RealGM

Continued from here

Discuss:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... s/?hpid=z3

Zonk -- Wasn't able to respond to your post/provocation on economics earlier but I doubt I could have added anything of value. I'm a layman dependent upon common sense for economic judgement and I confess there's probably some gaping holes in my analysis. It does appear to me though that when Apple borrows $18 Billion for 20 or 30 year bonds instead of repatriating its overseas cash hoard something is askew. I also don't understand why GM doesn't have to pay income taxes for 20 years while Ford does. Another thing that bugs me is the fact that corporations aren't required to disclose their net tax payments each year.

On politics - I believe our country is in deep trouble and not only because of debt and deficits ......... the electorate seems uninterested or unwilling to read up on or care much about important issues ......... the MSM seems to value grand parties with celebrities and political luminaries more than they do truth. justice and journalism that holds those in power accountable to the people ........... we've also come to a point in our history where much of the electorate is ok with lying as an accepted form of political debate. It's all quite depressing IMO but my wife insists that I remain cheerful in spite of it. It's a struggle not to transfer my jaded outlook on things to my kids and thus counteract, the natural, youthful optimism that they and other youngsters possess.

From Zonker

I mean that, to the extent that pork is equivalent to digging ditches and filling them up, they're not really "creating" jobs. They might successfully transfer jobs from one political district to another, but that's it. I would argue similarly for the defense budget. What is the value added of building something that will eventually just be blown up? What's the difference between that and digging a ditch and filling it up?

Pork spending results in things like a Naval Surface Warfare Center in West Virginia that will employ people for the forseable future (just sort of try to forget that there's no ocean or surface ships in West Va). Same with Boeing or other govt contractors. Same with hiring policemen. Same with ongoing road construction, which has the added benefit of spurning new investments. Long term government spending, while part of a cycle, is not a useless thing. Lots of things grow around it. Funding a public library or recreation center or a number of other "make work projects" like that are far different than digging a ditch and filling it up. Other businesses will leverage these things. Same with the warfare center, etc. They bring big $$$ into communities which get distributed to all the businesses there.

sfam wrote:From Zonker

I mean that, to the extent that pork is equivalent to digging ditches and filling them up, they're not really "creating" jobs. They might successfully transfer jobs from one political district to another, but that's it. I would argue similarly for the defense budget. What is the value added of building something that will eventually just be blown up? What's the difference between that and digging a ditch and filling it up?

Pork spending results in things like a Naval Surface Warfare Center in West Virginia that will employ people for the forseable future (just sort of try to forget that there's no ocean or surface ships in West Va). Same with Boeing or other govt contractors. Same with hiring policemen. Same with ongoing road construction, which has the added benefit of spurning new investments. Long term government spending, while part of a cycle, is not a useless thing. Lots of things grow around it. Funding a public library or recreation center or a number of other "make work projects" like that are far different than digging a ditch and filling it up. Other businesses will leverage these things. Same with the warfare center, etc. They bring big $$$ into communities which get distributed to all the businesses there.

That money has to come from somewhere sfam. Otherwise, we would have already evolved towards pure, unrestrained Socialism and everyone would have a job and be happy.

sfam wrote:From Zonker

I mean that, to the extent that pork is equivalent to digging ditches and filling them up, they're not really "creating" jobs. They might successfully transfer jobs from one political district to another, but that's it. I would argue similarly for the defense budget. What is the value added of building something that will eventually just be blown up? What's the difference between that and digging a ditch and filling it up?

Pork spending results in things like a Naval Surface Warfare Center in West Virginia that will employ people for the forseable future (just sort of try to forget that there's no ocean or surface ships in West Va). Same with Boeing or other govt contractors. Same with hiring policemen. Same with ongoing road construction, which has the added benefit of spurning new investments. Long term government spending, while part of a cycle, is not a useless thing. Lots of things grow around it. Funding a public library or recreation center or a number of other "make work projects" like that are far different than digging a ditch and filling it up. Other businesses will leverage these things. Same with the warfare center, etc. They bring big $$$ into communities which get distributed to all the businesses there.

That's precisely my point. Yes, you can employ people by taking taxpayer money and paying people to dig ditches and fill them up. Complete waste of money. What is the added value?

popper wrote:Zonk -- Wasn't able to respond to your post/provocation on economics earlier but I doubt I could have added anything of value. I'm a layman dependent upon common sense for economic judgement and I confess there's probably some gaping holes in my analysis. It does appear to me though that when Apple borrows $18 Billion for 20 or 30 year bonds instead of repatriating its overseas cash hoard something is askew. I also don't understand why GM doesn't have to pay income taxes for 20 years while Ford does. Another thing that bugs me is the fact that corporations aren't required to disclose their net tax payments each year.

