Public Pension Millionaires

[wayiwalk]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

Once again you give me intellectual food to each DC. (Maybe too much for my petite stomach). I want the people to get there pensions, but the social contract has been broken. Not too long ago, I paid 12K for a college education, < 20% total income as taxes, I had a stable job, I could pay to see my doctor out of pocket. But know that world is gone. I pay 20K a year for college, 30% of my income for taxes, Without insurance one faces bankruptcy for a mild hospital treatment. 20 years ago I was thinking If things get tough I could get a part time job at blockbuster and watch all kinds of movies and recommend
the to others and help customers. Ooops that doesn't work anymore ... If a plebe like me could effect things with my vote and letters I would argue to
skinny down this over bloated gvt, and redirect it to the needy, but My voice means nothing. The gvt responds to the ruling class and not to the citizens.
My voice, my vote, means nothing. There is a reason people pay 50K for a chicken dinner. So in this dog-eat-dog world they have created I fight for my scraps.


Don Henley, Working It.


I'm just tired DC. Everyone wants a piece of me. I am a giving person. I try to be nice to everyone. Now people take without asking. I mentally tired of fighting. I long for good neighbors, hard physical work, and peace of mind. I have read Strauss and Howe's fourth turning. I believe the seeds are being
sown for the forth turning. Any year now it will occur. I hope the younger generation who grab the reins of power have mercy on me and my children.

Time to end this rant. Thanks for listening. I offer no magic pill. Blood and sweat must be spilt to right this ship.

Not the worst rant. i'm 3/4 through reading The Fourth Turning. Very interesting and insightful. If you think too hard about the last few years of a crisis (the fourth turn), and apply the views from the financial side as depicted on this site, it is hard not to fall at about a 10.3 on the doomer scale and rant it up.

[lektrode]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

Not the worst rant. i'm 3/4 through reading The Fourth Turning. Very interesting and insightful. If you think too hard about the last few years of a crisis (the fhurth turn), and apply the views from the financial side as depicted on this site, it is hard not to fall at about a 10.3 on the doomer scale and rant it up.

aint that the truth - altho i still think that if even 1/2 the electorate had seen INSIDE JOB, read whats on:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/
and/or even 1/2 of matt taibbi's reporting on these topics, there'd be some changes made, if not rioting in the streets

again, its the political class' overspending/over-promising that has allowed the various .gov-industrial complexes to hollow out 'the system' - so now we're just supposed to just roll over and accept it ?

[DSpencer]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

It is no shocker that American politics have moved further and further towards conservatism. Despite all the proclamations to the contrary, Obama is most certainly not a liberal. I don't know about calling him a Reagan Republican, but still.

I notice this phenomenon more and more. People on the left believe that the country is moving towards the right. The democrat politicians are not real liberals in their eyes, republicans are far right wingers. The people on the right believe the country is moving towards the left. The republicans are not real conservatives, democrat politicians are far left socialists.

What is the explanation? I can think of a few possibilities:

1. Our politicians are moderates and therefore both sides always see them as being too far toward the other side.
2. Politicians have views or take action that doesn't fit neatly into one ideology but is disliked by both sides and in the eyes of both is representative of the other side. For example if you ask a group of people whether the bank bailouts were representative of the left or right's political philosophy I'm guessing that anyone who opposed them would say they represent the other side.

Obviously many would suggest a third option which is that one side is objectively wrong in their belief, but I'm sure we could all do without that kind of debate.

[Woodsman]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

I notice this phenomenon more and more. People on the left believe that the country is moving towards the right. The democrat politicians are not real liberals in their eyes, republicans are far right wingers. The people on the right believe the country is moving towards the left. The republicans are not real conservatives, democrat politicians are far left socialists.

What is the explanation? I can think of a few possibilities:

1. Our politicians are moderates and therefore both sides always see them as being too far toward the other side.
2. Politicians have views or take action that doesn't fit neatly into one ideology but is disliked by both sides and in the eyes of both is representative of the other side. For example if you ask a group of people whether the bank bailouts were representative of the left or right's political philosophy I'm guessing that anyone who opposed them would say they represent the other side.

