The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
Kevin, not just a man, a white man. Of course he'd succeed - he's part of the conspiracy.
And he knows the handshake.
Leaving aside Ehrenreich's dishonesty, which is well documented, there's this as well: Her little experiment in low-wage capitalism was insincere. It was buttressed by her earlier status as a well-to-do writer and public figure; she didn't need to feel the pressures a low-wage market entrant would feel in their full amplitude. In other words, she had no incentive to "better herself."
Mr. Shepard's example is a better one, but we must also take into consideration the possibility that Mr. Shepard is an individual of unusual ability and drive. Individual differences do matter, which is why we differentiate anecdotes from systematically gathered data.
I have a young friend, who goes by the moniker Fetiche on the Web, who can tell an even more impressive and inspiring tale than Mr. Shepard. At age 15, she escaped Vietnam by floating to Hong Kong on a raft. Less than a year later she was granted entry into the United States. Today, 17 years later, she's a successful businesswoman with an annual income that grazes $300,000 per year. But if you were to meet her, you'd know at once that she's world class in every way: intelligence, ambition, determination, insight, energy, perseverance, and confidence. Not exactly a specimen from the axis of the Bell Curve!
All that having been said, the best utilitarian case against welfarism is indeed the harm it does to the incentive structures of the poor and the less-than-well-off...and so is the best moral case. What warrant have we, the well-to-do, to interfere in the lives of those less well endowed with wealth or ability, just because it salves our hypersensitive consciences and relieves us of the burden of unearned guilt? And how does having government, the institution with the legal privilege of coercing private parties, do it make it any more acceptable?
I think I will respond to this post as well as your bullet points about Obama's economic plan here as they seem to tie together.
Generally, I think most of you have misunderstood the message of Democrats regarding the economy. It's not surprising that you do considering that you believe people like Hugh Hewitt, bought and sold by the people who have the most to lose with any sort of change to the system. Ironically, both of you are saying the same thing about government interference.
The Democrats say that the Republicans interfere by allowing companies dictate, through their stoolies in Congress and the White House, who gets to thrive in the free market and who doesn't. I think this is true, not just nationally, but on a state level. Example: my friend Rick has started a green energy small business. Our governor, a Republican, passed several laws making it virtually impossible for him to compete with those companies that would lose money should Rick's business be allowed to flourish. This problem is an issue all over the country, which is part of the point of this post.
People aren't "free" in the free market, Kevin. Ironically, you are right in the sense that we are becoming like Communists...Communist China, that is, who allows only certain businesses, aligned with the goverment, to flourish.
A plan like Obama's would open up the market and actually ecnourage more businesses and people to make more money. I submit that this is the reason why the propaganda machine is in overload against these ideas: too many people sharing the wealth in a truly free market. Oh no! Not that! Grover Norquist's blood pressure is steadily climbing...
You first point in refuting Obamas plan was the GOP website link-The Obama Spendometer. Setting aside the hilarity of these guys criticizing spending, if we switch what we are spending in Iraq to infrastructure, something that is sorely needed, we won't have to pay any more than we are now.
"How will he achieve this wonderous promise?"
I think we can all agree that simplifying the tax system is of paramount importance. He might not have a magic wand but at least he is going to try.
"fight him tooth-and-nail over it"
Obama's plan is voluntary (unlike Hillary's)so I guess I'm not sure why you would be fighting him over it.
"Those predatory BASTARDS"
Another great example of how the conservative ideology has failed. There needed to be some government oversight here and look what happened when the free market was devoid of it. Do you think our economy is better or worse because of it?
I find it odd that Obama's plan to create green jobs is also met with derisive snorts. Wouldn't we all like more jobs here at home instead of outsourced abroad? Don't we want America to be competitive in the world? I, for one, would like to see us get off our couches, put down the bag of Cheetos and innovate and create again. The question for all of you is....will you allow that to happen if a liberal thinks of it?
