Community Organizing

[Occhidiangela]

B ) That decontextualized video wasn't even about health care. It was about deficits.

-Jester

I guess you don't pay attention. Health care is about deficits, since health care costs money. We already have defense spending out of control. It is going to take the rest of Obama's term to get a small grip on that, and all of the following (he or whomever) to get defense spending, general and supplemental, back to something like a decent percentage of GDP for a globally engaged power: 3-3.5% would be a nice goal to hit as a mid term objective.

This isn't a matter of guns or butter. Obama is doing the Bush 43 guns and butter horsecrap, and he's got a lot of idiots convinced he's a genius for doing so.

The largest collection of stupid smart guys cobbled together yet.

Occhi

[Jester]

I guess you don't pay attention.

When he refers to "this mess" that he "doesn't want to hear about" from the "people that caused it", he's not talking about health care. He's talking about the economic crisis. In the long term, health care costs, defense costs, dog catcher costs, everything is part of the picture, you're right. But in the short term, the problem is a recession/depression causing massive unemployment, not excessive spending.

This isn't a matter of guns or butter. Obama is doing the Bush 43 guns and butter horsecrap, and he's got a lot of idiots convinced he's a genius for doing so.

We'll see what he'll do about defense. I'm rather hoping he tones down the "guns" in order to pay for the "butter". You have to admit it hasn't exactly been a time where he's had a free agenda to start going after defense spending. Health care and the economic crisis are more than enough to employ even Obama's considerable political capital.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

When he refers to "this mess" that he "doesn't want to hear about" from the "people that caused it", he's not talking about health care. He's talking about the economic crisis. In the long term, health care costs, defense costs, dog catcher costs, everything is part of the picture, you're right. But in the short term, the problem is a recession/depression causing massive unemployment, not excessive spending.

How is he solving the economic crisis? Fed is the same (less Bernancke which it good). Bailouts which keep the same loser executives in place, and force the government to raise taxes in order to remain solvent. Bogus stimulus package, which is really a democratic wet dream of social and pork spending on projects that by in large will not be started until next year. It might even be considered anti-stimulus, because while it does create demand for a thin slice of the labor force, it by and large wastes our resources on things we don't really need.

[Jester]

How is he solving the economic crisis? Fed is the same (less Bernancke which it good). Bailouts which keep the same loser executives in place, and force the government to raise taxes in order to remain solvent. Bogus stimulus package, which is really a democratic wet dream of social and pork spending on projects that by in large will not be started until next year. It might even be considered anti-stimulus, because while it does create demand for a thin slice of the labor force, it by and large wastes our resources on things we don't really need.

No doubt, the plan should have been much more geared towards money that would have immediately fed into the economy. Giving the states a chunk of change directly to help balance their budgets might have helped serve that purpose, and it looks like that may yet be necessary. "Anti-stimulus" would be to cut government spending, and that's what state-level rollbacks are. However, even if much of the federal package is suboptimal, and won't kick in until next year, I think it's pretty obvious that this economy is still going to have plenty of use for stimulus even then. 10% unemployment is not just going to evaporate with the morning sun.

However, the question is not whether he is solving the economic crisis, something about which there is obviously no consensus at all. (I personally think he's making generally good, but overly cautious moves, and giving congress too much rope. But, then, not my government.) The question, in order to explain his meaning, is what he thinks he's doing, and what he thinks the previous administration did. In his mind, they threw an 8-year neocon frat party, left everything completely wrecked, and he's the new landlord. He can't throw them out of the house, but he sure isn't much interested in hearing their hypocritical whining about proper household management.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

10% unemployment is not just going to evaporate with the morning sun.

Ok, right. But, doing 1,000 construction projects will just suck up all the construction workers, and then require us to employ from the rest of the world to get them done. So much for stimulating the "American" economy. What about all the other sectors whose workers are unemployed? My understanding is that the bulk of the money went to states to shore up their unemployment insurance, and the crash of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) onto state run social systems. Next question is... What happens in 2010 when the states now have hundreds of thousands of hungry mouths to feed, no tax revenues, and no "stimulus" grist for the mill?

A reasoned plan would look at the regions of the country (Detroit, *cough*), and develop a strategy for retooling or invigorating the business sector that is hit. If you have 10,000 unemployed software developers in Silicon Valley, you don't need 100 bridge construction projects to get them employed (they are unqualified). So, my synopsis is... This is a trillion dollar feel good show, and does practically dick to stimulate anything.

In his mind, they threw an 8-year neocon frat party, left everything completely wrecked, and he's the new landlord. He can't throw them out of the house, but he sure isn't much interested in hearing their hypocritical whining about proper household management.

But... What he did is let Pelosi and Reid throw a progressive socialist frat party. Irresponsible cantankerous left is as bad as irresponsible cantankerous right. What Obama should have done is... Lead!

What the people want is a responsible government who doesn't try to slip $500,000 worth of luxury airplanes (for Congress's fleet) into a defense appropriations bill. The people, who are beginning to starve, are wondering why their congressmen are taking multi-million dollar junkets to the antarctic by way of Hawaii, and the Great Barrier Reef. I dunno, its feeling an awful lot like those times when the aristocratic response was, "Then let them eat brioche." Congress' stellar low approval ratings for over 2 decades is indicative of their disconnect with the people.

[--Pete]

Hi,

A reasoned plan would look at the regions of the country (Detroit, *cough*), and develop a strategy for retooling or invigorating the business sector that is hit.

Bring back the manufacturing jobs? How? Turn the clock back and eliminate automation? Go back to a time when transportation was expensive enough to offset international wage differences? Drop the expensive environmental and safety regulations that contribute so much to our inability to compete in a global market? Do the WalMarts in Detroit sell Chinese manufactured goods? And do the workers there buy them?

Congress' stellar low approval ratings for over 2 decades is indicative of their disconnect with the people.

And the continuous reelections of the incumbents is indicative of the ignorance and apathy of the people. Or of the failure of our system to work right.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Bring back the manufacturing jobs? How? Turn the clock back and eliminate automation? Go back to a time when transportation was expensive enough to offset international wage differences?

I have a few ideas. First, I would offer a corporate tax break for all costs related to HR retraining released workers. This would provide incentives for companies to help their shed workers into new positions. But... There need to be jobs available, which means if the government needs to be involved, they should align themselves (SBA) with venture capitalists and become the worlds best new business incubator. Lot's of us smart entrepreneurs have great ideas for new ventures, but face tremendous barriers to successfully launching a new small business (one of which is government itself). So, for Michigan's hardest hit areas, I would declare the entire area a corporate tax free zone. You collect zero taxes from bankrupt companies, so at least if companies remain solvent you will get some revenue from income taxes and sales taxes.

It goes to my basic premise about tax revenue; First, government should endeavor to become more efficient, but if you want to raise more relative taxes, lower the rates and raise everyone's earnings. And... Treat corporations and people equally, which is actually the Constitutional thing to do. {I'm sure you know this, but I believe in a low flat tax rate applied equally to everyone.}

Drop the expensive environmental and safety regulations that contribute so much to our inability to compete in a global market?

I can think of ways to address the disconnect between US environmental & safety concerns with those of the third world. The US government traditionally has had a hostile punitive approach to US industry while ignoring massive violations of ecological damage and human safety just across our border to the south and elsewhere in the world. Ever swim the Tijuana inlet? DON'T! Ok, so what to do? The largest source of pollution in North America is from mining operations and coal fired power plants. This is actually easy to fix. You need to start with a list of 20 to 50 of the worst and assign one government project manager through the EPA (or OSHA) to work directly with the corporation on site until they are within standards. The issue is cost, and some R&D into abatement measures. The government needs to be a partner in helping the errant polluter to find a way to be productive, profitable and pollution free. As with all enforcement problems, complaining and occasional fines don't fix it permanently, but only make the offender sneak around better. Only by constant daily visibility with some SOB with proper authority and willpower in your office will something get done about it.

Do the WalMarts in Detroit sell Chinese manufactured goods? And do the workers there buy them?

I'm sure they do. And, that will continue until the cost of producing equal quality products equalizes. If you look around the market, you will actually find generic goods made in the USA are cheaper than their brand name counterparts made in China. What influences price more? Quality or branding?

And the continuous reelections of the incumbents is indicative of the ignorance and apathy of the people. Or of the failure of our system to work right.

Both actually.

And, the great amount of distraction and deception employed by the media. For example, I heard a story today first hand from a middle manager at UHC (United Health Care) based here in Minnesota. He was at a health care conference in San Francisco last year, and outside the conference there were between 200 and 500 protesters all chanting the same anti health care industry slogans. Well, it turns out he had left his admission badge in his room in that same hotel, and so while he was waiting for his friend to run up to their shared room to retrieve it he struck up a conversation with two elderly ladies standing near him. He asked them what they were protesting against, to which they replied, "We don't know." It turns out they are retired, and are on a phone list. Once or twice a week they get a call to come to a certain parking lot where they are given $40 for the day, a script of what to chant, placards, and a box lunch. They are bussed to and from the protest site. He then asked how many of the crowd were bussed there, which they then indicated was all of them. Who paid for them? It was a group funded by moveon.org. Thinking of speaker Pelosi and her Astroturf aspersions, I can only say, "Madam, me thinks thou dost protest too much!" But even more sinister are our intrepid investigative reporters in the 4th estate whose job is to hold our government accountable, and to reveal these hypocrisies. Nay, nary a word. Or, sometimes when your name rhymes with Tush.

[Jester]

Ok, right. But, doing 1,000 construction projects will just suck up all the construction workers, and then require us to employ from the rest of the world to get them done. So much for stimulating the "American" economy.

Construction is one of the worst-hit sectors. The collapse of a housing bubble is bad enough, but add the lack of new investment projects, and that's a very large hit. If you've got evidence of foreign construction workers coming in in larger numbers than usual, I'd like to see it. My understanding is that, domestically, huge numbers are still unemployed.

So, yes. Stimulating the "American" (why the scare quotes?) economy by rebuilding its infrastructure, getting jobs for its construction sector during a construction crash, and getting money into the economy.

My understanding is that the bulk of the money went to states to shore up their unemployment insurance, and the crash of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) onto state run social systems. Next question is... What happens in 2010 when the states now have hundreds of thousands of hungry mouths to feed, no tax revenues, and no "stimulus" grist for the mill?

If this happens, and neither the unemployment nor the loss in revenue can be reversed, then America is simply a much poorer country than everyone thought, and everything will have to shift, from government spending to private behaviour. This wouldn't be a depression, it would be a structural shock, or perhaps the end of a long illusory era. I doubt that's entirely the case, given that production is way down in the "real" economy. Americans are no longer being hired to make cars, steel, homes, etc... that they were building just a year ago. The factories aren't bulldozed, the workers aren't de-skilled, so my guess is that increased demand will help put that all back together, and the fiscal consequences can be solved later, albeit not without considerable belt-tightening. Health care is one place to do that.

A reasoned plan would look at the regions of the country (Detroit, *cough*), and develop a strategy for retooling or invigorating the business sector that is hit.

Weren't you the one going into apoplexy over the government telling GM what to do?

If you have 10,000 unemployed software developers in Silicon Valley, you don't need 100 bridge construction projects to get them employed (they are unqualified).

Sure. But the formerly unemployed bridge builder can now keep paying for his home, and maybe that means he still has a computer, or can buy one. He is therefore a software consumer, and the demand for software goes up. As sales increase again, software developers can once again be put back to work profitably. Then they go on to buy stuff, and so on. In a case of a depression that has left productive capacity underused, getting anyone back to work helps get everyone back to work.

So, my synopsis is... This is a trillion dollar feel good show, and does practically dick to stimulate anything.

Credit is dried up, despite the Fed pursuing policies that would be, in ordinary times, massively inflationary. Anything that gets money out there and spent, even if it's just a stopgap measure to keep food on the table like UI, is going to help stave off deflation, which would be disastrous. Even in the total misinvestment scenario, which you seem to implying, that's still money keeping the economy from sliding into a new great depression.

But... What he did is let Pelosi and Reid throw a progressive socialist frat party. Irresponsible cantankerous left is as bad as irresponsible cantankerous right. What Obama should have done is... Lead!

Got a direction in mind?

What the people want is a responsible government who doesn't try to slip $500,000 worth of luxury airplanes (for Congress's fleet) into a defense appropriations bill. The people, who are beginning to starve, are wondering why their congressmen are taking multi-million dollar junkets to the antarctic by way of Hawaii, and the Great Barrier Reef. I dunno, its feeling an awful lot like those times when the aristocratic response was, "Then let them eat brioche." Congress' stellar low approval ratings for over 2 decades is indicative of their disconnect with the people.

Junkets, while great front page news, are of essentially zero budgetary consequence. You could replace the whole lot of them with people who lived like ascetic monks, and the fiscal situation would not improve by a single percentage point. Even the much ballyhooed pork projects don't explain more than a small corner of the problem. Fixing those things might feel good, but it wouldn't be near enough to fix the economy.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Construction is one of the worst-hit sectors. The collapse of a housing bubble is bad enough, but add the lack of new investment projects, and that's a very large hit. If you've got evidence of foreign construction workers coming in in larger numbers than usual, I'd like to see it. My understanding is that, domestically, huge numbers are still unemployed.

Yes, but the government didn't order up a bunch of unneeded new homes and more vacant office space either. It's looking for some very specific types of construction.

So, yes. Stimulating the "American" (why the scare quotes?) economy by rebuilding its infrastructure, getting jobs for its construction sector during a construction crash, and getting money into the economy.

Roads, bridges, clean energy plants, yes, sure I can see that it has some future value. But, most of the projects do not contribute towards improving productivity.

If this happens, and neither the unemployment nor the loss in revenue can be reversed, then America is simply a much poorer country than everyone thought, and everything will have to shift, from government spending to private behaviour. This wouldn't be a depression, it would be a structural shock, or perhaps the end of a long illusory era. I doubt that's entirely the case, given that production is way down in the "real" economy. Americans are no longer being hired to make cars, steel, homes, etc... that they were building just a year ago. The factories aren't bulldozed, the workers aren't de-skilled, so my guess is that increased demand will help put that all back together, and the fiscal consequences can be solved later, albeit not without considerable belt-tightening. Health care is one place to do that.

I doubt the GDP will snap back up to pre-crash levels. When recovery begins, it will creep back up from the bottom. So, yes, manufacturing plants will be bull-dozed or turned into homeless shelters, and workers will move on to other jobs. Do you want fries with that? Welcome to Costco, I love you. I can go out on a limb and predict that at least 30 or the 50 states have a budget crisis in 2010.

Weren't you the one going into apoplexy over the government telling GM what to do?

Sure. But, this would be the government choosing what it's going to do (within its defined powers), not telling others what to do. I do believe that there is a role for government to have a leadership role in times of chaos. I mean, fundamentally the only role of government should be to preserve liberty, and prevent fraud. The only justification of force (law, or arms) is in preserving freedom and justice. A recent example would be Minnesota's own Congressman Oberstar, who has introduced a bill which gives the Federal government power to regulate any standing body of water in the USA. The original reason for them having a standing in this was the interstate commerce clause, for regulating interstate commerce on lakes, rivers, and coast lines which crossed state boundaries. Yet, we still elect these ninny's.

Sure. But the formerly unemployed bridge builder can now keep paying for his home, and maybe that means he still has a computer, or can buy one. He is therefore a software consumer, and the demand for software goes up. As sales increase again, software developers can once again be put back to work profitably. Then they go on to buy stuff, and so on. In a case of a depression that has left productive capacity underused, getting anyone back to work helps get everyone back to work.

Ah, yes, this describes the long climb from the bottom I was talking about above. It may take years, or a decade. People will move on and do other things, or die.

Credit is dried up, despite the Fed pursuing policies that would be, in ordinary times, massively inflationary. Anything that gets money out there and spent, even if it's just a stopgap measure to keep food on the table like UI, is going to help stave off deflation, which would be disastrous. Even in the total misinvestment scenario, which you seem to implying, that's still money keeping the economy from sliding into a new great depression.

But I don't believe in Keynes. :P My strategy would be to make starting and growing business easier, then they hire workers, who get paid, and can afford to buy things.

Got a direction in mind?

1) The white house should have led the formation of the stimulus bill based on a rational strategy that I mentioned earlier. Then, after the President walks it around and explains it, then have the House take it from there. 2) Same with the health care bill. Instead, you obviously have special interests, and partisan PORK being handed to house leadership who slap it all into draft the legislation. It gets added to in committee after committee, until you have created an unreadable gargantuan BILL. Then they go and have the President try to justify, explain, and sell it based on his popularity. The result is that Obama looks weak, and like he doesn't understand the legislation being peddled by his administration.

Junkets, while great front page news, are of essentially zero budgetary consequence. You could replace the whole lot of them with people who lived like ascetic monks, and the fiscal situation would not improve by a single percentage point. Even the much ballyhooed pork projects don't explain more than a small corner of the problem. Fixing those things might feel good, but it wouldn't be near enough to fix the economy.

Right, but the guillotine was not a reaction to rational thinking radicals. It was spawned by the anger of starving people against a heartless aristocracy. You can be a savior of millions, but one press story on your excessive living from taxpayers sweat disparages you for a lifetime. Ask Gov. Sanford. Ok, you can have a secret Argentine mistress and act a fool, but using the States money to fly your kid to the dentist? Crucify him!

[Jester]

Right, but the guillotine was not a reaction to rational thinking radicals. It was spawned by the anger of starving people against a heartless aristocracy. You can be a savior of millions, but one press story on your excessive living from taxpayers sweat disparages you for a lifetime. Ask Gov. Sanford. Ok, you can have a secret Argentine mistress and act a fool, but using the States money to fly your kid to the dentist? Crucify him!

Are you saying this is rational behaviour? Or just that people overreact stupidly to what they can understand ("I'd never spend 500,000 on a trip! What a bunch of pampered jerks!") while their eyes glaze over when you talk about things that might actually matter?

Not that this is relevant to Sanford. His career was over the moment he went AWOL (Argentina Without Leave...) The reason made it even worse, and the revelations about expenditures are just the cherry on top. Do you really think people were just going to give him a pass up until they found out he'd been spending substantial, but in the big picture trivial, amounts of money on private stuff?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Are you saying this is rational behaviour? Or just that people overreact stupidly to what they can understand ("I'd never spend 500,000 on a trip! What a bunch of pampered jerks!") while their eyes glaze over when you talk about things that might actually matter?

No, it's the mob electorate. Human nature has not evolved in a mere 300 years, such that with enough suffering, it leads to anger, which leads to violence. I'm just noting that, yes, it can happen here.

Not that this is relevant to Sanford. His career was over the moment he went AWOL (Argentina Without Leave...) The reason made it even worse, and the revelations about expenditures are just the cherry on top. Do you really think people were just going to give him a pass up until they found out he'd been spending substantial, but in the big picture trivial, amounts of money on private stuff?

You are probably right, although I doubt he would have been booted from office (mid term) for a being philander, he alienated his more conservative constituency and gave his rivals an issue which would have ended his career at the next election. His fiscal misappropriation is an actionable offense, which might land him in jail, and certainly out of office. What is similar is the mob reaction. It's the tendency of the electorate to give tentative trust and marginal appreciation until there is any issue which causes doubt, and then to quickly go from ambivalence to hate.