Ironically, there is a concept called honesty. I am open, direct and honest with what I think. Like I said there is an opportunity for the situation with Iran to not get out of control. I don't respond to situations without thought, I don't get out of control, and I tell people directly what my concerns are. No one is under any obligation to listen to me or take me serious, all I know is that there seems to be a very familiar pattern. I felt Bush 1 failed to fully address the Iraq issue, Clinton did nothing and I supported and worked to get a man elected who I thought would address the Iraq issue. He did. He did what he said he would do, he was direct and honest about it. Now some of you have taken the mantra that "Bush lied" - my response is you folks had your heads up your asses. Who on this earth honestly did not think Bush was going to take out Saddam if he had a chance? I bring this up because I see the same pattern evolving. And, I guess I am trying to say - don't come back 4/8/12 years from now saying someone "lied to you".


You have your guy in office, he has a Nobel Peace Prize, now is his time, now is his moment. I hope it all falls into place, I hope it works.

LOL...in his first campaign, when did Bush address the Iraq issue?

I thought Bush ran on a foreign policy of no nation-building and fulfilling Reagan's "stars wars" vision. Terrorism and making Iraq the "central front on the war on terror" was an after-thought that took hold only after 9/11

Revisionist history is your idea of honesty?

'Fraid I must agree with DC here, mate. I was watching Bush very closely during the run-up to 9/11, because I had high hopes for (but little faith in) his campeign promises in regards to education funding, and because I was seriously concerned about his China-baiting. Terrorism only popped onto his radar post-9/11, and it later came out that he completely ignored not only Clinton-era wonks telling him Usama bin Laden might be a problem, but even specific intel from the Mossad about possible dates and targets connected to Arab flight-school students in south Florida. Terrorism was never even discussed by Mr. Bush except to point out that Mr. Gore's tax plan would require hiring "1500 new IRA agents" during a debate.

I remember thinking that I'd much rather deal with the IRA than the IRS.

I dont usually cite CATO, but Bush funded the Taliban in Afghanistan, just months before 9/11:

He absolutely did run on 'no nation building'.

Do you really need me to make the case? Are you saying that Bush on the Iraq issue took you by surprise? Did you not know the people who worked closely with Bush and what their views were? Did you ever listen to him talk about foreign affairs?



The nation building issue came up after the invasion. don't you remember that was the whole issue about his administration failing to plan. That was the issue with Chaney's comment about being greeted as liberators. That was Powel's comment about "you break it, you fix it". I had mixed feeling about the occupation or "nation building", but in the end I think it was the right thing to do. The "star wars" vision is still actually a part of what Obama is dealing with. Reagan's vision has lead to technology that helped during the first Gulf War and is giving Obama the opportunity to implement "mobile" missile defense as opposed to "fixed location" missile defense to make Russia more comfortable and still provide some defense in eastern Europe.


Like I wrote earlier, some of you had your heads up your..., and now you say I am revising history. So, you think Bush's 2002 state of the union address when he first used the term "axis of evil" was something that he just dreamed up after 9/11?

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:34 PM ----------

Chaney was Sec. of Defense during the Gulf War under Bush 1. Afterward he said this:

Dick Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When a person makes a comment like that what does it mean to you. Chaney was a hawk in terms of US involvement in the ME. You did not know that?

{added}

I started looking on the internet for some of Bush's comment on Iraq during the 2000 campaign, here is one I found without much effort;

This from Chaney:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...te.html?cat=37

When a guy says something like the above, what does it mean to you folks?

All of this is irrelevant. The American people were lied to for the reasons we went to war.

You probably posted this before my revision to my post before this one. Bush and Chaney seemed to very clearly say what their views were, and like I said I knew why I was working to get them elected. I felt Gore was going to be weaker on these issue than even Carter was.

I consider myself part of American people, and I don't feel like I was lied to. Maybe you did, but I for one did not.

i wasn't going to post again to this thread as it has devolved onto "feelings" again, as if what matters about the obvious falsifications at the levels of data and interpretation that the bush people in the run-up to the iraq war was not the demonstrable problems with what was done and said, but rather whether you or i or someone else was dispositionally inclined to see these problems as amounting to lying or some such. so that the thread has come to is basically whether you like or do not like the application of the word "lie" to the bush administration--which is really just another way of talking about whether you supported the war in iraq or not.

there's nothing else happening here.
to my mind, the demonstrable falsification of data and the incoherences of interpretation made the case for invading iraq false.
you can quibble about what label you see as best following from that all you want, but there's no getting around the facts of the matter.

Unless you know of a different defiinition to the word "lie" then you were lied to. False information was presented to the American people(including you), for the justification of invading iraq. Whether you "feel" iraq was a bad place or saddam was a bad guy is utterly irrelevant.

I looked at the information presented and said to myself, "WMD or no WMD, it doesn't matter if that is true or not, Saddam Huessin should have been removed from power during the first gulf war."

You feel chafed for being lied to, it's not much different when Bush I did with NO NEW TAXES, Clinton did with IS or SEX, or Obama doing it now with BETTER TRANSPARENCY. I don't. I know the politicians are going to lie. That's part of their job, and it's going to happen again.

Intentions are not the same as actions, I'm more interested in judging by actions, not the intentions. His intent was to remove Mr. Heussein from power at any cost, I understood that from the beginning.

