[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-27, 08:27, said:

Thanks, Mike. No, Obama's not the problem. I suppose the "education establishment" — the administrators and bureaucrats who run things — are the problem.

Personally, I blame the American people who no longer (appear to) have the maturity necessary to function as a society.

In my experience, most of the administrators and bureaucrats are simply responding to their constituencies. And, for all Republicans like to bitch about the unions, the main constituency is whatever slim fraction of the electorate bothers to vote in the school board elections.

Even in MA when have a lot of trouble keeping the neanderthals off the school board.
From the looks of things, down there in Dixie the inmates are fully in control of the asylum.

[lalldonn]

PassedOut, on 2012-August-27, 07:02, said:

Are you talking about Stu Workjoke? So far as I know, he's the only one who has made that claim.

But it is true that politicians often make utterly stupid claims of that sort. I actually heard an old Texas drooler named Dick Armey who was once House Majority Leader claim on TV that cutting taxes would bring in more revenue (and you don't have to search far to find others who've made the same claim). In the case I recall, Lou Dobbs (with a straight face) then asked Armey, "How much would the tax rates have to be cut to eliminate the deficit entirely?"

I don't know who and I'm sure I'm messing up some details, but I was told there was once a politician (I want to say from North Carolina?) who introduced a bill into the state legislature that pi equal exactly 3, because as things stood he didn't understand pi so he thought it was unfair to the students.

[ArtK78]

lalldonn, on 2012-August-27, 10:56, said:

I don't know who and I'm sure I'm messing up some details, but I was told there was once a politician (I want to say from North Carolina?) who introduced a bill into the state legislature that pi equal exactly 3, because as things stood he didn't understand pi so he thought it was unfair to the students.

http://www.straightd...ing-pi-equals-3

[Cyberyeti]

lalldonn, on 2012-August-27, 10:56, said:

I don't know who and I'm sure I'm messing up some details, but I was told there was once a politician (I want to say from North Carolina?) who introduced a bill into the state legislature that pi equal exactly 3, because as things stood he didn't understand pi so he thought it was unfair to the students.

There was somebody who set pi as 4 by law. There is some merit to this, if you are using pi to calculate how many straight bricks to use to build a circular structure, you are going to have wastage so you want to overestimate it.

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-26, 22:45, said:

I seem to remember a politician once upon a time who promised everyone "an above average income". Seems a rather impossible goal, to me.

Seems a perfectly ordinary goal to me. You are interpreting it to be a statement about redistribution, when it is a statement about economic growth: unemployment benefit in the UK today corresponds to a standard living will above the average income of the 1960's, and I have every confidence this statement will always be true looking backwards over 50 years or so.

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-26, 22:45, said:

I seem to remember a politician once upon a time who promised everyone "an above average income". Seems a rather impossible goal, to me.

Seems a perfectly ordinary goal to me. You are interpreting it to be a statement about redistribution, when it is a statement about economic growth: unemployment benefit in the UK today corresponds to a standard living will above the average income of the 1960's, and I have every confidence this statement will always be true looking backwards over 50 years or so.

[kenberg]

I had heard this quote attributed to the Prime Minister of a country, but I have no reference and so there is no point in stirring up debate by naming names. We can probably all agree that politicians, and even non-politicians, sometimes say some things that, at best, need generous interpretation. In 1964 there was a story that someone warned the Goldwater campaign that some reporter was really out to get their man. "He is following the Senator around, writing down everything that he says" was the warning.

[blackshoe]

phil_20686, on 2012-August-28, 06:10, said:

Seems a perfectly ordinary goal to me. You are interpreting it to be a statement about redistribution, when it is a statement about economic growth: unemployment benefit in the UK today corresponds to a standard living will above the average income of the 1960's, and I have every confidence this statement will always be true looking backwards over 50 years or so.

I am interpreting it in accordance with the context as it was presented to me. How in heck do you know it is a statement about economic growth? Were you there?

kenberg, on 2012-August-29, 09:14, said:

I had heard this quote attributed to the Prime Minister of a country, but I have no reference and so there is no point in stirring up debate by naming names. We can probably all agree that politicinas, and even non-politicians, sometimes say some things that, at best, need generous interpretation. In 1964 there was a story that someone warned the Goldwater campaign that some reporter was really out to get their man. "He is following the Senator around, writing down everything that he says" was the warning.

Good point! Maybe the whole thing is apocryphal. In which case I blame my junior high school history teacher.

[phil_20686]

Given the conversation earlier in this thread, people might be interested in some thoughts on stagflation, which you can find on my blog at http://worldofinterest.wordpress.com/

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on 2012-August-31, 07:05, said:

Given the conversation earlier in this thread, people might be interested in some thoughts on stagflation, which you can find on my blog at http://worldofinterest.wordpress.com/

Thanks for the link!

But you're giving up being a physicist? For bridge? For economics? For politics? For the priesthood?

Hope you keep posting here in any event.

[phil_20686]

PassedOut said:

1346425593[/url]' post='662706']
Thanks for the link!

But you're giving up being a physicist? For bridge? For economics? For politics? For the priesthood?

Hope you keep posting here in any event.

No jobs. Probably for finance/economics. Possibly for industrial physics.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-August-24, 15:30, said:

if you thought bush was fiscally irresponsible, you *must* think obama is doing an exceptionally poor job...

MarketWatch: Obama spending binge never happened

Quote

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

Forbes: Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

Quote

Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

As with any deficit, the problem arises whenever revenues drop below spending. While Obama cannot be faulted on the spending side, he certainly deserves some of the blame for the revenue shortfalls. He has not only continued to support most of the Bush tax cuts, but Obama has added substantial tax cuts of his own to stimulate the economy.

I found it interesting that Paul Ryan on Wednesday pledged to hold federal spending to 20% of GDP, which I think is a reasonable target -- about what the US spent during the Clinton years. However, neither Ryan nor Romney has presented a plan to increase revenues to 20% of GDP. Until that is done, the red ink will continue as far as the eye can see.

Of course Obama has not done so either, but he's clearly more open to tax increases than are his opponents -- or so it seems now. Should Romney and Ryan propose tax increases greater than Obama does and that will come anywhere close to 20% of GDP, I'll strongly consider voting for them.

I just can't see that happening the way things stand. Today's republicans are far too beholden to the free lunch bloc to raise taxes.