Political Roundtable Quasar of Mayhem part III

[nate33]

Unfortunately, I'm in Canada for work. So, I can't write back and forth responses with long diatribes.

Allow me to ask a few rhetorical questions, and I believe you will get my point. So, wages have remained the same for decades.

What is the percentage increase in hours worked?
What is the percentage decrease in paid leave?
What is the percentage increase of unpaid commute time?
What is the percentage increase in child care needed to be paid for because of those?
What is the percentage increase in child care?
What is the percentage decrease of jobs that provide health care?
What is the percentage decrease of procedures covered by insurance?
What is the percentage increase of expenditures on items necessary to be employed (computers, cell phones, spyware, etc etc)?
What is the percentage decrease of time before said items need to be replaced?

This could go on for pages and pages.

I don't think anyone is really disputing the fact that there has been a general stagnation in income. But also consider that there are a whole lot of people living in much bigger houses, mansions really, and they have two televisions, two more HDTV's, multiple computers, cell phones and video game consoles. They pay for their kids to play in 3 or 4 youth organizations a year (rather than just telling them to go outside and play), they drive bigger, better and more reliable cars. Admittedly, much of this is due to debt expansion rather than income generation.

Good arguments can be made either way about whether our overall standard of living has improved. But this is all beside the point. The question is, would increasing union power address this? I seriously doubt it. You cite Germany as an example of a good economy with high union membership. While they do have a considerably higher union membership rate than the U.S. (19.8 to 11.9), it's worth noting that they have substantially lower union membership than most of their European brethren. This is an estimate of union membership percentage from from bls.gov:

Austria 18.2
Belgium 41.7
Denmark 20.4
Finland 29.7
France 33.0
Germany 19.8
Ireland 8.0
Italy 53.1
Netherlands 20.1
Norway 26.0 .0
Spain 6.0
Sweden 20.7
Switzerland 13.0

The same applies when you look at the states. The states with the highest union rates (we'll exclude Hawaii and Alaska because they have entirely different economies) are:

New York: 25.2
Washington: 20.2
New Jersey: 19.3
Michigan: 18.8
Illinois: 17.5

All but Washington are economic basket cases.

The states with the lowest union rates are:

North Carolina 3.7
Arkansas 4.2
South Carolina 4.5
Georgia 4.6
Virginia 4.7

Some hits and misses here, but most of the booming states like Texas (5.1), North Dakota (6.8) and South Dakota (6.5) have low union rates.

[popper]

oh, edit to add, zonk... imo you were being a bit of a condescending arse in your post at popper. i don't think he ever used your particular views as a cite... just what he gathered from the posts collectively mixed in with his own points of view. if you want to dismantle his theory of protectionism and tell him why he's wrong? valid. to mock? condescending.

Thank you Pancakes. I appreciate your accurate description of my post.

I did not insinuate that anyone on this board supported protectionism. My point was that the two political factions appear to have irreconciable differences and, as a result, our country may need to consider alternatives. One alternative is some sort of limited protectionism and a more tariff intensive economy. It is not my preference but we, and many other countries in the world, may have to look at it as a way of maintaining the peace and employing our citizens. The negative effects of such a policy are well known to this board so I won't go further with it.

Our choice may come to either having a permanent unemployment rate of 25% + with 45 million people on food stamps or some variation of protectionism / high tariffs.

[old rem]

oh, edit to add, zonk... imo you were being a bit of a condescending arse in your post at popper. i don't think he ever used your particular views as a cite... just what he gathered from the posts collectively mixed in with his own points of view. if you want to dismantle his theory of protectionism and tell him why he's wrong? valid. to mock? condescending.

Thank you Pancakes. I appreciate your accurate description of my post.

I did not insinuate that anyone on this board supported protectionism. My point was that the two political factions appear to have irreconciable differences and, as a result, our country may need to consider alternatives. One alternative is some sort of limited protectionism and a more tariff intensive economy. It is not my preference but we, and many other countries in the world, may have to look at it as a way of maintaining the peace and employing our citizens. The negative effects of such a policy are well known to this board so I won't go further with it.

Our choice may come to either having a permanent unemployment rate of 25% + with 45 million people on food stamps or some variation of protectionism / high tariffs.

