The Many Faces of US Politics...

[muppet]

"Banks can always be shorted. They aren't necessarily winners."

If the conspiracy is always by the 1%, and always for the 1%, then how can they ever lose?

it's like rock paper scissors
the people kill the power of the 1%
And it usually happens when they own more than 40% of everything
The French revolution happened at a time economically similar to now.

The answer to 'why does the 1% keeps screwing us?' can't possibly be 'because there is going to be a revolution'.

why does a dog lick his bollocks?
Why did AIB keep writing dud mortgages?
Why do things fall apart?
Why do fools fall in love?

It doesnt have to be a revolution btw. Bevan was elected. You just need enough people who say stop. The ECB and the Fed have zero credibility but they are still respected. It is called social magic.
The Irish Times was interesting in 2010 when it lookrd as though serious reform might happen. There were loads of articles about how poor the system is. They wouldnt be published now.

Hang on.

You keep telling us it is all about the 1% and their neoliberalism conspiracy to impoverish us.

And you consistently tell us it will all end, referencing, for example, the French Revolution.

When asked a direct question all you give is riddles.

But I will keep trying.

"It doesnt have to be a revolution btw." Ok, firstly if there hasn't been a revolution in the likes of Greece and Argentina then there isn't going to be one anywhere else. People with something to lose don't typically revolt. So if it isn't revolution, what has a Welsh politician who has been dead for 66 years have to do with Anglo & The Fed etc??

[seafoid]

"Banks can always be shorted. They aren't necessarily winners."

If the conspiracy is always by the 1%, and always for the 1%, then how can they ever lose?

it's like rock paper scissors
the people kill the power of the 1%
And it usually happens when they own more than 40% of everything
The French revolution happened at a time economically similar to now.

The answer to 'why does the 1% keeps screwing us?' can't possibly be 'because there is going to be a revolution'.

why does a dog lick his bollocks?
Why did AIB keep writing dud mortgages?
Why do things fall apart?
Why do fools fall in love?

It doesnt have to be a revolution btw. Bevan was elected. You just need enough people who say stop. The ECB and the Fed have zero credibility but they are still respected. It is called social magic.
The Irish Times was interesting in 2010 when it lookrd as though serious reform might happen. There were loads of articles about how poor the system is. They wouldnt be published now.

Hang on.

You keep telling us it is all about the 1% and their neoliberalism conspiracy to impoverish us.

And you consistently tell us it will all end, referencing, for example, the French Revolution.

When asked a direct question all you give is riddles.

But I will keep trying.

"It doesnt have to be a revolution btw." Ok, firstly if there hasn't been a revolution in the likes of Greece and Argentina then there isn't going to be one anywhere else. People with something to lose don't typically revolt. So if it isn't revolution, what has a Welsh politician who has been dead for 66 years have to do with Anglo & The Fed etc??

it is not hard,  muppet. The only thing that ever put smacht on the 1% is political power. Bevan was elected at the end of the last cycle with a mandate of change. OECD debt to gdp ratios were similar to now and via financial repression over 15 years the level.was halved. Equities went nowhere for a decade. In order for change to happen you need enough people who want something better. Doesnt have to be a revolution. The question now is do we need a financial meltdown first.

[muppet]

There may be another financial meltdown. In fact I posted links for a few years of people who have predicted a dollar crash. I think something has to give with the US debt mountain, but I am not smart enough to figure out how it will manifest itself.

I think the same regarding derivatives, and again I wouldn't pretend to have a clue what will happen there when the whole thing concertinas in on itself.

You keep referencing revolution and left wing politicians and politics, well I just don't see that happening in the West. Has there ever been a revolution whereby the 1% wasn't simply replaced by the neo-1%? You'll have to excuse me if I pronounce my distaste for robbing Vladimir to pay Josef. I see no good in it and plenty of downside.

[whitey]

I know well who Billy Bulger is, having lived in MA between 96-98 - and he was obviously a corrupt politician, with a very close family connection to organized crime. Extrapolating from his corruption that Republicans in most states are better at managing finances then careerist Dems is bizarre on all levels.

Control of the redistricting process has left Republicans in the majority in legislatures all over the States and in congress. I'm not saying that Dems didn't gerrymander the districts when they had control, it's just that the GOP are doing it on a far bigger and more organized scale - couple that with blatantly racist voter registration laws in many states to combat a non-existent threat (voter fraud) and you have a system guaranteed to produce a few aberrations like 3 Republican governors in 3 ostensibly blue states.