As is her wont, Tamara nailed it right on one day: "There's money out there to be had, and new wealth just waiting to be created, but it requires you to actually set the remote control down and go do something to make it; it's not just going to find its way to your mailbox all by itself." It might not be politically correct to say as much, but if you feel like you have to work two jobs to support your lifestyle and you don't want to do that, then why not just get up off your tail and better yourself? I realize some aren't able to do that for whatever reason, but I'd say that many if not most of those folks are where they are due to the choices they made in life and it seems more than a little presumptuous of the likes of Barbara Ehrenreich to rail against the middle class -- not to mention an enraging insult to the values that made America the great nation it is.
One immediate response comes to the fore:
It's not surprising that you do considering that you believe people like Hugh Hewitt...
Screw Hewitt. Listen to Michele Obama's words - not carried by any other media outlet that I've seen or heard.
"Obama is the only candidate running" that can heal our souls? I wasn't aware that "healing souls" was in the job description of the office of President.
Another: The Democrats say that the Republicans interfere by allowing companies dictate, through their stoolies in Congress and the White House, who gets to thrive in the free market and who doesn't. I think this is true, not just nationally, but on a state level.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Democrats have done precisely the same thing. This is what neither I nor any of my other readers can understand about you, Markadelphia. You acknowledge that government can be and has been manipulated by "corporate interests," but you seem insistent that it's only the Republicans who have marched to their tune. You insist that "if the right people are in charge" this will end, but ignore all historical evidence that says otherwise.
You ignore Lord Acton's admonition that "Power corrupts."
People aren't "free" in the free market, Kevin.
People aren't "free" anywhere, Markadelphia, (that's a condition known as "the state of nature") but they have much more freedom here than pretty much anywhere else in the world. What I advocate is increasing that freedom by reducing the influence government has upon them, both directly and indirectly. What you advocate is increasing government power in some bizarre belief that more government interference, regulation, and oversight will somehow free people.
But then, you're an "idealist without illusions."
Markadelphia, I do have to point out perhaps the stupidest thing you've yet said. Your Republican governor does not MAKE laws. Your legislature does, and I'll bet it is run by Democrats. I seriously can't believe that someone who is supposed to be a teacher can be that fundamentally ignorant about his govt.
As for your other partisan foolishness, Kevin covered that more than adequately.
45 Democrat senators, 22 Republican
85 Democrat House Reps, 48 Republican
But it's all the governor's fault.
"But it's all the governor's fault."
In the same manner that Obama's gonna do stuff once he's President.
In the same manner that Obama's gonna do stuff once he's President.
On top of which, his supporters get all indignant when this cult of personality is noted.
"why not just get up off your tail and better yourself?"
This is exactly Obama's message...if you choose to listen. I think he said, "Put down your video game controllers and go out and do something!"
"Listen to Michele Obama's words"
Well, I saw those speeches on Larry King. And her words were edited by Hewitt.
"What you advocate is increasing government power in some bizarre belief.."
No, that's not what I am advocating. And neither is Obama.
"I'll bet it is run by Democrats"
Well, it is now but not when the laws were passed. The Republicans had a majority when these laws were passed. And you are aware that governors have people they work with in the legislature to craft bills they like, right?
So, Markadelphia, how is Obama going to heal our souls?
Well, it is now but not when the laws were passed. The Republicans had a majority when these laws were passed.
Markadelphia, the DFL has been the majority in the State Senate since 1973.
Are you really THAT stupid? Or, do you think WE are that stupid?
Kevin, I'll be sending you a bill for cleaning the lemonade out of my keyboard and off my monitor.
Keep throwing those slow, hanging curveballs.... ;)
Juris, what exactly do you think happens when someone becomes governor? Roll over and do the bidding of their state congress? The Republicans ran the show here with a majority in the House and tons of help from Mr Conservative Do Nothing Ideology up until 2004.
Even with the majority they currently enjoy, the Democrats can't accomplish much of anything, least of all pass any kind of green legislation.
"how is Obama going to heal our souls?"
The answer to that question may have to be a long post on my blog. I really need to think about that one.
Juris, what exactly do you think happens when someone becomes governor? Roll over and do the bidding of their state congress?
That's pretty much what "Ah-nold" has done in CA.
