[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

I certainly have no problems supporting a progressive income tax but I have never advocated that solution - I have only pointed out the growing disparity of wealth in this nation.

what makes it a problem?

Quote

An argument for status quo won't win, though.  I am fairly confident that it is a given that supply-side Reaganomics is a failure and laissez-faire capitalism

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

I find that I can't have an intelligent conversation with my own brother, who can repeat the Reagan ideology verbatim but goes into defense mode when confronted with the data. It simply does no good to try to analyze reality with a partner who is only interested in proving pre-held beliefs.


As to the second question - you are kidding, right?

Quote

The median price of a home sold in Detroit in December was $7,500, according to Realcomp, a listing service.

[Winstonm]

helene_t, on Mar 1 2009, 03:43 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 09:35 PM, said:

I see that an argument can be made under seperation of church and state, under freedom of speech, but also can see how a case could be made that the sign was an implicit intimidation tactic that could be construed to be against the public's interest.

The whole point of free speech is that it is allowed to say things that are against the public interest.

I am not saying that free speech is a black-white thing and that it requires all messages to be allowed. We could still ban shouting "fire" in the theater or the threatening of non-followers, such as "if you don't eat brand X omega-3 margarine you get heart disease" or "if you don't pray to brand Y god you go to hell". But if courts are given carte blanche to ban a message solely because it is "against public interests" then there is zero free speech left.

Seems to me to be a narrowing of the same line. Yelling "Fire" in a theatre could be dangerous to the public and hence against the public's best interest. So might a sign be construed to be an effort to scare, frighten, or intimidate its readers, which although is not a physical danger could be thought of as a psychological danger.

Seems to me to certainly be along the same lines of reasoning - although certainly quite a stretch of that reasoning.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 11:31 PM, said:

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

Interesting graphic (yes, I know this is showing the Dow and not real GDP

http://andrewsulliva...bearmarkets.jpg

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.sha...bearmarkets.jpg

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Mar 1 2009, 04:58 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 11:31 PM, said:

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

Interesting graphic (yes, I know this is showing the Dow and not real GDP

http://andrewsulliva...bearmarkets.jpg

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.sha...bearmarkets.jpg

I am fairly sure that the NBER timed the start of this recession as Q4 2007, making it already one of the longest and most severe in history. Add in that the recession has now gone global with the likes of Japan, England, and the EU in recession and you have the potential for depression-level worldwide carnage.

It isn't too difficult to understand what happened over the past 20-25 years. Alan Greenspan's misguided belief in the ideas presented in the writings of second-rate novelist/third-rate philosopher Ayn Rand coupled with likeminded ideologists' positioning in political leadership roles led to an imbalance in productivity and real wages, creating a wage-productivity gap that new debt was used to fill.

The present crisis is nothing more than the evaporation of illusory wealth that was created by the creation of a level of debt that was unsustainable - all that is happening now is that the economy is simply reverting to its mean where wages=productivity, i.e., supply=demand.

Debt used as wage grout to fill the gap is no longer an option.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 28 2009, 06:32 PM, said:

I was driving home from the market and passed the neighborhood church that has one of those message-board signs out front, where the message is hand-changed weekly, and an odd thought occured to me: what if I were offended by a message?  Would I have legal recourse?

I know in the U.S. there is freedom of speech, but this freedom does not apply to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.  What if the church sign had read, "Repent or spend eternity in hell!"  Is that the psychological equivalent of yelling "fire" when there is no fire?

Seems to me I should be able to claim the sign a form of psychological abuse and demand it either be brought down or changed.  Where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and religious expression?

What do you think?

I think wherever you choose to draw the line and make it a crime similiar to yelling fire in a theater may be ok.

Just keep in mind if it is a crime you need to pay for enforcement of that law. If you are going to throw these criminals in jail we need to build alot more jails and courtrooms. Every state already is letting people who are convicted of crimes out of jail due to overcrowding. Calif. alone is letting go 58,000 people.

I do not mind this and other threads requesting more laws and more regulations but we need to enforce them or why bother passing or advocating new rules.

It is sort of like forcing GM and C to build green/clean cars. What do we do if they do not?

[kenberg]

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

kenberg, on Mar 1 2009, 03:11 PM, said:

One could perhaps view "Repent or spend eternity in hell!" (signs of this tenor exist) as a threat.

assuming it is a threat (some might call it a warning), so what? suppose some idiot had a sign in her yard reading "elect obamba and die in a terrorist attack"... should that be illegal?

