Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I thought the subject who is more free market the Dems or the Repubs. You said that SEC was not requlating enough. My point was that it is better to err on the side of less regulation than too much regulation.

Whatever the press says, I think that the Republican are more free market when it comes to regulation. Cox's appointment supports that position.


True - but I would rather share my party with fundamentalists than with socialists.



I think small business owners, be on the front lines, are the best judges of what the biggest threat is to the running of their business profitably. If they tell me litigation. I believe them. Their biggest foe is the Trial lawyers. It is easy to be an armchair quarterback, but when the soldier in the field tells you what the biggest problem is you had better listen.



Wrong - specific industries may support a lot of anticompetitive stuff, but the business community in aggregate supports what is best for business. In other words what is best for growth.

The government should support what creates the most growth. Business want to grow and like a growing economy. Unions don't care about growth or a growing economy. They just care about protecting the jobs of the members of their unions.



Wrong - it is about whether the government or you is the best person to decide what to do with the money you have earned.

You don't think the private market can provide a better system than Social Security. How much are you depending on social security for your retirement?

So if in a democracy, if the people decide to nationalize all industry, that is really free market doctrine? Free Market doctrine is very different than majority rules.



And the Dems have such a strong record of balancing budgets. Remember it took the election of a Republican congress in 1994 to stop the red ink that had been going on since the last time the Repubicans held the Congress.

As far as drilling in ANWAR - do you think increased supply is going to raise oil prices?

Health Care costs in the hands of the Democrats will bring down costs. I just don't buy it.

What has this got to do with how free the market is. I will tell you with a straight face that Republicans are much more pro free market than Dems.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

First both of y'all need to read several really long articles on the realities of corporate pension funding issues, have an understanding of what has led to the laws that are in place today. Then you can be in a position to evaluate the proposals and comment on them intelligently, rather than just using them as a prop for your grandstanding. There are some pretty major tax advantaging considerations that tend to drive companies' thinking (and what they tell their lobbyists to push Congress to do) that really aren't ever mentioned in the debate, which is framed in simplistic terms. As are all of the debates. Oh, fuck it, nevermind.

Mmmmm, chocolate cake.

Withering Heights (of HypocrAsy)
 

Am I the only one who finds it vomitizing that the same bunch of pseudo-faux-intellectual numnutted left-winged euro-american pussies that are up in arms about the toilet flushing of the vile Koran are the same idiots that thought "Piss Christ" was art?

http://www.signusa.com/images/stickers/vinyl/1812.gifhttp://www.skally.net/stuff/dog.gif
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/koran.gif

Another reason why I support Republicans and not Democrats. From Assemblyman Mark Wyland - Republican

SCORE THIS ONE: UNIONS 1, EVERYBODY ELSE 0


A funny thing happened in the Labor & Employment Committee on April 20, 2005. I presented a bill to the committee which says simply that every regulation and posting required to be posted in the workplace or at the jobsite pursuant to state law shall be written in plain language so that the content is easily understandable by both the employer and every employee. You’d think that a labor union would want their workers to understand their rights, but when a compromise was proposed in committee by the labor-friendly chairman, the idea got vetoed. No, the common sense reform was not vetoed by the Governor, but by a representative of a public employee union who stood up in the back of the committee room--off camera--and made gestures to liberal committee members to ensure that all discussion of compromise was quashed. Everybody in the room saw what she did. And the majority quickly killed discussion and the bill died 2-5 on a strict party-line vote.

This is what I mean by Special Interests controlling your government in Sacramento.


AND THIS ONE: LAWYERS 246 BILLION, TAXPAYER 0


According to a recent study, the U.S. tort system cost taxpayers $246 billion in 2003, which translates to an $845 per person tax, plus billions more in indirect costs. The sum is based on benefits paid or expected to be paid to third parties, defense costs, and administrative expenses and is passed on to consumers through increased costs for good and services. U.S. consumers pay directly for the high cost of going to court in higher liability insurance premiums because liability insurance rates reflect what insurance companies pay out for their policyholders’ legal defense and any judgments against them. And they pay indirectly in higher prices for goods and services since businesses pass on to consumers the expenses they incur in protecting themselves against lawsuits, including the cost of commercial liability insurance. I think the following facts speak for themselves:

California’s legal system was ranked the 5th worst in the country in a recent survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. [Source: Harris Interactive Inc. 2004 State Liability Rankings Study, March, 2004]

At current levels, U.S. tort costs are equivalent to a 5% tax on wages. [Source: Tillinghast-Towers Perrin U.S. Tort Costs: 2003 Update. Trends and Findings on the U.S. Tort System, December, 2003]

1.5 million lawsuits were filed in California in 2002. [Source: 2003 Court Statistics Report by the Judicial Council of California]

California school districts spend $80 million annually to defend, inure, and pay for tort and other liability claims. [Source: Cal-Tax Digest, "Local Government Liability: A Major Cost and Exposure," February 1999]

California has dropped from 39th to 44th on the list of small-business friendly states due in part to its litigation environment according to a study compiled by the Small Business Survival Committee [Source: Orange County Register, August 13, 2001]

If the earnings of trial lawyers were combined, they would amass 50% more than Microsoft or Intel and twice that of Coca-Cola [Source: Trial Lawyers, Inc., A Report on the Lawsuit Industry in America, 2003]

*source: Insurance Information Institute; Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Do you invest in the markets? I cannot understand why anyone who is investing in the stock market would rather have a laissez faire SEC. Donaldson was a Republican interested in striking a balance. Cox, not so much.

You have a party dominated by fundamentalists, but I'm not sure who the socialist Dems are.

I honestly cannot tell what the hell you are talking about, and I say that as someone who has spent a lot of time litigating on the defense side. Small business owners who are worrying about trial lawyers ought to be worrying about other things.

Yeah, whatever. When this Congress passes something of that sort, you just let me know.

That's wrong, but since you seem to be reading off the Chamber of Commerce's talking points, I'm hardly surprised.

That's such horseshit. People like Social Security because they want a component of their retirement income to be safe from what happens in the market. I want a balanced portfolio, and so do other people. People like Social Security, which is why they're not signing on to dumping it. It fills a need the market can't.

No one should count on Social Security for all of it, but the only people who are indifferent to whether it's there are those who have much more many than most Americans. Bush is pushing a great program for the fatcats, but not for most people.

I think we're testing whether you're belief in free markets trumps whatever democratic principles you subscribe to. So far, the answer is yes. Meaning that people who want to vote to regulate markets should not be allowed to, in your book.

That is such bullshit. I will concede that it's easier to balance the budget when Congress and the Executive Branch are controlled by different parties, since it tends to stem the flow of pork, but the fact is that Clinton and a Democratic Congress -- without a single GOP vote -- voted to take the crucial first step in 1993. Meanwhile, check out what GOP Congresses have done in recent years. It's a disgrace. Now that moderate Republicans from the Northeast are a vanishing breed, and the South has gone over to the GOP, the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility, and the GOP is the party of spending, waste, and deficits. /It's your party -- get used to it. They're not changing their stripes, but you can still leave.

Increased supply would tend to reduce prices.

No, because -- like the rest of the GOP -- you see no need to consider policy, since you've got a nice ideology to turn to.

You have workers who are not getting the pension plans they bargained for, and government regulators who are letting corporations abandon their obligations, and you think that has nothing to do with the operation of a free market? Apparently in your free market, only large corporations get to enjoy the benefits of entering into deals.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

"Not only are we going to look for a house in Georgetown.," Dean said, his voice rising. "We're going to look in Dupont Circle and Capitol Hill and Adams Morgan, and we're going to Arlington and Alexandria and Reston. And we're going to Chevy Chase and Bethesda and Potomac. And then we're going to pick out the Right House."

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

Yeah, I know no one will read this through.
 

OK, this is you drinking the Koolaid to an extent. Currently, pensions are protected up to a limit -- so the only people having their pensions reduced when a company turns the underfunded pension over to the PBGC are your "fat cats" -- people whose incomes were pretty fucking high. I will be behind you 100% if you want to say that all non-broad based pensions have to be eliminated, and the funds put into the broad-based plans, before a company can boot the broad-based plan over to the PBGC, but it's not the case that anyone other than the cream of the employees are really adversely affected by United sending the pensions to the PBGC.

On the defined benefit side, the largest plans are on the whole quite well funded. I don't have data on smaller plans (from smaller employers), but the largest plans cover the majority of people who have a defined benefit pension anyway -- smaller employers with smaller plans tend to terminate the plans if they move from defined benefit to defined contribution.

I'm not sure the system right now has the right balance between letting employers fund more heavily in good years to protect them against the lean years, when the value of investments in the pension fund will fall, leading to underfunding, but the company is dealing with a bad economy and is not in the best position to put money there. On the other hand, when the funding rules were looser, companies would use their pension plans as a tax shelter -- funds they put in were deductible.

I have to say that while I question some of the things IBM did with their pension plan, the uninformed witch-hunt on cash balance plans in Congress led to them taking the rather extreme step of stopping future accruals under the defined benefit plan altogether, and putting everone in a (richer) defined contribution plan. This is effectively doing to their employees what Bush wants to do to SS -- making their retirements dependent on their own investment abilities and the whims of the market.



Nonetheless, Medicare and corporate retiree health coverage and, by extension, healthcare in general are by far the more pressing problems. I wish people would fucking stop focusing so exclusively on SS and pensions.

Yes, Ty, I know you mentioned healthcare. I meant in general.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

I do invest, and I like it when my stocks go up.


When it comes to the passage of free trade agreements you can see where people loyalties lay. When Bush asked for Fast Track Authority very few Dems helped. For the central America free trade treaty, supposedly free trade Dems, like Ellen Tausher, are on the wrong side.

There are two stalwart Republican groups in my area. Doctors and small business owners. And their common gripe is litigation and liability. Usually people are pretty good at looking out after their own intersts so I tend to believe them. The entire board of the Republican party in the Silicon Valley is either doctors or small business owners. Are they all delusional?


Yes like a free trade act.



I have never read their talking points. And you think that you understand what is in the interest of American Businesses than the Chamber of Commerce? And if Unions are so concerned about job growth why are they against every free trade act? Considering how many jobs are dependant on international trade. And if they are so concerned about unemployment why do they hold up the German and French models that make it so hard to fire people, and thus give those countries their chronic unemployment.



Most people believe their money sits in a little account and is not touched by the government. They don't understand that is not the case, and don't understand, than if put into private accounts the returns would be much better. The Chilean system provides much better returns than our system. Oh, but wait, we can't use that one as a comparison, because even if it works really wwll, it was put in place by a brutal dictator so it must be ignored.



People would be able to count on Social Security if it was invested properly. And how does Bush's plan only benefit the fat cats? You are the one reading talking points now.



The whole Bill of Rights is anti-Democratic. It stops the majority from passing laws that infringe on people rights. Similarly, I don't believe that any policy, if supported by the majority, is necessarily right. If the majority is for policies that don't make economic sense, I don't have to like it. However, in the end, I believe my democratic principles are stronger than yours because I promote policies that create stable democracies, where you promote policies that may allow short term democracies, but in then end produce permanent dictatorhships.



In 1993 budget was not a crucial first step. It raised taxes and raised spending. And it raised spending more than it raised taxes. Many Dems were against it because it did nothing about fiscal responsiblity. Every reasonable predicter said that the budget was not going to get us anywhere. When the Republicans took over everything changed. It was not a matter of if the budget was going to be balanced it was a matter of when. The Bond market, seeing that something was finally going to be done, dropped their long term interest rates. And Clinton did everything in his power to keep the budget unbalanced. Have you not forgotten that Clinton's whole gripe that shut the government down was that the Republicans were trimming the budget too much. "They were cutting medicare" actually reducing the growth, but that is not the point". Clinton wielded his veto, not for fiscal responsiblity, for against budget cuts. You may have agreed that "saving these programs" was more important than balancing the budget, but to say that Clinton was responsible for balancing the budget is pure denial. He spent his whole relection campaign critisizing the Republicans for making the cuts that were necessary to balance the budget.





No, because -- like the rest of the GOP -- you see no need to consider policy, since you've got a nice ideology to turn to.[/QUOTE]

Yes that irrational ideology that says that it is a bad idea to have health care run by the same group that runs the DMV and the Post Office.


When you don't like my point you just change the subject. We were talking about which party policies favor free market principles that lead to growth. This is just something you don't like about Republicans but is not on point. In order to have growth you need to have a business climate that promotes the growth of new and small businesses. That is where all the new growth and job creation comes from. Almost all the organizations that represent entrepeneurs and small businesses favor the Republicans. The biggest problem in this state for small business was worker's compensation. Alomost every business that was leaving California cited workers comp as the main problem. It was the number one priority for every business group in California. When Schwarzenegger tried to reform workers comp. the biggest obstacles to reform were the Unions and Trial Lawyers.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

You and I have talked about this. As I said before, the M.O. of this Administration, and this Congress, are to draft bills like that one to try to divide moderate Democrats from the business community. They don't want a bipartisan approach. They are trying to craft things so that reasonable Dems won't be able to sign on. That means "free trade" agreements designed to undermine environmental and labor protections, and so on.

No, but neither does that prove that there is much a problem, nor that it is one of the free market's biggest problems. Doctors commit malpractice sometimes. They cannot police themselves. The legal system has to do it. If you tell me that the legal system doesn't do a particularly good job of that, I might agree, but the reforms proposed -- esp. limiting pain and suffering awards -- don't address the problem. Trial lawyers are filling a need.

They started with a massive giveaway to the credit-card industry.

Both businesses and unions support things that narrowly benefit themselves at the expense of the public good. We have all sorts of protections for various industries that your free-trade pals won't touch. Unions are no more prone to acting out of self-interest than businesses are.

They do understand that, but want the safety of Social Security, and to invest in the market on top of that.

The only way to pretend that that's true is to really manipulate the figures and ignore what's actually happening in Chile.

[/QUOTE]
People would be able to count on Social Security if it was invested properly. And how does Bush's plan only benefit the fat cats? You are the one reading talking points now.
[QUOTE]

People can count on Social Security because the government guarantees it. If you privitize things, there are no guarantees. Fat cats would not be harmed by this, because they have other resources to fall back on if SS isn't there. But most people want the insurance SS provides.

You cannot run the numbers in a way that makes what Bush wants to do to SS look attractive to most people. That is why the more Bush talks, the fewer people support him on this. The only people who are solidly with him are those who -- like you, apparently -- have an ideological problem with Social Security itself. Average Americans are not with you on this. (Which Bush knows, which is why he barely talked about this issue until after the election.)

So in your view, we should be overthrowing the elected government of Venezuela right now?

As history has proven, you are simply wrong here. So wrong that it's hard to know where to begin. The simplest way to demonstrate this is that when Bush replaced Clinton, he and the Republican Congress went on a financial bender that has yet to stop, taking us from budget surpluses to massive deficits.


No, we got to pensions because you were saying that trial lawyers and unions are the biggest threats to the free market around, and I listed a bunch of things that I thought posed much greater economic risks, including pension regulation.

I don't want get fringey going again (no mas, fringey, you win), so I will simply repeat my understanding that federal regulators have permitted companies to get away with underfunding their pensions, which will leave lots of workers (and the federal government) holding the bag. To the extent that the federal government is letting companies walk away from their obligations to these workers, there's a real problem.

First of all, I'm not interested in defending California's workers comp system. I hear stories, too.

That said, if you want to prove that something like workers comp is a problem for the economy, you're going to have to come up with something more than "they say it's a problem." Where there's smoke, sometimes there's a smoke machine.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Yet another middle ground that seems to elude all sides in this debate... why don't us Rs start demanding better policing of doctors? I don't have a problem with damage caps (and, in fact, I'm pretty much in favor of them across the board), but what's the point of any of this if we can't get the medical regulators (at the state level?) to start pulling licenses and taking names for the ones who are charged with more than a simple mistake?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

If there's a problem, it's that med mal claims don't do a good job of compensating the right people. Caps are a bad idea, IMHO -- when you hear about the injuries people suffer, no one in the right mind would accept even the uncapped damages to incur those injuries. But if the system does not whack the right defendants, then it's not doing much to create the right incentives.

Koran
 

Why does this Koran-pissing story have such legs?

Am I the only one having problems generating a whit of sympathy for a group of people who (or at least a very high percentage of whom) come from a culture that celebrates burning the american flag?

Koran
 

We should have avoided the whole mess by not giving them the fucking books in the first place.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

By definition free trade acts undermine "labour protections". The reason why the Democrats are stopping it is they don't want to give Bush a win going into the congressional elections.



For the California Chamber of commerce the biggest complaint coming from their members is liability issues. Are all the members just stupid? Don't understand how to run their businesses? You can quote me all the stats you want, but the bottom line is that small business owners are in the best position to judge what is threatening their businesses. I just can't fathom that anyone would disagree with that.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop They started with a massive giveaway to the credit-card industry
Both businesses and unions support things that narrowly benefit themselves at the expense of the public good. We have all sorts of protections for various industries that your free-trade pals won't touch. Unions are no more prone to acting out of self-interest than businesses are.[QUOTE]

Small business do not have special interest. High tariffs on cream do not help the ice cream business. High tariffs on Steel do not benefit the car industry. Collectively, all the small businesses have one special interest in common. They want the US Business environment to be business friendly. When small business succeeds all of America succeeds. Most of the Job growth comes from small businesses. So what is in the interest of Small Businesses is in the interests of all Americans. The Unions only care about the jobs held by their members. Keeping those jobs at all costs is not always in the best interset of all Americans, let alone consumers. Unions do not want a flexible, dynamic economy. They just want job secuirty which is the antithesis of that. The US Chamber of Commerce understands better than anyone what we need to do to help small businesses. And they almost always support Republicans.



Absolutely. He is turning that country into a Socialist dictatorship. And socialist dictatorships can last a very long time - see Cuba and Burma.



Where was I wrong?
1) Clinton was not against the Republican Spending cuts
2) Spending cuts do not help balance the budget.
3) Clinton did not criticise Dole and the Republicans for trying to "cut" Medicaid.



Economic risks is a different subject than free trade and growth. Those things you are talking about may hurt certain people and cause economic pain to certain groups but not the country as a whole. I am for growth. There is no questions that the entire legal system is a drain on growth. As much as you would like to believe they do, lawyers do not ad to the GNP. The more business litigation there is, the worse it is for business.

Workers Compensation was the number one issue for the California Chamber of Commerce when they helped Arnold get elected. I know this because half of the board of the Chamber also sits on my board. I was also there when the Chamber listed their complaints to then candidate Arnold. On most of the bills that go through the legislature the Chamber of Commerce is on one side and the Unions are on the other. The same is true of the trial lawyers. So somebody is taking the side against growth, a healthy business environment and free trade. They both can't be on the side of free trade, growth and a healthy business environment because they are almost always on different sides. Call me crazy, but when it comes to free trade, growth and a healthy business envornment I think such issues are better in the hands of the Chamber than the Unions and Trial lawyers. Do you disagree with that?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Since the "you win" was clearly bs just intended to make me shut up (nice, Ty), I don't feel bad continuing. Thanks for being so unbelievably and insultingly transparent, Ty!!!! You are a sweetie. Kiss kiss.

In general, no, you can't get away with underfunding. But what are they going to do? Shut down the entire company? I am sure we are talking about United, here. Christ.

BTW, if you didn't notice, I'm kind of annoyed by your patronizing crap. It could be the wine talking.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Only if you think of tariffs as labor protections, and I don't. You mentioned Rep. What's Her Name from CoCo County. She would vote for the right kind of free trade pact. Rep. DeLay doesn't want her getting business support. Connect the dots.

Burger, would you explain Brunswick's holding about the difference between hurting competition and hurting competitors?

And the people there voted for him. What you are suggesting has no legitimacy at all.

Clinton got balanced budgets passed. Once he left, your guys went on a bender. It's that simple.

I worked on a case years ago that involved a dispute over the valuation of a business that was sold. They couldn't do a proper audit before the deal, for various reasons, so they agreed to litigate after the fact. In a country with an inferior legal system, you can't do this. In this way, the legal system helps growth.

My comment above about [i]Brunswick[i] goes to the difference between helping markets function well, and helping businesses do well. There's a difference. Your guys speak the language of markets, but they're all too willing to carry water for businesses even when it has nothing to do with promoting competition on growth or the better functioning of the markets.

Unions play an important role. Their existence is not anti-competitive, any more than permitting concentrations of capital is. If you want to complain that unions are a drag on the markets, but have nothing to say about (e.g.) oligopolies, you're either not taking a balanced look at the situation, or you're more interested in helping people with money than helping people make money.

Koran
 

I don't care that much, because religion is crap, but I think it's the desecrating the Koran as a way of trying to get information out of imprisoned people. Plus our country is pretty religious as a whole, and people may be projecting what they would feel about someone pissing on the Holy Bible or something. Again, like I give a shit, but I think it's a combo of using desecration as a questioning technique and the wacko religious right double standard.

Why was a Marine peeing around a prisoner, anyway? I'm just curious. Water sports?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

(a) You win, in that you clearly know more about this stuff than I do.

(b) Surely we can think of something to do about underfunding.

(c) If I was patronizing last night, it was surely the wine.

And Now for something completely different
 

Time will tell with Cox. The convential wisdom is that Donaldson swung the pendulum to far after the scandals and a loosening of regulation would be a good thing for companies.

I'm no litigator, but I do currently practice in the area. I think the balance that needs to be struck is difficult. On the one hand, I'm am fully behind full and accurate disclosure, but on the other hand, I think the regulations need to differentiate between large cap and small cap companies, mainly because the costs of a small cap complying with the same regs as, say IBM, often times become prohibitive and are harmfull to investors.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Not that many plans are underfunded. The ones that are, generally belong to businesses that are not doing so hot. All defined benefit plans are required to be insured with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Company (Corporation?), which guarantees benefits up to a point. People at the top of the covered comp scale will lose some (e.g., pilots) if the plan isn't fully funded and the PBGC takes over because, e.g., the company goes bankrupt. Basically the PBGC takes over pension plans -- including the assets they have -- and pays out the benefits when a company goes bye-bye. Since there's a huge reversion excise tax (like 50%?), in theory a business could go bust and yet have a fully funded pension plan, in which case everyone would get the benefits they are do.

The PBGC was overfunded a couple years ago by a lot. There was discussion of reducing premiums, but I'm not sure if it happened. It is now potentially underfunded (not sure the extent to which the feds are required to bail it out).

It's not a bad system. Aside from all the political fluff, the issues have to do with valuing liabilities -- what assumptions are used in the actuarial models. If the rate to which valuations are pegged is volatile, a plan can look hugely underfunded one day and hugely overfunded the next.

There's one big company plan (or set of plans, more likely) that is quite, quite underfunded (I can't remember the name, but it's in the top 10 by accrued liabilities). GM's plans, while not fully funded, were quite well funded and they have by FAR the biggest set of plans as measured by liabilities and, I think, by number of participants. Obviously, the market being crap lately would make them less well funded than they might have been at the end of 2004 (the data in the report I looked at a while ago).

I don't think the situation is nearly as dire as some people are apparently making it out to be, if you are suddenly all freaked out about it. Of course, maybe you have a relative who is a pilot at United or something. Anyway, hence my thinking that you drank the Koolaid.

Caption, please.
 

Caption, please.
 

"My people would tell me if I needed a better umbrella, and they haven't said anything."

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

The entire business community is behind the deal. If it was just a Republican fix that wouldn't be the case. The deal will help American business, which will lead to growth. That is all we need to know.



I have no idea what this means.





Legitamacy? What does that mean? He is ruining that country and condemning future generations of the country to poverty. Everyone knows it. The US should do whatever they can do to undermine him. Venezuela is never going to get to the $4,000 PCI (or grow a strong middle class) if this bozo continues in office. If you really want a lasting stable democracy in Venezuela, the sooner this guy goes the better. Whatever the means.



You need to retake a civics course. Congress is responsible for the budget. Clintons proposed budgets were dead on arrival. The Republicans put together budgets and all Clinton did was force them to lessen their spending cuts. That was what the government shut down was all about. If Clinton did not get his way the budget would have been balanced sooner and the surpluses would have been larger. But if you are going to give the President responsibility for the budget the last budget Clinton signed (2001) was in deficit. Of course the current deficit is all about wasteful spending and nothing to do with the fact that we had a recession and we are in a war.



Well you get a gold star. But one case is surely not a representative sample to demonstrate litigations effect on business.


You are putting the cart before the horse. The whole point is growth. That is why you have free markets because they are better at growing the economy. If you have well functioning markets, but business suffer that ruins the goal. If it takes screwed up markets to get growth, then you have screwed up markets. We carry water for the businesses, because they are what create the growth. Is there something else besides growing businesses that leads to growth. You make it sound like if we have fair markets and protect peoples pension that that in intself will bring growth regardless of the business climate. There are reasons to restrict businesses - environment etc. But balancing Business Interests with Union interests does not optimize growth. You may help the unions because it is fair, but thriving businesses equal growth.

I don't mind Unions. I just mind it when they influence laws. Every law they seem to support today is antigrowth. If they would just try and stop protecting their jobs through laws (which by definition are anti-competitive) I wouldn't mind them at all. The bottom line is Unions don't create growth, Pensions don't create growth, SEC regulations don't create growth, businesses create growth. It is all about the business climate. You asked me why I am a Republican when economic growth is my objective and I have demonstrated that the Republicans support pro-growth policies. If they didn't, the Chamber wouldn't support them.

PS. T-Rex, I know we are having fun here but we might be driving everyone crazy. I will let you have the last word. And that bender comment was a great line. I actually laughed out loud at my computer.

To Spanky
 

You may wish to tell Arnold that his staff has been handing out the conference call number to too many contributors, or that their quality control is lagging -- it appears that the People's Governor has even extended access to POS reporters, which I'm not sure is what he had in mind.

• SACRAMENTO — When wealthy contributors write checks to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, they often get a few canapes and a drink — and a secret telephone number that grants them access to his closest advisors and even the governor himself.
  
  Twice a month, donors can become insiders' insiders — invited to participate in conference calls featuring information about Schwarzenegger campaign strategy that his political enemies would love to have. In turn, donors who dial in can give the governor advice.
  
  In the latest such call, a few days ago, Schwarzenegger's media expert, Don Sipple, outlined a strategy "based on a lot of polling" to create a "phenomenon of anger" among voters toward public employee unions. Firefighters, police officers, teachers and other state-paid workers have become the governor's harshest critics this year.
  
  "The process is like peeling an onion," Sipple said, describing a multi-step plan for persuading voters that public-worker unions are "motivated by economic self-interest" instead of "doing the best job for the state."
  
  The Thursday discussion, involving multiple contributors and three top Schwarzenegger strategists, offered a rare glimpse of the governor's "donor maintenance" effort: insider information, solicitous compliments, invitations to exclusive parties. It was also a window on the governor's attack strategy ahead of an expected Nov. 8 special election.
  
  The governor has dubbed 2005 the "year for reform," and he needs millions of dollars for support, mainly for TV ads. The Times was given access to Thursday's half-hour call through a participant.
  
  "It's a good way to keep in touch with you, our most important supporters, about the latest developments in the campaign," Schwarzenegger's chief fundraiser, Marty Wilson, told the contributors.

A "phenomenon of anger" towards nurses, teachers, firefighters, cops. I can tell, 2005 will be a fun year.

The Sectarian Adventures of Gov. Goodhair
 

Sure, there are probably a handful of Texans (hi, RT!) who might object to the Govenor signing bills restricting abortion and outlawing gay marriage in a church-run school, but doubtless they're just those "separation of church and state" weenies who don't understand the power of metaphor or of campaign contributions.

Besides, it's efficient: this way, after signing the bills, the Governor can wash in the Blood of the Lamb without even having to get in his car.

Brazil - nothing is what it seems
 

Poor Brazil just can't catch a break. Brazil finally gets a President that understands economics, has the political clout to push through the necessary reforms (because he pretends to be a socialist) and his friends screw it all up by getting greedy. It is like an Italian opera. Now the specialist interest statists (who pretend to be pro free market) are going to get back into power and the entire Brazilian budget is going to keep going into subsidies and corruption.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

Koran
 

Another thing the Islamics have in common with the American liberals.

Bush should make the leftwingers in America an offer, a free mint condition Koran and passage to the Islamic republic of their choice (or France) in exchange for shutting the fuck up and getting the hell out of our country.

Caption, please.
 

Our social security reforms will protect the most vulnerable Americans, just like an umbrella in a hurricane.

Brazil - nothing is what it seems
 

You're complaining that a capitalist is greedy?

It's the system, man. Think about where you're posting!

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

If you want a good metric for third world countries that have successfully developed, look to unionization. It's union wages that create the middle class that fuels demand and creates a real economy, instead of a pure export-oriented economy.

So do you mind when capitalists influence the laws?

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Two things need to happen. First, the lawyers and doctors need to stop fighting. The insurers have tricked them into fighting one another when the real enemy is the insurers. If you take a look at the numbers, you'll see that rate increases are huge multiples of the costs incurred by insurers for malpractice claims. The insurers have never been able to show any congruity between their increases and the alleged costs justifying them. The lawyers and doctors should get together and fight the insurers. Once they get together, they can also do the second thing that needs to be done, which is weed lousy lawyers out of the system. Hacks who file junk claims cost good lawyers, doctors and insurers money. I don't just mean lousy PI lawyers, either. There are tons of commercial lawyers and litigants who litigate as a form of doing business. Those scumbags should be forced to pay sanctions for every frivolous action they file. We really ought to move toward a model where the overly litigious are sanctioned, and sanctioned stiffly, for filing junk suits if any kind.

But I guess that would wipe out a whole industry of people who pay tuitions and lease expensive cars.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Thats nice, but it doesn't work when globalization allows your competitor to move his labor costs offshore and sell his competing product (which is usually built much better abroad) cheaper. Unless protectionism is embraced, which it will never be, the unions will continue to wither. BUT, eventually, labor costs abraod will rise, as they are in India, and it will again become profitable to build things domestically. When it becomes profitable enough to build at home and eat the shakedown costs from the unions, the jobs will return. But if you're a worker caught in the in between time, well, you're a market casualty. It happens.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

1. Dude, the function of a union is to protect jobs of its workers. What would you have them do? Take up expressive dance?

2. Businesses that falsify their numbers don't create growth. They create windfalls for their execs with options and shares. The regs and enforcement you're pissed about aren't a response to unbridled growth - they're a response (probably over-response) to fraud.

3. I view unions as the counterbalance to execs who have no interest but propping the numbers to get their bonus packages. Both are cabals of self serving, solely self interested whores. Together, they ass fuck companies exquisitely.

4. The present GOP is not supporting growth at all. What its doing is shoving short term gains into the pieholes of its biggest contributors. They're stripping the cash out businesses. But they don't care. When the whiplash tax increases of a liberal administration hit, they'll already be retired. Those of us in the middle will pay the tax bills when the unions and the lower middle class have their revenge. Same old story. The loathesome rich fight the loathesome poor, and the rest of us pay the tab for the damage.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

It's pretty hard not to end up here if you've ever had action taken against you from a licensure organization, a hospital or paid any money on a malpractice claim.

And the appeal process is almost impossible once you're in.

The Sectarian Adventures of Gov. Goodhair
 

*thunk* *thunk* *thunk*

I can't wait for primary season to begin.

Breaking economic principles down to a level so basic that they are meaningless.
 

Missed. Point.

My point related to the countries where the work is being off-shored. If THOSE countries unionize, and their wages go up, you see real growth.

India's an interesting example. Labor costs are skyrocketing there without expanded unionization in the real software services (programming business), but I'm told they are still very low in the call center business.

The White Ho
 

From Mediabistro, the Gannonization of the WH press corps continues.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlD...ahwh-thumb.jpg

Huh?
 

Why wasn't Andrew Fastow in prison?

"Lea Fastow, 43, exited a federal detention center flanked by her husband, her sister and her lawyers, Mike DeGeurin and Jennifer Ahlen."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050606/...ron_lea_fastow

Huh?
 

Part of the plea agreement. For the sake of the kids, they were going to serve time consecutively rather than concurrently so the kids would have one parent at home. He'll start serving soon.

Her sister was a few classes behind me in high school. Nice girl.

Huh?
 

WTF? Is that common? Do regular people get these kinds of concessions for their kids? I'm sure they are charming children, but their parents are felons. Rich, white, well-educated felons, but felons nonetheless.