On politics - I believe our country is in deep trouble and not only because of debt and deficits ......... the electorate seems uninterested or unwilling to read up on or care much about important issues ......... the MSM seems to value grand parties with celebrities and political luminaries more than they do truth. justice and journalism that holds those in power accountable to the people ........... we've also come to a point in our history where much of the electorate is ok with lying as an accepted form of political debate. It's all quite depressing IMO but my wife insists that I remain cheerful in spite of it. It's a struggle not to transfer my jaded outlook on things to my kids and thus counteract, the natural, youthful optimism that they and other youngsters possess.

Popper, i enjoy discussing things with you but it's hard to have a discussion if you don't read my posts. You come in here and drop prepackaged fox news soundbites, and I routinely knock them out of the park, and I get no response. Makes me wonder if you're even interested in discussing these topics or are you just trying to spread fox propaganda?

Zonkerbl wrote:

popper wrote:Zonk -- Wasn't able to respond to your post/provocation on economics earlier but I doubt I could have added anything of value. I'm a layman dependent upon common sense for economic judgement and I confess there's probably some gaping holes in my analysis. It does appear to me though that when Apple borrows $18 Billion for 20 or 30 year bonds instead of repatriating its overseas cash hoard something is askew. I also don't understand why GM doesn't have to pay income taxes for 20 years while Ford does. Another thing that bugs me is the fact that corporations aren't required to disclose their net tax payments each year.

On politics - I believe our country is in deep trouble and not only because of debt and deficits ......... the electorate seems uninterested or unwilling to read up on or care much about important issues ......... the MSM seems to value grand parties with celebrities and political luminaries more than they do truth. justice and journalism that holds those in power accountable to the people ........... we've also come to a point in our history where much of the electorate is ok with lying as an accepted form of political debate. It's all quite depressing IMO but my wife insists that I remain cheerful in spite of it. It's a struggle not to transfer my jaded outlook on things to my kids and thus counteract, the natural, youthful optimism that they and other youngsters possess.

Popper, i enjoy discussing things with you but it's hard to have a discussion if you don't read my posts. You come in here and drop prepackaged fox news soundbites, and I routinely knock them out of the park, and I get no response. Makes me wonder if you're even interested in discussing these topics or are you just trying to spread fox propaganda?

I do read your post. Pretty much every one. I think the post you're referring to delves deep into the weeds of economic theory. My Econ 101-103 classes taken in 1975 don't prepare me very well to engage in any sort of detailed discussion on the issue so why waste the board's time. However I will comment on your statement that "neocon philosophy states that markets are good and that we should always trust them no matter what..." I believe this is a false premise. I'm not a neocon but my observations and discussions with those that are don't support your statement.

One last thing - for those of you on the board who cite Fox News as the source for every argument that goes against your beliefs I would say you'd be better served by just responding to the substance of a position rather than trying to pigeon hole it in a demeaning way. How would you like it if I assign to progressives on this site the Huffington Post or MSNBC as the source for all of your arguments. It's unfair and tends to prejudice the opposing view.

In case anyone is interested here is a link to the Benghazi timeline. It is fascinating to say the least. If you will invest a few minutes of your time I'm confident you will gain a whole new perspective on the importance that Hillary and President Obama place upon protecting our government representatives abroad.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... ormat.html

popper wrote:In case anyone is interested here is a link to the Benghazi timeline. It is fascinating to say the least. If you will invest a few minutes of your time I'm confident you will gain a whole new perspective on the importance that Hillary and President Obama place upon protecting our government representatives abroad.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... ormat.html

The reality of the situation is, neither Clinton or Obama deal directly with embassy staff regularly, nor gives a damn about their perspective(s). Unless of course they are gifting an ambassadorship.

The disaster ultimately is their responsibility by definition, but the lack of sufficient communication between military "intelligence" in DC and embassy staff is to blame.

And let's be honest, embassy staff aren't exactly rocket scientists (mostly 20-30 somethings in their first foreign foray making 35k a year), and neither are their military personnel (high school grads with no foreign exposure). The majority of US embassies are sadly vulnerable to this exact same type of attack.

As much as I dislike Obama, I can't pin this on him. Not sure why he didn't just say it was a wholly regrettable terrorist attack, and poor communication between the military and embassy played a large part in the disaster.

