Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: VIDEO: Veterans Share Favorite Sports Memories

Nations Debt Bad News

 

9:15 AM

According to ABC, the nations budget deficit is alarming and, "Economic forecasters say future generations of Americans could have a substantially lower standard of living than their predecessors' for the first time in the country's history if the debt is not brought under control.

Government debt, which fuels the risk of inflation, could make everyday Americans' savings worth less. Higher interest rates would make it harder for consumers and businesses to borrow. Wages would remain stagnant and fewer jobs would be created. The government's ability to cut taxes or provide a safety net would also be weakened, economists say."

So, with all the bad news facing Americans, we have Spring training starting tomorrow.  Phew, I thought there for a minute we had no future, but baseball brought me back to reality.  Thank goodness.

Texas Summer Heat



Comment 189 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Debt's been a creeping problem

since the borrow and spend Reagan administration. Basically, in 30 years we’ve undone all the work of the 35 post WW2 years. It’s a huge problem when neither party is fiscally responsible.

"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland

by DJCahill on Feb 17, 2010 9:43 AM CST reply actions   1 recs

You seen that doc IOUSA?

Scary stuff.

"Sometimes you just want to sit back and watch somebody throw 100." - Jeff Passan on Neftali Feliz

"Baseball's all that's real" - JB

by Ryin A on Feb 17, 2010 10:06 AM CST up reply actions  

Didn't see it,

but I’ve been aware of the Debt data for awhile. Its been clear we bottomed out for debt in the 70s and basically have been living on borrowed money since.

The Dems have a justified reputation for being big spenders, but considering the other side has no realistic plan other than borrow and spend makes a big problem. While the Republicans give lip service to being fiscally responsible, raising defense spending to a level thats roughly on par witth the rest of the world combined, plus lowered taxes, leaves them no realistic way to do anything but raise the debt.

"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland

by DJCahill on Feb 17, 2010 7:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Too far?

Palin not happy with Family Guy.

As much as I can’t stand that woman I can kinda see her point here.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Feb 17, 2010 9:53 AM CST reply actions  

heh

and yet she won’t stand up to rush Limbaugh

" This is the inning that propels us to the playoffs. Mark it down."
- Rohn Warshington on Jul 27, 2009 9:19 PM EDT
5th inning against the Tigers

by gossamer on Feb 17, 2010 12:06 PM CST up reply actions  

It's hard to rush him while sitting.

'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'

by scoop16 on Feb 17, 2010 12:12 PM CST up reply actions  

hey yo!

point is, she has little to no credibility on this. yeah, she has a mentally challenged kid, but she has turned it political. go after rahm for saying “that’s retarded” in private, but give rush a pass when he says something to the affect of, “liberals are retards” and “nothing wrong with calling retards retards” c’mon.

" This is the inning that propels us to the playoffs. Mark it down."
- Rohn Warshington on Jul 27, 2009 9:19 PM EDT
5th inning against the Tigers

by gossamer on Feb 17, 2010 12:21 PM CST up reply actions  

Politics gives me tired head.

However, I just read the Family Guy story and find it abhorrent.

'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'

by scoop16 on Feb 17, 2010 12:32 PM CST up reply actions  

Family Guy

Funny, but I don’t remember her saying anything last season, when an episode aired where Stewie was wearing a Nazi uniform with a McCain-Palin button on it.

Her outrage is awfully selective, and manufactured just as much as the rest of her persona.

"Jesus, Spanish- our jobs aren't enough, now you want our words?"

-- Sterling Archer

by RCCook on Feb 17, 2010 2:08 PM CST up reply actions  

Your last line is perfect

"Back on the scene, with a gangsta lean" RW
"When you have a weapon on your shoulder like he has, you can be cool." RW on Perez
And the little bastard threw it for a swinging strike three in a 3-2 count. He’s blessed. And ballsy.

by Rodney on Feb 17, 2010 2:13 PM CST up reply actions  

Hey

I’m just bein’ mavericky, donchaknow?

"Jesus, Spanish- our jobs aren't enough, now you want our words?"

-- Sterling Archer

by RCCook on Feb 17, 2010 2:18 PM CST up reply actions  

yeah

for any person in the entire world.

"Clearly, I've been wrong. VY is awesome." - AJM

by Longhorn on Feb 17, 2010 2:22 PM CST up reply actions  

i think her outrage

seems to be when they go after her fam…

seems pretty reasonable to me.

"Clearly, I've been wrong. VY is awesome." - AJM

by Longhorn on Feb 17, 2010 2:21 PM CST up reply actions  

I wasn't aware

Rahm Emanuel was going after her family.

Now if he’d said, “the left is as retarded as Sarah Palin’s baby,” then I could see her outrage. But he didn’t. Rush Limbaugh agreed with his comments, said it was fine to “call retards retards,” and she saw one as offensive, while the other wasn’t.

"Jesus, Spanish- our jobs aren't enough, now you want our words?"

-- Sterling Archer

by RCCook on Feb 17, 2010 3:02 PM CST up reply actions  

It's amazing that Rush flexes his muscle like that

and not even Sarah Palin has the gumption to do anything about it. Is she really concerned that she wouldn’t win a battle against Rush where he says “call retards retards?”

I can’t imagine that the guy really has that much power.

by ab03 on Feb 17, 2010 3:13 PM CST up reply actions  

you still don't get it

how is limbaugh on the same level as rahm?

"Clearly, I've been wrong. VY is awesome." - AJM

by Longhorn on Feb 17, 2010 3:44 PM CST up reply actions  

They're both public figures involved in politics.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Feb 17, 2010 3:59 PM CST up reply actions  

Limbaugh

I’d argue he’s more powerful than Rahm, or at least more influential. I’d wager that most people who don’t follow politics couldn’t tell you who the hell Rahm Emanuel is. Everyone knows who Rush is.

And from what I’ve seen, the GOP seems far more reluctant to question Rush than the Dems do Emanuel- in fact, there’s a lot of liberals out there who think Rahm is a serious detriment to Obama. I seldom hear that from a Republican when it comes to Rush, other than perhaps Michael Steele.

"Jesus, Spanish- our jobs aren't enough, now you want our words?"

-- Sterling Archer

by RCCook on Feb 17, 2010 4:08 PM CST up reply actions  

Emanuel is more powerful

He has the ear of the President of the United States, whether your next door neighbors are aware of it or not.

Other than people who already agree with Limbaugh, he’s powerless to persuade anyone and is widely considered to be a buffoon. He’s influential in the spin and echo chambers in terms of shaping opinion but outside of them he’s nothing.

The President’s Chief of Staff has real power.

by Black Francis on Feb 17, 2010 5:14 PM CST up reply actions  

if rush is such a baffoon

that’s powerless, why does steele and other repub leaders have to apologize for offending him? why is palin afraid to take on Herr Goebbels?

" This is the inning that propels us to the playoffs. Mark it down."
- Rohn Warshington on Jul 27, 2009 9:19 PM EDT
5th inning against the Tigers

by gossamer on Feb 17, 2010 5:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Sarah Palin didn't overly criticize Rush

because she’s not as big an idiot as she’s made out to be.

Rather than everyone being on high horses, let’s look at reality here.

Sarah Palin was probably offended by both Emmanuel and Rush. I would be in her shoes. But while speaking out against the former gets headlines for her cause or her career (with no real cost – I mean, no one expected Obama to actually follow through with her request); speaking out against the latter is quite simply career suicide.

It isn’t about power in this country or anything like that. With regard to Sarah Palin, Limbaugh is more crucial than probably anyone in this country. She crosses him too much, she never gets any primary support (assuming that is her end goal).

You can call it hypocritical or a double standard. Just like everything in politics and society today is hypocritical – people always hold their enemies/opponents to higher standards than their friends/allies. That’s politics in general and especially politics today. We could come up with thousands of examples from both sides. Who cares. It is reality.

