DescentBB

in this opinion piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opini ... ef=general


and, if one reads between the lines, he's hoping the weathy come to the rescue.......I suspect that might be a problem in a global economy with global investment opportunities, but time will tell.

callmeslick wrote:in this opinion piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opini ... ef=general


and, if one reads between the lines, he's hoping the weathy come to the rescue.......I suspect that might be a problem in a global economy with global investment opportunities, but time will tell.

You suspect? Lol!
It is obvious he's dreaming bigtime!

He said:
Big companies could have been required to pay severance to American workers they let go and train them for new jobs. The minimum wage could have been pegged at half the median wage, and we could have insisted that the foreign nations we trade with do the same, so that all citizens could share in gains from trade."

We could have insisted?!? Heh!
Not even with the threat of nuclear war are you going to get China and others like her to do that!

He's nailed nothing. He merely has done what all politicians do, or at least the first part of what they do. He's identified the problem. He hasn't offered a solution.
The second part, if he were running for office would be to blame the other side so he could rev up the ignorant base to harvest votes.
Since he's not running for office himself all he needed to sell some comments was to produce some 'first part'.
Yea! Real genius he is. He can go tell us water is wet next!

So Reich keeps himself current and credible, takes home a paycheck for telling us which way the wind blew and the next time a politician puts him on the payroll he'll be helping the scumbag sell the 'second part' of the typical tactic with his "credibility". Yea!

I dare say the paycheck as a full professor dwarfs any money from op-ed pieces........

I agree with the guy for the most part. But he loses me when he starts talking about what we could have made businesses do, and the talk about taxing the rich.

Taxing the rich, places more money in the hands of the government, but if they don’t know how to apply it to the problem…

And, that minimum wage thing is just a total fail…don’t even know what to say about that.

It’s easy to identify a problem…I didn’t hear any real solutions. (save the education)

callmeslick wrote:I dare say the paycheck as a full professor dwarfs any money from op-ed pieces........

You totally missed the point.
Selling his opinion keeps himself on the A list of acceptable talking heads/pundits/advisors/potential cabinet members/etc. The paycheck from that is a secondary perk.
The paycheck for being a proffessor is nothing compared to the paycheck and power that comes with being hired by scumbag politicians and then being appointed to positions like Treasury Secretary etc. etc. where he will set aside his integrity to protect the agenda of his new boss... same as the old boss.

I stopped reading when I saw this

a professor at the University of California, Berkeley,

I've asked the question of twice now in other threads and still have not gotten it answered.

Are those crying for a tax increase on the wealthy willing to eliminate all the Tax loopholes that they take advantage of? because if not then they are just paying lip service and class warfare. there are too many ways that the "rich" can pay little to no taxes even if the tax rate was 100% and the rich know it. so they don't care if you "Raise Taxes" on them, because they are quite willing to allow and even call for a tax raise just to appease the "Poor" and the political panders to the "Poor" because all the "Poor" people want is the belief that they are screwing the "Rich" as they feel they've been screwed by the "Rich"

I will continue to proclaim class warfare until ANY politician or anyone on the board that is calling for a tax raise on the wealthy have the sack to call for an overhaul of the Tax system and not just try to incite a riot against and play politics with the wealthy.

CUDA wrote:I stopped reading when I saw this

a professor at the University of California, Berkeley,

Good job, you've completely avoided forming your own opinion on something because of some silly prejudice.

silly prejudice

That tends to describe California's academic community. Leftist 'progressives' are among the most closed minded and prejudiced people in existence.

ThunderBunny wrote:

silly prejudice

That tends to describe California's academic community. Leftist 'progressives' are among the most closed minded and prejudiced people in existence.

exactly

ThunderBunny wrote:

silly prejudice

That tends to describe California's academic community. Leftist 'progressives' are among the most closed minded and prejudiced people in existence.

The irony is absolutely dripping from this sentence.

And again, refusing to even read a well-informed opinion just because of its source is the height of willful ignorance.

CUDA wrote:I stopped reading when I saw this

a professor at the University of California, Berkeley,

how openminded of you.

yeesh, one could expect better of you.

Top Gun wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:

silly prejudice

That tends to describe California's academic community. Leftist 'progressives' are among the most closed minded and prejudiced people in existence.

The irony is absolutely dripping from this sentence.

And again, refusing to even read a well-informed opinion just because of its source is the height of willful ignorance.

thanks for stating the obvious. Some folks wont get it, though.

If you all can find a link to David Brook's recent piece on the economy, it is worth reading too. It supports what should be seen as a traditional Republican view of the problems, and bemoans the lack of GOP solutions to those problems. Quite a different spin than Reich, but speaking to the same long-term nature of the problem. Spidey is correct in focusing on education, that seems to be one of the common focuses of all who really think about core employment issues........now, find me one person in the GOP presidential
field so much as mentioning that fact.

I don't know who I'd rather trust. The scholar that has dedicated their life to teaching others, or the internet cowboy that uses a racist as their internet moniker.

Zuruck wrote:I don't know who I'd rather trust. The scholar that has dedicated their life to teaching others, or the internet cowboy that uses a racist as their internet moniker.

I read this a couple times, and if you are referring to Clint Eastwood as a racist, you are WAY off. He is among the nation's leading contributor to liberal and artistic causes, and seems about as non-racist as anyone in the public arena.

Really? Do you think Cuda picked that picture because he liked Clint Eastwood as a person?

CUDA wrote:I've asked the question of twice now in other threads and still have not gotten it answered.

Are those crying for a tax increase on the wealthy willing to eliminate all the Tax loopholes that they take advantage of? because if not then they are just paying lip service and class warfare. there are too many ways that the "rich" can pay little to no taxes even if the tax rate was 100% and the rich know it. so they don't care if you "Raise Taxes" on them, because they are quite willing to allow and even call for a tax raise just to appease the "Poor" and the political panders to the "Poor" because all the "Poor" people want is the belief that they are screwing the "Rich" as they feel they've been screwed by the "Rich"

I will continue to proclaim class warfare until ANY politician or anyone on the board that is calling for a tax raise on the wealthy have the sack to call for an overhaul of the Tax system and not just try to incite a riot against and play politics with the wealthy.

3 times now. the Silence is deafening

Slick wrote:I read this a couple times, and if you are referring to Clint Eastwood as a racist, you are WAY off.

Nah Slick. Zuruck was just taking another Pot shot at me. seems that's all he knows how to do. that's typical when you can't add anything to a discussion.
don't worry though just like he did before he'll soon leave because he'll realize that people actually like to semi-discuss Issues on this forum and not rely sole on personal attacks on it's fellow members like he does. pretty soon he'll do what he did last time and start sending me nasty-gram PM's and then disappear.

Semi discuss issues? Give me a break.

It was not a shot at you at all. You made the comment that a professor at UC Berkeley was not worth the time listening to. I said I would rather trust the word of a scholar than someone that happily uses the image of a racist bigot as their mascot.

As for my posts being deleted, all I had to hear from Foil was that I needed to include a smiley so that my comments wouldn't be construed as dickish. Easy enough for me. And I never sent you PMs...so yeah.

Zuruck wrote: And I never sent you PMs...so yeah.

HEH
dont forget the Smiley

Message subject: Re: JUST FOR YOU INFORMATION
From: Zuruck
Sent: Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:16 pm
To: CUDA
Message'..........


I'll post the content if you need me to remind you of it

Top Gun wrote: The irony is absolutely dripping from this sentence.

No irony at all. It's the truth. If you don't happen to agree with the 'progressive' agenda, you're categorized by 'progressives' as a raving loon or a backwater racist hick.

Not all things 'progressive' are automatically good. Diseases can be rather 'progressive' too.

...so you somehow missed the part where you saying "progressives are close-minded and prejudiced" is just as much of a prejudice in its own right? I could just as easily turn things around and state that all modern "conservatives" think that anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda is an evil godless socialist pinko commie bastard, but that would be just as absurd as what you claim.

Zuruck wrote:I don't know who I'd rather trust. The scholar that has dedicated their life to indoctrinating others, or the internet cowboy that uses a racist as their internet moniker.

Fixed it for ya.

CUDA wrote:I've asked the question of twice now in other threads and still have not gotten it answered.

Are those crying for a tax increase on the wealthy willing to eliminate all the Tax loopholes that they take advantage of?

can only speak for myself, and the answer is yes. Of course, you might not realize that as one goes up the ladder, the loopholes get FAR, FAR, more lucrative. We get breaks for growing certain crops, for growing trees(nice paying pine trees, no less) near the Bay, on and on. Another good example, Michelle Bachmann, who rakes in hundreds of thousands for agriculture subsidies and her hubby gets government money for his 'practice'.

So, yes, CUDA, a lot of us will gladly give up those breaks if everyone in our position does so. Unfortunately, there are still a host of greedheads out there selling economic snake oil that will screw the lot of you. Exhibit A: Romney unveils his 'plan' for jobs. The centerpiece--ZERO taxes on cap gains, to be defined including ALL dividends(only certain dividend yields currently count). Do you have any idea how much extra money I would make off of that one? Whee! Now, think of the savings for, say, the Walton family or Warren Buffet.

Zuruck wrote:Really? Do you think Cuda picked that picture because he liked Clint Eastwood as a person?

I don't care why he picked the pick. I'm trying to make sense of your gibberish.

Zuruck wrote:As for my posts being deleted, all I had to hear from Foil was that I needed to include a smiley so that my comments wouldn't be construed as dickish. Easy enough for me. And I never sent you PMs...so yeah.

I think you are forgetting the smiley again.......

Ok, what is the concept that you are missing here slick?

As for that PM, that actually made me laugh. I had to look at the ones I've sent over the decade and it made me laugh. What did I say to you Cuda? That you had this narrow view of everything and it was silly? I think it's still applicable even today. And my sincere apology that I forgot I sent you one message five years ago. I guess I've had other stuff going on...

wait wait....

I don't think that Reich is effectively supporting his case to begin with. He says -

Look back over the last hundred years and you’ll see the pattern. During periods when the very rich took home a much smaller proportion of total income — as in the Great Prosperity between 1947 and 1977 — the nation as a whole grew faster and median wages surged. We created a virtuous cycle in which an ever growing middle class had the ability to consume more goods and services, which created more and better jobs, thereby stoking demand. The rising tide did in fact lift all boats.

Reich seems to be saying that the CAUSE of the the nations growth in the post war period was due to the fact that the "very rich" were taking a smaller portion of the pie and the middle class had a larger relative portion. But isn't this distribution of income simply an artifact of how the post war boom progressed? I don't see Reich's cause and effect here at all.

Part of the issue here is what I see as a general liberal assumption that seems to underlie their economic thinking - that there is a (fixed) economic "pie" available; that's all the "pie" there is, so if at some point the "rich" are getting more of it, then by definition everyone else must be getting less of it. But the economic "pie" isn't fixed (Is the GDP a good measure of it?). The pie grows (and contracts) as the economy changes. So the issue isn't how to keep the "rich" from taking more of the pie, the issue is how to get the pie to grow faster.

dissent wrote:The pie grows (and contracts) as the economy changes. So the issue isn't how to keep the "rich" from taking more of the pie, the issue is how to get the pie to grow faster.

interesting set of observations. However, you assume only adomestic 'pie', and in a global economy, that falls apart, quickly.

I'm not sure even those at the helm can envision that transition. Lol, I was watching C-span the other day and they were broadcasting certain representatives in more 'relaxed' situations. You actually know some of these guys Slick? Tell me it aint so Tell me our direction forward isn't completely in the hands of these dorks. Lol. God help us.

callmeslick wrote:interesting set of observations. However, you assume only a domestic 'pie', and in a global economy, that falls apart, quickly.

I was describing a domestic pie, but it doesn't have to be limited to that. The world economy now is somewhere between a truly global economy and a interconnected network of national economies. In many respects, it's much closer to the set of national economies, notwithstanding that there are quite a few globally fungible commodities.

flip wrote:I'm not sure even those at the helm can envision that transition. Lol, I was watching C-span the other day and they were broadcasting certain representatives in more 'relaxed' situations. You actually know some of these guys Slick? Tell me it aint so Tell me our direction forward isn't completely in the hands of these dorks. Lol. God help us.

names?

Just play spin the bottle Slick, they all seem just as common as the game with nothing to distinguish them from others except a name and good fortune. We severely lack leadership presently.

flip wrote:Just play spin the bottle Slick, they all seem just as common as the game with nothing to distinguish them from others except a name and good fortune. We severely lack leadership presently.

oh, the leadership would be there. The public is too stupid to know what to look for, IMO.

that's because they've been fed a steady diet of 'low payments! easy weight loss! you too can look like me!', giant three dollar burgers that they don't have to get out of the car for, manufactured drama, and 'it's the other guys' fault!'.

Woulda coulda shoulda. Sounds like more BS to me Slick. Where? This country is slowly spiraling out of control with no clear direction and you want to blame it on the public. That seems to be a common theme with you. Problem is, they only offer those that they hand pick. The burden lies there at their feet.

flip wrote:Woulda coulda shoulda. Sounds like more BS to me Slick. Where? This country is slowly spiraling out of control with no clear direction and you want to blame it on the public. That seems to be a common theme with you. Problem is, they only offer those that they hand pick. The burden lies there at their feet.

nonsense. First off, 50% of the people don't even bother to vote in a good year. This current Tea Party wave in Congress got there with a turnout of 38% nationwide. Second, I've seen sound thinkers over the past 15-20 years fall by the wayside because they couldn't get the focus of a public that is more concerned with who wins American Idol than they are in their own future. Face it, you could walk out onto any street in this nation and more people can identify the Kardashians than can identify their sitting Congressman.
More people know the participants in Dancing with the Stars than know the current members of the Supreme Court. It is very difficult to lead such an un-involved populace. Perhaps, one could say that a 'true leader' could cut through all that fog, but I'm starting to suspect not, at least not until it is far too late.

As I heard it said by some comic the other day: The American people want a President that reflects their values and concerns.......unfortunately, that means they secretly wish to elect Snooki.

her.. or this guy.

callmeslick wrote:..
Perhaps, one could say that a 'true leader' could cut through all that fog, but I'm starting to suspect not, at least not until it is far too late. ..

It will take people from the circle of celebrities / pop culture icons / etc., those that already have the better part of the voters frivolously spent attention span, to provide that kind of 'leadership'. We have obviously rejected the attempts of politicians to pose as leaders.

The way Jesse "The Body" Ventura captured the attention of his fellow citizens and got himself elected governor of Minnesota is the way the bulk of voters could be motivated to force a change on the status quo. He was outside looking in and said 'Hey! Haven't you had enough of this bullcrap? Vote me in there and I'll wreck those bastards world!' He capitalized on voters discontent and offered to be the voice of the people not the voice of the same old system.

The reason it hasn't happened on a grand scale yet is, for the most part, celebrities are not trying to buck the system, when they get involved they tend to throw their support behind the democrats and siding with one or the other of the two-that-make-the-one is NOT the kind of thing that shakes up the system.

I think if things get much worse that kind of messenger will rise out of the mess and capture the voters support.
Will he be an Adolph Hitler or a Dr. King? Who knows. It all depends on how bad we are hurting and what his character is when he gets his 15 minutes of the peoples 'attention span'.

Well, no, here's another problem. We argue whether our Founding Fathers were believers or not. They themselves said that this way of government will only be effective with a moral and conscientious populace. Then for the last 50 years or so, they try like hell to remove any sense of religious beliefs in schools and in government and teach people they are merely a highly evolved animal. What's to believe in? Where's the pride of your heritage? To whom do we appeal when we feel a higher calling? NO, the intent for many years has been to make a population that is easily controlled and does not think for themselves. Then when we get that, we realize the engineers are a bunch of friggin dipshits themselves and since they are no more enlightened than the ape they embrace as their ancestors, they blame it on all the "stupid" people. I don't entirely disagree with you, but then we need to investigate how we got there. Wasn't always so and that surely reflects on the leadership. If that's what you want to call it.

Will Robinson wrote:It will take people from the circle of celebrities / pop culture icons / etc., those that already have the better part of the voters frivolously spent attention span, to provide that kind of 'leadership'. We have obviously rejected the attempts of politicians to pose as leaders.

The way Jesse "The Body" Ventura captured the attention of his fellow citizens and got himself elected governor of Minnesota is the way the bulk of voters could be motivated to force a change on the status quo. He was outside looking in and said 'Hey! Haven't you had enough of this bullcrap? Vote me in there and I'll wreck those bastards world!' He capitalized on voters discontent and offered to be the voice of the people not the voice of the same old system.

good example......now, tell me what Jesse Ventura actually accomplished as Governor of Minnesota.
The voters literally ran back to politicians after a bit of his 'leadership'. You see, governance and leadership is not an easy thing to accomplish, for anyone, in the best of times. And these, clearly, are not the best of times.

You provide the recipe for the rise of a demagogue, or a pure tyrant. Not a happy thought.