Induveca wrote:

popper wrote:In case anyone is interested here is a link to the Benghazi timeline. It is fascinating to say the least. If you will invest a few minutes of your time I'm confident you will gain a whole new perspective on the importance that Hillary and President Obama place upon protecting our government representatives abroad.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... ormat.html

The reality of the situation is, neither Clinton or Obama deal directly with embassy staff regularly, nor gives a damn about their perspective(s). Unless of course they are gifting an ambassadorship.

The disaster ultimately is their responsibility by definition, but the lack of sufficient communication between military "intelligence" in DC and embassy staff is to blame.

And let's be honest, embassy staff aren't exactly rocket scientists (mostly 20-30 somethings in their first foreign foray making 35k a year), and neither are their military personnel (high school grads with no foreign exposure). The majority of US embassies are sadly vulnerable to this exact same type of attack.

As much as I dislike Obama, I can't pin this on him. Not sure why he didn't just say it was a wholly regrettable terrorist attack, and poor communication between the military and embassy played a large part in the disaster.

There appears to be incontrovertible evidence that the military intelligence apparatus and embassy personnel in Libya were in frequent communication with State Dept. executives in DC. in the weeks and months before the attack. One could say the military intelligence community and the security personnel in Libya knew things were about to fall apart and communicated that information to Washington multiple times leading up to the disaster. They begged for extra security over and over and State Dept. executives in DC repeatedly declined the requests.

In addition, there is also incontrovertible evidence that the intelligence reports describing the events were then altered at the behest of the White House in order to deceive the American public leading up to the election. Once the altered reports were complete with a false narrative relieving Hillary and the President of gross negligence then the ambassador to the UN was marched out to sell the lies on five Sunday morning talk shows. More will undoubtedly come on in the House hearing next week.

Popper can't dispute what you say, deflection of blame is obvious and certain. But quite frankly, I wish DC would focus on the financial crisis and stop with the pointless witch hunts.

Induveca wrote:Popper can't dispute what you say, deflection of blame is obvious and certain. But quite frankly, I wish DC would focus on the financial crisis and stop with the pointless witch hunts.

I agree with you in large measure Induveca but as a successful business owner and executive, I'm sure you more than most, can appreciate the need for accountability. The MSM has already commenced with the Hillary worship in order to promote her as the next President. If she's not held accountable for the empty suit she is then Americans will be buying another pig-in-the-poke.

popper wrote:

Induveca wrote:Popper can't dispute what you say, deflection of blame is obvious and certain. But quite frankly, I wish DC would focus on the financial crisis and stop with the pointless witch hunts.

I agree with you in large measure Induveca but as a successful business owner and executive, I'm sure you more than most, can appreciate the need for accountability. The MSM has already commenced with the Hillary worship in order to promote her as the next President. If she's not held accountable for the empty suit she is then Americans will be buying another pig-in-the-poke.

I actually had typed almost the same thing in the previous response and deleted.....Benghazi is a theme we should all get used to sadly.

This is, in actuality, the start of the 2016 election. Clinton could be taken down if enough evidence is presented and a lesser democratic nominee results. Sadly this really benefits no one, as the focus is off the economy for the next 3 years.

nate33 wrote:

sfam wrote:From Zonker

I mean that, to the extent that pork is equivalent to digging ditches and filling them up, they're not really "creating" jobs. They might successfully transfer jobs from one political district to another, but that's it. I would argue similarly for the defense budget. What is the value added of building something that will eventually just be blown up? What's the difference between that and digging a ditch and filling it up?

Pork spending results in things like a Naval Surface Warfare Center in West Virginia that will employ people for the forseable future (just sort of try to forget that there's no ocean or surface ships in West Va). Same with Boeing or other govt contractors. Same with hiring policemen. Same with ongoing road construction, which has the added benefit of spurning new investments. Long term government spending, while part of a cycle, is not a useless thing. Lots of things grow around it. Funding a public library or recreation center or a number of other "make work projects" like that are far different than digging a ditch and filling it up. Other businesses will leverage these things. Same with the warfare center, etc. They bring big $$$ into communities which get distributed to all the businesses there.

That money has to come from somewhere sfam. Otherwise, we would have already evolved towards pure, unrestrained Socialism and everyone would have a job and be happy.

Almost all the money going to the federal, state or local government is reinserted back into the economy. Part of government's function in building the middle-class clearly has a redistributive function. This is why Mississippi has at least some money going toward its welfare and school systems for instance. Investments by government are proven to spurn economic growth in a variety of ways. Infrastructure is the clearest case. But in the case of industries being sent to west va, for instance, this can help the state attract other investments, both foreign and domestic. By funding Boeing for air force projects, Boeing generates enough money to invest in building commercial airplanes. Bottom line, while a lot of Federal spending is circular, it is not a zero sum game. Investments in Alaskan tourism projects, which were mostly pork projects, have resulted in a now thriving tourism industry there, where people from many countries visit.