I was too young to remember no new taxes from bush. I do remember the definition of "is" nonsense. And I don't agree with Obama on most of his policies. But when I'm lied to, I don't care who does it, I will call them on it and they will loose all credibility in my view. Bush lied, it's been proven. Whether you think his lies were justified or not is irrelevant to the fact that he lied.

The bigger point is related to what we learn from history. It seems some can not see the folly in their view or their attempts to not take any responsibility for what happens in this world.

In some cases a broader view is required.

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

"There will be consequences"
"...you mean get him out of there?" I would like to...
"he is a danger"
"very serious consideration to military action - to stop that activity?

Again, when people say stuff like that what does it mean to you? Remeber they said it during the 2000 campaign. And then when they ask Congress for authority to use military force, what does that mean to you?

Come on folks??? This is crazy.

There has NEVER been a threat from Iraq to the American people...ever. This has been proven. So when someone said that we were in danger from Iraq, they were lieing.

Do you really not see reality? Or do you live outside of it in some way?

No I do not see your reality. I have never been so wrong in my life until I started posting on TFP. I guess I just make shit up. Bush/Cheney never thought Iraq under Saddam was a threat. The inspection program was a big success. Saddam never violated UN sanctions. In fact Saddam never invaded Kuwait. Saddam had no interests in WMD. Saddam never fired SCUD missiles into Israel. Saddam never fired upon US military planes. Saddam never diverted billions of dollars from the oil for food program. Saddam never cheered terrorists and offered $25K to the families of suicide bombers. Saddam never used WMD against his own country men. Bush never asked for authority to use the military because he (we) thought Saddam was a threat. Members of Congress never believed Saddam was a threat. Bill Clinton never believed Saddam was a threat. Hilary Clinton never believed Saddam was a threat. Other nations, like England and almost every other nation in the ME, did not think Saddam was a threat. The intel on WMD was conclusive and clearly showed Iraq had no WMD and no program.

I just live in an imaginary land where I just made all that shit up. I am glad I come here to be brought back to reality.

Thanks.:rolleyes:

Anytime:thumbsup:

The problem with your line of thinking, and those like you, is that you ignor the facts. You feel that there was some perceived threat against us when it has been proven there wasn't. You feel that he had to have WMD's even though it was proven he didn't. I can't argue with your feelings on this issue because they are irrelevant. I can only argue the facts. And those facts point to us(including you) being presented with false information before the war started.

Perhaps for those you don't speak "Cowboy", the moderator of the 2000 Presidential Debate on foreign affairs should have asked a few follow-up questions, so after this:

CPD: 2000 Debate Transcript

Perhaps a follow up would be:

Mod: You say what Clinton was doing with the sanctions, inspections, working through the UN, and stuff is, like, a failure and you want to get "him" out of there, do you mean, like, actually remove him from power? Do you actually mean Saddam?

Bush: Yes and Yes.

Mod: Ahhh, how would you, like, do that?

Bush: After getting Congressional authority to invade Iraq, I will invade Iraq.

Mod: Do you, like, actually think Saddam is a threat.

Bush: Yes.

Mod: But, but, you have not seen the super top secrete intel reports that liberals will say you hid from them, you know the reports showing Saddam is not a threat, has no WMD, is peace loving.

Bush: What?!?

Mod: So, if you get an opportunity, you are going to invade Iraq and take Saddam out of power.

Bush: Yes.

Mod: You mean, actually do something that will cause him to no longer be in charge in Iraq?

Bush: Yes. How 'bout those Rangers?

Mod: You can't be serious, we need to tell every liberal in the world that they are not hearing this right now, and certainly not liberal Congress people who will be for the war before they are against it. La, la, la, la, la...

Bush: What?!?

Mod: You know, you can't say that you will take him out, then ask Congress to give the O.k., and actually think that they would believe you? and that you would actually, like, take him out. You mean take him out to a ball game or something, right?

Bush: What?!?

Mod: You know, they have to have a reason to not take their share of the responsibility, along with every liberal in the world. Liberals have to be victims of something.

Bush: If Saddam cooperates with the UN mandates and the inspections there won't be a problem.

Mod: Wait, wait, wait, you know he is a Middle eastern man, don't you? You, know if he complied he would be embarrassed and that we can't have that - he has to blow smoke.

Bush: What?!?

Mod: Let's move on...

Gore:...then if we don't cut carbon, the world will end by 10/12/2009,...

Mod: What?!?

My point exactly. You can't argue using verifiable facts and data because they will not support your conclusions. So you in tern make up this little SNL skit which is totally irrelevant. But that's the only language you seem capable of speaking...irrelevancy.

It may be irrelevant, but it is funny as hell. I am be the only one who laughs at my humor, but I have a good time.:thumbsup:

Some reports are now saying the recession is over. Hopefully unemployment goes down soon. If unemployment drops to acceptable levels over the next 2 years people will likely view Obama's presidency as a great success (considering the free fall that the economy was in when he took over).

Just because growing government, taxing small business, and taxing the middle class has NEVER created private sector jobs before - hey, don't let that stop you from your fantasies. Knock yourself out.

We have a President who does a pre-game spot for Monday Night Football and does not have a war strategy and has an economy with unemployment near 10%, with many more underemployed or are simply out of the job market and not counted. But the bigger question is related to the job killing philosophy of those in control in Washington. Just as predicted with the increase in the minimum wage, teen unemployment increases.

Minimum Wage Increase Leads to Higher Teen Unemployment Rate - WSJ.com

That bastard. Next thing you know he'll have cleared brush for half of his term...

I am curious. Do you agree that raising the minimum wage would have a negative impact on employers hiring unskilled workers?

I am not suggesting there are not other factors that can effect employment of unskilled workers, nor am I commenting on "living wages" or other issues related to compensation - but that if you looked at that one issue what is the impact? Raising the minimum wage may very well be worth while for some people, but I wonder if it is possible for liberals to acknowledge that there is another side to the issue and that some people would be negatively impacted.

Then I wonder, if you can acknowledge the "trade-offs", why do you side one way on the issue at the expense of the other side. My view on this issue is to give as many people as possible an opportunity to get their "foot in the door", let them get training, experience and an opportunity to climb up the ladder. I think "livable wages" come from true marketable labor skills, and that is the best way to fight poverty.

in most cases, "unskilled workers" have no capacity to "climb the ladder".

My first job (on a payroll) was when I was 16 at McDonald's I made about $2.10/hour (1976), my first day I cleaned the lobby and the bathrooms and had to be trained on doing that. A year later I was an Assistant Manager. I made money and saved money for college. Now we have your attitude and stuff like this:

Banning fast food in poor neighborhoods. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

Are liberals as stupid as they appear to be? Do they really not think things through? Do they not see the consequences of their actions? Why don't they want poor urban kids to get jobs?

It was Bush who signed the last minimum wage bill increase in 07... so what does that have to do with Obama's performance so far?

how boot-strappy of you.

now do the math: how many minimum wage workers does each McDonald's have compared to asst. managers?

it's the myth of upward mobility; in the conservative, pro-business mindset, EVERYONE has the opportunity to move limitlessly upward until they own their own business or become a CEO. it's just not true. your anecdotal evidence doesn't change that

yep that's why there are people who are crossing borders and willing to illegal aliens in a foreign country. no I'm not talking about just America, people are doing this all over the world, it's called looking for opportunity and trying to get one. but apparently it's too bootstrappy to be for realz.

Why does everything go back to Bush with you folks? I don't care who signed the bill, in my view it has hurt unskilled workers in particular urban teens.

Perhaps because this thread is about Obama's performance so far.

But of course, you took it off on a tangent again...as you do with nearly every discussion.

There are actually some jobs in between and higher level jobs, an actual career path. Some people actually get an offer to go to Hamburger U.

McDaonald's has about 30,000 restaurants worldwide. Each restaurant may employee 50 or more people, some part-time

Stop changing the words. "limitlessly"?!? People have limits, but in order to know their limits, they need opportunity. No one who starts at the lowest wage will stay at the lowest wage if they have any skills at all.

---------- Post added at 11:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------

My post was in reference to unemployment, which is a current issue and a current concern. This is related directly to how people will measure Obama's performance. Bush can no longer have a significant impact on policy and legislative issues. But you know that, seems you just can't get Bush off of your mind.

You're confusing issues here. If what Ace is claiming was true, folks wouldn't need to come here. They could just work their way up the sweatshop ladder.


This isn't directed toward you, but since you brought up the term "bootstrap" I feel the need to say it. The funny thing about picking yourself up by your own bootstraps is that it's physically impossible. That's right. The metaphor that is used to describe the pursuit of the "American Dream" refers to a physically impossible phenomena. They might as well use the metaphor "Flowing water uphill" or "Violating the second law of thermodynamics."

how about actually having some ambition instead of just expecting something to be handed to you and rewarded for it being handed to you?

Students Paid to Go to Class and Get Good Grades - TIME

Is that comment in reference to anything, cyn? Are you accusing me of being an ambitionless French primary school student?

no i was continuing in the not directed at you and pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, and showing that you don't have too, since we want their healthcare, we'll want their education system too.

The concept has been abbreviated. Bootstraps are ingenious little things that make putting on your boots a lot easier. Putting your boots on is, or can be for some, your first challenge (especially if your boots are not broken in from use), be smart use your bootstraps, go to work, don't look back, don't sweat the small stuff, smile/laugh enjoy life.

France has higher social mobility than the US, fyi.

And I love the radical relativism of some here. Truth or untruth apparently are not supposed to be based on evidence, but how one "feels" about the world. That certainly makes discussing this useless, right? I mean, how can you argue with "feelings"

If we want France's healthcare system we must want to stop wearing deodorant and to start making smelly cheese.

---------- Post added at 09:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 AM ----------

The point I was trying to make to Ace was this: just because SOME of the minimum wage workers will have a skill set that allows them to be promoted to better paying jobs doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the higher % that don't. Rejecting the idea of a livable minimum wage based on the one guy at each McDonald's who will get a promotion seems (wait for it....wait for it....) elitist to me

Derwood,

I am not going to cite any references to these questions because I want you to feel comfortable with the sources of the answers, so I would ask you to do your own research on these two questions:

1) What are the average numbers of hours worked per week for someone at or below the poverty line (about $11K/year)?
2) What percentage of minimum wage workers are primary wage earners in their households?

