Free Forum Friday, January 7 Edition

Friday on My Mind

Image via Wikipedia

It’s Friday once again. You know what that means. Recipes are good. So is politics. What’s on your mind today?

Free Forum Fridays are an open discussion where commenters are invited to bring up topics that may not have been covered in the previous week. Got something on your mind? Throw your opinion out there.


About Monotreme

Monotreme is an unabashedly liberal dog lover, writer, and former scientist who now teaches at a University in an almost-square state out West somewhere. http://www.logarchism.com | http://www.sevendeadlysynapses.com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

165 Responses to Free Forum Friday, January 7 Edition

  1. Mr. Universe says:

    I’ll start this one. Michelle Bachmann as head of the Intelligence Committee. Irony, anyone? Virginia Fox as head of Higher Education Subcommittee. Conflict of interest?

  2. Bart DePalma says:

    The net of private job growth of 113,000 and government job loss of 10,000 (+10K federal and -20K state and local) is again less than that needed to cover new job entrants, but somehow the unemployment rate plunged from 9.8% to 9.4%.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-07/u-s-adds-fewer-than-estimated-103-000-jobs-unemployment-declines-to-9-4-.html

    Either the Obama Admin is playing with the data or several hundred thousand just gave up looking for work.

    Bernanke is now predicting it will take five years to get back to Bush era employment levels.

  3. Monotreme says:

    Bart, post an effing recipe or shut up.

  4. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart said: “—“

  5. Bart DePalma says:

    Mono:

    What? Don’t you want to celebrate the success of the Obama recipe for a booming economy?

    No?

    OK Give me a good recipe for dinner.

  6. I don’t understand how it is Obama’s fault that corporations aren’t hiring even though they are sitting on stockpiles of cash and overworking their employees?

  7. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    So sad.

    Bart has only ONE stock in trade: Fear.

    If he can’t preach doom and gloom, he knows his ideology had NO chance.

    An opportunity for him to crow: “Just look. The FIRST week of the swearing in of the new GOP House and stronger GOP presence in the Senate this Congress and the jobs are ALREADY turning around.”

    But he can’t even do that.

    Fear.

    Doom and Gloom,

    So sad.

    If he hasn’t proven himself to be such an ass time after time after time, I might could feel sorry for him.

  8. dcpetterson says:

    @electrovibe11

    If no one else has said it yet, I wanted to say Welcome! It’s always great to get new faces here.

  9. Bart DePalma says:

    electrovibe11 says: I don’t understand how it is Obama’s fault that corporations aren’t hiring even though they are sitting on stockpiles of cash and overworking their employees?

    Take the next step and ask yourself what the Obama Admin is doing which would cause employers to forgo investing their cash to make a profit and hire workers as happened following every down turn apart from the Great Depression?

    An analogy to the New Deal would be useful here.

  10. Bart DePalma says:

    Max: An opportunity for him to crow: “Just look. The FIRST week of the swearing in of the new GOP House and stronger GOP presence in the Senate this Congress and the jobs are ALREADY turning around.”

    Why don’t I follow your lead and give credit to my political party when they have not enacted any policy? Because I deal in facts.

    The GOP House alone cannot enact any policies and cannot remove any of the current government impediments to growth. At best, they can slow down spending and thus the speed we are moving toward national insolvency.

    This remains Obama’s mess to clean up.

  11. shortchain says:

    Warning! Bart’s recipes for following his reasoning generally involve convolutions which might leave you twisted into too tight a knot to get out of without help.

    Bart ignores (willfully engaging his ignorance) the fact that companies do not, as a rule, invest in producing things for which there is no market. Since people in this country, lacking the certainty of employment, are not buying things, companies have no incentive to ramp up production.

    That this is the fault of the Obama administration is, of course, an article of faith in the Bartist religious sect.

  12. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    shortchain,

    Must we then, based on that empirical and irrefutable evidence, conclude that demand drives growth? And thus that “supply side economics” is just so mush bullshit, well composted of course, spread to grow the wealth of the already wealthy at the expense of the middle class?

  13. Bart DePalma says:

    Ya gotta love Paul Ryan:

    Whatever you put in CBO – in front of them – they have to score what you put in front of them. They put this health care, we put the health care bill in front of them; the health care bill is full of gimmicks and spending tricks. Ten years of tax increases to pay for six years of spending, for starters. They double-count revenue for Social Security. They double-count revenue for this new CLASS Act program. They double-count Medicare cuts. They ignore the ‘doc fix’. They did not include the $115 billion in spending that would be required just to set the bureaucracy up to run this new program.

    “If you take out all the double-counting – if you add the counting they didn’t count – it adds a $701 billion deficit. So, what CBO cannot do is tell you “we’re not going to count the budget gimmicks that are in this legislation.” They just have to estimate the bill as it’s written, with all the gimmicks included. So, people around here know how to write legislation to manipulate the kind of cost estimate you’re gonna get from the Congressional Budget Office. I sent a letter to the CBO, I asked them “Well, now look at these budget gimmicks, ignore these budget gimmicks. What then?” And it’s what I just told you, this thing is a huge budget-buster. So, what they have is a piece of paper that they’ve manipulated to say this thing reduces the deficit.

    I will eat my tie if that is the outcome of this law.

  14. Bart DePalma says:

    Shortchain:

    The economy pulls out of recessions when businesses cut costs and lay off workers until they become profitable again, then they invest those profits in growth and hiring employees at a reduced market wage. The new hires spend that money along with old employees who gain confidence from the growth creating the demand.

    So long as business declines to invest and goes on a 1933 style capital strike, there will be no recovery. See New Deal and Great Depression.

  15. drfunguy says:

    What happened to Mr.U’s post on the filibuster?

  16. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart said “_____”

  17. Bartbuster says:

    The economy pulls out of recessions when businesses cut costs and lay off workers until they become profitable again,

    Numbnuts, they don’t become profitable again until DEMAND increases.

  18. Monotreme says:

    Bart:

    Happy to oblige.

    This is what echidnas eat for dinner.

    The Panko bread crumbs (available at the Safeway across US 24 from your office) really set the dish off, and it’s dead easy to cook. Even an echidna can do it.

  19. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Guys,

    The system just blocked ONE hyperlink I sent on “Blame the Dem”

  20. Bart Said: Take the next step and ask yourself what the Obama Admin is doing which would cause employers to forgo investing their cash to make a profit and hire workers as happened following every down turn apart from the Great Depression?

    The Obama admin has done nothing to cause employers to not invest their cash in employees. Employers have the cash and are turning over record profits, which is why the stock market has been doing so well for the past 2 years.

  21. shortchain says:

    Monotreme,

    And the ads on that page really “add” to the enjoyment. “Feel the burn”, and “Freeze your fanny”.

  22. Bart Said: The economy pulls out of recessions when businesses cut costs and lay off workers until they become profitable again, then they invest those profits in growth and hiring employees at a reduced market wage. The new hires spend that money along with old employees who gain confidence from the growth creating the demand.

    Hey genius, the ‘businesses’ never lost profitability and have plenty of profits to invest in ‘growth’. Instead they are investing in govt backed bonds which means they are backed by our taxes. So, instead of investing in growth and hiring employees which would help the overall economy, they put that money into a place so ‘the people’ can pay them more later. Seems like a win/win for them and a lose/lose for the rest of us trying to survive.

  23. shortchain says:

    electrovibe11,

    I’m not an economics guy, but the theory that “The economy pulls out of recessions when businesses cut costs and lay off workers until they become profitable again” seems completely backwards to me. Since businesses are — and have been profitable — throughout the last year, shouldn’t they have been hiring for the last year?

    Also, doesn’t that imply that the cause of recessions is that employees’ compensation has become too expensive? That may be true in some cases, but in the current case (as in all recent cases dating back to the 1970’s), what caused the recession isn’t a secret: an investment bubble burst (or, as in the case of the oil embargo, there was a drastic rise in price of a commodity). This time people suddenly found themselves unable to borrow more, which had been propping up the economy all through the oughts, and they stopped buying. That continues today (people not buying), which is why the economy is still just creeping along.

  24. mclever says:

    @shortchain,

    It doesn’t take an economics degree to get what’s going on! 🙂

    I’m not an economics guy either, but I think you’ve got it right. Until the consumer sector picks up (demand), businesses won’t see any benefit to their bottom line in hiring more people or producing extra widgets (supply) for which they then have to front the warehousing costs because people aren’t buying. When the warehouses start to empty, that’s when businesses will start hiring and making more stuff.

    So, it seems logical to me that the way to stimulate the economy best would be to put cash in the hands of people who will spend it rather than “invest” or save. The investor class is doing just fine right now, because they’ve made back more than they lost from the crash/recession. (Or, unless they’re financial idiots, they should have, and their inclusion in the investor class tends to preclude them from being financial idiots…)

    Given the health in the financial markets, one could argue that the lingering recession is really a problem of consumer confidence, and with 9+% unemployment, it’s easy to understand why consumers might lack a bit of confidence. Folks are still anxious about their jobs. Cash in their hands plus a corresponding uptick in hiring once consumer spending increases seems like a reasonable remedy.

  25. shrinkers says:

    The economy pulls out of recessions when businesses cut costs and lay off workers until they become profitable again, then they invest those profits in growth and hiring employees at a reduced market wage.

    So, the solution to a recession is to screw the workers? Spoken like a true fascist.

  26. Bart DePalma says:

    Until the consumer sector picks up (demand), businesses won’t see any benefit to their bottom line in hiring more people or producing extra widgets (supply) for which they then have to front the warehousing costs because people aren’t buying.

    This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works.

    There can be no added demand until businesses hire the unemployed and provide them a pay check and when the currently employed see the investment and hiring and spend the money they are currently saving agains the ongoing rainy day.

    Economic recoveries ALWAYS begin with the initiative of businesses investing in growth in the anticipation of demand and not in reaction to demand.

    Recessions drag on when businesses sit on their cash and decline to hire workers because government artificial increases in the costs of doing business and/or the cost of labor. Recoveries never happen when government spends money on unproductive make work. See New Deal, Japan and now the Obama US.

  27. mclever says:

    Sorry, Bart, but I’ll take the explanation I received from a spouse with degrees in Economics from CalTech over some blogger who just says it isn’t so.

  28. shrinkers says:

    Economic recoveries ALWAYS begin with the initiative of businesses investing in growth in the anticipation of demand and not in reaction to demand.

    This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works.

    Businesses do not invest in an effort to create demand. They invest when they believe demand exists which they can fill. They simply will not increase supply if they believe no one is available to buy it.

    If corporations downsize, and the number of employed people shrinks, then businesses will not invest in increased supply, regardless of their profitability. They will not increase supply because that additional supply will not be purchased, if there is not already sufficient demand to purchase it.

    The fact that corporations are already sitting on two trillion dollars in cash — and not investing it in increasing supply — proves that businesses will not expand if there is no demand for them to fill.

    Supply-side economics is a cruel joke, and only a true idiot could still imagine it has any credibility.

  29. Bartbuster says:

    There can be no added demand until businesses hire the unemployed and provide them a pay check

    That was the purpose of ARRA, you dimwit.

    Economic recoveries ALWAYS begin with the initiative of businesses investing in growth in the anticipation of demand and not in reaction to demand.

    And if every business is waiting for every other business to start hiring, the recession lasts forever. Hence ARRA. Seriously, you really are dumber than a box of rocks.

    That is moronic.

  30. mclever says:

    Furthermore, Bart, I seem to recall the “make work” government jobs have been cited as key to several recoveries in the past, including New Deal and Japan. I don’t think the current Obama recovery plan has included significant “make work” efforts, so I find it difficult to see how you justified lumping it with the others. Perhaps the Obama plan’s relatively low component of “make work” infrastructure projects is why the recovery is lagging?

  31. drfunguy says:

    @Bart
    “This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works.”
    Give your record of displaying a lack of understanding of whatever you are posting on at the moment (at least where I have enough understanding to evaluate) you have a lot of ground to make up before anyone on this blog (besides Grog) will take you at your word.
    “I deal in facts.”
    Still waiting for evidence (despite many expert opinions to the contrary) that the Grenadan airport was military in nature; still waiting for evidence of those alleged weapons from Cuba.
    Your notion of facts seems a bit lacking.
    It would be humorous were it not so predictable and repetitious.

  32. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart said: “This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works.

    This is a true statement.

    Bart is speaking about himself.

  33. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    Please provide a reference to a reputable economics monograph or text which explains the theories you hold. Preferably with equations, graphs, and examples from real economies.

    Just for one example, “Recoveries never happen when government spends money on unproductive make work.” is falsified by the example of WWII. As has been pointed out to, without refutation or counterexample on your part, several times that I’ve been aware of.

    You seem incapable of either admitting that you were wrong or, in the alternative, coming up with any objective analysis or example as evidence.

  34. shiloh says:

    Sorry, Bart, but I’ll take the explanation I received from a spouse with degrees in Economics from CalTech over some blogger who just says it isn’t so.

    Don’t be sorry as 538 provides him the opportunity to spew his nonsense and many here reply to said nonsense, hence, ergo, therefore keeping our little buddy from going totally postal!

    So basically 538 is Bartles enabler as “we” are an empathetic lot, eh. Hey again, if we didn’t talk to him, who would …

    >

    Bart said: “This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works.”

    Indeed Max as projection is how Bartles rolls, besides his total obsession w/Obama ~ but, but, but he is very persistent ie a 538 24/7 disingenuous, winger talkin’ point machine ~ his sole purpose in life to shout above the crowd at a smallish liberal blog as he convinces no one! Insanity! lol

    Constant ad nauseam biased minutiae ~ rinse, lather, repeat.

    as always Bart, pace yourself …

  35. Number Seven says:

    Getting caught up on this thread, but I just had to laugh when Bartoinette posted “I deal in facts”.

    Bart, did you dare go back and comment on the Fair Tax proposed by PeteG2?

  36. shiloh says:

    “I deal in facts” and then “we” overwhelm/bury him w/facts and Bartles escapes to the next thread …

    One fact which drives him totally bat shit crazy! Obama is president er a bi-racial, African/America who’s a Muslim born in Kenya yada, yada, yada easily became the 44th President of the United States of America w/69.5 million votes ~ oh the humaity!

    Again Bart sorry 😛 no Bradley Effect!

  37. Bart DePalma says:

    OK, my Keynesian friends, how precisely is demand supposed to start up without business taking the initiative and hiring folks to do productive, wealth creating work?

    Government taking or borrowing money from Paul to give to an unemployed Peter for not producing anything (unemployment insurance or some sort of dole) creates no wealth and no net demand increase because you are only moving the money from one person to another.

    Government taking or borrowing money from Paul to give to an unemployed Peter for make work (Japan’s paving over their country and Obama’s building battery cars for governments to buy) again produces no useable wealth and no net demand increase because you are only moving the money from one person to another.

    All investment in business growth is a leap of faith that consumers will buy a new product. Apple did not react to a demand for the iPad, it hired people to design and build the iPad on a leap of faith that consumers would buy it. The question you need to ask yourselves is why Apple hired people in China rather than Americans in California to build the iPad?

  38. Bart DePalma says:

    Number Seven says: Bart, did you dare go back and comment on the Fair Tax proposed by PeteG2?

    Ask nicely and then direct me to the question.

    Once again, I do not have all day to scour multiple past threads looking for questions or diatribes directed at me. I comment on a thread for a day or two and then move on.

    While I love to write on blogs (plural because this is hardly the only game in town), I also have to write briefs, motions and letters all day at work and then write content for my book most nights.

  39. shiloh says:

    Barted ~ I comment on a thread for a day or two and then move on.

    As mentioned, after you are buried in said thread, you do indeed move on …

    Bart’s disingenuous winger deflection ~ Ask nicely and then direct me to the question.

    And nice of Bart to fit 538 in during his busy day, especially since he spouts his same nonsensical winger meme over and over and over again!

    Madness!

  40. GROG says:

    DC Shrinkers said: Businesses do not invest in an effort to create demand. They invest when they believe demand exists which they can fill. They simply will not increase supply if they believe no one is available to buy it.

    So if businesses aren’t going to produce things until there is demand, and there will be no demand until businesses start producing things, how then does the government create demand? The policies of the Obama administration have proven to be a failure at demand creation. How do you propose we do it?

  41. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    Don’t bother blathering — either produce the material asked for or expect no reply from me.

  42. shortchain says:

    GROG,

    Who said “there will be no demand until businesses start producing things,”?

    That’s obviously just plain wrong. Sure, sometimes businesses have to create demand by advertising, but demand has to precede supply. I suggest you go to the bank and tell them that you’d like to borrow some money to produce something for which no demand exists. Let us know what they say.

  43. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    I note that neither GROG nor Bart have countered the real world example of South Carolina’s budget plight over on the “Blame it on the Democrat” thread.

    Maybe because, since SC has been under total GOP rule for 20 years now, there is NO Democrat to blame?

    Maybe because of the fact that SC SPENDS ten percent LESS per capita than in 2000 and STILL has a budget deficit?

    Maybe because SC had cut taxes</b? and STILL has an unemployment rate HIGHER than the national average?

    My production of that evidence sure shut them down!!!!!

    Maybe because BOTH of those solutions have PROVEN to be fallacious?

    What say you?

  44. GROG says:

    Who said “there will be no demand until businesses start producing things,”?

    Sorry. I didn’t word that very well.

    Businesses need to start producing more “stuff” in order for hiring to begin and wages to increase and in turn, for demand to increase.

    How is demand going to pick up when companies aren’t producing and thus hiring back workers?

  45. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain says: “Recoveries never happen when government spends money on unproductive make work.” is falsified by the example of WWII. As has been pointed out to, without refutation or counterexample on your part, several times that I’ve been aware of.

    What recovery during WWII? The US borrowed more than its annual GDP to put 20 million people into highly hazardous make work military jobs and more hundreds of thousands to work in factories making goods to be destroyed in war. Meanwhile, the standard of living for the military folks went down, for the front line troops down to disease ridden subsistence poverty. The standard of living for the home folks also plunged as most goods were severely rationed so that they could be destroyed in war.

    When the war was over, we plunged back into recession until the Bretton Woods free trade agreements and government restrictions on labor were enacted to reverse some of the government distortions of the economy by Hoover and FDR that led to and then extended the Great Depression.

