U.S. Politics, 12

[Shryke]

It's SYM. His hypothetical business and how many hypothetical employees it hires is entirely based on which political party SYM wants to argue for and against on the internet.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

To me, people like you are the proverbial kid who takes his ball and goes home because he isn't winning the game anymore.

Nah. He'd be the guy who took the ball after you threw it threw his window. Assuming he really does have the ball, that is.

[Guest Raidne]

When Clinton was on the Daily Show a month or so ago, it was amazing how well he was able to sell the Democrats achievements. I think one of Obama's biggest mistakes was sort of dismissing the Clinton presidency in comments. Instead, he should have been using Clinton for all he was worth.

I could not agree more.

Welp, I'm tentatively laying plans to hire back a couple of employees. Strictly donkey work for the time being, but we shall see. Look for the unemployment rate to immediately drop, as many other small business owners who have been holding back begin to expand in the wake of the Republicans' victory.

Wait, why?

It's, like, celebratory hiring, or what? (Psst: the kind of answer I'm looking for is like when Michigan repealed the small business tax, or something like that.)

I think the only problem is that part of the argument, if you want to get technical, is "things would be so much worse if not for what we'd done." That's a tough message to sell. But they could have framed it differently. They should have waved copies of the Moody's data saying that the Stimulus created 3.3 million jobs. They should have made more references to the mess GWB had left them.

How about - imagine how much worse it would be if these guys were in charge? I don't get it - why can't Obama stand up and say that less income inequality is good for the economy? Overall, and for almost everyone individually? I mean, the Republicans can shovel crap like voodoo economics down our throats, and we don't have the balls to state our own theories? That actually do have empirical support? WTF?

Well, the problem is no matter what position you take, there's always an alternative position that would leave even fewer people dying on the streets. Which means the person on your left can always accuse you of letting a greater number of people die in the streets.

Is there always that alternative position? If so, I would be happy to hear it. That is a position I am interested in hearing, for sure. Because, from where I'm standing, under a communist system, people lack motivation and there is less to go around for everyone and people die in the streets. Waiting in line. For bread. But on the other hand, when the rich get richer and bribe people to enact policies that help them get even richer, they hoard it all and people due in the streets. I'm interested in the most optimal point in the middle of all that, be it Nash's, or Rawls, or whatever it turns out to be. And at that point, no, there isn't anyone standing to my left saying that quality of life would be better for everyone if we just did X, because that's what it means to hit the optimum point.

What on earth are you thinking about when you form opinions on this stuff?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

One of the more interesting things in the aftermath data is that the Progressive Caucus hardly lost any seats and the Blue Dog Caucus lost a ton. I would think that this is partly because Progressives tend to come from very progressive districts while Blue Dogs tend to come from conservative districts. It was probably a smart strategy on the part of Dean and all to run Blue Dog types in those districts, but it was always going to be challenging to keep those seats, particularly in a tough environment for Dems like this year.

What is just as interesting is that this crop of Republicans didn't get elected in swing districts by running as moderates -- they ran as conservatives and won anyway. Sure, that likely cost them a few seats, but this GOP caucus will be both larger and more conservative. What that means is more polarization, which I like anyway....

I think keeping the Senate for a while is totally possible for the Dems (though it could go either way) whereas getting the House back is going to be really hard. I won't be surprised if the GOP holds the House for a long time.

That may be tough due to the numbers game in the Senate. In 2012, the Democratic wave of 2006 will be up for reelection. Of the 33 Senate seats that will be up, 21 belong to Democrats, and only 12 to Republicans. It's going to be tough for the Dems not to have a net loss.

[Reek]

Nah. He'd be the guy who took the ball after you threw it threw his window. Assuming he really does have the ball, that is.

I guess I can see where you are coming from there but really... to me it looks like he has spent the last two years looking for a reason to not hire people on. It's not that he didn't have the money to pay them. It's not like he couldn't use the help. The only reason he didn't hire folks was because of some nebulous fear of government interference.

So all of a sudden, his team is back in power starting next year... and without his team doing anything to change the rules of the game, all of a sudden it's a better business climate? How?

I just don't get his reasoning for waiting until now to hire new people other than he was being spiteful that Democrats were in power starting in 2008 and he bought the fear-mongering the GOP was selling.