Why people expect Palin to be any different from every other politician in this country is strange to me

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Feb 17, 2010 5:50 PM CST up reply actions  

re: Rather than everyone being on high horses, let’s look at reality here

You condemn Palin’s critics for being on their high horses? She is the most sanctimonious high horseman in politics bar none.

And I really don’t agree that this is just a simple case of run of the mill political double standards here, either. That you imply she is no different than any other politician in this country is strange to me.

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 17, 2010 6:15 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not condemning anyone in particular

the people going off on Emmanuel in support of Palin are just as guilty

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Feb 17, 2010 6:16 PM CST up reply actions  

and why is it strange I view Palin as a politician?

I have generally low overall opinions on all of them. Just because she and Obama dominate the headlines, doesn’t mean that they are any better/worse than the rest of them. Yeah, she acts like she’s different. So does every other politician. No one gets elected by saying “Vote for me, I’m a power hungry egomaniac who wants to go on junkets paid by lobbyists”

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Feb 17, 2010 6:18 PM CST up reply actions  

What?

It isn’t strange you view her as a politician. She was clearly born for this. It is strange you view her as par for the course, typical.

She is a rare political phenom. I think this fact isn’t even up for debate. And I fail to come up with another example of a pol who has so brazenly and consistently used their children as political fodder, all the while crying “poor poor me, leave my kids out of it like i do when it’s convenient.” Or one that has made being ignorant such a badge of honor (and I agree w/ you, I don’t think she’s stupid, either).

Just because she and Obama dominate the headlines, doesn’t mean that they are any better/worse than the rest of them.

I don’t think that’s the point at all. I’m not sure why you mention that. One thing that my friends and family of all political shades have been able to be near unanimous on: Sarah Palin is woefully fucking unfit for major political office.

And that one thing is practically the only thing. That’s why she isn’t just any politician.
.

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 17, 2010 7:07 PM CST up reply actions  

Dems should be pulling for her

She’s either going get the nomination and get slaughtered in a general election, or she’ll run on some Tea Party ticket and steal the base out from under the Republican.

by bdavison94 on Feb 17, 2010 7:16 PM CST up reply actions  

They are

I have a couple of friends who are active in the Austin & DC Democratic scenes, and they’ve both said they’d love for Palin to run as the GOP or Tea Party candidate in 2012.

"Jesus, Spanish- our jobs aren't enough, now you want our words?"

-- Sterling Archer

by RCCook on Feb 17, 2010 7:42 PM CST up reply actions  

Of course she's unfit

our country has developed a bad habit of having incredibly awful vice presidential candidates (Cheney/Lieberman and Kemp/Gore seem like the good old days).

What about John Edwards? Just as you say about Palin, he was using his family and their special circumstances (dead son, wife with cancer) while he was out banging some hippie groupie. Edwards terrified me for the same reason Palin terrifies so many people – I saw in his eyes a sleazy delusional psychopath who was amazing at convincing people he was actually their dream politician. It’s interesting that both have gone many miles with an “aw shucks” demeanor.

I guess our difference is not that I find Palin more acceptable than you, because I agree that we’re far better off with her on the sidelines. It is just that I’m cynical about other politicians as well.

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Feb 18, 2010 12:41 AM CST up reply actions  

psychopath is extremely hyperbolic, don't you think?

And I don’t think your edwards comparison is all that congruent.

Edwards never thumped his chest complaining about how people won’t leave his family out of it, and I disagree that he used his dead son for campaign purposes at all.

Was he a huckster and a mediocre candidate? Fo sho. Is he a reprehensibe husband? Undoubtedly.

And of course I share your cynicism about all politicians.

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 18, 2010 6:56 PM CST up reply actions  

You missed the critical phrase -
Other than people who already agree with Limbaugh

There are a shit load of people that believe and agree with everything Rush says and they form the far right wing and other politicians don’t want to piss them off. Rush really isn’t making any converts – he’s just hardening the position of those who are already in the right.

"You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.

Then he grounded out weakly to second.

by WyoRanger on Feb 17, 2010 6:03 PM CST up reply actions  

haha

okay. whatever you say.

"Clearly, I've been wrong. VY is awesome." - AJM

by Longhorn on Feb 17, 2010 8:04 PM CST up reply actions  

The typical reply...

from Longhorn in any political discussion.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Feb 17, 2010 8:16 PM CST up reply actions  

simple answers for simple minded people

can’t go too far with dumb logic.

"Clearly, I've been wrong. VY is awesome." - AJM

by Longhorn on Feb 18, 2010 8:51 PM CST up reply actions  

Boy...

can’t go too far with dumb logic.

You certainly are living proof of that.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Feb 19, 2010 12:22 AM CST up reply actions  

x

I did not ask you if you have herpes. I said is that a hairpiece?!?

by BigGuns on Feb 19, 2010 12:34 AM CST up reply actions  

You still don't get it

Rahm didn’t go after her family.

Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.

by t ball on Feb 17, 2010 4:20 PM CST up reply actions  

and rahm's comment

was supposed to be a private thing. limbaugh’s was meant to be heard by millions.

" This is the inning that propels us to the playoffs. Mark it down."
- Rohn Warshington on Jul 27, 2009 9:19 PM EDT
5th inning against the Tigers

by gossamer on Feb 17, 2010 5:38 PM CST up reply actions  

and you're superfluous

"Clearly, I've been wrong. VY is awesome." - AJM

by Longhorn on Feb 17, 2010 8:01 PM CST up reply actions  

You're not even a good parrot on this kind of thing

so sad.

Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.

by t ball on Feb 17, 2010 9:13 PM CST up reply actions  

please don't get flustered

it really is okay.

"Clearly, I've been wrong. VY is awesome." - AJM

by Longhorn on Feb 18, 2010 8:50 PM CST up reply actions  

Glad you're ok

with who you are. They should make an after-school special about you.

Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.

by t ball on Feb 19, 2010 12:40 AM CST up reply actions  

lol

elected official in the president of the united states’ cabinet is same as a radio host entertainer. Awesome.

Why doesn’t she go after Chris Rock? Or any other liberal comedian/actor/talkshow host?

c’mon.

"Clearly, I've been wrong. VY is awesome." - AJM

by Longhorn on Feb 17, 2010 2:09 PM CST up reply actions  

nice spin work

Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.

by t ball on Feb 17, 2010 2:36 PM CST up reply actions  

Rahm is neither elected, nor in the Cabinet.

He’s the Chief of Staff, and not subject to Senate approval.

I understand why Palin was upset with Rahm’s comments, but her justification of Rush saying the same basic thing was pretty ridiculous.

I am Jurickson Profar son of judeska and chesmond.. And I was born ready! ready to play baseball!!- Jurickson Profar 2/15/2010

by Aqua on Feb 17, 2010 4:22 PM CST up reply actions  

Damn it, how'd you slip by me?

Stupid people interrupting me w/ work issues and what not.

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 17, 2010 4:30 PM CST up reply actions  

OK
elected official in the president of the united states’ cabinet is same as a radio host entertainer. Awesome.

Why doesn’t she go after Chris Rock? Or any other liberal comedian/actor/talkshow host?

David Letterman, meet Longhorn. Longhorn, Mr. Letterman.

And FYI genius: Chief of Staff is neither an elected office nor a cabinet position.

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 17, 2010 4:28 PM CST up reply actions  

yeah

i guess if someone went after your kid, you wouldn’t retaliate.

oh wait, you did get your balls cut off…never mind mr. douche.

"Clearly, I've been wrong. VY is awesome." - AJM

by Longhorn on Feb 17, 2010 8:00 PM CST up reply actions  

I prefer Longhorn as his other persona

Sharky

Offering continued condolences to Stars and Liverpool fans.

by RangerMoto on Feb 17, 2010 8:47 PM CST up reply actions  

did you get your balls cut off?

that’s really your response? because that didn’t actually happen. it’s not really a good insult. you know that, right?

by ab03 on Feb 17, 2010 11:06 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't know about you,

but when I’ve clearly been proven to not know what the hell I’m talking about, I find it’s best to just shut up.

