Obviously the money has to come from somewhere. You didn't need to point that out. Then again, you're in favor of borrowing money to finance tax cuts for really rich people, but are against borrowing money to issue unemployment benefits to people who are struggling to make ends meet. And, as you (now) know, one idea is far more effective as stimulus than the other.

I think you let your distaste for what you think is "soaking the rich" and "class warfare" go from what it should be, which is an issue of personal taste, to what it is - how you determine what the policy should be. I'd rather do what's best for the economy and for struggling workers than something that isn't as effective, but reconfirms what I already think about people.

And I should have stayed home for Thanksgiving. It's been an extended relative nightmare. Hope yours was better.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

And since we have been having this "dependency" and "laziness" argument for weeks, I thought you might enjoy hearing from someone else. Because I think he's talking about you. That's what you always focus on, too.

Frum certainly isn't a revelation. However, he's one of the few remaining figures on the right who are willing to take on the sad state of modern-day movement conservatism. He's also one of the few remaining figures who would qualify as the type of moderate Republican of yesteryear. They're a dying breed - those who have conservative economic or even social ideas, but who argue them from a place that's grounded in reality and data, not ideology and pique.

I wish there were many more like him. There aren't.

Have a good Thanksgiving.

Actully Heck I think you've tried to frame it as a laziness issue

Loke many did with the war funding I just point out the dough has to come from somewhere.

What I've tried to say is that in the example you gave (San Jose) 500 bucks a week isn't going to cut it.

In East Canton Ohio it's not bad.

But rather than continue to bludgeon me with the scrooge club can we agree on a certain unemployment number in which the benefits end?

When it reaches 6%? 7% ?

You doing dinner at your house this year?

WSS

And since we have been having this "dependency" and "laziness" argument for weeks, I thought you might enjoy hearing from someone else. Because I think he's talking about you. That's what you always focus on, too.

Frum certainly isn't a revelation. However, he's one of the few remaining figures on the right who are willing to take on the sad state of modern-day movement conservatism. He's also one of the few remaining figures who would qualify as the type of moderate Republican of yesteryear. They're a dying breed - those who have conservative economic or even social ideas, but who argue them from a place that's grounded in reality and data, not ideology and pique.

I wish there were many more like him. There aren't.

Have a good Thanksgiving.

I'm not sure if you think the Frum piece is some kind of revelation for me but I'd bet you'll not see any post from me that's way different.

Of course there is a socialism capitalism scale. and as society ages we slide incrementally left.

No one is advocating financial anarchy.

But I think it's a little simplistic to say the markets are more stable solely because of the welfare state.

There were way more important factors during the great depression.

(aside from the fact we do like to embellish crises)

As an agricultural society the dust bowl kicked the shit out of us.

Not to mention the fact that we were in a worldwide manufacturiong shift.

(Fueled BTW by technology and low wages)

Imagine this past recession coupled with a natural disaster like the drought.

Say the internet quit working for some reason.

We'd be SOL.

I just think that sooner or later we'll have to face the valid reasons I gave before about the US job scene.

If the days of 4.5 average unemployment are in the past we'll need to accept the idea that number will be closer to 8 or 9% chronic unemployment.

And that will be an entitlement as in many post industrial European countries.

The good news is that soon enough the Chinese will want more and some other country will start building stuff.

Luckily it's a slow process. Well for us baby boomers anyway. <<GG>>

WSS

@calfoxwc said:

expect it forever, but COULD get a job ... or at least LEARN a trade...

don't outweigh that money going back into the economy.

It's still a negative return, which ends up being a worsening negative return over time.

BTW, the farmer subsidy for NOT planting? Dumb, and happily taken advantage of,

on a lot of occasions. it's "intention' is to avoid the extremes of too many folks planting

the same lucrative crop, which would flood the market, and cause prices to plummet,

and there goes the ability of farmers to make a profit....

But I still don't like it.

Our farm system is messed up? How is that? What is more efficient - the state owning all land, and hiring workers to work on the land,

and the gov sells the product?

Then the gov can set the price. and whenever they need more money, which they always would...

Nope. I don't get what you mean.

Who said anything about the government owning anything?

Apparently there's a perception that giving money to farmers doesn't create a government dependency in the way that welfare does.

And I guess money given to farms isn't the same as bailout money and we're not actually saying the government owns farms in the same way we hear the government has taken over GM.

I don't like having a society where people have learned to be helpless either. My only point is they're not the ONLY ones on the government dole.

Maybe in the way we pay farmers not to plant we should pay people not to have babies. And then pay them to illegally enter Canada. jk

Welfare has been reformed as much or more than some subsidies have been regulated.

Our disagreement comes in which investment pays off more in the end. I get it.

I distrust the "carping on welfare moms" point of view though because it's narrow and it's a myth.

Sure there are scoff laws in welfare, but there's a lot of welfare recipients who benefit and turn around to contribute.

There are plenty of white collar rip offs and one of them would cover thousands of welfare queens, but we still get the message that our major problem is the welfare people.

I just don't see the reality of welfare being the MAJOR drain on our economy.

expect it forever, but COULD get a job ... or at least LEARN a trade...

don't outweigh that money going back into the economy.

It's still a negative return, which ends up being a worsening negative return over time.

BTW, the farmer subsidy for NOT planting? Dumb, and happily taken advantage of,

on a lot of occasions. it's "intention' is to avoid the extremes of too many folks planting

the same lucrative crop, which would flood the market, and cause prices to plummet,

and there goes the ability of farmers to make a profit....

But I still don't like it.

Our farm system is messed up? How is that? What is more efficient - the state owning all land, and hiring workers to work on the land,

and the gov sells the product?

Then the gov can set the price. and whenever they need more money, which they always would...

Nope. I don't get what you mean.

@calfoxwc said:

When you have a $750,000 combine for harvesting, a $13,000 planter, a $ 235,000 tractor or two,

and the price of a bushel of soybeans is 10.00, and a bushel of corn is 6.50, and

and drought hits before you can harvest your crops, or a flood hits...

you really think that is the same thing as poor people living off welfare in some project?

I know I'm always saying that liberals don't think, they "feel"...

but your angst about the entitlement problems has really led you astray.

The subsidies for farmers helps them stay being farmers, and helps offset a little of the costs of farming

so that American can have food on the table. Society gets a huge ass return on that investment.

With the welfare problem, society gets a seriously bad negative return on THAT investment.

Now, really, if it has a negative return, or zero return, don't spend it.

Well you know some get money to not plant.

How's that pay off?

Seriously, I don't have a problem with the farmer being the man.

But, our farm system is messed up if you consider how to economically feed the most people.

Our welfare does pay off in that the money goes directly back into the economy.

Even if they buy crack that money gets into the economy too.

When you have a $750,000 combine for harvesting, a $13,000 planter, a $ 235,000 tractor or two,

and the price of a bushel of soybeans is 10.00, and a bushel of corn is 6.50, and

and drought hits before you can harvest your crops, or a flood hits...

you really think that is the same thing as poor people living off welfare in some project?

I know I'm always saying that liberals don't think, they "feel"...

but your angst about the entitlement problems has really led you astray.

The subsidies for farmers helps them stay being farmers, and helps offset a little of the costs of farming

so that American can have food on the table. Society gets a huge ass return on that investment.

With the welfare problem, society gets a seriously bad negative return on THAT investment.

Now, really, if it has a negative return, or zero return, don't spend it.

@calfoxwc said:

But, the "Great Society" inadvertently, or not so much inadvertently, created a subculture of entitlement,

and dependency. so much so, that a pretty well-known "welfare mom" said when she was living at home,

her mom told her to have babies, it was her job, to have the home have an income.

We really needed to reward the intentional leaving of fathers in the poor communities, the intentional

having of children... to get monetary rewards? No, we didn't.

Safety net is one thing, a welfare state of subsidized irresponsibility is another. Conservatives see the former as

damage to our society. A lot of liberals see the latter as growing a voter base of trapped but loyal dependent Dem

voters.

The "Great Society" should have been funding the education of those kids in those poor families. The grants, and

funding of their schooling and supplies and living expenses would have been a lot cheaper in the mid to long run.

And, the subculture wouldn't have been deprived of the opportunity to not just survive in subsidized poverty,

but to climb out and thrive. And, be ABLE to break away from the self-destructive dependency on gov dole.

And no, nobody on any side things a safety net is bad. It's a balance. Right now, the balance has been

way to the bad side, and it's further bad under this regime.

I agree with the attempts to reform welfare and I understand the repeated, ad nauseum, refrain that "The Great Society" created a dependent culture.

What I wonder is when do conservatives turn their frugal eyes towards other entitlements?

Why is it always welfare?

Michele Bachman loves to go off on this kind of stuff, but we never hear her talk about the farm subsidies she received just for being a farm owner.

There are all kinds of ways this government is being ripped off but all we hear from the right is complaints about welfare moms.

Meanwhile we've had job creating(?) tax cuts for years and no jobs.

Who's paying for those?

Let's hear some complaints about the "Welfare Daddy Warbucks" for a change.

But, the "Great Society" inadvertently, or not so much inadvertently, created a subculture of entitlement,

and dependency. so much so, that a pretty well-known "welfare mom" said when she was living at home,

her mom told her to have babies, it was her job, to have the home have an income.

We really needed to reward the intentional leaving of fathers in the poor communities, the intentional

having of children... to get monetary rewards? No, we didn't.

Safety net is one thing, a welfare state of subsidized irresponsibility is another. Conservatives see the former as

damage to our society. A lot of liberals see the latter as growing a voter base of trapped but loyal dependent Dem

voters.

The "Great Society" should have been funding the education of those kids in those poor families. The grants, and

funding of their schooling and supplies and living expenses would have been a lot cheaper in the mid to long run.

And, the subculture wouldn't have been deprived of the opportunity to not just survive in subsidized poverty,

but to climb out and thrive. And, be ABLE to break away from the self-destructive dependency on gov dole.

And no, nobody on any side things a safety net is bad. It's a balance. Right now, the balance has been

way to the bad side, and it's further bad under this regime.

Lesson 4: Even from a conservative point of view, the welfare state is not all bad. G. K. Chesterton observed that you should never take a fence down until you understand why it had been put up. We should remember why the immediate post-Depression generations created so many social-welfare programs. They were not motivated only — or even primarily — by “compassion.” They were motivated as well by the desire for stability.

Social Security, unemployment insurance and other benefits were designed as anti-Depression defenses, “automatic stabilizers” as economists called them. When people lost their jobs, their incomes did not drop by 100 percent, but by 30 percent or 40 percent: they could continue to pay rent, buy food and sustain society’s overall level of demand for goods and services. State pensions created a segment of society whose primary incomes remained stable regardless of economic conditions. The growth of the higher-education sector and of health care had a similar effect.

This shift to a more welfare-oriented economy helps explain why business cycles in the second half of the 20th century were so much less volatile than they were in the 19th century. And fortunately enough, this shift put a floor under the economic collapse of 2008-09. Retirees who lost their savings had to cut back painfully. But at least their Social Security checks continued to arrive. People who lost their jobs might lose their homes. But they continued to buy food and clothing. And the industries that sold those basic necessities continued to function — unlike in 1929-33, when the whole economy collapsed upon itself.

Those who denounce unemployment insurance as an invitation to idleness in an economy where there are at least five job seekers for every available job are not just hardening their hearts against distress. They are rejecting the teachings of Milton Friedman, who emphasized the value of automatic stabilizers fully as much as John Maynard Keynes ever did. Conservatives should want a smaller welfare state than liberals in order to uphold maximum feasible individual liberty and responsibility. But the conservative ideal is not the abolition of the modern welfare state, and we should be careful of speaking in ways that communicate a more radical social ideal than that which we actually uphold and intend.

@calfoxwc said:

I guess you may have been Heck's roomie at the YMCA...

You haven't been to a tea party. You just don't know diddley.

But you keep blabbering on, yah?

You win.

Which is worse Heck's roomie or being Beck's "Yes man"?

I know diddly when I hear it and he and other conservative drum pounders do say really dumb stuff.

Your wit is reflected in your willingness to carry their torch.

So to speak.

The TeaParty has as much chance to survive Washington as any other ambitious political party has.

I like their Ear Mark ban idea. Let's see where it goes.

You've told me that I don't know diddly and so I'll place my faith in your wisdom.

I guess you may have been Heck's roomie at the YMCA...

You haven't been to a tea party. You just don't know diddley.

But you keep blabbering on, yah?

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Now, is it because they're not serious about cutting the deficit? Are they just telling people like Cal what they want to hear? Or is it because, like so many on the right, they don't know what causes the deficit in the first place?

Could they be that dense? As lost as the people on this board? As clueless as the Tea Party rank and file? I think they are. Their public statements certainly suggest they don't understand the basics of the problem.

Except, unlike the folks in here, this is their job.

Bachman and Joe Miller both received government money.

They know which way the political pendulum has swung and they want to set things up so that their party has control so that if and when the economy improves they'll forget about earmark bans and go back to the tried, but untrue "trickle down" BS.

Plus the insurance companies are not going to want them to repeal health care reform and the insurance companies have been some of their biggest donors.

Just like the "contract on America" this Tea party is a pile of bull that will lose it's ideals once the lobbyist hit hard with cash.

Now, is it because they're not serious about cutting the deficit? Are they just telling people like Cal what they want to hear? Or is it because, like so many on the right, they don't know what causes the deficit in the first place?

Could they be that dense? As lost as the people on this board? As clueless as the Tea Party rank and file? I think they are. Their public statements certainly suggest they don't understand the basics of the problem.

Except, unlike the folks in here, this is their job.

This Politico story about the travails of tea party members of Congress really is spectacular:

A band of conservative rebels has taken over the House, vowing to slash spending, cut the deficit and kill earmarks. And of course they’d love a seat on the powerhouse Appropriations Committee so they can translate their campaign zeal into action, right?

Not really. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was asked to be an appropriator and said thanks, but no thanks. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a tea party favorite, turned down a shot at Appropriations, which controls all discretionary spending. So did conservatives like Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), an ambitious newcomer who will lead the influential Republican Study Committee.

....“Anybody who’s a Republican right now, come June, is going to be accused of hating seniors, hating education, hating children, hating clean air and probably hating the military and farmers, too,” said Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a fiscal conservative who is lobbying to become chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. “So much of the work is going to be appropriations related. There’s going to be a lot of tough votes. So some people may want to shy away from the committee. I understand it.”

Kingston said he’s approached Bachmann, King and Westmoreland about the committee, and they all told him they weren’t interested.

I can't even think of anything snarky to say about this. I'll just repeat what I've said before: not only do tea party politicians have no real interest in the deficit, they have no real interest in cutting spending either. They know perfectly well that most spending isn't waste and they know perfectly well that most spending is pretty popular. Voting against the occasional "welfare" proposal is fine, but the idea of actually being forced to vote against meaningful amounts of spending instead of just railing about it on Fox News is another thing entirely.

How long will the rank-and-file tea partiers continue to fall for this charade? Long enough, I suppose. The faux earmark ban should hold everyone at bay for a few weeks, and a well-considered selection of other meaningless symbolic votes should keep everyone on board as long as they're staggered appropriately throughout the year. It's a fine line to walk, but I guess I feel pretty confident that the Republican leadership can pull it off.

Here's how it works: if the source is from the left, he's a "Kos diarist" or something like that. If he's a conservative, he's somehow the wrong kind of conservative. Either way, we never get to the substance of what anyone says. Which is why I don't bother quoting anyone very often. Or start threads. It doesn't elicit anything but an odd comment on why we must not listen to so and so.

I'll try someone else on the subject we've been tossing around for weeks, Warren Buffett, from this morning:

"When Amanpour pointed to critics' claims that the very wealthy need tax cuts to spur business and capitalism, Buffett replied, "The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money, and we'll go out and spend more, and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Perhaps it should be about what he's saying and not the fact that I'm pointing you to it. Not that I'm surprised you went there again.

Where was that?

That he's the last word on cometing pundits but dead wrong on nearly everything else?

WSS

@westside-steve said:

It doesn't seem you're on board with much of he has to say on other issues.

WSS

Like I said, he's hardly the only one doing it.

Perhaps it should be about what he's saying and not the fact that I'm pointing you to it. Not that I'm surprised you went there again.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

He's hardly the only one.

It's also because Beck and Palin are uniquely misinformed and detestable. And there probably aren't two bigger kingmakers in the party right now.

What does that tell you?

Well for one thing that you like Frum for little other reason than the fact that he attacks some of the right that you don't like.

It doesn't seem you're on board with much of he has to say on other issues.

WSS

IMO: Heck would love to have censorship over all media outlets that allow free speech.

Name one thing Beck and Palin are "misinformed" on. As in, they don't buy into corrupt liberal spin from CNN?

Are you getting up the courage to start your own thread, or are you going to be chicken little forever?

He's hardly the only one.

It's also because Beck and Palin are uniquely misinformed and detestable. And there probably aren't two bigger kingmakers in the party right now.

What does that tell you?

Kinda the non threatening conservatives?

Seems to me he spends almost as much time attacking the Becks and Palins of the party as the Dems.

Just a thought.

WSS