Zonkerbl wrote:

sfam wrote:From Zonker

I mean that, to the extent that pork is equivalent to digging ditches and filling them up, they're not really "creating" jobs. They might successfully transfer jobs from one political district to another, but that's it. I would argue similarly for the defense budget. What is the value added of building something that will eventually just be blown up? What's the difference between that and digging a ditch and filling it up?

Pork spending results in things like a Naval Surface Warfare Center in West Virginia that will employ people for the forseable future (just sort of try to forget that there's no ocean or surface ships in West Va). Same with Boeing or other govt contractors. Same with hiring policemen. Same with ongoing road construction, which has the added benefit of spurning new investments. Long term government spending, while part of a cycle, is not a useless thing. Lots of things grow around it. Funding a public library or recreation center or a number of other "make work projects" like that are far different than digging a ditch and filling it up. Other businesses will leverage these things. Same with the warfare center, etc. They bring big $$$ into communities which get distributed to all the businesses there.

That's precisely my point. Yes, you can employ people by taking taxpayer money and paying people to dig ditches and fill them up. Complete waste of money. What is the added value?

You're in essence saying government is a complete waste of money. Nobody pays people to dig ditches and then fill them up. Even inthe 30s, Federal money went towards things like creating Douthat lake in lower Va, for instance, which is still a really nice State park, that helps grow local businesses around there by attracting tourists.

Creating actual "things" that employ people long term are not like ditches. Value gets created as a product of the work performed there. Libraries benefit communities in a variety of ways, etc.

Induveca wrote:

popper wrote:In case anyone is interested here is a link to the Benghazi timeline. It is fascinating to say the least. If you will invest a few minutes of your time I'm confident you will gain a whole new perspective on the importance that Hillary and President Obama place upon protecting our government representatives abroad.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... ormat.html

The reality of the situation is, neither Clinton or Obama deal directly with embassy staff regularly, nor gives a damn about their perspective(s). Unless of course they are gifting an ambassadorship.

The disaster ultimately is their responsibility by definition, but the lack of sufficient communication between military "intelligence" in DC and embassy staff is to blame.

And let's be honest, embassy staff aren't exactly rocket scientists (mostly 20-30 somethings in their first foreign foray making 35k a year), and neither are their military personnel (high school grads with no foreign exposure). The majority of US embassies are sadly vulnerable to this exact same type of attack.

As much as I dislike Obama, I can't pin this on him. Not sure why he didn't just say it was a wholly regrettable terrorist attack, and poor communication between the military and embassy played a large part in the disaster.

I'm fairly disgusted by your characterization of both embassy staff and military personnel. As someone currently working at the State dept and previously spending a decade in DoD, I can say with authority your assumptions and "facts" about both groups so wildly miss the mark that its not worth commenting on further. Both agencies have truly dedicated public servants that put their lives on the line for their country. And most embassies are impregnable fortresses, and are not at risk of these types of attacks. Bengazi was a temporary post.

It may be fun to say that secretaries of agencies lie about people dying under their command, but some of us put a really high bar on saying such things. Clearly the American Thinker is not one. I would note it seems to have omitted congress cutting funding to Diplomatic Security, but again, that's probably expected.

Sfam, at this point I'd be shocked if you found *anything* I wrote not to be disgusting.

A close family friend has held US Ambassador posts around the world. I have been around state department types outside the US since my youth. I watched their daily jobs for over a decade, and spent one summer working at a consulate during high school.

Many a drunken night I listened to stories of 20-30 year olds joining the state department to experience "exotic" foreign adventure. Reality of 3rd world capital living slaps them hard upon arrival, culture shock and the realization that 30k doesn't go nearly as far as it did back in Iowa shortly follows. It's a quick decline from bubbly excitement to bitter, homesick and a depressing realization that their jobs consist of mind -numbing paper pushing.

Other than ambassadors and a few top level officials, the positions don't exactly require brainiacs. Actually discourages them......consulate jobs especially.

Also most 3rd world embassies are FAR from fortresses. Large? Check. Able to withstand a sustained coordinated military attack with rocket launchers/hundreds of soldiers/sophisticated weaponry? In most 3rd world locations, no......

sfam wrote:

Induveca wrote:

popper wrote:In case anyone is interested here is a link to the Benghazi timeline. It is fascinating to say the least. If you will invest a few minutes of your time I'm confident you will gain a whole new perspective on the importance that Hillary and President Obama place upon protecting our government representatives abroad.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... ormat.html

The reality of the situation is, neither Clinton or Obama deal directly with embassy staff regularly, nor gives a damn about their perspective(s). Unless of course they are gifting an ambassadorship.

