1 Foist!

2 Obama is going to Bali on Nov. 19th

Maybe Obama will stay there.

Â… better yet, letÂ’s send Obama on a permanent golfing vacation starting Jan 20, 2013

3 the NLRB is making it easier for unions to hold elections.  I thought this was what CARD CHECK was all about that was defeated in Congress?  wait.      Bambi's administration going around Congress to screw us?

4

OT, but Gateway has a story on the Gibson Guitar Co. CEO saying that Obama told him that all his problems would go away if he used labor from Madagascar instead of here.  WTF!

Apparently this was revealed on a radio talk show the other day. 

5 Even when I restrict my readings to "smart conservative military blogs", I find the feeling of impending DOOM to be a little unnerving.  Every day in every way, the libs/progs entangle us in new regulation from unaccountable bureaucrats and lawsuits from every conceivable (and some inconceivable) protected class.
I believe that Stein's Law ("If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.") applies to our present economic and political mess, and I don't think the stopping part is going to be done via a peaceful transition.

6 hey apple employees, maybe you ought to stay out of bars?

7 Bambi's administration going around Congress to screw us?

Posted by: kelley in virginia at September 01, 2011 08:58 AM (/Sgtl)

The most ethical executive branch evah would never subvert the perogatives of the co-equal branch of Congress in such a manner.

It would another interesting comparison to start listing all the go-arounds already in place by the SCOAMF.

8 in this "bad news is good news environment" what do you predict monty, the next QE?

9 @4: Saw that on Insty.  So the US government is basically ordering a US company to lay people off and outsource.  This must be the super-smartness of Barky that George Clooney was talking about.

10 Cats aside, Malkin photo shopped Obowma with Boner.

11 in the back of my memory I seem to recall that verizon was happy as a clam to hand over subscriber information to them and AT&T made a public spectacle complaining?  anyone remember that?  eric does.

12 a twofer

13

(Bloomberg) Applications for U.S. unemployment benefits fell last week as the influence of the strike at Verizon Communications Inc. waned.

Jobless claims fell by 12,000 to 409,000 in the week ended Aug. 27, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News projected a drop to 410,000, according to the median forecast. The figure remains higher than it was three weeks earlier, before the labor dispute at Verizon pushed the numbers up.

 

Still over 400k and still playing that Verizon strike caused the uptick cord. No worries. Barry's speech will solve everything. I mean his speeches always work wonders, don't they?

14 Cats aside, Malkin photo shopped Obowma with Boner.
Posted by: maverick muse at September 01, 2011 09:08 AM

And a pretty amateurish photoshop job it was, too.

Malkin can't get her outrageous outrage going against something so trivial as the SCoaMF's continued arrogance, so phones in a mild whimper about it. She saves her real foot-stamping disgust for real threats to the nation, like Rick Perry.

15 Jefferson historians debunk Sally's kids claim to fame, descended from his brother. Genetics not from Thomas. They welcome formal debate.

How many exhumations required to prove the brother's indiscretions?

16 You want DOOM? Well then, HERE is Doom... http://tinyurl.com/3f859cv "Pregnant Man Claims His Place was Take by Cher's Son on Dancing with The Stars." Shouldn't that be more like... Dancing with Hellbound Freaks??

17 in this "bad news is good news environment" what do you predict monty, the next QE?

I don't think so. QE's 1 and 2 were flops, pretty much (though you'll find people who'll argue that QE1 "worked"). Pump-priming won't work because the problem isn't a lack of liquidity -- it's a lack of borrowers. The problem is on the demand side of the ledger. The banks have plenty of cash to lend out, but businesses and individuals are either deleveraging, or waiting for the 2012 elections to see what the regulatory climate is going to look like going forward.

Bernanke and Geithner are in a bind, really. They've flooded the world with a lot of cheap cash (which is in part why China's inflation is now so high), and they've driven rates on US debt to zero. And zero-coupon bonds are the end-state: you can't push rates on debt lower than zero. (Well, you could; you could actually charge people to hold Treasurys, I guess -- but this is what is happening in reality anyway because the bond coupons aren't protected against inflation like TIPS are.) This is why a lot of people are saying that the Fed is "out of ammo". We don't need monetary policy (Fed); we need fiscal policy (the President and Congress). And nothing substantial is going to happen until after the 2012 elections.

Hence the prevailing belief that things will continue to suck clear into 2013.

18 This may have already been commented on last night or earlier today, but did you see that SCOAMF's new speechification interferes with NFL's opening game?  I'm seeing this as a political tactic, since this will no doubt be blamed on the republicans "forcing" SCOAMF to reschedule.  And of course the media will be the ones pushing that idea.