    Your suggestion that wars benefit the economy is obscene.

  46. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG said: “How is demand going to pick up when companies aren’t producing and thus hiring back workers?

    Either answer that question with a factual answer or you’ve demonstrated that you just provided the basis for Keynesian solutions.

    And how about South Carolina?

  47. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    BTW GROG, “Cutting taxes” just ain’t the answer because that already happened, trillions are in corporate bank accounts and hiring STILL hasn’t begun to reach sustainable levels.

  48. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart said: “____”

  49. GROG says:

    shortchain said: Who said “there will be no demand until businesses start producing things,”?

    GROG said: Sorry. I didn’t word that very well.

    No, I take that back. I worded that just fine.

    Demand is weak when unemployment is high. Workers go back to work when businesses start producing things again. Therefore, there will be no increase in demand until businesses start producing things again. (So simple.)

  50. shortchain says:

    GROG,

    You’ve got a real problem. Imagine that you’re a business, and you want to produce more product (why you’d want to in the absence of demand we’ll leave alone). How are you going to produce a lot more product, if you are already working your employees at roughly the limit already (and, if you aren’t, you should have laid a bunch of them off!)?

    You’ve created a deadlock. Also, why do you want to produce more product? Who is going to buy it? Your workers won’t be in a position to buy your product until after they’ve paid off their moving expenses, paid their rent deposit, bought a car to get to work with, etc. So you are producing product “on spec.” That’s a risk. Big companies don’t do this unless there’s a proven business plan.

    Having been in some startups and other businesses, I’ll tell you that, when you go to the bank and tell them you have an order for 10,000 widgets, worth 50 bucks each, the bank will give you a loan for half a million bucks. If you go to the bank and tell them you want half a million to build 10,000 widgets that you will then sell to your employees (after they’ve been working for 3 months) — they’ll laugh you out of the building.

    I can’t believe you can seriously imagine it works any other way.

  51. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    You not only haven’t answered the questions, you’ve just displayed an ignorance of history that is almost unbelievable.

    You’ve been schooled in this many times. You probably learned it in school, but evidently you’ve suffered brain damage and can’t remember.

    This is not obscene. It’s merely fact. Obscene would be like Reagan invading Grenada to avert attention to his failure in Lebanon, or Bush invading Iraq in order to avert attention from his failure in Afghanistan.

    Answer the questions. Supply the economics references. Otherwise, you’re just Barting.

  52. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “Recoveries never happen when government spends money on unproductive make work.”

    shortchain: Don’t bother blathering — either produce the material asked for or expect no reply from me.

    I have offered all the modern examples of where recoveries did not happen when government spent money on unproductive make work – Great Depression, Japan’s Lost Decade and the Great Recession.

    You do not need a peer reviewed journal article to know this, just read a damn history book and look at the stats.

    You are free to show one example where government spending on unproductive make work caused recovery from a recession faster than your run of the mill business cycle recovery without any government intervention. The two major examples in America – the New Deal and the ARRA – both fail this test miserably and arguably created an extended L recession.

    This argument is not even close. You have no historical evidence to back your position. None, nada, zip, zilch. I have all the evidence on my side and it is conclusive.

  53. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    And WWII? And the example of the partial recovery in the New Deal (before the austerians convinced FDR to cut back)? This was as close to a controlled experiment as it is possible to achieve, in economics.

    You imagine that you have evidence. Sorry, you don’t. I’ll believe Keynes before I believe you. Keynes actually had equations, graphs, and supporting evidence. All you have is assertions, devoid of evidence. You have no equations, no economics to back you up.

    This is my last reply. You’ve been asked repeatedly for a reference. You’ve supplied not a shred but blathering, resting on obviously false assertions.

  54. GROG says:

    Max said: Either answer that question with a factual answer or you’ve demonstrated that you just provided the basis for Keynesian solutions.

    Demand increases when workers go back to work.

    You tell me why demand is so weak and what additional Keynesian policies we should put in place to increase demand.

  55. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG said “Demand increases when workers go back to work.

    No shit, Sherlock! Not a complete answer.

    Currently companies have trillions in the bank and COULD hire millions RIGHT NOW! So when do they start putting those workers back to work?

  56. GROG says:

    Currently companies have trillions in the bank and COULD hire millions RIGHT NOW! So when do they start putting those workers back to work?

    According to you and DC, not until there demand. Why would a company hire anyone when there’s no demand.

    Again, how does government increase demand in your Keynesian world?

  57. Bart DePalma says:

    Shortchain says: And WWII?

    See my post above at 13:48 in response to your first post making that argument.

  58. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG said: “According to you and DC, not until there demand. Why would a company hire anyone when there’s no demand.

    That’s YOUR question to answer. It’s appears, empirically, that THEY WON’T. But YOU seem to think otherwise. Prove it. Or have you been caught in a trap of your own construction?

    Then you said: “how does government increase demand in your Keynesian world?
    Easy.
    By putting money in the hands of those unemployed so that they now can DEMAND goods and services, which employers will provide, which will cause them to hire additional workers, which will put more money in the hands of workers AND decrease the number of unemployed, which will create MORE demand. And so on.

  59. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Now. GROG and Bart.

    Why isn’t South Carolina a raging success? The state government has done both things you seem to think should be the key, cut taxes and reduce spending.

    How about SC????

  60. Monotreme says:

    GROG,

    I’m answering your question but understand I don’t necessarily endorse it, I’m giving you an honest answer to “what is the theory behind a Keynesian stimulus?” which I think is your question.

    Government increases demand by allowing people to have more disposable income. With disposable income, they buy things. Once they buy things (and thereby increase demand for a product), then workers are hired to make things.

    A Keynesian stimulus would be to employ persons not just to make-work (as Bart would have it) but to build actual physical things that the people need (schools, bridges, roads, rail lines, electric power grid, solar arrays, what have you) and then they take home their paycheck and spend it on widgets. The board of National Widgets then sees the orders for widgets pouring in and hires more workers to make more widgets. As demand increases, the government workers finish their job, and they take a better-paying position with National Widget. We have a school, the worker has a paycheck, and National Widget makes more of a profit.

  61. GROG says:

    Max,

    SC increased spending 47% from 2003 to 2008 and government grew by 40%. That’s why no raging success in SC.

  62. shiloh says:

    Sorry. I didn’t word that very well.

    grog, wording has never been your major debate problem ~ statistical evidence er lack thereof is the area where your (((idiocy/deflection/lack of debating skills))) shines thru …

    Congrats!

  63. GROG says:

    Max said:

    By putting money in the hands of those unemployed….

    Been doing that for years now. Not working.

    @Monotreme,

    Thanks for your reasonable and respectful response. It’s refreshing after dealing with Max today.

    I understand the theory as you explained as well. But it’s not working. Demand is not increasing. Companies are not hiring.

  64. shiloh says:

    grog SC increased spending 47% from 2003 to 2008 and government grew by 40%. That’s why no raging success in SC.

    Then why do S Carolinians keep electing Reps ?!? Like Bartles continuing to post here ~ utter madness! lol

    btw, where does SC rank in education ~ just wonderin’

  65. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    You have got to be kidding. I have seen some desperate attempts at avoiding seeing reality, but your comment on Breton Woods takes the cake. Go here and look at the graph of GDP. Notice that the GDP takes off like a rocket in 1940, peaks in 1945, then drops for a year, then goes up again.

    Breton Woods took place in 1945. If, as you say, it was the cause, they must have used a time machine. So, aside from being idiotic on the face of it (the sheer size of the recovery dwarfs the immediate effect of any treaty in the post-war world) it violates causality.

    Do tell us where you picked this insanity up from.

  66. shiloh says:

    Do tell us where you picked this insanity up from.

    Bartles was born a Rep …

  67. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    In 2000 SC spent $1275 per capita. In 2010 it was reduced to $1050 per capita. That’s a 10% DECREASE in spending. Did you NOT READ the sources?

    You can’t just use raw numbers.

    Answer please.

  68. Mr. Universe says:

    Obama’s approval rating hit 50 according to Gallup. Even Razz showed a bump.

  69. Monotreme says:

    GROG,

    Wearing my Keynesian hat, I would say that it’s because the ARRA “stimulus” bill actually had a lot of parts that weren’t stimulatory to the economy (tax cuts for the wealthy, earmarks, and the like).

    A true Keynesian stimulus, as I understand it, would be an investment in the same way the mortgage on your house is an investment. Just like I don’t use a home equity loan to buy groceries, I don’t use government stimulus money to pay down my credit card debt (for example). The government stimulus money MUST be used for things for which one can amortize the cost over 30, 40 or 50 years — education, research, infrastructure, military equipment, and so forth. Otherwise, it’s not a Keynesian stimulus.

    Michael Weiss broke down the components of ARRA in an earlier post. According to Michael’s analysis, which I endorse, only 60% ($474B) was a Keynesian stimulus. Economists in general assert that given the huge hole we found ourselves in, that a larger stimulus was needed but newly-inaugurated President Obama found himself unable to negotiate a bigger or more effective package.

    For example, it is generally regarded as true (though I think it’s a bit of an oversimplification) that the Lend-Lease and eventually the US entry into full combat in WW II was the government stimulus that ended the Great Depression.

