Re: Down with the government
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: Small government and low taxation libertarians don't explain how these infrastructure services are to be maintained if the mechanisms for maintaining them are disbanded Actually, quite a few libertarians do explain how that can be done. I assume that either you disagree with the explanations you have encountered, or that you have not read any significant libertarian essays on the subject. By the way, the Chris' post fits the definition of a troll much better than anything I have posted recently, since it was not addressing any points that had been made in the thread so far, did not appear to make any effort to explain the change of subject or make a serious point, but rather seemed designed to be inflammatory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. But I do not mean to complain about anyone trolling. I just wanted Chris to clarify his point if he had one, or to find out if he did not have a point. And I only brought up trolling now because Charlie's behavior seems to indicate a tendency to call a post a troll if he disagrees with the opinion expressed, and to call a post worthwhile if he agrees with the opinion expressed. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
John Williams wrote: ... By the way, the Chris' post fits the definition of a troll much better than anything I have posted recently, since it was not addressing any points that had been made in the thread so far, did not appear to make any effort to explain the change of subject or make a serious point, but rather seemed designed to be inflammatory. ... Wait a minute. He wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Chris Frandsen lear...@mac.com wrote: Sorry, Charlie, it seems the new angry crowd out there either think that roads and sewage systems just appear or that we pay too much for them. We can all go back to dirt roads and septic systems, you know:-) It's not that far off topic, definitely does make a serious point, and is less inflammatory than many of your recent comments. ---David ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On 20/10/2010, at 8:45 AM, Dave Land wrote: On Oct 19, 2010, at 7:18 AM, anar...@gmail.com wrote: There's also people like me who figure I'll not see much, if anything out of them but don't grouse too much about paying for those already in their golden years. For many years, this is how I have understood Social Security: It's money I'm giving to the self-proclaimed Greatest Generation. Whereas in much of Europe, it's just tax you pay knowing there's a health system and social security that is functional if, god forbid, you actually need it. Like you pay for roads, schools etc. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On 20/10/2010, at 8:48 AM, John Williams wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Pat Mathews mathew...@msn.com wrote: Okay. Have it your way. We/they didn't save enough and consume health care with reckless abandon. May you never be in the workplace where the clerk, knowing that one must never, ever, consume health care one cannot afford, comes to work with the flu. That is a poor example of reducing health care costs. Flu shots cost almost nothing compared to expensive diagnostics (MRI, CT scans, etc.) or major surgeries. Also, paying for health care for the working is not a big problem, but paying for decades of premium health care for the retired is a big problem. And *WHOOSH* did you miss Pat's point. Point being, people who come to work ill 'cause they can't afford to take a day off 'cause they don't get sick leave and have to pay for the quack, so they turn up to work with the sniffles. So they give everyone else what they have. Those people can't afford a day off either. And production goes down. It's called presenteeism, and it costs companies. Maybe in the States they'll twig to this and providing a quota of sick leave and some reasonable health care insurance (in lieu of an actual health care system...) is beneficial in the long run. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
Sorry, Charlie, it seems the new angry crowd out there either think that roads and sewage systems just appear or that we pay too much for them. We can all go back to dirt roads and septic systems, you know:-) chris Frandsen On Oct 20, 2010, at 7:09, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: On 20/10/2010, at 8:45 AM, Dave Land wrote: On Oct 19, 2010, at 7:18 AM, anar...@gmail.com wrote: There's also people like me who figure I'll not see much, if anything out of them but don't grouse too much about paying for those already in their golden years. For many years, this is how I have understood Social Security: It's money I'm giving to the self-proclaimed Greatest Generation. Whereas in much of Europe, it's just tax you pay knowing there's a health system and social security that is functional if, god forbid, you actually need it. Like you pay for roads, schools etc. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: Whereas in much of Europe, it's just tax you pay knowing there's a health system and social security that is functional if, god forbid, you actually need it. Like you pay for roads, schools etc. I am not very familiar with how that works in Europe, but in the US, that is not how it works. Most of the money for SS and MC is paid by working people to support current retirees. Unfortunately, the demographics and costs are such that those paying now will not receive anything close to what they paid in, many years down the road when they are finally able to retire. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: And *WHOOSH* did you miss Pat's point. Point being, people who come to work ill 'cause they can't afford to take a day off 'cause they don't get sick leave and have to pay for the quack, so they turn up to work with the sniffles. No, you completely missed the point. Which is that paying for that sort of health care for working people is not a problem. It is other, premium health care for retired people that is making the system unsustainable. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Chris Frandsen lear...@mac.com wrote: Sorry, Charlie, it seems the new angry crowd out there either think that roads and sewage systems just appear or that we pay too much for them. We can all go back to dirt roads and septic systems, you know:-) Was this supposed to have the slightest relevance to the conversation? Or are you just inserting totally random comments? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Dan Minette wrote: When I talked about this last year with the Google people, they said that they still believed that you got more dollars for your money hiring engineers in Mountain View than in Durham or Austin. They could be wrong, but I wouldn't lay long odds on it... I'm curious. Do they pay starting engineers $250k/year, and still think that Berkley and Stanford are so much better than every other engineering school in the nation that it's worth it? If they don't pay that kind of money, how can a engineer have a house and family? They probably don't pay them that kind of money: I know, because I have hired experienced engineers for much less than that. I make much less than that with 20-some years experience. Then again, maybe I'm just a really bad negotiator. I paid half what my house is worth, but with refinancing and upgrades over the years, my mortgage is above 3/4 of the current Zillow estimated value of the property, so I can tell you that you can afford to live here on far, far less than $250K/year. You just have to understand that you'll accumulate debt doing so :-(. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
John; My bad. You were right, just a random misplaced thought. Back to lurking. learner On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:43 AM, John Williams wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Chris Frandsen lear...@mac.com wrote: Sorry, Charlie, it seems the new angry crowd out there either think that roads and sewage systems just appear or that we pay too much for them. We can all go back to dirt roads and septic systems, you know:-) Was this supposed to have the slightest relevance to the conversation? Or are you just inserting totally random comments? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
down with the government
My bad. You were right, just a random misplaced thought. Back to lurking. Sorry, Charlie, it seems the new angry crowd out there either think that roads and sewage systems just appear or that we pay too much for them. We can all go back to dirt roads and septic systems, you know:-) Was this supposed to have the slightest relevance to the conversation? Or are you just inserting totally random comments? not random at all, chris don't be bullied into lurking. what you said is very relevant to how angry tea baggers want to close down government services, except for the defense industry. jon m. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government
The old people don't equate to the old culture. There's a fairly large intersection of the two, but neither is a subset (proper or improper) of the other. Old people, or more to the point, their lobbies (think AARP) wield a fair amount of political power right now. That's where the Social Security/Medicare untouchability comes from. The old culture is losing cultural ground and trying to make up for it by seizing whatever political ground it can. Julia -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 11:42 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Down with the government I'm curious, if the old culture is in such decline, why are Social Security and Medicare still untouchable? There is no way, with the current system, that today's young and middle-aged are going to get as much out of the system as they put in. It is a giant Ponzi scheme. So if the old are so powerless, why doesn't the system get reformed to be more age-equitable? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Julia ju...@zurg.net wrote: The old people don't equate to the old culture. There's a fairly large intersection of the two, but neither is a subset (proper or improper) of the other. I understand that, but as you say, there's a fairly large intersection of the two. I agree, which is why I posed my question. I don't think the fact that there is not a perfect correspondence of old culture with old people answers my question. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
There's also people like me who figure I'll not see much, if anything out of them but don't grouse too much about paying for those already in their golden years. - jmh Sent from my iPhone On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:53 AM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Julia ju...@zurg.net wrote: The old people don't equate to the old culture. There's a fairly large intersection of the two, but neither is a subset (proper or improper) of the other. I understand that, but as you say, there's a fairly large intersection of the two. I agree, which is why I posed my question. I don't think the fact that there is not a perfect correspondence of old culture with old people answers my question. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government