19 Malkin can't get her outrageous outrage going against something so trivial as the SCoaMF's continued arrogance, so phones in a mild whimper about it. She saves her real foot-stamping disgust for real threats to the nation, like Rick Perry. Posted by: MrScribbler at September 01, 2011 09:12 AM (YjjrR) I'm starting to think someone gifted her a vibrating Obama-shaped dildo...

20 another countdown to doom, via daily caller.

21

The jobs numbers are “unexpectedly” DOOMy.

But I expected that.

22 Posted by: Monty at September 01, 2011 09:14 AM (/0a60)

monty, you are the 4th person to whom I've asked that same question.  Thank you for such a clear concise answer.  I understand it so much better now.  I emailed the other three your answer.  It is interesting how a person can know something but can't get it across to another person.  You have a gift, you know it and can get it across.  thank you. ( a light bulb on something just went off in my head)

23 ACE posted a link to something Allah wrote like five years ago . He called it the funniest post ever. The post is about how many first graders can you beat down at one time. anybody know where I can find this?

24 25 ACE posted a link to something Allah wrote like five years ago . He called it the funniest post ever. The post is about how many first graders can you beat down at one time. anybody know where I can find this?

Posted by: lance at September 01, 2011 09:21 AM (YxYqu)

This thing maybe, or based on it? How Many Five Year Olds Can You Take In A Fight?

25 Barone makes an unforced error near the beginning of his piece, when he says that Social Security is a public old age pension system.  It isn't a pension system and never was intended as such. It is a whole life insurance policy.

26 How Many Five Year Olds Could You Take In A Fight?

27 "According to an article in FT, citing European source, the IMF has estimated European banks could face a capital shortfall of EUR 200bln. However, Eurozone officials strongly disagreed with the IMFÂ’s analysis."

28 Oh, I wish Fidoday would hurry up and get here!!

29 26 and 28. that is the idea but Allah actually had a class picture and he named how he would take each one out and what their specialty was (eye gouging, scratching, groin kicking0 things like that.

30

This Presidunce's speech will, at best, be a speech about an outline of a proposal for a concept about a theory of creating an approach to a potential solution to the problem of having to make speeches about the economy!

It will also allow us to blame the Republicans for not taking prompt action on the details of the speech.

31 How come the absolutely most expected MSM Media description of Obama's Utterly Failed Economy is... "Unexpected"?

32
I am definitely bookmarking this page and sharing it with my friends.

33 graph

34 Posted by: MrScribbler at September 01, 2011 09:12 AM (YjjrR)

Is Malkin still for Mittens?

Meanwhile, who's refusing to admit Perry's imperfections?

Buyer Beware applies to every candidate, including Perry.

It's one thing to consider the entire package. 

35

DOOM comes for socialists too.

36 I am standing in front of a mirror in my wife's undies and sharing it with my friends.

37 This morning is actually nice outside.
Later.

38

As the productive workforce shrinks, GDP growth is constrained.

Dat's Raciss!!!

39 If Perry can't walk on water, he is not the man for our pure of heart RINO establishment Republican party.

40 Is Malkin still for Mittens? For the life of me, I can't fathom why someone flipping out over Perry's arguably not-outrageous inoculation policy can't stomach Mitt RINOmney and his Personal Health Insurance Mandate for POTUS. Malkin is really, truly losing it.

41

Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

For all economically minded Morons, especially those with kids, I highly recommend "Your Teacher Said What?" by Joe Kernen.  It's like Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics" only a) not written in academic language and b) written so an 11 year old (a specific 11 year old, in fact) can understand it.

I can see how this would still be over the heads of our resident trolls, but it's a good examination of recent events from a Free Market view.

42 Has anybody ever met a *normal* Michelle ?  Anybody ?

43 Is Malkin still for Mittens?

I'm beginning to think Malkin is for Malkin. No one else meets her standards, has her common sense, her grasp of the issues, her unwavering, laser-like focus on what's right for America.

44 46 Is Malkin still for Mittens?

I'm beginning to think Malkin is for Malkin. No one else meets her standards, has her common sense, her grasp of the issues, her unwavering, laser-like focus on what's right for America.

Posted by: MrScribbler at September 01, 2011 09:36 AM (YjjrR)

you guys say the same stuff about me.  Are you going to start saying it about annie too, cause she has her Chris Christie crush?

45

Posted by: CoolCzech at September 01, 2011 09:32 AM (niZvt)

Everybody has their moments of insanity, their "die on this hill despite the unnecessary cost" moments. 

46

Bankrupting America makes DOOM fun!

47

you guys say the same stuff about me.  Are you going to start saying it about annie too, cause she has her Chris Christie crush?

Posted by: city gal at September 01, 2011 09:38 AM (k1rwm)

For what it's worth curious, I don't think you and Michelle Malkin have the same problems.

48

I'm beginning to think Malkin is for Malkin. No one else meets her standards, has her common sense, her grasp of the issues, her unwavering, laser-like focus on what's right for America.