    For example, using the Federal deficit of $60B in 1943 and the Inflation Calculator to convert to 2009 dollars, the ARRA stimulus would have to be over $900B to match the deficit spending of the Roosevelt administration. However, I don’t think we know how much of that $900B (2009$) deficit was stimulatory or not, but I’d be willing to bet that almost none of it went into tax cuts for the upper quintile of Americans.

    A similar amount of dollars in deficit (from $100B to $1T per year in constant dollars) were spent each year over a five- to six-year period, and that was the only thing that wiped out the Great Depression. Or so Keynesian theory says.

  70. shortchain says:

    Michael already wrote an excellent article weeks ago about the ARRA, as I recall, figuring out how much (or how little) was actually “stimulative”.

  71. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain says: Go here and look at the graph of GDP. Notice that the GDP takes off like a rocket in 1940, peaks in 1945, then drops for a year, then goes up again.

    And what did that GDP consist of? Borrowed money buying war goods and paying military personnel to kill foreign military personnel and destroy their infrastructure.

    So far as the base civilian economy producing goods and services consumers actually purchase, the borrowed money might as well have been blown up and burned as were the war goods.

    We did manage to reduce the unemployment rate permanently when a quarter million young workers were killed on the battlefield. They were no longer looking for work – permanently.

    At best, war is a necessary evil. It is never, ever a means to growth in the civilian economy. War destroys wealth. The argument is obscene on every level.

  72. Bart DePalma says:

    Meanwhile, in 2010, the Democrats passed ObamaCare by a 7 vote margin. Today, the Republicans passed the bill to repeal ObamaCare with a 55 vote margin.

  73. shiloh says:

    Obama’s approval rating hit 50 according to Gallup. Even Razz showed a bump.

    Bartles will be pouncin’ on this in 3 … 2 … 1 …

    One of my totally untested theories re: Obama’s job approval is folk are still giving him the benefit of the doubt considering cheney/bush totally (((FUBAR’d))) America every which way but loose from 2001/2009.

    And as of now, Reps haven’t changed their stripes in any way, shape or form ~ still negative/mean/angry as they prepare to nominate either mittens/Huckabee in 2012. (2) retreads from years gone by …

    The intelligent, moderate independents who determine presidential elections realize the mess cheney/bush left us in and that there is no easy fix as manufacturing jobs continue to be shipped overseas because of Rep policies ie greed.

    Bart, feel free to reply er pounce er obsess about every little thing lol

  74. Monotreme says:

    @Bart,

    Finally, something you and me and Gwynne Dyer and William Tecumseh Sherman all agree on — “war is Hell”.

    (Although I am a mite confused that you think killing Grenadians and Cubans is glorious but killing Nazis is not, but that’s another discussion for another day.)

    Now, let’s spend a similarly large amount of money on actual infrastructure that doesn’t kill people.

  75. Bart DePalma says:

    Actually, it is more accurate to say the Republicans reported the bill to the floor for debate with a 55 vote margin. The margin may get larger if all the Dems who voted against Obamacare in 2010 again vote the will of their constituents when the repeal comes up for a final vote next week.

    Let’s see how many of the 20+ senators up for reelection in 2012 want to double down on political suicide by voting for Obamacare a second time.

  76. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    All money is borrowed. It has no existence in itself. Money is nothing but a promise that, at some time, you can redeem it for something real.

    Your diatribe is therefore nonsensical.

    But you are right, in a sense. The money could have been given away, and produced the same effect. (Not blown up. That is idiotic.)

    As for the theory that the war took a lot of people out of the job market — many times that number of people were unemployed in the Great Depression. Taking that number of people out of the job market could only have an effect if there was full employment.

    Sure, war is horrible — which, given your support of adventurism in Iran, Iraq, and all around the world, is deeply ironic. Note that nobody here — other than you — is advocating war.

  77. Monotreme says:

    Bart et al.,

    Oops. We lied.

    So, all pigs (bills) are created equal, except that some pigs (bills) are more equal than others?

  78. shortchain says:

    Prediction: The Senate will ignore the idiotic “repeal” law.

    Perhaps they should simply say: “pass the replacement, and we’ll pick the better one.” That would be something to see. It would be a truly astonishing clown posse to see the nitwits, loons, batshit-crazy bozos, and unscrupulous corporate whores try to come to an agreement on something like that.

    But Bart will continue to inform us every time Boehner burps, thinking that it meant something.

  79. shiloh says:

    Bart has been at war all his life, especially since he found out Dems, as a rule, always outnumber Reps.

    And of course Barack Hussein Obama easily becoming the 44th President of the United States of America! really threw a monkey wrench into his teabags lol as his entire winger world was turned upside down! He will never reconcile, recover from this actuality …

  80. dcpetterson says:

    I remember arguing on the old FiveThirtyEight about what brought us out of the Great Depression. At that time, conservatives argued that it wasn’t FDR’s stimulus spending — it was the Second World War. Bart is now doubling down on the crazy, by claiming it wasn’t even the Second World War — it was a minor treaty that came after the War. Which means it came several years after the Great Depression had ended.

    GROG outlined the problem of any recession. Whatever starts it — there are many ways a recession can start — what happens is that workers get laid off. Thus, there are fewer consumers, and those consumers have less money. Demand falls. Companies cut back on production, because they aren’t selling as much. To reduce costs further, they lay people off. Thus, more people become unemployed. Demand drops further. Etc.

    It’s hard to get out of a recession because as long as consumers don’t have money to consume with, businesses won’t hire more people to increase supply. We see that right now. Businesses are immensely profitable, because they’ve cut way back on costs (mostly by laying people off). But they will not increase production, even though they’re sitting on $2 trillion in cash, because those new goods won’t be bought. So the cost to produce them is simply lost.

    The only solution is to give consumers more money to consume with. A LOT more money. We should spend perhaps a trillion on stimulus for at least the next five years. What should we do with that money? Create infrastructure. Repair roads. Create windfarms. Run high-speed internet to every home and apartment in the nation. (There are thousands of other possible projects as well.) All of these things will create more wealth over the next couple of decades, and easily increase the GDP enough to produce tax revenues that will pay off the stimulus spending.

    Meanwhile, people are working again, which means they will buy stuff. The companies that produce stuff will have to increase production to meet the demand. They will begin to hire more workers back. And by the time the stimulus projects are completed, there will be plenty of jobs for making widgets, because everyone will be wanting to buy a widget again.

    This is the only way to get out of a recession. Clearly, supply-side ideas are having zero effect.

  81. GROG,

    Demand increases when workers go back to work.

    That’s only partially true. Demand increases when people have money, and some degree of security of having either enough to last a long time, or a stable source of income. That can come from a job, but it doesn’t have to. Retirees buy things. Lottery winners buy things, too. Neither of them need jobs in order to buy. It’s about financial security, not employment.

  82. GROG,

    I understand the theory as you explained as well. But it’s not working. Demand is not increasing. Companies are not hiring.

    It’s not that it doesn’t work, but you need to consider the orders of magnitude. If the government pumped $10 into the economy, that would be a drop of water in an ocean. If the government pumped $10T into the economy, that would probably overdo it. In essence, though, you need to look at how much the economy contracted in 2008. Well-placed stimulus funding (i.e., money that will be spent, not saved) needs to be of roughly the same magnitude as the economic contraction in order to truly be effective. It then needs to taper off as the non-stimulus economy ramps up. That is the way Keynesian countercyclical policy works.

  83. dcpetterson says:

    “pass the replacement, and we’ll pick the better one.”

    That is brilliant. We need to start this as a meme. Write to your legislators. Tell them to tell the Republicans, “We’ll consider the repeal of PPACA after the House has passed a replacement bill. Then we can either pass both the replacement and the PPACA repeal, or we can ignore both, whichever is the better course for America.”

    It’s the perfect solution. But first, Republicans need to have Town Hall meetings about their new proposals.

  84. Mr. Universe says:

    Economy slowly recovering. But not enough jobs and what does the newly elected Republican House majority want to tackle first? Obama’s Health Care Reform.

    I think they misunderstood the November mandate.

    Where are the jobs Mr. Beohner?

  85. GROG says:

    Max said:

    Did you NOT READ the sources?

    I pretty much ignored you from the time you started being a dick.

  86. Mr. Universe says:

    Republicans file to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

    It’s official. Republicans are going to destroy the world. Nice job.

  87. GROG says:

    Michael/Max:

    We’re broke. South Carolina is broke. There is no more money. States, counties and cities around the country and the Federal Government do not have any more money. We cannot continue to print more and borrow more from China.

    At some point in time a Democrat is going to have to consider spending cuts in lieu of spending money we don’t have.

  88. shiloh says:

    grog ~ I pretty much ignored you from the time you started being a dick.

    So grog ignores someone by going out of his way to him a dick ~ grog, a good way to ignore someone is to totally ignore them, eh.

    solo estoy diciendo

    take care, blessings

  89. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG said: “I pretty much ignored you from the time you started being a dick.” Please quote the comment wherein you consider me “being a dick”.

    But in fact: No, you didn’t ignore me. You have responded MULTIPLE times. (14:13, 14:35, 14:55. just a few on this thread alone)
    So why lie about it when the truth is here in black and white?

