2014 elections may keep capital hill split?

[The Rabbi]

I had to run out and get my haircut so I have not been able to reply until now. I have come to realize much since then. I was thinking over your example and wondering with all the large industries running wild with no regulation why would you cite raisins. As chance would have it I got into a conversation with the person cutting my hair, we'll call her Susan, about her daughter who will be getting her drivers license March 22nd of this year. That lead to discussing her needing to get a job to pay for the extra insurance. Susan was telling me how hard it was for her daughter to get a job. One of the problems was all the regulations about who could work where. Some places had knives, no kids selling cigarettes, and a list of other regulatory conditions. I was stewing this over driving back and something occurred to me. The middle-class is over burdened with taxes, they are over-burdened with regulation, so whenever someone in government talks about raising taxes or adding regulations many in the middle-class cringe and say, "We know all about taxes and regulations and those are bad things and we should not have anymore of that." Senator Warren isn't kidding when she says the system is rigged. She is not just talking about the banking industry. Our whole system is stacked against us by the rich and powerful. Vote for Republicans this fall at your own peril.

Barber cut a little too close I see.

First off, most of the regs you're talking about are state and local matters. If you live in a Blue state, those are Democrat regs.
Secondly, which party has increased the number of regs dramatically over the last 5 years? Yes, it isn't the Republicans.
Third, which party is against more regulation?
Fourth, which senator pushed hardest for one of the biggest expansions of government regulation recently? Yes, that would be Sen Warren, first head of whatever bureau Dodd-Frank set up. So if the system is rigged, she has helped rig it.

Can I take that to mean you don't believe any more regulations should be added to the financial industry?

Yeah, whatever.
You contradict yourself in your own post and then draw the most inappropriate conclusion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kaz and Redfish are far far to the right. They are not even close to mainstream GOP. That is why the RNC has set up the campaign schedule and requirements in the manner they did: to make sure the idiots of the far right this time do not prevent us taking the Senate.

We will see how it works


Sometimes you just can't stop stupid

Wow, you used both user names in a 15 minute period. pretty impressive

Yup, the far right stupid continues.

When you are campaigning, please don't do Huck.

 

[Redfish]

We will see how it works


Sometimes you just can't stop stupid

Wow, you used both user names in a 15 minute period. pretty impressive

Yup, the far right stupid continues.

When you are campaigning, please don't do Huck.

sorry, I am not running for anything and won't be campaigning for anyone. When you are campaigning for Hillary don't bring up Monica or Benghazi, she might have you terminated.

are you RW or Jake at the moment?

 

[RandomVariable]

Barber cut a little too close I see.

First off, most of the regs you're talking about are state and local matters. If you live in a Blue state, those are Democrat regs.
Secondly, which party has increased the number of regs dramatically over the last 5 years? Yes, it isn't the Republicans.
Third, which party is against more regulation?
Fourth, which senator pushed hardest for one of the biggest expansions of government regulation recently? Yes, that would be Sen Warren, first head of whatever bureau Dodd-Frank set up. So if the system is rigged, she has helped rig it.

Can I take that to mean you don't believe any more regulations should be added to the financial industry?

Yeah, whatever.
You contradict yourself in your own post and then draw the most inappropriate conclusion.

"Yeah, whatever." meaning 'no more regulations should be added' but you won't admit it outright?

 

[The Rabbi]

Can I take that to mean you don't believe any more regulations should be added to the financial industry?

Yeah, whatever.
You contradict yourself in your own post and then draw the most inappropriate conclusion.

"Yeah, whatever." meaning 'no more regulations should be added' but you won't admit it outright?

It means one phrase can't really cover what I think of the situation. Sorry but not everyone can express himself in bumper stickers.

 

[RandomVariable]

Yeah, whatever.
You contradict yourself in your own post and then draw the most inappropriate conclusion.

"Yeah, whatever." meaning 'no more regulations should be added' but you won't admit it outright?

It means one phrase can't really cover what I think of the situation. Sorry but not everyone can express himself in bumper stickers.

How about just the abstract or executive summary? Cite someone else's work maybe?

 

[The Rabbi]

"Yeah, whatever." meaning 'no more regulations should be added' but you won't admit it outright?

It means one phrase can't really cover what I think of the situation. Sorry but not everyone can express himself in bumper stickers.

How about just the abstract or executive summary? Cite someone else's work maybe?

There are too damn many regulations. How's that?