I asked this a few days ago and never got an answer:  to all the purity people of whatever stripe, name me an actual politician who meets all of your criteria.  Seriously, name him/her.  I'm not being bitchy, I'm attempting to determine if there is an actual candidate out there or if everyone is simply enjoying the blood sport of being utter c_____ to each other.  I'm fairly certain it's clear what my assumption is as to what the answer will be. 

49 I wish one of the financial sites would do a report on how many CEO's have quit or been "asked to leave" in just the last six months.

50 OMG!

51

Posted by: alexthechick at September 01, 2011 09:40 AM (VtjlW)

Generic Republican.  He's kickass.

52 Mainly because a lot of that "growth" was in the form of borrowed money that now has to be paid back.

This. Karl Denninger has a graph he posts every once in a while (which he got from the official numbers from the Fed or Treasury, I forget which) plotting quarterly GDP growth and total systemic debt increase. The point being 'In how many quarters since 1980 has GDP grown faster than total systemic debt'-i.e. how often was it a net advantage to take on that debt.

0

53 NBC moved the debate, as I predicted.

54 I've never seen anyone call Malkin a vapid idiotic troll that listens to and believes liberals and is incapable of anything close to an original thought.

55 ever since black orchid worried out loud that the republican primaries could be tainted since there isn't really a dem primary per se, i've been asking people if they think it is ethical to register republican just to vote in the primary.  No one, and I've asked this to a lot of folks, thinks it's unethical if you are a dem to re register as a republican to vote in the primary.

56 The Dems steamrolled everyone in the 2010 elections, as I predicted.

57 >>I asked this a few days ago and never got an answer: to all the purity people of whatever stripe, name me an actual politician who meets all of your criteria Ron Paul! There are no perfect candidates. They are all politicians. The only criteria is 1) who can win and 2) who sucks less and might be the best at getting the things done you want.

58 I asked this a few days ago and never got an answer:  to all the purity people of whatever stripe, name me an actual politician who meets all of your criteria.

I'll be old enough to run for President in 2020.

I have no qualifications, but what the hell?

59 I'm fairly certain it's clear what my assumption is as to what the answer will be.  Posted by: alexthechick at September 01, 2011 09:40 AM

No one meets all my criteria. I wouldn't expect that, and if they did, they would probably get three votes (mine, plus two idiots who couldn't read the ballot).

Perry is Number One as of now, but that could change. Several others would be okay instead, and all but Huntsman and Mutt Romney would get a positive vote from me if nominated.

Naturally, if the Repubs run Used Styrofoam Cup against the stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure, they'll get my vote anyway.

60 Works for me. as this ensures the real R conservatives get screwed over with help from our good bipartisan Dem buddies.

61 i was like talking to all my friends professional parents about the current tax structure and i was like OMG! how do you figure out how much you owe? and they said the all over pay because they are republicans and sit in their gigantic living rooms worrying about the irs agents coming in and seizing everything including their adult diapered children that still live at home trying to figure out how their financial advisor screwed them up with college funds and now their are no jobs for them so they can't pay back their student loans and my friend who speaks 37 different languages is like OMG why are you only men? yes kurious....we've heard it all before.......gotta linky?

62

Posted by: alexthechick at September 01, 2011 09:40 AM (VtjlW)

I don't even think *I* meet all of my criteria, forget anyone with enough self-conceit (a required trait, sadly) to run for office.

63

Posted by: JackStraw at September 01, 2011 09:45 AM (TMB3S)

I think you have your priorities backwards.

64

My sister lives near Harrisburg so I clicked over to read that story (in summation: pathetic), but then caught sight of this headline as one of the "Most Commented" stories at the same site:

Liberal arts education is smart move in today's world

As soon as I read that I knew it had to have been written by a college administrator, and I was correct.  It's written by Janet Morgan Riggs, President of Gettysburg College. 

I was expecting it to be a syrupy, rose-colored glasses view of liberal arts, and I wasn't disappointed.  But this paragraph just made me want to puke (my comments are in purple):

TodayÂ’s graduates will hold not just several jobs, but several careers over their lifetimes (MWR: I note there's no mention of the fact that there are no jobs, let alone careers, for college graduates at this point). In fact, many will enter careers that do not currently exist. That suggests that training for a specific job might not provide the flexibility that todayÂ’s graduates need. (MWR: Oh dear Lord, can you hear it?  The whining?  "Don't go to a trade school!  You won't get to learn about diverse cultural experiences!  We're better than they are!  Come pay my salary!") Learning how to learn — learning general skills that translate from one career to another — enables the flexibility that is required in todayÂ’s fast-moving world.  (MWR: By the time you've reached college, you should already know "how to learn."  That's presumably how you managed to get through twelve years of mandatory education.  If you still need to "learn how to learn," then I suggest you retire to a mountaintop in Tibet and commune with the universe, because you're an utterly useless human being).

Nowhere does Pres. Riggs mention the absolute crushing amounts of debt that students are forced to shoulder these days in order to get a so-called "good" education, particularly at a pricey college like Gettysburg.

For individuals, a college education is a tremendous investment that will return dividends in personal and intellectual development, in income, in job choice and in professional flexibility.

For our society, a college education is an investment that will return dividends in the solution of complex problems, in the understanding of and appreciation for diverse cultural perspectives, and in effective local and global leadership.

I'm not even going to comment on those, because there are no words. 

Utterly amazing. 

65 Productivity falls 3 months in a row, first time since 1979, posted at Drudge.

66 >>I think you have your priorities backwards. I'm less pure than some. I have this crazy belief that winning with a slightly inferior candidate is far superior to losing with a perfect one.

67 I have this crazy belief that winning with a slightly inferior candidate is far superior to losing with a perfect one.

What's the point of "winning" if the country collapses anyway?

68

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at September 01, 2011 09:48 AM (4df7R)

You know, the louder the University Lobby gets, the less likely I am to encourage my kids to go to college.  I never bothered to graduate, and I'm making enough money- as a software developer- to support my family on one income (well, will be, shortly: we've got some debt we're paying off before taking that plunge).

My wife never completed college, and she makes nearing $48,000/yr.

On the other hand, I have one brother with a "liberal arts" batchelor's degree who makes about $36k/yr, and another who got his Masters in Education Administration who is only making slightly more than I am (and will probably be making less by the end of this year: yay promotions!).

Or, as my mom (who hates that I don't have a degree) sums up, "I have three sons.  Two have degrees and the other one makes money."

69 Jackstraw, sounds like you are ready to dump mittens for Perry then. Perry for the win.

70

I don't even think *I* meet all of my criteria, forget anyone with enough self-conceit (a required trait, sadly) to run for office.

Oh, I've often said that I would never vote for me.  (Not that there will be "voting" or "democracy" or "mercy" or "human kindness" in Alextopia but I digress)  My point is that the bile and vituperation that are being hurled about whenever any of the candidates are discussed seems to be premised on the assumption that there is the Mystical Perfect Candidate who possess all of the required positions and is perfectly electable to all demographics.  Um.  No. 

Now, I'm all for heated debate and whatnot but there seems to be an intensely personal edge to the dispute that I find dismaying.   Believe it or not, we all want the same thing, namely an epic, epic fail for SCOAMF.  Let's not burn down all the bridges to get there, m'kay? 

71 I asked this a few days ago and never got an answer:  to all the purity people of whatever stripe, name me an actual politician who meets all of your criteria.

Marcus Aurelius, unfortunately he ain't coming back anytime soon.

I figure ultimately it comes down to the purest person who is most effective at getting the agenda accomplished.  Now that's very subjective, but I think that's probably what we all want.  For me, that is Rick Perry - two term governor, solidly conservative, also willing to be confrontational.

72

I'm less pure than some. I have this crazy belief that winning with a slightly inferior candidate is far superior to losing with a perfect one.

Fair.

I guess it depends on how far apart your priority 1 and 2 are.  I'm all for looking at conservatives first, and then looking at which one can win.  If I look only for "winners" first, I might not get a conservative in that mix at all.

73

Goldman Sachs acknowledges that the world is DOOMed and publishes handbook on how to profit from it.

WeÂ’re saved!  Sorta.

74 >>What's the point of "winning" if the country collapses anyway? I'm not sure if I understand your point. If you think the country is going to collapse no matter what, what's the point of even running? I don't think we are going to collapse. I think we are going to have severe economic challenges and some very tough times so all the more reason I want someone who has the knowledge of the private markets and how the economy works because we will have to rebuild.

75 I'm less pure than some. I have this crazy belief that winning with a slightly inferior candidate is far superior to losing with a perfect one.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 01, 2011 09:50 AM (TMB3S)

Is the MA GOP better or worse off by having Matt Amorello associated with it?

These guys can fuck up and tarnish the brand.

76

Now, I'm all for heated debate and whatnot but there seems to be an intensely personal edge to the dispute that I find dismaying.

I guess I see it in degrees.  Some of our regulars here are at least willing to admit fault with their own candidates, so I mostly don't mind them.  Those discussions get heated because they're passionate.

The trolls, on the other hand (Hear me, C4P?), come in with the express intent of sabotaging a candidate (Right now, Rick Perry.  For a while, it was Romney.  I expect if they're successful with Perry, they'll aim at Romney again).  Those discussions get heated because it is stupid to try to sabotage a candidate who is a) far more conservative than any Democrat (as applies to either Perry or Romney) and b) stands an actual chance of winning something.

I get "personal" on those, because the only thing that will make them go away is when you hurt their feelings enough that they have to go lick their wounds.

77 67, Thirty years ago I was chatting with my Uncle and he asked me what I thought I would do with my life. I sad I wasn't sure. He said you can't go wrong with plumbing or some sort of Agriculture, because everybody eats and everybody shits. Looking back, that was relatively sage.

78 69 >>I think you have your priorities backwards.

I'm less pure than some. I have this crazy belief that winning with a slightly inferior candidate is far superior to losing with a perfect one.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 01, 2011 09:50 AM (TMB3S)

And where is that line of where inferiority crosses over from being just strong enough to win, to just crappy enough to lose.  Because see I am all for the idea that we need to be supporting the best candidate we can, and a big part of that "best" is on the electability front, so I'm not concerned about a few squishy views here and their depending on the makeup of an electorate. 

But I have a big problem with the "moderate/establishment" types that tell the more conservative sorts that they need to follow the system and the rules in place and to fall in line when it is one of those squishy moderates.  But when that moderate loses they sure do act like the petulant brat, going so far as to refuse to endorse, run as a write-in, etc.  Its very much a game of "follow the rules so we can win, and if that doesn't happen then damn the rules!"

79

Now, I'm all for heated debate and whatnot but there seems to be an intensely personal edge to the dispute that I find dismaying.   Believe it or not, we all want the same thing, namely an epic, epic fail for SCOAMF.  Let's not burn down all the bridges to get there, m'kay? 

Posted by: alexthechick at September 01, 2011 09:53 AM (VtjlW)

*wildly loud golf clap!*

I realize golf claps are supposed to be whisper quiet.  I do not care.  I'm trying to interrupt the SCOAMF's latest golf game, because I loathe him much, much more than any of the GOP candidates.  Which I hope is roughly the same position as everyone else.

80 I'm baaaaaack.....

81 I wish someone would tell glenn beck and company that you are stuck with your student loans, in fact, if you fail to pay them you leave a nice parting gift for your heirs.

82 Ah, Illinois, senior member of the LOTB

We'll be all right - just need to raise taxes a little; then, we'll be rolling in dough.

You'll see.

83 I'm not sure if I understand your point. If you think the country is going to collapse no matter what, what's the point of even running?

I can live with Perry. Some folks prefer Romney. But if either goes to DC and engages in the same 'responsible adult' nonsense that the GOP wants now (see TARP, the stimulus that they voted against because it was going to pass anyway, Obamacare for the same reason, the endless debt limit increases, all allegedly covered by fantasy talks of "cutting" projected spending) they will fail as surely as Obama is.

The only policy that ever had a chance of success is to do nothing and let the housing market and banks sort themselves out. Instead we are on a path to sustain mediocrity until such time that even the government with all the resources it consumes, cannot keep everything afloat. That end point is the definition of collapse.

84 >>I guess it depends on how far apart your priority 1 and 2 are. I'm all for looking at conservatives first, and then looking at which one can win. If I look only for "winners" first, I might not get a conservative in that mix at all. I agree. But in this case the field has pretty much already been narrowed to two who can even meet the bar in those two categories, Perry and Romney. It's the same reason I was for Romney over Fred last election. Fred arguably was the most conservative but I thought he would flame out early in the campaign. We can argue endlessly, and we will, about who we like better than the other, who's record we think is more appropriate and more importantly who we think has the knowledge and skills to get down what we want done. We are electing a President not a king. No matter who wins they will disappoint us because they won't get everything we want. Reagan didn't get everything we want. It's the nature of elected politics. So the purity thing is less of a big deal to me. The one thing I do know is that Obama will do almost nothing I want so I don't get as invested in Romney versus Perry. I think Romney has a better chance of getting elected and would do a better job but I can live with Perry if he gets the nod.

85 89 JackStraw,

My main problem with Mitt is his "flexibility"...

the last time we had a GOP president who wanted to "work with our friends across the aisle" we had Ted Kennedy Shit be upon Him writing an education bill that the democrats have spent 9 years trolling....

Gridlock is not a bug in our system it is a feature.

86 The problem is on the demand side of the ledger. The banks have plenty of cash to lend out, but businesses and individuals are either deleveraging, Which doesn't make sense because we all know what is coming, no matter what happens -- higher interest rates AND inflation. What I have observed is a reluctance to lend by the banks, their risk models and paperwork requirements are stifiling. We wanted a modest loan for some parts on a project, the pain and time consuming effort in getting what would have been a single meeting was too hard - the owner just bigfooted the bank and dipped into his own pockets after about a month of delays. So we, are now holding a cash cushion in an external account of about 300K instead of a LOC. Who needs a bank?

87 From the speech timing link:
He also faced questions about whether former first lady Nancy Reagan had been told that the president's speech would coincide with a spotlight moment for her husband's library. She was not, he said.

What a pr1ck. 

88 When one continues to lie and or distort about basic facts, you will be called on it, Like pretending that her resignation was not due to a deliberate Alinsky campaign against her. You excuse it, by saying well that's the conventional wisdom, now it won't happen to our shiny candidate; with a year to go, you're willing to take that bet, good for you.

89 There are many dumb comments at that NPR link, but this one takes the cake: "The article's argument is malarkey, hogwash. The amount owed to future retirees, doctors, hospitals and so forth is also income for those people, and money that will circulate, recirculate and be taxed over and over. You could make a similar argument that in so many years, the US will have gone broke from buying McDonald's hamburgers."

90 No matter who wins they will disappoint us because they won't get everything we want.

Well that's where we're always going to disagree I guess. I think we are out of time with very little margin for error, and you think we're arguing over who is going to have their preferences respected-and things will just muddle on either way because they always have.

91 >>My main problem with Mitt is his "flexibility"... Fair complaint. I would only ask you to look at where he was governing. Had he not worked with people across the aisle, he would have been working with about 40 legislators out of 240. It just wouldn't have been feasible. I was having a similar discussion with Allen the other day. Look what Perry did in TX. He spoke to La Raza, had a lot of less than conservative views about Illegals and immigration policy. Why? Because he had too. That's Texas. You can find similar conservative heresies in his budget process and other issues. None of them are pure and all of them have warts. But I try to figure out which of those are heartfelt positions and which are just reactions to the environment they are in. This is one reason why representatives make such poor executive candidates. Many Congressional districts have been so gerrymandered that they are for all intents homogenous. A Michelle Bachmann may be wildly popular in her district and she can be as pure as she wants because her voters are roughly in line with her. She also doesn't have to get much done so long as she stays pure. executives don't have this luxury.

92 Until the candidates can ask each other questions, these joint press conferences shouldn't be called debates.

93

You could make a similar argument that in so many years, the US will have gone broke from buying McDonald's hamburgers

Because Liberals believe that economics is a zero-sum game.  That, if I give it to you, I don't have it anymore.

And, while that might be true of the money I transfered to you for that ultra-processed horse patty on a bun, the value has increased in both directions (something they just don't understand).  You value my money more than the hamburger, and I value the hamburger more than that 2 dollars, or whatever.

On the other hand, transfer payments by the government (that is, confiscation of my wealth to pay someone else) IS a zero-sum game.  It takes value (in the form of purchasing power) from me and gives it to someone else without replacing it for me.

And that doesn't even get into time-value of money, opportunity costs, and all that other stuff that just piles on to the fact that transfer payments of any kind are a drag on the economy.

94 Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at September 01, 2011 10:13 AM (azHfB)

Reading the comments on stories like that is the best part of my day, I kid you not. Pure hilarity. The combination of economic cluelessness combined with liberal outrage makes for a very tasty treat.

If you want what is possibly the most sublime example of this sort of thing, watch Milton Friedman school the uber-liberal Phil Donohue back in the Carter era. (I sure miss Uncle Miltie.)
 

95 23 ( a light bulb on something just went off in my head)
______

Light bulbs are supposed to go *on* in your head.

96 97 Jean,

absolutely

96 JS,

the problem with your thesis on Mitt and I largely agree with the "prisoner of circumstance thesis by the way even Reagan could speak moonbat in the late 60s early 70s" is that Mitt had the wealth and wherewithal to go to the state he felt he could do the most good at....

he chose the PRM instead of Michigan or Utah....

you get in bed with tedster and bawney Fwank you're gonna wake up hung over with a sore ass every time

97

I guess I see it in degrees.  Some of our regulars here are at least willing to admit fault with their own candidates, so I mostly don't mind them.  Those discussions get heated because they're passionate.

That's why I said for the purity people.  Look, no candidate is perfect, I would be terrified if that were otherwise.  And heaven knows that I am really the last person who should be throwing stones about heated and passionate rhetoric.  It's those who reject the issue of electability as a factor nearly entirely that drive me nuts.  Yes, electability has to be a factor.  What weight should be given to electability vs. ideology is a very fair debate.  But the instantaneous RINO RINO shrieking when the issue is broached at all is infuriating.  The flip side, of course, is the failure to address the fair concerns about whether or not a candidate will actually forward the conversative cause when elected and will not, as noted in 90 above, turn around and reach across the aisle and continue down the same merry path.  We are in this mess in no small part because of precisely such behavior.  It is entirely fair to look askance on those who at least appears to have a pattern of doing so.

There is no perfect solution to this.  That's because life is analog and messy and all of the stuff that makes it life. 

98 99 Monty,

Uncle Milty was gold baby

99 Monty, the way the libs hurl "FoxNews" like an epithet at NPR is simply gorgeous. (Yeah, I've watched the Milton Friedman video. He's so much more on the ball than his idiot brother Thomas.)

100 74 I asked this a few days ago and never got an answer: to all the purity people of whatever stripe, name me an actual politician who meets all of your criteria.

Marcus Aurelius, unfortunately he ain't coming back anytime soon.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 01, 2011 09:53 AM (FkKjr)

He wasn't perfect either, sadly.

101 104 GoY,

Milton Friedman has more brains than Krugman dead and buried bud

102 >>Well that's where we're always going to disagree I guess. I think we are out of time with very little margin for error, and you think we're arguing over who is going to have their preferences respected-and things will just muddle on either way because they always have. I don't think we are that far apart on our belief that we are near a tipping point with very little time. I think where we, and probably some others here disagree with me as well, is the idea that whoever gets the nod, Romney or Perry, will be wildly apart in what they do. sven- >>he chose the PRM instead of Michigan or Utah... Eh, not really. He had lived in MA since college and this is where he built his business and raised his family. His only ties to Utah were family, religion and the Olympics and he hadn't lived in MI in decades.

103 Marcus Aurelius, unfortunately he ain't coming back anytime soon.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at September 01, 2011 09:53 AM (FkKjr)

He wasn't perfect either, sadly.

Posted by: Christians in the Coliseum entertaining the lions at September 01, 2011 10:24 AM (nEMLy)

Fuck off. We were entertained.

104 Setting up the next run of shorting I guess    +55.10 (0.47%)  11,668.63

The behavior of the market is explicable.

105 I confess, I can't make heads or tails out of this comment (but it's been recommended 8 times):

With double-entry bookkeeping, the national debt is really the national credit. There is a collosal fraud afoot here - the largest in the history of the world. Here's a thought. The debt is financed by bonds that are backed by the full faith and credit of the people of the USA. What does that mean? It means that we promise to be as productive over the life of the bond as we have been to date. So doesn't that mean that the property backing up the money is that of we the people? And if that is true, why the hell are Banksters getting interest on this bond money? The simple fact is that Abraham Lincoln was shot for issuing interest-free greenbacks and Kennedy was shot for Executive Order 11110 to convert the US Treasury Silver Reserves to greenbacks to pull America out of Stagflation. What was Johnson's first executive act? To recall the money! So what is the real problem? IT'S NOT THE MONEY WE CREATE TO REFLOAT OUR ECONOMY, IT IS THE INTEREST WE PAY THAT HAS COMPOUNDED TO A COLLOSAL DEBT! It's time for Americans to wake up, stand up and step up. Enough is enough!

106 The behavior of the market is explicable.

You better believe it.

107 107 JS,

with his wealth he could have done more work in either of the other,

I'll support whoever gets the nod to run against bammy and will destroy whoever in our party tries to thwart the candidate....

I held my nose and back Juan Queeg last time and the Frummian wing of the party got McCain nominated and then voted for Bambi since "there is really little difference between the two"....


Bob barr died to me in '08 forever

108

30 five year olds.  Is that a good number?  Thanks for the doom sir, may I have another?

I kind of love you, Alex the chick.  And I'm okay wth a GF on the side.  I'm on LKN, where are you?

109 Obama's job speech will announce that America is going to invest in time shares.

110

I love the photo that goes with this story. It looks like someone just lofted a really nasty "cabbage and hard-boiled eggs" air-biscuit, but no one wants to own up.

That's some epic body language.  Our God-King is obviously displeased.

111 There is no perfect solution to this.  That's because life is analog and messy and all of the stuff that makes it life.

What draws me to economics is not the dry numbers and statistics -- it's the human element. Economics, really, is just people doing what people do. People are unpredictable, often irrational, subject to manias and phobias and enthusiasms and periods of despair.

But the best thing about economics is this: it's fair. Absolutely, intrinsically, and unalterably fair.

All of life is just a battle against entropy that will inevitably be lost -- the best we can hope for is temporary victories now and then. This is as true of economics as of any other feature of life. Nature's rules are inviolate and absolute -- no one can escape entropy forever. Everybody loses in the long run. It doesn't get any "fairer" than that.

This is not a depressing thing -- destruction must take place so that new things can emerge. The cosmos will not tolerate stasis.

112 116 Monty,

economics when practiced as an artistic science and not a blind religion in a perpetual motion machine is what allows us to live as we do....

creative destruction is a feature not a bug....

Bambi Soetoro wants us to subsidize buggy whip makers forever

113 Liberalism:  the philosophy that people dumber than you should run your life.

114 The article on the WI teachers taking their retirements now is a predictable consequence of the law changes. They are trying to lock in their pensions, figuring that it will be harder to alter them once they have them in hand. CA is a perfect example of this, as it is in their state constitution to not alter awarded pensions. Another example can be seen whenever a public employee gets caught with their pee pee in the cookie jar; they immediately retire before they can be fired so as to protect that precious pension gold.
 
They can collect it while sitting in a jail cell for a few years. What a deal. (Yeah, I know in some cases they can be revoked upon conviction but it seems to be more the exception in unionized fields).

115 Btw Monty, thanks for the excellent DoomCasts. High quality as usual; takes me forever to work through all the links.

116

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is at home this morning at September 01, 2011 10:18 AM (KxyHe)

The bigger problem is the assumption that the government can stay solvent by promising outrageous sums as welfare because it will be later taxing a small fraction of that money.

It's like you promsing to pay for your companies expansion (or more accurately, worthless PR vanity project) because you can't go broke, after all they pay your salary so you'll get some of that back.

117

Monty, a request if I may,

Could you do an economics post on debt? Conventional wisdom is that our economy is fueled by spending, and so debt is necessary and good to keep it going. Common sense says that borrowing as little as possible is personally beneficial. Keynesians say this is a paradox and government needs to confiscate this wealth to prime the pump, grease the economy, whatever, for the collective good.

I suspect that it means debt and loans are not the goose that lays the golden egg; but can there be an economy not driven by consumption? What am I missing?

118 120 GnuBreed,

hear hear Monty's doom is what's for breakfast

119 122 Randy M,

how debt works and must be serviced is at the heart of the fight between keynes and hayek and we have been getting raped by Keynes for about 70 years now....

here is a tiny url of a great vid on K v H with soundbites of the structural philosophical differences between left and right and why in the end there can be little compromise long term....

http://preview.tinyurl.com/yat7qae

the reason why politicians love Keynes is they misread him as basically giving them permission to devalue their fiat currency into oblivion to buy votes....

it is like Barry's braying about "infrastructure improvements" as a jobless aid....

the only way a true keynesian would back that idea is if you also had a business friendly environment of underserved by roads and freight potential industry.....

that is NOT the problem the structural problem is America simply refuses to compete for the capital of investors who need to get a rate of return to their liking on investment and creation.....

every time the EPA plays games with energy cost, enviro regs, and saves a chinchilla a dollar bill is dying and some other business weighs going Galt.....

regards,
sven

120 here's a follow up vid as well....

Boom and Bust are necessary for the creative destruction of the market and the long term health of our technological base...

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6gcw7po

no sane economist thinks you can happily go Weimar.....

so that means you can safely discount Krugman

121 Hence the prevailing belief that things will continue to suck clear into 2013.

Unfortunately, I concur.

Except, I'm way doomier. I'm voting on a Japan-eque "lost decade."

/an aside, Hot Air posted a story about the O today, and used a drunk kitteh pic. They are now getting their  content ideas from you Monty!

122 126 Shibmui,

we are boned at least 10 years and possibly 20 if we do not tap itno our abundant natural resources to attract foreign capital....

Japan was caught in a liquidity trap because they save too much....

you think Helicopter ben was fixing the same problem here with his games?

123

Thanks Sven, I'll check it out. I think I was conflating two things, a debt based economy and a consumption based economy; I'm trying to find an explanation why saving is good because that seems so obviously true and yet so counter to prevailing 'wisdom' and the admittedly reasonable-on-the-face-of-it notion that for one person to make money another has to spend it.

Basically I think it boils down to the fact that consumption should only be regarded as good if they are buying something of value, but that's subjective anyway. But given that, it does make a sound argument against redistribution as a stimulative measure, because you can't force someone to spend in a way that brings greater subjective value (including the security of savings) or they would have already.

Sorry I'm rambling bu I'm trying to make sense of my own intutions.

124 Gregory - that is a long winded version of a Paulian screaming " its the Joooooos"

125 128 Randy M,

you save money because that enables you to act as a silent partner in the bank's collation and polling of its silent partners purchasing power voluntarily delayed to loan capital to business to be born or grow.....

the fee the borrowing business pays back is split between you and the bank by the bank keeping X-the% rate promised less fees and handing you your initial investment plus the above.....

ANYTHING interfering with that paradigm gums up the works....

like Fanny and Freddy

126 129 Jean.,

if only the Paultards could learn to channel their angst and rage for building instead of entropy

127 130 collition and pooling sorry on my way out the door....

remember ideally in a Smith based economy you are paid for goods and services rendered and freely obtained from your market IOW the populace is picking winners and losers not a politician

128 "I don't live anywhere, the road is my home"Dear Monty,
The road to nowhere leads to my house. If you make it this far, I will fix you a sandwich and a glass of iced tea.

129 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

130 We introduced some this year for new hat, so the comparative trend in the price of reasonable and credible provides the high quality for the customer the leisure hat baseball hats Reduce weight, the more people choose pills, years of quality assurance, pure natural plant extract, let you lose weight visible and healthy. slimming capsule