The disaster ultimately is their responsibility by definition, but the lack of sufficient communication between military "intelligence" in DC and embassy staff is to blame.

And let's be honest, embassy staff aren't exactly rocket scientists (mostly 20-30 somethings in their first foreign foray making 35k a year), and neither are their military personnel (high school grads with no foreign exposure). The majority of US embassies are sadly vulnerable to this exact same type of attack.

As much as I dislike Obama, I can't pin this on him. Not sure why he didn't just say it was a wholly regrettable terrorist attack, and poor communication between the military and embassy played a large part in the disaster.

I'm fairly disgusted by your characterization of both embassy staff and military personnel. As someone currently working at the State dept and previously spending a decade in DoD, I can say with authority your assumptions and "facts" about both groups so wildly miss the mark that its not worth commenting on further. Both agencies have truly dedicated public servants that put their lives on the line for their country. And most embassies are impregnable fortresses, and are not at risk of these types of attacks. Bengazi was a temporary post.

It may be fun to say that secretaries of agencies lie about people dying under their command, but some of us put a really high bar on saying such things. Clearly the American Thinker is not one. I would note it seems to have omitted congress cutting funding to Diplomatic Security, but again, that's probably expected.

I have the utmost respect for embassy staff and military personnel (they were the ones that alerted the Secretary over and over again that the security situation was untenable). They were also the ones who fought valiantly for many hours to protect the post and its ambassador. If you don't believe that Hillary knew about the repeated pleas for help then that is your prerogative. I don't and IMO her statements under oath to the contrary are absurd in the extreme.

Edit - it's just like her billing records that she claimed under oath were lost and then lo and behold, are discovered by staff on the White House coffee table. Also, don't forget Pres. Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, who made multiple trips to the Nat'l Archives to steal and destroy documents unflattering to the former disgraced, and disbarred President ( who Obama subsequently enlisted to help his campaign in the final months). Lying, cheating and stealing by cabinet level executives associated with the Clinton's is not a new phenomenon. Oh, and we must not forget that Obama's chief law enforcement official, Holder, was held in contempt for his role in Fast and Furious that resulted in the deaths of border agents and hundreds of Mexicans.

Induveca wrote:Sfam, at this point I'd be shocked if you found *anything* I wrote not to be disgusting.

A close family friend has held US Ambassador posts around the world. I have been around state department types outside the US since my youth. I watched their daily jobs for over a decade, and spent one summer working at a consulate during high school.

Many a drunken night I listened to stories of 20-30 year olds joining the state department to experience "exotic" foreign adventure. Reality of 3rd world capital living slaps them hard upon arrival, culture shock and the realization that 30k doesn't go nearly as far as it did back in Iowa shortly follows. It's a quick decline from bubbly excitement to bitter, homesick and a depressing realization that their jobs consist of mind -numbing paper pushing.

Other than ambassadors and a few top level officials, the positions don't exactly require brainiacs. Actually discourages them......consulate jobs especially.

Also most 3rd world embassies are FAR from fortresses. Large? Check. Able to withstand a sustained coordinated military attack with rocket launchers/hundreds of soldiers/sophisticated weaponry? In most 3rd world locations, no......

Actually only a few posts you have written have made me feel that way. But most people at embassies are 20-30 years old? Totally false. Most people sin foreign posts, and in fact most people at the State Dept are locally employed staff. The job is so good that most have advanced degrees and rarely leave - most of them are in their 40s and 50s. And I don't know what State Dept you are visiting, but lots of Foreign Service officers join as second careers, often in their 30s or 40s. The State Dept regularly ranks as one of the top 5 jobs in the US, which is why you have Stanford grads and others of that caliber across the Foreign service. Many people study 6 months to a year prior to taking the foreign service exam. The take 6 months or more of culture and language training before going to post. These are not wide-eyed idiots working there, either on the US or locally employed staff side. And drinking binges with first tour officers bugged about being stuck on the visa line (the state dept version of hazing) is probably not the best way to understand what happens at an embassy, anymore than getting all your views from a single ambassador - some of which are pretty full of themselves.

What happened at Bengazi, a temporary post, probably wouldn't have worked at any embassy. Sure, they can be toppled if foreign governments attack them, but that wasn't what happened. To that sort of force, the embassy would be a fortress.