At least your consistent.

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 18, 2010 11:30 AM CST up reply actions  

obviously, you are wrong

every. single. time. quit now. don’t come back.

"Clearly, I've been wrong. VY is awesome." - AJM

by Longhorn on Feb 18, 2010 8:52 PM CST up reply actions  

That is some epic pwnage

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Feb 19, 2010 3:01 PM CST up reply actions  

You missed it

In another thread he broke out the noob boomstick. Twice.

My penis may never unshrivel.

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 19, 2010 7:01 PM CST up reply actions  

but she didn't against Rush.

that’s the point everyone is trying to make, I think. If she went after EVERYONE who talked about retards, then she would at least be consistent in her rage. But she only seems to give half a shit about people “going after her family” when the offender is a democrat.

"Does this effectively hide my thunder?"

by Bob Loblaw on Feb 18, 2010 12:02 PM CST up reply actions  

Exactly

That’s what made her look so craven and hypocritical.

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Feb 18, 2010 5:14 PM CST up reply actions  

Palin

The voice actor who said the line on last week’s Family Guy speaks out on the controversy:

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/family-guy-voice-actor-says-palin-does-not-have-a-sense-of-humor/

Turns out she actually has Down’s Syndrome, and she thinks Palin’s making an unnecessarily big deal about the whole thing.

"Jesus, Spanish- our jobs aren't enough, now you want our words?"

-- Sterling Archer

by RCCook on Feb 18, 2010 10:48 PM CST up reply actions  

what an odd twist

maybe Macfarlane did this whole thing intentionally…trying to draw Palin offisdes, perhaps?

"Does this effectively hide my thunder?"

by Bob Loblaw on Feb 19, 2010 10:13 AM CST up reply actions  

Nothing New

All I’ve heard since high school is that my generation wouldn’t have the same purchasing power that our parents did. I graduated high school in 1994 and continued to hear the same thing throughout college.

These days I look around and think I’m doing fine, but then again my father was supporting an entire household when he was my age. No student loan debt either.

My friends have generally put off having families and still require two incomes to support a household. (2 cars, a house, insurance, etc)

by Black Francis on Feb 17, 2010 9:54 AM CST via mobile reply actions  

Dave Ramsey

takes it to the extreme but there is something to be said for only having mortgage debt.

by corbsclinton on Feb 17, 2010 11:36 AM CST up reply actions  

I'm not even sure if mortgage debt is such a good idea.

If not for all the tax advantages, it would be an even worse idea.

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Feb 17, 2010 4:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Well

the thing that always gets lost in comparing eras are the ridiculous jumps in quality of life.

While bread and milk have gone up 500% since 1970, and gas is obviously far more expensive; think about the things that have gotten cheaper or, put another way, have gotten ridiculously better without going up in price.

We all sit around watching cable tv on flat screen televisions in a time when 27" is considered small. I remember growing up how big a deal it was to get a 20" with a remote control. And if your reception was bad, twist the rabbit ears.

Obviously computers, etc drop in price fast, but 40 years ago a pocket calculator wouldn’t fit in your pocket and cost $900. Now you get them at vendor shows for free.

You want to call mom and dad in another state? Wait until Sunday night when it is only 9cents a minute, otherwise you’re paying 50 cents a minute or something stupid for long distance. Yeah gas was cheap enough so you could drive to see them, but your car wasn’t nearly as comfortable as it is now, and heaven help you if you got in an accident – no safety features whatsoever.

So yeah, right now my paycheck can’t feed a family of four and I’ll never be able to afford a house in California, but even the poorest people now have cell phones, netbooks, cars, and TVs that only the super-rich would have even dreamed of twenty years ago. As a society we have opted for universalizing previous luxuries at the expense of things generally included in a run of the mill “cost of living” index.

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Feb 17, 2010 11:56 AM CST up reply actions  

So

I agree with both BF’s points and yours, but the cheaper items are all technologies. And, yes, luxuries.

I’m trying to think what category BF’s examples fall into. Not quite durable goods, but more house goods. Actually you usually need an education to get the income to afford a house, so that fits too.

Weighing the two, life seems more expensive now. I definitely couldn’t afford the house my folks bought for $60k forty years ago, nor any of the mansions that have sprung up on the block in the last ten years.

Go Strangers.

by hightowersmith on Feb 17, 2010 12:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah

well what interest rate did you parents lock into for 30 years at the time? I’m betting it’s a lot more than the ~5% you can get these days, maybe double.

by bdavison94 on Feb 17, 2010 12:40 PM CST up reply actions  

yeah

that is the other biggie. if you had cash in 1978, things were really cheap. But financing 50K at 20% interest will get expensive pretty quickly

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Feb 17, 2010 12:47 PM CST up reply actions  

Between 1979-1985

people just mostly assumed they’d never own a home given the interest rates. Now 40 years ago (the time hightower referenced), rates weren’t double digits but they were high single digits.

by bdavison94 on Feb 17, 2010 1:05 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm aware of technological advances benefiting everyone

Even in poor nations where their poor people are way poorer than ours, they have benefited from these technologies.

I’m talking about raw earning power.

My father supported a stay-at-home wife and two children by the time he was 30. This was in the mid-1970’s. The family also had two cars, one of which was new, and health insurance for everyone. When I was little we lived comfortably and he didn’t make a lot of money. Same thing with my grandparents. Both sets had two children, two cars, owned their own home, etc., and did it all on one salary.

Those days are long gone for most people. None of my friends are doing it. I know some people a little older than me who are able to, but they’re not the norm.

This is why I laugh when people say this country is in danger of sliding backwards. It started a long time ago. As a nation we have peaked. Hopefully we’ll have another peak, but for the near term it looks impossible.

by Black Francis on Feb 17, 2010 5:23 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not arguing about those points

it is frustrating that you can’t be middle class without two incomes. I’m personally frustrated by that.

But the problem with raw earning power as you seem to be describing it is that it is relative. When you talk about your dad at work, mom at home, and two kids it was easy to be average because EVERY family was the same way. Now, women more or less stay in the work force, and so “average” is that both parents work. Since you have two incomes, the median family income is probably 70-80% higher, but again, since it is that way for everyone, inflation kicks in (particularly with regard to limited resources) and we’re back to where we started, except now with twice as many people “at work”. In a sense, your description of middle class is a zero sum game. You can’t stay average

Again, I’d argue that this is a choice our society made – essentially doubling the size of the workforce had huge social benefits to women (improved work environments, marriage no longer a requirement for livelihood, etc), but as a result the median lifestyle (thus middle class) went to a two worker one. I don’t think this is a fundamental failure of our economic system. Just a shift in our values as a society. And as I pointed out above, I think that our overall quality of life has improved across the board over the same time frame.

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Feb 17, 2010 5:40 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't agree with you.

I think most households with children would be single-earner if possible. Obviously there’d be a lot of exceptions to that, so when I say “most” I mean something like 55 to maybe 60 percent. Just a wild ass guess.

The fact is, though, that it cannot be done anymore and I don’t see how that could be considered not going backwards. It’s not a choice. If you want a house, two cars, children, and insurance on everything the vast majority of households will need two incomes.

In the last thirty years things have changed dramatically.

by Black Francis on Feb 17, 2010 5:59 PM CST up reply actions  

Really

the question you’re asking is whether our economy is efficient (or currently inefficient) enough to lower the workforce by say 30% and maintain the overall standard of living. Basically, would dropping the number of people working alter the supply of those things: the house, the two cars, the children, the insurance, etc?

Given that we’re in a situation where 10% are officially unemployed (and probably closer to 20% in reality) and the government is paying out billions to support them; I’d argue that our overall standard living wouldn’t take a big hit if we redistributed the remaining jobs from two worker families to no worker families.

More single-worker homes and fewer on unemployment. Vote JBImaknee for President!

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Feb 17, 2010 6:15 PM CST up reply actions  

x

I think you’d have to be a Soviet Premier very popular with the politburo to try that.

I’d argue that our overall standard living wouldn’t take a big hit if we redistributed the remaining jobs from two worker families to no worker families.

More single-worker homes and fewer on unemployment. Vote JBImaknee for President!

by Black Francis on Feb 17, 2010 6:47 PM CST up reply actions  

I think people's expectations are just way higher now

Cars need to be new (often), houses need to be bigger, everyone has iphones, everyone pays for TV, everyone has internet, 4 TVs, ipod, etc., etc. It just seems like people “need” a lot more now. It’s very consumer driven. If your cell phone is two years old there’s something wrong with you. There’s a huge sense of keeping up with the Jones’s.

When I was kid (I’m only 36) TV was over the air, cars were always used and all that other stuff was unheard of.

"You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.

Then he grounded out weakly to second.

by WyoRanger on Feb 17, 2010 6:23 PM CST up reply actions  

houses are a lot bigger

I’ll definitely give you that. But even the small, old houses are unaffordable on one income. If it’s in a decent neighborhood, anyway.

TV’s are cheap compared to what they used to cost, and the same goes for all kinds of consumer electronics like computers and shit. Cable hasn’t really gone down that much so I’ll give you that, too. But the kinds of things you’re talking about aren’t what’s causing the gap.

by Black Francis on Feb 17, 2010 6:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Agree

There is certainly a percentage of the population that requires two incomes just to survive. However, to argue that it’s a requirement in our society is pretty ridiculous to me. It’s a requirement if you need 2500+ sq ft, two new(er) cars, a flat screen, unlimited texting for your two kids, an X-box, and on and on and on. People just don’t want to live without all the crap.

by bdavison94 on Feb 17, 2010 7:02 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't think this argument applies to his point.

His point is that there is reduced earning power to buy the traditional needs of an American family. Your counter-point is that there were jumps in quality of life. The problem is that the jumps in quality of life weren’t made by us diverting earning power into new or different arenas so much as those arenas dropped significantly in price. The drop in price wasn’t a reflection of increased buying power as much as it was a development of technology. We expect to have much better technology than we did 40 years ago. As part of that, equivalent technologies get much cheaper. Though controversial, it seems to mostly follow the power law. Everything from processor speed to cost of hard drive space to number and interconnectivity of websites follows a power law form.

The crazy thing to me is that computing power is now starting to get big enough to tackle stuff only dreamed of in science fiction novels…and perhaps even more excitingly, force us to think of new fundamental questions that we didn’t ever think we’d be able to address.

If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.

by GhettoBear04 on Feb 17, 2010 10:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Well, I think it is applicable.

“Traditional needs” have become relatively more expensive to our society because those industries haven’t grown along with our population. Our basic requirements, which seem to be what we’re discussing, have gotten more expensive. But that is because in the past 30-40 years, our country hasn’t focused on keeping food, housing, etc cheap. Instead, the industries that have grown are the same industries I was talking about – technology, health care, services. I don’t see how you can say that we haven’t been diverting earning power into those areas – those are the driving forces of growth in this country.

To parallel to baseball, to say “gee, our generation is worse off than our parents was” is like saying “the 2010 Rangers are going to suck, look at their offense compared to five years ago.” Yeah, of course that is right. The offense is worse now. The things dad spent money on have gotten more expensive. But that is meaningless unless you look at the full picture. You can’t ignore technology and the ridiculous investment our country has made in it

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Feb 18, 2010 12:57 AM CST up reply actions  

better off

I think the bigger threat to people’s quality of life than the national debt, particularly younger people, is the crap-tastic economic environment. An unemployment rate of 10 percent makes it much harder for people just out of high school or college to get a decent paying entry level job. There’s a lot of evidence that a severe, prolonged economic downturn does long term damage to the earning power of people who are just entering the workforce or who experience a prolonged period of unemployment.

In addition, economic downturns are bad for the deficit, because they 1. require aid to those people who are harmed by unemployment and even more significantly 2. negatively affect the amount of tax revenue that the IRS collects. The most important priority in the short term should be turning around the economic situation. Dealing with government debt is important, too, but we shouldn’t put the cart before the horse.

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Feb 17, 2010 5:04 PM CST up reply actions  

People give the government way too much credit for economic prosperity and failure.

It takes years for the government’s actions to really flow through and “save” or “destroy” an economy.

Pumping cash into the economy is not going to fix it, just as high fed rates aren’t going to destroy it.

“Bailing out” companies and passing out wads of cash to Americans are not going to make them any better off in the long run, but rather the opposite. Smart Americans that could succeed given a chance are going to be held off by large corporations that are being saved by poorly thought-out government “bailout” packages.

The government needs to be focusing on long-term, sustainable growth — and we haven’t had a Fed with the balls to focus on that since Volcker.

Cutting government debt and cleaning up government spending goes hand-in-hand with long-term, sustainable growth.

by Trickman on Feb 17, 2010 5:49 PM CST up reply actions  

That's not entirely true.

I believe current prevailing wisdom is that actions by the government or Fed take 6-18 months to take effect. The more expected it is (for instance, when everyone knows rates are going to be lowered), the quicker and milder the adjustment period is.

If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.

by GhettoBear04 on Feb 17, 2010 10:29 PM CST up reply actions  

They take 6-18 months to start really having an effect

That effect, depending on what it is, can have years of repurcussions.

The impact from Volcker sending interest rates into the stratosphere was, in the short run, to make it expensive and difficult to get loans or take on debt.
In the short run, this made Americans rely less on debt and financing and encouraged putting more into savings.

In the long run, this created a larger savings supply from which investment and development was the main method of growth, which spurs high wage job growth that required more and more education to fulfill.

That building block was felt well into the 90s as the focus on limiting and controlling inflation continued to provide strong returns on investments.

With the market crash in the early part of the last decade, the government decided it was more important to “soften the fall” with extremely low interest rates to replace the investment and development that had failed in the tech stocks, with an ability to finance things to push the economy forward more through consumption.

The extremely low interest rates made real estate a prime target as no one had seen rates that low. Profitability in that sector was extremely high and so more and more people jumped in since there were practically no overhead costs to do so with overnight rates at <=2% and banks struggling to out-perform each other by simply giving out more loans to riskier and riskier targets.

This turns into what everyone knows as the housing bubble — prices went up too fast, wages grew too slowly to keep up, people were pushed into loans they couldn’t afford, and our economy topples due to the weight of it — basically the effect of a poorly prescribed “recovery”, if you can even call it that, from the previous looming recession.

Just because the impact begins being felt in 6-18 months, doesn’t mean that the impact is over — the housing bubble was directly related to lowering interest rates and keeping them there for far too long, but no one was willing to feel the pinch of the economy and so it kept getting put off until it could be put off no longer.

by Trickman on Feb 18, 2010 4:15 PM CST up reply actions  

Good point.

And well said.

If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.

by GhettoBear04 on Feb 22, 2010 6:16 PM CST up reply actions  

The problem is

we haven’t seen anyone come up with any prescriptions for a sound economy other than low taxes and borrowing scads of money because the country isn’t interested in paying for all the things it wants like National Defense and Social Security.

"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland

by DJCahill on Feb 17, 2010 6:56 PM CST up reply actions  

Those are two areas that could be cut extensively

Everything I’ve ever heard and read suggests DoD is by far the most wasteful institution in our government. I have a feeling they could do the same job with a lot less money, but Congress won’t go after it because they’d be skewered in campaigns for being “soft on defense”.

Social Security Disability is ripe with fraud and waste but nobody ever seems to do anything about it. I know a lady who collects a bunch of money in SSD and her husband makes $150k per year. Since they have kids she receives several thousand per month. I don’t understand how this is allowed to happen.

by Black Francis on Feb 17, 2010 8:24 PM CST up reply actions  

Also...

…Congressmen don’t want to cut DoD projects in their districts because that reduces jobs. It’s a very inefficient process, but I have hope that a Bush-era holdover in Gates working with/lending credence to Obama can change how things are done. Especially since new military technologies need to be focusing less on traditional wars and more on modern, smaller ones.