    Is it because you are tired of repeatedly being shown incapable of producing evidence to back up your fatuous claims?

    You STILL haven’t you know.

  90. dcpetterson says:

    At some point in time a Democrat is going to have to consider spending cuts in lieu of spending money we don’t have.

    The problem with cutting back on spending during a recession is that it is a great way to make the recession worse.

    Almost all Federal spending eventually goes to people. Some of it is entitlement or other direct payouts to citizens — who then spend that money, thus maintaining some level of demand for goods and services.

    Some Federal spending goes to procurement of various kinds — buying military goods and supplies, or other government assets. This spending goes to the companies that produce those goods and services — thus, it goes to someone’s salary, and that helps maintain demand.

    Some of it goes directly to the salaries of government workers, including people in the military. Again, this money gets spent in the economy, maintaining demand.

    If you cut back any of this spending, you decrease demand for goods and services. This worsens the recession.

    The Republicans in the House want to make our recession worse by reducing Federal spending.

  91. shortchain says:

    GROG,

    You cannot continue simply mouthing garbage like: “We cannot continue to print more and borrow more from China.”

    We can continue to print more money. We don’t need to depend on the Chinese, either. American treasury notes are still selling just fine. Your statements are in complete opposition to reality.

    The federal government, states, counties, cities, and even your local suburb, has an income stream readily at hand. It’s called “taxes”, and, since they’re at historically low levels, there’s amply room to raise them a bit and bring in more revenue.

    Do you really imagine that your simple statements (emphasis on simple), which are shown, by easily-observed facts, to be false, will convince anybody else?

    I notice you haven’t gone back to the idiotic (and 180 degrees from correct) “first business has to produce more, and then hire more people, before demand grows”. Perhaps there’s hope.

  92. shiloh says:

    sc ~ Perhaps there’s hope.

    Hope springs eternal or so they say …

  93. GROG says:

    Wow. Where to start?
    shortchain said: I notice you haven’t gone back to the idiotic (and 180 degrees from correct) “first business has to produce more, and then hire more people, before demand grows”.

    Umm, yes, business has to produce before demand grows because demand won’t grow until people are working and producing things.

    In 1970 there was absolutely zero demand for ipod touches. Somebody had to invent it, manufacture it, and bring it to the market place before there was any demand for it. They had to hope along the way that government red tape, regulation, and taxes didn’t prevent them from doing this.

    Apple didn’t sit around waiting for somebody to call them up and say “can I buy an idpod touch from you”? They created the demand for it. That’s how successful businesses work.

  94. dcpetterson says:

    @GROG
    Apple didn’t sit around waiting for somebody to call them up and say “can I buy an idpod touch from you”? They created the demand for it. That’s how successful businesses work.

    This works if people have a substantial amount of disposable income. If Apple started producing iPods today for the first time, they would not sell, because very few people have enough extra cash to buy one.

    “Demand” does not refer to “desire for a particular product.” It refers to “desire and ability to spend money on consumer goods in general.” Currently, there is very little excess “demand” — that is, few consumers have money that is begging to be spent on The Next New Thing.

    So your example is inapplicable. Very few people would buy some brand new gadget today, because there is very little disposable income to be the raw material of Demand. This is why businesses are sitting on $2 trillion rather than using it to create more supply of anything.

    Demand does not increase because supply increases. Demand increases because consumers have excess money to spend. Currently, consumers do not have excess money to spend. So no company is going to increase supply.

  95. GROG says:

    Michael said: That is the way Keynesian countercyclical policy works.
    As Bart has already pointed out numerous times, it didn’t work for the Great Depression, it didn’t work for Japan, and it isn’t working for the Great Recession.

    DC said: The problem with cutting back on spending during a recession is that it is a great way to make the recession worse.

    Are you able to back up that statement with any real life evidence?

  96. Mr. Universe says:

    We seem to be caught in a mobius loop. Chicken or the Egg? Supply vs Demand? Can’t have on without the other. Stimulus money does little good for consumers if businesses hoard it. And, of course, Republicans think it’s a great idea to give it to their rich corporate friends. Yeah, that worked out great, didn’t it? /sarcasm

  97. Mr. Universe says:

    The CCC and New Deal worked fine in the Great Depression, GROG. Where’d you get your history books? Texas?

  98. dcpetterson says:

    Republicans are on record today as wanting to increase the deficit by $230 billion in order to take health insurance away from 32 million Americans. And they broke all their promises about transparency and allowing amendments and citing Constitutional authority in order to do it.

    Despicable. Hypocritical. Downright evil.

  99. dcpetterson says:

    Are you able to back up that statement with any real life evidence?

    Sure. As soon as you provide figures on the number of businesses moving into California.

  100. GROG says:

    Warren Harding inherited a depression in which GNP plunged 24% from 1920 to 1921 and unemployment more than doubled during that time.

    What did he do? He cut spending and lowered taxes and paid off debt. GNP rebounded and the unemployed went from 4.9 million to 2.8 million (6.7%) in 1922 and eventually fell as low as 1.8% under Harding.

    Contrast that depression with the Great Depression FDR’s policies. Why do you think no one ever talks about the depression of 1920?

  101. GROG says:

    DC, you’re unable to back up your statement because there’s no truth to it whatsoever.

  102. Mr. Universe says:

    Are you aware that Harding is considered one of the worst President’s ever, while FDR is considered to be one of the best?

  103. Mr. Universe says:

    Oh and don’t forget that prohibition thing.

  104. dcpetterson says:

    GROG, I offered to answer your question as soon as you answer mine. The offer still stands. If you cannot answer, then admit your point is unsupportable. I would consider that an answer to my question.

  105. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG said: “In 1970 there was absolutely zero demand for ipod touches. Somebody had to invent it, manufacture it, and bring it to the market place before there was any demand for it.

    “Best way to tell a lie is to tell part of the truth.” Good try, though.

    The iPod Touch did NOT appear out of nowhere. The Touch was a better iPod, improved with more features, even combining feature of internet access. The iPod was a better Walkman, smaller, more compact, carrying many more songs. The Walkman was a better boombox, compact, wearing on your waist and not up on your shoulder. The boombox was a better reel-to-reel, recording device, portable. Etc., etc, etc.

    Incremental improvements of EXISTING products does NOT classify as brand spanking new. Radio is about the only thing that comes to mind that was NEW, new. And I assure you, demand was slow developing for that.

    I challenge you to come up with an example of something BRAND NEW that marketing alone built up demand and the manufacturer has invested in a large infrastructure and inventory. I’ll try to think of some others.

  106. shortchain says:

    GROG,

    You’ve been answered well already, but perhaps you could obtain some insight, were you to reflect on the fact that, on the day any Apple product is introduced, the lines of people waiting for it typically stretch for how many collective miles? Yet, according to you, the demand cannot exist before the product is on the market.

  107. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    With all the spending cuts, SC has education cut to the bone.

    shiloh ask where SC stands in education.

    49th in both SAT and ACT scores.
    50th in high school graduation rate.
    48th in average elementary class size.

    How much more spending cuts do the teapers propose?

  108. GROG says:

    DC,

    I never made a statement regarding how many companies have moved to California. I admitted I couldn’t find any data.

    You, on the other hand, made the statement “The problem with cutting back on spending during a recession is that it is a great way to make the recession worse”.

    Can you give any real life evidence to support that statement?

  109. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Home computers hit the market in the late 1970’s. NOT an instant success, in spite of lots of advertising, including that original Mac commercial. It took 15 YEARS before they became a commodity item.

  110. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    No, GROG, but you DID make the assertion that California’s business climate SUCKED and LOTS of companies were moving out, without any context.

    But it has been demonstrated that MANY companies are quite happily doing business in CA and that LOTS of companies move about for LOTS of reasons.

  111. dcpetterson says:

    GROG
    I never made a statement regarding how many companies have moved to California. I admitted I couldn’t find any data.

    You claimed that a few businesses moving out of California proved the “business climate” in CA was “horrible.” You were asked to compare that to the number of businesses moving in, because it’s only half of a statistic to say how many moved out. Having admitted you cannot tell us how many moved in, I will take that as admission that you realized your point is meaningless and unproven. Thank you for retracting the statement that “The business climate in California is horrible because businesses are moving out.” You have admitted you have nothing to back that up, because you cannot find data on the number of businesses moving in.

    Can you give any real life evidence to support that statement?

    Sure. FDR instituted a stimulus spending program to combat the Great Depression. It worked for a while, improving the economy — until he listened to the proponents of austerity who convinced him to cut spending. He did. The economy worsened, and the Great Depression extended for several more years.

  112. dcpetterson says:

    @Max aka Birdpilot
    Home computers hit the market in the late 1970′s. NOT an instant success, in spite of lots of advertising, including that original Mac commercial. It took 15 YEARS before they became a commodity item.

    Additionally, home computers were evolutionary, having been preceded by pocket calculators and video games like Nintendo and Intellivision. Like the iPod, it did not appear out of nowhere.

  113. dcpetterson says:

    I added that comment about home computers to show that even with groundwork being set out, the creation of supply does not automatically create demand.