Besides which, we greedy geezers will pass our ill-gotten wealth down to you hard-pressed Xers and your children in due time via the normal process of inheritance, if the medical bills needed to keep us functioning don't eat every last bit of it up. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ From: ju...@zurg.net To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: RE: Down with the government Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:35:21 -0500 The old people don't equate to the old culture. There's a fairly large intersection of the two, but neither is a subset (proper or improper) of the other. Old people, or more to the point, their lobbies (think AARP) wield a fair amount of political power right now. That's where the Social Security/Medicare untouchability comes from. The old culture is losing cultural ground and trying to make up for it by seizing whatever political ground it can. Julia -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 11:42 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Down with the government I'm curious, if the old culture is in such decline, why are Social Security and Medicare still untouchable? There is no way, with the current system, that today's young and middle-aged are going to get as much out of the system as they put in. It is a giant Ponzi scheme. So if the old are so powerless, why doesn't the system get reformed to be more age-equitable? ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Pat Mathews mathew...@msn.com wrote: Besides which, we greedy geezers will pass our ill-gotten wealth down to you hard-pressed Xers and your children in due time via the normal process of inheritance, if the medical bills needed to keep us functioning don't eat every last bit of it up. Not greedy, in most cases, just poor financial planners / lack of understanding of future costs vs. savings. As demonstrated by the above comment. As a group, Americans nearing the age they expect to retire have saved far too little to support themselves and their care until they die (which is a lot longer now than it was 50 years ago). In the aggregate, there is not going to be wealth, ill-gotten or otherwise, to pass on. The reverse, actually. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
Better engineers, and more of them? Lots of Stanford and Berkeley engineering graduates to hire? When I talked about this last year with the Google people, they said that they still believed that you got more dollars for your money hiring engineers in Mountain View than in Durham or Austin. They could be wrong, but I wouldn't lay long odds on it... Yours, Brad DeLong On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: BTW, I think that California has just seen the tip of the iceberg with regards to its problems. For example, why should someone build a new high tech enterprise in pricy San Jose instead of cheap Raleigh-Durham or Austin? California has put itself in a box and I'd expect housing prices to drop another factor of before it can start to rebound. Now, there's a topic we can debate. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Brad DeLong Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:21 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Down with the government Better engineers, and more of them? Lots of Stanford and Berkeley engineering graduates to hire? When I talked about this last year with the Google people, they said that they still believed that you got more dollars for your money hiring engineers in Mountain View than in Durham or Austin. They could be wrong, but I wouldn't lay long odds on it... I'm curious. Do they pay starting engineers $250k/year, and still think that Berkley and Stanford are so much better than every other engineering school in the nation that it's worth it? If they don't pay that kind of money, how can a engineer have a house and family? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government
There is NO WAY an ordinary wage-earner could have saved enough to cover the sort of insurance-inflated medical bills common today. Call around and ask what various procedures and prescription medications cost. I have insurance because I worked for a University. A lot of people were unable to get work with people who offer insurance at that level. Call around and ask what these procedures and meds cost for someone without insurance. Then make a budget that allows for rent, food, transportation, etc AND savings at that level. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:14:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Down with the government From: jwilliams4...@gmail.com To: brin-l@mccmedia.com On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Pat Mathews mathew...@msn.com wrote: Besides which, we greedy geezers will pass our ill-gotten wealth down to you hard-pressed Xers and your children in due time via the normal process of inheritance, if the medical bills needed to keep us functioning don't eat every last bit of it up. Not greedy, in most cases, just poor financial planners / lack of understanding of future costs vs. savings. As demonstrated by the above comment. As a group, Americans nearing the age they expect to retire have saved far too little to support themselves and their care until they die (which is a lot longer now than it was 50 years ago). In the aggregate, there is not going to be wealth, ill-gotten or otherwise, to pass on. The reverse, actually. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
Bruce Bostwick wrote: In other words, we have a continuing culture ware against a backdrop of change that is rapidly making the old culture obsolete. Well put. I might add that the old culture is becoming at least vaguely aware of their increasing marginality, irrelevance, and obsolescence, and doesn't like it at all .. I think this has been said before. Was it Cicero? No, probably some ancient summerian said it earlier. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Pat Mathews mathew...@msn.com wrote: There is NO WAY an ordinary wage-earner could have saved enough to cover the sort of insurance-inflated medical bills common today. If true, then by what magic of aggregation can a group of such people afford something that most individuals cannot afford? There are only two possibilities I can think of: (1) A fraction of the group members have saved a great deal, enough to support the rest of the group (2) A different group will pay to support the group that did not save enough The problem with (1) is that I think even if you confiscated all of the excess savings of those who have saved enough for themselves, you still would not have enough to take care of all those who did not save enough. The problem with (2) is how does the other group save enough to support themselves as well as support the first group? It is either a giant Ponzi scheme that will eventually collapse, or you are relying on some innovations that reduce care costs in the future, something which has not happened so far despite many advances -- people always want more and better life, and they have tended to choose that over freezing the status quo and reducing the costs. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government
There is NO WAY an ordinary wage-earner could have saved enough to cover the sort of insurance-inflated medical bills common today. If true, then by what magic of aggregation can a group of such people afford something that most individuals cannot afford? There are only two possibilities I can think of: (1) A fraction of the group members have saved a great deal, enough to support the rest of the group (2) A different group will pay to support the group that did not save enough I have tended not to answer you John because I have not been able to solve the problem of dialog with you. Whenever I use facts or correlations to support an argument you point to the causal density of economics (not your term but a neat term I found explaining why social sciences aren't science) to state that there is no way to use data to point to conclusionseven if the data is so simple as people getting negative interest from T-Bills shows an extreme flight to safety. But, in this case, we have an obvious solution. Medical costs are skyrocketinguniquely so in the United States. People in the medical field are making enormous amounts of money, compared to their contemporaries in other developed countries. While folks have heard horror stories about medical care in the UK and Canada, etc. surveys of satisfaction with care get greater percentages of people who are satisfied in those countries than in the USso they can't be all that worse. So, a single payer system, with the right of rich people to spend whatever extra that they want which pays the going rate for medical care in every other developed country would cost a lot less money. It's the threat of doctors to go to Blue Cross, which presently pays much more (my sister who bills for her husband who's a physician says he gets about $120 from Blue Cross, $80 from Medicare, and $40 from Medicade for the exact same service) that keeps the government dolling out the money at high rates (well the high voting percentages of the elderly who are scared of this actually does it). If we paid primary care physicians $100k/year, specialists $130k/year, and about as much as every other developed country for all the other parts of medical care, as well as required malfeasance for malpractice, we'd be able to reverse the inflation in Medicareand have costs in line with what is affordable. As for Social Security, if we capped the highest SS payment to inflation instead of the increase in the average income, and got back on the GDP/capita growth rate of 1960-2005 (number picked out of my head, not cherry picked. Pick any other two dates between 1940 and 2007 which are at least 30 years apart, and I'll be happy to use that.) SS taxes would actually be able to go down in 30 years with ZPG. We had a big discussion on this here around 2005 and the numbers are pretty easy to crank out. So, that's the other option. The real problem, as I see it, is that the GDP growth from 2000-2008 was mostly tied to the housing bubble and bank profits. If you look at jobs growth from 1939-2010, and take a mean percentage growth per year as the baseline, you will see the US starting to fall off the baseline in 2001. The last 3 years have been very bad, but real growth stopped when the internet bubble burst. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: I have tended not to answer you John because I have not been able to solve the problem of dialog with you. Whenever I use facts or correlations to support an argument you point to the causal density of economics (not your term but a neat term I found explaining why social sciences aren't science) to state that there is no way to use data to point to conclusionseven if the data is so simple as people getting negative interest from T-Bills shows an extreme flight to safety. Your difficulty is caused by your belief that a few simple data points can accurately predict how a complex system will behave in the future. You refuse to accept that it cannot be so. If it were so, then there would be people who consistently predict things like the unemployment rate or the chances of Fannie Mae blowing up. But what we actually see are the experts rarely getting their predictions correct, such as this: http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2010/07/02/june-2010-unemployment-numbers-theyre-real-and-theyre-spectacular/ But, in this case, we have an obvious solution. It may be an obvious thing to do, but it is not obviously a solution to the problem of how to pay for the best medical care for Americans. While folks have heard horror stories about medical care in the UK and Canada, etc. surveys of satisfaction with care get greater percentages of people who are satisfied in those countries than in the USso they can't be all that worse. Satisfaction surveys (for all areas) are notorious for being unreliable. The results depend on how you ask the question. And it is never clear what you are actually measuring. One well-known phenomenon is that people tend to respond to these things relatively -- if they are better off than their neighbor, then they are happy. But that makes the results of happiness surveys difficult to interpret, since each person may be measuring relative to a different benchmark. I prefer to consider more objective measurements for judging health care quality. For example, 5-year-survival-rates for a given serious disease. If we paid primary care physicians $100k/year, specialists $130k/year, and about as much as every other developed country for all