Edwards: Better and Better

Email Print posted by ihavenobias 10/29/2007 10:45:12 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
I'm sick of hearing about Hillary Vs Obama and I'm less and less enthusiastic by either choice.

Edwards is clearly differentiating himself as the major progressive candidate, especially considering his stance on labor and big business in America:

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007 /10/26/edwards-gets-tough-o n-business/

(Interesting that the Wall Street Journal story above says "Edwards gets tough on Business" Vs. the Huffpost story that correctly uses the phrase Corporate America rather than "business")

And there's his stance on "free trade":

www.huffingtonpost.com/davi d-sirota/edwards-move-makes -trade-_b_70243.html

At any rate, I'm liking Edwards more and more.

He's the perfect middle ground between the DLC, corporate democrats who are drowning in special interest money (Hillary, cough cough) and the candidates who attract idealists (Kuninich, etc, who has NO chance of winning the primary, right or wrong).

This should be put in the context that democrats, not republicans, are now receiving more money from big business (a big reversal of a long standing trend). There is nothing "moderate" or "centrist" about being beholden to special interests.

There's also nothing "moderate" about coming to the middle when this country is so strongly opposed to much of the far right policy of this far right administration. In this context, the middle is still right of center, not to mention unpopular (the congressional majority seems to be unaware of that fact).

And there's no "conspiracy" there either. It's the oldest story in politics, you look where candidates get their money because they're likely to have to have their policy influenced by those who funded them.

PS---Don't tell me Edwards can't be progressive because he's rich. Teddy Roosevelt AND FDR both had a LOT more money than Edwards has and they were two of the most economically progressive presidents in history.

In fact, FDR's policies led directly to the most thriving middle class in this country's history.

< YOUTUBE REMOVED VIDEO SHOWING LIMBAUGH'S PHONY SOLDIER REMARKS? | Esquire Magazine Article on Bush Insiders >
 Display:
Edwards: Better and Better | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)
compare and contrast (none / 0)
John Edwards spends too much time on his hair to be president.

By contrast, George Bush spends much less time on his hair than John Edwards.

by KenTX on 10/30/2007 03:03:31 AM EST

You actually spent time linking that? LOL (none / 0)
You forgot the fun comments
"Ann Coulter called him feminine....but compared to Ann Coulter, who isn't feminine? "

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 03:11:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
She called him another name (none / 0)
that begins with an "F".

But out of respect for you, I won't repeat the quote.

by KenTX on 10/30/2007 03:14:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Like I dont know? Surprise! (none / 0)
Here is a pic ann/or andy  spending her hard earned gay-bashing royalties to enrich Jeffrey Sanker( a mega gay club promoter and restraunt owner) in his new restraunt in West Hollywood last night. Think ann/or andy is a hyprocrite?

Why dont you post to all your social club buddies and let them know how much you support ann/ or andy's unique take on things. Like this

 The man thing called for a true war hero, Murtha, to be "fragged", suggested that terrorists should have bombed the NY Times Building, called women who attended the Democratic National Convention, "pie wagons" because they weren't as attractive as her "pretty girl allies" in the Republican party, called John Edwards "faggot", etc. etc.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 03:29:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0)
Hillary looks like a conservative .. nothing will change.  Obama is just off the rails not interested in him. I like Kucinich but he only runs to wake people up he knows he wont be elected . So the one left for me is Edwards. I ignored him until recently.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 03:08:51 AM EST

I know what did the trick. (none / 0)
Must have been that lavender shirt.

by KenTX on 10/30/2007 03:11:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
grandpa is that you? (none / 0)
ohhhhhh what if it was a PINK shirt???  Gawd that would be really bad!... Gay bashing is so last century how old are you? You sound like someones grandpa.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 03:13:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I wear pink shirts, (none / 0)
and nobody says a word about it.

I think it's because I look like a caucasian version of Mike Tyson, only bigger.

by KenTX on 10/30/2007 03:18:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Im impressed... no really (none / 0)
oh they are afraid of those guns huh? Well try a lavender shirt. You sound like one of Phil Hendreys  characters.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 03:32:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken Tee-Eckth (none / 0)
Do you also talk like a caucasian version of Mike Tyson?  That would be quite the thing to hear.

by OneHitKill on 10/30/2007 04:08:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Makes sense (none / 0)
That's the way you sound too.

by bfaul on 10/30/2007 09:16:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Your mother must be so proud... (none / 0)

by MRFred on 10/30/2007 01:08:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Edwards (none / 0)

Free Hairspray for all!

Free Hairspray for all!

Free Hairspray for all!

 

Is that why you like Edwards the best out of them? 

by acroso on 10/30/2007 04:11:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Free hairspray is free hairspray (none / 0)

At least hairspray is useful.  Giuliani is promising a free 9/11 (with botched response accompaniment!) to every major city in the US. 

I'll take the hairspray.

by OneHitKill on 10/30/2007 04:24:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You wear a wig or something? (none / 0)
You jealous?

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 07:53:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
And Romney says? (none / 0)

Seriously though, it's embarrasing that your reply to a post on Edwards would be...well, what you just wrote.

How about something substantive that doesn't involve cheap and overblown insults.  Are you capable of that?

Do you honestly think the other candidates, including the republicans, get their haircuts at Bo-Rics or Great Clips for $8.99?

How much do you think Rudy spends on a suit or a watch? And finally, why don't you talk about how much Romney spends on makeup (look it up if you aren't sure what I'm referring to). 

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 09:04:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
resist (none / 0)
Like I could resist writing that...

by acroso on 10/30/2007 10:30:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The issue is not haircuts. (none / 1)
The issue is taking a man seriously who primps in front of a mirror like a 13 year old girl. This video wrecked any faint hope that this phony ambulance chaser ever had a prayer. You want to see how a man prepares for a camera appearance? Look at the Bush video.

by KenTX on 10/30/2007 11:04:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Fool (none / 0)
Is that really your criteria for a president?  The bottom line is I'd rather have a "primper" (how does that impact his decision making?) over an inarticulate dope who can barely formulate a complete sentence (and if he does it's rarely interesting, insightful or inspiring).