As I recall, Ventura had some massive battles with your state legislators - not that he won them.
Anyway, why don't you just admit you were wrong? Aren't you big enough to do that?
So are they poor because they can't get an education?
Not true. Anyone that says so is lying. The education is THERE, you just have to go get it.
Especially if you're genuinely poor, there are ways to get college or trade school paid for no matter what your age. Two years of trade school and you can get a basic CNC machinist's position paying two or three times minimum wage.
Secretarial positions, legal secretary positions, etc etc. All exist and are accessible with two years of additional schooling. You just have to get up off the couch, put down the TV remote, and do it. Instead, the liberals believe we should liberate people from the need to work and prop them up with permanent lifetime unemployment like in the more socialist countries in Europe.
Mark, we snort with derision at the idea that a liberal wants to FORCE people to be innovative. Americans aren't doing enough to compete, so we should... wait for it... wait for it...
...force the ones who ARE competing to pay for people who...
...will be funded by government, and therefore won't have to?
Yep. We snort with derision when a liberal suggests that sort of "innovation" in the process of innovation. Why? Because we have halfway functional brains.
Incidentally, a corporation is nothing but an economic institution owned and run by a group of people. Fundamentally, the post office is a corporation - in its case, functionally owned by upper management. Exactly HOW would it be different for government to "create" jobs (read: create/fund corporations) in the name of a liberal agenda than it is for government to "protect" jobs (read: protect oil industry, to name a popular target) in the name of a "conservative" agenda?
You so funny. You should do your spiels as stand-up.
Just to note...
I have been one of the "working poor" all my adult life. Why? because there are too many things in the corporate power structure that I find personally offensive. I dislike the politics. My tendency to be more supportive of the *customer's* needs than the needs of the sales department makes me "not a team player".
Now, ya wanna take a wild guess who I blame for this?
ME, that's who. Nobody else.
The salesmen are trying to make a living, as are the people in management. The stockholders are trying to get a decent return on their investment. Are some of them less than ethical? Certainly. Does it follow that *all* businesses are unethical? Absolutely not.
I am not some poor naive waif, utterly ignorant of human nature. I KNEW what to expect when I went looking for work, EVERY time I have done so. Have you ever seen someone, instead of doing their job *correctly*, fudge things and half-ass things because it was 5 minutes til 5 and they were in a hurry to get done and go home? When you did, did you try to get them fired for incompetence? No? Then you are part of the problem, as most of what is wrong with ANY large organization is simply that, writ large and multiplied by the thousands of people working there every day.
Putting another layer of thousands of people to provide "oversight" on top of such an organization is worse than useless. It only multiplies the problem, as those thousands will half-ass things at 5 minutes til 5 themselves. Worse still, if those who provide oversight are members of a government agency funded by taxes, they have no customers that must ultimately be satisfied in order to keep getting a paycheck. They only have to please their own chain of command. That is the fundamental flaw of ANY organization funded by taxes, that in the long run they become more concerned about *appearing* to work hard than actually GETTING results.
But even if they all tried to get results, and dedicated their lives to such, it would still be hopeless. Human nature may be subject to change, but if so it changes very slowly. It sure as hell can't be changed by governmental fiat, and to attempt it is wishful thinking at its worst.
I don't have a nice house. I don't have a nice car. I don't have a new computer. I don't own a TV at all. I don't have enough slack in my budget to live the lifestyle most people in New York or L.A. would think of as *minimum*.
That is a price I CHOSE to pay when I CHOSE what I was and was not willing to put up with in my work environment.
And no Mark, I am not going to vote for Obama. I'll be damned if I'm willing to pay for the foolishness and childishness of others. I have enough trouble paying for my OWN foolishness and childishness, thanks.
"my friend Rick has started a green energy small business. ...several laws making it virtually impossible for him to compete with those companies that would lose money should Rick's business be allowed to flourish."
Either you take the libertarian position - that politicians and government bureaucrats shouldn't have the power to pass such laws - or you are just arguing about their choice of winners and losers.