  114. shiloh says:

    49th in both SAT and ACT scores.
    50th in high school graduation rate.
    48th in average elementary class size.
    ~~~~~

    ok, now I see why SC keeps electing Republicans as it’s elementary 😛

    Drove thru Myrtle Beach along the coast in the mid ’80s and remember there were many putt-putt golf courses …

    carry on

  115. Number Seven says:

    The depression of 1920 also had severe deflation of prices. In fact, the largest reduction in prices ever recorded up to that point. That depression was also different due to demand not dropping. Thus no government stimulus was needed.

    A more correct description of the 1920 event would be a large, needed, market correction. After correcting, things rebounded rather quickly.

    Perhaps that is what we need now. A large drop in prices would go a long way to helping demand increase.

    GROG, you are right. I don’t think many know of the 1920 depression. I know I didn’t. As to why they don’t talk about it….. who knows for sure. Probably because it was over so quickly.

  116. Mainer says:

    It appears the SC and indeed much of the South has some issues in regards things like how well they are using their resources. But boy can they make a show of cutting taxes. Ayuh my state is dirt poor but at least we seem to be getting some bang for our buck. Hard to tell what we will have left when our new Republican state government gets done but we have always seemed to survive.

    http://statehealthstats.americashealthrankings.org/#/country/US/2010/Overall-State-Ranking

  117. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    I note the article on the 1920 Depression points out that Harding raised taxes by expanding the tax based even while he lowered rates!

    That Depression is probably largely forgotten because of the legacy of all the other GREAT things President Harding is known for during his administration!!!!!

  118. Bart DePalma says:

    shortchain says: All money is borrowed. It has no existence in itself. Money is nothing but a promise that, at some time, you can redeem it for something real.

    Cosmic, dude.

    However, when a business invests in growth and employs workers, it is creating added wealth in the form of goods and services which consumers voluntarily purchase and demand in the form of employees who will purchase goods and services.

    In contrast, when a government taxes or borrows from one person to give away money to another person for doing nothing or for producing products for which consumers would not pay neither creates wealth nor a net increase in demand.

    For example, if Progressive Government taxes $10 from Roger Employee and gives it to Gus Unemployed, Gus produces nothing for that money and can only buy the same $10 worth of goods and services as Roger with no net increase in demand.

    If Progressive Government borrows $10 from Deng Chow Investor and gives it to Gus Unemployed, Deng Chow Investor will not invest that money in a productive business who would use it to hire and pay Roger Employee. Thus, Gus still produces nothing for that money and can only buy the same $10 worth of goods and services as Roger would have if he had been paid with no net increase in demand.

    If Progressive Government borrows $10 from Deng Chow Investor and gives it to Battery Car Co. to make battery cars for which no consumer (apart from wealthy status toy buyers) will voluntarily pay, then no real wealth is created. Indeed, wealth in the form of the $10 principle and interest on the debt is lost when Roger Employee has to repay it to Deng Chow Investor through his taxes.

    As any insolvent credit card abuser knows, you cannot become wealthy by borrowing at interest and spending the loan.

  119. Number Seven says:

    Speaking of cosmic, has anyone seen the size of Boener’s gavel??? You could just him saying, ‘ha ha, Pelosi, mine is bigger then yours, and I can smash watermelons with mine, ha ha’.

    And more crying as he entered the chamber? If Pelosi had cried this much, the Trite Wing Noise Machine would be claiming she is hopelessly emotional and should not be in power. Oh wait, they did say that even without the tears.

    And this joke of reading the edited constitution??? They had people coming up and reading it out ten words at a time. Thanks for making C-SPAN even more boring.

    QUIT WASTING TIME GOP!!! WE NEED SOME JOBS!!!

    I am watching Jon Stewart right now and had to pause it to post this.

  120. Number Seven says:

    And now Bartoinette wants to punish the rich by not supplying them with the toys they willingly pay for. Will the contradictions ever cease….

  121. dcpetterson says:

    Barted:
    For example, if Progressive Government taxes $10 from Roger Employee and gives it to Gus Unemployed, Gus produces nothing for that money and can only buy the same $10 worth of goods and services as Roger with no net increase in demand.

    That would be true if (as Republicans want) we don’t run a deficit.

    If we borrow the money to give to Gus Unemployed, then we did not take it from Roger Employee.

    If we spend the borrowed money to pay Gus to build bridges or schools or internet connections or windfarms or anything else that will produce economic activity in the future, then the borrowed money will be paid back with the tax revenues that are generated by the work that Gus performed.

    So, as usual Bart, you are providing talking points instead of actual thinky arguments.

  122. dcpetterson says:

    @NumberSeven
    And this joke of reading the edited constitution???

    For people who pretend to respect the Constitution, the idea of editing it before you read it is such an obvious form of hypocritical BS that I can’t imagine any thinking being believing they still have any credibility whatever.

    What bozi. Really.

  123. GROG,

    As Bart has already pointed out numerous times, it didn’t work for the Great Depression, it didn’t work for Japan, and it isn’t working for the Great Recession.

    Um, yeah, about that…we had that discussion a long time ago, and I refuted every one of his points until he abandoned the thread. As I already pointed out earlier today, the magnitude of the stimulus (not the quantity of government debt accumulation) must approximate that of the economic activity present prior to the recession and missing during the recession. That didn’t happen until WWII in the US, it hasn’t happened in Japan during their Lost Decade (which, incidentally, had many other issues beyond simple recession), and it certainly hasn’t happened in the US at any time since 2008.

  124. clmbusboy1 says:

    @dcpetterson
    For people who pretend to respect the Constitution, the idea of editing it before you read it is such an obvious form of hypocritical BS that I can’t imagine any thinking being believing they still have any credibility whatever.

    Please correct me where I’m mistaken, as I may very well be missing your intended point. I am aware they left off the part about blacks only being 3/5ths of a citizen. The 14th amendment was read in its stead.

    As a minority (hispanic, not black) this didn’t bother me at all. To be honest, taking the time to edit out the parts that considered blacks less of an American than whites was a plus. I’m for anything that recognizes minorities as equals.

    Again, my apologies if I totally missed your point.

  125. Bart DePalma says:

    MW: Well-placed stimulus funding (i.e., money that will be spent, not saved) needs to be of roughly the same magnitude as the economic contraction in order to truly be effective…

    As I already pointed out earlier today, the magnitude of the stimulus (not the quantity of government debt accumulation) must approximate that of the economic activity present prior to the recession and missing during the recession.

    That didn’t happen until WWII in the US, it hasn’t happened in Japan during their Lost Decade (which, incidentally, had many other issues beyond simple recession), and it certainly hasn’t happened in the US at any time since 2008.

    Michael, can you clarify your definition of “stimulus” for me? So far, I understand that it must be spent rather than saved by the recipients and also is not equal to government borrowing. Does this include tax revenues spent by recipients? Is all spending of government money considered to be “stimulus?”

    Apparently, you (and Paul Krugman) believe that no government has provided the necessary level of stimulus to actually drive an economic recovery apart from the United States during WWII. In what way did WWII stimulate a recovery of the civilian economy? Do you believe that, if the US were to wage war on the scale of WWII today, that it would stimulate our civilian economy into recovery?

    Thanks in advance.

  126. Number Seven says:

    dc will speak for himself but since I brought the subject up: If the GOP loves and respects the constitution so much, read it as originally printed, and include the amendments that changed it.

    IMO, the reason they did not do this is because they think the Constitution is like the Bible. That is to say they think the document was perfect as written. This is of course, wrong. That is why the Constitution is a living document, to be changed as needed, as was the founding fathers intent. They were precient enough to know times would change but they also knew that mere populism could change it for the worse, thus all the needed requirements for amendments.

    But, sadly, the GOP is more about faith then reality. Thus we have the Tea Baggers who are strict constitutionalists and actually seem to want us to return to the days of slavery and lack of voting rights for everyone except landed, white, gentry. This habuki theatre of today was all about appeasing their reactionary teabagger base who will soon learn that they are neither part of the solution or the problem. They will find out they are part of the landscape and will be passed by like so many road signs.

  127. clmbusboy1 says:

    @Number Seven
    dc will speak for himself but since I brought the subject up: If the GOP loves and respects the constitution so much, read it as originally printed, and include the amendments that changed it.

    Fair enough, you may indeed be correct. I just didn’t see the need to be all that bothered by it. I honestly took the “editing” to mean they recognized the original document had flaws and figured it was more appropriate to read that applicable parts. As I said above, I like any political maneuvering that portrays any minority as an equal. (Well, I live in Miami, I guess I’m hardly a minority.) 🙂

  128. dcpetterson says:

    @Number Seven
    dc will speak for himself but since I brought the subject up: If the GOP loves and respects the constitution so much, read it as originally printed, and include the amendments that changed it.

    My view is similar to yours, but slightly different.

    I think the GOteaPers are more like Fundamentalists. They view the Constitution the way Fundies view the Bible. That is, “It says what I want it to say — not what it actually says.”

    This is why the GOteaParty edited the Constitution before reading it. Because the GOteaParty cannot handle historical truth. They rewrite history, and re-create the World the way they want it to have been — and then criticize the rest of us for not being pure, because we deal in fact rather than in their invented view of the world.