the other parts of medical care, as well as required malfeasance for malpractice, we'd be able to reverse the inflation in Medicareand have costs in line with what is affordable. Are you suggesting that we prohibit by law anyone from paying doctors more than your proposed amounts? If so, I would strongly oppose such a law. I find the idea of putting someone in jail because they paid a doctor too much to be reprehensible. If you mean that we should create a two-tiered health care system, one where the doctors agree to treat the national health-care plan people and to have a salary cap, and a premium tier for those doctors who do not want a salary cap and for those who can afford to pay their rates, well. I do not find that as repellant as the first option, but I do not think it will work. The people in the lower tier will be always clamoring for the higher quality, higher cost care of the higher tier, and so the costs will keep rising quickly, just as they are now. As for Social Security, if we capped the highest SS payment to inflation instead of the increase in the average income, I agree it is a good idea, but it is not a new idea. The fact that the Carter administration changed it despite objections about the unsustainability, and that it has not been fixed yet, makes me wonder what the chances are that it will be done now. and got back on the GDP/capita growth rate of 1960-2005 (number picked out of my head, not cherry picked. Pick any other two dates between 1940 and 2007 which are at least 30 years apart, and I'll be happy to use that.) I hope that GDP growth can return to that rate, but it seems we have a long way to go to get there from here. The real problem, as I see it, is that the GDP growth from 2000-2008 was mostly tied to the housing bubble and bank profits. If you look at jobs growth from 1939-2010, and take a mean percentage growth per year as the baseline, you will see the US starting to fall off the baseline in 2001. The last 3 years have been very bad, but real growth stopped when the internet bubble burst. Yup. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government
Okay. Have it your way. We/they didn't save enough and consume health care with reckless abandon. May you never be in the workplace where the clerk, knowing that one must never, ever, consume health care one cannot afford, comes to work with the flu. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:24:36 -0700 Subject: Re: Down with the government From: jwilliams4...@gmail.com To: brin-l@mccmedia.com On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Pat Mathews mathew...@msn.com wrote: There is NO WAY an ordinary wage-earner could have saved enough to cover the sort of insurance-inflated medical bills common today. If true, then by what magic of aggregation can a group of such people afford something that most individuals cannot afford? There are only two possibilities I can think of: (1) A fraction of the group members have saved a great deal, enough to support the rest of the group (2) A different group will pay to support the group that did not save enough The problem with (1) is that I think even if you confiscated all of the excess savings of those who have saved enough for themselves, you still would not have enough to take care of all those who did not save enough. The problem with (2) is how does the other group save enough to support themselves as well as support the first group? It is either a giant Ponzi scheme that will eventually collapse, or you are relying on some innovations that reduce care costs in the future, something which has not happened so far despite many advances -- people always want more and better life, and they have tended to choose that over freezing the status quo and reducing the costs. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Culture wars (was Down with the government)
I'm not saying that everything coming out of Garrett's interview with Bernanke is not worth considering only because of his party affiliation. I am saying that from my perspective his agenda sucks, so I am judging him by his group, as far as that goes. These are people who know how to twist facts, take what people say out of context, and interrupt them before they can verbalize a rational reply (Bill O'Reilly could teach Garrett a thing or two!~) To see what I mean, just watch Fox Noise, the most popular news program in the world. They REALLY know how to use emotional, ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments!~) As for wasteful spending by the government, BOTH political parties engage in wasteful spending, BUT they have different priorities. One party wastes money on administrating entitlements and the other on the defense industry bureaucracy. On the other hand, much of corporate spending (of stockholder profits) is targeted for rewarding the executives, which they don't consider wasteful. After all, it is their job to increase profits, no matter how it affects, the environment, job creation, etc. One of the jobs of the corporate elite is to protect their destructive priorities to waste the environment. Therefore, in order to recruit mainstream, gawd fearing, true blue Americans to their Tea Party cause, they question whether Obama is really American (those thinly veiled racist, viral e-mails) label health care as a further descent into socialism (but not defense spending) and taking our government back, from those lazy, welfare parasites (some truth to that!~). Change is always scary for traditional fundamentalist conservatives. They fight it by promulgating good old fashioned family values. They nationalize patriotism, preach that (in the bible) marriage is only for opposite sexes, etc. They advocate a gun in every holster, fear and hatred of The Other (non whites) and good old greed for the NEW American dream (not for that house, anymore, but to be good little units of consumption!~) These industrialist capitalists capitalized on Marxist divisions how to make the transition from an agrarian to an industrial society and made sure the monopolists controlled the means of production. They blamed undocumented workers for taking away American jobs while hiring them to clean their homes, etc. Turns out Marx was right about a lot of things; too bad his standard bearers are only human and susceptible to demagoguery and corruption, like everyone else. Some of the progress for human rights is being reversed, but pendulum swings are part of the process of change. Two steps forward, one step back. I expect the Republicans will stage a temporary comeback, and the Tea Party will elect some nut jobs, but they will be ridiculed and laughed at by 2012. That may be Obama's plan. I don't agree that Social Security and Medicare are untouchable; reform is needed in billing for sure so insurance fraud is stringently prosecuted, pharmaceutical companies are held to reasonable profit margins, and preventive care is practiced, etc. By the time today's young reach retirement age they will inherit a reformed system that is cost effective and age-equitable. Right now AARP is one of those systems that is feeding off the status quo; they are also a business. I paid more pre-inflation dollars into Social Security than I will be getting out of it, but I'm OK with that; I lived in a time when wages were decent and was able to set some aside because I knew what was coming. It didn't take that much foresight to figure out world population would quadruple in my lifetime, so I lived like a monk, worked two jobs, bought 40 acres of land and own my home outright. Good thing I have Social Security because my annuities, 401Ks, mutual funds, and pension plans are in the tank. I will continue to live like a monk and hold off retirement til I'm 70, so my Social Security will double, hopefully enough to meet inflation. Unfortunately I won't be leaving anything to my sons as I plan to liquidate everything and set up a trust for Alcor. I just hope it isn't just another scam and there isn't a complete collapse of civilization so the electricity isn't turned off!~) Jon M ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Oct 19, 2010, at 7:18 AM, anar...@gmail.com wrote: There's also people like me who figure I'll not see much, if anything out of them but don't grouse too much about paying for those already in their golden years. For many years, this is how I have understood Social Security: It's money I'm giving to the self-proclaimed Greatest Generation. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Pat Mathews mathew...@msn.com wrote: Okay. Have it your way. We/they didn't save enough and consume health care with reckless abandon. May you never be in the workplace where the clerk, knowing that one must never, ever, consume health care one cannot afford, comes to work with the flu. That is a poor example of reducing health care costs. Flu shots cost almost nothing compared to expensive diagnostics (MRI, CT scans, etc.) or major surgeries. Also, paying for health care for the working is not a big problem, but paying for decades of premium health care for the retired is a big problem. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:53 AM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Julia ju...@zurg.net wrote: The old people don't equate to the old culture. There's a fairly large intersection of the two, but neither is a subset (proper or improper) of the other. I understand that, but as you say, there's a fairly large intersection of the two. I agree, which is why I posed my question. I don't think the fact that there is not a perfect correspondence of old culture with old people answers my question. It's not an absolute correlation. I fit many people's profile of old people. Maybe only by a few years, but I'm definitely at least partially stuck in that cubbyhole. But I'm pretty far out on the bleeding edge of new culture, at least in the sense of this current cultural conflict, and plan to stay there as long as possible. And I know people far more into the age range of what's culturally considered old people who are at least as many sigmas out from the mean in my direction as I am, if not more. Granted, my corner of the Venn diagram is a lonely one, but it's not completely uninhabited .. Almost nothing that trickles down is fit to consume. -- Davidson Loehr ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Bruce Bostwick lihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: On Oct 19, 2010, at 8:53 AM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Julia ju...@zurg.net wrote: The old people don't equate to the old culture. There's a fairly large intersection of the two, but neither is a subset (proper or improper) of the other. I understand that, but as you say, there's a fairly large intersection of the two. I agree, which is why I posed my question. I don't think the fact that there is not a perfect correspondence of old culture with old people answers my question. It's not an absolute correlation. Didn't I just agree with that in the text quoted above? I don't understand your point. My point, to borrow Julia's phrasing, is that since there is a fairly large intersection of the two (but not a perfect correlation), that the old people and the old culture should have approximately equal political power. Then I picked a political issue (SS, MC) that old people are generally in favor of, but which young and middle-aged people should favor much less, and asked why, if the old culture has so little power, they appear to have control of the issue. I don't believe any of the replies so far have directly addressed my question. The closest thing I saw was the implication that young people don't really care about the costs (and I'm not sure I believe that, anecdotal evidence notwithstanding). ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Back to the Plantation!~(was Down with the Government)
I'm no expert, but it almost seems as if both parties are in on it together and
taking turns while the pendulum swings more and more to the right.