Obviously many would suggest a third option which is that one side is objectively wrong in their belief, but I'm sure we could all do without that kind of debate.

Not entirely sure what you mean here? Do you mean to say that there is no objective way to prove that politics have taken a turn toward the right since say the mid 70s, because that's an easily demonstrated point of fact. Jakob Hacker at Yale did a masterful job of this in his book, Off Center. He demonstrated that Senate Republicans have moved twice as far to the right as their Democratic counterparts have moved to the left. In the House, Hacker found that Republicans had shifted six times further to the right than their Democratic counterparts went to the left.

Norm Ornstenin of AEI and Thomas Mann of Brookings did much the same sort of work in their book "It’s Even Worse Than It Looks" where they assert:

One of our two major parties, the Republicans, has become an insurgent outlier—ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

But do we really need studies to figure this out? Anyone here who has been politically aware since the mid 70s can attest to this themselves. A third year PoliSci or History major can walk through the high points. How come we seem to have such difficulties? It follows a nearly linear progression, starting with the dramatic loss of power by the Democratic Party across the South as a result of white flight in reaction to the civil rights movement. This resulted in the collapse of the moderate Republican elements in Congress and the rise of the centrist Democrats. Having the most popular Democrat and liberal president and his even more popular and liberal brother murdered in cold blood helped, inasmuch as it decapitated the right's strongest and most articulate critics.

The realignment accelerated following the election of Reagan and marked the strengthening of Conservatism in the United States and weakening of liberalism. The revitalization of the Republican Party's conservative wing was almost entirely due to the move of whites from the Democrats to the GOP in reaction to civil rights and a perceived moral decline in American life. It is most clearly indicated by the rise of the religious right as a political power allied with the GOP. With them they brought their emphasis on wedge social issues like abortion and homosexuality.

The "Age of Reagan" is the temporal marker of this shift in the terms of political debate after 1980, ultimately manifesting the neoliberal economic models by Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Add to that the end of the Fairness Doctrine, and the rise of conservative talk radio led by Rush Limbaugh and it's a direct line to where we find ourselves today with the rise of the Tea Party and the GOP wins in 2010.

People on the left believe the country is moving far right because it has moved far to the right as demonstrated by a plain reading of history, nevermind study after study. People on the right believe the country is moving to the left because they are hopelessly propagandized by the likes of FoxNews and the rest of the GOP reality distortion field, in my opinion.

[santafe2]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

Obviously many would suggest a third option which is that one side is objectively wrong in their belief, but I'm sure we could all do without that kind of debate.

Nicely framed by a reasonable man. Only an unreasonable person would challenge such a reasonable post.

I'm sure today's Republicans would extend the Clean Air Act and propose the EPA, (Nixon), raise taxes when required, (Reagan, over and over again, Bush), grow the size of the Federal Government, (Nixon, Reagan, Bush, little Bush) and offer amnesty to undocumented immigrants, (Reagan).

No, today's Republicans are ready to drown government in a bathtub and the Democrat(ic) party's defense is to move farther and farther to the right. This country is bought and paid for by Wall Street and they expect their minions in both parties to do their bidding. While it's not one I support, Republicans have a plan. Democrats can't plan, they can't legislate, hell they can't even frame a debate as well as you tried to.

[DSpencer]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

Not entirely sure what you mean here? Do you mean to say that there is no objective way to prove that politics have taken a turn toward the right since say the mid 70s, because that's an easily demonstrated point of fact. Jakob Hacker at Yale did a masterful job of this in his book, Off Center. He demonstrated that Senate Republicans have moved twice as far to the right as their Democratic counterparts have moved to the left. In the House, Hacker found that Republicans had shifted six times further to the right than their Democratic counterparts went to the left.

From the Off Center link:

"While most Americans remain politically moderate, American politics has careened to the right over the last two decades. Why? What can be done? This book helps make sense of recent political changes and explains how popular will is deliberately being subverted. The authors propose important reforms to strengthen our democracy and return American politics to the center."

You are seriously citing this as some kind of objective study of politics and not a book whose agenda was determined before putting together a story to support it?

"six times further to the right"? That just reeks of pseudoscience.

[Woodsman]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

From the Off Center link:


You are seriously citing this as some kind of objective study of politics and not a book whose agenda was determined before putting together a story to support it?

"six times further to the right"? That just reeks of pseudoscience.

Spence, with brilliant political insights like these:

1. Our politicians are moderates and therefore both sides always see them as being too far toward the other side.
2. Politicians have views or take action that doesn't fit neatly into one ideology but is disliked by both sides and in the eyes of both is representative of the other side.

I should have known better than to challenge you, never mind cite the work of some half-assed Yale professor who's been studying this for a decade. You're right, it's because our pols are moderates.

You keep thinking those big thoughts, now.

[DSpencer]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

Nicely framed by a reasonable man. Only an unreasonable person would challenge such a reasonable post.

I'm sure today's Republicans would extend the Clean Air Act and propose the EPA, (Nixon), raise taxes when required, (Reagan, over and over again, Bush), grow the size of the Federal Government, (Nixon, Reagan, Bush, little Bush) and offer amnesty to undocumented immigrants, (Reagan).

No, today's Republicans are ready to drown government in a bathtub and the Democrat(ic) party's defense is to move farther and farther to the right. This country is bought and paid for by Wall Street and they expect their minions in both parties to do their bidding. While it's not one I support, Republicans have a plan. Democrats can't plan, they can't legislate, hell they can't even frame a debate as well as you tried to.

My only agenda in saying we could do without that debate was simply that the site is full of "your side is OBVIOUSLY the one ruining the country" rhetoric that never changes anyone's mind. I thought maybe more of that could be avoided...I should have known better.

I don't see much real difference in the two parties and so the debate about which side is winning is somewhat artificial to me. I just find the psychology interesting that everyone thinks the other side is winning and that things are worse because of it. The particulars of what politicians claim to believe in are largely irrelevant in my view.

A more trusting/optimistic/gullible person would believe for example that Obama's position on gay marriage "evolved" through thoughtful reasoning. A cynic like me would say it's more likely that he changed his views to a position he felt was more politically favorable at the time. If Goldman Sachs et al stood to lose billions by the legalization of same-sex marriage, I suspect he would not have "evolved" his views.

If we get a republican president who shrinks the size of the federal government, I'll be genuinely surprised. But for the record I won't count an involuntary shrinkage forced by the inability to sell more debt. Likewise if we get a democrat who voluntarily reduces the surveillance state, I'll be surprised.

[DSpencer]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

Spence, with brilliant political insights like these:



I should have known better than to challenge you, never mind cite the work of some half-assed Yale professor who's been studying this for a decade. You're right, it's because our pols are moderates.

You keep thinking those big thoughts, now.

What exactly are you challenging me on again? I guess it's simply impossible to ask a genuine question without it being seen as some kind of attack. Notice how I used the word "possibilities" as opposed to asserting that this is what I believe.

In any case, you keep insisting that only your views have merit and sarcastically deriding anyone who might disagree. I'll let you know when I'm persuaded.

[santafe2]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

My only agenda in saying we could do without that debate was simply that the site is full of "your side is OBVIOUSLY the one ruining the country" rhetoric that never changes anyone's mind. I thought maybe more of that could be avoided...I should have known better.

I don't see much real difference in the two parties and so the debate about which side is winning is somewhat artificial to me. I just find the psychology interesting that everyone thinks the other side is winning and that things are worse because of it. The particulars of what politicians claim to believe in are largely irrelevant in my view.