If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.

by GhettoBear04 on Feb 17, 2010 10:31 PM CST up reply actions  

Hate to say it

but defense spending abuse may start abating a bit with the departure of John Murtha

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Feb 18, 2010 10:16 AM CST up reply actions  

How that criminal

stayed in politics for 30+ years is beyond me. This isn’t a partisan thing either.

by bdavison94 on Feb 18, 2010 10:39 AM CST up reply actions  

He did a hell of a lot of good for the military

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 18, 2010 11:26 AM CST up reply actions  

I'm sure he did

He did a hell of a lot of good for a lot of people given his penchant for the earmark. I never liked him one bit, but I can see why those that benefited from him did.

by bdavison94 on Feb 18, 2010 3:11 PM CST up reply actions  

I take some exception to the way you put that

While he undoubtedly had a penchant for the earmark, as you said, Murtha damn near singlehandely kept the military from being gutted by a very liberal congress in the 70s.

Earmarks implies looking out for your district specifically. John Murtha was instrumental in enhancing the overall quality of life of every service member and veteran for 3 decades. That is not even remotely the same as hooking his constituents up with some pork, you know?

One of the most pervasive myths in politics is that the Republicans are the ones that are always looking out for the soldiers and marines and sailors. The 2 legislators that have done more for vets and active duty since at least as far back as Vietnam are Murtha and Jim Webb, and as crappy a president as he was, pay and benefits under Jimmy Carter’s presidency far eclipsed anything seen during Reagen or either Bush. Clinton outpaced Bush in pay raises as well. Defense spending does not equal taking care of our military personnel.

Maybe this is mostly semantics, I dunno, but it kind of annoys me that you seem to equate earmarks, which are universally considered as mostly undeserved sweetheart deals, with improving benefits for all our armed services.

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 18, 2010 6:46 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm clearly not as familiar as you are about

that part of his legislative career. I’ll take your word for it. I surely didn’t mean to offend.

My point above was just that I’m sure he did some very good things over his 30+ year career, as you’ve pointed out, but he still abused his power in many ways. Now I know they all do it, but he always seemed to be one of the worst to me.

And for the record, I would never say that dems are bad for the military/soldiers and repubs are good. That kind of talk annoys me too.

by bdavison94 on Feb 18, 2010 8:32 PM CST up reply actions  

Cool

And I don’t disagree that he was a pork barrelin fool.

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 19, 2010 6:55 AM CST up reply actions  

And to be clear

I know you well enough to know you didn’t mean to offend, and you didn’t.

Tone is hard to convey/easy to misconstrue w/ just words. I just want to reiterate that mine wasn’t hostile.

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 19, 2010 7:08 PM CST up reply actions  

You get rid of a criminal

like Murtha and Duke Cunningham, and another will take their place soon enough.

There is a reason folks raise tens of millions of dollars to win a job that pays.lees than 200K a year.

"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland

by DJCahill on Feb 18, 2010 10:45 AM CST up reply actions  

Ten of millions will be a drop in the bucket with corporations donating unlimited amounts

"You promised me, Eckstein, that if I followed you, you would walk with me always. But I noticed that during the most trying periods of my life, there have only been one set of prints in the sand. Why, when I have needed you most, have you not been there for me?" David Eckstein replied, "Because my little legs had gotten tired, and you were carrying me." And I looked down and saw that I was still carrying David Eckstein.

Then he grounded out weakly to second.

by WyoRanger on Feb 18, 2010 10:47 AM CST up reply actions  

Again

It didn’t reach donations.

by brettgardner on Feb 18, 2010 2:26 PM CST up reply actions  

I firmly believe that an amendment may be needed

The election cycle itself — and the campaign spending necessary to win reelection — is a big part of the problem. I’d like to see term limits and something done with campaign finance. Politicians are gauging every word and every decision on how it effects their chances to win their next primary and/or general election. This is no way to govern a country.

Popular or not, the decision by the supreme court was correct, the current campaign finance laws impinged on free speech. If you don’t like it you need to change the law. Or maybe accept the decision, but pass new laws demanding full and complete disclosure and extreme transparency for campaign funding.

Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.

by t ball on Feb 18, 2010 10:53 AM CST up reply actions  

I don't agree
Popular or not, the decision by the supreme court was correct, the current campaign finance laws impinged on free speech.

Are you saying that you think corporations should have (or that the Constitution says they have) the same free speech protections as individuals? Because that is my understanding of the ruling.

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 18, 2010 11:25 AM CST up reply actions  

In my opinion, yes

it may take an amendment to clarify this, but I think it’s a stretch to say that the constitution allows for individuals, but not corporations or other associations, to exercise free speech through campaign contributions and advertisements.

Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.

by t ball on Feb 18, 2010 11:30 AM CST up reply actions  

I'm not sure I even agree that campaign donations should be classified as "speech"

I do highly doubt that either corporations or campaign donations were what Madison and the framers had in mind when they ratified the Constitution.

That seems like a huge leap to me.

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 18, 2010 11:39 AM CST up reply actions  

I agree and disagree

it’s a weird gray area. But, anyway, the court has spoken, so I’m hoping the congress will do something about it now. I’m certainly not happy with the decision but I can’t just say the court is flatly wrong.

Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.

by t ball on Feb 18, 2010 12:58 PM CST up reply actions  

A previous court said this one is wrong.

The disturbing part is not that this change was made. The disturbing part is that stare decisis was effectively crushed. Now, everything that has ever been decided is back on the table.

by NoNameOnCard on Feb 19, 2010 1:44 AM CST up reply actions  

Are you serious?

That’s probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read.

by brettgardner on Feb 19, 2010 8:29 AM CST up reply actions  

It explicitly did so.

Now explain how that accomplishes what you said.

by brettgardner on Feb 20, 2010 6:40 PM CST up reply actions  

It is what you think it is

But it most certainly isn’t some inviolable shield. Cases get overruled. This certainly isn’t the first.

And there’s a school of thought that says that because the Constitution is not amenable to change, constitutional decisions should be afforded much less deference.

by brettgardner on Feb 21, 2010 2:50 PM CST up reply actions  

Is this not the first time a Supreme Court has overruled a previous Supreme Court decision?

The ambiguity it creates certainly makes a lot of legal matters a lot more open to interpretation than before.

To call it the new status quo would be a bit hyperbolic, but at this point, how can precedent mean anything? Is there now a statute of limitations on court rulings? Under what circumstances do previous rulings matter?

by NoNameOnCard on Feb 22, 2010 2:06 AM CST up reply actions  

Um
Is this not the first time a Supreme Court has overruled a previous Supreme Court decision?

Absolutely not. So everything that flows from that premise is invalid.

by brettgardner on Feb 22, 2010 8:10 AM CST up reply actions  

You hadn't heard about

Brown Vs Board of Education overturning Plessy Vs, Ferguson? I thought that was basic high school history/civics.

There are hundreds of examples, that’s just one off the top of my head.

"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland

by DJCahill on Feb 22, 2010 11:41 AM CST up reply actions  

I believe I framed those questions improperly.

I don’t spend a lot of time thinking too critically about this stuff. I may take another whack at not looking like an idiot, but I may not.

by NoNameOnCard on Feb 22, 2010 5:41 PM CST up reply actions  

Did Brown vs. The Board explicitly challenge/contradict/overturn Plessy vs. Ferguson?

I never read the judges’ opinions, so I can only work from my vague recollections.

I’m aware that the legal impact was an effective negation of the Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling, but was there an explicit challenge?

by NoNameOnCard on Feb 22, 2010 5:49 PM CST up reply actions  

Yes.

There are many cases in which the Court explicitly overruled a previous case.

There’s really no reason to even keep down this line.

by brettgardner on Feb 22, 2010 5:58 PM CST up reply actions  

Hmm?

Anti-learning? What are you talking about?

I’m just saying that there’s really no reason to keep prodding to see if you were right, because you weren’t. That’s all.

by brettgardner on Feb 23, 2010 1:21 AM CST up reply actions  

To be fair...

I think he admitted he was wrong in his last couple posts, and perhaps he’s genuinely interested in learning more on the subject.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Feb 23, 2010 9:47 AM CST up reply actions  

Plessy V. Ferguson

set out “separate but equal” as the standard doctrine of law and that segregation did not violate the 14th amendment. The Brown decision found that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” and that separate facilities for black and white, like white only or colored only drinking fountains were inherently unconstitutional.

The court apparently reserves the right to change its mind to adapt to changing society.

"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland

by DJCahill on Feb 23, 2010 10:58 AM CST up reply actions  

x

Donations were not at issue in Citizens United. It was political spending. It’s a subtle difference—and it may be no difference at all—but the Supreme Court has made that distinction.

And I don’t think you’re making the correct Originalist claim. No, I doubt that the Framers or any of the ratifying states envisioned the First Amendment being applicable to corporations. But the modern corporation was in its absolute infancy at that point, and really, the differences between then and now are striking. Although I do think it’s worth noting that Scalia wrote separately to explain his view that corporations were on the minds of the people, and that the lack of an exclusion is very telling.

I do think, however, that there’s a historical basis to say that the First Amendment was designed to prohibit the Government from picking out which speakers are unfit to speak.

So really, it’s not that corporations are equal to individuals, it’s that distinctions between speakers carry a presumption of invalidity, and really have only been upheld where the interfered with some legitimate governmental function.

That’s my interpretation, anyway. That being said, Citizens opened the door for a lot more litigation, I think.

by brettgardner on Feb 18, 2010 1:54 PM CST up reply actions  

OK, this is a question for all the lawyers and anyone else that wants to weigh in

I think I understand the implications of the distinction between spending vs. donations.

Regardless, I want to go back to the issue of donations as a freedom of speech issue. A common argument I read about personal campaign contribution limits, which I believe is currently 2400 bucks, is that this limitation is a free speech stifler.

Like I said to T ball above, I’ve never bought the assertion that limiting personal campaign contributions is remotely equivalent to the gov. censoring the press, or imposing limits or restrictions on citizen’s right to assemble political protests, or freedom of religion, etc., all the cornerstones of the 1st ammendment.

And not to be some tea party pseudo-intellectual, but I know the 1st ammendment doesn’t explicity address donations at all. So my question is, counselors, in a nutshell, what are the legal precedents that support this argument? How much weight does it hold amongst the big brains?

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 18, 2010 6:24 PM CST up reply actions  

x

To begin with, I think Buckley v. Valeo made it pretty clear that restricting the amount of money does restrict speech. The Court basically said that if you restrict the amount of money, you’re restricting the amount of speech that gets out, because basically everything costs money.

Now, Buckley went into some weird twists and turns, but I think you can get that principle out of it. And so the argument you’re talking about kind of arises out of that holding. Burger said “For me contributions and expenditures are two sides of the same First Amendment coin.”

Basically, if you accept that money can equal speech, then you would have to think, the argument goes, that putting a limit on that speech is the functional equivalent of telling someone they can only advocate their position in 10 words or less. And it shouldn’t make any difference if I give $2400 for someone else to express my position for me or if I say it directly.

by brettgardner on Feb 18, 2010 7:05 PM CST up reply actions  

That's a good start, thanks

"I don’t know how these SN blog authors get their gigs, but I’m frankly surprised SN tolerates AJM’s lack of effort." Tex34

Neftali Feliz says sit your 5 dollar ass down before he makes change...

by Brian Thomas on Feb 19, 2010 7:00 AM CST up reply actions  

to think that corporations and individuals are the same

with the same rights is wrong. we know they don’t have the same rights. they don’t have a right to vote. they don’t have 5th amendment rights to refuse to incriminate themselves. there’s no reason to just assume that they have the same rights when it comes to campaign spending for commercials (which is such a narrow form of free speech to begin with).

anyway, you’re also wrong about something else: companies could care less about spending. In fact, they probably don’t want to spend, but have to because their competitors spend money. There’s a reason that companies donate equally to republican and democrat parties.

by ab03 on Feb 18, 2010 2:20 PM CST up reply actions  

But

Companies do form PACs.

by brettgardner on Feb 18, 2010 2:25 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't know what your full point is

that companies spend a lot of money through PACs?

by ab03 on Feb 18, 2010 2:31 PM CST up reply actions  

Well

I’m not sure what your full point is, I guess. Why start a PAC if you don’t want to spend?

by brettgardner on Feb 18, 2010 2:33 PM CST up reply actions  

well they have to spend a certain amount

because if they don’t spend, they get screwed by their competitors spending or the government screwing them (see Microsoft).

but I don’t think they are going to want to spend so much more on politics now that citizens united has passed.

think about the type of spending citizens united represents. it is about candidates, not issues. i don’t think companies want to start playing politics and hope that they influence the people sufficiently to get the outcome they think they want. I think they’d rather just keep their money.

and there is also the issue of shareholders not wanting their companies to play politics too much, either

by ab03 on Feb 18, 2010 2:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Ah.

That sounds pretty right to me.

by brettgardner on Feb 18, 2010 2:45 PM CST up reply actions  

one change

i shouldn’t characterize spending on campaign commercials as some small part of free speech. it’s actually a huge part of free speech. but i still say that corporations shouldn’t automatically be assumed to have those rights. they are not citizens.

by ab03 on Feb 18, 2010 2:54 PM CST up reply actions  

x

I’m not sure of the relevancy of that. The First Amendment seems to me to be focused on the speech, and not the speaker.

by brettgardner on Feb 18, 2010 2:57 PM CST up reply actions  

ok

i mean, i guess textually it talks about speech but most jurisprudence focuses on the rights of the speaker, and not the rights of the hearer (although there is some).

But still, I would argue that the government should be able to overcome the presumption of the right of corporations to freely spend on commercials by a showing of impropriety or some other competing government interest.

by ab03 on Feb 18, 2010 3:16 PM CST up reply actions  

Well

I mean, that’s the standard in any free speech case. That’s just basic strict scrutiny.

I really doubt that impropriety would pass muster, though.

by brettgardner on Feb 18, 2010 3:19 PM CST up reply actions  

it didn't pass muster

but I think it should have and it’s not a slam dunk.

I guess the point i’m making is that if this was about restricting people from spending, then we wouldn’t even need strict scrutiny. We just say, you’re out of your mind, we’re not restricting that. But corporations are treated differently in a number of different ways.

by ab03 on Feb 18, 2010 3:34 PM CST up reply actions  

I just don't see the difference

Because it seems like treating them differently for First Amendment purposes makes it just as logically acceptable to restrict the actual political parties from spending.

And don’t you think the shareholders can regulate stuff like this anyway?

by brettgardner on Feb 18, 2010 6:41 PM CST up reply actions  

i think the government can decide that the shareholders can't

and a hands off supreme court can give a legislature the benefit of the doubt

and i think there are enough differences between for profit corporations and individuals that the legislature could draw a line

by ab03 on Feb 18, 2010 11:41 PM CST up reply actions  

It's a weird position

Because usually I’m all for deference to Congress.

Just not here.

by brettgardner on Feb 19, 2010 12:27 AM CST up reply actions  

Yep

I’ve long been a big fan of term limits. But it’s a game theory problem – if you voluntarily limit yourself while others around you do not, they’ll get all the rewards while your district gets screwed.

It is sometimes forgoetten, but many of the 1994 “Contract for America” guys campaigned on a term limit vow. Only some of them left when they said they would (Scarborough was one of them, maybe JC Watts). Unfortunately, the most ethical of that group were the ones who left office in 2000, whereas we were left with the ones who reneged on their vow. That is a bad selection process right there.

I would love to see a 12 year representative term limit, and a 24 year Senate limit.

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Feb 18, 2010 11:27 AM CST up reply actions  

Not voluntary

legislate it. Two terms.

Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.

by t ball on Feb 18, 2010 11:31 AM CST up reply actions  

yeah, it'd have to be constitutional

I’d like to see a constitutional amendment that says that adds term limits and standardizes the way that mid-term vacancies get filled.

Being in California, I think that the 3 term limit is probably too short. Representatives generally have to face re-election to be accountable – whatever your term limit is going to be a proportion of your people there who aren’t accountable. 3 term limit = 1/3rd who have nothing to lose. Ideally that should be good, but in reality that causes problems. 12 years in the House and 24 in the Senate will cut off the old fogeys who are out of touch (Ted Stevens and his internet of tubes) yet control committees (i.e., Murtha)

Go Rice Owls!

by JBImaknee on Feb 18, 2010 11:37 AM CST up reply actions  

Term Limits

They’ll never, ever happen. These people are not going to give away their jobs. And, really, term limits already exist in the form of elections. If people would vote and pay attention to who they vote for, things would be fine.

This is like wanting the two party system to disappear. It’s great to want it but it will never, ever happen.

There’s really no question that our government is no longer working as it should, and I don’t think it has in quite some time. There are many other worse governments around the world to be sure, but we still have a real problem here. I don’t know how to fix it. There are lots of good ideas about what would fix it, but the how is the problem.

It’s quite frustrating. I think most of you know I’m a Democrat and a pretty loyal one at that, but I have been profoundly disappointed by this Congress, particularly the Senate. As a loyal Democrat with the numbers the way they are at the moment, I SHOULD be happy with what my government is doing but I am far from it. Failure.

by Black Francis on Feb 18, 2010 3:52 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not sure.

I think things started to look promising in the 1960’s with the Civil Rights Act and some other domestic things, but it seems to have gone down hill since then. I’d argue that it worked for the most part in the 1990’s, too. Man I used to hate that GOP Congress and I still am pissed about the impeachment, but when all was said and done Clinton had an effective executive branch and the Congress generally did what they were supposed to do. A lot of people will look at the government shutdowns that happened, but that was a lot better than saying “fuck it” and passing everything.

So, anyway, I don’t know when it worked, no. But I’m pretty confident it’s not working now.

by Black Francis on Feb 18, 2010 4:14 PM CST up reply actions  

you think it was working in the mid 1960's?

The Civil Rights Act passing was a goddamn miracle that took every congressional procedural rule in the playbook. It only worked because some key Republicans gave it their blessing but it was probably just as partisan as health care is now (except not completely on party lines). And think, health care probably would have been passed if Teddy hadn’t croaked and Martha Coakley wasn’t the worst politician ever. It was a fluke. If Hubert Humphrey had croaked and a Republican governor had installed a Republican senator (or some other similar scenario that actually could have happened), then we wouldn’t have the Civil Rights Act either.

Think about this: Title IX was put in to basically kill the bill. That whole act was about luck.

by ab03 on Feb 18, 2010 6:24 PM CST up reply actions  

I'd think the system should be changed to

4 year terms for all elected officials and 2 term limits. With 4 years to get things done you have a good 2 years to get things accomplished before you have to really start campaigning again, then if you were good enough to get re-elected, you have a full 4 years to get accomplished what you want.

IMHO this eliminates a lot of the stagnation that ails the government right now. With only 4 guaranteed years you’d have to come through on your promises a lot more often to earn the right to be re-elected and it seems a lot less likely that corporations and special interest could have as big an influence since they couldn’t just stand behind someone who’s been there for 20+ years.

I think the major problems aren’t with who we elect President, at this point, our government doesn’t run like it should and it really doesn’t matter a whole lot what the President wants to do if the Congress doesn’t agree. Increase the ability of the people to constantly challenge and change the system, and you put the power in the hands of the people. That’s what our founders wanted, IMHO; not the fascist/socialist/communist bureaucracy we’ve seen over the last decade or so.

And just to be clear, I’m an Independent who voted for Bush in 04’ and Obama in 08’, I have no party or bias towards either, I’m pissed at all of them.

You hear about the "Electric Arms", they're all the rage.

"If the Rangers have marked improvement in 2010, I'm going to need to give JD credit." Josey Wales, Feb. 10, 2010 11:45 AM CST

by sunlegend54 on Feb 19, 2010 12:58 PM CST up reply actions  

term limits

I sympathize with the intent behind calling for term limits, but they have really caused havoc in California and are one of many reasons why that place is damn near ungovernable. There is a pretty steep learning curve on a lot of policy issues, particularly budgetary issues. I think that if you limit people to just a few terms you are going to have a lot more polarization and lobbyists becoming even more central to the whole process because they will represent the only institutional knowledge.

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Feb 19, 2010 3:09 PM CST up reply actions  

yeah, i could see that,

but at the same time, the political lifers need to be gone. As much as I applauded Teddy for his fight for health care, he was still in the Senate too long. Yes, he helped get the ball rolling on the issue, but others who have been in for extended periods were just as influential in making sure that nothing got done.

I do agree though that there could be complications in implementing the idea, that’s kinda the sticking point to any idea that changes the system, how to get it done.

You hear about the "Electric Arms", they're all the rage.

"If the Rangers have marked improvement in 2010, I'm going to need to give JD credit." Josey Wales, Feb. 10, 2010 11:45 AM CST

by sunlegend54 on Feb 19, 2010 3:17 PM CST up reply actions  

this

"Drinks are on me if Lewis posts >168IP and an era lower than 3.86." by RangerMad on Jan 20, 2010 12:36 PM PST

by jam0152 on Feb 17, 2010 12:43 PM CST up reply actions  

I have this one post saved

That i’m on the fence about posting. It’s about lonestarball, though. So it’s not completely random

I'm just goofin' new boot goofin'

by iorange555 on Feb 17, 2010 12:55 PM CST up reply actions  

Do it

'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'

by scoop16 on Feb 17, 2010 12:58 PM CST up reply actions  

Lol.

I’ll fine tune it, and post it later.

I'm just goofin' new boot goofin'

by iorange555 on Feb 17, 2010 1:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Sport is a distraction

I use to get away from thinking about this shit.

by Evil Monkey on Feb 17, 2010 2:07 PM CST reply actions  

No kidding.

I wish we’d enact LL’s policies on poltics/religion around here.

Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.

by LSJ on Feb 17, 2010 8:14 PM CST up reply actions  

While Obama's spending seems to have pushed this over the edge...

…into a realm that is no longer sustainable, all debt isn’t bad. There are certain debt ratios that are acceptable and I feel like many (most?) deficit-hawks are people who use the giant numbers to induce fear rather talk about what really could and should be done to address it. To me, it seems like Obama should be focusing on reducing the debt over the next 2-3 years if he wants to get re-elected. I say this because most of the levers that could be pulled were pulled to help the economy (tax cuts, lowered interest rate, bailouts to bankrupt mega-companies) and there needs to be a waiting period (overseen/guided by the Fed) and it seems like the jobs will come back, but he still may get voted out of office if unemployment is still relatively high (say 8-8.5%) with these dangerously high debt ratios.

If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.

by GhettoBear04 on Feb 17, 2010 10:36 PM CST reply actions  

I think that while the bailouts

to keep us out of depression has pushed the issue front and center, the real issue is how much is a reasonable amount of debt to carry.

We were around 30% of GDP at the end of Carter, and we passed 67% on Reagan’s watch, and will break 100% on Obama’s watch. You would think the Prime years of the Baby Boom would have been an ideal time to reduce debt and even generate surpluses, because we damn sure won’t have surpluses when the Baby Boom is retired.

As far as the deficits, most economists will try to tell you that the best move is to run surpluses during good economic times and deficits during bad times. We seem unable as a country to run the surpluses during good times though.

"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland

by DJCahill on Feb 17, 2010 11:42 PM CST up reply actions  

Another Off-Topic Question

Have any of you used something called WhiteGlove House Call Health? Supposedly you pay $35 dollars a month for membership and I think $35 per house call. It’s nurse practitioners who will come to your place and apparently even give you the meds if they’re cheap generics.