The Loaded terminology of "free Trade and "Protectionism" are outdated and misleading.
The USA now has "trade deals" that REWARD................REWARD.......any company that exports jobs, ceases to PRODUCE anything in the USA. The most weighty part is the US-China part. We volunteered to make China the world's POWER as we slip into the role of global middleman.

Current events. The Tea Party won a battle-lost a war and now are naked, exposed,DONE. No doubt this same stuff, with a new label, is back before long.

Getting pounded by Wall Street for a counterproductive,rigid, stupid, ideology, spoils the brand name. The US Gov, however...has no way to fix that short term. The REAL deal is....did the voters actually GET IT? Maybe not. The next Elect could result in the voters purging the Right Wing from congress but also discarding Obama so the outcome is still gridlock.

The way it is has been that the voters swing back and forth and get sucked in by marketing and secondary issues so the outcome is that actual progress is seldom done.

If fools, suckers, sheep,slackers are more than 50% of the folks who bother to vote......the outcome can not be good.

I'm not optimistic.

It has NEVER been easier to BUY a congessman. Bottom line. Tea Party....is now exposed and DOA, but the same product will pop up as the very same agenda with a new label. it's EASY to prevent fixing problems and very hard to actually DO anything good.

Were I a young man I'd be VERY depressed.

[old rem]

LONG ago I saw a No-Win in the whole mix of "trade Deals, job exporting, outsourcing".

Your basic HS grad, s not gonna end up as a whiz kid Hi-tech start up or a corporate boss. More likely..he is one of 25 applicants for a low pay job.

We abandoned that guy. now he is societies dead weight. We get some lip service but unless we re-think protection and tariffs,50% of America has no good job nothing much for the millions who are not tops of the resume list.

Over a decade ago, I was stunned when Arch Conservative Icon Pat Buchannen had a column in favor of a Trade/Tariff plan nearly the same as what i was for. The REALITY is and was that we IMPORT most everything from Asia, especially China and we export damn little. We charge about 2.5 % on all the stuff coming in from China, all our LOST JOBS, yet China charges 25% if we send anything to them. Guaranteed HUGE trade deficit. BIG I.O.U's to a country that's semi hostile.
The few things China does buy from the USA......is stuff they replicate and export, or is machinery they use to make goods and dominate markets. The Whole package is so screwed up that were the USA to be Right On in the rest of the Economic strategy, it's still a net loss.

[nate33]

I still don't get what the Tea Party was "exposed" on. They were "exposed" to be a party that wants to cut spending without increasing taxes. That's not exactly a mystery. It's what they ran on. It's what they consistently advocated throughout the debate. It's what they voted for. If anybody was exposed, it was the RINO Republicans who ultimately capitulated to a deal with no spending cuts and an implied consent to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

I know Democrats want to pin the recent market collapse on the Tea Party, but it's just not the case. The final deal that was struck was a status quo deal that was easily predictable: no tax cuts, no spending cuts, kick the can down the road until the 2013 election. The market wanted actual cuts; and for a while, it looked like the Republicans, backed by the Tea Party, were going to deliver. Unfortunately, they capitulated so the market got upset.

Democrats may want to argue that the market wanted actual tax increases, but that clearly wasn't the expectation of the market. At no time during the debate was there any insinuation that tax increases would actually pass a Republican controlled House, so a lack of tax increases couldn't have been a catalyst for a market collapse when the deal was completed.

[DCZards]

Nate, you say you don't get where the Tea Party was exposed. Maybe that's because you're looking at the wrong thing. You keep citing the OUTCOME of the debt ceiling talks (particularly the fact that there were no cuts, in your opinion) when what the market--and now S&P--is chiefly reacting to was the PROCESS.

They see a new type of no compromise, our-way-or-the-highway approach to
"governing" on Cap Hill in DC spearheaded by the Tea Party--and the financial markets and most of the rest of the world reject that approach. Hopefully, the American voters will reject that approach as well during the next election (which I think is at least part of what old rem is saying.)

This sentence from today's Wash. Post front page story on the downgrading of the country's credit rating speaks to what I'm talking about:

Lowering the nation's rating to one notch below AAA, the credit rating company said "political brinkmanship" in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government's ability to manage its finances "less stable, less effecive and less predictable."

Now, who do you think most Americans will blame for that "political brinkmanship"? I'm guessing the Tea Party.

