Let the flame wars begin!
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#26 What Obama should do now: how about just propose a budget (not just a speech)?
How about if the Senate actually did what is hasn’t done in nearly 2 years, and pass a budget?
The Republican proposed budget has been rejected. Ok, how about an alternative?
The Republicans may be the party of “no”, but right now the Democrats are the party of “don’t ask us”.
chuck–I agree totally. Not much coverage but about a month ago I thought I heard the Obama budget was struck down without a single Dumbocrat voting for it? Weird.
but while budget is the responsibility of Congress, past practice and common sense says the President should submit a yearly budget and fight for it. What he “should do” though is also submit this one year budget along with a 4 year and 10 year budget as well.
Stop the BS. The Budget is the detail on how our overlords plan to rule. Even the Ryan Budget planned on increasing the deficit over the next 7 years. I assume Obama’s was even worse, but I never saw any details.
Contra–the house Progressive Budget is supposed to be pretty good. Some others as well.
Solutions exist unless the budget is just used as a stalking horse for other nefarious goals. It is SHOCKING TO ME how blatantly the Pukes are pushing the Rich Mans’ Program with so little negative feedback.
The Pukes are trying to Kill america and Obama is playing nice with them all along the way.
Shameful.
Does anyone really believe there is any significant difference between the two parties? Has Obama really been that different from Bush (Gitmo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, the economy). It’s as though someone were behind the scenes pulling the strings of the current puppet.
Just watching Rachel Maddow right now. Seems Wisconsin government has shut down. “Cut it, or shut it.” The pukes are not even concerned. Let the people learn we can do without government.
WTF?????
Evidently, the Teabaggers have a lot of this attitude even when it comes to the Federal Government. More than “they don’t care”===they are actively HOSTILE to the notion of forming/running a good government for the benefit of the people.
How can I get off this planet?
#34 – if, when you mention “Pukes”, you are simply referring to every elected representative in the Federal government, then I agree with you.
Yes, President Obama did propose an actual budget earlier this year. I believe he was proposing everything he wants, plus tax increases and some spending reductions which amounted to less than 1% of discretionary spending. The Democrats in the Senate don’t want to vote for any tax increases without Republican support, so it went nowhere.
The Senate is currently breaking it’s own rules (and possibly the law) by not proposing and passing a budget. I think they got around it last year when they “deemed” that the budget approved by the House was passed. That way no Democrat in the Senate was on record as voting for (or against) it.
The way things are going, we could cut a few $million from the budget by simply adjourning the Senate indefinitely. They don’t seem to do anything. It worked for Cromwell a little while ago.
“you are no Parliament, I say you are no Parliament; I will put an end to your sitting”
chuck–looks like we are the only ones not getting ready for Friday Night? My sympathy.
No. Pukes are those in the Current Republican Party. Not the same Republican party of 20 years ago. Today, they are blatantly anti-government, anti-bottom 99% of the population, totally bought and paid for by the Super Rich/top 1%. They put their own party/power politics/anti-Obama program above what any sane person when put to the test would agree is best/better for America.
Dumbo’s or Demonrats are very much the same but just not “quite” as bad. Very close, but a noticeable improvement. They take the same corporate pay offs but still want to curry the vote of the bottom 95% so every once in a while, they stand for the common man. Not often enough, but not the total abstenous shown by the Pukes.
Some idiots will claim there is no difference. Those people are as stated……idiots. Its been too well covered elsewhere to argue anymore.
Hmmm. With 75% of the public polling they support taxing the rich before cutting Medicare, it makes no sense to me that Dumbo’s are afraid to raise taxes. Makes more sense they are simply bought and paid for by secret PACS funded by the Krotch Brothers. Go figure—but I did say they were too much like the Pukes and only but occasionally for the people. The difference between absolute shit verses almost nearly a total absolute piece of shit. A small differnece, but a difference none the less. Its the difference idiots gloss over in their failure to tell shit from shinola.
Adjourning the Senate isn’t the issue. Its funding daily/normal federal operations.
I thought it was Minnesota’s state government that began a shutdown Today.
Mextli–right you are. My geography is hazy east of Lake Tahoe. Substantive issue is still rather telling though.
I think we’re going to have a shut down of the Fed government because the Dumbo’s think the Pukes will get the blame and the Pukes think it doesn’t matter.
Loser: American People.
#35 raddad
Of course; maybe like 100,000,000 deluded voters. Like the smart people on this blog and in my life. They are the ones ſü¢ķįŋģ our country down the drain. They add their votes to all the stupid people to elect our governance. They are all equally guilty. The mess we are in was created by decades of people who vote for the lesser of evils. Evil is evil. It is irrational to vote for evil. The D/R machine needs to be destroyed. People who say their vote doesn’t count and people who say the only way their vote is relevant is to cast it RorD are the problem.
And you all go on and on about the governance YOU hired. Idiotic and pathetic. Young people without a lifetime of experience are excused for voting R or D.
PS to bobbo —- stop pretending to be unbiased re Rs and Ds, you’re the only one you are fooling.
That’s right. That’s right. The Democrats want to fix the economy, and the Republicans want to wreck it.
Keep this up, and this blog will go the way broadcast television and radio did for me.
I am so fucking tired of the bullshit.
After thinking a few minutes, I have actually decided to simplify my life and eliminate stress.
Bye, Dvorak Uncensored.
Had the economic stimulus package been even bigger it likely still would have failed. The fact is that the banks were given money by the people to be lent to the people. This was supposed to get them spending again. Henceforth increasing demand for goods and services, and creating new jobs to meet those demands. Only the “banksters” never lent much of it to anyone but themselves. So consumer driven demand remained low and we began hemorrhaging even more jobs.
Now I have been reading allot of comments in here by the resident neo-cons. Many of them claiming the liberals to be morons, and that they just don’t understand anything. At first it was comical, but now it’s just plain annoying. What’s to understand? Trickle down economics just doesn’t work. We have over a decade of experience with it that proves it too.
It reminds me of some tattooed punk kid standing there with his Prince Albert chained to his upper lip. And doing so whilst screaming, “society just doesn’t understand me.” But ten years from now he may finally realize something. It wasn’t societies fault, but rather his own short shortsightedness to blame for his infected penis.
It’s your stupidity! Stupid!
Is there any historical, or otherwise, evidence that the economy will get better as long as we continue to encourage outsourcing of jobs?
I’m so disgusted.
I just might log in with a different alias and threaten to leave! Don’t push me!
#48 Yes Alphie, of course. It’s the Negros fault.
That Trillion dollar tax cut (hint: SPENDING) and that pesky other Trillion Dollar War and that other Pesky Trillion Dollar economic meltdown hasn’t quite kicked in yet.
#48, Alphie,
Republicans are wrecking the economy…
So you finally understand.
There might be hope for you yet.
#41–P/M==I clearly state my bias: both parties suck. Thats how they are the same. The Pukes are slightly worse than the Dumbos. Thats how they are different. Compare and contrast, weight the values: and make a judgment: VOTE ALL PUKES OUT OF OFFICE. When they are all gone, do the same to the Blue Dog Dumbo’s and work your way up the political chain until those in power work to FIX THE ECONOMY and not further WRECK THE ECONOMY. You do that by figuring out how to balance the budget: a balance of expenses and revenues. Any party advocating all one side of the balance is WRECKING THE ECONOMY.
Just who is doing that now?
Thats right: Pukes. “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.”===as wrong as wrong can be. VOTE ALL PUKES OUT OF OFFICE.
P/M==you tell me. How often are two different things in reality exactly the same?
Not seeing the differences between things that are both bad is the basis for being led by the nose. Stop letting yourself be led by the nose.
VOTE THE DIFFERENCE.
I once heard one of my old business professors say, “never vote for a lawyer or a judge,” and “never vote for the incumbent.” The latter depends on the job they’re doing in my book. I’d have to say I would vote for Obama in 2012 vs. a$$clowns like Bachmann. Still that professor may be on to something. Especially when offices that do not have term limits are concerned.
#49, It’s the Negros fault.
All of them or just one in particular? If all of them, you need to put an ‘e’ in the word. If one in particular, you need the apostrophe. And if it is one in particular, which one?
And who’s talking about Negroes anyway?
That Trillion dollar tax cut (hint: SPENDING)
A Tax Cut is NOT spending. If your boss decided to cut your salary by 20%, does that mean you are spending 20% more?
Get a brain.
Bobbo,
#8 Accurate and to the point. Beautiful.
#38 You stay serious with an irreverent tone while providing a lot of detail. 🙂 The Dems, I think, are equally as corrupt but build their own client list. If you’re GOP you get it as part of the package when you get elected, plus whatever loyalties you bring from lower jobs. The total lack of cohesion at the national party level has rendered the Dems totally ineffective for decades now.
In the past few months it seems like you’ve become a top grade analyst of our world. I mean that as high praise, and there is no patronizing element to it. Day to day life is tiring. It’s hard to gather good information and consume it with an alert/critical mind.
I think you’ve always had a wonderful grasp of language, but are sometimes too lyrical and occasionally too petty. Turning the critical eye to myself I admit to sometimes being totally unconcerned with peoples’ feelings, and usually too hard on the attack.
Just saying, you’re working very hard!
There are a lot of things the private sector doesn’t do very well, so what is the alternative to government?
Maybe guilds/professional-societies, like Germany did historically. Then each profession is organized in advancing the benefits that accrue to their job. This obviously happens in our world, but would you a stronger version?
Some types of decisions should be made with an eye to fairness as well as cost. Public companies are legally REQUIRED to strictly act in their best financial interest. No problem with that, just that the form has been stretched to places it shouldn’t go.
Can anyone with a strong aversion to government give me another path for resolving serious competing interests?
Well, chris==you turn my head. I don’t take much credit for what I post—its just me, me in my rut. I do try to still spot the corn kernels in the pile of shit offered by too many here==it only benefits myself after all. I do still look up words when I notice I might be using them incorrectly and hopefully before ever criticizing someone elses use of a word. I’ve caught myself from making mistakes that way. Its the active engagement and learning opportunity that makes a blog so much different than merely reading a book.
I try not to be dogmatic in what I think but given the nature of this blog, repetitive entries by OP’s and commentators, I could well post repetitively myself. But I look for the new/fresh argument. I am open to new ideas but have to honestly admit I don’t see too many so I do “look like” I’m set in my ways. We all do have opinions of ourselves that are isolated/insulated. A great risk to anyone who is not constantly engaged.
If one “cares” about certain issues, say the rape of the middle class in America, one will adopt a set of core beliefs over time. I see no reason why those core beliefs should change, absent a change in reality/perception/life circumstance?
It is troubling that men of good will can come off sounding just like their opposites. I find most of the conservative/libertarian/republican voices on this blog to be quite frankly “unbelievable” the detail of which I post to often enough. 50% good people, 50% shills, idiots, or ideologues==but both wrong.
Its “wrong” to be out for yourself only when you live in/take succor from the wider society. That has to be tempered with self interest, but all corruption and bad ideas emphasize what won’t work in a society==being self centered and of short horizons.
We are the family of man. People who act against that family deserve to be placed on the ice flow. Instead, they get to vote, form parties, and run for political office. Shameful in its lack of pragmatism.
I look forward to your corrections/disagreements in the future. My own friends get the sharpest disagreements. Its what makes us better in the long run.
………Yea……..verily.
Essential conflicts in the modern conservative program:
Government is seen as both the central (bad) actor in every problem, while simultaneously getting absolutely nothing done.
Concentration of power at the Federal level is dangerous, but extreme concentration of wealth in private hands is to be applauded\ignored.
Individuals are essentially untrustworthy and require a strong law enforcement deterrent. Other nations are dangerous and require an overwhelming military deterrent. Markets police themselves.
Paying a person to do a job out of private funds creates economic activity, but paying for that same job out of public funds does not.
#55, I find your suggestion about guilds/professional societies to be interesting to say the least. I’ll have to give that some thought and might comment later.
AFA no government. I don’t think anybody on this board has ever advocated the complete dissolution of the government. I’m a libertarian, not an anarchist. I wouldn’t want to live in a society like that.
Voluntary adherence to the laws of the land are what made this country great. Not the governmental use of taxpayer funds. People tend not to murder their neighbors, not because of fear of going to jail, but because it’s just wrong.
What I don’t like about our current government is the huge budget and deficit. The amount of money they bring in has traditionally been enough to fund the programs — mostly. However, with the Fed printing money left and right, inflation has eaten the value of that money to nothing. But it still takes the same amount of resources to perform the same function. The dollar isn’t worth enough to pay for those resources anymore. If we continue on this path, the amount of dollars required will continue to grow and grow until we are working exclusively for the government to fund these programs. That’s why increasing taxes is not the answer. It’s just a stop gap until the next inflationary crisis (make no mistake, that is what we are in now).
The only way to solve this problem is for people to realize that the role of government is not to take care of the citizen from cradle to grave but to protect their property rights.
There is a fine line between freedom to associate and the creation of corporations in today’s political environment. Where is that line drawn? As you pointed out, a corporation’s goal is to make money for their shareholders. However, these shareholders are persons with property rights of their own. They should be able to elect their own officials to speak on their behalf. Unfortunately, that includes donating to political candidates. I have a hard time accepting that fact, but it’s true nonetheless (and I’m a business owner, myself). How did we get to that point, where corporations seem to have the most power? The answer is simple but most people won’t accept it.
Money. If the government has the power to negatively affect the property rights of one group over that of another group, then the government is not doing their job, whether it is a subsidization or social program. If a single cent is directed to anybody who makes that kind of decision, then that is called bribery in my book. And when a public servant receives an award for such behavior, that is hypocrisy.
Case in point — politicians love public works projects. They get their name on a plaque. Politicians hate maintaining these same projects later. There is no recognition for having done it but money is still allocated . . . in addition to MORE funds for new projects. We know who built the pyramids. Do we know who allocated funds later to keep them swept off?
Whether you agree that the U.S. Constitution was the single most important document in the history of mankind or not (there are those who feel because it didn’t include women or non-whites it was a waste of paper), it presented the world with a new idea on government — it implements We The People. And it is supposed to be the law of the land. No where does it say that we are to make all people equal or to give special favors to larger groups of people. We were created equal.
The protection of property rights means if a single person’s property is negated without redress, then government has failed that citizen.
The people of this great land need to realize it is time to stop looking for government to tuck them into bed at night and tuck themselves in. And if you can’t tuck yourself in, then look to family, churches, local social charity outlets to help you. These kinds of organizations are best handled locally in my opinion.
I love this country. I’m a veteran. My ship was tasked with recovering U.S. Marines after the Beirut bombing in 1983. But I am sadly, very disappointed in our leaders. They are leading us down a path for which there is no solution other than dissolution and rebuilding. And I fear what might be rebuilt in its place.
(sorry for the long windiness. I think I’ll write a book instead . . .)
#58–LL==you say: “I don’t think anybody on this board has ever advocated the complete dissolution of the government. I’m a libertarian, not an anarchist.” /// What you fail to realize and all too often advocate for is free market remedies, aka fewer/no regulations, or regulations not enforced. You don’t need the absence of government to have anarachy–insufficient regulations with too much government will get you there as well.
“Before taking down a fence, remember why it was put up.” //// Guilds main market impact was purposefully to keep competition OUT. Today, its still tried by unnecessary licensing laws especially those setting forth unreasonable/unrelated educational/testing requirements.
Why should a manicurist or hair weaver need more than a registration fee to track them for fraud? IOW–there are busnesses/services that are very appropriate for free market regulation.
#58
Many people here do casually advocate for sharply limiting the areas that government operates in without considering who would take the vacant job. A lot of pressure to not have a free market comes from producers\providers of goods\services. Removing regulation by government often means allowing regulation by a mafia or business cartel. Maybe the one isn’t operating in the public interest, but you can be absolutely sure the others aren’t.
I agree that property rights are important. The framers were cribbing from the French ‘life, liberty, and property’ and explicitly chose to water down property to ‘pursuit of happiness.’ It is the kind of semantic change that would make any modern lawyer proud.
The Constitution is important, but the idea of America is more important. We aren’t a geographical people with deep historic roots like the Spanish or French. Any group that comes here with a will to compete faces initial xenophobia and eventual acceptance( usually a decent interval after the population influx stops). The Irish, Germans, and eastern Europeans all used to be viewed as problem groups. Which citizens are widely seen as proper Americans is continually widened over time.
Where you say “to give special favors to larger groups of people” I ask why not? With scarce resources it is proper and logical to do the most good for the most people. I see it as the reverse, where narrower groups get a lot of extra effort. Usually this goes to one of two reasons: concentrated capital allows them to buy out of government regulation, or actual historical victimization\hardship makes people squeamish about appearing to be hardhearted.
That some segments of the population are so special is an error in governance. Just because someone isn’t doing their job properly doesn’t mean that the job itself is at fault.
As to your gift of gab: that’s why we show up, right? You address me directly and on topic. Never going to fault someone for that. 🙂
Write that book. We need more books and more people reading books.
#61, Property Rights vs. Pursuit of Happiness
Actually, it wasn’t a watering down. It was a more encompassing notion.
[Men] may act as they choose in their search for ease, comfort, felicity, and grace, either by owning property or not, by accumulating wealth or distributing it, by opting for material success or ascetism, in a word, by determining the path to their own earthly and heavenly salvation as they alone see fit.
Ronald Hamowy on his interpretation of what the Jeffersonian Pursuit of Happiness actually means. Indeed, Jefferson did feel this way. He just didn’t put it in such elegant words.
In the absence of regulations (or substantially fewer of them), the government’s primary role would be to enforce the individual’s rights. I agree, in a weak government setting these cartels would run rampant. But they run rampant now with government permission. Rights violations would have to be enforced strictly on a case by case basis.
To go back to that type of government, the one espoused by the US Constitution, would be hard, might I say close to impossible. However, it could be done if we were willing to tell the corporations that it isn’t business as usual anymore. There isn’t a single instance, where if the government were truly concerned about a person’s right to pursue happiness, that couldn’t be solved in that manner.
We just have to have the willpower to implement it . . . and enforce it.
Where you say “to give special favors to larger groups of people” I ask why not? With scarce resources it is proper and logical to do the most good for the most people.
Hmm. Who would make this decision? That’s what’s gotten us here in the first place. The decision makers are not making decisions based on what is right. They are making decisions based on who gives them the most money. As long as that situation exists, we will never have that decision properly made.
I’ve never been a fan of choosing the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
To all LIEbertarians: come down out of the clouds. Discussing lofty generalities is meaningless: “There isn’t a single instance, where if the government were truly concerned about a person’s right to pursue happiness, that couldn’t be solved in that manner.”
and devolves further when idiocy is directly invoked: “I’ve never been a fan of choosing the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil.”
Come down to earth. Its actually pretty easy: in the current situation of the USA do you vote a program to achieve balanced budgets purely by cutting social programs -OR- by modifying them as may make sense and increasing tax revenues as may be determined?
How do you think individual happiness is best achieved=======in this, our real world?
Or are you going to throw rational analysis out the window and suggest we vote for either Paul?
Sad how reality impinges on the good and true. But only the good and true can move society towards what works. works in the real world—not the model that requires everyone agrees to begin with.
Silly Hoomans.