I’m currently without health insurance but am on a prescription med that I need to get refilled soon. It’s an anxiolytic and is a schedule C controlled substance or something like that. I used to get six months of refills from my old doctor and now I’m finally out. It’s not something I can just stop taking, and it helps me so I want to stay on it anyway.

I’m wondering how likely it is that these nurse practioners would give me more than one refill or if I’d end up paying 70 bucks a month for a bottle of cheap pills. Perhaps they wouldn’t prescribe it at all, I don’t know.

I’m healthy and really don’t need to visit a doctor except for this refill thing and am just looking for a way to get my prescriptions renewed without having to pay out the ass for it. Seems unfair to pay 150 bucks to spend five minutes with a doctor when he’s only going to write a script for a couple months at most. And I don’t want to buy some shitty insurance plan because as soon as business improves a little I’m going to hire a couple of people and form a group. It’s more expensive but it’s real insurance, at least.

And if anyone out there is a doctor who would be willing to see me for cheap, I’d be grateful. I’m not a pill seeker. You can’t even abuse the med I’m on, really…it won’t get you high.

by Black Francis on Feb 17, 2010 11:35 PM CST reply actions  

Answered

They were obviously closed when I wrote that last night. The nurse practitioners will not prescribe any medication for a chronic or ongoing illness of any kind, so this outfit is pretty useless to me. They’re meant for other situations like the flu or whatever.

But if you have a bunch of kids or something I think their service would be worth it. Some insurance policies will help pay for it even though it’s not much. These people come to your house or your place of business or wherever you are. Since every family requires two incomes these days I think I’d join up if I had kids. Who wants to sit around in a waiting room full of infectious people, you know? That’s one reason I try to never go to the doctor. More harm than good.

I just broke down and bought an expensive but still shitty individual policy today.

by Black Francis on Feb 18, 2010 3:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Good to know

Sucks that you are left to the lender mercies of the non-group market.

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Feb 18, 2010 5:17 PM CST up reply actions  

and now...

…I’m out of business. Bankrupt. It’s been a hell of a week.

by Black Francis on Feb 18, 2010 11:21 PM CST up reply actions  

I feel you brother.

Hell of a year(or two).

'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'

by scoop16 on Feb 18, 2010 11:25 PM CST up reply actions  

Good luck to you.

I’ve never been unemployed in my life and am not sure how to go about this.

I just know it was costing me more money to stay in business than I was making. There’s a time to put aside emotions and call it quits. Either that or go personally bankrupt (which I will be soon anyway if I don’t find a gig).

Bad thing about being self-employed is that there’s absolutely no cushion. Not that unemployment is enough to really make much of a difference, but it’s more than nothing. Sounds like you probably would know first hand.

by Black Francis on Feb 19, 2010 12:13 AM CST up reply actions  

Sorry to hear that...

good luck to you.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Feb 19, 2010 12:17 AM CST up reply actions  

+ 1 hang in there!

I did not ask you if you have herpes. I said is that a hairpiece?!?

by BigGuns on Feb 19, 2010 12:22 AM CST up reply actions  

Good luck to you as well.

I’m just freelancing/independent contractor right now. It’s a constant struggle after a decade of relative prosperity.

I don’t know that there is a way to go about it, other than keep on keeping on. I do know I ain’t financing anything ever again, and trying to find the bright side- learning how to enjoy life outside the rat race.

As Charlie Chaplin said, “In the end, everything is a gag”.

'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'

by scoop16 on Feb 19, 2010 12:40 AM CST up reply actions  

hmm

Sounds like you have about the best possible attitude toward a very difficult situation.

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Feb 19, 2010 3:10 PM CST up reply actions  

Sorry to hear

for both of you. Best of luck looking for a new job.

Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.

by t ball on Feb 19, 2010 12:43 AM CST up reply actions  

Thanks, fellas

Some rough times are surely ahead, but the last couple of years have been really rough at times anyway. Someday I hope I look back on this and see that it was an opportunity to get into something better.

Truth is, it was a good business. I’m not going to get into details but our brilliant Texas Legislature inadvertently put me out to pasture when a new law took effect last fall. It’s kind of hard not to be bitter about that. It’s not only me they screwed but a whole hell of a lot of other people, too. Next time you need your car repaired expect to pay more, and probably pay a good portion down before the mechanic or body shop will even do anything. Expect higher diagnostic fees and to pay more for parts, too. Year, make or model…it won’t matter.

by Black Francis on Feb 19, 2010 2:16 AM CST up reply actions  

Just don't go...

flying your small plane into any IRS buildings.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Feb 19, 2010 8:54 AM CST up reply actions  

yeh no shit...

I was trying to see where that was. I assumed it was downtown but it was actually in North Austin at Mopac/183.

I did not ask you if you have herpes. I said is that a hairpiece?!?

by BigGuns on Feb 19, 2010 10:20 AM CST up reply actions  

Dustin

What was the policy change that occurred?

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Feb 19, 2010 3:11 PM CST up reply actions  

It began with an amendment to the property code

…but got worse when DMV made some crazy regulations that don’t really make any sense.

I’ll tell you more if you e-mail me. Not going to discuss the details here because there are too many lawyers around, and even though I run circles around lawyers with this obscure aspect of law, they still think they know everything and I don’t feel like arguing with people today.

by Black Francis on Feb 19, 2010 3:35 PM CST up reply actions  

fair enough

I’ll shoot you an email. Interested to hear about it if you don’t mind discussing.

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Feb 19, 2010 4:20 PM CST up reply actions  

Dude

What happened? Really sorry to hear that.

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Feb 19, 2010 3:09 PM CST up reply actions  

This is a fucking stupid post

That's why they call them business sox

by egriffey on Feb 18, 2010 2:55 AM CST reply actions  

Wolf Blitzer

I just turned on CNN for a minute to see if they had anything on the Austin situation, and instead got a few minutes of Wolf Blitzer talking about Dick Cheney’s appearance at CPAC.

This was followed by one of the most brilliant pieces of unintentional comedy I’ve ever heard: “I wouldn’t rule out him running against Obama in 2012.”

Sure, Wolf. If the GOP wants to lose all 50 states. Cheney’s about as popular as ass cancer.

"Jesus, Spanish- our jobs aren't enough, now you want our words?"

-- Sterling Archer

by RCCook on Feb 18, 2010 5:49 PM CST reply actions  

Phew, sorry I got that started

It was suppose to be about getting back to baseball.

http://texassummerheat.com for frequent baseball updates, including things from Lone Star Ball, BBTIA, and all other sources. Just trying to bring more Ranger info.

TexasSummerHeat

by TexasSummerHeat on Feb 19, 2010 1:58 PM CST reply actions  

Original post at the top had this at bottom

So, with all the bad news facing Americans, we have Spring training starting tomorrow. Phew, I thought there for a minute we had no future, but baseball brought me back to reality. Thank goodness.

TexasSummerHeat

by TexasSummerHeat on Feb 19, 2010 2:00 PM CST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Texas Rangers.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Hong_kong_small
OT: UEFA Euro 2012 Thread
Small
Ranger Rowdy Time!
Bc0nc_small
Minors Thread: Mid-Late May

Recent FanPosts

Macho_man_randy_savage_small
Sunday OT
Small
Loking for Batters' Eye Club 7/24 or 25
Small
Texas Rangers: 2012 Community Mock Draft Picks
Macho_man_randy_savage_small
Saturday OT
White_blackpool_icon_small
Draft Discussion
Small
MOD#6 - Rangers (2nd Round - 93rd Pick)
Andy_small
Afternoon OT Thread
Macho_man_randy_savage_small
5/25 OT 1
Neftali_old_timey_small
5/24/2012 OT 2
Camera_small
5/24 OT #1

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Manager

Th_buckykatt_small Adam J. Morris

Editor

477845_small ghostofErikThompson

Author

Matchstick_small Brad