I dunno if the entire financial system would have collapsed if there were no
bailout, and I'm not saying that a depression was what the country needed,
although it may yet happen.
Nor am I saying the government should do nothing; they should help out the
small people. Those with more assets invested than was insured are better
able to make up their losses.
The government can bail out my losses, and down with AIG!~) As long as these
corporations run things their way, it will be business as usual and they'll
keep getting their bonuses, etc.
Seriously:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0310alperovitzdaly.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/world/asia/17japan.html
and...
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/computers/technical_inheritance.htm
Get me some of that electric Kool Aid! I agree with Dan about the Tea
Baggers. Those fockers can't wait to return the country to laissez faire
capitalism! No minimum wage, no employer paid pension plans, health insurance,
etc.
No public education, but a powerful military ain't socialism. It's there in
the constitution, so that makes it okay to run up a deficit to pay for Bush's
wars. Good way to keep the economy going til the bill comes due and you can
turn the government over to that black guy...
They way things are going those connoisseurs of Earl Grey may yet get their way
and start massacring strikers again. Maybe even bring back child labor. What
an even better world that would be for the elite!~{
Hey, I'm no fan of Bernanke, but that Congressman, Garrett, would not let the
poor guy finish his answers!
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Back to the Plantation!~(was Down with the Government)
Jon Louis Mann wrote:
They way things are going those connoisseurs of Earl Grey may yet
get their way and start massacring strikers again. Maybe even bring
back child labor. What an even better world that would be for the elite!~{
Talking about child labor... What about France? It seems that _they_
will have to bring back child labor, because the mature people
don't want to work.
Alberto Monteiro
PS: for those who are interested, Brazil came up with a nice
solution to the retirement problem, and it's _not_ killing
old people.
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
I don't know if the Tea Party is a manufactured political movement, but one thing I feel certain about, it's titular head Sarah Palin is exploiting it for all it's worth. I can't imagine she would do anything that would not ultimately benefit her bank account. One thing about the Tea Party: if it was REALLY about small(er)government, local issues decided by local governments, etc. I could get behind it. But it seems to me that much of the anti-intellectualism of the Republicans migrated here. Damon. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On 10/15/2010 4:23 PM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 1:54 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Down with the government Leftists should recognize the right has a valid argument about wasteful government spending. I would argue that the right (the one that was in power anyway) was the one doing all the wasteful spending. The idea that the right is fiscally conservative _in practice_ is a farce. I'm not saying that the left has it completely correct either, far from it, but if you vote for the GOP because you want to curb wasteful spending, you're barking up the wrong tree. That's what makes the Tea Party so interesting. They are actually small government believers. I don't say I agree with them, I have strong differences with them, but their candidates do have a self-consistent message. I think most folks at their rallies don't think through their viewpoints. I think a little historical perspective can be helpful here. I don't think there is any argument against the fact that some government spending is wasteful, just as some corporate spending is wasteful, some private family spending is wasteful, etc. Simply saying that is not particularly insightful, but I cannot take seriously a claim that the Tea Party represents a disagreement about spending levels and priorities. When large numbers of people start questioning whether Obama is really American, when the Republican health care plan from 1993 is now described as a descent into socialism, and a totally white group of people start talking about taking OUR country back, you have to face the fact that this is much deeper than a budget disagreement. What I think is really going on is that we are going through a period of rapid and intense change, and a whole lot of people want to stop this and turn the clock back. I think we all know it is not going to happen, long term, but in the short term a lot of fear and anger (and that is what the Tea Party really represents) can perhaps cause a hiccup on the path we're headed on. It is not a new phenomenon. One could compare the current moment to the transition from an agrarian to an industrial society a century ago. A way of life that most people thought would last forever was disappearing before people's eyes, and being replaced by something strange and unnatural. Then ,as now, people looked for a scapegoats who could be portrayed as un-American. This was also the first period of intense anti-Immigrant agitation . Only then it was not Mexicans. In my family I grew up hearing stories about signs in the windows of Boston establishments Help Wanted - No Irish Need Apply. The changes that are coming are pretty clear. Whites will be a minority in America in a few decades. Young people today not only are much less racially biased, they also don't see the point of homophobia, they tend to think women and men should work together more equally, etc. And they came out in force to help elect the first black President in 2008. In other words, we have a continuing culture ware against a backdrop of change that is rapidly making the old culture obsolete. And I would suggest the economic difficulties, which are very real, are best understood within this context, as just another example of everything going haywire. The Republican party is basically the party of old white folks, and there are fewer of them every day. I don't think they will win in the long run. In my lifetime, I saw people lynched in the South, and we now have our first black President. The numbers of women in top positions is generally increasing, even if some of them make me wince (Sarah Palin). But it is still a notable change. And there is no doubt in my mind that if we had not elected our first black President in 2008, we would have elected our first female President (Hillary Clinton). And I don't see much of that progress being reversed, even if the Republicans stage a temporary comeback. There are some notable things about this year that are very interesting. Thew first is that while the Republicans are likely to take over the House of Representatives in this election, their approval rating is still abysmal, and in fact lower than Democrats. The second is that the policies the Republicans advocate are not very popular. In particular I am struck by the fact that the general concept of health care reform is about even in the polls, but if you poll on the specific measures within the legislation they poll much higher. What that tells me is that this election is not about polices, it is about Stop the world, I want to get off. And that is something the Republicans simply cannot deliver. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL zwil...@zwilnik.com Linux User #333216
Re: Down with the government
On Oct 18, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Kevin O'Brien wrote: In other words, we have a continuing culture ware against a backdrop of change that is rapidly making the old culture obsolete. Well put. I might add that the old culture is becoming at least vaguely aware of their increasing marginality, irrelevance, and obsolescence, and doesn't like it at all .. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
Dan Minette That's what makes the Tea Party so interesting. They are actually small government believers. I don't say I agree with them, I have strong differences with them, but their candidates do have a self-consistent message. I think most folks at their rallies don't think through their viewpoints. I have nothing but contempt for the tea party. For all appearances they are people with shrill voices and no real ideas and their leaders and candidates are consummate idiots. I suspect that a large percentage of them are people that, not having voted or having any particular interest in politics prior to, woke up on November 5, 2008 and were outraged when they found out that there was going to be a n***er in the white house. Well, they didn't do it in '08, and I'm still optimistic about this year. I'm not. Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com has been pretty good at analysis and they point to a Republican house and the Democratic lead in the Senate down to 52-48 as the average number. He was within 2 electoral votes last time, he was a sabermetrics guru and his posts have the feel of good technical analysis. It's the economy, stupid, and this is the worst rebound from a recession since the Great Depression. I think this is outside of either party's control; the best that can be done is to support something that will help over the next decade. BTW, I think that California has just seen the tip of the iceberg with regards to its problems. For example, why should someone build a new high tech enterprise in pricy San Jose instead of cheap Raleigh-Durham or Austin? California has put itself in a box and I'd expect housing prices to drop another factor of before it can start to rebound. Now, there's a topic we can debate. :-) Well I hope they don't move anymore businesses here because the freeways are more crowded than they have ever been. I wouldn't put money on prices going down much more. You can move a building to Detroit. Moving the talent and the silicon valley dynamic is another question. Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 2:08 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Down with the government Dan Minette That's what makes the Tea Party so interesting. They are actually small government believers. I don't say I agree with them, I have strong differences with them, but their candidates do have a self-consistent message. I think most folks at their rallies don't think through their viewpoints. I have nothing but contempt for the tea party. For all appearances they are people with shrill voices and no real ideas and their leaders and candidates are consummate idiots. Well, with all due respect, Doug, I think you are insulated (either by not listening or not being around) from folks who tend to join the tea party. I know a couple who are at the forefront of supporting it here. She works for next to nothing having developed a school that teaches kids the local public school has rejected. Many of them are kids with great potential and learning disabilities. I've argued with the other person a lot, and found we agree on a number of topics, including the need for social justice. He just believes that government is just the good 'ol boy system run amuck, and that government programs are mostly a waste. We differ, sometimes strongly, but I usually don't have contempt for someone just because I differ with them. In fact, if you look at the demographics of tea party members, you will see that they are usually fairly well educated, above average in income, and have been modestly involved in the political process for years. It's a right wing anti-elite movement. Again, I have profound differences with them, but I try to understand and respect folks I differ with, as well as see if there is any common ground. I wouldn't put money on prices going down much more. You can move a building to Detroit. Moving the talent and the silicon valley dynamic is another question. Well, my experience with Silicon Valley companies, and I've had one as a customer, is that, with the exception of Pixar and Steve Job's marketing genius they are aging companies and not cutting edge any more. I'd match the talent and dynamics in the Austin research corridor and the Golden Triangle against Silicon Valley for coming up with something truly new. For example, even though Joule is run by Bostonians, it located its first pilot plant in the Austin area. Synthetic biology is centered in Boston. I'm not sure where nanotech is. Look at just a 6% mortgage on a 2000 sq. ft. house for a young engineer. It costs about 60k/year for the interest alone, and would require a 100k down payment. You'd have to pay an engineer 4x what you'd pay them in Austin or the Research Triangle. That's why both places are booming high tech. areas. Baby boomers who bought their house 20 years ago can manage...they have tax protection. But, how is a young upper middle class family going to plant roots in that area. So, unless you thing the great new ideas will come from only old folks, then SF will lack buyers. You can see it in unemployment, with SF's rate 2% higher than Austin's. With 9%-10% unemployment the new norm, high priced areas will be for investment bankers and family money folks. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On 10/17/2010 05:44 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I've argued with the other person a lot, and found we agree on a number of topics, including the need for social justice. He just believes that government is just the good 'ol boy system run amuck, and that government programs are mostly a waste. We differ, sometimes strongly, but I usually don't have contempt for someone just because I differ with them. In fact, if you look at the demographics of tea party members, you will see that they are usually fairly well educated, above average in income, and have been modestly involved in the political process for years. It's a right wing anti-elite movement. Again, I have profound differences with them, but I try to understand and respect folks I differ with, as well as see if there is any common ground. I think this is where I have many of my most head explosion-causing difficulties with the Tea Party movement: it seems obviously to me, as a Daily Show viewer if nothing else, that the Tea Party is a whole lot of astroturfing. The grass roots are plastic and artificial. The Tea Party, to me at least, seems like a very cynical media play on the part of people well and deeply tied into the classic good ol' boy system pretending that don't have ulterior motives and aren't (knowingly) playing a possibly dangerous/explosive game of dirt, destruction, implicit racism, and explicit class warfare... Perhaps it is just me, but how is the Tea Party's anti-elite movement truly any different from the anti-intellectual/anti-elite class-baiting garbage the existing Republican party has spewed the last few election cycles? How is the Tea Party's confused stance on libertarianism that much different from the classic Republican/Right Wing confusion of/with libertarianism? Why are there such weird blind spots in the Tea Party's elite radar? Why does the anti-elitism streak fail to strongly and deeply question its leadership, its money, or its media mouthpieces? The Tea Party looks, smells, and sounds a lot like a designed and constructed media/marketing strategy to me. I can see where some of the individual candidates/supporters may actually be speaking what they believe, but I have a hard time seeing the movement as a whole as self-consistent or even at times adequately self-aware (except in worrying instances of possibly deeply self-conscious artifice). Honestly, I can't help but worry that the Tea Party is nothing more than a constructed entity designed to virally produce some of the same grass roots voting patterns such as the work done by once-obscure actual grass roots groups like Move On on the left, except without any of the intended altruism nor the real substance of an actual, ground-based grass roots movement... Instead they've managed to inherit plenty of the existing right wing stockpiles of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. How are they any different from politics as usual or the classic good ole boy system? Just because they've given it a new name doesn't mean it is some new thing... But then, maybe I just don't understand the Tea Party as a movement at all. Maybe I'm too elite to get it, I suppose. -- --Max Battcher-- http://worldmaker.net ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Down with the government!
I would argue that the right (the one that was in power anyway) was doing all the wasteful spending. T if you vote for the GOP because you want to curb wasteful spending, you're barking up the wrong tree. Doug fingers crossed I was NOT arguing you should vote for the GOP (just opposite) but they are right about some criticisms of the left. Of course they are hypocrites; defense spending had a lot to do with Bush's huge deficit. Both parties voted to bail out corporations that should have been allowed to fail. I hope you are correct that many people in the center do not want to return th GOP to power. We are still putting everything on credit card the progressives are offering no real solutions. I agree and I think the lively conversations have disappeared partly because people feel alienated and powerless. There are lively conversation on David's FB page. What difficulties are there that don't fit into the left or right wing polarizing box? Flaming is a problem. The trolls are up to their usual tricks, even on David's FB page, where participants tend to supplement and reinforce each other. California has put itself in a box and I'd expect housing prices to drop another factor before it can start to rebound. Dan M. I see housing prices going down further in Calif. We have a way to go to catch up with other areas. I think the economy is years away from rebounding. If Prop 19 passes the state should invest in industrial grow of medical marijuana, rather than let the tobacco companies 'harvest' all the profit!~) Jon M ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government!
Both parties voted to bail out corporations that should have been allowed to fail. I'm not sure why you think the main argument against letting banks fail is false. It is that the financial system as a whole could have collapsed if there was no intervention. There were measures that a panic and a bank run was about to set in. When the biggest insurance company in the world fails, then it is reasonable to assume that one's insurance policies have uncertain value. When values are uncertain, prudent people take the lower limit. If you look at measures of the uncertainty, like the spread in the interest rates with corporate AA notes vs. corporate AAA notes, or that short term T-bills started earning real negative interest (e.g. you paid money for the right to hold money there), one couldn't dismiss the real possibility of a full blown panic. As it stands, the estimate of the bailout costs are now down to $50 billion, as the government sells some of the assents it got in the bailout at bargain prices at a higher price. So, I'm really curious. Do you believe that the empirical measures that indicated a credit freeze was starting were false measures (e.g. the fact that companies with AA ratings interest rates went from 0.25% higher than AAA ratings to 6% higher, virtually overnight, has nothing to do with an unwillingness to lend) or do you believe that a Depression was just what the country needed, or that banks could fail without a massive downturn, or...? I'm honestly curious what you think would have happened if the government did nothing and just let the chips fall where they may. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government!
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: I'm not sure why you think the main argument against letting banks fail is false. It is that the financial system as a whole could have collapsed if there was no intervention. Maybe he thinks it is false because it IS false. A lot of financial company fat cats screamed for help to their cronies in Washington, and of course, their old chums came to their rescue. What's a trillion in taxpayer dollars between friends? By the way, he said corporations. Why do you immediately assume he was referring to banks? I know it is hard to keep track of all the handouts the politicians gave to their cronies during their bailout spree, but off the top of my head: Fannie Mae Freddie Mac AIG Bear Stearns Citigroup BoA GM Chrysler Are you seriously going to argue that the failure to bailout all of those would have led to disaster? The politicians and their advisors have no clue about what would have happened without the bailouts. He is an example of the predictive ability of Obama's financial advisor: The paper concludes that the probability of default by the GSEs is extremely small. Given this, the expected monetary costs of exposure to GSE insolvency are relatively small -- even given very large levels of outstanding GSE debt and even assuming that the government would bear the cost of all GSE debt in the case of insolvency. For example, if the probability of the stress test conditions occurring is less than one in 500,000, and if the GSEs hold sufficient capital to withstand the stress test, the implication is that the expected cost to the government of providing an explicit government guarantee on $1 trillion in GSE debt is less than $2 million. --Peter R. Orszag, et al. Implications of the New Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Risk-based Capital Standard, in Fannie Mae Papers, Volume 1, Issue 2, March 2002. Dan Minette wrote: As it stands, the estimate of the bailout costs are now down to $50 billion, as the government sells some of the assents it got in the bailout at bargain prices at a higher price. Still drinking the Kool-aid, I see. I know there is little hope of you seeing the truth, but I will give it a shot anyway. The Fed has purchased over $1.5 Trillion in MBSs from Fannie and Freddie, a large fraction of which are delinquent mortgages and valued on the books significantly higher than the amount at which the properties can be liquidated. And there are more big foreclosure waves coming in late 2010 and in 2011. The FASB has helpfully suspended rule 157, mark-to-market valuation, until at least 2013, allowing substantial discretion in asset valuation. In other words, the asset values currently on the books are pure fiction. You can get a decent idea of the market value of many mortgages by checking the FDIC auctions of mortgages it obtained from bank takeovers. Most of them are selling well below 50 cents on the dollar. What happens after 2012 when the Treasury backing of the bad GSE loans goes away? If a corporation engaged in this sort of fraud, the board and officers would have been put in jail. But when the politicians do it, the gullible think they are heroes saving the public! Dan Minette wrote: I'm honestly curious what you think would have happened if the government did nothing and just let the chips fall where they may. As I have explained to you before, there is a difference between allowing the bad companies to fail, and doing nothing. Congress should have passed emergency legislation streamlining the process for the bad shareholder and bondholder debt to be stripped away, allowing the solvent operating portion of the companies to be sold off, thus allowing the useful portions of the companies to continue operating, while properly penalizing the shareholders and bondholders who imprudently allocated their capital. I'll conclude with an excerpt from Ben Bernanke's Humphrey-Hawkins testimony before Congress in July. He was questioned by New Jersey Congressman Scott Garrett of the House Financial Services Committee. SCOTT GARRETT: You bought over a trillion dollars of GSE debt, and to that point, under normal circumstances, on the Fed's balance sheet what you have on there are Treasuries, or if you had anything else on there, I assume you would have a repurchase agreement for those securities on your balance sheet. Now of course around two-thirds of that are in GSE debt. BEN BERNANKE: Correct. GARRETT: So right now, those are guaranteed - whether they're sovereign debt or not, we don't know - but they're guaranteed by the U.S. government. But they're only guaranteed to when? 2012, right? After that, Congress may in its wisdom make another decision, and at that point in time, you may be holding on your balance sheet - two thirds of your balance sheet - something that is not guaranteed by the Federal government. First of all, you don't have a ... do you have a repurchase agreement on those with anyone? No.
Down with the government
most Americans feel that we can balance the budget without raising taxes by cutting waste Dan M. Leftists should recognize the right has a valid argument about wasteful government spending. Jon I just can not believe that the opposition strategy of the big lie told over and over I believe that cable news and talk radio, controlled by right wing advocates, are the major contributors, not the internet. Chris F. They all are. Fox Noise and talk radio have the left whipped. Progressives are maintaining parity on the internet blogs; not on the viral spams, though. Jon The point of wingnuts is that there are plenty of crazies on the left and on the right, and leftists tend to believe leftist wingnuts, right winger tend to believe right wingnuts. I'd be happy to start a discussion of how we need to face unpleasant facts. But, I don't think all is lost. Dan M. the right-wingnuts are much better are swaying the electorate, however. Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
Leftists should recognize the right has a valid argument about wasteful government spending. I would argue that the right (the one that was in power anyway) was the one doing all the wasteful spending. The idea that the right is fiscally conservative _in practice_ is a farce. I'm not saying that the left has it completely correct either, far from it, but if you vote for the GOP because you want to curb wasteful spending, you're barking up the wrong tree. They all are. Fox Noise and talk radio have the left whipped. Except for Jon Stewart, maybe. The Daily Show kicks ass. Progressives are maintaining parity on the internet blogs; not on the viral spams, though. I miss the lively conversations we used to have here. the right-wingnuts are much better are swaying the electorate, however. Well, they didn't do it in '08, and I'm still optimistic about this year. The way they're spinning it, unless the Republicans make huge gains, they will have underperformed. I think that there are signs that many people in the center of the political spectrum are concerned with giving a GOP that failed so miserably under Bush more power. If the dems losses are moderate, the Republican's just say no politics may be repudiated. Doug fingers crossed ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 1:54 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Down with the government Leftists should recognize the right has a valid argument about wasteful government spending. I would argue that the right (the one that was in power anyway) was the one doing all the wasteful spending. The idea that the right is fiscally conservative _in practice_ is a farce. I'm not saying that the left has it completely correct either, far from it, but if you vote for the GOP because you want to curb wasteful spending, you're barking up the wrong tree. That's what makes the Tea Party so interesting. They are actually small government believers. I don't say I agree with them, I have strong differences with them, but their candidates do have a self-consistent message. I think most folks at their rallies don't think through their viewpoints. Progressives are maintaining Maintaining what? We are still putting everything on a credit card as a nation; the foundation of the job creation machine that was the US had it's last gasp in the 2000 internet bubble, and the progressives are offering no real solutions. Part of it is not their fault, anyone who stated the fundamental difficulties we faced and the real options we had would be regulated to a fringe candidateor be electrocuted after touching 5 different third rails. I miss the lively conversations we used to have here. They have disappeared elsewhere too. Lord knows, I've tried to write posts that I've thought about. But, I noticed that my suggestions of fundamental problems that both parties are ignoring seem to be ignored here. I've done analysis of this and see some difficulties that don't fit into either the left wing or right wing polarizing box, so they tend to be ignored. But, I know if I found the time (with my wife working 70 hours/week trying to turn a small church around and me working full time and spending hours trying to help her time is hard to come by) it would be ignored or I'd be insulted personally in response. Most internet discussions are either flame wars or self select for group thinkwhich leads to few posts. the right-wingnuts are much better are swaying the electorate, however. Well, they didn't do it in '08, and I'm still optimistic about this year. I'm not. Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com has been pretty good at analysis and they point to a Republican house and the Democratic lead in the Senate down to 52-48 as the average number. He was within 2 electoral votes last time, he was a sabermetrics guru and his posts have the feel of good technical analysis. It's the economy, stupid, and this is the worst rebound from a recession since the Great Depression. I think this is outside of either party's control; the best that can be done is to support something that will help over the next decade. BTW, I think that California has just seen the tip of the iceberg with regards to its problems. For example, why should someone build a new high tech enterprise in pricy San Jose instead of cheap Raleigh-Durham or Austin? California has put itself in a box and I'd expect housing prices to drop another factor of before it can start to rebound. Now, there's a topic we can debate. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government
