why we're f'd

I'm not sure I want to turn over this country to the Austrians, but agree good economic school.

"Oh, the people who drop out of college and agree with you are smart.. But, the people who drop out of college and don't agree with you are idiots and "college failures".

No...the people who believe that climate change is a hoax are idiots (your words). They listen to people who are idiots (my words) for guidance. Climate change may not be settled science, but it is pretty accurate. Also consider that a good chunk of the people who think it's a hoax are the same people that believe that the earth is 4,000 years old, pre-historic man rode dinosaurs like horses and Obama wasn't born in the US.

As my dad used to tell me, "When you hang around with a bunch of f-ing idiots, don't be surprised when people think you're a f-ing idiot, too....use your brain."

If you love Milton so much at least spell his name right

Oh and by its very definition no "science" should be "settled"...

waverly, it's not that 'there's nothing to see here', but rather, is global warming being over hyped? Hey, I wish that every car manufacturer would re-tool & make all vehicles fuel efficient & non-poluting. So, why don't they? Also, what if the West goes clean fuel, but China does not? Lots of implications.

dwell - I totally agree that China and India and Russia need to get their acts in gear, too. Over-hyped? I am not sure I agree with that. It is real and it has the potential to be catastrophic so if there is the slightest chance that things are even remotely "over-hyped" with the goal being to make sure things improve and we don't all die...I am okay with that.

It make me laugh to think that the far right tries to call climate change over-hyped when they turn around and say that Obama is a socialist (seriously...give me a break) and that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage btw a man and a woman. Hypocrisy and GOP...perfect together. I am not suggesting these things could be politically motivated, but if the glove fits....

"by its very definition no "science" should be "settled"..."
... moxieland, that's just a theory, not a fact.

;+)

dwell, Switzerland's glaciers melted at a rate of 12% over the decade 1999-2009 ... and you can literally watch Antartica's glaciers sliding in massive amounts into the ocean.

And worst of all, Cancun's beautiful beaches "washed away" (i.e., sea levels rose and made the sand go away), and no effort to put the sand back seems to work. So I have to hang out with those swim-up bar assholes by the pool.

Overhyped?

dwell, if we get it wrong there really is no going back to do it over, you know?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42456
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/climate-change-glaciers-melting

waverly... You seem very classy with your language. I am not saying there is NO global warming. But it is certainly not "settled science". And Gore is a complete fraud making a billion dollars and pretending to save the Earth.

LICC: My point is that Krugman was regarded as one of the top economists in the world before he started writing op-eds. As someone else pointed out, the Nobel committee is composed mainly of ... economists. Those same economists gave numerous awards to members of the Chicago School. You have no support for your claim. That is my point.

And nice try to throw Roach in. I'm not sure what your point is there. Do people who work outside of academia not usually produce enough work product to get Nobel prizes in economics? Um, yes I agree with you.

And don't kid yourself. I have a lot of respect for Roach, but he is no longer an economist. He is the Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia. That means he is responsible for building and maintaining their business in Asia. What would you expect him to say?

"The country should be governed by the Chicago School.... Freedman,Hayek. etc"

I think we tried that already. FAIL.

Or didn't you see Mr. Greenspan himself trying to pass the buck on responsibility for the current state of affairs?

Guys, I hear you & agree on many issues. No doubt, we must change our ways. But, how do we do it? And, will the interest groups allow it to be done? And, some of the guys in East Anglia did fake some of the data, no? And, if the West 'goes green" but China & other countries don't, will we make enuff of an improvement? ie: China doesn't go green & they flood the world with cheap goods, while the West has spent a lota money to go green, so Western goods are too expensive & can't compete with cheap, non-green goods.

The overhyped stuff: news stories about people who have given up using toilet paper in order to go green; dissing cows cuz they produce too much CO2.

Have you ever read Chrichton's afterword to State of Fear? But I guess he was a college dropout idiot too . . .

Think about this: when almost every adult in China earns enuf money to buy a car: What do we do about that? Last time I was in China, most people could only afford bikes & public transport.

malthus... We did the Chicago School before 1913. The country went from a waste land to the worlds most productive country with the highest standard of living. "I think we tried that already. FAIL" If you think the corrupt Bushes governed the" Chicago" way than you need a shrink. Also, Greenspan was great when he was under Rand's thumb. But, he just became the central banker for the welfare state.

Settled science...does that mean that because we aren't abolutely, poitively, unequivocally, rock-solid sure we shouldn't take steps to improve things ASAP? Jeez, I don't think we applied that same standard of "surety" about WMD's before rushing into Iraq...again, I find humorous the things that the far right tries to scare people about and what they just brush right over. They want a blood-oath from scientists on climate change, but when Rush talks out of his big, fat ass on, well everything he says basically, they just roll-over and pass it on like it's fact.