Still doesn't explain your original point - which my original response rebutted.

You didn't rebut anything....you threw up some ridiculous article chronicling the economic woes of perennially poor states with no significant tax base or industry. Some are rural states with minuscule populations and GDP s that are statistically insignificant

Then you attempted to draw an unbroken line between these states economies and the fact some of them have Republican governors.

It wasn't an article - it was series of independent reports detailing economic performance across 7 metrics in each state which is then collated into an average - and you can reference them for any time period you want. The reason some of these states have no significant tax base is because it is Republican policy to reduce the size of government and reduce taxes - with predictable results as in Kansas and Louisiana.

Whereas you reference partisan right wing websites and one particular scandal in your home state and then attempt to draw an unbroken line between them and the belief that Republicans in many states manage finances better than careerist Democrats.

I'll let others be the judge as to whose sources are more factual.

Facts of all persuasions are open to interpreation.....yours are and mine are.

Heres a Chicago Tribune editorial showing that not everything is as black and white as we would like to believe

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-rauner-madigan-cullerton-unions-turnaround-edit-0410-jm-20160408-story.html

[omaghjoe]

Whitey this is a load of balls, you dont like Sanders because he's a leftie, at the root of it you probably value opportunity more than equality, which is fine, Im cool with that.

But this side show you and tiger have got going is irrelevant to that point, do you really think stats about different states and the length of politicians careers prove a thing about the way Sanders would govern? Its a complete nonsense red herring

[seafoid]

There may be another financial meltdown. In fact I posted links for a few years of people who have predicted a dollar crash. I think something has to give with the US debt mountain, but I am not smart enough to figure out how it will manifest itself.

I think the same regarding derivatives, and again I wouldn't pretend to have a clue what will happen there when the whole thing concertinas in on itself.

You keep referencing revolution and left wing politicians and politics, well I just don't see that happening in the West. Has there ever been a revolution whereby the 1% wasn't simply replaced by the neo-1%? You'll have to excuse me if I pronounce my distaste for robbing Vladimir to pay Josef. I see no good in it and plenty of downside.

Brideshead revisited covers the last time there was a transfer of economic power from the rich to the rest.

In US, presidents like Roosevelt and McKinley implemented policies that promoted growth rather than the interests of debt holders. It always breaks down at some point

If the money was spread around a bit better growth would be no hassle.
the key thing in the US is that workers haven't had pay linked to productivity improvements for over 30 years.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/15/40-years-of-economic-policy-in-one-chart

https://www.pimco.com/insights/economic-and-market-commentary/investment-outlook/six-packin
It is obvious that "capital" as opposed to "labor" – moving from 8 to 13% of GNI over the past three or even 30 years – has been the cyclical and secular champion. Why one or the other should be policy and politically advantaged is not commonsensically clear. Granted, the return on capital as opposed to the return to labor should logically be higher if only to encourage savings. But once an historical midpoint or range has been established, a relative equilibrium should be observed. Even conservatives must acknowledge that return on capital investment, and the liquid stocks and bonds that mimic it, are ultimately dependent on returns to labor in the form of jobs and real wage gains. If Main Street is unemployed and undercompensated, capital can only travel so far down Prosperity Road.

[Gmac]

Violent protests again last night in San jose by anti trump protesters who carry Mexican flags and burn U.S. flags ,attack people who are going to rally and attack police and all the while the mayor of San jose blames trump for the violence on his own police force. Then you have some unreal dumbasses with trump face in a hitler flag and they are waving la raza flags .

[whitey]

Whitey this is a load of balls, you dont like Sanders because he's a leftie, at the root of it you probably value opportunity more than equality, which is fine, Im cool with that.

But this side show you and tiger have got going is irrelevant to that point, do you really think stats about different states and the length of politicians careers prove a thing about the way Sanders would govern? Its a complete nonsense red herring

Eh....it's not irrelevant

A multitude of posters on here cant understand why anyone other than a gizziolionaire could support the Republicans.

If your a private sector middle income earner living in a blue state that's been bankrupted by career politicians, you'll figure it out pretty quickly

[seafoid]

38000 new jobs in May vs 160000 expected. The US economy is banjaxed

[heganboy]

If your a private sector middle income earner living in a blue state that's been bankrupted by career politicians, you'll figure it out pretty quickly

And which states are those, the bankrupted ones? I missed that news. Was it recent?

Why is it that unqualified uneducated paid to push a one sided agenda entertainers are credible sources of information, but scientists, historians, economists and statisticians are not?