Secondly, what sort of "green energy"? Most green energy projects (wind and solar electricity or corn to ethanol fuel) produce power or fuel at a cost much higher than the market price and make a profit, if at all, from government subsidies - meaning that they're already in the business of persuading politicians to take our money and give it to them. Why should I sympathize because someone in that business was outbid for the politicians' votes?
"why don't you just admit you were wrong? Aren't you big enough to do that?"
Because I'm not wrong. I will when I admit it and have in the past. Do you live in Minnesota? Do you have a friend who is starting a green energy business? Did he show you how Minnesota laws are geared to decrease competition and maintain status quo?
"I'm willing to pay for the foolishness and childishness of others"
Does that include corporate welfare as well as our current president?
I will when I admit it and have in the past.
Note to others:
That's not to say if he's absolutely proven wrong that Mark will admit it.
Two very different statements.
Did he show you how Minnesota laws are geared to decrease competition and maintain status quo?
We've spent the better part of a forsaken YEAR trying to get you to understand that. Now you show up and expect to surprise us with that revelation?
No, shit, Sherlock.
That's what all regulations do. That's the point of them.
And we've tried to explain to you that no, you don't get to pick and choose which regulations do that - they all do.
So, since you're, you know, all big on apologizing when you're wrong, you can start here, and then start going back through those prior threads where you ran away from the argument when you got farther and farther from reality.....
Because I'm not wrong.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick - the DFL [you do know who THEY are don't you Mark?] has been in power in the State Senate for 35 years. Pawlenty's only been governor 5 years. How f***ing WRONG can you be before you admit it?
Have you ANY idea how pathetic and ridiculous you are being?
Do you have any idea how ignorant you sound?
In other words: "No."
you mean the stuff that takes more energy to create than it puts out, ends up putting toxic chemicals into the environment, or needs to be supplemented with highly polluting gas turbines when it isn't sunny or windy? That 'green' energy?
Markadelphia: "Because I'm not wrong. I will when I admit it and have in the past."
I have only ever seen you admit that you were wrong once and only once. That was when you made a claim about what the Bible says, something easily confirmed by reading the words on the page. Even then you squirmed like a two year old being fed cod liver oil FOR DAYS, requiring hours and hours of work on my part to shut down every excuse you could dredge up, up to, and including, listing the dictionary definitions of words you were trying to dodge.
Requiring the logical equivalent of a gun to the head when all that was required was a simple reading of what is on the page does not demonstrate a willingness to recognize and admit that you're wrong, rather it demonstrates a stubbornness and inflexibility that makes even the most obstinate donkey seem like an excited puppy trying to earn a treat.
And you wonder why there is such a gap between us…
Something that I find to be very instructive is the way that Markadelphia transformed the following quote to suit his needs.
"I'll be damned if I'm willing to pay for the foolishness and childishness of others." -- Sam
"'I'm willing to pay for the foolishness and childishness of others'
Does that include corporate welfare as well as our current president?" -- Markadelphia
So Markadelphia, are you willing to admit that your butchery of that quote presents a 180 from the original?
By the way, what kind of markup does HaloScan accept for comments?
By the way, what kind of markup does HaloScan accept for comments?
A few. [i],[b],[a] all work (replace the brackets with < and > )
It does not handle [blockquote] well, however, and it limits the number of links for spam filtering reasons.
"In other words: "No."
Well, Kevin, how well do you think the Democratically controlled Congress is with President Bush?
"you wonder why there is such a gap between us"
Well, there's a gap between us, Ed, because you think that liberals are always wrong and there is no wavering from that because of...science and history!!!
What would you say if I told you that I could prove to all of you, using scientific method, that some conservative beliefs are, in fact, classic psychological fallacies?
I'd wonder if your definition of "conservative beliefs" wasn't as flawed as most of your arguments.
Because so far, every time you state "conservatives all believe X!" you've been wrong.
Not to mention the fact that most of the people commenting here aren't "conservatives" - we're libertarians (small "L").
Markadelphia: "What would you say if I told you that I could prove to all of you, using scientific method, that some conservative beliefs are, in fact, classic psychological fallacies?"
I say that seeing you attempt such an exercise would be… fascinating.
I read that and in my mind's ear it was Spock saying it.
Mark wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it sat on his head and sang opera while on fire.
I hardly dare to ask what "classic psychological fallacies" are. Logical fallacies Mark spews in each comment with a studied grace that can only emanate from the well indoctrinated of academia.
Ah, well now that the gauntlet has been thrown down...
Oh, and Ed, anytime you want to debate literal translations of the Bible, I would be overjoyed beyond belief. In fact, I dare say that I might skip (or virtually skip) to said debate :)
I say that seeing you attempt such an exercise would be… fascinating.
Oh, he has already. (Let me pick out the best parts.)
Just when you thought the conservative movement in this country couldn't descend any further into mental and emotional psychosis, they seem to have a found yet another level of dementia.
1. National Defense. The United States is always right in everything we do in the world, everyone else is wrong, we never start anything, we are perfectly innocent, and the only way to solve a problem is to blow it up and kill people.
3. Health Care. Socialized Medecine is directly from Satan's own pit of fire. If people can't afford to buy health care, fuck em. They should be dead anyway.
6. Supreme Court. Only judges who see things our way are good. Otherwise they are all liberal judges who legislate from the bench. (keyword to beat incessantly into the ground: ACTIVIST JUDGES)
7. Immigration. Fuck you, get out of our country.
8. Campaign Finance Reform. Also the work of Satan. Churches should be allowed to contribute and control any campaign they want.
10. Gay Marriage. All faggots should be treated like animals and burn in hell. What's that? You think I am a bigot and intolerant? How dare you criticized my personal beliefs! Wah!!!!!!!!!!
11. Education. We must stop the teaching of all things that don't adhere to our platform. They are poisoning our children's minds. Seig Heil!
12. The Media is all liberal and against us at all times. In fact anyone who doesn't completely agree with us is, in fact, a minion of Lucifer.
If you ask me, it is the Republicans who should be worried. They have allowed people with the emotional and mental maturity of an 8 year old boy run their party and look how undeniably fucked up our country is as a result of their moronic ideology.
At the end of the day, they hate John McCain because, as with all of the rest of the people that they slime, he is better than them and they know their time is just about over. (*Sigh) Such a shame......
The people are speaking and they love John McCain.
Quite the ... scientific method there.
Yeah, all that coming from the guy who says that conservatives misunderstand what liberals believe.
Ah, Unix, the above that you have quoted was an opinion piece and in no way, shape, or form the scientific method.
Now the link I put in my previous comment is based on science. So what do you think?
I know that study was utterly gutted, discredited, discounted, and laughed at within 24 hours of hitting the street. (College students being the only subjects, self-described college students, no less, with no verification are only the start of the problems with that being anywhere near a "scientific" survey.)
Your talismanic brandishing of it, without addressing it's obvious failures, and accepting it's "conclusions" is far more telling of your mental state than the supposed subjects.
It was sheer partisan politics dressed up as science and ....
Oh. I see your problem distinguishing it now.
"study was utterly gutted, discredited, discounted..."
There have been literally dozens of experiments done like this. Check the wikipedia link on my site. I used that one as a simple example.
Remember, too, that all of us fall into the FAE trap at one time or another. It just depends on what degree you let yourself slide and my point is that many conservatives do not pay enough attention to the situation. There needs to be a balance. There always does.
I used that one as a simple example.
You used that one as a simple example because you didn't know how laughable it was.
You can't even be honest with us for that much.
You saw the study, rushed to hold it up as an icon, and didn't understand why it undermined your case rather than supported it.
Again, you're just Cargo Culting. You claimed that study as objective, scientific proof, now you say well, no, not THAT one, but one I didn't reference!
If you weren't - you wouldn't have used it.
You can't even be honest with us for that much.
This surprises you coming from someone who can't admit that the DFL has run the Minnesota State Senate for over 3 decades?
I know why he doesn't post in the daylight - he'd turn to stone.
Juris, why don't share with all of us the last time Minnesota had a Democratic governor? Then we can all see how ignorant your comment is.
Why do you keep "forgetting" that the governor is not the one who makes laws? He can only sign bills passed by the DFC controlled legislative branch. (Here's this refusal to admit you're wrong again.)
BTW… Your "scientific proof" was just as fascinating as I expected; in the same way that train wrecks are fascinating. More to come as I recover from the flu.
Get better, Ed. I cherish our discussions. I will send healing vibes your way....
Well, the last "Democrat" would be Winfield Hammond in 1915. More recently would be the Democrat-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Rudy Perpich, who left office in 1991. Famously sued the U.S. govt over control of the 'militia' (i.e. National Guard). And as Democrats often do, he lost. After Perpich you had a Republican (Carlson), an Independent (Ventura) and another Republican, Pawlenty.
Do you think this is difficult Mark? It's really sad that you claim to be a teacher but can't admit you're wrong. Such a terrible example for your students.
You wanted to know if "not wanting to pay for others' childishness and foolishness includes not paying for 'corporate welfare'"? Absolutely. I don't think ANYONE should be given a tax break. Not big companies, not churches, not "not for profit" organization, NO ONE. Every single one, without exception, ends up being used as a way for people to hide their money from the tax man. A way for people to exercise economic power without the hobbling of that power taxation represents. A way to try to get something for nothing.
However, you can probably take it as given that I don't see "corporate welfare" in the same light as you.
As an example, take Exxon-Mobil. Exxon-Mobil pays about 27 *billion* a year in taxes, right around 41% of its net profits. This is roughly equal to the TOTAL taxes paid by the bottom 50% of wage earners, who average 3%. Now personally, I think that taxes *should* be payment for services rendered, as in road taxes, etc. So in theory, Exxon-Mobil SHOULD be using government services about 12 - 13 times as much as HALF THE WORKING CITIZENRY OF THE US COMBINED, right?
Do ya think the folks at Exxon-Mobil feel like they're getting good value for their money, Mark? Who is it that's REALLY on welfare in this equation?
To Exxon-Mobil, paying taxes is a business expense, just part of the cost of doing business. Those expenses are passed on to their customers in the form of higher prices. Thus Exxon-Mobil's customers pay those taxes, as they can't pass them on any further.
Sam, the tax system needs to be radically changed. Believe it or not, I like some of the ideas that Ron Paul has. Even Obama has talked about this.
At the end of the day, though, I think it has been more or less proven that trickle down economics does not work.
Thus the .gov must redistribute wealth.
There... you... go... again...
Drawing obvious conclusions, when you know that's not what he'd want to say!
Should it be the government? I don't know. There definitely needs to be more oversight than there is now and less than there is in Cuba...how's that for an answer?
You can start by defining "oversight."
Please nail that term down so we don't have another "language manipulation" diversion.
Cuba doesn't "oversee" the economy. It controls it absolutely within its borders and the limitations of its actual powers to affect money flow.
I think it's a pretty strong statement to say that "it has been more or less proven that trickle down economics does not work." Hell, I think it would be a pretty strong statement to say that trickle down economics ever got TRIED.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong... in the last 50 years there hasn't been ANY idea on how to improve the economy that has been allowed to work long enough to actually *see* what its effects are, has there? Has there been even ONE idea for the economy that has been in place for more than one year without various politicians trying to "fix" it before they had any real-world indicators to tell them if it was actually broken? I can't claim to know.
One thing I DO know though, because I've seen it in action: Those who commonly make news by griping about "the rich not paying their fair share" are without exception obscenely wealthy themselves, and I have never once seen a single one of them volunteering to pay more than the BARE MINIMUM they had to. Yes I know, John Kerry said in a debate that he'd be fine with being taxed more. And I think you can safely assume that his tax lawyers had already had all the nice little loopholes worked out, too. Yes I know, Oprah gives away cars on her TV show. And if she claims it as a business expense, which tax laws allow her to do, SHE doesn't buy those cars, YOU AND I do.