At 03:23 PM Friday 10/15/2010, Dan Minette wrote: [snip] California has put itself in a box and I'd expect housing prices to drop another factor of ? before it can start to rebound. Now, there's a topic we can debate. :-) Dan M. Something missing here . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
On 10/15/2010 05:15 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 03:23 PM Friday 10/15/2010, Dan Minette wrote: [snip] California has put itself in a box and I'd expect housing prices to drop another factor of ? before it can start to rebound. Now, there's a topic we can debate. :-) Dan M. Something missing here . . . . . . ronn! :) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com The cost of living in California is still too high for it to compete with other livable areas. Therefore, no new business moves to California, especially the bay area. But if housing costs matched those in the Plains or Appalachia then it would be more attractive to open a business in California. After all, a low cost of living is why New England has weathered the Great Recession so well. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 7:16 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: RE: Down with the government At 03:23 PM Friday 10/15/2010, Dan Minette wrote: [snip] California has put itself in a box and I'd expect housing prices to drop another factor of 2 before it can start to rebound. Now, there's a topic we can debate. :-) Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government
The cost of living in California is still too high for it to compete with other livable areas. Therefore, no new business moves to California, especially the bay area. But if housing costs matched those in the Plains or Appalachia then it would be more attractive to open a business in California. After all, a low cost of living is why New England has weathered the Great Recession so well. I think you're righteven money, I'd rather be in San Francisco than Austin...but there's a long way down to even money. In the high tech corridor north of Austin friends of ours bought a nice newish house for $80 per square foot. It's not in a bad neighborhood or anything, has nice upgrades, etc. It's only about 20 minutes from a lot of high tech employers. San Francisco is $550 per sq. ft., Berkley is $440, so there is a long way to go, even if you think living in the bay area is worth twice the price. Prices have to drop a factor of two. In the new world we're living in (trade deficit should be another half trillion this year), companies cannot afford to hire engineers or programmers at salaries that allow them to live in the Bay area. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Down with the government
That's a tempting idea, but this article got me thinking it is just not true. Small Change Why the revolution will not be tweeted. by Malcolm Gladwell http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/malcolm_gladwell/search?contributorName=malcolm%20gladwell Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell#ixzz12BH0HcYw Gladwell's observation is that social media is a great place for people who don't want to put much energy into their activism. Nick The article started out to say the opposite and that the Internet actually help organize revolts in Moldova and Iran, then it contradicted those claims, but not very convincingly. It's probably true that my generation was more active without the Internet, but we had television. I hitched cross country to attend every single anti-Vietnam moratorium. I was in Ohio in an 18 wheeler listening to CB radio chat about a demonstration at Kent state, so I had my ride let me out. The campus was barricaded. I hitched a ride to L.A. from some really freaked out organizers!~) One reason why this generation is less than enthusiastic about protesting the government is they feel powerless. That's why they woke up briefly and got behind Obama. There was tremendous buzz about him on the Internet and now there is apathy about his presidency. Before that millions turned out to protest Bush's policies. Another reason for the lack of solidarity in America is people are growing weary of all the negativism and polarization. They just want to nerd out online, play video games or watch Jersey Shore. Maybe I've wasted twenty years of my life advocating for a Virtual Town Hall. I think this will be my last election. Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government
I am enjoying these discussions just lurking around. I am an example of a great many, I fear. I got really involved in politics for the first time in my life working as a trainer in the Obama campaign. Since then it seems that I have been on sabbatical from life. I just can not believe that the opposition strategy of the big lie told over and over using repostings of old claims recycled from before the election has worked to marginalize this very intelligent and capable president. His inexperience can explain some disillusionment but the vitriol thrown out using every media available is unprecedented in my lifetime. I believe that cable news and talk radio, controlled by right wing advocates, are the major contributors, not the internet. Email spam may have an effect. I suspect a poll of internet savvy voters would support rational policies and in general Obama. I agree with Dan M. and Pogo, I have met the enemy and he is us. I am trying hard to get up and moving to help reeducate the Fox Koolaid drinkers but it is difficult to stay motivated. Chris F. On Oct 13, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Dan Minette wrote: One reason why this generation is less than enthusiastic about protesting the government is they feel powerless. Well, they are powerless to do what they want. According to recent polls, most Americans feel that we can balance the budget without raising taxes by cutting waste alone. By cutting waste, they are not talking about that local program that creates jobs, national defense, Medicare, Social security, etc. It's those folks over there wasting money. Wingnuts makes a fairly convincing argument that most Americans believe convenient falsehoods. For example, most folks of the greatest generation believed that they put far more into Social Security and Medicare than they received. I've pushed people on this and they fell to arguing that they would have invested in 3M, switched to Microsoft at the right moment, and then into Talbs funds if only they didn't pay those taxes. I think Pogo is right. We have met the enemy and he is us. Remember, in the early '70s, Archie Bunker was closer to the average American than Abbie Hoffman. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government
I agree with Dan M. and Pogo, I have met the enemy and he is us. I am trying hard to get up and moving to help reeducate the Fox Koolaid drinkers but it is difficult to stay motivated. The education is not just that, IMHO. It's seeing the eschewing of hard consequences from things one has been evaluating oneself. I try to counter this by finding intelligent, reasonable people with different points of view. For the last 10+ years I've had Dr. Mukunda to debate with, first on this list, and then via IM when he felt it was time to leave here. (I usually don't drop titles, but his still squeaks it's so new). The point of wingnuts is that there are plenty of crazies on the left and on the right, and leftists tend to believe leftist wingnuts, right winger tend to believe right wingnuts, and independents believe some combination, depending on the circumstances. Let me give you one example of something neither party is talking about. There is a good reason new jobs are not being created now, and why few were created under Bush II. It's a hard problem to face, and any politician that gave an honest assessment would lose any chance of election. In short, I'd argue the government is so dysfunctional because it represents national thinking well. Now, that may be a bit overstated, but I'd be happy to start a discussion of how we need to face unpleasant facts. But, I don't think all is loss. I think China is very much like Japan in the '80s. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Down with the government!
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 8:17 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Down with the government! Electronic forums are the ideal venue for brainstorming solutions for social issues, as you can take time to edit your comments. It also affords more people an opportunity to be less passive and have a voice. Moderated sites work best to stay on topic and maintain civilized discourse. As long as the moderator isn't a censor. After 20 years of changes in internet groups, I think its reasonable to see what really happens in internet forums. Yes, there will be the rare exception, but I've seen multiple postings that indicate that, when the forums are used, they are trivial and decisions are based on rumors. The birther rumor is a good example of this. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Direct participatory democracy (was down with the government)
Electronic forums are the ideal venue for brainstorming solutions for social issues, as you can take time to edit your comments. ?It also affords more people an opportunity to be less passive and have a voice. Moderated sites work best to stay on topic and maintain civilized discourse. As long as the moderator isn't a censor. Doug P After 20 years of changes in internet groups, I think its reasonable to see what really happens in internet forums. Yes, there will be the rare exception, but I've seen multiple postings that indicate that, when the forums are used, they are trivial and decisions are based on rumors. The birther rumor is a good example of this. Dan M. That has been the case and there are worse examples. What I am trying to do in Santa Monica is to have the forums on the city website with participation from city officials. The topics would be on local issues and the moderators on each topic would be would be selected by participants to prevent any attempts to censor or slant the discussion. Jon M ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government!