So now instead of some nebulous fear of government interference, he has some nebulous feeling that the GOP is going to go out of its way to help small business... but they haven't done anything yet. Not a single frakking thing.

And they won't.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Is there always that alternative position?

Yes.

If so, I would be happy to hear it. That is a position I am interested in hearing, for sure. Because, from where I'm standing, under a communist system, people lack motivation and there is less to go around for everyone and people die in the streets. Waiting in line. For bread.

But that's not what people to the left of you will say. They'll say you're wrong, that more spending really is sustainable if we tax people more and that there really won't be this lack of motivation, etc. Then they'll say you want people to die in the street.

But on the other hand, when the rich get richer and bribe people to enact policies that help them get even richer, they hoard it all and people due in the streets. I'm interested in the most optimal point in the middle of all that, be it Nash's, or Rawls, or whatever it turns out to be.

But there is no objective, universally acceptable way of determining where that point is, which means there is always going to be someone on your left screaming for more.

The thing is that me and others like me believe we are already at that point. That in the long term, this level of welfare statism is unsustainable. Now I'm sure you think we're wrong, but those commies to your left will think that you're wrong too. And they'll still claim you want people dying in the streets.

What on earth are you thinking about when you form opinions on this stuff?

Reality. And recognizing that my perspective is not the only one out there.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I guess I can see where you are coming from there but really... to me it looks like he has spent the last two years looking for a reason to not hire people on. It's not that he didn't have the money to pay them. It's not like he couldn't use the help. The only reason he didn't hire folks was because of some nebulous fear of government interference.

So all of a sudden, his team is back in power starting next year... and without his team doing anything to change the rules of the game, all of a sudden it's a better business climate? How?

I just don't get his reasoning for waiting until now to hire new people other than he was being spiteful that Democrats were in power starting in 2008 and he bought the fear-mongering the GOP was selling.

So now instead of some nebulous fear of government interference, he has some nebulous feeling that the GOP is going to go out of its way to help small business... but they haven't done anything yet. Not a single frakking thing.

And they won't.

Well, first, the business and employees have to really exist. We don't know that they do.

But assuming they do, there are tremendous costs associated with hiring new employees, including the possibility of subsequent layoffs, liability, unemployment claims in the event of a layoff, etc. Usually some capital investment in terms of equipment for the employees to use. And whatever government mandates may be poured on. For example, I read something by Krugman arguing that we should move to a model that imposes additional costs for laying off employees.

Now all of those additional costs are risks to the health of a company. If there is uncertainty as to the cost of additional government mandates that might wreck your cost structure, it is entirely logical to hold off on the risk of hiring new employees until the risk of those mandates is eliminated or reduced. Further, if there is a possibility that your business taxes will increase, which would reduce your potential profits you might get from the expansion, then you have even less incentive to expand. So whether the Bush tax cuts get extended may be relevant for some small business folks who file as S Corps.

Whether SYM is making this up or not, there are a lot of business owners who think this way generally, even if they aren't reacting immediately to the election results.

[Smashing Young Man]

I guess I can see where you are coming from there but really... to me it looks like he has spent the last two years looking for a reason to not hire people on. It's not that he didn't have the money to pay them. It's not like he couldn't use the help. The only reason he didn't hire folks was because of some nebulous fear of government interference.

So all of a sudden, his team is back in power starting next year... and without his team doing anything to change the rules of the game, all of a sudden it's a better business climate? How?

I just don't get his reasoning for waiting until now to hire new people other than he was being spiteful that Democrats were in power starting in 2008 and he bought the fear-mongering the GOP was selling.

So now instead of some nebulous fear of government interference, he has some nebulous feeling that the GOP is going to go out of its way to help small business... but they haven't done anything yet. Not a single frakking thing.

And they won't.

There is not a thing nebulous about it—at least not to those of us who actually write a check to Uncle Sam every tax season. It's damn concrete.

[Shryke]

There is not a thing nebulous about it—at least not to those of us who actually write a check to Uncle Sam every tax season. It's damn concrete.

What has suddenly changed for your hypothetical business?

Have the taxes on Unicorns gone up?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

How about - imagine how much worse it would be if these guys were in charge? I don't get it - why can't Obama stand up and say that less income inequality is good for the economy? Overall, and for almost everyone individually? I mean, the Republicans can shovel crap like voodoo economics down our throats, and we don't have the balls to state our own theories? That actually do have empirical support? WTF?