I think if you find the answers from sources you trust, you will come to the conclusion that poverty can not be solved by raising the minimum wage. It can only be solved by getting people working more. The natural conclusion is that raising the minimum wage reduces the number of jobs available and, therefore, hurts those at the lowest income levels. Secondly, an overwhelming majority of minimum wage earners are high school / college kids trying to pay for their cell phones and Jay Z cds. One could question the need to improve their wage at the expense of jobs for people who ~really~ need them. Yes, I know that some high school / college kids really need their jobs. I also know that most of them are above minimum wage because of merit - which should be the basis of all wage levels (in my unpopular opinion).

Finally, all Presidents and Congresses raise the minimum wage. It's a popular thing to do around election cycles. They are all to blame, er in your case, they are all to be thanked. :D

This source suggests 40% of minimum wage earners as the sole source of income for their households.

First, in general, I find it kind of sick that for some it is o.k. to work hard to get ahead, and then for them to make excuses for others and discourage them from doing the same thing.

Second, the concept of a centralized government imposed "livable wage" is a joke. Real wages are based on productivity or "adding value". The best way to help people earn "livable wages" is to make sure they have marketable skills being demanded in the market place. If all we needed was for government to lay down an edict so that everyone makes a "livable wage", why not raise the minimum wage to $20/hr., $30/hr., hell let's make everyone millionaires, and pay 'em $1 million per hour? Do you know why that doesn't work? It is simply inflationary, no value is being added, there is not a comparable increase in productivity.

This is why I ask the basic question, do liberals or "do gooders" actually think this stuff through?

Another example is Wal-Mart in inner city neighborhoods. I am talking about neighborhoods with high unemployment, and limited shopping choices. In some Chicago neighborhoods for example, it is difficult for people to even buy fresh fruit and vegetables, but the liberals running the city won't let Wal-Mart build. We are talking jobs, low costs for the consumer, taxes, urban renewal, etc. Is it all because of unions?

Wal-Mart Figures Time Is Ripe for Chicago Push - WSJ.com

With MCD and Wal-Mart we have two very clear examples of how liberals in government are hurting poor urban people and government could very easily work with business rather than against business to create jobs and opportunity, in addition to giving consumers choice, increasing the tax base, promoting urban renewal, and neighborhood pride.

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------

I apologize in advance for the people who are going to be upset because I dare ask a question regarding a study that supports their belief.

How does the study define "household"?

What happens to these percentages right after an increase, compared to one year later, two years later? For example, if we raised the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.00, overnight you will have a large percentage of those who made $7.26 or more now making the new minimum. Couldn't that skew the point of the study?

The study pointed out Texas, but Texas has no state income tax and uses the federal minimum wage. For example California uses a higher minimum than the Federal and has high state income tax and other tax rates. How does the study account for that?


I don't expect any answers, just thinking out loud, so to speak. Thinking and asking questions is a habit with me, again I apologize to those offended by that.

I'm not a "do gooder". I just don't think people should go to work for 8 hours and walk home with less than $50 (after taxes). Crazy, I know

You did choose one of the most liberal think tanks in America.

also, if you build a Wal Mart in Chicago, how many small businesses will close their doors due to the competition? In other words, what is the net gain for the neighborhood when you consider all the people losing their jobs/businesses ?

i don't think econ 101 "thinking" lets you consider questions like that derwood.
just saying.

wait, thinking? I thought we were "feeling" in this thread?

Indeed, it turns inconvenient "facts" into "personal attacks". How dare you tell me my feelings are wrong? They're my feelings! You're hurting them!

Also of note: reductio ad absurdum and slippery-slope argumentation are now "thinking it through".

As invalid as the data I posted above may be, the bottom line on minimum wage is whether it is a livable wage. Sure most minimum-wage earners are teenagers and students, but not all of them are. The data here suggests that nearly a third (29%) of minimum-wage earners in Canada are between the ages of 25 and 54. (This is StatsCan data.)

Many of those are not the primary earners, but some of them are. One reason why minimum wages came about was to protect those who had no advocates otherwise: many of these earners are women, some are supporting families (or are at least trying to). The idea today is that a minimum wage should have the potential--at least--to earn a livable wage. One should be able to make a living on minimum wage. Not all minimum wage jobs are transitional jobs.

I know raising minimum wages puts pressure on job creation, but wages that are too low (i.e. on the other side of the coin) puts pressure on the economy in other ways. It's about achieving a balance. It's about social improvement.

And sometimes the only way you can get a raise is if the government does it for you by raising the minimum wage. Inflation can be a bitch. And before you jump on me by stating, "Raising minimum wages is what causes inflation!" please realize that only 5% of the Canadian workforce earns a minimum wage. And if it is as bad as requiring a raise in minimum wage to get a raise at all, then I don't think changes to minimum wages have as much as an impact as changes to the other kinds of wages...you know, wages that are twice as high or more.

it's also worth noting that Wal Mart (and many other retailers) are notorious for employing an army of "part time" workers (sometimes defined as 38 1/2 hours per week) to avoid paying anyone benefits. Doesn't exactly help our uninsured problem

Ah, yes, the minimum-wage full-time part-timer.

Here is one to throw you for a loop. How about some inner city kids going to work for 8 hours and walk away with $0, but with 8 hours of training. I am a small business owner, I would give a person that kind of opportunity. If I took a person with no skills, it costs me money to train them (it actually costs me money to train people with experience). But I would gladly give some of my time and resources to help someone get a start. Then what would happen is that I would gladly pay them more than minimum wage after they show they are trainable, have some skills, and can show a good work ethic. Before you go ballistic, understand that children of business owners often get started in their parent's business exactly the same way - they go in start learning from the ground up without consideration for payroll wages. Athletes do it that way, they learn their trade long before they get paid, if they ever get paid. Entertainers do it that way. It is amazing how being a "volunteer" can payoff.