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 11:11:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
History (none / 0)
In fact, FDR's policies led directly to the most thriving middle class in this country's history.

FDR's policies prolonged and exacerbated the Great Depression. The middle class did not thrive until long after FDR assumed room temperature.

by Twba on 10/30/2007 05:09:24 AM EST

Answer man (none / 0)
Why arent the middle class thriving now?

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 07:54:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Middle Class? (none / 0)

Because of the economic and trade policies of the last few decades, starting with Reagan.  In fairness, Clinton had his hand in it too with his questionable (at best) trade policies. I'm referring to NAFTA and GATT.

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 09:06:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Agree (none / 0)
We need to close the borders to both illegal aliens and the cheap junk that we are replacing American products with from the South. In fairness, we shouldn't be trading with Canada or China much either unless they pay high tarrifs.

by acroso on 10/30/2007 03:37:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Borders? (none / 0)

The borders have very little to do with it.  Prior to Reagan coming into office, we had around 2 million illegal immigrants in this country.  Now we have close to 13 million or so.

Did our borders suddently fall apart? Obviously not.  Rather, those in power (starting with Reagan, then Clinton with NAFTA and now Bush) stopped enforcing laws on the books with regard to *illegal employers*.  That coupled with NAFTA and the "free trade" frenzy has led to our problem today of driving down wages with insourcing.

And average wages in Mexico have gone DOWN as a result of NAFTA (but there is a powerful oligarchy that's gotten richer as usual).

I will say this is one area where too many progressives fall short by saying that the ONLY reason people think illegal immigration is a problem is due to racism and xenophobia.

Yes, it's true that for many, that IS exactly why they think it's a problem.  But that doesn't mean there isn't a real issue there, although again, it's not an illegal immigration problem, it's an illegal employer problem. 

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 03:55:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you mean Canton China? (none / 0)
From the south? What you talking about south china?

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 04:40:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
History Lesson (none / 0)

We started coming out the depression *before* the industrial ramp up to WWII, so with that in mind, your statement sure seems false, doesn't it?

How lucky are we that FDR invested in this country's infrastructure by building roads, bridges, schools, parks and hospitals, a brilliant investment in the economy that created countless jobs and allowed our economy to increase for decades.

Now THAT is an example of how tax dollars can be used effectively.  Going to war stimulates the economy in the short run, but because bombs, tanks, planes and bullets lose their value as soon as they explode, it's a short term gain (and war ends eventually). 

Contrast that with the aforementioned infrastructure which continues to provide a payoffs for 10, 50 or 100 years, and you a little more context for just how ridiculous and wasteful our current occupation of Iraq is.

Hell, if it wasn't for our massive borrowing and spending on this war, our weak economy might crash.  It's clearly artificially propped up because of the war.

PS---We should call it the *Republican* Great Depression. At the time there was a republican president, a republican congress and a republican senate.  Most damning of all, there were five consecutive tax cuts directly preceeding the Great Depression. And here I thought tax cuts were always economic magic?

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 08:51:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Herbert Hoover vs. John Edwards (none / 0)
We started coming out the depression before the industrial ramp up to WWII, so with that in mind, your statement sure seems false, doesn't it?

No. That the economy showed improvement before we entered the war does not disprove that FDR's policies prolonged and exacerbated the Great Depression. And the middle class was not thriving until the 1950s.

Hell, if it wasn't for our massive borrowing and spending on this war, our weak economy might crash.

If the government wasn't spending so much on war, the economy would be stronger. Money is almost always better utilized by private businesses and individuals.

We should call it the Republican Great Depression.

Republicans were in the majority at the beginning, but Democrats gained control soon after and kept it throughout the rest of the Depression.

It wasn't party affiliation that caused the Great Depression, it was bad government policies like protectionism that caused it. While Republicans advocated protectionism during the Hoover administration, who is most likely to support it today? Is John Edwards in favor of protectionism? The Hoover administration opposed free trade. Does John Edwards oppose free trade? The Hoover administration supported raising income tax rates on the rich. Do I even have to ask if John Edwards supports that too?

by Twba on 10/30/2007 10:22:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wrong Again (none / 0)

FDR using the government as the employer of last resort was a GOOD thing.  He didn't just hand out money to people, he gave them jobs which in turn created much of the infrastructure we still use today (you ignored that crucial part of my argument).

And of course the middle class wasn't *thriving* until the 50's, it took some time to climb out and then build the economy.  You also ignored the fact that the top marginal tax rate was NINETY ONE PERCENT under republican Eisenhower (along with higher corporate taxes and tariffs on imported goods) up until the 60's when Kennedy reduced it.

But keep in mind that while Kennedy decreased the top marginal rate from 91 to 70% (we're talking about the tax rate that ONLY kicked in after the first 3.2 million dollars were earned in today's dollars) he also closed many tax evasion loopholes being used at the time.

So please explain to me why our thriving middle class (hey, you said it) was around in that period of time?  Was it *despite* much higher taxes and "protectionist" tariffs (the federal government derived about 1/3 of it's total revenue from tariffs from WWI to WWII)?

Finally, I agree that war is a poor investment. If I didn't say it here I said it in the Right vs Left thread, in detail.  My point is that it provides a short term stimulus to the economy. And I don't care what Hoover "supported", the bottom line is still that there were 5 consecutive tax cuts preceeding the Great Depression.

PS---In what context does it make sense for the US to have a 2% import tarrif on cars while China has a 20% import tariff? 

It's funny how everyone points to China and India as examples of why globalization is good, yet they leave out how both of these countries *protect* their industries with high tariffs.  In the case of India, something like 92% of all retail business is locally owned, and they've been preventing WalMart from coming into their country.

Just something to consider next time you read about tainted pet food, toys and boyscout badges.

 

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 10:43:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh hell (none / 0)
You've done it now. Twba, please have mercy on this kid.

by KenTX on 10/30/2007 11:06:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Seriously (none / 0)

Wow, do you guys take yourself way too seriously or what?

As Cenk would say, relax, you're at a 10 and you need to be at a 2.