It depends. As you say, it could be a threat or it could be a warning. As a warning, it could be an argument that Obama is not capable of stopping a terrorist attack. As a threat, it could be that the sign poster intends, if Obama is elected, to carry out a terrorist attack. In the latter case, we may be moving into an illegal area. In 2009 USA, I think it is reasonable to construe "Repent or be Damned" as a warning of the long term consequences of a life w/o God. In fifteenth century Spain, I think it could sensibly be construed as a threat to join the church, pray often, and give money, or else. Context counts. That was the point of the cross burning example. Someone gets a permit to have a bonfire in a public place, then they all come in white sheets and burn a cross directly opposite the house of a new family of unsatisfactory (to them) heritage. Sorry, we are not talking about a cook-out here.

Generally I oppose reading something into a statement beyond what it says, when the legal status is under consideration. For example, I don't favor burning flags, I don't favor laws forbidding the burning of flags, I don't favor interpretations of the Constitution that forbid making the burning of flags illegal. Who knows what someone is thinking when he burns a flag? Most likely he is an artist trying for some free publicity. For cross-burning I make an exception. Even if nothing explicit is said I think the message, from history and context, is clear and is understood as intended by everyone concerned. So a law banning it is, in my non-legally binding opinion, proper.

"Repent or Burn in Hell", to vary it a little, is obnoxious. The sign poster can repent all he wants if he thinks that's the key to heaven. But he can also mind his own business. If someone walks up to me on the street and tells me I should lose some weight he is both rude and correct. No need to make a law to cover either case however.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Just keep in mind if it is a crime you need to pay for enforcement of that law

This may be true in the shorter term but is not always so longer term. Certainly there was an origination cost in bringing to trial and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1962 ban on school prayers, but once it was shown that these would indeed be the law of the land there has been no further need to actively enforce those laws on a daily basis.

Besides, I am not clear on where freedom of speech line is drawn - Myself, I tend to give the right to the church to say what they believe; however, I can also understand how a challenge to that viewpoint could be validated.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 05:28 PM, said:

Quote

Just keep in mind if it is a crime you need to pay for enforcement of that law

This may be true in the shorter term but is not always so longer term. Certainly there was an origination cost in bringing to trial and enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1962 ban on school prayers, but once it was shown that these would indeed be the law of the land there has been no further need to actively enforce those laws on a daily basis.

Besides, I am not clear on where freedom of speech line is drawn - Myself, I tend to give the right to the church to say what they believe; however, I can also understand how a challenge to that viewpoint could be validated.

Winston there is a huge ongoing cost to enforcing the Civil Rights laws from the 1960's. My local paper just had an article on this subject the other day. As I recall the article said they expect this expense to continue for at least another 50 years.

My only point is let us not pass more laws just to feel good about it.

[Winstonm]

Quote

i think you're right, but if winston thinks a church's weekly message, displayed on private property, is actionable it makes me wonder why he didn't mention things such as tobacco (or booze, or fast food) ads on public property... it certainly makes it appear that he is unreasonable, though i suppose the same could be said of most biases

A simple question. Where do you get this: "it certainly makes it appear that he is unreasonable, though i suppose the same could be said of most biases" when you read this?

Quote

what if I were offended by a message? Would I have legal recourse?

Is it unreasonable to ask the question?

[orlam]

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 05:43 PM, said:

Quote

what if I were offended by a message? Would I have legal recourse?

Is it unreasonable to ask the question?

No, but what if I suffered psychological abuse from reading that question?
Well, you will be hearing from my lawyer.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I think it is reasonable to construe "Repent or be Damned" as a warning of the long term consequences of a life w/o God. In fifteenth century Spain, I think it could sensibly be construed as a threat to join the church, pray often, and give money, or else. Context counts.

This is another good point IMO.

Whether or not any actionable cause would have to be dependent upon damages and without the 15th century-Spain-type background (which still lives in some fundamentalist evangelical Protestant adaptations) it would be impossible I think to prove damages.

Sounds like a good case for the next Boston Legal broadcast.

[Lobowolf]

Although they aren't absolutes, in the USA anyway, you have a Constitutionally protected right to free speech and free exercise of religion. You don't have a right not to be offended.

I hope it stays that way.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

An argument for status quo won't win, though.  I am fairly confident that it is a given that supply-side Reaganomics is a failure and laissez-faire capitalism

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

As to the second question - you are kidding, right?

Quote

The median price of a home sold in Detroit in December was $7,500, according to Realcomp, a listing service.

kidding? not really link... there are many more comparisons, but i know you wouldn't accept some (cato institute, etc)

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 05:43 PM, said:

Quote

i think you're right, but if winston thinks a church's weekly message, displayed on private property, is actionable it makes me wonder why he didn't mention things such as tobacco (or booze, or fast food) ads on public property... it certainly makes it appear that he is unreasonable, though i suppose the same could be said of most biases

A simple question. Where do you get this: "it certainly makes it appear that he is unreasonable, though i suppose the same could be said of most biases" when you read this?