---------- Post added at 04:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

Here is a perfect example of the problem. I bet you have never spent any time in the impoverished areas of Chicago. If you had, you would know how silly your statement is. People travel for miles out of the neighborhood, shop at sub-standard stores paying inflated prices, or shop at convenient stores with limited selection.

I lived in Chicago for 12 years, and not in a gated mansion in Lincoln Park. I traveled through bad neighborhoods every day to go to work (and had a few jobs IN bad neighborhoods.....nothing like hookers knocking on your window as you wait for someone to come unlock the warehouse).

Either way, your argument has shifted again (shocker). Do the bad neighborhoods needs the Wal Marts because of the jobs or because of the product? Is it okay for Wal Mart to shut down dozens of small businesses because you have deemed them "sub-standard"?

so now we get the standard neo-liberal line about walmart of all things.
(a) cheap shit is good for poor folk. therefore walmart is a democratizing institution.

(b) externalizing costs by reducing the number of full-time employees as far as possible, assuming that folk can work and remain on welfare because the wages are so great and so get access to insurance--that's all good because in neo-liberal land all that matters is profits gathered by shareholders. following uncle milty, to even think about anything else is unethical. so this helps profits. so it is necessarily a social good.

(c) that wage levels are not social, that wages simply reflect the relation of abstract workin feller x to employer given in the way a rock is 1---this is too absurd to even bother attacking, once you leave the la-la land of econ 101 and its simple-minded hydraulic relations between supply and demand blah blah blah.

(d) predatory location practices, which have been heavily documented with respect to walmart, are all about profit generation and so are, like the above and everything else, a social good. no matter the consequences. profit uber alles.

(e) the actual practices used by walmart in enabling the cheap goods never seem to come up in neo-liberal land...the objects magically appear on shelves, aren't produced anywhere, aren't procured using cost-control measures that effectively force suppliers into breaking laws to do with labor & environment..no matter: those people are far away. that walmart uses an incredibly capital intensive inventory tracking system to outsource to the maximum possible extent, which represents a basic economy of scale advantage relative to the smaller business with walmart puts outta business--no matter in neo-liberal land. walmart is given, like a table or a rock.


on and on the same nonsense.
you can't even start with a social analysis using these ridiculous premises.
you can wave your hands around, but that's it.
this kind of "thinking" went a long way to pre-ordaining the implosion of neo-liberalism.

you'd think even conservatives would be by this nonsense.
apparently not.

I firmly believe that Walmart conducts unethical business practices - so I don't shop there and I encourage all those I know not to shop there. Sooner or later, enough people will see it and Walmart will change due to the demands of their customers, not the government.

Of course, consumers have to stop being so greedy with their money and be willing to pay $2.00 / roll of TP. Walmart customers are capitalist pigs! :P

EDIT: Actually, I shop there twice a year. We buy toys for orphans for Christmas and we buy school supplies/uniforms for them at the beginning of the school year. I can buy for (literally) twice as many kids by going to Walmart. I suspend my boycott on those two occasions because the "good" outweighs the "bad".

there's no disputing that Walmart is really the worst place ever. I just switched banks because the only close branches were in Walmarts. My stress level triples on the rare occasions I have to go into one

Here's the other casualty - the businesses which shut down when Walmart leaves! Case in point, in my town there was a Walmart next to a grocery story (shared a wall even). Walmart wanted to build a Walmart WITH a grocery store. Now, if I was a Walmart VP of development, I would just buy that grocery store and integrate it. Oh no, Walmart moved down the street exactly 2.1 miles and broke ground on the new Walmart with a grocery store. Of course, the two strip malls where Walmart used to be are now barren wastelands, as well as the unfilled vacancy of the old Walmart. The entire shopping center has been empty (except for the grocery store) for eight years!

I say let the consumer decide where they spend their money.

I apologize for bringing Wal-Mart into the discussion. But let's be clear on the issue, for example, I recently needed a headlight bulb for my motorcycle. My local dealer, small business, sells the bulb for $20, Wal-mart sells it for about $10. I bought the bulb at my dealer because I rode my bike in, shot the breeze with the parts-guy, got some advice on how to change the bulb, drank a cup of coffee, read the stuff on the bulletin board, looked at the new bikes, talked to a few guys about how my bike was running - and I felt good about spending 2 times the money. It all goes back to "value". Small business can compete with the big guys like Wal-Mart - and they do it every day.

"Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is not the same as "putting on your boots with straps." Your version is probably a more worthwhile version, though, in that it doesn't try to inspire people by having them do the impossible.

If it were impossible, nobody would have done it. People have, therefore your statement is false upon it's face (in both senses.)

It is a metaphor for self reliance based on a physically impossible phenomena. Don't believe me? Try and pick yourself completely up off the ground by pulling up on your shoes.

A more accurate metaphor would also include some sort of support structure, for instance "pull yourself up onto a chair" or "fully utilize the opportunities given to you." Though that second one might be a bit controversial amongst bootstrap proponents since it implicitly recognizes the role other folks play in an individual's success.

And to think I almost apologized for my "Walmart threadjack." :D

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark.

Not until the Obamas get divorced over extra-marital affairs with the Clintons. See, back on track!

well, i dont think that the thread jumped the shark because filtherton pointed out that one of the central metaphors tossed about by neo-liberal types--the boot-strap bidness---makes no sense. not only is it incoherent in itself, but it's even more so in how it's used: you know, as the cliche that replaces having to actually think about the social world, which enables all that complexity to get collapsed onto individual gumption and other such nonsense. it's of a piece with all the boats floating atop and even playing field and other such meaningless or close-to meaningless bits of 18th century political economy pollyanna-dom.

So, true. Only "neo-liberals" use this phrase. Also, it's a HORRIBLE miscarriage of reality to suggest that a person can affect their own course through life. I say we keep calling them victims and sending them checks. There's really nothing better than keeping them down so they'll keep voting "correctly".

I think you're missing the point. It's not that people don't have the will or don't try and try again; it's that sometimes you just don't get anywhere due to circumstances beyond your control. You see, an original use of the bootstrap metaphor was likely applied to people who accomplished what was viewed as impossible. These are the exceptional cases of exceptional circumstances.

Today, the metaphor is used too often: it's used as a means to communicate, "I worked hard to where I am today, and this is why I'm successful." This has trivialized the meaning of the metaphor, which was intended to communicate overcoming the impossible, not overcoming the difficult.

Those who fail to "pick themselves up by the bootstraps" aren't all on welfare. Some of them are working multiple minimum-wage jobs (or near minimum).

If you think that an individual can have anywhere near total control over their own life, you're overlooking a huge swath of reality. No man is an island, and all that.

Shark! I say. Shark!

I agree that the metaphor should not be a catch-all solution to all those struggling. The question always comes back to whether it's the federal government's job to fix [insert your favorite social struggle here]. You say yes, I say no. Not only do I say no, I say they couldn't fix it even if they try for another 1000 years. 1000 years from now, I will say, "I told you so".

cimmaron: i don't think anyone is arguing on the terms that you set out above.
all you're arguing is your position and it's reverse.
so one either agrees with your position or necessarily thinks the opposite, which of course you get to define.

a false binary, they call that.

You see, but the government has a track record of improving things. It fixed or otherwise improved situations surrounding unfair labour practices (including child and slave labour), universal suffrage, gay rights, racism, social discrimination, consumer rights, etc.

I think what we should realize is that, no, we shouldn't rely on government alone to "fix" social problems, but they are a major participant. Social progress never happened through government alone; it always (or usually) started with "the people."

It's not the government's "job" to merely fix things; it's the government's job to serve the people. Most people are more than willing the help themselves if the odds aren't stacked tremendously against them.

I like this, I boycott Walmart and encourage others not to shop there, unless they or I need to buy cheap shit for kids twice a year, then I throw my boycott out the window and shop till I drop at Walmart. It isn't really a boycott at all, that's like someone saying they don't drink and encourage others not to drink, but on Christmas and Thanksgiving I throw that out the window and get fuckin shitfaced. Too funny.

Tell you what, I'll listen to you and this year 5 orphans won't get ANY christmas presents at all. I will send them a card which says "Sorry, kids but I have to prove my resolve to some concrete-thinking moron on the internet who can't tell the difference between doing 'what's right' and 'the right thing to do'. I'm sure you understand kids. Let this be a life lesson to you - Walmart is bad." Yeah, that's what I will do. Thanks for readjusting my fouled moral compass. Oh, and the drinking analogy - yeah that's a perfect metaphor for what I am doing. You really have me pegged.

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------

There's too much philosophy mixed with history to give a proper reply. Suffice to say, my believe is that the only things the government has fixed are things the government broke in the first place.

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

I assume you are referring to the terms I laid out in #670? If that is the case, then I am going to have to call BS. The current government, media, and members of this forum have attempted to drill into us ad nauseum that "Only government can fix this." To say that you guys haven't been arguing that point for years isn't exactly accurate. The inverse being - the government CAN'T fix this and the people must. Yep, I'll argue that point all day.

please cite where any of us have said that ONLY the government can fix (issue X)

Here is some interesting data in inflation rates over the last few years:

Inflation is down under Obama. Didn't the right wingers claim his policies were going to cause inflation to go through the roof? There is still a chance for that to happen but it hasn't happened yet. Why is that?

Wow concrete thinking moron, you're a fine example for kids, when someone question what you say, call them names, good lesson for the little ones, no need to get personal, I merely said I find it funny, never called you anything, I'd appreciate the same respect, sorry for voicing my opinion, so calm down before posting or maybe think with the mature part of your brain, not the name calling immature portion. I have you pegged for something .

ADDED: Are insults now allowed? Guess the report post button is about as useless as the mods here, or am I not in the proper clique here to get an insult deleted? Guess I'm allowed to insult people as well? This place and it's cliques are quite amusing, it's worse than fuckin high school here.

Well, for starters: the president that you voted for said it - several times. The congressional leaders have all said it. And, the implication of approving and supporting all of the federal expansion through one's posts is an implicit belief that only the federal government can fix this.

---------- Post added at 09:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 AM ----------

Clearly, I hurt your feelings and I apologize for that. I retract calling you a moron. You simply type moronic statements.

---------- Post added at 09:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 AM ----------

Although not a right winger, I will say that no one that I know of has implied that inflation would occur instantaneously. However, you can not inject trillions of dollars into the system, monetize your debt, and then not have inflation. The inflation will occur once the economy starts having growth. Another indicator would be the price of gold. Granted, there is DEFINITELY a fear-based "gold bubble", but not all of the increased price is that bubble. Some of it is genuine loss in buying power of the dollar. You can also see the weakening of the dollar on the world scene. This is due to the world's belief that the dollar will be "worth less" soon - another indicator that inflation is coming.

Except I already showed you elsewhere that it is false that "trillions of dollars" have been injected into the system.

And if anything, given the constant trade deficits, the dollar is overvalued.

just because I voted for Obama doesn't mean I believe everything that comes out of his mouth. that's a mighty leap of logic

If I remember correctly, you showed that "trillions" of dollars was not a lot and would not have a negative effect. I don't believe that to be true. Time will tell.

---------- Post added at 11:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 AM ----------

Well it is also a mighty leap of logic to assume that I think you believe everything Obama says, just because you voted for him. However, I stand by my contention that you, Derwood, believe that only the federal government can fix the banking industry, the auto industry, and the healthcare industry.

No, I showed that M1 did not increase faster than in past recessions, that the relationship between m1 and gdp was not out of normal parameters, and that the specific data on M1 shows that trillions of dollars were not added.


Just as a refresher, M1 data, from the past few few months, in billions of dollars:

2008 10 1474.7
2008 11 1523.2
2008 12 1595.3
2009 01 1576·3
2009 02 1559·6
2009 03 1563·3
2009 04 1593.3
2009 05 1597.0
2009 06 1650·0
2009 07 1654.7
2009 08 1649·9


So slightly less than 200 billion dollars were added to the economy.


Of course, m1 as indicative of anything has long been out of style, but since you still cling to good old Friedman, at least you should get the data right.

They have added to M2 tremendously as well. That can become inflationary as well.

I hope you're comfortable with this contention, as it's false. You and Ace look like you have something in common

No. The Yen is undervalued. They haven't had their currency revalued in ages because they are still considered a third world nation. They are launching satellites and are third world? Yeah, the UN is a grand operation.

---------- Post added at 11:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 AM ----------

So the people can fix those things? Great, looking forward to your opposition of the bailouts and the healthcare bill and cap and trade, etc. Come on man, at least admit it.

so my choices are "government fixes all" or "people fix all"?

that's a bit disingenuous

EDIT: Some idiots just aren't worth the bother

you do know that there is no natural measure of a nation's currency, right? And that a currency value is only determined in relation to other goods and currencies, right? So that saying that X is undervalued is the same as saying that Y is overvalued?


And I don't know how you think the world works, but this whole "They haven't had their currency revalued in ages because they are still considered a third world nation" is nonsense. There are no distinctions between "third world nations" and "first world nations," and the central bank of each nation basically determines their exchange regime and a sustainable exchange rate. Some will let it float, some will peg it, but it is still determined in the open market, with none or some central bank intervention. And the UN has absolutely nothing to do with exchange rates, so that is more uninformed foolishness.

Finally, I would love to know why you value all these distinctions between m1, m2 and so on and if its anything other than just throwing nonsense out there to see what sticks. In any case, another swing and a miss. M2 has increased by about 120 billion under Obama, so the "trillions" thing is still false.

Well, I didn't say "fixes all". I named specific areas. But, is there a third option between "the government" and "the people" (generally termed "society")?

---------- Post added at 07:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 PM ----------

The World Monetary Fund and World Bank most certainly control loan levels which have an influence over currency exchange rates. Both organizations look favorably upon China as a developing nation.

As for "Under Obama..", I am not talking about Obama and never have. I am talking about the federal government. As for the rise in currency, I am talking about since 2001. I will apologize for not qualifying my statements with a date range. I know you guys all get caught up in an Obama vs. Bush thing. I don't differentiate as I find both of their governments overstepped their bounds tremendously.

Wow. Just wow.

There is no "World Monetary Fund." There is the International Monetary Fund. And while the International Monetary Fund does provide funds to nations in distress to stabilize the economy and the exchange rate (often with disastrous effects), the last time the IMF lent to China it was a standby loan and the deal ended in 1987. And the only way the IMF would be able to force any sort of change in exchange rates would be by enforcing the conditionality of the agreements IF it had lent China anything.

In fact, China has been increasing it's purchase of IMF Bonds, and increasing its quota, which means that it has been giving the IMF money, not the other way around.
And no, the World Bank does not determine exchange rates one way or another.

And you've yet to explain how M2, added over a decade, will lead to hyperinflation. And why m2, not m1 or m3.

It is amazing to me how you so stringently defend opinions when it is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ok, first of all, it's pretty petty to get on me for typing "World Monetary Fund" instead of "International Monetary Fund." I meant the latter and typed the former because of the "World" in World Bank. Secondly, while China sets and holds its own currency exchange rate, it is the IMF and the WB which contribute to the determination that the renminbi is undervalued (which is what I was saying, albeit poorly.)

The crux of your argument, however is correct and I concede it. I did as much reading as I could on the subject and while various reports state an underevaluation between 9.5% and 54%, those calculations vary based on the bias of the researcher and are virtually impossible to calculate accurately. In fact, some believe the renminbi is even overvalued because clearly with an approximate 40% savings rate among Chinese citizens, they can easily afford everything they need with less money than they are paid.