Obama can't say that because Obama rushed home from the campaign trail to oversee a massive transfer of funds from the poor to the rich. From taxpayers -> banks, taxpayers -> auto companies, taxpayers -> public employee unions. And before you say that TARP was repaid...do you think that the taxpayers are getting a refund? Shall they look forward to checks in the mail? Or were those funds already spent on something else before they were even received? He can't say it because he doesn't believe it.

[Swordfish]

If it was an incorrect assumption you would address what I said about my friend instead of dodging it under the proverbial umbrella melodrama and hyperbole.

:rolleyes:

Your friends condition has nothing to do with this discussion. See below.

It's pretending that people don't die because of a lack of health care that is a bullshit tactic, along with acting like people who do acknowledge this just lack sophistication.

It's as if Hitler truly, you know, was brought back to life, and you called a godwin. Because there are, literally, people who will die. It's not a hysterical metaphor.

I'll try this one more time, since you apparently suffer from the same lack of perspective as the person who posted the 'OMG WHY DON"T YOU CARE ABOUT PEOPLE DYING IN THE STREETS' argument.

It isn't an argument. It's an accusation that accomplishes basically two things. it allows the person making it to puff themselves up with self righteousness and it also makes a nonsensical accusation that anyone who opposed the healthcare bill does not care about people dying in the streets. it does nothing to discuss the merits of the bill, it doesn't even really do anything to address the general notion of HAVING a bill.

Which more or less makes the argument complete bullshit.

All of that, of course, is pretty self evident, provided you have a sufficient level of 'sophistication', understand context, and can avoid a simple knee jerk reaction.

You, at least, should probably get credit for accomplishing the same two objectives more openly, rather than using the 'people dying in the streets' argument, so.... Props? I guess?

I mean, the dude flat out SAID that he thinks republicans want to kill him.

You don't see even a smidgen of hyperbole in there? Really?

I love it that people argue that people don't die because of lack of health insurance, and have the balls to suggest that people who say that's not true are being hyperbolic.

Pray tell, who has made such a loveable argument?

[Shryke]

Obama can't say that because Obama rushed home from the campaign trail to oversee a massive transfer of funds from the poor to the rich. From taxpayers -> banks, taxpayers -> auto companies, taxpayers -> public employee unions. And before you say that TARP was repaid...do you think that the taxpayers are getting a refund? Shall they look forward to checks in the mail? Or were those funds already spent on something else before they were even received? He can't say it because he doesn't believe it.

Well, since you never got taxed specifically for TARP in the first place, why would you expect a check in the mail when it got paid off?

[Smashing Young Man]

What has suddenly changed for your hypothetical business?

Have the taxes on Unicorns gone up?

Ah . . . the ol' insinuation that I don't actually have my own business. It's a common thing on the internet when one person claims any sort of success for others to accuse them of lying, either out of jealousy or because they honestly don't believe them (this last is reasonable, given the nature of online discussions). I've actually downplayed things for this very reason. I am a highly in demand web and graphic designer who has built an impressive portfolio through long years of hard work. I have the luxury of picking and choosing which jobs I take, and I command a very high retaining fee that clients are willing to pay.

That's about as much detail as I'll go into on the nature of my business. Since a lot of my work is for high profile clients with PR concerns, it's in both mine and their best interests to keep my business identity separate from my personal one.

I'm hiring again because I desperately need to. I would have hired at least one more person even if the Republicans hadn't won, as little as I would have liked it. As they did, my hiring more is a way of sending a message that things are on the right track. The message will be sent on the national level by contributing to lower unemployment numbers, and on a more personal level when I make it well known that I'm hiring precisely because the left's agenda is being stuffed. "The Republicans won and now I have a job!" will be repeated time and again in the coming months, I hope.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Well, since you never got taxed specifically for TARP in the first place, why would you expect a check in the mail when it got paid off?

Actually I did, since the government didn't actually have the funds to spend on TARP, when they wrote that check they either had to borrow it or inflate the currency. Either way it it comes from the taxpayer's pocket, and since you and I both know that they neither took the funds out of circulation or paid off the debt with it, I'm not seeing any of it back. It was a transfer from me to a bunch of rich guys, who used it to make fantastic profits.