Quote

what if I were offended by a message? Would I have legal recourse?

Is it unreasonable to ask the question?

of course not, it's just that i never heard you ask that question in any other context, such as fast food or cigarettes or liquor

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

Reagan got the economy going again with huge amounts of deficit spending, so that strategy clearly works.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Mar 2 2009, 12:42 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

Reagan got the economy going again with huge amounts of deficit spending, so that strategy clearly works.

You forgot to add "in the short term" after "definately works".

[Winstonm]

Quote

there are many more comparisons, but i know you wouldn't accept some (cato institute, etc)

You are certainly correct about Cato Institute - but what you may not know is that I discount any view that appears to me to consistently slant its presentation. I also look at the data myself.

Those whose analysis I tend to accept are those who do nothing more than try to analyze data and put it into historical perspective, regardless of whatever concept that supports - Nouriel Roubini comes immediately to mind in this regard, as well as Barry Ritholtz. The folks at Calculated Risk are good at this, too.

Quote

f course not, it's just that i never heard you ask that question in any other context, such as fast food or cigarettes or liquor

Most likely because those are not exactly the same questions - the question I am posing is whether free speech or freedom of religion covers the message of a religious message sign or is it possible that these signs may not be covered under these rights and might be challenged.

I think there have been challenges to the rights of advertisers - I suppose we could change the question to be about an atheist bookstore owner who places a sign outside his store that offends theists - but I didn't drive by that bookstore on the way home so it didn't come to mind.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Mar 2 2009, 12:42 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

Reagan got the economy going again with huge amounts of deficit spending, so that strategy clearly works.

the spending came later, the tax cuts came immediately

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Mar 2 2009, 04:57 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:57 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

An argument for status quo won't win, though.  I am fairly confident that it is a given that supply-side Reaganomics is a failure and laissez-faire capitalism

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

As to the second question - you are kidding, right?

Quote

The median price of a home sold in Detroit in December was $7,500, according to Realcomp, a listing service.

kidding? not really link... there are many more comparisons, but i know you wouldn't accept some (cato institute, etc)

Mike want to take a close look at the date of that article you're citing, starting with the following

Obama inherits worst recession since Reagan
THE MELTDOWN EFFECT
Bloomberg / Washington November 09, 2008, 0:35 IST

In the last three and a half months, the severity of the downturn has been upgraded significantly. For example, this article states that

Quote

The economy will shrink at a 3.5 per cent annual rate in the fourth quarter and at a 2 per cent pace in the first quarter of 2009, nearly twice prior estimates

The current estimates suggest that the contraction was actually 6.2%. People are still benchmarking this against 1982, however, nearly everyone thinks that this is going to be MUCH MUCH worse. (As a practical example, the Big Three automakers and the banking sector didn't all go bankrupt in 1982)

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Mar 2 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 2 2009, 12:42 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 1 2009, 03:31 PM, said:

winston, would you say that the recession reagan inherited was greater than, equal to, or less than the one obamba inherited?

Reagan got the economy going again with huge amounts of deficit spending, so that strategy clearly works.

You forgot to add "in the short term" after "definately works".

Yes, it is a short term solution, and I should have said so (even in a one-liner post).

Reagan continued to stimulate the economy through deficit spending long after the recession had ended, believing that "voodoo economics" would save the day. To be fair, though, it's not clear how much analytical ability Reagan retained at the age he took office: his budget director, David Stockman, documented the old actor's inability to grasp the most rudimentary financial concepts.

luke warm, on Mar 2 2009, 06:12 AM, said:

the spending came later, the tax cuts came immediately

The spending was already in place, so the tax cuts created deficits immediately.

Unlike Reagan and the voodoo economics people, Obama has made clear that he understands that the deficit spending must be reversed after this crisis. Because of the huge unnecessary Bush deficit he inherited, Obama's task is much more difficult.

But everyone with common sense knew that the Bush tax cuts were going to lead to the present situation. Fortunately the US has a smart, honest, analytical president now to tackle it.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Mar 2 2009, 09:06 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 2 2009, 06:12 AM, said:

the spending came later, the tax cuts came immediately

The spending was already in place, so the tax cuts created deficits immediately.

well this is simply not true... one of the things i disliked the most about reagan's 2nd term was the increase in spending, although i know the reasons for it... don't forget that when he took office we were not only in the midst of a recession, but interest rates were around 18 to 20%... the tax cuts are what got the economy moving, with the dow gaining 60% during his 1st term... has the dow even had an up day since obamba took office?

Quote

Unlike Reagan and the voodoo economics people, Obama has made clear that he understands that the deficit spending must be reversed after this crisis.

if this is true, why start out immediately adding a couple trillion in deficit spending?