The US dollar's current value in comparison to the renminbi is a favorable position for the U.S. Primarily, it allows us to purchase Chinese goods more cheaply as China pays their workers poorly(depending on which research you read) and with "cheap" money. This arrangement allows our lower class to continue to purchase more affordable goods from China. Since most U.S. goods which go to China do not compete directly with Chinese goods, we run little risk of having an unfavorable position if their people choosing the cheaper Chinese product over the more expensive U.S. product.

However, your original statement in this thread of thought was that the U.S. dollar is overvalued. I don't understand that assertion. According to what standard? And as an American, why is this a bad thing? Why would you want your money which you get paid to be worth less? I'm not picking a fight, I just don't understand the statement.

As for the whole M1,M2,etc - I'll just have to read some more and get back to you. In short, the debt will eventually have to be monetized and the inflation is inevitable. I'll read some more though. (We'll talk about it more later. Perhaps another thread in Economics)

The point is that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have no role in determining the Chinese exchange rate.

As far as the dollar being overvalued, I say that basically because the US has accumulated trade account deficits for a very long time. I.e., for the deficits to disappear the dollar would have to be worth much less.

And a currency being overvalued is not good. The idea that the dollar being worth more=good is false. It means that while a dollar buys more, US goods also cost more for the rest of the world, reducing exports and increasing imports.

And no, the debt will not have to be monetized. In fact, the Federal Reserve chairman is elected to terms that are independent of the president precisely to give it independence from those matters.

Well, I don't necessarily agree that IMF/WB loans to other countries who then loan/borrow with China...that there is no correlation or influence on the "market value" of Chinese currency in that regard. Certainly, China is a powerful force in the UN and policies in the IMF/WB will favor them (as they do the U.S. in many cases.) Again, my original point is that when comparing the dollar to the renminbi - China's currency looks more like a peso than a country that is launching satellites. It's value is not reflective of it's current wealth as a country. However, that fact seems to favor the US at this time so I backed off saying that was a bad thing.

Dippin, I love you like a brother, man - you don't HONESTLY believe that the Fed chairman is not influenced by the executive branch, do you?

You are making several mistakes here.
First, the IMF and the World Bank are completely independent from the UN. So whatever powerful force in the UN China has is not directly tied to their power in the World Bank or the IMF.

Second, the IMF decision making is very different from the UN. In the UN it is generally one country, one vote. In the IMF, each nation's vote share is determined by their IMF quota (i.e., how much money they make available to the IMF). The United States provides 16.77% of the funding, so it has 16.77% of the vote. Japan provides 6.02% of the money, to it has 6.02% of the vote. China, in contrast, has 3.66% of the vote.

So the idea that the IMF is somehow biased towards China, or harming the US in its decisions, is simply false.


Furthermore, unless you are talking about "chaos theory" scenarios, where a butterfly flapping it's wings in Asia influences tornadoes in the United States, no, the IMF plays no role direct role in determining the Chinese exchange rate. It would if China needed IMF money, but since it doesn't, the IMF has no power over China. In fact, the standard IMF recommendation for exchange rates, which recently has been to float them, goes against what the Chinese have been doing.

Same goes for the World Bank.


Third, you have a mistaken notion of what an exchange rate should reflect. The "strength" of a currency is not determined by its numerical value regarding each other, but on it's yearly fluctuations and its impact on the trade account balances.

Unemployment has gone over 10%. It is becoming increasingly clear that Obama's agenda is going to be tied to the success of the "rich", those who create jobs, those who create profits, those who get richer, those responsible for "trickling" down to the rest of us.

What is Obama going to do to kick start employment growth?
Is he going to cut taxes, a supply side solution?
Is he going to give businesses "special interest" incentives for employing people, catering to the "special interests" that he said has too much influence in Washington?
Is he going to continue to blame it all on Bush?
Is he going to think about it, the way he has been thinking about the Afghanistan military strategy?

I think he knows he has to take a "supply side" approach to job growth. I just wish he would do it so we can get through this recession sooner and avoid a double dip.

Does one track recession via jobless rate (which has grown) or by National GDP (which is also up)?

Not a loaded question; I have almost zero knowledge of economics, so I'm curious which is the more accepted methodology

Unemployment has always been a lagging indicator. That is we enter a recession and 6 months to a year later unemployment goes way up. Once we leave the recession it usually takes 6 months to a year for the jobs to recover.

Also supply side economics is BS. If we cut taxes we would be running even larger deficits and the people who got the tax cuts would just pocket the money. If you want to use tax dollars to create jobs then you need to create the jobs yourself. If we want jobs to recover now then the government needs to create a lot of jobs. But this would require money and that is something many don't approve of.

The concept of "recession" is subjective and only has meaning based on how it is commonly defined. It is not like knowing the boiling point of water. In 2008 before there was two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth we had some already saying the economy was in a "recession" based a a number of other economic indicators. And of course we had some politicians telling us that we were at the brink of economic Armageddon and others who knew better but lacked the courage to say our economy was fundamentally strong in-spite of some of the negative indicators.

On a macro level all of this is meaningless to most people because the economy that affects us as individuals is more micro. The people in the city of Detroit live in a very different economy than the people in the state of Vermont. some people are thriving in this economy, while others are living in a economic catastrophe with no prospects. If I were President my #1 domestic focus would have been cutting taxes and creating jobs, not bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry.

what is the history of cutting taxes to individuals in terms of creating jobs?