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 11:14:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Relax? (none / 0)
We are relaxed. I'm driving down the road, listening to Rush, and typing on a bb with one thumb. Wait until I get to a keyboard.

by KenTX on 10/30/2007 12:56:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I cant wait ! (none / 0)
LOL looks like your ace in the troll is struggling a bit... oh I cant wait for you to get a keyboard I love watching you get your ass handed to you. Btw you really want people to believe that you check in TYT on your blackberry  while driving down the road?

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 01:10:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My guy is winning! (none / 0)
I'm on I-75 in North GA, headed for TN.

by KenTX on 10/30/2007 02:16:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey man (none / 0)

What ever you do.

Don't take the canoe trip. 

by z1p101 on 10/30/2007 02:26:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your guy? (none / 0)
Oh you must be a "classical liberal" too then

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 04:42:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again (none / 0)
So please explain to me why our thriving middle class (hey, you said it) was around in that period of time?

During the 1950s, the middle class was working hard to meet pent up demand after the War and Depression. It's hard not to get ahead when everyone is working hard.

And I don't care what Hoover "supported", the bottom line is still that there were 5 consecutive tax cuts preceeding the Great Depression.

The Depression was not caused by tax rates. Those tax cuts did not cause nor did they prevent the Depression.

In what context does it make sense for the US to have a 2% import tarrif on cars while China has a 20% import tariff?

It doesn't make sense to raise prices that the people in your country pay for goods just because a foreign government is screwing its people.

In the case of India, something like 92% of all retail business is locally owned, and they've been preventing WalMart from coming into their country.

And India is still an impoverished backwater. They would only benefit from the entry of multinational retailers into their market.

by Twba on 10/30/2007 11:12:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Uh, ok (none / 0)

I call bullshit.  People in the 50's were "working hard to meet pent up demand"?  Did you know the workers have become *more* productive in the last 30 years (despite falling wages and benefits)?

Did you know that we have now outpaced Japan as the most productive nation on earth?  And what do we have to show for it *for the average American*?

And then you argue that the 5 consecutive tax cuts had NO IMPACT whatsoever on the impending economic situation at the time. Think about that for a second (not the same as saying they had even a small impact).

I'll address the "free trade" so called cheap goods in another post.

In the meantime Hartmann has beautifully layed out this issue much more eloquently than I ever could, so here:

 www.commondreams.org/ views04/0312-08.htm

 

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 11:19:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Free Trade is actually expensive (none / 0)
Who exactly benefits when you ask 300 million Americans to compete with over 6 billion people, half of which will work for $2 a day?

Okay, so we get to buy cheap DVD's and other (relatively) unnecessary stuff to clutter our living space. Yay for "free trade"!

But do we really benefit when wages and benefits continue to not keep pace with inflation on *essential* goods and services (housing, heat, transportation, food, etc), you know, stuff we actually need?

There is no such thing as "free trade". There is trade that (essentially) benefits multinational corporations and there is trade that benefits labor and nations.

I don't see corporations fighting to ease copyright protections to further "free" anything. They only use the word free when it means more profits at the expense of workers.

PS---Part of what the founding fathers revolted against was the *maximum* wage laws in England in the 1700's that ensured the lower class would never break out of poverty (and therefore would never have any power to enact charge in a political process).

Today we have maximum wage laws but they are much more subtle. For example, the threat of moving your job to India is, in a sense, a maximum wage law. Same deal with low skill workers and insourcing.

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 11:22:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Freedom (none / 0)
And I don't care what Hoover "supported", the bottom line is still that there were 5 consecutive tax cuts preceeding the Great Depression.

I suppose I should have chosen different wording for your benefit. Hoover supported and signed into law draconian protectionist legislation. He supported and signed into law a drastic income tax increase.

How far back did you go to count those five tax cuts? You're not complaining that Calvin Coolidge oversaw tax cuts and the Roaring Twenties, are you? Didn't Coolidge's tax cuts precede an economic expansion that saw the middle class grow by leaps and bounds?

Did you know the workers have become more productive in the last 30 years (despite falling wages and benefits)?

Workers are more productive and they earn more. Wages and benefits have not fallen. Adjusted for inflation, Americans earn more compensation now. Some of that compensation is health care benefits that don't show up on the pay stub.

Who exactly benefits when you ask 300 million Americans to compete with over 6 billion people, half of which will work for $2 a day?

Everyone. At least, on average, everyone benefits. Sure, there are winners and losers, but the winners far outnumber the losers in free trade.

The losers far outnumber the winners, when you prevent six billion human beings from freely engaging in commercial exchanges with Americans.

by Twba on 10/30/2007 11:52:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't ignore history or the facts (none / 0)

You obviously ignored the link I provided.  Hoover's "draconion" protecionism did NOT create the Depression as it went into effect BEFORE the Depression had already begun.

Futhermore what you're referring to ultimately *helped* American business in the long run as Americans were forced to trade with other Americans rather than importing cheap goods with cheap labor.

And you're just flat out false if you say that wages have increased past inflation.  Actually no, let me clarify.  Currently our government *excludes* most essentials when they tell us inflation is stable.

For example, they leave out food, gas and transporation because, according to them they are too "volatile" and therefore should not be included.

This despite the fact that we NEED those things.  It's true that inflation on consumer goods *seems* stable, but those numbers are largely inflated by increasing technology on things like computers.

For example, whenever a faster PC is developed for about the same price as the old version, that counts toward deflation of "consumer goods".

I see you can provide no numbrs so I'll do it for you, but before I do I'll point out that a lot of people don't even GET health coverage or pensions from their employers, or they are expected to pay more of their share:

"...Both worker productivity and wages increased 108 and 101 percent, respectively, between 1947 and 1973, the golden years of the American middle class. Since then, though, many of the key indicators of a functioning democracy have been eroding in America.

One of the most significant indicators is that from the time Ronald Reagan became president until today the income of the middle class in real dollars has declined 10 percent (adjusted for inflation) while the minimum wage has fallen 17 percent (also adjusted for inflation). Worker productivity went up 52 percent--Americans are working harder and working longer hours--but pay has fallen, causing middle-class debt to explode, doubling in just the past two decades.2

Today's middle class spends 21 percent less on clothes than 20 years ago (cheap imports), while an unprecedented 80 percent of homeowners in low- and moderate-income categories spend more than half their income on housing.3 Bankruptcies are at an all-time high, and half of all people filing are doing so because of devastating medical bills (another 40 percent file because they're wiped out by job loss or divorce)."

www.randomhouse.com/catalog /display.pperl?isbn=9781400 082629&view=excerpt

 

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 12:07:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Correction (none / 0)
Hoover's "draconion" protecionism did NOT create the Depression as it went into effect AFTER the Depression had already begun.

