinking skills that, pardon me, we're not really seeing form Amerika's Hi-Skool Gradjeates.

 

Am I the only one that ever learned that you have to be careful to differentiate between causation and correlation?

 

There are two central problems with the literature that evaluates the connections between attending college and life outcomes. The first is selection bias, the second is too much aggregation.

 

The problem with comparing college graduates to non-college graduates is that you are comparing vastly different pools of people. When you compare the most diligent, hard-working, gratification-delaying etc third of the population, who tended to have more involved, responsible parents with middle class or higher incomes and went to better than average schools...of course you find that they tend to smoke less crack, knock-off fewer liquor stores, take better care of themselves, etc. Take a moment and ask yourself what kind of study it would actually take to measure the effect of college on X - all else being equal.

 

The main area where the over-aggregation problem is most evident is in the income stats. The lifetime income trajectories for different majors are radically different, and profoundly affected by the small subset who go on to careers in very lucrative professions with significant barriers to entry. Ditto for the pool that you are comparing college grads to. When you include high-school dropouts in the pool you get one picture, but when you compare - say- people who got a BA and nothing more to people who chose to go into a skilled trade, or at least one requiring a couple of years of post-secondary training and a certification, the picture looks very different.

 

 

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

for the thoughts as compared to, well, you know.....

 

more passive aggressive behavior from you, but of course no specifics per usual.

 

Jim seems more the openly aggressive type. More action, less talk...that kind of thing.

 

not from my perspective since I have been the recipient of countless personal attacks below the belt from him mostly without any explanation. He seems to be playing the same game Attila plays.

 

His challenges to your non-substance-based hand-waving are actually quite above-the-belt.

[Jim]

for the thoughts as compared to, well, you know.....

 

more passive aggressive behavior from you, but of course no specifics per usual.

 

Jim seems more the openly aggressive type. More action, less talk...that kind of thing.

 

not from my perspective since I have been the recipient of countless personal attacks below the belt from him mostly without any explanation. He seems to be playing the same game Attila plays.

 

..below the belt?

 

A personal attack would be - "...you ugly stupid goon.." which I tend to avoid.

 

Now - if I said you posts are full of hyperbole, hand-waving, lack specifics or a thread of logic, include the crisis du minute, and appear to be written while your hair is on fire and/or caught in the car's fan belt. Well, that's a commentary on the the thoughts, or lack thereof, you post. Nothing personal about it.

[JayB]

People who are serious about progressive change don't pay much attention to a program that describes the way the world should be. Providing a feasible, step by step plan go get to that world, one that takes politics into account, packs a lot more punch. This requires a long game, serious fund raising, a professional level of organization, getting feedback from the voting public, and negotiating with the enemy, however. Otherwise, it's just another groovy idea.

 

Which people? In your work, don't you operate under the assumption that everyone should have equal protections under the law? Maybe I misunderstood you, but your statements on this board implied that you thought everyone should have access to health care. Maybe our fields of should are just more or less wide. As far as politics go, politics (when defined as a field of struggle over power) is all there is, I've never posted anything here that would suggest otherwise.

 

Given you postings, I think we're talking about a difference in attitude, not viewpoint. We worship one thing here: Money, and we're paying the price for that on a very personal level. How do we turn America to a values based society? One issue at a time, I'd wager. Money will always be an important practicality, but it would be nice not to see American's sell their privacy, altruism, satisfaction, and health so cheaply.

 

For example, I was at a fambly gathering this week and heard a tea bagger go on about how we should legalize drugs but allow insurance companies to charge them extra. Sounds really reasonable, right - until you get to the details, which, of course, would involve mandatory drug testing for all insured. Ie, to save a few bucks a year, this 'libertarian' was willing to give up a substantial aspect of his privacy - even down to his bodily fluids.

 

 

Ever apply for a mortgage? Apply for a job? Submit to a credit check? Background check? Answer smoking or non on a life insurance form?

 

These are all voluntary exchanges that come with a set of conditions that people can either agree to or refuse.

 

Giving an employer consent to conduct a background check, for example, is vastly different than enacting legislation that grants the government or any other entity to do so without your knowledge or consent.

 

The idea that anyone who is willing to disclose whether or not they smoke, drink, climb, or go cave diving in exchange for a private party selling them a life insurance policy can't have legitimate reasons for thinking that all of the above are none of the governments business is quite amusing coming from a self-described civil libertarian.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

People who are serious about progressive change don't pay much attention to a program that describes the way the world should be. Providing a feasible, step by step plan go get to that world, one that takes politics into account, packs a lot more punch. This requires a long game, serious fund raising, a professional level of organization, getting feedback from the voting public, and negotiating with the enemy, however. Otherwise, it's just another groovy idea.

 

Which people? In your work, don't you operate under the assumption that everyone should have equal protections under the law? Maybe I misunderstood you, but your statements on this board implied that you thought everyone should have access to health care. Maybe our fields of should are just more or less wide. As far as politics go, politics (when defined as a field of struggle over power) is all there is, I've never posted anything here that would suggest otherwise.