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Jon Louis Mann net_democr...@yahoo.comwrote: Electronic forums are the ideal venue for brainstorming solutions for social issues, as you can take time to edit your comments. It also affords more people an opportunity to be less passive and have a voice. Moderated sites work best to stay on topic and maintain civilized discourse. That's a tempting idea, but this article got me thinking it is just not true. Small ChangeWhy the revolution will not be tweeted.by Malcolm Gladwellhttp://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/malcolm_gladwell/search?contributorName=malcolm%20gladwell Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell#ixzz12BH0HcYw Gladwell's observation is that social media is a great place for people who don't want to put much energy into their activism. Nick http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government!
On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Jon Louis Mann net_democr...@yahoo.com wrote: Electronic forums are the ideal venue for brainstorming solutions for social issues, as you can take time to edit your comments. It also affords more people an opportunity to be less passive and have a voice. Moderated sites work best to stay on topic and maintain civilized discourse. That's a tempting idea, but this article got me thinking it is just not true. Small Change Why the revolution will not be tweeted. by Malcolm Gladwell Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell#ixzz12BH0HcYw Gladwell's observation is that social media is a great place for people who don't want to put much energy into their activism. Which makes it perfect for me. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DOWN with the government!~)
BTW Jon, This would be great internationally as well not just in the US, If you want a bit of (free) adivce on websites, its what I do for a living for my sins. My Facebook and twit profile is alexgogan Good luck with the project love the idea! On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Jon Louis Mann net_democr...@yahoo.comwrote: I'm running because I want to oppose that system and give residents a voice in how those millions are spent with a virtual town hall forum on the city website, for transparency, and to hold city officials accountable. Jon You sound like the kind of guy I might just vote for, name recognition or not! Dave Sounds like you got your priorities right to me. I wonder if you couldn't have run under your old name, or if people would just find that weird? Charlie Thanks guys, if anyone is interested they can follow my campaign by friending me on Facebook. I am trying to figure out how to set up a website and am working on putting it on smartvoter.org. Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DOWN with the government!~)
And there I was trying to add David as a Friend and Facebook say do I know David Personally!!! Well he doesn't know me but my bookshelf knows him very well :¬} On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Dave Land dml...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 10, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Dave Land wrote: Where would a guy find you on Facebook? Searching for Jon Louis Mann didn't cut it. Never mind. I remembered that you and I are both friends of some guy named David Brin. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Down with the government!
This would be great internationally as well, not just in the US. If you want a bit of (free) adivce on websites, its what I do for a living for my sins. My Facebook and twitter profile is alexgogan Good luck with the project love the idea! Thanks Alex I'll look you up. I pop up on FB as Jon Mann on Dr. Brin's page. My e-mail address is net_democr...@yahoo.com The concept of the electronic village is found in SF, especially if you've read Earth. It's evolving on the internet as weblogs, etc. The Internet enables discussions to be held online and provides a way for the people to gather together, allowing everyone speak their mind, discuss an issue, make a decision, and vote to have it carried out. It is a means to implement direct participatory democracy, as opposed to representative government. Town halls can no longer work as they did in ancient times. They are a function of the size of the group, which places limits on speaking time. Within the decision making process some people talk more than others. Electronic forums are the ideal venue for brainstorming solutions for social issues, as you can take time to edit your comments. It also affords more people an opportunity to be less passive and have a voice. Moderated sites work best to stay on topic and maintain civilized discourse. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government!
Electronic forums are the ideal venue for brainstorming solutions for social issues, as you can take time to edit your comments. It also affords more people an opportunity to be less passive and have a voice. Moderated sites work best to stay on topic and maintain civilized discourse. As long as the moderator isn't a censor. Doug I(ttb)AMoaC ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DOWN with the government!~)
On Oct 9, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Jon Louis Mann wrote: I'm running because I want to oppose that system and give residents a voice in how those millions are spent with a virtual town hall forum on the city website, for transparency, and to hold city officials accountable. Jon You sound like the kind of guy I might just vote for, name recognition or not! Dave Sounds like you got your priorities right to me. I wonder if you couldn't have run under your old name, or if people would just find that weird? Charlie Thanks guys, if anyone is interested they can follow my campaign by friending me on Facebook. I am trying to figure out how to set up a website and am working on putting it on smartvoter.org. Where would a guy find you on Facebook? Searching for Jon Louis Mann didn't cut it. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: DOWN with the government!~)
On Oct 10, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Dave Land wrote: Where would a guy find you on Facebook? Searching for Jon Louis Mann didn't cut it. Never mind. I remembered that you and I are both friends of some guy named David Brin. Dave ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
DOWN with the government!~)
I'm running because I want to oppose that system and give residents a voice in how those millions are spent with a virtual town hall forum on the city website, for transparency, and to hold city officials accountable. Jon You sound like the kind of guy I might just vote for, name recognition or not! Dave Sounds like you got your priorities right to me. I wonder if you couldn't have run under your old name, or if people would just find that weird? Charlie Thanks guys, if anyone is interested they can follow my campaign by friending me on Facebook. I am trying to figure out how to set up a website and am working on putting it on smartvoter.org. Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Down with the government!
Tiririca was a TV clown, he ran for Congress.
He won because he said things like Do you know
what a Congressman does? I don't know either.
Put me there and I will tell you.
I am also running for political office,
for the tenth time...~{
Good luck :-)
Alberto Monteiro
Proving the old adage, if at first you don't
succeed, don't have the common sense to quit?
Dave
I was starting to get name recognition around the 6th or 7th campaign, then I
got married, took my wife's name and had to start over from scratch.
Incumbents almost always get re-elected and are usually put into office by the
local political machine. The one exception was Bobby Shriver, whose
brother-in-law is the Governator.
Most serious candidates raise at least $100,000, much of which comes from
special interests; developers, realtors, city employees, etc. The job pays
$12,000 a year but you have control over a budget of 554 MILLION bucks, for a
city of 80,000!
I'm running because I want to oppose that system and give residents a voice in
how those millions are spent with a virtual town hall forum on the city
website, for transparency, and to hold city officials accountable.
Jon
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government!
On Oct 8, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
I am also running for political office,
for the tenth time...~{
Proving the old adage, if at first you don't
succeed, don't have the common sense to quit?
Of course, you understand that this was said in the friendliest way
possible. Common sense might have told you to quit, but as your story
shows, repeated attempts increase your name recognition.
I was starting to get name recognition around the 6th or 7th
campaign, then I got married, took my wife's name and had to start
over from scratch.
Sounds like you got your priorities right to me. I wonder if you
couldn't have run under your old name, or if people would just find
that weird?
Most serious candidates raise at least $100,000, much of which comes
from special interests; developers, realtors, city employees, etc.
The job pays $12,000 a year but you have control over a budget of
554 MILLION bucks, for a city of 80,000!
I'm running because I want to oppose that system and give residents
a voice in how those millions are spent with a virtual town hall
forum on the city website, for transparency, and to hold city
officials accountable.
You sound like the kind of guy I might just vote for, name recognition
or not!
Dave
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Down with the government!
On 09/10/2010, at 10:36 AM, Dave Land wrote: Sounds like you got your priorities right to me. I wonder if you couldn't have run under your old name, or if people would just find that weird? It's not uncommon for female careerists or politicians or authors or sportswomen to continue to work/run/publish/compete under their birth name even if they've legally taken their partner's name for all other purposes. As Jon has discovered, having to rebuild the name recognition is a handicap. So yes, he could've continued under his birth name. But now, 3 campaigns on, he'll have done a lot of the hard work in that rebranding. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
