Democrats Started the Ku Klux Klan

[Johnnyorganic]

do you believe that praying brought the rain, johnny?

i happen to think that two hands in actions can do more than a million clasped in prayer.

i am agnostic too, but i see the value in religion. i take the good and discard the bad.

every harvest, i take 10% of the harvest and give it away for free, according to the jewish law of tzedakah.

i somehow manage to resist the urge to cast myself into a lake of fire if i plant more than one crop in the same field.

you dancing nekkid in the backyard? could you not have spared me the mental imagery?

I'm just saying I appreciate things....

Like uncomfortable mental imagery.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

looking back in my stoned haze, this makes no sense.

medicineman was a (d).

please read as 'if she had an (r) next to her name, which is true.

i mangled this one, but you get the point. i apologize.

I caught your meaning anyway.

Fuck....

 

[londonfog]

When I hear a person say "God told me..." my WTF alert comes up.

 

[UncleBuck]

I caught your meaning anyway.

Fuck....

next time i am in el paso, i will have to take a weekend to drive out to wherever you are.

i am serious. we need to crack open some shiner bocks, fire up a few bowls, and chat over a campfire.

i go there nearly every fall and spring, and anywhere in texas is a short drive form el paso. those highways are barren and i could make some time.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

next time i am in el paso, i will have to take a weekend to drive out to wherever you are.

i am serious. we need to crack open some shiner bocks, fire up a few bowls, and chat over a campfire.

i go there nearly every fall and spring, and anywhere in texas is a short drive form el paso. those highways are barren and i could make some time.

If you had said Waco, I 'might' have believed you.

But El Paso is on ONE end.

And Texas is one BIG motherfucker.

But that aside, I could not envision a better time.

We could even invite LF along for comedic relief.

 

[londonfog]

I don't fuck with Texas...!!!

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't fuck with Texas...!!!

oh, c'mon now.

i have a love/hate thing going with texans.

johnny is one of the latest in a long line of texans i can not help but enjoy.

i lost my texan v-card some years back, by an elderly co-worker who grew up in some town just outside of beaumont. good ol' sandy.

now beaumont would be a long haul from el paso!

 

[londonfog]

Did my turn in TX (twice )when I was in the USAF... Surprisingly cold mornings as I remember..

A cowboy rode into town and stopped at a saloon for a drink. Unfortunately, the locals always had a habit of picking on strangers, which he was. When he finished his drink, he found his horse had been stolen. He went back into the bar, handily flipped his gun into the air, caught it above his head without even looking and fired a shot into the ceiling. "Which one of you sidewinders stole my horse?!?!?" he yelled with surprising forcefulness. No one answered. "Alright, I'm gonna have another beer, and if my horse ain't back outside by the time I finish, I'm gonna do what I dun in Texas! And I don't like to have to do what I dun in Texas!"

Some of the locals shifted restlessly. The man, true to his word, had another beer, walked outside, and his horse has been returned to the post. He saddled up and started to ride out of town.

The bartender wandered out of the bar and asked, "Say partner, before you go... what happened in Texas?"

The cowboy turned back and said, "I had to walk home."

 

[Johnnyorganic]

I hate to burden you all with this, but FUCK!

This morning I wake up and go out to smoke a butt. As usual Max came along.

My back porch is showing unusual destruction. And my back porch shoes are missing.

Suddenly I hear whining and immediately look to my dog thinking it is him.

It's not. It's a puppy, a black lab not six weeks old.

Some inbred, six-toed, three-teeth-in-his-head, banjo-playing redneck must have dumped him in front of my place on his way to work early this morning.

That's the fourth puppy abandoned at my house this year.

GOD DAMMIT!!!!!

What the fuck is wrong with people?

I am heartbroken because I know this little guy's fate if I can't find a hunter who is looking for a water dog.

 

[londonfog]

A black lab...awesome..along with being a good retriever they are great with kids and will be very protective(loyal)....KEEP her/him

 

[Johnnyorganic]

A black lab...awesome..along with being a good retriver they are great with kids and will be very protective(loyal)....KEEP her/him

Not possible.

My hands are full with Little Maximus. Who was not my dog in the first place, my then-wife wanted dogs, I never did. But when the ex-wife walked out she left the dogs, too.