Why is it that voters do not look after their own best interests?

Blue Peter badge for the best answers on a post card to the usual address

[heganboy]

Just in case the sarcasm wasn't clear in the post above, states can not go bankrupt, ever. States are sovereign and can default on a debt but not go bankrupt. They are sovereign territory and bankruptcy would put them in the control of a federal judge, which means they Would cease to be a state. As you can imagine there are a few legal and constitutional hurdles preventing that happening, but not on the "news" or on the campaign  trail, where apparently, all reality has been suspended. In case you are reading this far into the post and actually care, Arkansas in 1933 was there last state to default, it may have been Hilary's fault depending on who you ask.
They was a case in 1841 where 8 states defaulted, that certain politicians continue to refer to as bankruptcy but it was actually a default. Politicians not typically big fans of the truth, both like talk show radio hosts or TV hosts reality TV or otherwise.

I continued to hope the Republican nomination process is going to be revealed as the next Truman show and that only when Kim Kardashian gets the VP nomination will the penny drop. However the Palin precedent makes that unlikely. Also Hilary is going to drop out last minute and give Bloomberg an unexpected free run...
I'm going back downstairs for my happy pills

[whitey]

Just in case the sarcasm wasn't clear in the post above, states can not go bankrupt, ever. States are sovereign and can default on a debt but not go bankrupt. They are sovereign territory and bankruptcy would put them in the control of a federal judge, which means they Would cease to be a state. As you can imagine there are a few legal and constitutional hurdles preventing that happening, but not on the "news" or on the campaign  trail, where apparently, all reality has been suspended. In case you are reading this far into the post and actually care, Arkansas in 1933 was there last state to default, it may have been Hilary's fault depending on who you ask.
They was a case in 1841 where 8 states defaulted, that certain politicians continue to refer to as bankruptcy but it was actually a default. Politicians not typically big fans of the truth, both like talk show radio hosts or TV hosts reality TV or otherwise.

I continued to hope the Republican nomination process is going to be revealed as the next Truman show and that only when Kim Kardashian gets the VP nomination will the penny drop. However the Palin precedent makes that unlikely. Also Hilary is going to drop out last minute and give Bloomberg an unexpected free run...
I'm going back downstairs for my happy pills

My aopoogies for the improper use of the term "bankrupt".

Perhaps insolvent would have been a more accurate term.

Again.....believe whatever you want


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/state-bankruptcy-change-life-public-pensioners-bond-holders/story?id=12732137

"Under existing law, a state cannot go bankrupt. That's not because the action is forbidden. Not the U.S. Constitution nor any other piece of paper says a state cannot. The bankruptcy code simply does not address the possibility.

Now lawyers, politicians and other ingenious folk are looking for a way around that problem -- a fact that should come as no surprise, given the perilous financial health of California, Illinois and other states encumbered with crushing debt"


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/the-case-for-allowing-u-s-states-to-declare-bankruptcy

"States can't seek legal protection from their debts, but there's a move on to change that."

[heganboy]

Game on. Hilary has clinched the nomination as per the AP

Clinton vs trump

Will the Dems sweep the house too?

Current models show a landslide in the presidential campaign. If the Latin, black and female vote comes out in numbers this will change the Republican party beyond all recognition.

[J70]

Bad, bad couple of days for Trump too.

Even Paul Ryan called his comments on the judge "racist". Lindsay Graham said Trump had presented anyone harbouring doubts with an "exit ramp" to withdraw their support.  Jeff Flake said he could not support him. Mark Kirk withdrew his endorsement, saying Trump can't be trusted with the nuclear codes or to lead the military.

And, after reportedly going mad yesterday when a staffer advised his surrogates to stop discussing the judge, Trump himself came out today and said he wouldn't discuss it anymore, but that his comments had somehow been "misconstrued" (he didn't explain how).

Maybe "his African American"  who turned out not to be a supporter or the black family he stuck in a tv ad to show he was getting support, only to have the family disavow him as well, can help him out!

[seafoid]

Game on. Hilary has clinched the nomination as per the AP

Clinton vs trump

Will the Dems sweep the house too?

Current models show a landslide in the presidential campaign. If the Latin, black and female vote comes out in numbers this will change the Republican party beyond all recognition.

Trump will lose .
The GOP has zero coherence. Trump says something. Ryan contradicts him. Or condemns him. How are they supposed to present policies to the public for the Senate votes?
The collapse of the GOP is serious shit.