It's this misinformation and the right's use of fear that gets people to regurgitate what these talking heads say...whether that is fear of a socialist/terrorist in the white house, fear of a deficit for our children (aww, how cute...ignore the deficits we ran-up), fear of gay people, fear of anything secular (it's a culture war and a war on X-mas), fear of government, fear of taxes and on and on and on.

As someone who actually graduated from the University of Chicago it pains me greatly to see the misrepresentation "Chicago School" thinking gets. The Rush Limbaughs of the world, the religious right, the various neo-con groups of their own special interests have nothing to do with the what is taught there. Besides the fact there is plenty of divergence of opinions existing on the campus. Steven Levitt is a fun representation of what comes out of Hyde Park. Richard Posner has brought economic analysis to the law from his association with the U of C. The idea of negative economic externalities being brought home to those who created them is something that comes out of this way of thinking.
Milton Friedman's work on monetary policy and his criticism of the Fed have proven darn cogent. He never argued that it would be a good thing for commercial and investment banks to lever themselves up 30-40 to 1 and hide the facts. The Chicago school never has said they were in favor of zero regulations.
We have been hijacked by 'crony capitalism,' which appears to me to cut across party lines. 'We the people' are the ones who are getting crushed by it.

Hey waverly....Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't make them right wing... Stop classifying people. It is very unenlightened.

You know, I think this discussion is a microcosm of the climate change debate: too much argument over what we disagree on & not enuf resolution on what we do agree on. Also, a lack of details as to how to solve problems, costs of problem solving & discussion of possible unintended consequences.

Hey jacknyfrost... Please tell us what the "Chicago School" thought about Krugman winning the Nobel foe Economics.

Fear of growing government involvement in our lives, fear of massive government spending running up huge deficits, fear of inflation, fear of businesses folding under oppressive taxes, fear of treating terrorists like civilian criminals rather than enemy combatants, fear of soaking massive payments out of the U.S. and dragging the economy down further because of the politicized bad science of global warming . . .

So the right wing is driven by fear. I think that was laid out in the Republican strategy paper that came out a few weeks back.

"We have been hijacked by 'crony capitalism'"......well said

"Please tell us what the "Chicago School" thought about Krugman winning the Nobel foe Economics." It doesn't really matter. Their day has passed. Ask Posner.

The Republicans have a much better plan for reforming health care. A plan that would lower costs, reduce the burdens on business, cover more people, and not grow government or raise taxes. Of course that plan does not appeal to huge government democrats.

Why must these discussions devolve into extreme right v. extreme left & everyone ya disagree with is an a-hole, stupid schmuck? It ain't black & white.

malthus, we should be somewhat fearful of what Obama/Pelosi/Reid are trying to do.

Well said jackneyfrost.

dwell... because the left is illiberal and dictatorial. They don't debate the issues. They character smear and attack.

If the Nobel committee felt like he deserved his award based on his work in international trade, that was their right. I actually am familiar with work he has done in currencies and there is no question that it is top notch.
Which is different from some of the disagreements that might exist with Krugman on other issues.
U of C can't win all the Economic Nobel Prizes after all.

Obama wining the peace prize, well that is a whole other matter. (--:

It's not a right or left wing thing...except when it is. And with respect to climate change the far right has made their stance clear...shall we say their views are settled-science;)

"They don't debate the issues. They character smear and attack."

You mean like calling someone "illiberal and dictatorial"? Comedy.

malthus... The left and right are opposite sides of the same coin. Free market capitalism, an objective rule of law and individual liberty is a totally different coin.

"The Republicans have a much better plan for reforming health care. A plan that would lower costs, reduce the burdens on business, cover more people, and not grow government or raise taxes. Of course that plan does not appeal to huge government democrats."

... you mean the plague? It's been done already.

Hey jack maybe you can remind Julia where Barack taught Law?

I am to the right of most people on this board. But, the name calling doesn't solve anything & just makes people feel more entrenched in their extremes. I wish we could rise above it.

jacknyfrost.. Okay, will take your word on his work on trade and currencies. But the timing was very political.

Julia, "There are two kinds of people in this world : those who believe there are two kinds of people in this world and those who are smart enough to know better."

hey malthus.. Who said "there are two kinds of people in this world" not me ... Don't fabricate.

Ya know whut's funny? By today's standards, JFK would have been considered a far right Repub.

moxieland... Barry was busy teaching about positive rights.

By today's standards, Barry Goldwater would be considered a far-left democrat.

julia,
yes, positive rights. He's basically said he wants to undo the Bill of Rights. Well, if the bill passes on Sunday, we are in unchartered territory: A majority of states may sue the Fed Gov on 10th amendment grounds. IMO, that's a constitutional crisis, along the lines of Fort Sumter. Could be a bumpy ride.

Alan, I adore you. Hope to see you at the next shindig

There was a NY Times piece(think it was Sun Magazine) on Obama early on which talked a lot about his days as a lecturer at the Chicago Law School. Friends and foes alike made a big point about how he would never commit to anything that could be close to construed as a controversial stance. He did not want to have any academic record that could be held against him (out of context) while he ran for office. It was said he was greatly influenced by how academics like Robert Bork and Lani Gunier had their work distorted in sound bytes and political grandstanding.
I thought since he was a Bulls, Bears and especially WhiteSox fan he couldn't be all bad so I voted for him. I have been greatly disappointed by the appointments of Summers, Geithner et al.....
He should be listening a great deal more to Paul Volcker.

I am wayyyy to the left, but I agree that there are a bunch of knuckleheads there too. If you watch fauxnews you see them all the time, because they generally only want to put the crazies on tv so it supports the narrative.

That said, the fact that a specific group of people are working day & night to attempt to discredit scientific evidence and twist the information so it becomes convoluded (ie. there's no global warming b/c it snowed in DC) should be evidence of a greater motivation. These people don't legislation enacted that will require companies to pay taxes. These same people don;t want HC fixed because it will cost insurance companies $$. How do they scare people into listening to them and cast the opposition in an evil state...tell them climate change is a hoax over and over and over and tell people that HC will bankrupt the country over and over and over. Mix-in some nice fear-phrases like "death-panels" and "government-takeover" and "socialist-run healthcare" and you are in business.

Back at you, dwell ... where've you been these last few?

Hey Dwell. Do you mean like when California tried to claim federal drug laws preempted their medical marijuana statutes? I think that did not go so well for them.

Sift through the noise. I'm no expert but I don't think that is going anywhere.

This country is hopeless. The welfare state will bankrupt the country and the left and right will blame each other. We are witnessing the death of a once great nation. The ruling class is corrupt beyond belief and the masses just want their fair share. It truly is depressing.

Malthus,
The Virginia Atty Gen said he will sue & other states will join. IMO, this is huge. This is a major test of the limits of federal power. It's not noise.

The country is not hopeless. The welfare state will shave 2% off of GDP. Not great, but we'll survive. At some point the pendulum will swing the other direction. On the plus side, it looks like we'll have some positive financial reform(i'm hoping)

I know Dwell. What I am saying is that what politicians (which AGs generally are) say on the eve of one of the biggest and most contraversial votes in a generation may be more relevant to politics than law.

Positive financial reform would be a very good thing.

If you watch Larry Kudlow (who should be smacked around for his blatant lies and half-truths), last week he actually said that because Lehman got away with using sketchy accounting tactics and they weren't caught earlier this was proof that the street actually needs LESS regulation.

That is like saying...murder is illegal, but people keep killing each other so let's just not have any laws against murder.

"The welfare state will bankrupt the country and the left and right will blame each other. We are witnessing the death of a once great nation. The ruling class is corrupt beyond belief and the masses just want their fair share. It truly is depressing."

Julia,
This is what I'm worried about. This is the end, my friend.

So in the end dwell and julia agree with aboutready that we are f*d...

yes...

Yes, malthus. I think we probly agree on many issues, we just approach them differently.

"may be more relevant to politics than law."

I hear you Malthus. But, I don't think this is hot air & hype. I think there's things in the bill that exceed federal power, like forcing people to buy insurance policies. We'll see.

Hey Alan,

I screwed up my knee (had to give up the 5" heels) & then I had a sched conflict. It's been ruff. But, I shall see you at the next one, so don't try to hide from me!!!!!!!!!!!

"Friends and foes alike made a big point about how he would never commit to anything that could be close to construed as a controversial stance. He did not want to have any academic record that could be held against him (out of context) while he ran for office."

Well, that did not work out too well then. I'm sure everyone here has seen this photo of Obama as a professor before, right?

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/ph2008033100939.jpg

Do you know what he is teaching about in this photo? Saul Alinsky, a major Socialist.

Now I will stand back as julia's head explodes.

waverly is scarily to the left. But you really should try to do more than a bunch of conclusions that you like politically that aren't backed by facts.
The Republicans don't want HC reform? That's why they have a plan that would completely change how health care insurance works, would improve quality and lower costs, and not blow out the deficit, grow government and raise taxes? The leading global warming centers were found to be manipulating data and planning how to stifle dissent, but it is all fact in your mind? You sound as foolish as Rachel Maddow.

"The Republicans don't want HC reform? That's why they have a plan that would completely change how health care insurance works, would improve quality and lower costs, and not blow out the deficit, grow government and raise taxes?"

The Republican plan sounds great. Can you tell us during which year that the Republicans had control of both houses of Congress and the White House that they tried to pass it?

I'm glad you like the Republican plan.

I was being sarcastic. The Republuican plan is awful. According to the non-partisan CBO, it would allow insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

My original pioint was that if the Republican plan is so great, why did they not pass it when Bush was president and they controlled Congress? Medicare Part D put the deficit on steroids.

Anyone who is objective will agree that Obama is a marxist. The great uniter will divide and conquer. He fooled almost eveyone. Right out of the Alinsky playbook.. And the state run media hid all the facts.

There is no Republican health care plan other than spoiling the Democratic one.

Actually Julia, I am a marxist. You see, LIBERTARIANS are the crazy ones. Let's explore the word
LI * BERT * ARIAN

Let's see, I see the word "LI" Oh my goodness someone is lying to us!!!!!! Who is lying to us?? The ARIANS. Oh my goodness, Libertarians are nothing more but LYING ARIANS. Oh my! I can't believe that nobidy has exposed this to the world yet. This is major news!

Actually the Republican plan would call for individual tax credits, so the overall risk pools would be more stable and most people with pre-existing conditions could get coverage. Those few very high risk individuals would be covered by government subsidized high-risk pools. Please know what you are talking about before commenting, president.

LI * BERT * ARIAN
MA * NEUER

-it's actually a good word ma+newer

LIC,
There have been some good ideas spoken by Republicans, tax credits & tort reform which would be very positive, but
I think the real plan is just to frustrate Democrats.

Anyone who has studied Marxism would know that Julia has not

Groucho, Chico & Harpo?

"The ruling class is corrupt beyond belief and the masses just want their fair share. It truly is depressing."

now that's very "Marxist" of you Julia

The Democratic bill also does not increase the deficit. It decreases it by $138 billion over the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion over 20 years, according to CBO.

And now for the CBO analysis of the Republican plan. Again, thse figures come from CBO, not some devoted liberal like Rachel Maddow:

"By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health
insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about
52 million nonelderly residents uninsured."

In fact, according to page 12, there will be MORE uninsured non-elderly Americans in 2019 under the Republican plan than there are today (50 million vs. 52 million).

So anyone who thinks this miserable excuse of a health reform plan is good watches way too much Fox News.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf

Julia is a Socialist? Oh my. See this is what happens when you are too Conservative... you become liberal!

The political ruling class is corrupt beyond belief

no they're not...they're just giving people what they want to hear. so easy to blame others, isn't it? what about you? are you blameless?

Yeah, we'll see what happens to constitutional crisis when the regular constituent realizes that maybe he/she won't have to worry about health insurance between jobs, etc. I wonder if this'll become a Little-Rock/Brown Board moment.

Interesting times.

it is such an obviously good idea that it is fascinating to see how and why so many are against it.

Anyone who thinks the Democrat plan will not increase the deficit is a clueless partisan. The CBO score is based entirely on the assumptions it is given, which are from the Democrats and are ridiculous. Also, the CBO says the Democrats plan will raise the deficit, even with all the gimmicky assumptions:

In response to a question from Paul Ryan, the CBO has now priced out the cost of the Democrats’ health-bill (including the reconciliation bill), together with the cost of the permanent “doc fix” they have proposed. CBO writes: “enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.” That, of course, is without even accounting for all the other gimmicks, empty promises, and implausible offsets in the Democrats’ bill.

Together with all those gimmicks, keeping the “doc fix” separate from the health-care bills they are getting ready to vote on was key to allowing the Democrats to get a CBO score that seemed to keep the bill from raising the deficit.

have you stopped to consider that everything adds to the deficit? aid to haiti, the defense budget, our two wars, the medicare drug bill? everything adds to the deficit. best of all, the famous tax cuts. everything adds to the deficit. we have no money and no stomach to stop spending. that is neither a democratic nor a republican issue. that is an american issue. chris christie tries to stem the tide and you can't turn on the tv without hearing the propaganda about how he is wrecking the schools in nj.

at least with health care, ordinary people get a break. who benefits from our stupid wars?

Aboutready ----- I bet you're feeling a little chagrined for setting off the foaming mouths of asininity --- foam emitted from orifices of LICC and Julialc ---- omg. Could we just bounce some of these bleepin' retards? They drag the discussion as low as their knuckles graze the ground .......

Reagan and that machine (Bush 1, Bush 2) is what we can thank for the rapid descent of our entire infrastructure into almost total trashed banana-republic.
Hello! Retarded tea-baggers!!!!! You're being anally interfered with by folks of Bernie Madoff quality ethically. Do ya like being bum-probed that way???

I reiterate my prior post:

name calling doesn't solve anything & just makes people feel more entrenched in their extremes. I wish we could rise above it.

Amen

w67thstreet, you with me and dwell?

dwell, i think both sides, all sides, feel backed into a corner. i entirely agree with your focus on the future and what can be done. maybe i'm being short-sighted, and things can change in unexpected ways in a very fast manner, but we're broke and we have ceded much of our economic freedom to a country whose interests run counter to much of what we need. whether or not our needs should trump anyone else's is not the issue here, they shouldn't. but we have very little negotiating room right now. and so many debts.

where i have problems with the right is when they refuse to acknowledge the real-time consequences (people unemployed, etc.) of fiscal/monetary policy that clearly largely stemmed from bush/greenspan and their complete and utter determination to avoid any semblance of regulation. i'm fairly liberal, although not in all areas (some of my economic thoughts might surprise some here), but although i can see error all around, i think labelling obama marxist is insane. if anything he is far more in the chicago school model. he is trying for national health care because otherwise health care will bankrupt the government and further make it impossible for businesses to set up shop here. he's doing it as a pro-business tactic, or was initially. i'm not saying he doesn't believe people should have health care, but he caved to many big business agendas awfully quickly.

i didn't answer your question about what we might do to resolve the climate/energy/resource issues, because frankly i see no possible resolution in the foreseeable future. part of the reason i think we're fucked, and i'm dispirited.

poorish, i don't know what i think about julialarge. i think her anger is misdirected. LICC is the same as he's always been.

"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master."

but who speaks for the slaves? you? i think not.

i don't even know if supply-side economics could work. i know it did not. i don't even know if dog-eat-dog capitalism could work. i know that it did not. i don't even know if a welfare state could work. i know that it did not. (although we could argue which states worked best, for many hours and with many rationales).

what we will never know is whether a libertarian state will work. because it isn't possible. so it is the ultimate talking theme. it can't and won't ever happen, for SOOO many reasons, so those who support it can use it as a utopian ideal without ever having to prove it's efficacy. what a pass go and collect $200.

France has the highest unemployment in a decade. So which socialist state is the utopian model here?

Slavery and being dispirited, interesting topics.

Imagine being enslaved to your wife who paid off your delinquent taxes due before marriage and then helped pay for law school so that SHE OWNS YOUR DEGREE and livelihood. Imagine having to come home from a long day at work to a woman who was doing nothing all day but blogging? I suppose there's a consolation if you are a big law firm partner and you can call on your wife and her vast experience with a bachelors degree in psychology and poor spelling capabilities when you get stuck on important legal questions for your clients (instead of talking to your partners who all went to law school and actually practice law for a living).

This is hypothetical and is not intended to represent any actual person or persons, living or dead.

"Anyone who thinks the Democrat plan will not increase the deficit is a clueless partisan. The CBO score is based entirely on the assumptions it is given, which are from the Democrats and are ridiculous. Also, the CBO says the Democrats plan will raise the deficit, even with all the gimmicky assumptions:"

So what if it raises the deficit? Oh, I get it. Deficits are good for wars, but not good for health care.

riversider, i never brought up france. or any other country. interesting. not my point.

but if you want to talk about recent unemployment rates/debt levels representing quality of governments? let's go. illinois? california? greece should feel proud.

The President is right. Health care initiative will raise the deficit. It was never about containing cost(the big lie of the democrats) it was about raising coverage. Now if only we didn't bail out the banks, auto companies and spend money on Pelosi's mouse we might have had money to pay for it.

If the goal is to compete with China and other BRIC countries, we need to focus on educating our young and keeping the tax structure simple and low. and lastly not come up with idiotic policies that encourage reckless consumption.

this guy is funny.

thank you, me

(sorry for the double post, I wanted to be at the top of the new page)

RS, that's an outright lie. it certainly was about reducing costs. and it's not so hard to see how it could have been done, but there are those pesky insurance companies. but according to you it MUST be tort reform, even though tort awards have cratered and health care premiums have skyrocketed and we are LOSING PRIMARY CARE GIVERS at a huge rate.

but spin it any way you want. and dwell? should i appreciate RS's spin? even though it's absolutely false? should i call him out? and how? should i call him a fucktard? which is my inclination, because i'm fairly certain he knows the lack of truth when he writes?

on another note No. Iowa beat Kansas.