    They claim we should read the Constitution. And then they refuse to read the Constitution. Because it embarrasses them. And then they have the gall to criticize someone else for supposedly violating the Constitution. Hypocrisy run amok.

    I wonder why anyone gives a moment of credit to anything these people say. But Bart is totally bewitched. And GROG is on the edge. And Mule is in love. It isn’t about fact or reality. It is *** Magic ***.

  129. Number Seven says:

    First off, glad to see you joining us, clmbusboy1.

    I understand what you are saying. Just cant agree with it. Editing the past reminds me of the memory hole in 1984. It is like the current editing of the books about Huckelberry Finn that has replaced the word nigger with slave.

    People need to understand the historical context, even if the words are currently described as ugly. We, as Americans, are not perfect, and we need to get over this idea that we are. We have made some serious fucking mistakes. Thankfully, we have been able to correct many of them. But we can do better and must continue to strive for this. That is what being a progressive is all about.

  130. dcpetterson says:

    @clmbusboy1

    The world changes over time. But fact is fact. The world was what it was.

    Conservatives today like to pretend that Truth is Eternal. That what was true once, is still True now. That society and its morality are eternal.

    But this is not the case. Facts are sometimes uncomfortable. The Constitution, as written, was a racist and sexist document. That we overcame this is cause for celebration. And it proves the power of our democracy. By editing these facts, we reduce the strength and meaning of our achievement. And we put to lie the argument of the people who argue that we must follow the Original Intent of the Sacred Founders.

    Either we accept facts, or we don’t. Or we claim to accept facts, and then we lie.

    The Republicans lie.

  131. Number Seven says:

    dc, so true, great post.

  132. shiloh says:

    They view the Constitution the way Fundies view the Bible. That is, “It says what I want it to say — not what it actually says.”

    Actually again, the religious right/conservatives/tp’ers/Reps ie the so-called party of god er self-righteousness interprets the Bible to suit whatever their political agenda is at a particular time.

    In a sense, there is no such thing as a true believer re: the Bible as again, it can be interpreted every which way to Sunday depending on one’s point of view er politics. This is why creationism/intelligent design, abortion etc. are such fun political discussions.

    >

    The wingers reading the Constitution, besides being a total waste of time, was basically a distraction/deflection from the important problem solving which needs to be done and of course Reps aren’t good at discussing issues so they always need a religious/divisive/hate speak deflection to get their dwindling base satisfied. Style over substance.

    but, but, but on the bright side for boehner, Kleenex has contacted him re: their new ad campaign: There may be no crying in baseball, but thank god Reps er teabaggers are bringin’ crying back to the senate!

    Sounds like a winner as Bart, grog, Jeffrey and their ilk have been doing nothin’ but crying the past (2) years! 😀

    It’s widely known boehner is one of the laziest public servants in congress as he’s all about raising $$$ and playin’ golf. And his one claim to fame before becoming minority leader besides his tan 😉 was helping to cover up for Mark Foley, a child molester.

    Indeed, an impressive resumé to be sure as one can easily see why Reps made him their leader …

  133. Number Seven says:

    I wonder if the orange boner crys if he misses a three foot put….

    I am watching the Star Trek episode, The Way to Eden. It is the one with the space hippies, lol.

    I want to say to Boener, HERBERT, HERBERT, HERBERT!!!!

  134. dcpetterson says:

    @Number Seven

    I reach. Yeah, brother!

  135. Personally, I couldn’t care less that they read the Constitution as it currently stands. It’s a fine gesture, and focusing attention on the details is a red herring. What matters is following the Constitution, not reading it aloud.

  136. Mr. Universe says:

    I’m with Congressman Weiner on this one. I’m kinda glad they read the Constitution. There’s stuff in there that Republicans need to be reminded of (which of course they’ll ignore). Agree with DC and #7 that they tend to think of it as a static document like the Bible; which is itself full of discreapancies. If we took the Bible literally, stoning would still be in vogue.

    That was one of the dumber Star Trek episodes but at least we got to see Mr. Spock bust out the Vulcan autoharp and jam with a girl with a bicycle wheel. That may have been the Easybeats on back up. I totally reach, brother.

  137. GROG says:

    DC Pettered: You claimed that a few businesses moving out of California proved the “business climate” in CA was “horrible.”

    No I didn’t. I provided several links to studies and findings that found the business climate in CA is horrible. The list of companies moving out was one piece of the claim. Did you look at the MSNBC study?

    DC Pettered: FDR instituted a stimulus spending program to combat the Great Depression. It worked for a while, improving the economy — until he listened to the proponents of austerity who convinced him to cut spending. He did. The economy worsened, and the Great Depression extended for several more years.

    He also raised taxes at the same time (you forgot to mention that part), which is a recipe for disaster in a depression/recession and caused the economy to worsen. Thanks for that illustration.

    Now, show me a real life example of where spending cuts are bad in a recession.

  138. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Grog said: “DC Pettered: You claimed that a few businesses moving out of California proved the “business climate” in CA was “horrible.”

    No I didn’t.

    Well if “terrible” and “horrible” are reasonably equivalent terms, you did, actually. You also leaped from a lack of evidence to conclude that “The point is that companies aren’t moving to California”.

    We provided evidence of over 10% of F500 companies headquartered in CA. We provided evidence of companies moving all the time for various reasons. And we haven’t even discussed how many companies could be starting up in CA every week, including small businesses that are the birthplace of jobs.

    GROG says:
    January 6, 2011 at 17:38
    DC,

    The point is that companies aren’t moving to California. That’s why you can’t find any evidence to support otherwise. (In CA several years ago, David Westerfield was convicted of kidnap and murder of Danielle Van Dam with absolutely NO evidence that showed him in the Van Dam house! Zero. Zip. Nada. He had to get into the house, up a flight of stairs, past the family dog, into the childs bedroom a couple of doors down from the parents and back out with the child. No forensic evidence at all. But he did. Same could be true about companies moving INTO CA)

    California is a terrible place to operate a business. That’s why you can’t find any evidence to support its a good place to do business.

    But don’t try to say one thing more that is different from what you said earlier.

  139. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Sorry.

    To be accurate: The part of your comment in parentheses is mine.

  140. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Them TeaPers, they LOVE the Constitution EXCEPT:

    They want to get rid of that pesky part about anyone being born in America being a citizen in Amendment XIV.

    They want to dump that really nasty part about income taxes in Amendment XVI.

    They want to return to the days when state legislatures had the fun of choosing Senators and go back before us stupid We the People got to directly elect Senators as a result of Amendment XVII.

    Oh yeah, they LOVE the Constitution.

    Except those parts they want to ignore:

    as that silly General Welfare clause;

    as sometimes the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments get in the way;

    as that stupid Article 1, Section 8.1 lets Congress tax us;

    and as that REALLY NASTY Article 1 , Section 8.18 gives implied powers to Congress.

    Yep, they LOVE the Constitution. THEIR version that is, but NOT the document as it is written.

  141. GROG says:

    Max,
    I have readily admitted that I cannot find any evidence that companies are moving to California. Move on.

  142. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG

    I had moved on. YOUR 05:18 comment, where you tried to rewrite your own statements, started it up again. I wasn’t going to let you Bart, and won’t in the future.

    BTW, You NEVER provided the exact quote of mine where I “was being a dick” towards you. I guess my conjecture that you just can’t stand being asked to provide proof of your assertions was correct.

    Now, let’s talk about the Constitution!

  143. Bart DePalma says:

    Max:

    The GOP point was that Congress is bound to follow the Constitution, not that the People cannot or should not change their Constitution meant to limit Congress and the rest of the government.

    It is supremely telling that progressives have taken this opportunity to ridicule our basic law and the idea that Congress is at all limited by this law.

  144. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    Show us were “progressives” ridiculed the idea that “Congress is at all limited by this law.”

    And while you are at it, please state just which “law” you meant.

  145. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart, don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not some dip witness you are trying to trip up in court. Do not accuse me of something, by inference or otherwise, that I HAVE NOT done and which you have nothing to point to to confirm your accusation. You, on the other hand, empirically have problems with the truth and facts as it is. Don’t make it worse.

    You said: “The GOP point was that Congress is bound to follow the Constitution, not that the People cannot or should not change their Constitution meant to limit Congress and the rest of the government.

    I NEVER stated “GOP”, I stated “TeaPers”. Go back and look. Not only is Congress bound to follow the Constitution, but so are the other branches of the Federal government, state and local governments and all American citizens, including TeaPers.

    I support wholeheartedly the amendment process to the Constitution as that is a part of the Constitution itself. Which is why I support an Amendment explicitly declaring that rights of citizenship apply only to natural born humans and not created corporate entities, which would be limited to rights as defined by the legislative process that created them. You, one who espouses the explicit view of the Constitution, cannot point to anywhere in that document that speaks to citizenship for created corporate entities, unlike natural born humans.

    Please cite where “progressives have taken this opportunity to ridicule our basic law and the idea that Congress is at all limited by this law.” or retract that statement, if you have any honor.

  146. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Oh and, Bart said: “___”

  147. shortchain says:

    GROG,

    You ask: “Now, show me a real life example of where spending cuts are bad in a recession.”

    Go here. Then follow the back-link (the little up-arrow at the beginning of the citation). Read the sentence it points to.