 

[eflatminor]

I had to run out and get my haircut so I have not been able to reply until now. I have come to realize much since then. I was thinking over your example and wondering with all the large industries running wild with no regulation why would you cite raisins. As chance would have it I got into a conversation with the person cutting my hair, we'll call her Susan, about her daughter who will be getting her drivers license March 22nd of this year. That lead to discussing her needing to get a job to pay for the extra insurance. Susan was telling me how hard it was for her daughter to get a job. One of the problems was all the regulations about who could work where. Some places had knives, no kids selling cigarettes, and a list of other regulatory conditions. I was stewing this over driving back and something occurred to me. The middle-class is over burdened with taxes, they are over-burdened with regulation, so whenever someone in government talks about raising taxes or adding regulations many in the middle-class cringe and say, "We know all about taxes and regulations and those are bad things and we should not have anymore of that." Senator Warren isn't kidding when she says the system is rigged. She is not just talking about the banking industry. Our whole system is stacked against us by the rich and powerful. Vote for Republicans this fall at your own peril.

Barber cut a little too close I see.

First off, most of the regs you're talking about are state and local matters. If you live in a Blue state, those are Democrat regs.
Secondly, which party has increased the number of regs dramatically over the last 5 years? Yes, it isn't the Republicans.
Third, which party is against more regulation?
Fourth, which senator pushed hardest for one of the biggest expansions of government regulation recently? Yes, that would be Sen Warren, first head of whatever bureau Dodd-Frank set up. So if the system is rigged, she has helped rig it.

Can I take that to mean you don't believe any more regulations should be added to the financial industry?

How about a simple regulation that already exits: Take what doesn't belong to you, you've broken the law. Otherwise, caveat emptor. No tax breaks, no special deals, no bailouts...for ANYONE. A free market of choice...and consequences if you infringe on the rights of others.

Pretty simple. Worked beautifully for a very long time. Now, with all these regulations (and there are TONS of them), we have more corruption and cronyism than ever. Your solution appears to be MORE meddling.

Pass.

 

[eflatminor]

Oh wow. You're right. How could I forget about those communists raisins holding the country back from stellar GDP growth?

What a disingenuous shit. You asked for a specific example. You got one. You don't think farming is part of the GDP? It is but one example, but it's a legitimate one. Your snarky dodge of a response speaks volumes about your inability to form a cogent argument.

I had to run out and get my haircut so I have not been able to reply until now. I have come to realize much since then. I was thinking over your example and wondering with all the large industries running wild with no regulation why would you cite raisins. As chance would have it I got into a conversation with the person cutting my hair, we'll call her Susan, about her daughter who will be getting her drivers license March 22nd of this year. That lead to discussing her needing to get a job to pay for the extra insurance. Susan was telling me how hard it was for her daughter to get a job. One of the problems was all the regulations about who could work where. Some places had knives, no kids selling cigarettes, and a list of other regulatory conditions. I was stewing this over driving back and something occurred to me. The middle-class is over burdened with taxes, they are over-burdened with regulation, so whenever someone in government talks about raising taxes or adding regulations many in the middle-class cringe and say, "We know all about taxes and regulations and those are bad things and we should not have anymore of that." Senator Warren isn't kidding when she says the system is rigged. She is not just talking about the banking industry. Our whole system is stacked against us by the rich and powerful. Vote for Republicans this fall at your own peril.

I'm sorry, but your implying that Republicans are MORE responsible for overly burdensome regulations and taxes than Democrats?

Really?

Hey, I'm no Republican, but that's just ridiculous.

 

[RandomVariable]

It means one phrase can't really cover what I think of the situation. Sorry but not everyone can express himself in bumper stickers.

How about just the abstract or executive summary? Cite someone else's work maybe?

There are too damn many regulations. How's that?

This free market of choice have a champion? Any work in particular articulates this concept?

 

[eflatminor]

How about just the abstract or executive summary? Cite someone else's work maybe?

There are too damn many regulations. How's that?

This free market of choice have a champion? Any work in particular articulates this concept?

This economic history of the world. The more centrally planned (aka meddled with) an economic system, the more it inevitably fails. Not necessarily immediately, but the central planners, no matter how honorable their intention, ALWAYS fail. On the flip side, where we see the most free markets with the least meddling, we see a thriving economic environment for all its participants. America up until the start of the Progressive era is an excellent example. Even with slow onslaught of Progressive central planning, America maintained more freedom in its markets than elsewhere, and we dominated the world for it. Of course, as the central planning has increased (no, not just under Obama), or world economic dominance as faltered. Predictable. Lot of other examples today. How is Singapore and Hong Kong doing compared to the rest of the world? Even with a world wide recession, they're thriving! It's no coincidence that they enjoy low taxes and little economic regulations. Now look at the centrally planned societies of the past: the USSR for example...how'd that work out? Hell, Rome did pretty damn well as a Republic...then lost it all when the Caesars took control, devalued their money, and spent what they didn't have. Sound familiar?

Look, there is no PERFECT example of a free market society (though America 1780-1913 was pretty darn close), but if you look at the economic trends over time throughout the world with an open mind, it becomes clear that free markets and free minds produces more prosperity for all than any government meddling could ever hope to achieve.

 

[RandomVariable]

Brushing up on my U.S. history there are quite a few notable facts about the Progressive era. The examples you note I am sure are excellent case studies in the application of economic policies. The one era that I do want to focus on however is America 1780-1913. This is an era before the industrial revolution, and era whose malignities the Progressive era sought to remedy. The romantic vision of the country store, the grocer, the barber, and any other locally owned store where everyone knew everyone else. One reason this era might be viewed with such rosy lenses is that little was documented, as far as I know, of the economics of the mom and pop hardware store. Let's not forget though that in this time frame there was slavery and the building of the U.S. railroads. Labor abuses were extreme to the point of death and dismemberment. Child labor and working conditions leading to a slow death were not illegal and as such practiced by several employers. When one speaks of the pure capitalist society they might envision the local grocer but what they get is $31 a month working on the railroad, $35 after the strike in 1867.

I believe on reason you did not cite an economic theory for your Utopian capitalist society is that there is none. What is used is instead is a patchwork of poorly researched case studies, anecdotal evidence, and the desire of the rich and greedy to exploit workers. As a matter of fact the less documentation of the capitalist Utopia the better.

 

[The Rabbi]

Brushing up on my U.S. history there are quite a few notable facts about the Progressive era. The examples you note I am sure are excellent case studies in the application of economic policies. The one era that I do want to focus on however is America 1780-1913. This is an era before the industrial revolution, and era whose malignities the Progressive era sought to remedy. The romantic vision of the country store, the grocer, the barber, and any other locally owned store where everyone knew everyone else. One reason this era might be viewed with such rosy lenses is that little was documented, as far as I know, of the economics of the mom and pop hardware store. Let's not forget though that in this time frame there was slavery and the building of the U.S. railroads. Labor abuses were extreme to the point of death and dismemberment. Child labor and working conditions leading to a slow death were not illegal and as such practiced by several employers. When one speaks of the pure capitalist society they might envision the local grocer but what they get is $31 a month working on the railroad, $35 after the strike in 1867.

I believe on reason you did not cite an economic theory for your Utopian capitalist society is that there is none. What is used is instead is a patchwork of poorly researched case studies, anecdotal evidence, and the desire of the rich and greedy to exploit workers. As a matter of fact the less documentation of the capitalist Utopia the better.

You obviously know nothing of US history. You cannot lump together 1780 and 1900 and make any kind of sense.
Laissez faire capitalism has never appeared in a pure form bt pure enough so we know it works. It always has. It always will. What screws it up are progressives and liberals who want more power and induce class envy.

 

[JimH52]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/u...ns-likely-to-keep-capitals-split.html?hp&_r=0

It will be interesting. If Rove can keep the TP loons under control the GOP could gain Senate majority. I see some huge battles brewing.

If the Times is reporting it this way it means the Dems are expecting a blow out like 2010. Maybe bigger due to the Obamacare fiasco. Already Democratic reps are lining up not to run again, knowing it's an uphill battle.
A solidly GOP Congress with 2/3 Senate will impeach and remove Obama for his many crimes.

You off your meds again? That is not good....

 

[eflatminor]

Brushing up on my U.S. history there are quite a few notable facts about the Progressive era. The examples you note I am sure are excellent case studies in the application of economic policies. The one era that I do want to focus on however is America 1780-1913. This is an era before the industrial revolution

Hold on there buckaroo! That is simply NOT true. While there can be debate about specific dates, everyone would agree in principal that the Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840...some would argue until 1870. Either way, the Industrial Revolution did NOT begin after 1913, which was the start of the Progressive era!

Therefore, it was the era BEFORE the Progressives that brought about the industrial revolution...something that would NOT have happened under a centrally planned economy.

, and era whose malignities the Progressive era sought to remedy.