[Shryke]

Ah . . . the ol' insinuation that I don't actually have my own business. It's a common thing on the internet when one person claims any sort of success for others to accuse them of lying, either out of jealousy or because they honestly don't believe them (this last is reasonable, given the nature of online discussions). I've actually downplayed things for this very reason. I am a highly in demand web and graphic designer who has built an impressive portfolio through long years of hard work. I have the luxury of picking and choosing which jobs I take, and I command a very high retaining fee that clients are willing to pay.

That's about as much detail as I'll go into on the nature of my business. Since a lot of my work is for high profile clients with PR concerns, it's in both mine and their best interests to keep my business identity separate from my personal one.

I'm hiring again because I desperately need to. I would have hired at least one more person even if the Republicans hadn't won, as little as I would have liked it. As they did, my hiring more is a way of sending a message that things are on the right track. The message will be sent on the national level by contributing to lower unemployment numbers, and on a more personal level when I make it well known that I'm hiring precisely because the left's agenda is being stuffed. "The Republicans won and now I have a job!" will be repeated time and again in the coming months, I hope.

Actually, the disbelief comes from your general attitude that hiring is bad when Democrats win and good when Republicans win without ever explaining WHY. You throw out random ridiculous pronouncements every now and then and never back them up. It's why no one takes you seriously.

[Prince of the North]

I'm hiring again because I desperately need to. I would have hired at least one more person even if the Republicans hadn't won, as little as I would have liked it. As they did, my hiring more is a way of sending a message that things are on the right track. The message will be sent on the national level by contributing to lower unemployment numbers, and on a more personal level when I make it well known that I'm hiring precisely because the left's agenda is being stuffed. "The Republicans won and now I have a job!" will be repeated time and again in the coming months, I hope.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone overestimate themselves or their influence more than this bit of ridiculousness. Yes, you certainly made a huge dent in the unemployment rate at the national level. If you make your business decisions in this manner then I daresay your business is succeeding not because of you but in spite of you.

[Shryke]

Actually I did, since the government didn't actually have the funds to spend on TARP, when they wrote that check they either had to borrow it or inflate the currency. Either way it it comes from the taxpayer's pocket, and since you and I both know that they neither took the funds out of circulation or paid off the debt with it, I'm not seeing any of it back. It was a transfer from me to a bunch of rich guys, who used it to make fantastic profits.

They've been spending money "they don't actually have" or whatever ridiculous turn of phrase you wanna use for decades now. The government doesn't work the way you keep implying.

The money never came directly from you and thus will never return directly to you. It came out of the government's budget and then came right back to the government's budget and that's it. Since it got paid back, there is no net effect on you (beyond, of course, what TARP accomplished).

Your tax rate didn't go up, no one came to your house to collect your money, nothing. Thus nothing will happen to you again when it's paid back.

[Inigima]

What has suddenly changed for your hypothetical business?

Have the taxes on Unicorns gone up?

:lol:

I think most of the conservative commentary here since the election has been thoughtful, but SYM is the same as he ever was.

[Shryke]

The Hearings over Fake Scandals has begun!

One of the things those of us who remember the 90s really don’t miss is the parade of fake scandals — the endless investigations into alleged White House misdeeds (140 hours of sworn testimony into allegations that the Clintons had misused their Christmas card list).

And it’s starting again: a huge fake uproar over allegations of outrageous spending on Obama’s India trip.

This is going to be awful. What will be even worse is watching the Very Serious People fall for it.

Update: No matter how bad you think it’s going to be, it’s actually worse:

The GOP plans to hold high profile hearings examining the alleged “scientific fraud” behind global warming, a sleeper issue in this election that motivated the base quite a bit.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/the-fake-scandals-begin/

[tzanth]

I'm hiring again because I desperately need to. I would have hired at least one more person even if the Republicans hadn't won, as little as I would have liked it. As they did, my hiring more is a way of sending a message that things are on the right track. The message will be sent on the national level by contributing to lower unemployment numbers, and on a more personal level when I make it well known that I'm hiring precisely because the left's agenda is being stuffed. "The Republicans won and now I have a job!" will be repeated time and again in the coming months, I hope.

Excellent!! Happy to hear you are doing your part to improve the economy and see Obama reelected in 2012! :cheers: