Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-03-2010, 01:45 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-03-2010, 06:37 AM
consider consider is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 57
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Althouse, a law prof. at U Wisconsin, couldn't remember when Feingold almost lost a decade ago.

What a complete air head.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-03-2010, 07:48 AM
Wm. Blaxton Wm. Blaxton is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 203
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Ugh, Althouse's political personality can be summed up by the fact that she thinks Limbaugh qualifies as "fresh air."

I grew up in a town with Madisonesque (as opposed, I suppose, to Madisonian) politics, and it's certainly true that being surrounded by college town leftists gets old fast. But when I wanted to escape, I'd try to find people to read and listen to who were less obnoxious and more interesting than the local PCU lefties, not their mirror image (or, in Limbaugh's case, worse).

So it's telling that Althouse actually enjoys the relentless intellectual dishonesty of right-wing talk radio. Her personal antidote to blinkered self-righteousness and gasbaggery is more blinkered self-righteousness and more gasbaggery. It's like saying, "Glenn Beck is a nice antidote to Michael Moore." Yeah, okay, if you're shallower than a pizza tin.

Not surprising, given Althouse's own temperament, but telling.

Last edited by Wm. Blaxton; 11-03-2010 at 08:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-03-2010, 08:07 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton View Post
So it's telling that Althouse actually enjoys the relentless intellectual dishonesty of right-wing talk radio. Her personal antidote to blinkered self-righteousness and gasbaggery is more blinkered self-righteousness and more gasbaggery.
Did she say she listens to conservative talkers other than Rush? I had to turn the diavlog off because of Welch. Rush can be very good. Very insightful. Other times you just turn him off. I think Ann is one of the better bloggers to appear here. Her site, Drudge, Steve Sailor and this one http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ are the sites I check every day.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-03-2010, 08:10 AM
Wm. Blaxton Wm. Blaxton is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 203
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

I don't read her blog regularly, but she's the easily the worst regular BH.tv participant.

You have bad taste, dude. I think Welch is one of the best.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-03-2010, 08:12 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton View Post
You have bad taste, dude. I think Welch is one of the best.
ok, you have my attention. What has Welch ever said that you thought was interesting?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-03-2010, 08:19 AM
Wm. Blaxton Wm. Blaxton is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 203
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
What has Welch ever said that you thought was interesting?
He's an able expositor of an interesting and coherent (if not entirely appealing) political philosophy.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-03-2010, 12:20 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton View Post
I grew up in a town with Madisonesque (as opposed, I suppose, to Madisonian) politics, ...
Nice.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-03-2010, 07:59 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

( I have yet to hear Matt Welch say anything interesting in his appearances on this channel. Why does BHTV put him on? And what is Reason magazine? I have never seen an issue of it. Never seen or heard a reference to it from anywhere other than here. )

anyway, republicans are in charge, baby! The government runs on the spending bills we pass or nothing at all. That is the choice Obama and the senate democrats will have. Take it or leave it. Let's reword that. Take it or shove it!

Regarding government favoritism to the companies on its side. Check out the front page article in the WSJ today on the arbitrary tax break the Obama admin is giving GM. Some $40 Billion in tax writeoffs into future years to "compensate" for the bankruptcy shafting of the prior owners and bondholders of that company.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-03-2010, 08:03 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
anyway, republicans are in charge, baby! The government runs on the spending bills we pass or nothing at all. That is the choice Obama and the senate democrats will have. Take it or leave it. Let's reword that. Take it or shove it!
What? You're no longer seceding?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-03-2010, 08:11 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
What? You're no longer seceding?
Hopefully NY State and Southern California will once we cut off their subsidies. ( was in Staten Island last week. What an awful, overcrowded place. To think of how nice it once was before all the people arrived. Yeah, immigration is a real positive for America. )
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-03-2010, 12:33 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
Hopefully NY State and Southern California will once we cut off their subsidies.
Amazing how many times you've been corrected on this, and how you persist in ignoring reality. Year after year, NY and CA rank near the bottom of the list of states in how much money they receive from the federal government compared to how much they give. Typically, they get back about $0.80 for every $1.00 they send in taxes. The top of the list is invariably dominated by red states, getting well more than a dollar in subsidies for each dollar sent in.

Here's a good summary. Here are more sources.

Quote:
( was in Staten Island last week. What an awful, overcrowded place.
That's the Republican part of New York City, just so you know.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 11-03-2010 at 12:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-03-2010, 05:59 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Amazing how many times you've been corrected on this, and how you persist in ignoring reality. Year after year, NY and CA rank near the bottom of the list of states in how much money they receive from the federal government compared to how much they give. ...

Here's a good summary. Here are more sources.
you have to break down the numbers, show what spending is included in it, what spending is not. NY and California get hundreds of billions in medicaid and unemployment insurance money from the feds. No doubt the social security disability payments are off the charts high in democrat states.

Either way, it is republican voters who would favor a reworking of the relationship between states and the center. Where residents of states pay less in federal taxes in exchange for their state paying for a higher percentage of the social safety net.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-03-2010, 06:11 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
you have to break down the numbers, show what spending is included in it, what spending is not. [...]
No, you're going to have to, if you want to persuade anyone. As far as I can tell, those charts come from comprehensive dollars in/dollars out calculations, and just cold making shit up isn't going to change that. Show me some numbers, or admit you just pulled those claims from the same place you do your claims that only "red state Americans" serve in the military.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-04-2010, 07:17 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
No, you're going to have to, if you want to persuade anyone. As far as I can tell, those charts come from comprehensive dollars in/dollars out calculations, ....
NY State gets over 2x as much per capita from the feds for medicaid than the average state. Extrapolate other numbers like social security disability, early retirement, aid to cities, never ending unemployment payments and my guess is democrat states get much more from the feds than they pay in.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-04-2010, 07:36 AM
Wm. Blaxton Wm. Blaxton is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 203
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
My guess is democrat states get much more from the feds than they pay in.
You guess wrong.

In 2005, the Tax Foundation -- a conservative think tank -- calculated that New Jersey received $0.61 from the feds for every $1.00 in federal taxes paid; Minnesota, $0.72; Illinois, $0.75; Delaware, $0.77; California, $0.78; New York, $0.79; Massachusetts, $0.82; Oregon, $0.93; and Rhode Island, $1.00.

On the other end of the spectrum, to give but a few examples, Mississippi received $2.02; Alaska, $1.84; Louisiana, $1.78; Alabama, $1.66; Kentucky, $1.51; Montana, $1.47; Oklahoma, $1.36; South Carolina, $1.35; Kansas, $1.12; and Nebraska, $1.10.

My point is not that the "red states get much more from the feds than they pay in" (although that would be closer to the truth than your generalization, given that there is only one solid red state, Texas, that pays more than it gets). These numbers seem to loosely correlate with how rural a state is and its poverty rate rather than red-blue. But this certainly shows that your supposition is incorrect.

See here.

Last edited by Wm. Blaxton; 11-04-2010 at 07:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-04-2010, 07:42 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton View Post
You guess wrong.
Medicaid spending by state:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...?ind=616&cat=4

NY State in 2004 $40 billion. Texas - $15 Billion. God knows where that number is in 2010.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-04-2010, 07:47 AM
Wm. Blaxton Wm. Blaxton is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 203
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
Medicaid spending by state:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...?ind=616&cat=4

NY State in 2004 $40 billion. Texas - $15 Billion. God knows where that number is in 2010.
Oh, so you're conceding that you're wrong about the totals?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-04-2010, 07:48 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
Medicaid spending by state:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...?ind=616&cat=4

NY State in 2004 $40 billion. Texas - $15 Billion. God knows where that number is in 2010.
Could you address this post? You don't seem to be reading the responses to your posts.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-04-2010, 08:03 AM
herpderp herpderp is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: the house of menthol
Posts: 5
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
You don't seem to be reading the responses to your posts.
Don't hold your breath.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-04-2010, 08:34 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
Could you address this post? You don't seem to be reading the responses to your posts.
I am asking what is the basis for those numbers? IBM, Exxon and GE are headquartered in NY and Conneticut, right? Does that mean corporate taxes paid by those companies are included in the total amount of taxes sent to Washington by those states? No doubt it is. The numbers are meaningless. When DOD spends money for miltary training and basing in Texas, do you count that amount as payments to Texas? Again, a meaningless number.

More meaningful in terms of who is feeding off of the work and earning of who in this country are the numbers for the entitlement programs. Without federal payments for medicaid, etc, NY State would implode. Hopefully the republican congress will cut off aid to NY and California. The sooner those states live honestly, the better they will be.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-04-2010, 08:45 AM
Wm. Blaxton Wm. Blaxton is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 203
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
I am asking what is the basis for those numbers? IBM, Exxon and GE are headquartered in NY and Conneticut, right? Does that mean corporate taxes paid by those companies are included in the total amount of taxes sent to Washington by those states? No doubt it is. The numbers are meaningless. When DOD spends money for miltary training and basing in Texas, do you count that amount as payments to Texas? Again, a meaningless number.

More meaningful in terms of who is feeding off of the work and earning of who in this country are the numbers for the entitlement programs. Without federal payments for medicaid, etc, NY State would implode. Hopefully the republican congress will cut off aid to NY and California. The sooner those states live honestly, the better they will be.
You tell 'em, Steve.

I'm sure Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey will be devastated when they hear you're taking away those big fat subsidy checks they keep getting from Alabama, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Louisiana. Where would Connecticut be without Mississippi to keep it afloat? Let the bastards sink, I say. Cut 'em off -- no more cash for you, wealthy blue states.

Seriously, though, you've demonstrated that there's no point in discussing this (anything?) with you. So I'll stop.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-04-2010, 03:03 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton View Post
You guess wrong.

In 2005, the Tax Foundation -- a conservative think tank -- calculated that New Jersey received $0.61 from the feds for every $1.00 in federal taxes paid; Minnesota, $0.72; Illinois, $0.75; Delaware, $0.77; California, $0.78; New York, $0.79; Massachusetts, $0.82; Oregon, $0.93; and Rhode Island, $1.00.

On the other end of the spectrum, to give but a few examples, Mississippi received $2.02; Alaska, $1.84; Louisiana, $1.78; Alabama, $1.66; Kentucky, $1.51; Montana, $1.47; Oklahoma, $1.36; South Carolina, $1.35; Kansas, $1.12; and Nebraska, $1.10.

My point is not that the "red states get much more from the feds than they pay in" (although that would be closer to the truth than your generalization, given that there is only one solid red state, Texas, that pays more than it gets). These numbers seem to loosely correlate with how rural a state is and its poverty rate rather than red-blue. But this certainly shows that your supposition is incorrect.

See here.

I googled and it seems that this information is changed as of the 2010 census. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...11.html#s73100 New York is second in the country for per capita income it gets from the feds. Washington DC is number one.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-04-2010, 03:18 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
I googled and it seems that this information is changed as of the 2010 census. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...11.html#s73100 New York is second in the country for per capita income it gets from the feds. Washington DC is number one.
that is not the same thing as Wm Blaxton cited. You are looking at spending, he is looking at spending compared to contributions.

for example:
State X contributes 10.00/citizen and receives 9.00/citizen. State Y contributes 5.00/citizen and receives 6.00/citizen.

Your data points out that state X receives more per citizen. Wm Blaxton's data points out that Sate Y is a net receiver whereas State X is a net contributor.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-04-2010, 03:31 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
that is not the same thing as Wm Blaxton cited. You are looking at spending, he is looking at spending compared to contributions.

for example:
State X contributes 10.00/citizen and receives 9.00/citizen. State Y contributes 5.00/citizen and receives 6.00/citizen.

Your data points out that state X receives more per citizen. Wm Blaxton's data points out that Sate Y is a net receiver whereas State X is a net contributor.
You're right.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-05-2010, 03:46 AM
Wm. Blaxton Wm. Blaxton is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 203
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

States like Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts have a per capita gross state product of around $45-55K. States like Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, New Mexico, South Carolina, Kentucky, Utah, Idaho, etc., are well below that: in the range of $30-35K. (To put it another way: Connecticut is Denmark, Mississippi is Greece.)

So in comparing the former to the latter, it makes sense to take into consideration that they are, on a per capita basis, big engines of tax revenue. Observing that a great deal of federal money is lavished on New York without noting its status as a huge contributor to the federal till seems to miss something important.

I should note that I don't think this whole business of making broad generalizations about whether "red" or "blue" states are leeching off one another is terribly profitable. The Deep South states in particular suffer from widespread and entrenched rural poverty, and it doesn't particularly bother me that they receive disproportionate federal assistance.

But Steve is delusional if he thinks (which he does) that California and the relatively wealthy (liberal) states in the Northeast are getting propped up by poorer (conservative) states in the South and West. This is demonstrably false.

Last edited by Wm. Blaxton; 11-05-2010 at 03:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-05-2010, 07:39 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton View Post
But Steve is delusional if he thinks (which he does) that California and the relatively wealthy (liberal) states in the Northeast are getting propped up by poorer (conservative) states in the South and West. This is demonstrably false.
you are ignoring the numbers. NY takes about 3x the amount per capita in medicaid dollars than other states. California had to be bailed out the last few years by the democrat congress and obama. The NPR station in NYC ( who exactly controls station policy at NPR? We know the public has none. ) is bashing Chris Christie for refusing to have NJ be a part of a $20 billion train tunnel project, paid substantially for with money from the big spending democrat congress.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-05-2010, 12:28 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
you are ignoring the numbers.
no, its just that you are not quite bright enough to figure out what the numbers mean, steve. Read my post above and see if you can figure it out this time.

you'll be up to 3rd grade reading comprehension levels in no time with a little effort, buddy. go stevie go!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-04-2010, 03:17 PM
whburgess whburgess is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,202
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton View Post
You guess wrong.

In 2005, the Tax Foundation -- a conservative think tank -- calculated that New Jersey received $0.61 from the feds for every $1.00 in federal taxes paid; Minnesota, $0.72; Illinois, $0.75; Delaware, $0.77; California, $0.78; New York, $0.79; Massachusetts, $0.82; Oregon, $0.93; and Rhode Island, $1.00.

On the other end of the spectrum, to give but a few examples, Mississippi received $2.02; Alaska, $1.84; Louisiana, $1.78; Alabama, $1.66; Kentucky, $1.51; Montana, $1.47; Oklahoma, $1.36; South Carolina, $1.35; Kansas, $1.12; and Nebraska, $1.10.

My point is not that the "red states get much more from the feds than they pay in" (although that would be closer to the truth than your generalization, given that there is only one solid red state, Texas, that pays more than it gets). These numbers seem to loosely correlate with how rural a state is and its poverty rate rather than red-blue. But this certainly shows that your supposition is incorrect.

See here.
Looking at this map from the government---its a pdf file--go to page vii--then right click and rotate for viewing http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/fas-09.pdf it is a very nice color coded map of which states gets the most funds per capita for 2009. I really don't see a distribution that favors either red or blue states as getting more help from feds. Its fairly mixed.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-04-2010, 04:01 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by whburgess View Post
Looking at this map from the government---its a pdf file--go to page vii--then right click and rotate for viewing http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/fas-09.pdf it is a very nice color coded map of which states gets the most funds per capita for 2009. I really don't see a distribution that favors either red or blue states as getting more help from feds. Its fairly mixed.
The figures in the file you cited are per capita. Burgess' point was in terms of dollars in vs. dollars out.

Added: Oops, I see pk beat me to it.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-03-2010, 08:17 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
What? You're no longer seceding?
I think the election results underscore how divided we are as a country. Republicans have to push for increased states rights. States should be able to control foreign trade and immigration into their territory.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-03-2010, 08:03 AM
Wm. Blaxton Wm. Blaxton is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 203
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
And what is Reason magazine? I have never seen an issue of it. Never seen or heard a reference to it from anywhere other than here.
Good grief: http://www.google.com/
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-03-2010, 09:11 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton View Post
This is more fun.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-03-2010, 09:58 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
This is more fun.
the website looks over produced. Like someone with a lot of money is funding them and they have to put on a good show to impress the benefactor.

Libertarianism makes no sense in the modern world. No doubt it calls for open borders. Open borders in a world with 10 billion people would destroy whatever society which inacted such a rule. And then they call for no drug laws and no military. So towns end up being over run, they don't have the means to fight back and the new residents have unlimited access to narcotics.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-03-2010, 03:13 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
Regarding government favoritism to the companies on its side. Check out the front page article in the WSJ today on the arbitrary tax break the Obama admin is giving GM. Some $40 Billion in tax writeoffs into future years to "compensate" for the bankruptcy shafting of the prior owners and bondholders of that company.
Here's an excerpt from a rebuttal to your point of view:

Quote:
Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama’s political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated.

An apology is due Barack Obama,” wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal — one of Obama’s signature economic successes.

Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade.

All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.

“We have done things that people don’t even know about,” Obama told Jon Stewart. Certainly. The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority.

But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut — even if 90 percent of Americans don’t know that, either.

[...]

They will whine a fierce storm, the manipulators of great wealth. A war on business, they will claim. Not even close. Obama saved them, and the biggest cost was to him.
From "How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms," by Timothy Egan.

I'd add that the quoted link to The Economist is also worth reading in full.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-03-2010, 06:06 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Here's an excerpt from a rebuttal to your point of view:

From "How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms," by Timothy Egan.

I'd add that the quoted link to The Economist is also worth reading in full.
If Ford and GM were allowed by the goverment to pay their workers market rate pay, they could easily be profitable without government bailouts. If the government is to do anything to help domestic manufacturers, it should raise tariffs on imports. 90% of the cars sold in the US should be built here.

There was an interesting article in the WSJ last week saying the CEO that Obama ousted, Rick Wagoner, actually did an outstanding job turning GM around. That article was based on a long piece in the New Yorker. It said Ratner, the criminal from NY who is Andrew Cuomo and Barack Obama's friend, has claimed incorrectly that he and his banker colleagues saved GM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-03-2010, 06:16 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
If Ford and GM were allowed by the goverment to pay their workers market rate pay, they could easily be profitable without government bailouts. If the government is to do anything to help domestic manufacturers, it should raise tariffs on imports. 90% of the cars sold in the US should be built here.
Well, that is a philosophy, I'll grant -- ban unions, break contracts to do so, and reinstate protectionism. It's a 19th century one, and it's never going to happen, but there's another class of people who believe in going Galt as the solution to all of our woes, so I suppose you should be equally entitled to enjoy a muddle-headed fantasy.

Quote:
There was an interesting article in the WSJ last week saying the CEO that Obama ousted, Rick Wagoner, actually did an outstanding job turning GM around.
So, this guy did a great job turning GM around, and was fired by Obama, you say, after having spent half-a-dozen posts saying GM was a disaster bailed out and propped up by Obama. Seems the only explanation here is that any phrase you come across that can be hurled against Obama, you lunge at. Your lack of any links to support your assertions doesn't help diminish that suspicion, I might add.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-03-2010, 06:36 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Well, that is a philosophy, I'll grant -- ban unions, break contracts to do so, and reinstate protectionism. It's a 19th century one, and it's never going to happen, but there's another class of people who believe in going Galt as the solution to all of our woes, so I suppose you should be equally entitled to enjoy a muddle-headed fantasy.
I just don't see how Steve thinks he's going to get protectionism passed as the official state policy of RepublicanLand. Probably more luck with the disrespect for contracts, despite the lipservice that some give them. In reality that's always less of a partisan issue. (Red states, especially in the South, tend to be the worst (well, most weirdly pro-plaintiff) when it comes to efforts to get around contracts, as well as in accepting bizarre things like tort claims for breaching contracts.)

However, I'm hoping they officially reinstate caveat emptor in RepublicanLand.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-04-2010, 07:28 AM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
So, this guy did a great job turning GM around, and was fired by Obama, you say, after having spent half-a-dozen posts saying GM was a disaster bailed out and propped up by Obama. Seems the only explanation here is that any phrase you come across that can be hurled against Obama, you lunge at. Your lack of any links to support your assertions doesn't help diminish that suspicion, I might add.
It is an evolving story. A lot of moving parts. Read the New Yorker article.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...urrentPage=all

FTA:

But, especially given the mess that Wagoner inherited when he took over, in 2000—and the inherent difficulty of running a company that had to pay pension and medical benefits to half a million retirees—he accomplished a tremendous amount during his eight-year tenure. He cut the workforce from three hundred and ninety thousand to two hundred and seventeen thousand. He built a hugely profitable business in China almost from scratch: a G.M. joint venture is the leading automaker in what is now the world’s largest automobile market. In 1995, it took forty-six man-hours to build the typical G.M. car, versus twenty-nine hours for the typical Toyota. Under Wagoner’s watch, the productivity gap closed almost entirely.

Most important, Wagoner—along with his counterparts at Ford and Chrysler—was responsible for a historic agreement with the United Auto Workers. Under that contract, which was concluded in 2007, new hires at G.M. receive between fourteen and seventeen dollars an hour—instead of the twenty-eight to thirty-three dollars an hour that preëxisting employees get—and give up all rights to the traditional retiree benefit package. The 2007 deal also transferred all responsibility for paying for the health care of G.M.’s retirees to a special fund, administered by the U.A.W. It is hard to overstate the importance of that second provision. G.M. has five hundred and seventeen thousand retirees. Between 1993 and 2007, the company paid out a hundred and three billion dollars to those former workers—a burden unimaginable to its foreign competitors. In the 2007 deal, G.M. agreed to make a series of lump-sum payments to the U.A.W. over ten years, worth some thirty-two billion dollars—at which point the company would be free of its outsized retiree health-care burden. It is estimated that, within a few years, G.M.’s labor costs—which were once almost fifty per cent higher than the domestic operations of Toyota, Nissan, and Honda—will be lower than its competitors’.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-05-2010, 01:23 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Non-Obsolete Edition (Matt Welch & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve View Post
It is an evolving story. A lot of moving parts. Read the New Yorker article.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...urrentPage=all
I have. I wonder if you have, except to find bits to support your earlier claim (which contradicted your claim before that).

For example, the lines right before the part you quoted are these:

Quote:
Wagoner was not a perfect manager, by any means. Unlike Alan Mulally, the C.E.O. at Ford, he failed to build up cash reserves in anticipation of the economic downturn, which might have kept his company out of bankruptcy. He can be faulted for riding the S.U.V. wave too long, and for being too slow to develop a credible small-car alternative.
I am willing to grant the possibilities that Wagoner was either made into a bit of a fall guy, or was merely identified as someone whose thinking wouldn't work, despite its earlier measures of success, or was booted due in part to personality clashes at the top, with the people brought in to restructure GM after it had to be bailed out. Or that these were contributing factors to, as you call it, "an evolving story. A lot of moving parts."

Basically, I am glad to see that you've backed off somewhat from your earlier comic book telling of how the Evil Kenyan Overlord had this blameless hero rubbed out, which was about all I was after here, so I'll leave it at that.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.