One has since passed away, RIP Boo, and Max won't last too much longer.

Dogs are too much responsibility and I simply can't take on another one right now, or ever again, to be honest.

Hopefully I can place him.

Otherwise I am going to have to do what I did with the other three puppies.

 

[londonfog]

my soft spot is for dogs and babies...I already have 3 dogs and three babies ( well one baby is out the house and in college, but still my baby..lol)...do try and find a good home for the little guy..hopefully with it being a black lab someone will jump on it...Try craiglist

 

[UncleBuck]

my soft spot is for dogs and babies...I already have 3 dogs and three babies ( well one baby is out the house and in college, but still my baby..lol)...do try and find a good home for the little guy..hopefully with it being a black lab someone will jump on it...Try craiglist

might be tough to find it a home without shots and neuter/spaying.

this is quite a bummer. i'd say ship the mutt up here, we are looking for a dog, but they don't ship pets in the summer due to heat risks.

i lol'ed at the inbred, six-toed, three-teeth-in-his-head, banjo-playing redneck comment.

 

[Mr Neutron]

I don't suppose you care that the current democratic party didn't exist until 1928 and everything you posted is an outright lie? The democratic-republican party that you're referring to as the democratic party in no way resembles the current democratic party. They ran on a "states rights" platform. Does that sound like the democrats?

I'm not sure why conservatives think inventing random lies helps their insane political beliefs become more credible.

It's still the party of racists.
I'm not sure why neo-liberals think inventing random lies helps their insane political beliefs more credible.

 

[UncleBuck]

It's still the party of racists.
I'm not sure why neo-liberals think inventing random lies helps their insane political beliefs more credible.

democrats are so racist!

 

[Mindmelted]

So do you think that the Democrat party stands for or supports the KKK now?

There may have been ties to it, do not really know, but I suspect there is not anymore.

By the way you must hate Native Americans because you are descended from our elders that came to America, right.

No such thing as native american.They came over on land bridges,so they are not native either.

 

[mame]

I would like to start things off by complementing you. Usually when I offer a source to back up a point, it is ignored. Not only did you read the article, you took the time to comment on it.

I tip my hat to you, Sir. And I mean that sincerely.

Thanks for the complement!

I am 75% anti-Keynesian, at least. The article is concluded with a clear anti-Keynesian tone.

I'm curious as to what Keynesian points, policies, w/e that you makes up that <25%? Not trying to attack or anything, I just didn't expect you to show any openness to Keynesianism.

I agree that many events were out of the Administration's control. But many things were not. It's the bad overall policy which is the culprit, not the unexpected turmoil which happens resulting from events regardless who is in charge.

And yes, now they are making noises about QE3, but this is not sustainable.

Eventually interest rates will have to rise and the longer we wait the more pain there will be.

Bernanke, by his own admission, does not know how to deal with this. Obama chose badly.

This actually reminds me of a policy argument between Krugman and another Keynesian Richard Koo... It basically went like this:

Koo argues that because of the zero lower bound (0% interest rates) monetary policy is inneffective at spurring growth in a liquidity trap. Koo is actually well known in part for coining the term "balance sheet recession" when he first used it to describe Japan's lost decade, which is remarkably similar overall to the situation in the U.S. atm (high levels of both public and private debt, no V shaped recovery just a long period of stagnant type growth, etc). Koo argues that fiscal policy (stimulus) is the only option for the U.S. and that the Fed should stay on the sideline; He argues that QE3, even though it helps those in debt, etc just isn't worth it for the trade-offs.

Krugman on the other hand has a bit of an admittedly excentric view in most people's eyes. He argues that the zero lower bound is a very real barrier but not one that cannot be overcome. He argues that because of inflation expectations, the Fed could "convince the markets it is not responsible" and in effect, the market would generate a negative interest rate - which would be the missing peice of the monetary policy puzzle and the answer to why monetary policy has been relatively ineffective compared to normal times.

Personally, I'm still a little undecided. I find it much easier to accept that monetary policy is just not as effective in a liquidity trap, meaning fiscal stimulus is the best option(Koo's argument)... But Krugman's argument, something that's never been tried BTW, would make quite the experiment! Can we reach negative interest rates!?! Such a strange question... Only thing is, it's not like you can just do it and not expect any consequences... these are people, and their jobs we're talking about - not lab rats or computer models. I think it would be much safer to stick with stimulus for that reason, not because I dont think Krugman's idea could work - it's just that there is no proof that it does work, and I'm an evidence kind of guy myself.

All those programs did was encourage people to make purchases they would have made anyway EARLIER than they originally planned. They did not stimulate any spending which would have otherwise not occurred.

Both those programs were failures.

Those programs were the government interfering with the natural flow of the markets, which is the WORST thing the government could possibly do. Meaning the Administration learned NOTHING from the housing market crash.

This is actually a pretty interesting point, as I dont usually take advantage of coupons unless I was already planning on buying that item at some point anyway so I'm not going to contest this point but I am going to contest your conclusion...

Let's assume that all it did was move that spending into the timeframe that cash for clunkers was active from the next couple of years... Because that economic activity happened during the slump, it helps close the gap of excess capacity in the short term but since we're moving that spending from the future the sector will presumably face a a period of sub-average activity.

You would say, that because of this the program was a failure because it didn't create any new activity it simply moved it...

I'd argue that "moving" the economic activity serves as a momentum builder for the overall economy because it A)helps the economy stop contracting any further, which would jeapordize future spending, and/or B)makes the output gap smaller in a very bad timeframe, in favor of contributing to a hypothetical larger output gap in the future; The reason it's okay for this to happen later, is that you'd be betting on a more healthy, resilient overall economy to make up for the loss.

I took that to mean was that if we had to have a stimulus, it should not have been squandared as it was. It should have been used to actually boost the economy.

In my opinion, there should have been no stimulus.

This coupled with your very last statement makes no sense, unless you dont mind explaining your thought process? I'll elaborate at the bottom...

There is no confidence fairy. There is uncertainty thanks to unncessary and burdensome regulations, and the fear of future taxation; or there is confidence because the government was smart enough to get out of the way and allow the markets to function as they should.

That's exactly what the argument of the confidence fairy is. There is "uncertainty" apparently for all the reasons you mentioned, and government "getting out of the way" instills "confidence". That's exactly the argument that dubs Austerity expansionary, when it clearly is not. Either you believe all those things you said, and then believe in confidence or you dont... gotta choose though!

Don't get me wrong because I do not lay the blame strictly at the feet of the Democrats. This has been decades in the making.

But the time to act is NOW.

And the President is voting 'present.'

I agree(except for that the time to act on debt is not now), tax cuts from the Republicans when they're in power combined with spending programs when they're both in power (you'd think it's mostly the democrats here but didn't Bush spend a shit ton on closing a coverage gap in medicare?). I mean, you can't project a budget unless you know for sure what kind of revenue and spending will happen in the future, so when taxes are cut and services are not (or increased in some cases) than you end up with budget deficits... Really just comes down to irresponsible legislating brought on by politics IMO. You can't cut taxes just because you want to, if you can't afford to do so or aren't willing to cut services, just as you should be increasing services without raising taxes to keep those services solvent... Our government constantly makes both mistakes to avoid hard choices.

And for the record, I also agree that Obama is being fucking pussy. He needs to grow a fucking pair and stop making compromises for re-election and start making them for the people; To me, that means no Austerity without jobs first... If I were him, that'd be my message. Obviously you'd probably do something different... It would just be nice if politicians cared a little less about their seat and a little more about the people that seat represents.

We are not in the same position as we were in 1945. At the end of WWII, the U.S. emerged having lost relatively little and gaining a disproportionate share of influence.

Post war, America was selling and EVERYBODY else was buying.

Things are far, far different now.

Fair enough, but I believe Japan's lost decade ended in 200% or so debt levels and they were not in our post ww2 position either... Even better than that, they didn't have to answer to the ECB like in Greece's situation; Since they were sovereign and could monetize debt, they were never in danger of default... I think our situation is much more closely related to Japan than Greece at any rate.

Each day we see more evidence that MessiahCare was a bill of goods. We see the things the Scarecrow (Pelosi) told us we would see only after the unread monstrosity was passed.

Well, now we see. And we don't like it.

Hell's bells, even proponents of the bill don't like it and have applied and received exemptions from it.

Temporary exemptions, the rest I think we've beaten the drum enough on... Let's agree to disagree on HC reform haha, our opinions will likely never change regardless of what either of us say.

Obviously, this is a chicken/egg argument. But I say first you must see the demand before you worry about supply.

If there is a demand problem, the tool to use then would be stimulus wouldn't it? I mean, it is the demand side solution, right?

edit: good luck with the puppy

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Once again, I commend you for your well-thought out response.

Thanks for the complement!

I'm curious as to what Keynesian points, policies, w/e that you makes up that <25%? Not trying to attack or anything, I just didn't expect you to show any openness to Keynesianism.

Manageable debt is not necessarily a bad thing. Businesses do it all the time, but they do it fully projecting a specific return at or before a time certain.

The space program is one of the things I would put in the 25%. It is expensive, but the innovations resulting from the space program, both directly and indirectly, are mind boggling.

Think of all of the industries and economic activity which sprang from the desire to explore space.

Now some could argue that NASA is unconstitutional, which means it was a stimulus program when you get right down to it.

Me? I don't know whether it is or it isn't, but I like it. I just wish we had constructed Moon Bases in the 40-plus years since we first went there.

After the next Space Shuttle mission, we won't have anything.

But in my mind, manageable debt should be measured in billions, not trillions.

This actually reminds me of a policy argument between Krugman and another Keynesian Richard Koo... It basically went like this:

Koo argues that because of the zero lower bound (0% interest rates) monetary policy is inneffective at spurring growth in a liquidity trap. Koo is actually well known in part for coining the term "balance sheet recession" when he first used it to describe Japan's lost decade, which is remarkably similar overall to the situation in the U.S. atm (high levels of both public and private debt, no V shaped recovery just a long period of stagnant type growth, etc). Koo argues that fiscal policy (stimulus) is the only option for the U.S. and that the Fed should stay on the sideline; He argues that QE3, even though it helps those in debt, etc just isn't worth it for the trade-offs.

Krugman on the other hand has a bit of an admittedly excentric view in most people's eyes. He argues that the zero lower bound is a very real barrier but not one that cannot be overcome. He argues that because of inflation expectations, the Fed could "convince the markets it is not responsible" and in effect, the market would generate a negative interest rate - which would be the missing peice of the monetary policy puzzle and the answer to why monetary policy has been relatively ineffective compared to normal times.

Personally, I'm still a little undecided. I find it much easier to accept that monetary policy is just not as effective in a liquidity trap, meaning fiscal stimulus is the best option(Koo's argument)... But Krugman's argument, something that's never been tried BTW, would make quite the experiment! Can we reach negative interest rates!?! Such a strange question... Only thing is, it's not like you can just do it and not expect any consequences... these are people, and their jobs we're talking about - not lab rats or computer models. I think it would be much safer to stick with stimulus for that reason, not because I dont think Krugman's idea could work - it's just that there is no proof that it does work, and I'm an evidence kind of guy myself.

The QEs will eventually stop because there will be no other option. Interest rates will rise and if this happens at a time when the economy actually begins to improve, we will be right back where we started, but with staggering inflation.

And what we have now is bad enough.

This is actually a pretty interesting point, as I dont usually take advantage of coupons unless I was already planning on buying that item at some point anyway so I'm not going to contest this point but I am going to contest your conclusion...

Let's assume that all it did was move that spending into the timeframe that cash for clunkers was active from the next couple of years... Because that economic activity happened during the slump, it helps close the gap of excess capacity in the short term but since we're moving that spending from the future the sector will presumably face a a period of sub-average activity.

You would say, that because of this the program was a failure because it didn't create any new activity it simply moved it...

But what were the overall results? Did it work?

It seems to me if priming the pump were all that was required, the economy would be a pumping motherfucker right about now.

I'd argue that "moving" the economic activity serves as a momentum builder for the overall economy because it A)helps the economy stop contracting any further, which would jeapordize future spending, and/or B)makes the output gap smaller in a very bad timeframe, in favor of contributing to a hypothetical larger output gap in the future; The reason it's okay for this to happen later, is that you'd be betting on a more healthy, resilient overall economy to make up for the loss.

That would be true if the events you describe had actually happened.

Recovery Summer was a farce.

Economic growth following the last stimulus was so anemic it would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

Housing, well you know about that.

And employment fluctuated, but never really went down to what any reasonable person would call acceptable.

The stimulus failed because it focused on the wrong things. Now there is no mood to give the same guys who fucked it up another shot.

This coupled with your very last statement makes no sense, unless you dont mind explaining your thought process? I'll elaborate at the bottom...

First, as I have made clear (hopefully clearer with my explanation), I am against stimulus spending for the most part. The proper stimulus is to let the market forces function unmolested by the government.

Stimulus packages give the public the impression that the proactive economic policies of politicians can positively affect an economy. It's hogwash. A stimulus fairy if you will.

That's exactly what the argument of the confidence fairy is. There is "uncertainty" apparently for all the reasons you mentioned, and government "getting out of the way" instills "confidence". That's exactly the argument that dubs Austerity expansionary, when it clearly is not. Either you believe all those things you said, and then believe in confidence or you dont... gotta choose though!

I choose confidence over uncertainty.

You choose to laugh confidence off as a some sort of 'fairy.'

It is real, although not tangible.

I agree(except for that the time to act on debt is not now), tax cuts from the Republicans when they're in power combined with spending programs when they're both in power (you'd think it's mostly the democrats here but didn't Bush spend a shit ton on closing a coverage gap in medicare?). I mean, you can't project a budget unless you know for sure what kind of revenue and spending will happen in the future, so when taxes are cut and services are not (or increased in some cases) than you end up with budget deficits... Really just comes down to irresponsible legislating brought on by politics IMO. You can't cut taxes just because you want to, if you can't afford to do so or aren't willing to cut services, just as you should be increasing services without raising taxes to keep those services solvent... Our government constantly makes both mistakes to avoid hard choices.

We have enough revenue. Revenue is not the problem.

Spending beyond the budget is the problem.

Shrewd policy would be to craft a budget based on how much money we will have to spend, not how much money we want to spend.

This debt is no longer manageable. It may already too late.

And for the record, I also agree that Obama is being fucking pussy. He needs to grow a fucking pair and stop making compromises for re-election and start making them for the people; To me, that means no Austerity without jobs first... If I were him, that'd be my message. Obviously you'd probably do something different... It would just be nice if politicians cared a little less about their seat and a little more about the people that seat represents.

There will no jobs until business feel they can earn a profit without fear of a rapacious government taking them to the cleaners.

If a business earns a decent profit which is eaten up by onerous taxes and burdensome regulations, the owner of that business essentially works for free.

No one in their right mind would sign up for that.

Fair enough, but I believe Japan's lost decade ended in 200% or so debt levels and they were not in our position either... Even better than that, they most definantly didn't have to answer to the ECB like in Greece's situation; Since they were sovereign and could monetize debt, they were never in danger of default... I think our situation is much more closely related to Japan than Greece at any rate.

The U.S. is probably more akin to Japan.

But the states are definitely some variety of the floundering Euro-Weenie countries who got their Socialism, but now can't pay for it.

And are taking to the streets because the check has come due.

Termporary exemptions, the rest I think we've beaten the drum enough on... Let's agree to disagree on HC reform haha, our opinions will likely never change regardless of what either of us say.

I'll go along with that.

If there is a demand problem, the tool to use then would be stimulus wouldn't it? I mean, it is the demand side solution, right?

But it didn't work. It just extended the misery.

Pull the band-aid off all at once. It will sting for a little while, then it's all better.

edit: good luck with the puppy

Thanks.

Hopefully I can place him. He's cute as all get out.

But my dog is not happy.

And the cats are beside themselves with "DO NOT WANT!"

 

[Dan Kone]

democrats are so racist!

The KKK was totally out there campaigning for Obama.

 

[Dan Kone]

It's still the party of racists.
I'm not sure why neo-liberals think inventing random lies helps their insane political beliefs more credible.

It's not the same party. The democratic-republican does not in any way represent the modern democratic party. I know you just like to vomit random words up, but you're way outside reality.