My Photo

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

BlogStats


« State of the Union - we wait with trepidation | Main | Those Unedjicated Conservatives »

29 January 2014

Comments

George Rebane

Also apropos to the state of our Union, I draw your attention to the 29jan14 update to 'Humanity in Jeopardy' here
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2014/01/humanity-in-jeopardy.html

Bill Tozer

Seems the growth of the food stamp program since 2008 is starting to bust its britches.

https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/1743522_10151900860035911_1882073049_n.jpg

I understand our system of governance is adversarial in nature and compromise must be reached. But, why? I think it is a good thing when Congress accomplishes the least imaginable. With each compromise I have to reach for the jar of Vaseline.

Rep. LaMalfa's response is good, reasonable and more than a one-liner. Putting Rep LaMalfa and Tom McClintock aside, here is where most of us can agree:

https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/t1/1380164_10151694047110911_1339695839_n.jpg

What would Ben do?

Todd Juvinall

The problem with these blls is they are all omnibus. They do this to have this very outcome. Doug voted as he should in order to get some things for his district and the country. But I would suggest they treat each part separately so the vote is more precise.

The PILT cracks me up. The feds have about 1/3 of our county's land and they give our local government 277K. We used to have a thriving timber industry as well a other resources and that amount wold have been made in a week if they left us alone. But we are morphed into a welfare county by these payments and against our will.

George Rebane

ToddJ 819am - That's point of the post - no more omnibus bills in which such different items as farm subsidies and food stamps are slammed together and then mislabeled. The bill should have been voted down on that account only. Continuing to vote for such a travesty "in order to get some things for his district and the country" screws both district and country. This is what got us here in the first place. If we don't stop it now, then when?

Todd Juvinall

I don't disagree with you but until we have all three , President, Senate and House, I don't think it will happen. Just being practical.

Joe Koyote

"We will continue working to reduce food stamp spending which, at about $80 billion annually, is over 200% of 2008 food stamp spending." Did La Malfa stop to think massive unemployment has anything to do with the increase in the need for food? Some brilliant billionaire ( I don't remember who) recently said the a mentally disabled person was worth about 2 bucks an hour. You have to love the idea of measuring a persons life via their value as a cog in the corporate wheel. This is probably why cutting off food to needy people seems so right. After all, they aren't really contributing much to making the rich richer, only "draining" the system. Instead of starving those people who need food why not just put them into debtors prison? Of course that would cost even more money because the taxpayers would have to pay for housing also. How about gas chambers, that would solve the problem. Then we wouldn't need food stamps or welfare. Seems a bit crass doesn't it? So what does the tea party offer as a solution, let them eat cake?

George Rebane

ToddJ 945am - Waiting to fix fundamental wrongs such as misrepresented omnibus bill for when all the planets are aligned may never happened, since that presupposes that Republicans in complete control will deport themselves as angels. And their ability to do that was dealt a mighty blow IMHO by how the Dems rolled over House Repubs in fashioning this farm bill. Except for almost invisible crumbs on the margin, the Repubs got nothing and the Dems got everything. And this was done with a clear Repub majority in the House.

The Republican party has become the premier chicken-hearted political organization in the land. The Democrats have the Repubs so cowed that they believe that pushing back ever so slightly will cause voters to blame them for all of America's troubles. How the Repubs rolled on accepting unilateral blame for last year's govt shutdown is offered as Exhibit A. The farm bill is Exhibit B, and stand by for Exhibit C in the upcoming debt limit 'negotiations'.

Todd Juvinall

North Carolina reduced its unemployment numbers and by golly the people getting it went back to work. Tough love by the state. It works.

Paul Emery

George you write:

"The Republican party has become the premier chicken-hearted political organization in the land....." yet you continue to support any candidate that is regurgitated from the party machine (Romney, McCain, Bush ....) I keep waiting for you to chose an independent path but no indications in sight for such a move. You shouldn't complain about what you eat when then the details are on posted the food label. Republicrats= Fat Government run by the ruling class who control the outcome of their funded representatives.

George Rebane

PaulE 1028am - Paul, I call 'em as I see them. And I try to vote for the best of the bunch according to my lights (dim as they may be). RR is a record of ideas and viewpoints that are quite "independent" of the Repub party line. And when more credible candidates than Republicrats present themselves, I hope to vote for them.

Notwithstanding, by overwhelming evidence arriving daily, I remain convinced that the fundamental transformation now underway destines not only the end of America as the 'shining city on the hill', but that the progressives' ideal state will result in a technology abetted tyranny from which mankind will most likely not recover. The Singularity may give rise to the only post-tyrannical society from which H. sapiens can draw hope - and even that is not guaranteed.

Joe Koyote

"the end of America as the 'shining city on the hill'," I agree, but not for the same reasons. America was sold out to the globalists via NAFTA, WTO, etc etc etc. The American worker who once out produced the entire world, and received a decent paycheck in return was traded in for Pacific Rim twelve year old girls working in near slave conditions so that the super wealthy can accumulate even more wealth and power. The question is for what do they need ever more wealth? The golden glory days of the US was back when income was more evenly distributed and trade agreements protected American jobs not out sourced them.

Todd Juvinall

The reason labor went overseas is simple. Labor, a component of a product got too expensive here. Then it was evident our prices had to be higher and non competitive. The reason our labor costs went up is the union movements and government laws and regulations. Just go look in any lunch room in any business in America and look at what is hanging on the walls. OSHA, EPA, EEOC, UI, liability insurance, on and on. We did this to ourselves. Well I tried to fight this and so did people on this blog from the right. You won JoeK, revel in your victory. Have a party and invite all tose recipients of your victory, those unemployed.

Paul Emery

George

We may not be far apart on some of this. the difference is that in my view the only way the special interest controlled (through Republicrat agency) factions can be removed is to cut off the arms of the beast which are the Republican and Democratic parties. It's tough medicine but anything short that will have no effect. Just imagine if for one election to the House 90% voted third party! The result would be total revolution with fresh ideas and leaders stomping on the grave of our corrupt and bought out system. We don't need a leader to show us the way. I like what Pete Seeger says. "Beware of great leaders. We need many small leaders."

Joe Koyote

Todd: The reason jobs went overseas was profit. It has been proven multiple times that, for example, paying fast food workers a living wage with benefits only raises the cost of a Big Mac by a quarter.

Todd Juvinall

You apparently have little experience in a business and its components. Of course the profit is the golden goose. Without it everyone would be a serf and slave for goodness sakes. The profit motive makes the money that goes into the government coffers and then is distributed to those with no understanding of where the money came from. That is you.

I stand by my last comment on why business goes overseas from America. Prove me wrong.

George Rebane

The reason why America was labor competitive in the good old days (e.g. before the 1970s) is still lost on most people, especially of the Left. It was then a different world in which intact post-WW2 America was the low cost producer of the things people wanted - everything from food to cars to new gizmos. As other nations developed and began finding their place in the sun, things inevitably changed - witness Japan's entry into the worldwide car and electronics markets, soon followed by Taiwan and Korea.

There is no proof that prices go up only 5% when the cost component of labor is over 50% which cost increases by 30%. ToddJ's 1152am again summarizes it nicely.

PaulE 1156am - You keep talking about the advent of a third party showing up the Republicrats. I don't agree, and never have. No third party will succeed on the American political scene if it attempts to arrive solo. That guarantees victory for the other side a la 1992. The only road to expanding political parties in the US is when they arrive at least in credible pairs - i.e. a prominent rightwing along with a prominent leftwing party.

Paul Emery

But George the first step has to be to eliminate the system that got us here which is the two party monopoly controlled by the same special interests. What you are saying is that there has to be "credible pairs" to balance things out to insure their continued domination. Too bad you don't accept the "many small leaders" path for our future.

George Rebane

PaulE 248pm - I sorry that I didn't say it well enough for you to understand. The first step of elimination cannot be accomplished with the introduction of just one new party. You have to make the case that such a 'at least a pair' introduction insures the "continued domination" of the current two main parties; I didn't assert that.

How you concluded that I don't accept the "many small leaders" is beyond me. RR is a rhetorical monument to distributed knowledge and distributed control, which strongly implies doing without monoliths, especially in the management of large complex systems like a nation-state.

Paul Emery

Many small leaders meaning many small parties. Probably there would be two parties that would emerge in sufficient numbers to be significant, one Libertarian and one Green. If the Libertarians and Greens would have been able to be part of the so called Pres Debates they would have easily drained 40 % of the vote from major parties. That would ensure at least a three party system. Republicrat, Libertarian and Green.

fish

That would ensure at least a three party system. Republicrat, Libertarian and Green.

I don't often agree with you....but this notion....from your lips to gods ear!

Todd Juvinall

PaulE got you. He changed the subject again.

Paul Emery

Fish

What other option is there? The Republicans and Democrats are both bought off by power entrenched supporters making them essentially one party controlled by special interests. They watch each others back whenever a populist rebellion flairs up (Tea Party, Greens) to make sure government returns to the comfortable center that is oh so controlled by big money. Hence you have candidates such as Romney, Obama, Bushes, McCain, Clinton who make the powers that be feel comfortable that their money will buy what they need to ensure their entrenched power. Rupublicrat loyalists like Todd are perfect fodder for them. They actually believe that one party is better than the other making them perfectly controllable and predictable. There are a few independents thinkers like Tom McClintock or Dennis Kucinich who will speak out that add a little color and drama but they are easily controlled by the middle players bloated by special interest bucks to keep the fringies out of control.

Joe Koyote

Many small leaders meaning many small parties. -- A good example of this concept was in Russia during WW! and prior to the communist revolution. It started in the Russian Navy (common enlisted men rebelling against royal officers and the military chain of command) and spread throughout the country's trade and worker groups ultimately leading to the quiet abdication of the royal family. It consisted of many town council like groups called "soviets." Each soviet would discuss and decide, through consensus, their positions on the issues. They would then send delegates to a national meeting in Moscow that became a peoples congress. It was in this manner that the country organized and protested Russian involvement in WWI, which most Russians saw as a fight between royal families and none of their business and certainly a waste of their treasure and blood. This lead to massive strikes as workers shut Moscow down and took over the streets. Under pressure to get out of the war or face revolution, the royal family agreed to move to their country estate and bow out of politics. As the story goes, the bolsheviks lied to get support from the navy groups (the various soviets followed the lead of the navy and joined in) and took power in the Congress effectively neutralizing the soviets as the governing system. Once in power the Bolsheviks eliminated any opposition including the navy groups one of which survived a two year siege until being summarily executed as was the royal family. Moral to the story: a small group based democratic political system is possible and has proven successful. The only problem is keeping the charismatic crazed lunatic power hungry ideological zealots who historically seem to surface during hard times out of the equation. Fearful people don't act rationally and are easy targets for the Stalins, and Hitlers of the world, just to name two.

Brad Croul

What, I can't buy pot with my SNAP card? This is an outrage!

fish

What, I can't buy pot with my SNAP card? This is an outrage!

Sure you can....it's done all the time! By commodities with SNAP, barter for weed......easy peasy!

Ian Random

I thought BO said the private sector is doing just fine. Also doesn't every minimum wage increase decrease welfare spending with its uplifting affect on poor people. So a cut the shouldn't matter as they already don't need that money.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad