I think I will support Bernie Sanders. He won't win but whatever Republican candidate does ( if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination) will make people so angry that perhaps something good will come of it.

This is the same line of thinking that led to the election of Jeremy Corbyn over here. I fear it'll prove to be equally misguided. You need to be in power to affect change.

You are blaming the meth epidemic on Walmart and Republicans?

There are economic factors in part behind the meth epidemic in rural America and I am blaming economic policies.

Ray Jay wrote:The bottom 80% are benefitting from lower prices at Walmart.

Are they?

How do Walmart achieve such low prices? Do they pay high wages or low ones? Do they import cheap goods or do they buy domestic good that cost more?

And are Walmart really all that cheap once they have pushed out competition?7

Increased trade is generally good, but there are winners and losers at times. And trade treaties that are so secret are unlikely to simply be "let's free up trade".

freeman3 wrote:Wow. Going to the Wal-mart example. "Let them eat cake".
I object to the attempt to marginalize opposition to the TPP as being far-left or far-right--liberals are not far-left. Trade can (and should be) win-win but we already have a lot of trade with these countries. We seem to have gotten some intellectual property protection for pharmaceutical and film companies and an easier task in outsourcing American jobs. What did the other countries in the TPP get?

I think I will support Bernie Sanders. He won't win but whatever Republican candidate does ( if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination) will make people so angry that perhaps something good will come of it. The TPP is just the continuation of the past 35 years domination of our politics by corporate interests. Eventually, the bottom 80 percent are going to wake up and do something about it. I hope. Periodic shootings at schools is just one sign that our culture is seriously messed up. There is also the meth epidemic in rural America, (http://m.mic.com/articles/65703/how-muc ... in-america), growing economic insecurity of Americans with 80 percent having a year of being unemployed , being on food stamps or barely above the poverty line (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... k/2594203/), record numbers and record amount of student loan debt (http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-NB-1368), poor outlook for college graduates and declining participation in the job market by those 25-34 (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/per ... s/8809801/),

But they can cash government benefits checks and get cheap stuff at Wal-mart. Well, until Republicans get rid of those benefits.

But life is good working at hedge funds. Not only do they make a ridiculous amount of money but they are bad at their job--for the sixth year in a row in 2014 most funds failed to best the S&P 500.!
http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-fu ... 014-2015-1

I know you see this as the free market and the Republican's fault, but the reality is that we've had 50 years of greater government involvement in our economy since Johnson launched the great society. Government continues to grow on a nominal basis and generally as a % of the economy. We have a myriad of federal, state, and local programs that all go against the free market to try to fix the free market's failings. We have a tremendous amount of regulation. More than ever! You provide a broad critique of the America you see, but isn't this the American that an interventionist government has created? Why do you think that more government restrictions will solve the problems when historically it makes many of them worse?

ray jay

I know you see this as the free market and the Republican's fault, but the reality is that we've had 50 years of greater government involvement in our economy since Johnson launched the great society

.
In what form?
You want to get rid of medicare?
There are 79 means tested social programs totalling $2,286 billions (2011) . And that's a lot. But what would the effect be of removing them? Would all these poor people suddenly reveal themselves to be able to work, qualified for a job, and have a job waiting for them?
Each of the programs initiated met a need. Has that need disappeared?

The other thing that isn't true is that you've had 50 years of greater government involvement> . The period of increasing involvement was 1935 to 1981. That was also the period when the middle class was broadest and most prosperous. Its since 81, and pressure on government to shrink, and policies that favored corporations and the wealthy, that the middle class has shrunk both in size and relative prosperity.

So what is the effect of all those government programs?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, social programs significantly raise the standard of living for low-income Americans, particularly the elderly. The poorest 20% of American households earn a before-tax average of only $7,600 - less than half of the federal poverty line. Social programs increase those households' before-tax income to $30,500. Social Security and Medicare are responsible for two-thirds of that increase.[25]

Political Scientist Benjamin Radcliff has argued that more generous social programs produce a higher quality of life for all citizens, rich and poor alike, in that such programs not only improve life for those directly receiving benefits (or living in fear of someday needing them, e.g. considering the prospect of unemployment or illness) but more importantly still because income maintenace programs reduce the social pathologies (such as crime and anomie) that are result of poverty and insecurity. By creating a society with less poverty and less insecurity, he argues, we move closer to creating a nation of shared prosperity that works to the advantage of all. Thus, his research suggests, life satisfaction (or "happiness") is strongly related to the generosity of the social safety net (what economists often call decommodification), whether looking across the industrial democracies or across the American States.[

Compare that to the life style of the poor and working poor previously. Compare the size and relative wealth of the middle class before the involvement.
The alternative sucks for most people.

rayjay

We have a tremendous amount of regulation. More than ever!

You do and you don't. Its amazing how much "regulation" isn't enforced or enforceable. How much is companies signing a waiver and saying they meet the standard.
How much is truly third party regulation... and effective...
Regulation also often means that companies are being forced to take preventative measures on employee safety, product safety, product quality or environmental standards. The free market isn't very good at seeing companies magically achieve all of these standards.
But they save lives, and usually save companies money in the long run. The Deepwater Horizon was the best example of regulatory standards that weren't enforced because the industry had undercut them and the government had been defunded to the point where outside enforcement capability was reduced. 13 people died, an enormous environmental disaster dislocated thousands of people and businesses... and BP lost money.
It always comes down to "we have too much regulation", but the case is never made which regulations we can do without...
The reason regulations were brought in, was that something happened to cause people to want regulation. Businesses couldn't be trusted to protect workers, or consumers ... What's changed? When we were told that there was a need to deregulate the financial industry ..... the economy nigh collapsed... because the mavens couldn't be trusted .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_pr ... ted_States

Ricky:

You want to get rid of medicare?

This is an example of why I have extreme problems with your writing style. I've never said that.

Ricky:

There are 79 means tested social programs totalling $2,286 billions (2011) . And that's a lot. But what would the effect be of removing them? Would all these poor people suddenly reveal themselves to be able to work, qualified for a job, and have a job waiting for them?
Each of the programs initiated met a need. Has that need disappeared?

I'm not saying we should remove all of these social programs. But certainly some of them don't survive a cost benefit analysis. Are you saying that every one of these programs is still viable, was built the correct way, and should last forever and ever, because that's what happens, more or less?

Ricky:

that the middle class has shrunk both in size

I don't think that's true. The middle class has grown in the US.
Ricky:

and relative prosperity.

To me, absolute prosperity is more important than relative prosperity. Absolute prosperity has certainly increased since 1981 . Food is more plentiful. Healthcare is better; technology is everywhere, homes are larger. You do have to distinguish between the bottom 20% and the middle class. What % of American families have smart phones?

freeman3 wrote:There are economic factors in part behind the meth epidemic in rural America and I am blaming economic policies.

I think this is rubbish.

We have a major resurgence of heroin addiction in the US. My son-in-law is a fireman. The number of people they treat with "Narcan" is ridiculous. It is basically an antidote for a heroin overdose.

Is the heroin resurgence the fault of the GOP too?

Let's talk marijuana. How can it be against Federal law and yet legal in Colorado and Washington states?

Let's talk immigration. How can cities and counties be "sanctuaries" for illegal immigrants--in violation of Federal law?

Are those because of the GOP? (hint: the fact that one may not be able to change Federal law does not mean the Feds should stop enforcing it--this is the road to chaos)

Don't even get me started on welfare. It is being abused on a massive scale right now.

Meanwhile, back to Hillary:

n hypothetical 2016 matchups with top-tier Republicans, Clinton trails all the Republicans tested. She trails Ben Carson by 11 points and Donald Trump by 5 points. Jeb Bush has a 4-point edge over Clinton, while Carly Fiorina is up by 3 points. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10 ... n-clinton/

And, how about this about tonight's debate:

CNN host Anderson Cooper, who is set to moderate tonight's Democratic debate, was listed as a "notable past member" the Clinton Global Initiative's website along with a number of other big name journalists:

The list includes: CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Christiane Amanpour, Fox’s Greta Van Susteren, NBC’s Matt Lauer and Tom Brokaw, New York Times‘s Thomas Friedman and Nicholas Kristof, Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo, Yahoo’s Katie Couric, The Economist‘s Matthew Bishop, and Financial Times‘ Lionel Barber.

The Clinton Foundation later told Mediaite that none of these journalists were asked to pay the $20,000 membership fee required of members. However, it's safe to say that access to big name journalists was a key selling point for paying Clinton Global Initiative members. In a nutshell, Anderson Cooper helped Hillary Clinton raise money, and now he's presented as an impartial moderator for tonight's debate. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rem ... 45052.html

The meth cycle in a small town goes something like this--As manufacturing jobs are lost related businesses (restaurants, coffee shops, etc) are lost. , and economic opportunities become limited and jobs pay a lot less; the attraction of making and selling meth becomes more attractive when legitimate employment becomes unattractive and police and social services are cut (in a cost-benefits assessment selling drugs appears to be a viable option); and the lack of decent, stable jobs probably tends to increase chemical abuse as well.

https://www.thefix.com/content/methland ... 2?page=all

Human beings adapt. You can create conditions for positive adaptation or for negative ones.

freeman3 wrote:The meth cycle in a small town goes something like this--As manufacturing jobs are lost related businesses (restaurants, coffee shops, etc) are lost. , and economic opportunities become limited and jobs pay a lot less; the attraction of making and selling meth becomes more attractive when legitimate employment becomes unattractive and police and social services are cut (in a cost-benefits assessment selling drugs appears to be a viable option); and the lack of decent, stable jobs probably tends to increase chemical abuse as well.

https://www.thefix.com/content/methland ... 2?page=all

Human beings adapt. You can create conditions for positive adaptation or for negative ones.

As there are more folks than ever receiving public assistance, I would argue that "frees" them to do meth.

The article says:

The recession also sucks revenue out of the stream, so not only do towns lose jobs, they also lose the related businesses—the café, the car shop, whatever—that benefit from a strong economic environment.

But, the economy has "recovered" according to the Administration. We have very low unemployment according to the Administration.

Your article also says:

When people lose 66% of their paychecks overnight at a local meat-packing factory because cheap immigrant labor from Mexico is available in substantial numbers . . .

Wait. That's not true! Obama says he's stopped illegal immigration and that deportations have never been higher!

Something is just plain wrong. I'll let you decide if it's the article or the Administration. In either case, it's tough to blame the GOP something that's been in Obama's control for nearly seven years--and which he claims to have solved.

Okay, so the Republicans are making a mountain out of a mole hill regarding the email server Clinton had??? Really?

I believe you are mistaken if you believe that:

The Associated Press has a devastating story about the vulnerabililty to hackers of Hillary Clinton’s home-brew email server. AP reports:

The private email server running in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s home basement when she was secretary of state was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers, according to data and documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Clinton’s server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records compiled in 2012. Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn’t intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.

(Emphasis added)

To make matters worse, Clinton operated two more devices on her home network in Chappaqua, New York, that also were directly accessible from the Internet, according to AP.

The 1930s actress Mae West became famous for saying: “Come up and see me sometime.” Hillary Clinton was the Mae West of the internet.

AP points out:

Some emails on Clinton’s server were later deemed top secret, and scores of others included confidential or sensitive information. Clinton has said that her server featured “numerous safeguards,” but she has yet to explain how well her system was secured and whether, or how frequently, security updates were applied.

More:

In 2012, the State Department banned the use of remote-access software even on unclassified servers, without a waiver. That same year, the Homeland Security Department’s U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team warned that “an attacker with a low skill level would be able to exploit this vulnerability.”

And someone did. AP reports that a hacker using a computer in Serbia “scanned Clinton’s basement server in Chappaqua at least twice, in August and December 2012″ (after the ban and the warning on her technology cited above) The server identified itself as providing email services for clintonemail.com. It might as well have said “come up and see me some time.”

Clinton has fallen back on the defense that, as her spokesman puts it, there is no “evidence of an actual breach, let alone one specifically targeting Hillary Clinton.” I suppose this defense depends on what the meaning of “actual breach” is.

She is guilty of, at the very least, the highest level of incompetence. If Obama had lost to Romney, she's be in jail.

Forgot the link: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... ternet.php

freeman3 wrote:The meth cycle in a small town goes something like this--As manufacturing jobs are lost related businesses (restaurants, coffee shops, etc) are lost. , and economic opportunities become limited and jobs pay a lot less; the attraction of making and selling meth becomes more attractive when legitimate employment becomes unattractive and police and social services are cut (in a cost-benefits assessment selling drugs appears to be a viable option); and the lack of decent, stable jobs probably tends to increase chemical abuse as well.

https://www.thefix.com/content/methland ... 2?page=all

Human beings adapt. You can create conditions for positive adaptation or for negative ones.

I appreciate your empathy for those less fortunate, but it seems to me that you are taking their responsibility out of the equation. Many people survive poverty. Most people find gainful employment. Human being do adapt, especially when you tell them they can succeed by doing so as opposed to making excuses for their unproductive behavior.

Sometime it seems to me like you describe a very small part of how our world actually works. The vast majority of people in the US are employed, not using drugs, not living the high life, but still have food, shelter, clothing, modern conveniences, etc. We have access to more information at our fingertips than anyone in the world had 15 years ago. This is a golden age, but you see it through a Dickensian lens.

That seems to be the main answer that Republicans give: (1) things can't be too bad if people are not starving and have technological gadgets and (2) their poverty is due to some kind of character problem...

Speaking of Dickens... the US does not do that well with regard to child poverty...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk ... ped-world/

And while people are not starving...they are food insecure.
http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in ... sheet.html

The US is an outlier with regard to wealthy countries with regard to keeping its people fed.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/05/23/adv ... privation/

We have embraced a free market philosophy where capital is worshipped
, where it is supposed to go anywhere to get the lowest possible labor cost. And workers (except for the top- tier management)are not to share in the wealth of a company. Labor costs are to avoided.

So by allowing the labor supply to be vastly increased by globalization and allowing the free flow of capital large corporations and the financial sector have vastly benefited. The average US worker is not sharing in that.

Life is not just about getting enough food to eat and having an I-phone. Men especially want to compete, want to put their skills and ability to the test, have a productive and rewarding career, and be successful enough to support a family. Those economic opportunities are increasingly not there. How could there be? Cutting regulations will not affect consumer demand. It 's pretty simple math that billionaire will not consume as many widgets as 10,000 people making $100,000 a year.
Also, the current system is designed to minimize labor costs-- everything possible is done to avoid labor costs.

Not only do you stunt economic opportunities when the system is allowed to be manipulated so that more and more wealth flows towards the top, but people are under a lot of economic stress. Student loans are an increasing burden on people, consumer debt is still very high, and without pensions and flat wages retirement outlooks are looking bleaker. I also think there is patent unfairness in people that actually do much of the work creating wealth in this country being treated as an unnecessary, disposable, fungible cost. What did large companies do after 2008? Did they innovate or come up with creative solutions? No, of course not! They just fired people and forced the remaining workers to work longer hours.

I was pleased with the debate tonight. We heard the kind of progressive ideas necessary to keep our democracy from turning into an oligarchy.

Getting back on topic -- and agreeing to disagree -- I thought Hillary did very well at the debate. I especially appreciated her response to the question on capitalism as compared to Bernie's.

I do like his Brooklyn accent; it reminds me of childhood.