 

Given you postings, I think we're talking about a difference in attitude, not viewpoint. We worship one thing here: Money, and we're paying the price for that on a very personal level. How do we turn America to a values based society? One issue at a time, I'd wager. Money will always be an important practicality, but it would be nice not to see American's sell their privacy, altruism, satisfaction, and health so cheaply.

 

For example, I was at a fambly gathering this week and heard a tea bagger go on about how we should legalize drugs but allow insurance companies to charge them extra. Sounds really reasonable, right - until you get to the details, which, of course, would involve mandatory drug testing for all insured. Ie, to save a few bucks a year, this 'libertarian' was willing to give up a substantial aspect of his privacy - even down to his bodily fluids.

 

 

Ever apply for a mortgage? Apply for a job? Submit to a credit check? Background check? Answer smoking or non on a life insurance form?

 

These are all voluntary exchanges that come with a set of conditions that people can either agree to or refuse.

 

Giving an employer consent to conduct a background check, for example, is vastly different than enacting legislation that grants the government or any other entity to do so without your knowledge or consent.

 

The idea that anyone who is willing to disclose whether or not they smoke, drink, climb, or go cave diving in exchange for a private party selling them a life insurance policy can't have legitimate reasons for thinking that all of the above are none of the governments business is quite amusing coming from a self-described civil libertarian.

 

 

Picking and choosing what to nickle and dime people with for insurance premiums is not the right direction we need to go in. We need things to be simpler with less stupid barriers rather than the other way around.

[prole]

The Myth of Market as Neutral Exchange Between Equal Parties. A contextless, ahistorical, mechanistic model. It's all voluntary!

[j_b]

..below the belt?

 

A personal attack would be - "...you ugly stupid goon.." which I tend to avoid.

 

which shouldn't be too difficult since no moron follows you around smearing your person at every turn. Insults take various form: for example they can be crude or not. Your not being crude doesn't mean you don't use insults and personal attacks.

 

Now - if I said you posts are full of hyperbole, hand-waving, lack specifics or a thread of logic, include the crisis du minute, and appear to be written while your hair is on fire and/or caught in the car's fan belt. Well, that's a commentary on the the thoughts, or lack thereof, you post. Nothing personal about it.

 

Commenting in this fashion without providing a demonstration of your claims once in a while is acceptable in my book but doing it at what seems every single appearance of yours on this board puts you in the same category as KKK.

[j_b]

Am I the only one that ever learned that you have to be careful to differentiate between causation and correlation?

 

There are two central problems with the literature that evaluates the connections between attending college and life outcomes. The first is selection bias, the second is too much aggregation.

 

The problem with comparing college graduates to non-college graduates is that you are comparing vastly different pools of people. When you compare the most diligent, hard-working, gratification-delaying etc third of the population, who tended to have more involved, responsible parents with middle class or higher incomes and went to better than average schools...of course you find that they tend to smoke less crack, knock-off fewer liquor stores, take better care of themselves, etc. Take a moment and ask yourself what kind of study it would actually take to measure the effect of college on X - all else being equal.

 

so your claim is that ~70% of Americans without a college education engage in "smoking crack, knocking-off liquor stores, not taking care of themselves, etc", which would explain why they never got a 4 year degree?

 

The main area where the over-aggregation problem is most evident is in the income stats. The lifetime income trajectories for different majors are radically different, and profoundly affected by the small subset who go on to careers in very lucrative professions with significant barriers to entry. Ditto for the pool that you are comparing college grads to. When you include high-school dropouts in the pool you get one picture, but when you compare - say- people who got a BA and nothing more to people who chose to go into a skilled trade, or at least one requiring a couple of years of post-secondary training and a certification, the picture looks very different.

 

the key point of what you are saying is they got some education beyond high school. I am not opposed to having other tracks than 4-year college but it doesn't affect the conclusion that education leads to better outcomes.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2011 by j_b

[tvashtarkatena]

Gee, I wasn't referring to life insurance - generally an unnecessary scam, but health insurance - a mandated necessity. Nice, if amateurish attempt to trivialize and make it 'voluntary'. Part of the Freedumb campaign, I guess. Send me a pamphlet.

 

As a way to control costs, health insurance, mostly provided by private insurers, is now mandated federally and by some states. It's definitely a privacy issue for all Americans.

 

Of course, corporations would never require such privacy invasions as mandatory drug screening for all Americans (given the mandate, duh), and those politicians on their payroll would never require the same in exchange for supporting an end of the Drug War. No, I can't imagine that scenario at all.

 

Why stop at blood/hair/urine analysis? Let's go for overall lifestyle auditing and, hey, why not collect DNA, too? After all, drinking too much Pepsi or a couple of beers a night has got to be way worse for you than smoking a joint once a month, no? Cuz, you know, insurers would never pass on these (18%) overhead costs to us.

 

As usual, the Debbil's in the details.

 

But, hey, it's all voluntary. If citizens have a problem with insurers, they can file a class action lawsuit...oops!

 

No they can't.

 

You may be willing to sell your privacy for the $20 or so a year you'd save on insurance. I'd rather pay the $20 for that bad, bad drug using base jumpers and keep corporations, who definitely do NOT have either my or the public's best interests in mind, out of my bodily fluids, DNA, and daily life.