A more trusting/optimistic/gullible person would believe for example that Obama's position on gay marriage "evolved" through thoughtful reasoning. A cynic like me would say it's more likely that he changed his views to a position he felt was more politically favorable at the time. If Goldman Sachs et al stood to lose billions by the legalization of same-sex marriage, I suspect he would not have "evolved" his views.

If we get a republican president who shrinks the size of the federal government, I'll be genuinely surprised. But for the record I won't count an involuntary shrinkage forced by the inability to sell more debt. Likewise if we get a democrat who voluntarily reduces the surveillance state, I'll be surprised.

Other than your idea that there has been no real shift, I mostly agree with what you've said. For example we could blame Bush for Medicare Part-D but it's not like Obama has been beating the stump to quit giving billions to big Pharma for the last 6 years. We've turned into a kleptocracy; a rule by thieves. The only way to really get ahead in the US is to follow the money. That means being a business person and understanding areas of business where the government is going to spend money. For now, that looks like medicine. I'm not sure medicine will get better but we're sure going to spend a lot more on it over the next 10 years.

[vt]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

+1

[jk]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

both parties are bought and paid for. look at billy tauzin, elected first as a democrat then switching to the republican party, chairmain of the committee which wrote medicare part d including a provision FORBIDDING medicare from negotiating lower fees for drugs, then resigning his seat 3 months later to become president and ceo of the Phrma- the drug companies' lobbying outfit. if you think of corporate interests as essentially representing capital rather than labor in the distribution of revenues to different input factors, then congress has obviously been captured by the right. if you think of the repeal or limitation of the estate tax as an interest of the plutocracy, then the country has moved to the right. [6 of the 10 wealthiest americans INHERITED their money: they're not "job creators," they're royalty]. the share of profits allocated to capital and to the wealthiest is higher than ever; sounds like a victory for the right. union membership is at the lowest level in how long? the mass of amercans' incomes have been driven lower by the global labor arbitrage. the data go on and on. "fair and balanced" is b.s. let's call a spade a spade and not make a false equivalence in order to be "balanced."

[Raz]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

both parties are bought and paid for. look at billy tauzin, elected first as a democrat then switching to the republican party, chairmain of the committee which wrote medicare part d including a provision FORBIDDING medicare from negotiating lower fees for drugs, then resigning his seat 3 months later to become president and ceo of the Phrma- the drug companies' lobbying outfit. if you think of corporate interests as essentially representing capital rather than labor in the distribution of revenues to different input factors, then congress has obviously been captured by the right. if you think of the repeal or limitation of the estate tax as an interest of the plutocracy, then the country has moved to the right. [6 of the 10 wealthiest americans INHERITED their money: they're not "job creators," they're royalty]. the share of profits allocated to capital and to the wealthiest is higher than ever; sounds like a victory for the right. union membership is at the lowest level in how long? the mass of amercans' incomes have been driven lower by the global labor arbitrage. the data go on and on. "fair and balanced" is b.s. let's call a spade a spade and not make a false equivalence in order to be "balanced."

This all depends upon how you view the various changes.

If one looks at moral and social issues the country has moved Left over the past thirty years.
If one looks at the role and size of government the country has moved sideways to left over the past thirty years.
If one looks at corporatist capital vs. American labor as "conservative" vs. "liberal" then we have clearly moved to the "right" over the past thirty years.

I would describe it as the fruit of moral decadence ("I've got mine") and the crypto-criminalization of the government ("We bought ours").

I'm a Paleoconservative and know that I have biases, therefore I appreciate the needed "balance" of dcarrigg, because I am not so greedy and foolish to think this level of distortion in the current socioeconomic order is either just or sustainable. It most certainly is not.
But I don't believe it can be solved by simply raising taxes or the minimum wage - it's going to require a structural shift in the whole enchilada - the DOWNSIZING of FIRE among other things, regardless of the screaming of the pigs.

Where I differ with the Left AND the Neocons is their proposed solutions.

[Woodsman]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

What exactly are you challenging me on again? I guess it's simply impossible to ask a genuine question without it being seen as some kind of attack. Notice how I used the word "possibilities" as opposed to asserting that this is what I believe.

In any case, you keep insisting that only your views have merit and sarcastically deriding anyone who might disagree. I'll let you know when I'm persuaded.

Look at it this way. Say you're a big fan of muscle cars from the 60s and 70s. You know cars. You read and watch and talk cars every chance you get. You own a '70 Mustang Boss 429 with the six-pack intake and carburetors and you spend six months out of the year towing it to one car show to the next; you just dig it that much.

Now it is a matter of record that the Boss 429 is the pinnacle of first generation Ford Mustang muscle car perfection. There's damn near a riot at Barrett-Jackson every time one of these roll out on the auction floor because so few were ever sold. Objectively, it's as good as it got in the original Mustang. But cars being what they are, lots of folks have opinions. Some of those opinions are informed and others are pretty darn ignorant. Bantering about with folks who seem to know something is enjoyable, if sometimes a bit contentious. But you appreciate that these folks are aficionados and understand knowledgeable people will disagree.

What gets you are the folks who think they know something about cars just because the state has granted them a driver's license. To their mind, they figure it's all about the same - engine, four wheels, bumpers, what's the diff? All cars are about the same. One fellow insists that the '74 Mustang II hatchback is an all around better car because it is more fuel efficient, looks like a Mustang and must be good because Farrah Fawcett drove one in Charlie's Angels and he always though Farrah looked so hot in one. And then he says "there's no objective way of saying one is superior to the other and you'd have to be one of THOSE people to believe THAT anyway."

Grrrrr... Farrah drove a '76 Cobra II, you think to yourself, and so seeing how mired in ignorance the fellow is, you give him a few sources and factoids with the idea that he'll take a look for himself and see how silly his assertions are. You give him a technical manual, a history of the Mustangs and say based on speed, styling, rarity etc, the Boss kills the phony pony Mustang II and piss on the grave of Lee Iacocca for ever changing it!

Another fellow pipes in, "yeah, but the Mustang II was Motor Trend's car of the year." And another says, "yeah, and the Lima straight four is just as good as the Boss because it gets better mileage and is not as noisy and I can never tell the difference between the pony and the Pinto anyway." Still another says "the Boss can't be near as good because more Mustang IIs were sold than 429s were produced." The first fellow says, "I read the dust jacket of one of those books you told me about and I just can't believe it. They made those numbers up. And this stuff about "Holley 700 cfm 4 BBL carburetor, larger camshaft, 11.3:1 compression ratio and a special set of cylinder heads" sounds fishy to me. Who's Holley?"

You get the picture?

I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind, Spence but I apologize for being such a jerk. I was wrong to allow myself to indulge in cheap cruelty. I'm embarrassed by it and I'm sorry I did it, Spence. I was an @sshole here. Earlier someone said they were tired of the fight and I seem to be running out of steam myself. It's no excuse for the dickishness and has no bearing on the facts either way, but it's where my head was at the time.

[DSpencer]

Re: Public Pension Millionaires

Other than your idea that there has been no real shift, I mostly agree with what you've said. For example we could blame Bush for Medicare Part-D but it's not like Obama has been beating the stump to quit giving billions to big Pharma for the last 6 years. We've turned into a kleptocracy; a rule by thieves. The only way to really get ahead in the US is to follow the money. That means being a business person and understanding areas of business where the government is going to spend money. For now, that looks like medicine. I'm not sure medicine will get better but we're sure going to spend a lot more on it over the next 10 years.

Just to be clear, I wasn't claiming that there has been no real shift. I just figured it was obvious that most partisan members clearly thought that they were right and the other side was wrong and that simply continuing that endless debate wasn't going to be interesting.

Your Medicare Part-D example is probably the perfect example of why I think there is a disconnect. A right wing person would likely say that Bush setting up a big federal government social welfare program is just the kind thing that makes him a liberal (or more/too liberal). I do think that anyone who believes crony capitalism is isolated to one party is a fool.