Yes, we understand the Progressives have the best of intentions in mind. And no one is saying that there was not malignity before 1913, but the thing is, there remains malignity today even after all the taxes, spending and meddling with the economy!

Stated differently, all the good intentions in the world cannot make evil men good. What we libertarians seek is for you to understand that and simply allow government to punish those that infringe on the rights of others...NOT to attempt to engineer society. Progressives not only fail to achieve anything close to eliminating evil, but they end up doing far more harm than good, while costing a fortune in the process.

The romantic vision of the country store, the grocer, the barber, and any other locally owned store where everyone knew everyone else. One reason this era might be viewed with such rosy lenses is that little was documented, as far as I know, of the economics of the mom and pop hardware store.

Think of it this way. In the pre-Progressive period, we know that in America, more poor became middle class and more middle class became rich than at any time in the history of the world!

That is REMARKABLE, don't you think? The freest markets, the freest people, the most limited government the world had ever seen...and more of the people prospered than ever before and they did so to a FAR greater extent than the more centrally planned economies in other countries. So much so, that this new country without a great leader to guide it came to DOMINATE the world economically.

As the Progressive era progressed, that began to change. Highly predictable!

Let's not forget though that in this time frame there was slavery and the building of the U.S. railroads.

No one is advocating slavery, CERTAINLY not a libertarian!

Labor abuses were extreme to the point of death and dismemberment.

Not more extreme than in centrally planned societies in other countries...in fact, it was LESS extreme due to the ability of a person to seek work elsewhere, something that was no always possible in countries ruled by tyrants.

Look, there is nothing wrong with workers seeking a safer working environment. There is nothing wrong with private sector workers coming together to collectively bargain for that safer environment, but that is based on voluntary actions, not government meddling.

The best way to improve worker safety is a fair and level litigious system to ensure the owners of industry have a financial incentive to keep workers safe and even more importantly, advancements in technology, which we see flourish with free markets and free people. Centrally planned societies do NOT innovate, they take.

Child labor and working conditions leading to a slow death were not illegal and as such practiced by several employers.

Here's is a PERFECT example of Progressive meddling going too far. No one is advocating forcing children to work in dangerous conditions. It is reasonable to have laws to prevent such things for children. However, we now have an environment where it is virtually impossible for a kid to work, thereby robbing young people of the experiences they need to thrive later in life.

For example, I started working after school and on weekends at 13 (before that in the summers). I got the real world experience of earning a paycheck, and managed to save a bit of money that was INVALUABLE later in my life. I find it immoral to rob a young person willing to work of such an experience, which is exactly what minimum wage requirements, IRS intervention, and overly burdensome child labor laws do.

If a kid wants to work, let him work! It doesn't mean he has to die in a coal mine!

When one speaks of the pure capitalist society they might envision the local grocer but what they get is $31 a month working on the railroad, $35 after the strike in 1867.

Then that one person would be taking a VERY narrow and unrealistic view. No reasonable student of economics thinks the pre-Progressive era was nothing but local grocers and other mom and pop stores.

Further, you should look at what 30 bucks a month got you in 1867. One could survive. However, after 1913, the Progressives brought us the ultimate in economic meddling, The Federal Reserve, which turned out to be THE MOST REGRESSIVE TAX of them all! Now a dollar is worth a pittance after all that centrally forced inflation. Did you know that from 1776 to 1913 inflation was FLAT? That's right, an item that cost $1 in 1776 cost a dollar in 1913. Today, that same $1 item costs nearly $25!!!

That hurts the poor more than any other segment of society. Once again, the meddlers harmed the very people they claim to be looking after. Sad, just sad.

I believe on reason you did not cite an economic theory for your Utopian capitalist society is that there is none.

Ah! Major misconception on your part! No one believes a capitalist society is "Utopian". We believe it is however, the best system for the prosperity of all its participants.

Big difference.

What is used is instead is a patchwork of poorly researched case studies, anecdotal evidence, and the desire of the rich and greedy to exploit workers. As a matter of fact the less documentation of the capitalist Utopia the better.

Now you're just being obtuse. And you're clearly not seeing the big picture. There is no denying the extent to which free markets and free people thrive over those that must endure more central planning. Bottom line, you and your Progressive brethren do NOT know what is best for society. Free people making voluntary decisions, as history shows, do know what's best for themselves...and are fully capable of choosing alternatives to anyone seeking to exploit them.

Enough Marxist nonsense! Open your eyes to the reality of economic history.