Now you tell me: If Oprah had failed to claim deductions for all those millions of dollars of stuff she gave away last year, thus passing the cost of said stuff on to the taxpayer, would the news media be silent on the subject?
Please understand, I'm not specifically dissing Oprah, she's just a convenient example. The point I'm making is that, just like Al Gore and global warming, those who preach the "tax the rich more" sermon make it ABUNDANTLY clear that they have no intention of following the rules they set forth THEMSELVES. Given that, I don't see any reason why normal, everyday workin folks like you and I should believe it to be anything other than just another scam.
"It controls it absolutely"
OK, that is not what I want. And that is not what Obama wants either. I'd like to see a return to "good" capitalism and not the oligarchy we have now.
Sam, no one is saying the rich can't be rich...at least no one sane. I think CEOs should make more money than the grunts in the factory...just not 500 times more. CEOS who break the law should not be paid 1.1 billion (or 468 million) dollars for exit compensation
I'd like to see a return to "good" capitalism and not the oligarchy we have now.
Okay, I'll bite. When was this era of "good" capitalism to which you wish to return?
I would say the post war boom up until Reagan took office. After that, the rot began to set in, although the early 60s saw the rise of the military industrial complex.
An example of a good capitalist would be George Romney, founder of American Motors and father of Mitt.
I would say the post war boom up until Reagan took office.
There was hardly a continuous post WWII boom up to 1980. So let's look at the segments.
Post WWII through 1960. The U.S. economy dominated the world - largely because it was the one undamaged one emerging from the war. Management and labor both got fat, with neither worrying about investing for the future. We'll see the results of that shortly.
1960-74. Start with JFK's TAX CUT - all boats rise on the same tide. Followed by LBJ's guns-and-butter and end with Nixon's wage and price freeze. Some golden age there. Oh, Mark - think about how the military-industrial complex florished during Viet Nam. As an aside, near the end of this era you get the advent of the free agent system in pro sports - and athletes pay will go like executive salaries, from 10-20 times the average man's pay to 100s of times.
1974-80. Rising unemployment AND inflation - a previously thought impossible combination in economics. Theory was utterly befuddled, as were millions of people - remember the "misery index"?
I can't say I'm surprised you chose this time frame - it fits with your general ignorance and ideological blindness.
"1974-80. Rising unemployment AND inflation - a previously thought impossible combination in economics. Theory was utterly befuddled, as were millions of people - remember the "misery index"?"
Ah, the legacy of Jimmah Cahtah, the Prezdet from '77 to '81. I remember the period well. A co-worker bought a house then with a 30-year 15 1/2% mortgage. During Reagan's administration, inflation and interest rates came down right smartly, so he refinanced every year for about six years thereafter and finally got it down to a reasonable rate. I missed that ride, buying in '76 and trading up in '84.
I remember, In 1976, a co-worker who was gung-ho, four-square, and [insert cliché here] for ol' Bubba. When asked why, her stock answer, carefully memorized, was, "'Cause he's for the little guy (blink, blink)." When asked what that meant, she was always speechless. She had no idea what it meant, but, by golly, she believed it. She was the second most utterly clueless person I have ever discussed anything with.
I changed jobs in '78 and never saw her again. Damn, but I wish I could have asked her what she thought of him in '80.
When asked what that meant, she was always speechless.
Kind of like that pro-Obama State Senator that Chris Matthews nailed?
That was priceless.
The same Chris Matthews who is an evil liberal?
The same Chris Matthews who is an evil liberal?
You'll note that Hillary is also a liberal? Just because Matthews smacks another liberal down, doesn't mean he isn't one. (The "evil" part is redundant. ;) )
The infighting among the liberals is quite fascinating.
For that matter, the infighting among the conservatives is, too.
Mark, I just enjoy those rare occasions when a journalist actually does what he is supposed to do - catch a politician in his/her most blatent stupidity.
I could've answered the question - at least as far as Obama cosponsoring the transparent govt spending law with Sen. Coburn -- and you want to talk about the ODD couple! But the moron from Texas was TOTALLY stumped. Not that I would've expected any better from my OWN state senator.