Rob's House

The problem is when the other team gets to pick the Ref & the Ref changes the rules during the game. Yeah. Maybe then they'll learn the hard way like Hong Kong did. Oh wait...

I'll have to mull this one over. It kind of puts a wrinkle in my theory.

There's some truth in that. But my main concern is the inclination to dismiss out of hand the possibility of extremism in our leaders. That's why in many ways I have more respect for liberals than for those moderates who, for whatever reason (I assume to comfort themselves or feel superior for being so much more reasonable than the rest of us, but who knows why) automatically reject the possibility that an American President could be a dangerous individual. At least the liberal sees potential for abuse. Sure, we (people who take a side) are more inclined to give our guy a pass & see the worst in the other guy, but at least we're concerned about and aware of the potential for tyranny. The dupes that roll their eyes because "it couldn't happen here" are the most clueless of all IMO. I understand that & I appreciate your insight.

I'll check it out. Thanks

No emotional bias at all. That assumes that my assessment of him comes from wanting him to be a bad guy rather than from what I have learned of him from his words & actions. It is possible to personally dislike a man for his personality & values without being biased. Put differently, my bias is a product of my assessment of, not the other way around. And broadly speaking, "socialist" or "Marxist" is a close enough description of a guy hell bent on income redistribution that I don't think it's unfair to apply it. Certainly it's open to the kind of debate you're presenting here, but as I explained, yours is not the argument coming from the other side. And were I to use esoteric language to describe him, I might be slightly more accurate, but most people would have no idea what I was talking about. You mentioned the under 55 crowd would lose what they'd paid into the system (unless I misread). I've not seen the numbers, but it seems they could potentially get a return on that investment whose value is equal to the value of the money they put in depending on the value of the voucher & how long they live.

What does that mean? And please explain this supply-side deficit spending tie in to Keynes. I understand some "supply siders" think the short-run cash infusion sparks growth, but I wasn't aware that this was the prevalent theory associated with the topic. I'd like to hear your take on this. As far as the bit on speculation, virtually everything we're discussing here is speculative. Using the standard you've set forth, if one's wife were to come home with bloody panties and loose kitty you would assume she's not been !@#$ing another guy as long as she denied it because that would be speculation And as far as your neo-mercantilism bit, I already said that might well be true, & I agree it can be equally or more destructive. I don't understand what you're arguing about. It's all taxonomy. Some would label the collusion between business & government you call neo-mercantilism as fascism. The point is the guy wants a top down economy with government running the show. To predict how that will evolve is necessarily speculative. But the people who claim it's "extreme" to call him a socialist aren't sitting back chortling and musing over the conflation of the terms "neo-mercantilist" & "socialist". Are we to assume the value of their contribution is greater than what they'll receive from the voucher program?

Around the turn of the century, before economics became a destination for Marxists seeking credibility in the attempt to advance their discredited economic model, roughly 90% of economists agreed that free private enterprise capitalism was the most optimal known system to bring about prosperity. There will always be activists perverting the field, most of whom hide out in academia or media where being consistently wrong is of little consequence, but those whose jobs depend on being right (including liberals) acknowledge the supreme power of the markets to achieving growth & prosperity.

I get that (although I wasn't familiar with this terminology) although I'm not sure that one is more desirable than the other. Auto-bailouts could be seen as a payback to his union buddies or simply transferring power to unions, which socialists seem to love when they can't get the full force of the government involved. In the case of ACA I see that as an attempt to send us towards socialized medicine rather than an end in itself. But let's be honest, nationalizing any of these industries at this stage of the game is political suicide. It's incremental and he's taking much longer strides than any of his liberal predecessors since LBJ. At this point we're discussing taxonomy more than anything. Either way, based on the previously mentioned reasons, that his desired end-game is socialistic. We can debate whether it falls under a tight definition of socialism or some other system of top-down government run economy, but either way, his "solution" is always more federal government control. And the notion of the "moderates" who scoff at the idea that he's a socialist, that he's a center-left moderate who believes in free-market economics with common sense government safe-guards, is absurd and there is little to support their theory. You're living in the past.

I'm not claiming he's successfully implemented his ideal system. I'm stating that ideologically he's a socialist. I think at this point the argument that he's not is the more extreme view. I've made a strong case that is thus far unrefuted. Just look at his record. Government is his answer to EVERYTHING.

I'm the same way. Not too many people I have real ill will toward, but I've known some real unsavory characters in my time, been friends with some very talented con-men, and have developed the ability to spot the tells of those character flaws pretty well. I'll just say that the revelation that John Edwards (who was a really nice guy ) was a total scumbag. Somehow I figured that one out. You generally get to know more or less who someone is when you see that much of them. You know who the Clintons are. Bill's the liberal-leaning good-timing pragmatist, Hillary's a true believer - sure they have their flaws, but hardly worthy of contempt. Joe Biden is a bit of a (*^*&%^$^#but seems like he's basically an alright guy. Obama, on the other hand, seems like a con man who doesn't care who gets hurt as long as he gets what he wants. He's not even that good at hiding it, he's just got a really good PR team (the media).

Why? What is your argument? What differentiates his beliefs from that of a socialist? Is it because no socialist could ever get elected Presidenct? Isn't that circular thinking. Or is it just because no socialist could read a speech like he does? Seriously, what is it? It's one thing if you have an actual argument. Coming in with your wrist bent lisping about how "extreme" it is less than worthless. You basically said, "it's this way, because." So, what you got?

I gag every time I hear someone say they like Obama but not his policies. What is it you like about him? He comes off as a cold, arrogant, condescending prick who will slither into the sleaziest gutter to achieve his ends. What's so damn likeable about that? For the record, I don't like Obama or his policies.

Which part do you disagree with?

You may be right. If I have time I'll check it out. Most of what I'm going on is what I've heard, both the stories here and some other comments attributed to him. One I remember was him ranting about not being the voice of the generation, but given the background you describe it makes a lot more sense now. I've always respected him as one of the greatest musicians of all time. No question about his song-writing ability. He just doesn't have that great a voice. Most of his great songs were done better by those covering them IMO. To his credit he's got a few that he belted out that I'll turn up the radio for.

As long as it's not his achilles I'm not worried about it.

You didn't follow my advice and read up on this. If you analyze tax receipts before and after Reagan's tax cuts the revenues collected from the middle class did go down (I don't remember the exact figures but IIRC the rate was apx. 35% before being cut). The revenues from the top earners whose rates were cut from over 70% to 50% and then to 28% went up. The relationship between tax rate and revenue isn't linear and isn't necessarily inversely related. This is something every 8th grader should understand, but economics has been cast aside to make way for sociology and the like.

So because Town Hall runs Walter Williams' column he is now discredited? Good one. BTW, the super-centrist routine doesn't make you look more reasonable than either side, it just makes you look naive.

Out of curiosity, what kind of policies do you imagine a candidate who cared about the American people would enact?

+1 I've seen enough in my time to know better than take he said/she said stories at face value. Especially since in all the time he's been in the spotlight he's never had any issues like this. I've known women to be on the **** end of the domestic violence stick, but I've also seen a few that thought they had license to get as violent as they want and then cry foul. Right or wrong, this chick might have just burned her meal ticket, and her window of opportunity to sleep her way to the top is closing fast.

Yeah, that's true. I don't mind the self-congratulatory types like TO. It's the ones like Floyd Mayweather that have to rub it in someone's face that irk me.

I don't often blame them for that either, especially the smaller players. Even if you're making millions, it's not worth being crippled.

I'm curious to see how TO does. I'd like to see Russel Wilson win the QB job and see the two of them light it up. Also curious to see if Houston can stay healthy b/c they could be as strong as anyone in the NFL. San Fran with Moss could be interesting, and I hope Peyton Manning outperforms Andrew Luck. And even though I'm not a fan of any NFC north team, that's looking like a tough division. Lions look good and Cutler with Jeffrey and Marshall could be nasty - Maybe enough to knock Not Brett Favre and the Pack of their perch.

Dylan's a great song writer but a mediocre singer and a pretty contemptible human being. As far as modesty and humility goes, he makes TO look like Barry Sanders. I heard a similar story about him sending for Jerry Jeff Walker. Walker comes in the room, Dylan plays Mr. Bojangles, and then summarily dismisses Walker. The guy seems like a real dick.

If Romeny told Obama to man-up and stop whining like a little B word he would become my new hero (sorry Tom).

It's hard to work together to forge a path when both sides have plans that are diametrically opposed to one another.