    Of course, since this has been pointed out to you multiple times already, its utility may be as limited in efficacy as bringing the horse to water…

  148. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    shortchain,

    Not to mention the fact that Harding INCREASED tax revenues by broadening the tax base during the 1920 Depression that GROG helpfully brought up.

  149. Bart DePalma says:

    Bart DePalma says: The GOP point was that Congress is bound to follow the Constitution, not that the People cannot or should not change their Constitution meant to limit Congress and the rest of the government. It is supremely telling that progressives have taken this opportunity to ridicule our basic law and the idea that Congress is at all limited by this law.

    shortchain says: Show us were “progressives” ridiculed the idea that “Congress is at all limited by this law.” And while you are at it, please state just which “law” you meant.

    Do you suffer from dyslexia? Which basic law does my post above discuss. Read real closely. My post went on a full two sentences.

    As to progressive response to reading the Constitution…

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/248102/democrats-constitution-weird-michael-tanner

    Max aka Birdpilot says: I NEVER stated “GOP”, I stated “TeaPers”. Go back and look.

    Weak. There is a difference? Who do you think put the GOP into the majority? Why do you think the GOP is reading the Constitution into the record?

    If you substitute Tea Party for GOP in my statement, it would apply equally well. We believe that the government is bound by the Constitution and also that the document could be further amended to better achieve its limited government goals.

  150. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    Why not just say “the Constitution”? Or are you deliberately trying to confuse the issue?

    As for ridiculing the GOP for reading the Constitution — have you got an understanding deficit? What was being ridiculed was leaving parts out and pretending that the document is some kind of “received knowledge” rather than the work in progress that it truly is.

    Making fun of idiots reading aloud without understanding is not making fun of the text being read.

    I’m still waiting, by the way, for something, anything from you that actually performs an economic analysis of your take on the issues discussed above. Until you do, you are just Barting.

  151. shortchain says:

    Bart,

    In honesty, I should add that, having read so many of your comments, I no longer try to bend my mind into the pretzel shape required to follow your reasoning. If you don’t make it clear, I just page past it.

    My bad. I shouldn’t, then, comment in reply. Better to simply ignore you.

  152. Bart DePalma says:

    Shortchain:

    The examples I gave of progressive ridicule attacked the relevance of the Constitution. I did not engage the target rich environment of Dem whining that the GOP read the Constitution as it exists rather than some previous incarnation. However, let’s shoot down that nonsense as well…

    Congress is bound by the Constitution as it exists. The GOP read the Constitution into the record to make a point that, unlike the infamous 110th and 111th Congresses, they will follow the restrictions of the the Constitution as it exists.

    No one gives a crap if this prevent’s Jesse Jackson, Jr. from attacking the Founders for compromising on slavery.

  153. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart said: “___”

    Twice

  154. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    And should I substitute “538’s resident lying, ideological ass” for “Bart” in any comment, it would apply equally well.

  155. Bart DePalma says:

    Maxey/sc, you make this too easy. You automatically roll over, whine and name call. Where is Michael so I can have an actual fact based argument.

  156. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    As usual, Bart said: “____”

    And to quote the National Review article by Michael Tanner that Bart cites above:

    A truly constitutional view of federal power might discomfort conservatives as well. It is one thing for tea-partiers to carry around a copy of the Constitution or for candidates to call themselves “constitutional conservatives.” The test will be when their idea of a good federal program conflicts with the Constitution.

    For instance, it would be hard to find the constitutional provision allowing Congress to play sheriff by federalizing every crime that catches the headlines. A strict reading of the Constitution would make it much harder for presidents to intervene militarily around the world without a congressional declaration of war. Any number of conservative pet projects from faith-based initiatives to federal drug laws would fail the constitutional test. Conservatives might have to accept the idea that the Constitution does not empower the federal government to enforce the nation’s morality.

    How’s THAT for a rollover?

    Bart makes it soooooo easy.

  157. Jean says:

    Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. — Thomas Jefferson

  158. Mr. Universe says:

    Where is Michael so I can have an actual fact based argument.

    Michael, like myself and eventually others have come to recognize the futility of reasoning with the unresonable. It is pointless to piss in the wind. Although it can occasionally be entertaining (depending on where you’re standing).

    As for the second part of that statement, you wouldn’t know what to do with a fact if it bit you on the ass. Actually, I take that back. You’d find some way to obfuscate or deflect it into the land of make believe. I have more rational conversations with my three year old grandson. When all your arguments fail you try to turn us into Constitution haters? C’mon.

    Besides, Michael has given you the most brutal smackdowns of anyone here. I don’t know whether to commend you for you dogged resiliance or be embarrassed for your committment to idiocracy.

    I grow tired of researching and writing articles only to have it devolve in the comment section into Bart vs everybody else but I stand by my desire to leave this an open forum.

  159. shiloh says:

    Barted ~ It is supremely telling

    It is extremely telling that wingers like to waste time w/style over substance!

    Michael, like myself and eventually others have come to recognize the futility of reasoning with the unresonable. It is pointless

    Again Bartles, “we” play w/you ’cause it’s somewhat entertaining and we’re empathetic to all your shortcomings …

    >

    And one should really, really, really stop using the word (((whine))) in your posts.

    “Our Republic Has Stumbled, But Has Not Yet Fallen”

    My descriptive phrases do not begin to do justice to the damage these policies are doing to the country.

    April 23, 2010 10:46 AM

    I wonder whether I live in America anymore when the government imposes its will in opposition to the people. That is what ruling classes do, not representatives of the people.

    May 2, 2010 4:21 PM
    ~~~~~

    Indeed Bartels, as it just makes you look more like a projecting, pathetic fool ~ if possible.

    solo estoy diciendo

    take care

  160. Jean says:

    Remarkable.

    Thousands of Egyptian Muslims Show Up As ‘Human Shields’ to Defend Coptic Christians From Terrorism.

    On New Year’s Day, a devastating terrorist bombing at a Coptic church in Egypt killed 21 people and injured 79 others. Although the identity of the culprits was not known, it was assumed that they were Muslim extremists, intent on targeting those they saw as heretics. Religious tensions immediately rose in the country, and angry Copts stormed streets, battled with police, and even vandalized a nearby mosque. The riots and heightened tensions between the Muslim and Coptic communities was likely what the terrorists wanted — to divide the Egyptian community and create sectarian strife between different religious groups.

    Yet by Coptic Christmas Eve, which took place Thursday night in Egypt, things had changed completely. As Egyptian Copts attended mass at churches across the country, “thousands” of Muslims, including “the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak,” joined them, acting as “human shields” to protect from terrorist attacks by extremists. The Muslims organized under the slogan “We either live together, or we die together.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/08/thousands-muslims-human-shields/

  161. shortchain says:

    Mr U.,

    Don’t discount the entertainment value. Bart can be quite tiresome when you point out to him, for the tenth time, that the Great Depression was as close to an experiment in economics as society allows, and it proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Keynes was right.

    There are only two ways to respond to Bart:
    a) Simply keep showing how wrong he is until he gives up and goes away. This doesn’t always work, because his workload seems to be very light in some weeks. Hell, I’m on break and he has more time than I do (I surmise he has either shelved, finished, or given up on his book project). Be prepared to spend days — and don’t imagine that he’ll stay away, or that he won’tpretend, the next time he gets a chance, that the discussion actually settled anything or even took place.

    b) Always remember that there remains the option of just laughing at him. Don’t expect him to be chastised or even admit to being hilariously wrong.

    Bart seems to be the closest thing in human form to a Markov state machine. You write a post about Obama, Health Care, Economics, or Global Warming, and he’ll show up with exactly the same tired, refuted, empty talking points, just like clockwork. The argument will then proceed, exactly as it has dozens of times before, with Bart providing misread “evidence”, demonstrating incomprehension of simple causality or statistics, presenting logic so twisted as to be almost beyond comprehension, ignoring evidence or arguments he cannot answer, refusing to answer questions whose answers would destroy his position — and in general arguing in bad faith.

    For a while I thought he might be a ‘bot. But then there are the times he’s lost his temper or started talking about his beloved SUV — and I don’t think the state of artificial intelligence has managed such insanity just yet.

    Thanks for the forum.

  162. Mr. Universe says:

    Thing is…the Constitution is an incredible document. It was the beginning of the free world. Other countries looked at the brand new Union of States and thought, ‘hey those yankees might be on to something’.

    But it just a document with some good ideas (and some not so good). That we are expected to adhere to it by the letter is a false pretense. It’s a guideline. I have no problem reading it into the record although I could have done without the sanctimonious theatre and would have preferred they do something more constructive with the time. Like find the jobs.

  163. shiloh says:

    Re: Bartles he’s lost his temper

    Early on he told me to F… Off a couple times ~ shocking, eh. But for the past year or so his basic m.o. is ad nauseam disingenuous sarcasm. As mentioned previously ~ Bart was a quick study, speaking of style over substance. The entertainment value is mainly his childish, complete and total obsession w/Barack Hussein Obama! It’s kinda endearing lol

    As always, no charge for my Psychology 101 assessment …

  164. mostlyilurk says:

    I think Bart’s amusing – in a whack-a-mole sorta way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s