Pangloss

Absolutely. Go sign up for welfare and watch what happens. First they'll tell you that we don't have permanent welfare programs in this country anymore, we have temporary assistance programs only, all of which are absolutely predicated on the notion of getting yourself back to work. Then they'll tell you about all the restrictions that come along with them. Here's a typical entry from a state web site's food stamp program: http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/DHHS/FOODSTAMPS/FAQs/default.htm Unemployment compensation laws don't typically carry a lot of restrictions, but they're certainly intended to help you get back on track, not to give you a stake for the casino. If I thought it were feasible to track how people spend that money, I would support doing so. This is not a civil liberty issue. I'm giving you my money. You'd darn well better use it the way you've agreed to use it, or you'll be sitting in a jail sail on a fraud charge. (IMO) I don't think you need medicare for that. Trans fat regulations are one of the most popular pieces of new local legislation in this country since Megan's Law. (grin) But I'll give this some thought; you might have a point about drawing the line at people's bodies. I don't think that really casts doubt on my point about holding companies accountable for how they spend bailout funds, though. I mean let's face it, it's a pretty basic thing to want to see our money spent wisely.

Odd, that chart seems to show that we have higher tax rates than they do in Europe.

At risk of getting too far off track (no big deal, let's stray, it's a pretty limited topic anyway), I wonder sometimes if we should do more to reduce that urban heat sink effect. Cars are definitely part of that problem and I would presume that black ones have a bigger impact. (Whew, I skewed it back on topic.) We have "retention areas" in our neighborhood, because we're on land that was reclaimed (elevated) from the Everglades (decades before my time, honest!). They're basically areas of swampland or open water, some of which are hidden from public view, others are arranged as public parks, and others are incorporated as private "lakes" inside housing developments, etc. Sometimes when I leave work I will go the "back way", which entails a drive through one of the larger "retention areas" in the region. I drive a convertible, and when I pass through it with the top down I notice that the air temperature drops noticeably. It's almost like somebody reached over and angled an air conditioner vent into my face -- it's quite sudden and dramatic. This is REALLY dense vegetation on top of a watery base, and it comes RIGHT up alongside the road (they threw bodies into these things back in Miami's Cocaine Cowboy days). And then I pass beyond it and the temp goes right back up again. It's bizarre. There are a lot of these retention areas around. Well here, I think I can show you guys what I mean: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=26.042594,-80.431938&spn=0.221169,0.381775&t=h&z=12 East of US 27 is developed; west of 27 is open Everglades. From that high perspective, look at the developed areas East of US 27 and West of I-75. The communities above Sheridan but below Griffin were developed in the 1940s and 1950s, when they didn't know (or care?) about urban heating and so forth -- it's actually LESS-densely developed, housing wise, but there are no retention areas. But below Sheridan and above Griffin you can see the more modern communities -- see how they're all carefully separated? It's almost like a fractal program. Anyway, I didn't mean to digress quite that far. The point I was getting at is that maybe we need to develop "retention areas" for all urban areas to try and dump some of that excess heat.

I don't know if these specific actions are the correct ones or not -- I have to ponder it. In particular the reservations expressed in the psots above seem logical. But I'm glad that we're moving forward on this, and I think that the general statement of "expanding oversight of the financial system" indicates the correct thinking. My reasoning is that we're a mixed economy, and therefore regulation is not a bad word. That's a "period end of sentence" debate-ender right there. That having been determined, the sole remaining question is how much regulation is the correct amount. That is the dynamic in a mixed form of government. In this situation the problem that we're faced with is that, for WHATEVER reason (i.e. even if this is the result of a specific case of flawed regulation vis-a-vis CRA), financial institutions clearly acquired FAR too much sway over the economy for the amount of oversight that was available and in place. To summarize: 1) Changing regulations is how you fix a regulation problem in a mixed economy (which in some cases may mean less regulation, though that does not SEEM to be the case here). 2) There's a problem with the regulation of the financial sector. 3) It can be fixed, and fixing it is a good idea. 4) The specifics need to be carefully considered. That's my take on it, at any rate.

It's an interesting question. I've heard that tax rates are higher in Europe but if true I don't know if that's because of greater entitlement spending, or if they even break it down the same way. That entitlement/discretionary line is a political distinction drawn around a point of order (automatic continuance) that may not exist, or work differently, elsewhere.

I think I should have saved this post until 4/1 just to make people wonder if it was an April Fool's joke. (grin) Fun thread. I liked Padren's point about how they should be better in the wintertime. Isn't Northern California pretty cold? And there are mountains too. That was interesting about the percentages, jackson.

Nope, just the bonus. They should receive their salary. I understand the point, and if you want to suggest that the two concepts be separated I'm fine with that, I don't really have a problem with something like "merit pay" during bailouts. But they should be minor, determined before the bailout, and written in stone. The point is not penalizing company employees for their company's failure. The point is controlling costs while operating at taxpayer expense. Well I disagree, I think it's well established that bonuses at financial institutions, especially with regard to executive compensation, are connected to company performance. Why do you think they so often agree to take $1 salaries? They're trying to impress shareholders with their confidence that the company's performance will improve, and they know that if they succeed they will receive... (drum roll please) a bigger bonus. And let's face it, we're not talking about the little guy working in the IT department -- that's not what people are upset about. They're upset about top executives misleading the public and then disingenuously receiving their hard-earned money.

This seems a little silly even by California standards. Apparently the state is considering a ban on black-painted automobiles because they allegedly produce higher CO2 emissions. You know, I realize the EPA doesn't test A/C output impact on fuel efficiency, but if they're right then how come I've never seen or heard anything about this? Sure it's a logical enough guess, but it does seem to be predicated on some assumptions, and California isn't exactly Florida or Nevada. Not only that, but the suggestion of the board that's making this recommendation is that other dark colors be made available as alternatives. I mean, if you're going to make a law for what sounds like a tiny improvement, shouldn't you at least make all cars pure white? Shouldn't everyone take the same pain, equally? I don't know, I won't say they're completely wrong, but it seems to cross the line into really esoteric and pointless territory. What do you all think? http://wardsauto.com/commentary/cool_paints_ugly_090324/ http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=10076786&nav=9qrx http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_11996607

Oh I see. Yes, domestic terrorism does have a different ideological source and is fought in a different manner.

I do, in fact, understand that some companies pay bonuses when they are not profitable. My opinion is that such bonuses should not be paid when the company in question is on the public teat. You are, of course, absolutely welcome to think otherwise. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If your company is receiving bailout funds, then in my opinion you should not get that bonus. Your last point is irrelevant, IMO -- I didn't address either bonus calculation methods or departmental impact. But I'd have no problem with a company on the public dole giving bonuses to infrastructural departments if they become profitable as a result of our intervention. That's what I *want* to see happen. I completely agree with this, btw.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/michelle-obama/4945638/Michelle-Obama-serves-lunch-at-Washington-soup-kitchen.html Michelle Obama served lunch at a soup kitchen for the homeless near the White House on Thursday. Here's a picture from the event: Question: If that guy is homeless, where does the cell phone company send his bills to? (Yeah I know, could be prepaid. I just thought it was funny.)

I guess Oklahoma City and the first WTC attack come to mind. It's not a real long list, I'm thinking. Regarding these memos, they seem to mostly be about the 2001-2003 period when everyone was panicking and running around tearing their hair out. It says the really bad stuff was all corrected internally by the administration, and there was a summary at the end going over what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again. Sounds like a positive amidst the negatives, and at the very least I hope the Obama administration read that part of the file. I don't know that this says a whole lot about the administrations view on torture from 2003-2009. The precedent set by this beginning could very much be relevant, though.

I think it's right to stop executive compensation bonuses for companies receiving bailout funds. I didn't ask that guy to take a $1 salary, and I never understood why they did that anyway. It's always been understood that the real money came from the bonus. Am I supposed to cry my eyes out because he skipped a $250,000 salary when I didn't ask him to, and didn't take a multi-million dollar salary that the company DID NOT EARN, at TAXPAYER EXPENSE? I don't think so. If you want to be compensated for your time, don't agree to work for free and take a bonus if one happens to be available at the end of the year. Guess what? It isn't available, because your company BLEW IT. You gambled, you lost. Next time, don't make a foolish wager that nobody asked you to take for public relations reasons that nobody cared about. (I wonder what the unemployment compensation level is for a $1/year salary. 5 cents?)

Much better, thanks.

Anyone catch Frontline tonight on PBS? I know it varies when it's actually shown, so if you haven't gotten it yet you might get it Wednesday or Thursday night. The episode has already been posted, though, and it's available for viewing online here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/ I thought it was awesome, and it's going to be a real sore point for just about everyone who watches it -- Obama supporters, pure-market economics supporters, Bush supporters, Clinton supporters -- everyone takes a hit here. I love it when the truth bites hard. My only complaint about it was that it was a bit too one-sidedly against the Bush administration in terms of basically letting Clinton off the hook on increased spending suggesting that PAYGO stopped him from spending more, which just isn't true at all. It's a CUMULATIVE effort and Clinton, Bush 41 and Reagan definitely played important roles in the situation we're now faced with. But the episode didn't entirely blame Bush, and on the whole I thought it was pretty fair. It was also damned chilling, really drilling down those CBO figures showing that the debt will hit 90% of GDP this year and soar well BEYOND GDP very soon. I also thought the episode could have more clearly made the point that Obama's increased spending is NOT ENTITLEMENT SPENDING. Entitlement is certainly going up, thanks to the baby boomers beginning to retire, but the economic recovery spending is, at least by stated intentions, DISCRETIONARY and ONE-TIME spending. The point being that it's clearly part of Obama's plan to STOP that new spending, and even roll back a lot of OTHER spending, just as soon as we possibly can. And this show made it abundantly clear why that is going to be so critical. (It also touched on why healthcare has to be solved IN ORDER to cut spending, showing the importance of medicare and medicaid in the entitlement portion of the budget. That point just does not get hammered home enough, IMO.)

This is pointless. It's not as if Geitner disagrees with that plan, even if he wasn't The Architect or whatever. He was involved, and he completely supports the effort now. It's a silly digression, guys. </bonk>

It wasn't my intent to try and convince you. That's not my goal in posting my opinion. I think you know that because we've agreed to respect each other's opinions on this issue previously, but I mention it for the record. In answer to your question, you say above that men marrying men is not an identical thing with a man marrying a woman. This is, I think, a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You've already stated that you have no problem with affording them the same rights, which means you don't see a man-and-man combination as inferior, you just see it as different. So your problem isn't with men marrying men, it's with the change in the definition of the word "marriage". Right? To me that's what's really interesting here, and as far as not being able to convince you to change your mind goes, I don't particularly care about that one way or the other. Not because I don't think you count, but because I respect your right to disagree. My interest in political debate is the process itself, not achieving ideologically-preferable results. (My friends put it more succinctly -- they say I just like to argue.) Alas, I think this was aimed more at the other folks here than at me -- your frustration is understandable, and I'm doing my best to ensure proper balance in the discussion. For what it's worth, I agree with the above quote 100% and I support your right to express your opinion on this issue. Non-sequitur. Does not compute. Nor do you seem to understand what Scrappy is saying, iNow. I recommend a careful reading of my post #274, which generated two Reputation comments and a "good post" from Padren as well.

I agree that even if the rights are the same, not allowing it to be called "marriage" is in itself a form of discrimination. But I think we have to recognize that there is a valid opinion to the contrary that cannot be easily dismissed as discrimination or "homophobia". It may BE that, but it isn't NECESSARILY that. It may simply be that some people are pissed off at the usurpation of the traditional definition of the word. I've talked to a LOT of conservatives who say this, and I know some of them to be being honest when they say it has no bearing on their feelings about homosexuality (whether they recognize their own homophobia is another question). Now, with that in mind, if that's a valid opinion -- questioning whether the definition is being usurped for ideological purposes -- then whether or not it's discrimination if we call it something different ITSELF becomes a matter of opinion. This logically follows. Put another way, the modern redefinition of traditional institutions as we open our minds is why we see the inability to use the word "marriage" as a form of discrimination. -------------- Now I'm going to provide my own counterpoint here, because while I think that is a legitimate perspective, I think it's flawed, and I think it's a lesson we've learned before. Because everything I've pointed out above can be said about perfectly identical drinking fountains, one labeled "white" and the other "colored". And yet this was (and still is) seen as a form of discrimination. Why? Assuming they're identical, it shouldn't make any difference. But it does. Just as it will matter if gays can't call it "marriage". It really is that simple. It's not a matter of what GAYS think, nor it is a matter of what opponents think. It implies a difference, therefore it is discrimination. ----------- But that having been said, people need to respect the opinions of people who hold the one I've outlined above. You can't browbeat that opinion into submission. You have to treat it with education. So be nicer. Say your peace, and don't get so carried away about it. It's just a discussion, folks.

Well let me be more specific, then. I think that those who were saying that it's impossible for Obama's plan to turn around in the economy because the approach itself has been proven flawed by "Nobel Prize Winning Economists" have been dealt a blow with various upswing reports today. But I do recognize that we're not there yet.

Cool, we can get the others next.

I don't think the Dow "knows all", but it is up 20% over the last two weeks. New housing starts are up 5.1% on new numbers today, and the prime rate is as low as it's ever been. Lots of people on Wall Street are talking about "the light at the end of the tunnel". We'll see what actually happens, of course, but I think this underscores that there are no absolutes or certainties in economics.

That was the public/weekday Obama. The private/weekend Obama was singing a very different tune. Over the weekend he called a number of Senate Democrats and had them kill the bill, which they did this afternoon. It can't even come up for a vote now before the recess, and will likely never come up again at all. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032303201.html?hpid=topnews Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnger at Chris Dodd seems to continue to wax even as the retroactive anti-AIG compensation tax seems to have died in the Senate. Jay Leno is calling him "Chris Dodge" now, and he continues to face daily heat over the AIG bonus loophole. And according to this article from the Sunday Washington Post, Dodd received two mortgages at below prime lending rate. Dodd's excuse? He says he didn't know he was getting a rate below prime. Dodd is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, so that doesn't seem real likely. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/21/AR2009032102239.html?hpid=sec-politics I think Chris Dodd is headed for a fall.

From Jay Leno: The first group of western tourists is spending spring break in Iraq this week. Apparently spring break in Iraq isn't much different from spring break in Florida -- half of the tourists got bombed, and the other half got stoned.

Doesn't your school provide dissertation resources? Have you talked to your committee members about this? Seems like kind of an odd request. What is it you hope to get from someone else's dissertation that you can't get from your school's library full of them?

Nicely reasoned again, Padren.