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 01:16:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
History and Facts (none / 0)
You obviously ignored the link I provided.

I did no such thing. That link is great.

Hoover's "draconion" protecionism did NOT create the Depression as it went into effect BEFORE the Depression had already begun.

Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in June 1930. Unemployment was around 3 percent in 1929, it rose to around 8 percent in 1930, not unusual for a recession, then unemployment went through the roof after Smoot-Hawley, reaching 25 percent by 1933.

Futhermore what you're referring to ultimately helped American business in the long run as Americans were forced to trade with other Americans rather than importing cheap goods with cheap labor.

It's hard to see the benefit for American business, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average didn't match its 1929 high until twenty five years later.

The Average peaked at 381 in 1929. It fell to 198, but it had rebounded to 294 by the middle of 1930. After Smoot-Hawley, the DJIA plummeted to 41. America was recovering from a recession when Smoot-Hawley plunged it into a depression.

And you're just flat out false if you say that wages have increased past inflation.

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. It depends on how you calculate inflation and compensation.

I see you can provide no numbrs so I'll do it for you, but before I do I'll point out that a lot of people don't even GET health coverage or pensions from their employers, or they are expected to pay more of their share:

If 45 million Americans don't have health insurance, 250 million Americans do have health insurance. Of that 45 million, about ten million are illegal immigrants, some are eligible for socialized medicine but have not applied for it, and some have chosen to go without insurance and spend their money on other things. The health care crisis is not due to lack of insurance.

by Twba on 10/30/2007 01:21:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Bottom Line (none / 0)

Don't bother citing stock market stats to tell me how the *average* American is better off with supply-side "free trade" driven economics.

Again, 85% of the stocks in this country are owned by 15% of the population.  And while it's true that a bare majority of people (about 53%) have some investment, it's at levels of $10,000 or less. Can you really say that a booming stock market is better on balance than an average 10% decrease in inflation adjusted wages for the middle class (since Reagan) and a 17% reduction in the purchasing power of the minimum wage?

Not to mention that our world purchasing power has dramatically decreased since only Clinton!  The euro was 82 cents on the dollar under Clinton and is around $1.42 today due largely to trade deficits and the like (yay for "free trade"!). 

And yes, it DOES depend on how you calculate inflation, that's exactly why I *explained* that the way we currently calculate it is flawed, because we exclude so called "volatile" necessities like food, gas and transportation (housing is also much more expensive).

I also explained that inflation on consumer goods is greatly skewed by the tech boom, etc, and the fact that a new DVD player, IPOD, etc, are not necessities so the fact that "free trade" allows us to purchase those goods more cheaply is largely irrelevant in the context of our necessary goods going up in cost.

I'm glad we wrapped up that topic.  Next:

As for insurance, I also pointed out that over half of all bankruptcies in the us are a result of insane medical bills and that 3/4 of those who filed HAD insurance at the time. Clearly the private insurance/supply-side ieals have something to do with that sad fact, right?

While lack of insurance is a problem for some, it's lack of quality insurance that depends upon something other than the profit motive that's a big part of the problem.

And how much do we discourage entreprenuers by not having universal health insurance (not to mention reducing American competitiveness)?  Buying insurance on your own is incredibly expensive, and if something happens in year 2 or your start-up you're SCREWED.

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 01:43:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wrapped (none / 0)
I'm glad we wrapped up that topic.

You wrapped it up right after I demonstrated that you and Thom Hartmann are clueless about the Great Depression. Have a nice day.

by Twba on 10/30/2007 01:57:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cop-Out (none / 0)

Thank you for copping out.  I've already wasted enough time.

PS---Call Thom Hartmann, sometime between 12pm-3pm EST and share your thoughts.  He has a policy to move callers who disagree with him to the front of the line. 

He's incredibly respectful and he NEVER engages in personal attacks and will never shout you down (unlike Rush, O'Reilly, Savage, etc). In fact, he starts out 1-2 shows a week (at least) with a conservative/libertarian guest to debate.

http://www.airamerica.com/t homhartmannpage/

I like forward to hearing you soon! 

 

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 02:11:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Fore! (none / 1)
Thank you for copping out.  I've already wasted enough time.

You're welcome. KenTX asked me to go easy on you. And I have to get some work finished before I cut and run to the golf course. Capitalist pigs have hectic schedules.

Call Thom Hartmann, sometime between 12pm-3pm EST and share your thoughts.  He has a policy to move callers who disagree with him to the front of the line.

That's great. I've never heard his show. Considering the sheer number of factual inaccuracies in that one essay you linked to, I'm sure I have a lot to disagree with him about.

Stick around the Turks. I'll be back to debate.

by Twba on 10/30/2007 03:10:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure, sure (none / 0)

Don't pretend you're "going easy" on anybody.  Enjoy your golf and let those facts I presented about declining wages and world purchasing power sink in along with the inflation info you were previously unaware of, my treat!

All right, back to work, special project due Thursday morning.  BTW, I'm still looking forward to hearing you call into Thom Hartmann so you explain all of his "factual inaccuracies".  I'm dead serious, call, and he won't blindside you or cut you off.  Listen to samples of his show where he debates conservatives if you don't believe me.

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 03:34:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure (none / 0)
Don't pretend you're "going easy" on anybody.

I always go easy. I don't employ the CAPS-LOCK TIRADE or other obnoxious devices in these debates.

Enjoy your golf and let those facts I presented about declining wages and world purchasing power sink in along with the inflation info you were previously unaware of, my treat!

The graph I linked to earlier is in an article that addresses your concerns about stagnating or falling wages when adjusted for inflation.

Microeconomic statistics showing stagnation, and macroeconomic statistics exhibiting growth, measure "wages" quite differently. When the data are adjusted so that they more closely measure the same conceptual object, the disparity between the microeconomic and macroeconomic statistics largely evaporates, and I find that labor income per hour for middle America has not stagnated. Rather, the economic compensation for work for middle Americans has risen significantly over the past 30 years.

BTW, I'm still looking forward to hearing you call into Thom Hartmann so you explain all of his "factual inaccuracies".  I'm dead serious, call, and he won't blindside you or cut you off.

Do you work for Thom Hartmann or are you just a big fan? What do you hope would be accomplished by my calling him?

by Twba on 10/31/2007 09:01:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Do all classical liberals do what trolls say? (none / 0)
Oh you and ken troll got a thing going? You going all Larry Craig are you?  Thats sweet.. good luck!  I know you are really impressed with yourself and everything. But just saying you won or that there are factual inaccuracies wont suffice. You actually have to PROVE it and so far .. you haven't.

You have whatever kind of day you "classical liberals " have.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 04:48:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey...be nice. (none / 0)

You can have reasonable exchanges with Ken and TWBA if you meet them halfway.

I enjoy may exchanges with these gentlemen ( I assume TWBA is a male, if not, apologies). so much so I will take an opposing position just for the sake of argument.

Ken and I hated each other when I first arrived at TYT. I had just sold my business and had a lot of free time on my hands...so when i wasn't volunteering at the VA clinic I was blogging. ken took that to mean I was some sort of drunk..at the public library.

On the other hand acroso and BB are "trolls" . They are here to disrupt or some deep psychological need only known to themselves and the individual responsible for their potty training.

by MRFred on 10/31/2007 07:42:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My advice (none / 0)
My advice would be to let people make up their own mind about who is and isn't a troll by reading the persons posts. I personally don't see any difference in the posts of Ken troll from any other. Democrat wieners and Lavender shirts and all :)

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/31/2007 12:32:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
twa you so so smart... got any answers? (none / 0)
Thats the best you can do ? Illegal immigrants and people who don't want insurance comprise the 45 million? Of the 250 that do.. how many of them cant afford the premiums? How many have gone into bankruptcy because of their medical bills . The conservative mantra is ..if you work you have insurance only low lifes that don't deserve insurance don't get it. Tell us how many people are working in jobs that don't supply insurance. How much does health care cost large corporations? How many small companies a yr stop offering health care benefits because they can no longer afford it? Why do HMOs send people that need operations to other countries to cut costs? Defend Bu$h saying S CHIP costs to much money

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 01:44:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exactly (none / 0)

So a lot of people HAVE health insurance, but when premiums and co-pays skyrocket, that becomes much less meanginful.

Not to mention so many denied claims and hoops to jump through to delay and discourage claims.

And of course, employers often have their employees pay for some of the insurance (I do, and the portion I pay increases every year along with my copays that doubled last year). 

by ihavenobias on 10/30/2007 01:47:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Revisonist History on the March. (none / 0)

I seem to recall a book by one Jim Powell that made that claim. He has also authored works of posthumous character assassination in regard to Woodrow Wilson and Theodor Roosevelt.

I appreciate that the libertarian response to most crises is to do nothing then write books criticizing those that do, however, one only has to look at Mr Powell's list of works to see where his politics fall.

 

 

 

 

 


by MRFred on 10/30/2007 03:35:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
at least its something or (none / 0)
From what I have read here.. they are really good at the Do Nothing part.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/30/2007 04:50:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Great quote (none / 0)

"I appreciate that the libertarian response to most crises is to do nothing then write books criticizing those that do"

Damn, that really nails it MRFred.

by bfaul on 10/30/2007 08:38:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Revisionism revisited (none / 0)
I seem to recall a book by one Jim Powell that made that claim.

The thesis that FDR's policies prolonged and exacerbated the Great Depression is not exclusive to one book. Many books and research papers have been written that support the claim.

My criticism of FDR's actions is hardly an endorsement of doing nothing. He should have done something, but not the disastrous actions that he did take.

by Twba on 10/31/2007 08:45:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Redux (none / 0)
True enough, I chose Powell since he is a Cato contributor. Ther are many that claim that, there are meany that do not as well. My point is the blessing of 75 years of hindsight shouldnt be overlooked as well as the political realities of the time.

by MRFred on 10/31/2007 09:02:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Truth (none / 0)
It's less 75 years of hindsight and more 75 years of repeated fairy tales. Belief in the myths surrounding FDR's policies is a hindrance to learning the cold, hard truth about the Depression.

by Twba on 10/31/2007 09:21:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Cold Hard Truth (none / 0)

Is that there are a LOT more conserative think tanks and shills who will say whatever you want *not* because it's some grand conspiracy, but rather because there's simply a lot more money to be made.

Most progressives aren't salivating over the prospect of raking in tons of money.  After all, trumpeting progressive taxation and things like the estate tax (and fair trade and labor, etc.) doesn't exactly sit well with the wealthiest in this country, generally speaking.

On the other hand, conservatives have a HUGE incentive to promote supply side economics and other policies that are detrimental to most (it's just about money, again, no conspiracy there) in order to get richer.

"Since Bush has been president:

  • over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
  • nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
  • median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
  • three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
  • three million American workers have lost their pensions;
  • home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
  • the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn’t happened since the great depression;
  • the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
  • entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
  • wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929."
http://www.commondreams.org /archive/2007/08/06/3003/

 

PS---The quotes from Thomas Jefferson here are dead on and more relevant than ever:

http://www.huffingtonpost.c om/thom-hartmann/theres-not hing-normal-_b_32532.html

by ihavenobias on 10/31/2007 10:15:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Again (none / 0)
Do you work for Thom Hartmann or are you just a big fan? What do you hope would be accomplished by my calling him?

by Twba on 10/31/2007 10:57:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Just a big fan (none / 1)

He's brilliant, and he always provides historical perspective and an in depth analysis.  His show could be considered auditing university level courses on history, politics and economics (to some that's boring but to me it's awesome).

At any rate, I just feel that if you're so confident that the guy is full of factual inaccuracies, that you should call him.

If Hartmann was a knee jerk. loudmouthed jerk I wouldn't make the suggestion. Again, he's incredibly respectful to his guests and callers, and he always puts conservatives/libertarians to the front of the line because he enjoys healthy debate and discussion.

That's why he has 1-2 (bare minimum) conservative/libertarian guests to kick off his show each week.

by ihavenobias on 10/31/2007 11:12:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hartmann (none / 0)
At any rate, I just feel that if you're so confident that the guy is full of factual inaccuracies, that you should call him.

The second essay you cut and pasted from is also full of inaccuracies.

[T]here are a LOT more conserative think tanks and shills who will say whatever you want not because it's some grand conspiracy, but rather because there's simply a lot more money to be made.

The article I quoted and linked is not from a conservative think tank. It was published by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank.

Most progressives aren't salivating over the prospect of raking in tons of money.

No, they just salivate over confiscating tons of money from high earners. They think they can lift the bottom third by dragging down the top two thirds.

Again, he's incredibly respectful to his guests and callers, and he always puts conservatives/libertarians to the front of the line because he enjoys healthy debate and discussion.

I just listened to him for the first time. He did have a guest on who disagreed with him. He talked over the objectivist several times. Thom was no more rude than Rush. That's not saying much, I know. But that's my impression from fifteen minutes.

by Twba on 10/31/2007 12:16:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, you hear what you want to then (none / 0)

Listen to a full show.  God knows I've listened to Limbaugh, Savage, etc.  I like to hear for myself.

There is NO WAY you can compare Limbaugh to a class act like Hartmann, no way.

Often times callers will chime in after one of Thom's guests is gone and criticize him.  Thom will respond to say something like "I'm not going to comment on him personally because he's not here to defend himself".  Have you *ever* heard Rush say something even close to that?  In fact, how often do you hear progressive guests on Limbaugh's show, aside from possibly some straw-man fringe group guy (if that).

by ihavenobias on 10/31/2007 12:25:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It was only fifteen minutes (none / 0)
In fact, how often do you hear progressive guests on Limbaugh's show, aside from possibly some straw-man fringe group guy (if that).

I have a confession to make. I seldom listen to Rush. Yeah, I've heard a no name leftist with a room temperature IQ get bumped to the front of the line and talk to Rush.

That said, how is that different from Hartmann bumping an objectivist to the front of the line? Talk about setting yourself up to look good in comparison.

God knows I've listened to Limbaugh, Savage, etc.

There is no way I would listen to a whole Savage show without some strong incentive. He can't possibly believe in more than half the crap he espouses.

by Twba on 10/31/2007 01:01:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Liberal Media My Ass (none / 0)

That's fine, you still have an entire News Network (Fox), along with Tucker Clarson, Joe Scarborough, George Will, Glenn Beck, Michael Medved, Laura Ingram, David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Tony Blankely and on and on and on to choose from.

by ihavenobias on 10/31/2007 01:13:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
VRWC (none / 0)
I don't have cable, so I never watch FNC or ever see most of the names on your list. However, I have read George Will's long, dry odes to baseball.

Just because I can see through Thom Hartmann's nonsense doesn't mean I'm a card carrying member of a vast right wing conspiracy.

by Twba on 10/31/2007 01:50:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here, this is you (none / 0)

Just because I can see through (fill in the blank of conservative economist) doesn't mean I'm a card carrying member of a vast left wing conspiracy.

It's awesome when someone's rebuttal to you is that your source is full of "factual inaccuracies" when he doesn't actually bother to refute them.

Which brings us back to the fact that neither of us is an economist (unless you're humble and hiding it).  Who has more to gain by trumpeting supply side/free trade vs demand side/fair trade policies?

How many true progressives go to retire to a fat paycheck job due to them changing laws to benefit the middle class?  Contrast that with how many conservatives (this includes democrats mind you) change laws (on healthcare, consolidation, prescription drugs, energy and so on) and go on to work *immediately* in the private sector making loads of cash.

There is no vast giant conspiracy, unless you think people pursuing money, power and personal gain at the expense of others is somehow a novel concept in the history of man. 

 

by ihavenobias on 10/31/2007 01:58:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It goes on (none / 0)
It's awesome when someone's rebuttal to you is that your source is full of "factual inaccuracies" when he doesn't actually bother to refute them.

Would you like me to pick out some of your hero's mistakes? I didn't think it was worth the effort, since you've already stated how terrific he is. That is sometimes the sign of a closed mind.

How many true progressives go to retire to a fat paycheck job due to them changing laws to benefit the middle class?

The middle class benefited from the Reagan years. They sure didn't benefit much from the Carter years. Just check out the sales figures for Lexus. The middle class upgraded from Toyota to Lexus.

Assume that Fitzgerald guy is right and wages have in fact increased for the middle class.  Even he concedes the rate of wage growth is incredibly slow, much slower than it was in the previous 30 years.

Yes, I read that in the article that I gift wrapped and presented to you.

I do NOT think a CEO is worth THAT much more.

It doesn't matter what you think he is worth unless you're the one cutting his paycheck. It's up to the board and shareholders to determine the worth of the CEO.

What has changed in the last 40 years that would lead one to say that think this exponential increase in pay disparity is justified?

Isn't that the same complaint made by sports fans about the pay of superstar athletes? It's a limited supply and a strong demand that drives those paychecks higher.

Are the CEO's of today over 1,000% more productive and creative than the CEO's of the 60's?

Are the utility infielders of today that much more productive than those of the 60s?

But we should have a discussion as a nation as to "how much is too much", something that hasn't been done in the last 30 years or so.

What should the maximum wage for an NFL quarterback who leads his team to a Super Bowl victory be? Let's have this discussion. Why is it the nation's business to limit what a QB earns? Why is it the nation's business to restrict the freedom of a CEO to draw a paycheck 1,000 times bigger than that of the janitor?

by Twba on 10/31/2007 04:13:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I didn't say (none / 0)

I didn't say we need a maximum wage, but how about a discussion about a maxium ratio in relation to average employees (i.e. why are CEO's making 1,000 times more)?

Simply saying "the market decides" isn't a good answer.  That assumes the market is some benevolent force when it simply isn't, it's neutral.

Therefore we should make the economy work for us rather than working for the economy (your approach).

And the fact is, we *currently* manipulate the market. The difference between conservatives and liberals is *who benefits* based on the type of market manipulation. For example, subsidizing huge industries, corporate welfare, etc.  Or allowing "free trade" to increase the availability of cheaper (in some cases) non-essential goods and services.

You want market manipulation that benefits the upper crust, and I want market manipulation that benefits the majority, but that still allows people to get very rich (sort of the like the 50's-70's, prior to Reagan).

FYI, Carter was screwed by certain factors out of his control, a big one being all of the T-bills being cashed in from our lenders (the ones who we borrowed massively from to fund Vietnam. In fact, that national-debt induced recession even hit Reagan his first couple of years. 

It's not necessarily the case that our goods become cheaper just because labor is cheap.  Take Nike. The CEO moved their labor to 3rd world countries but I don't see (and never did) see any drop in the price of shoes. But the corporation sure did benefit. 

Football players are a different story, there is no middle class equivalent now is there, making that an irrelevant point

Again, you telling me you *could* refute Thom's points but won't because "he's my hero" isn't actually an argument.  It's a convenient excuse.  But again, we could cite arguments and links back and forth all day.

And the fact that wages have EXPLODED for the top 1% (and to a lesser extent top 10%) provides the context for the Reagan years to today.  So what if wages HAVE increased slightly in the last 30 years *if* you agree (with your economist) that wage growth is MUCH slower than the preceeding 30 year period?

In other words, supply side economics proves that *at best* the middle class gets the scraps while the rich get ultra rich.  I've seen conservative bloggers trying to claim Fitzgerald's writing proves there is no inequality.

That's interesting, because again, so what if I can buy a Lexus if the rich are buying ferrari's and mansions?  That's still inequality, right?  Especially since the ability to buy a Lexus (for the upper middle class mostly) is trumped by the fact that most families are one medical emergency/accident away from losing their home.  In that case the inequality is enormous.

Much of the inequality (and the Lexus buying for that matter) is masked by credit cards (with predatory interest rates, another issue for another day) and loans, partcularly home loans.  People simply don't FEEL as poor because their supplementing their income with "free" money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not begruding anyone from making money.  As I've said, I'm not anti-capitalism, I just think we've gone too far to one side of the spectrum.

http://commonsense.ourfutur e.org/deregulation_free_tra de_danger?tx=3

 

by ihavenobias on 10/31/2007 04:59:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hartmann examined (none / 0)
Again, you telling me you could refute Thom's points but won't because "he's my hero" isn't actually an argument.  It's a convenient excuse.  But again, we could cite arguments and links back and forth all day.

I never claimed it was an argument. It was an explanation for why I placed a higher value on spending my time playing golf rather than detailing the errors in Mr. Hartmann's essays.

Well, let's have a look at some of Hartmann's claims.

In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

Yeah, I was saying the same thing the other day to my marijuana dealer. Oh, wait. The market for marijuana was not created by government and exists despite government's efforts to destroy it.

The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business.

That a middle class numbering approximately 300 million now exists in China, a nation that can not honestly be labeled a liberal democracy, is a complete refutation of that claim. The emergence of a middle class as China transitions from an agrarian to an industrial economy, despite China's authoritarian government, is evidence that industrialization, not liberal democracy, creates a middle class.

Smoot-Hawley "protectionist" legislation did not cause the Great Depression, and while it may have had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy ("1.4 percent at most" according to many historians) its long-term effect was to bring American jobs back to America.

Some statistics can be quibbled over endlessly and only bog down discussions in minutiae. "1.4 percent at most" is not an example of minutiae. I already detailed some of the huge statistical disparities before and after passage of Smoot-Hawley. The claim that drastically raising the cost of many imported raw materials that American industries could not source domestically brought American jobs back to America is false. Entire industries were decimated by those cost increases and unemployment soared from less than 9 percent before to 25 percent after Smoot-Hawley.

Surely, as a student of history, Thom Hartmann knows that FDR campaigned to roll back protectionism and in favor of free trade in his bid to replace Herbert Hoover. FDR reneged on many of his campaign promises but still voiced opposition to protectionism.

The welfare and prosperity of each of our Nations depend in large part on the benefits derived from commerce among ourselves and with other Nations, for our present civilization rests on the basis of an international exchange of commodities. Every Nation of the world has felt the evil effects of recent efforts to erect trade barriers of every known kind. Every individual citizen has suffered from them. --Franklin Delano Roosevelt

When Reagan dropped the top income tax rate from over 70% down to under 30%, all hell broke loose.

Thom Hartmann uses the classic Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Many changes, besides tax cuts, have occurred, and yet Hartmann places blame for all negative trends on income tax cuts. Just because A followed B does not mean that B caused A.

Could the fact that many suburban schools are little more than diploma mills sending their graduates off to take remedial classes in college have something to do with the declining value of a HS diploma in the job market? Could urban schools that are dropout factories be contributing to the growing underclass?

US employment in manufacturing has fallen while manufacturing output has risen. The value of the goods manufactured in the US keeps growing and is larger than the entire GDP of China. It isn't true that we lost our manufacturing jobs to China. We lost them to automation. It now takes fewer workers to produce more goods.

Blame for terrible schools and thriving manufacturing industries switching from back breaking manual labor to high tech automation can not be laid at the feet of Reagan era income tax cuts just because one preceded the others.

by Twba on 11/02/2007 11:21:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Federal Reserve Bank is Neutral? (none / 0)

Who's to say this Fitzgerald guy isn't going to go work for the Heritage Foundation (who is holding up his recent paper as the holy grail) or some other conservative think tank?

  Again, there is a LOT of money to be gained in presenting facts and figures in a way that makes it seem like everything has been just fine in the last 30 years, contrary to the *experience* of most people.

You say there's an agenda to redistribute wealth, but where is the *personal* gain in that? What does Thom Hartmann (someone who does well enough for himself) have to gain by countering the supply side claims?

It's a no brainer.  It reminds me of people who say global warming research is biased because scientists want to get more grant money.  Huh? What?  You're going to tell me that being a "scientist" for the oil industry won't pay FAR more than working for the government?

I'm sure we can do deuling data all day, but I've got work to do.  Needless to say not everyone agrees with Mr. Fitzgerald's calculations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.c om/hale-stewart/the-economi c-reasons-why-_b_68881.html

 

 

by ihavenobias on 10/31/2007 12:47:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Possibly so. (none / 0)

While I like John Edwards, I disagree with the idea that Kucinich can't win the primaries, that's a corporate media talking point.  What surprises me is that "progressives" (I don't like that word, if you're a liberal, call yourself one and be proud of it) don't rally behind Kucinich.  Maybe if he was about a foot taller and better looking he might be considered viable, but if looks made a person great running for public office then we wouldn't have had Presidents like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or Franklin Roosevelt.

Everything is about money because the corporate media is sallavating at the idea of all the advertising money they're going to get by giving free endorsements to those who have the most. 

by spider521 on 10/31/2007 12:18:39 PM EST

Quickly (none / 0)

Ok, I *really* have to stop and get back to work on this project or I'll have TOO much free time on my hands. We need publicly funded elections *and* we need to bust up the media consolidation (no thanks to Clinton and his ridiculous FCC Telecom Act of 1996).

We should also have a law that states that you can't own anything OTHER than a media business because of potential conflicts of interest. That might sound extreme, but not if you look at how the boards of directors of these giant corporations (and media conglomerates) interlock.

Unfortunately yes, in today's context of special interest funded elections and a questionable (at best) media, someone like Kucinich aboslutely does not stand a chance, right or wrong.

Edwards is also being marginilized but not as much, so he gets my vote over the woman who's taken more money from the healthcare industry than any other candidate (democrat or republican). 

by ihavenobias on 10/31/2007 12:58:51 PM EST

Oh no (none / 0)
Now this thread is never going to end.

by z1p101 on 10/31/2007 01:07:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ihavenobias is a rock star! (none / 0)
Thanks for taking the time to deflate the ego of the resident "classic liberal".

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/31/2007 02:38:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hopefully that's a good thing? (none / 0)

People can find rehasing old debates pointless and boring, but the bottom line is these issues don't go away.

Plus, you never know when you'll find new information that challenges or strengthens your current beliefs.  Assuming you know it all and that it's all been said before is cynical and self defeating (speaking generally here obviously) in my opinion.

by ihavenobias on 10/31/2007 03:34:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good (none / 0)
Thank you for taking part. It can get very boring on a forum with so few intelligent, literate commenters. We always need fresh blood.

by Twba on 10/31/2007 04:19:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Classic Liberals are not conservatives YOU are (none / 0)
And there you go.. assuming that you are more literate and intelligent than other posters and you have yet to prove that point.

In my opinion you come across as  nothing more than a self absorbed twit that knows how to cut and paste .

You are not eloquent, you are not well versed, you are not knowledgeable. What you are is either delusional or stupid or both as you don't realize that you had your ass handed to you.

WE?  Who are you the spokes model?  

Just an  FYI  knowing how to find and cut and paste data and find web sites that support your theory Du jour  does not make you an intellectual. Get over yourself as I'm sure a majority of people who read your endless dribble have.  

I laugh at the "old timers" that defend conservatives only to be shocked by what they post  .."I thought you where different" lol  .

Let me put it this way. Just because someone doesn't bother to post at all,  or doesn't want to engage in a meaningless diatribe with a conservative nut job with posts that are over 7000 words long,  does not make them less intelligent in fact it makes them MORE intelligent.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 10/31/2007 04:39:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh well (none / 0)

So now you're saying I'm an idiot who writes short essays (well, you're half right at least)!  ;)

 

by ihavenobias on 10/31/2007 05:02:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Inside the brain of Tiny. (none / 0)
I found a scientific article that explains why Leeberal is so stupid. Henceforth, I will refer to him as TinyBrain rather than TinyDancer, as this description is more appropriate.

Whenever Hubble is polite to conservatives, Leeberal expresses his disapproval.

Whenever Jarett is polite to conservatives, Leeberal expresses his disapproval.

Whenever OneHitKill is polite to conservatives, Leeberal expresses his disapproval.

Whenever Twba is polite to conservatives, Leeberal expresses his disapproval.

Whenever Zippy is polite to conservatives, Leeberal expresses his disapproval.

Whenever MedfordTim is polite to conservatives, Leeberal expresses his disapproval.

Whenever Fred is polite to conservatives, Leeberal expresses his disapproval.

His tactics are like al Qaeda in Iraq, where he is trying to stir up problems between the Conservatives and Liberals. He’s a forum terrorist. He cannot tolerate a peaceful and polite forum.

The good news is that Dave Koller has never moved to ban the TinySaladTosser. This means there are virtually no rules.

by KenTX on 10/31/2007 08:44:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tiny Brain (none / 0)
KenTX, I was hoping your TinyBrain link would go to something like this.

by Twba on 11/01/2007 10:02:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Let's assume for a moment (none / 0)

Assume that Fitzgerald guy is right and wages have in fact increased for the middle class.  Even he concedes the rate of wage growth is incredibly slow, much slower than it was in the previous 30 years.

But no one disagrees that the wages of the upper end of society have increased drastically in the post Reagan era, with countless new millionares and billionares. Just consider “ExxonMobil's Lee Raymond earned more per hour in 2005 than his average employee earned per year.”

And... 

“…In 1965, U.S. CEOs in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker.  In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker…”

I do NOT think a CEO is worth THAT much more.

Because while I’d buy that, like in the 60’s, a CEO is worth *24 times* more, he is NOT worth 262 times more.  What has changed in the last 40 years that would lead one to say that think this exponential increase in pay disparity is justified?

Are the CEO’s of today over 1,000% more productive and creative than the CEO’s of the 60’s?  Is today’s top brass a result of a secret experiment in genetic engineering, allowing them to outperform the average joe by an insane margin?

I don’t think so.  Yes, they deserve to get paid more due to (usually but not always) hard work and a hard earned education and skill set.  But we should have a discussion as a nation as to “how much is too much”, something that hasn’t been done in the last 30 years or so.

by ihavenobias on 10/31/2007 03:31:41 PM EST

Edwards: Better and Better | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: