Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote: Some would say the draft, legally-backed slavery, and segregation were the worst manifestations of that tyranny... others would say welfare, income taxes, and social security payments/taxes are far worse.

Let me just say that when I complain about the latter things, it's not because I think they're worse than the draft, legally-backed slavery, and segregation. Rather, those things have thankfully been abolished and we've moved onto a higher plane of freedom, so now I have the luxury of complaining about my tax rate rather than the fact that I'm kept as property or forced murder strangers. 

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Some would say the draft, legally-backed slavery, and segregation were the worst manifestations of that tyranny... others would say welfare, income taxes, and social security payments/taxes are far worse.

Let me just say that when I complain about the latter things, it's not because I think they're worse than the draft, legally-backed slavery, and segregation. Rather, those things have thankfully been abolished and we've moved onto a higher plane of freedom, so now I have the luxury of complaining about my tax rate rather than the fact that I'm kept as property or forced murder strangers. 

PS,

Yes.  That was a little bit straw-man of me... and really sorta tongue-in-cheek.  I don't think most people necessarily think taxes are worse than slavery and the draft, but sometimes the rhetoric around the good ol' days of limited government forget that we now don't have to worry about being forced to fly to Europe and run into gunfire or work on a plantation.

TennPaGa wrote:

Xan wrote: Public employee unions shouldn't even exist.  I'm okay with teachers getting together to expound a political position, but that doesn't mean that one such group should have a monopoly on all teaching jobs.

But they do exist.  And since they do exist, it seems they should be allowed to donate to campaigns.  Romney doesn't think they should.

Why is it ok for the Koch brothers to donate billions to super PACs supporting Romney, but it's not ok for teacher's unions to donate relative chump change to super PACs supporting Obama?

Double standard much?

I appreciate the civility in this thread.  Perhaps that's because we come from a very diverse background - young and old - millenials and boomers.

Let me ask you - is this ad appropriate?  It was paid for by private money, with the sole intention of influencing the presidential election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDTT1yRN ... r_embedded

Storm wrote: Let me ask you - is this ad appropriate?  It was paid for by private money, with the sole intention of influencing the presidential election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDTT1yRN ... r_embedded

I don't have any problem with it. It's just an ad. It's also so over the top it's hilarious! I laughed pretty hard. I guess the Democrats decided they needed to break the Republicans' attempted monopoly on ridiculous ads (c.f. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo_Ejfc5hW8)

Storm wrote: Let me ask you - is this ad appropriate?  It was paid for by private money, with the sole intention of influencing the presidential election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDTT1yRN ... r_embedded

Why shouldn't whoever made that video be allowed to say whatever he wants?

Government unions are different, since they shouldn't be allowed to exist anyway.

Republicans deluded by ‘skewed’ polls...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Disclaimer: The article is an op-ed piece by Eugene Robinson who is unabashedly liberal. That said I think his points are more or less fair on this topic. And as I have said ad infinitum I have no dog in this fight as I am voting for the best man to occupy the White House in the last hundred years.

Remember... Keep Cool with Coolidge!

Why should anyone be able to keep people from bargaining collectively?  Isn't that an elimination of free assembly?  A corporation is nothing more than a group of individuals who come together and are given legal rights as an entity, able to bargain with governments and individuals.  Why shouldn't a union be able to do the same?

They can assemble all they want.  The problem is when the government agrees that for an entire profession (eg, teachers) that they will only hire people from a single organization, and anyone who's not in that organization need not apply.

If a private company wants to slit its throat and agree to that, then okay.  But a government entity, which these days has access to unlimited resources through the use of force and the printing press, mustn't do that.  It doesn't have the constraints of reality that the private company does to even attempt to reach a reasonable agreement.

FDR, it seems, was not too keen on public sector unions:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote: All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

From http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index ... z1Jy35UQb9

Storm wrote: Why is it ok for the Koch brothers to donate billions to super PACs supporting Romney, but it's not ok for teacher's unions to donate relative chump change to super PACs supporting Obama?

Double standard much?

My first thought was the unions are using taxpayer money to do the campaign advertising, but now that I think more about it, I don't think that is correct.  It may be that since they coerce their members to pay dues with no representation in what its used for, it is not a voluntary activity compared to private sector volition.  I just can't remember why there was a problem with public unions in Wisconsin but it was a huge conflict of interest somewhere.

So, I have no problem with union corporations donating to PACS or Super PACs anymore than business corporations, organizations or groups of individuals.  Free speech is not coercive and people are welcome to piss away their money advertising garbage propaganda.

Storm wrote: Let me ask you - is this ad appropriate?  It was paid for by private money, with the sole intention of influencing the presidential election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDTT1yRN ... r_embedded

That was funny!  So what's the problem?  Are you trying to imply that no one should try to influence elections?  Do you know how naive that is?  Yet, influence is not coercion.  Freedom means a lack of coercion.  We should all be free to influence everyone else as much as we desire for that is how the free market works.  If there is censorship or suppression of free ideas or concepts, then such cannot be vetted by free peer approval to float to the top, only less good or bad.

I think you really need to ask yourself whether or not you view voters as dumb, pliable idiots easily persuaded by non-coercive propaganda, or rational, thinking individuals that are free to make up their own free minds.

Democracy cannot work without transparency.  Free speech is transparency.

Money doesn't "buy" elections either: http://tinyurl.com/8ecxz5c

Also, before Citizens United, 26 states already allowed unlimited amounts to be spent on political advertising by business corporations.  Many even allowed them to make contributions directly to political candidates and Virginia and Utah even allowed unlimited contributions directly to political candidates!  Was the sky falling?

When you look closer at the whole issue, you'll find that the ones raising most all of the ruckus are the politicians themselves, not any principaled opposition.  They simply do not want to be criticized by free speech or challenged politically.  Due to Citizens United, they simply no longer have any FEC protection or the ability to use the FEC as an offensive weapon.  It's all a bunch of pussies crying over spilt milk.  As far as I'm concerned, they can suck it up and any apologists can go along with them.

You're exactly right, TennPaGa. I think Romney's worst problem is that he's a terrible liar and panderer. He understands the rules of the game, but he's awful at fooling people in the manner that other politicians seem to find second-nature. Whenever Romney tries to target his message to his current audience by lying, spinning, or emphasizing different things, it always feels like a fabrication, or a cold, calculating manipulation.

When I was watching those leaked Mother Jones videos of Romney talking to his millionaire buddies, one thing that struck me was how honest and genuine he sounded. Not a single lie or exaggeration; this was a guy speaking from the heart. It was a side of him I'd never seen before.

Pointedstick wrote: You're exactly right, TennPaGa. I think Romney's worst problem is that he's a terrible liar and panderer. He understands the rules of the game, but he's awful at fooling people in the manner that other politicians seem to find second-nature. Whenever Romney tries to target his message to his current audience by lying, spinning, or emphasizing different things, it always feels like a fabrication, or a cold, calculating manipulation.

When I was watching those leaked Mother Jones videos of Romney talking to his millionaire buddies, one thing that struck me was how honest and genuine he sounded. Not a single lie or exaggeration; this was a guy speaking from the heart. It was a side of him I'd never seen before.

Romney strikes me as an actor who doesn't fully understand the character he is playing, and occasionally forgets that he is supposed to be playing a certain type of role and drops character completely.

Although all successful politicians are able to pull off this role-playing as part of their suite of lies, pandering and manipulation, Ronald Reagan was probably the best of the modern presidents in this area. 

PS,

That's exactly what I thought. I've never heard the man be so articulate and natural.  He may have been wrong about non taxpayers all voting for Obama in '08 (he actually won in te $200k+ crowd), but you could tell the man never felt so at home with his words in a long time.

In the same vein:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81772.html

It kills his admirers to say it because they know him to be a far more generous and approachable man than people realize — far from the caricature of him being awkward or distant — and they feel certain he would be a very good president.

“Lousy candidate; highly qualified to be president,”? said a top Romney official. “The candidate suit fits him unnaturally. He is naturally an executive.”?

Pointedstick wrote: In the same vein:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81772.html

It kills his admirers to say it because they know him to be a far more generous and approachable man than people realize — far from the caricature of him being awkward or distant — and they feel certain he would be a very good president.

“Lousy candidate; highly qualified to be president,”? said a top Romney official. “The candidate suit fits him unnaturally. He is naturally an executive.”?

Herbert Hoover was the same way.  He was the Mitt Romney of his time.

I really don't know why Hoover gets such a bad rap for the Depression.  There was a Depression for three years of Hoover's administration and eight years of Roosevelt's.  Why is Hoover a villain and Roosevelt a hero if they both failed to pull the country out of economic depression?

I don't really know if the depression should be classified as two huge recessions or not.  Obviously the healing wasn't done in 1937, but the GDP growth from '33 to '37 was huge.  Wasn't it almost double-digits?  And didn't unemployment fall significantly during that time?

I mean the 1984 Reagan economy technically wasn't any better than the 1980 Carter economy.  It was just going in a different (better) direction.  I think that's the big clincher.

“I am unable to have a cellphone and I need one for emergencies,”? said Aliesa Azbill of Dayton, who is in a work training program at Community Action Partnership. She said the 250 free minutes she gets per month through SafeLink isn’t enough to use it for much more than emergencies.

Cognitive dissonance.

Heck, I could use an Obamaphone. I could probably save about $40 a month!

Simonjester wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KgoJLrYzJJI obama phone remix...

What a comical video. My favorite part was the "Romney, he sucks!". lolz.