[DCZards]

This is from a recent CBS/New York Times poll--in case anyone doubts the direction in which the public's opinion of the Tea Party is headed:

The public’s opin­ion of the Tea Party move­ment has soured in the wake of the debt-ceiling debate. The Tea Party is now viewed unfa­vor­ably by 40 per­cent of the pub­lic and favor­ably by just 20 per­cent, accord­ing to the poll. In mid-April 29 per­cent of those polled viewed the move­ment unfa­vor­ably, while 26 per­cent viewed it favor­ably. And 43 per­cent of Amer­i­cans now think the Tea Party has too much influ­ence on the Repub­li­can Party, up from 27 per­cent in mid-April.

[nate33]

LONG ago I saw a No-Win in the whole mix of "trade Deals, job exporting, outsourcing".

Your basic HS grad, s not gonna end up as a whiz kid Hi-tech start up or a corporate boss. More likely..he is one of 25 applicants for a low pay job.

We abandoned that guy. now he is societies dead weight. We get some lip service but unless we re-think protection and tariffs,50% of America has no good job nothing much for the millions who are not tops of the resume list.

Over a decade ago, I was stunned when Arch Conservative Icon Pat Buchannen had a column in favor of a Trade/Tariff plan nearly the same as what i was for. The REALITY is and was that we IMPORT most everything from Asia, especially China and we export damn little. We charge about 2.5 % on all the stuff coming in from China, all our LOST JOBS, yet China charges 25% if we send anything to them. Guaranteed HUGE trade deficit. BIG I.O.U's to a country that's semi hostile.
The few things China does buy from the USA......is stuff they replicate and export, or is machinery they use to make goods and dominate markets. The Whole package is so screwed up that were the USA to be Right On in the rest of the Economic strategy, it's still a net loss.

I agree.

At the time when Buchanan was making his case against NAFTA, I disagreed with him. I bought the party line that free trade is always a good thing. I was wrong. Buchanan was right. We should have negotiated better protection in our trade agreements to product our mature manufacturing industries.

[nate33]

This is from a recent CBS/New York Times poll--in case anyone doubts the direction in which the public's opinion of the Tea Party is headed:

The public’s opin­ion of the Tea Party move­ment has soured in the wake of the debt-ceiling debate. The Tea Party is now viewed unfa­vor­ably by 40 per­cent of the pub­lic and favor­ably by just 20 per­cent, accord­ing to the poll. In mid-April 29 per­cent of those polled viewed the move­ment unfa­vor­ably, while 26 per­cent viewed it favor­ably. And 43 per­cent of Amer­i­cans now think the Tea Party has too much influ­ence on the Repub­li­can Party, up from 27 per­cent in mid-April.

What we have seen over the past two weeks is an all out effort by the media to pin all blame on the Tea Party. In the face of such biased coverage, it doesn't surprise me that they're doing poorly in the polls. It doesn't change the fact that the markets wanted what the Tea Party wanted and punished us when they didn't get it. The Tea Party had the right position.

Regarding the S&P statement: the Administration was negotiating with them behind closed doors all day long lobbying for them not to downgrade our credit rating. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Obama forced them to make a statement like that to provide Obama political cover. Logically, it's silly to blame the process more than the results because the process is different each time around because the players are different. Regardless of S&P's statement, the market is mad because the results were bad, not the process; and the results are not the Tea Party's fault.

There's no point arguing about this further. We'll find out in 2012 whether the Tea Party is "done" as so many on the left hope they are.

[nate33]

On Thursday August 4th, the New York Times reported that, according to a CBS news poll, "There were signs that the repeated Republican calls for more spending cuts were resonating with the public: 44 percent of those polled said the cuts in the debt-ceiling agreement did not go far enough, 29 percent said they were about right and only 15 percent said they went too far."

Of course, the CBS evening news didn't mention their own poll that evening.

[DCZards]

This is from a recent CBS/New York Times poll--in case anyone doubts the direction in which the public's opinion of the Tea Party is headed:

The public’s opin­ion of the Tea Party move­ment has soured in the wake of the debt-ceiling debate. The Tea Party is now viewed unfa­vor­ably by 40 per­cent of the pub­lic and favor­ably by just 20 per­cent, accord­ing to the poll. In mid-April 29 per­cent of those polled viewed the move­ment unfa­vor­ably, while 26 per­cent viewed it favor­ably. And 43 per­cent of Amer­i­cans now think the Tea Party has too much influ­ence on the Repub­li­can Party, up from 27 per­cent in mid-April.

What we have seen over the past two weeks is an all out effort by the media to pin all blame on the Tea Party. In the face of such biased coverage, it doesn't surprise me that they're doing poorly in the polls. It doesn't change the fact that the markets wanted what the Tea Party wanted and punished us when they didn't get it. The Tea Party had the right position.

Regarding the S&P statement: the Administration was negotiating with them behind closed doors all day long lobbying for them not to downgrade our credit rating. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Obama forced them to make a statement like that to provide Obama political cover. Logically, it's silly to blame the process more than the results because the process is different each time around because the players are different. Regardless of S&P's statement, the market is mad because the results were bad, not the process; and the results are not the Tea Party's fault.

There's no point arguing about this further. We'll find out in 2012 whether the Tea Party is "done" as so many on the left hope they are.

1. Blame the media for the low opinion of the Tea Party. That's right out of the Fox News talking points handbook, isn't it?

2. Blame the S&P statement on pressure from the Obama Administration. That's a good one, Nate. Make sure you pass it on to Sean Hannity. He'd love it.

[DCZards]

On Thursday August 4th, the New York Times reported that, according to a CBS news poll, "There were signs that the repeated Republican calls for more spending cuts were resonating with the public: 44 percent of those polled said the cuts in the debt-ceiling agreement did not go far enough, 29 percent said they were about right and only 15 percent said they went too far."

That same poll showed that a majority of Americans (50%-44%) supported tax increases to go along with the spending cuts. In other words, the "balanced" approach advocated by President Obama.

[montestewart]

At the time when Buchanan was making his case against NAFTA, I disagreed with him. I bought the party line that free trade is always a good thing. I was wrong. Buchanan was right. We should have negotiated better protection in our trade agreements to product our mature manufacturing industries.

Buchanan was but one of numerous voices (Perot, Nader, and Kucinich, to name a few) that were not speaking in lockstep with the two parties on free trade.

[nate33]

On Thursday August 4th, the New York Times reported that, according to a CBS news poll, "There were signs that the repeated Republican calls for more spending cuts were resonating with the public: 44 percent of those polled said the cuts in the debt-ceiling agreement did not go far enough, 29 percent said they were about right and only 15 percent said they went too far."

That same poll showed that a majority of Americans (50%-44%) supported tax increases to go along with the spending cuts. In other words, the "balanced" approach advocated by President Obama.

Yes. But they reported the tax increases part of the poll but not the spending cuts. What possible reason is there for the omission other than bias?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I try to stay away from this thread. My opinion is uninformed. I don't want to read about the economy, the deficit, employment rates, and political party agendas.

I just watch people and how they speak. I catch the news here and there, and note differences in the agendas of various networks and news media.

Here what I think are the main problems in this country:

1. Greed.
2. Disrespect.
3. Moral decay.
4. Poor work ethic.
5. Rich, prosperous people who get tax breaks left and right and who are widening the divide between the haves and have nots.
6. An underclass of unproductive, uneducated, lazy people who have no shot at living the dream due to a culture of poverty.
7. An insanely stupid criminal justice system that incarcerates drug users and places them in the same prisons as murderers, child molesters, rapists, etc. The system does not rehabilitate.

I know this is already a rant, but I think Americans are greedy people. We have cable tv, and plasma screens, and every XBox 360 game and Nintendo there is, but most don't give a cent to help underprivileged people. Most people complain about taxes but live in huge homes, drive great cars, and have discretionary spending to fly all over and vacation where they please. Same people think they've really done something special when they donate $25 here or there.

As far as disrespect goes, just look at the HATRED pointed towards Barack Obama. I am an African American male, aged 50, the same as the President. I disagree with a lot of things he's done, but I am really, really upset at the outright disrespect given his office. George W Bush was an ABOMINATION of a president IMO and NEVER caught hell the way Obama does. Most media call him "Obama" not President Obama.

The disrespect is really apparent in the way Americans view the rest of the world. We fight wars on other people's soil (Iraq was supposedly about WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda) and we inflict tremendous suffering and collateral damage, but we're never contrite. The US women lose to Japan and suddenly the women's team are chokers--the opponent gets no respect. We continue to call our NBA champion the world champion. Our teams are supposedly the best. Well, IMO, the Mavericks probably get beat by some Euro teams in a series. The NBA isn't better than some European leagues IMO. We disrespect others with our smugness.

When it comes to politics, my opinion is that our country is morally running bankrupt. Just look at the stupid crap we watch on television. Reality shows. Cop shows with corpses. Murder mystery shows with corpses. Dumb stuff. The average American IMO is really uneducated. Why should our politics be fair and above board? Political parties vote on party lines. The Republicans would rather see Obama struggle and the country be in chaos because it helps their agenda.

I think the media in our country are alarmists and most of them are stupid, too.

Personally, I'm going to put my faith in God and just roll with the punches. Things are going to get worse and because most who make the most noise in the media in our country have lived such elitist lives, they'll complain. I won't.

Life will go on and I will just do the best I can. Obama isn't God. Barack didn't get the country in this mess and he surely won't get us out of it.

[Cramer]

As far as disrespect goes, just look at the HATRED pointed towards Barack Obama. I am an African American male, aged 50, the same as the President. I disagree with a lot of things he's done, but I am really, really upset at the outright disrespect given his office. George W Bush was an ABOMINATION of a president IMO and NEVER caught hell the way Obama does. Most media call him "Obama" not President Obama.

Reallly? I've never met you but I feel like I know you, and love and respect you in a lot of ways....but REALLY?

[Zonkerbl]

Most media call him "Obama" not President Obama.

You learn something new every day. Thanks for pointing that out, CCJ, I hadn't noticed before.

[Zonkerbl]

Kinda surprised you guys are not fighting to the death over who is responsible for the S&P credit downgrade.

I think S&P pretty much came out and said Obama's compromise deal was what the U.S. needed. I would add that the Tea Party's brutally short-sighted insistence on no revenues cost them that deal. Tea Partiers essentially let their radical ideology trump intelligence, their ability to recognize the deal of the century when it was offered to them. Now that deal is off the table and we've been hit with a credit rating devaluation.

Folks were saying on NPR, well, there's still nowhere else you can invest with less risk. That's naive -- there's always other places to park your money.

[nate33]

I think S&P pretty much came out and said Obama's compromise deal was what the U.S. needed.

What deal are you referring to? Obama never came out with a plan. He had a speech with talking points, but that's it. Paul Ryan tried to contact him about his "plan" and couldn't get a response.

[hands11]

Nate,

I have just been catching up on these new posts.

How can you not see the dow dropping has something to do with this last deal The rating agengy report even came right out and said it. Not only did these last agreement not set the table for any investment, the house exposed it hand for what they would do moving forward and how they will act.

You highlight no cuts. Maybe that is true today but the table is set, the tone is set. The super congress will do their thing. The TP and R will threaten to shut down the gov at ever turn. The econ is weak. N

ow the voices are getting louder for.. we need to not only not cut right now...we need investment to build demand. Hell, even Cramer was on saying how Government spending fuels small businesses. I know that is true with my company. If it wasn't for Fed funding state and local government with JAG grants, etc, we would have never developed the technology we did. And our stuff saves them money and helps put the right bad guys away.

That is what I have been saying and Wall Street seems to be seeing the same. Add the EU, and what is to like for them.

We will see how this all works out in time politically. My personal take, I thing the TP and R did themselves no real favor in this last deal. And Boner saying he got 98% of what he wasn't was amateur. He will regret saying that.

Hands, I continue to reject completely the notion that artificially produced government "stimulus" helps the economy. Any government spending beyond the bare minimum to keep the economy flowing (i.e. law enforcement and basic regulation and infrastructure that can't be handled by the free market) is wasted money. Cramer may disagree with me, but he is wrong. These pseudo-Keynesians don't seem to grasp the concept that government first has to borrow money from the free market in order to spend it. Government debt crowds out other debt instruments, making it harder for the private sector to borrow. Keynes himself never even advocated the kind of absurd government spending that guys like Krugman tout. They've bastardized Keynes' economic philosophy to advance their socialist agenda of government command and control.

Wow, you are so wrong.

Our debt isnt crowding out anything. Money is as cheap as it can be right now

Maybe you should consider it is you that is wrong because with arguments like you are making ....

If the government was crowding out money, interest rates would be a lot higher.

You just don't get that government does a lot more to assist in small business development then you get. Small business often times and to a great extent feeds off of government programs. Infrastructure, defense, space, R n D, regulation enforcement, legal, etc.

The fed is about macro economics. Well, at least when it is working well and you don't have whack jobs idiots down there like Bush and Reagan.