Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead at 79

[Tiassa]

No, I was responding to your trollish innuendos about history.

To reiterate:

• And all you have is an argument against, centered around your own personal priorities. To the one, that's well and fine, as that's how you see the world and generally isn't my business. But where we make these sorts of things each other's business, such as this discussion, you're going to need more than that to change my mind.

• What I don't hear is any response to the challenges of history.​

And that's still all you've got.

• • •​

Don't be a defeatest - it is possible, just not very likely.

To reiterate:

• What I don't hear is how this is going to work.​

If you wish to keep campaigning around the question, don't let me stop you. But in this case it isn't helping, and, in truth, only increases my worry.

For instance:

To do his agenda, he must energize these non-voters. If he does that, he can both become POTUS & get much of his stated agenda passed by a transformed Congress these new voters will elect.

Like I said: What I don't hear is how this is going to work.

You're pitching in the style of a Republican operative. Bring the House of Representatives? Yeah, he's just going to energize his base, and it will happen!

Uh-huh.

I believe you.

Just ... poof! ... magic.

What I don't hear is how this is going to work.

 

[Billy T]

... • What I don't hear is how this is going to work. ...

I did not say it would "work." In post 50 I showed that the end state does work and is much more desirable than what the US now has.

In post 60 I showed how it could work and said it was improbable that it would. I. e. Sanders must get many of the non-voters (about 25%) to go to polls and vote for him and gain greater support among those who do vote. - That is what he calls his "democratic revolution." If he can do that, transforming Congress to assist is relatively easy, but will not fully happen with his election - future elections will get more of the "obstructionist" (from his POV) replaced.

A low probability shot at getting a government more like those in Scandinavia is better than zero chance. More of the current trends of wealth concentration, etc. will ultimately fail, in violence most likely. We don't want to repeat the French way to end wealth concentration and destroy much of the wealth in the process.

You seem happy with economically unimportat crumbs of liberalism, while the rich grow richer. - Control both the goverment and ever more of the wealth. I'm not. I want significant economic change.

 

[iceaura]

Like I said: What I don't hear is how this is going to work.

Which is of course the same criticism one could level at Clinton, with the caveat that we have seen in the past (this is called "history") how one would expect "it" to work in any particular matter: advance capitulation (so quick and uneventful as to be indistinguishable from ideological agreement) to the Republican Party's assumed initial negotiating position on the key structural matters, followed by further adjustments in accordance with their actual demands after beginning negotiations, followed by a bruising bout of grandstanding and ultimatum-delivering brinksmanship by the Republican "leadership", followed by partial successful passage of whatever - including all the negotiated concessions from the "left" as represented by Clinton, and the less important features of what remained of the initial pre-compromised Clinton proposal. All of that presented as "pragmatic" and "realistic" by the Democrats involved.

Rinse and repeat, every couple of years rolling back a bit more of the New Deal.

I won't vote for that, until I have to. As long as Sanders is running, I don't have to.

And that, for the third time, is my simple and hardly subtle response to this inveterate bit of troll dust:

• What I don't hear is any response to the challenges of history.

You don't get to exclude the relevant history you don't happen to like. My money says Clinton is not going to undergo a radical and unprecedented reformation of her basic ideology and approach to political issues, as President. I regard the prospect of her "holding the line", in other words, or even attempting to, as unlikely in the extreme. Naive.

Whereas the prospect of her getting beat in the general election by any of the three front Rep. nominees is quite likely indeed.

 

[brucep]

LOL...what was disgusting is Scalia and his patrons. What is disgusting is the corruption of our government as exemplified by Scalia and the tolerance of that corruption. What is disgusting is to put political correctness above the truth as YOU have done. Death is the only way things change on the Supreme Court. You do realize Supreme Court justices serve for life?

What is wrong with our country is too much ignorance, too much misinformation, and a tolerance for abuse. No one I know of has ever accused Scalia of being a murder or a dictator. But he has been accused of fomenting corruption (e.g. Citizens United). He has been accused of illegally intervening in the election of 2000 and giving us Baby Bush 1.0 whose actions have resulted in the deaths of thousands and the disablement of many more. What is wrong with this country is people like YOU, who sit on their butts and worry about political correctness rather than dealing with and solving the critical issues which vex the nation (e.g. corruption).

Here is the problem, if nothing changes, violence will ensue at some point. It's just a matter of time and history. The peasants with their pitchforks will show up on the nation's doorsteps at some point. Things need to change, and they will change at some point. And we are seeing a bit of that change in our election cycle this year. Sanders and Trump are a reflection of that unrest in the peasantry. We need some fundamental changes, because the current system isn't working. There is too much wealth and income inequality. That condition isn't sustainable. Things will change. The questions are how, and how much damage will be inflicted in the process? A good part of our economic woes are directly attributable to wealth inequality.

Scalia was an important agent in the destruction and demise of this country. Scalia and those like him on the court spat on the rule of law. He was anything but an agent for the rule of law as he was suppose to be. He corrupted the law and made the court a non-elected legislative branch of government which was above the law. Scalia and those like him (e.g. Thomas) turned the court into a de facto legislative arm of the Republican Party. Scalia disgraced the courts and the nation. But more importantly his illegal actions led to the deaths and disablement and suffering of thousands if not millions of people at the expense of the law and to the favor of his wealthy patrons. Scalia was an immoral scumbag.

Scalia should be remembered for what he was, not what he wasn't.

It's nice to know somebody wrote that down. He earned our scorn. He was a traitor to his duty and beloved by the oligarchy. I keep thinking Obama needed to exercise the bully pulpit during the first two years when the Democrats had the majority in both houses. Considering the Republican psychosis it's been hard to watch the electorate vote against their own well being. Now we have a seditionist as majority whip in both houses.

 

[joepistole]

And that, for the third time, is my simple and hardly subtle response to this inveterate bit of troll dust: You don't get to exclude the relevant history you don't happen to like.

And neither do you, but it has never stopped you from doing it.

My money says Clinton is not going to undergo a radical and unprecedented reformation of her basic ideology and approach to political issues, as President. I regard the prospect of her "holding the line", in other words, or even attempting to, as unlikely in the extreme. Naive.

Ok, you have your opinons and you are entitled to them. But that doesn't make them valid. Even though I have never been a big Clinton fan, the Clintons haven't done that badly. Hillary in particular has been a very competent and accomplished individual. That's some of the history you like to exclude.

Whereas the prospect of her getting beat in the general election by any of the three front Rep. nominees is quite likely indeed.

Well, here is the thing, Republicans don't share your views in that regard. Republicans have a long history of "talking up" (i.e. glorifying) the Democratic candidate they want to run against in the fall. Obviously, Republicans want to run against the weakest general election candidate. This year they have been and continue to "talk up" and sing the praises of Bernie because they view him as the weakest general election candidate.

The good thing about Hillary is she has survived decades of Republican assaults on her character and because of that she has been immunized to a large degree from Republican sleaze tactics. Republicans have accused her of everything from malfeasance to murder and it hasn't stuck. If Bernie should become the Democratic nominee, and I doubt he will, he will have to face the same gauntlet of Republican slime and character assassination. Bernie hasn't been immunized. He could well be the next "swift boat" victim if he should become the party nominee. Before you accuse others of naivety, you should take a very long and serious look at yourself.

Bernie's numbers don't add up. Bernie is doing exactly what Republicans have done and continue doing. He's selling things he cannot deliver because his numbers don't add up.

 

[Billy T]

... Bernie's numbers don't add up. ... He's selling things he cannot deliver because his numbers don't add up.

Show me why: "Free education paid for by new taxes on automated machine and day trading on Wall Street, no cap on the amount of Social Security tax collected, and higher taxes rates on the top incomes, as US had once when it was growing much better than now. (I. e. Making more money is still an incentive, even if Uncle Sam takes an even bigger bite of it.)" as I said in post 60 will not cover the cost.

Also if we adopted the Scandinavian (and most other advanced nation's) health care system, at least 50% of what US society pays for medical care that delivers at least two years LESS life expectancy, is an enormous sum of money - it would more than fill any gap left over by first paragraph items' increased revenues.

Both free education and universal quality health care are affordable. - All the Scandinavian countries are doing it, and their total incomes are less than the US's. I. e. your claims that free education and quality health care can not be financed are refuted by the fact that many countries are doing just that.

I agree he is selling things he may not be able to deliver, but that is because they can not get thru a congress controlled by the rich and powerful few for their benefit, not because of their cost. More on that in my next post here.

 

[joepistole]

Show me why: "Free education paid for by new taxes on automated machine and day trading on Wall Street, no cap on the amount of Social Security tax collected, and higher taxes rates on the top incomes, as US had once when it was growing much better than now. (I. e. Making more money is still an incentive, even if Uncle Sam takes an even bigger bite of it.)" as I said in post 60 will not cover the cost.

Also if we adopted the Scandinavian (and most other advanced nation's) health care system, at least 50% of what US society pays for medical care that delivers at least two years LESS life expectancy, is an enormous sum of money - it would more than fill any gap left over by first paragraph items' increased revenues.

Both free education and universal quality health care are affordable. - All the Scandinavian countries are doing it, and their total incomes are less than the US's. I. e. your claims that free education and quality health care can not be financed are refuted by the fact that many countries are doing just that.

I agree he is selling things he may not be able to deliver, but that is because they can not get thru a congress controlled by the rich and powerful few for their benefit, not because of their cost. More on that in my next post here.

Fareed Zakaria summed it up nicely in his article which I reference below.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...bddb40-d684-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html

Additionally, you need to be careful when comparing the US to other nations. No other bears the costs of defending the world as does the US. No other country bears the burden and cost of being the world's policeman. The US is committed by treaty to defend a good portion of the world. No other country bears that burden.

 

[Billy T]

Bernie lost in Nevada, but he has postive momentum and unlike Clinton, who has negative momentum, he was a total unknown a year ago. She was well known and liked for some decades.

For example less than three weeks before the election the prediction were Clinton, 60% of the vote and Sanders slightly less than 40% - a 20% gap, which Sanders cut in half with his positive momentum. She will probably beat him in most of the supper Tuesday states too, and has locked up most of the supper delegate votes, so I doubt he can become POTUS, but a yogi said, it ain't over til its over. His momentum is growing and Clinton's is falling.

Potential trouble ahead for Clinton
Clinton may have done well with some key groups, but the data also show that there are some warning signs on the horizon for the Clinton campaign. Despite going to Nevada early and spending a good deal of time there in comparison to Sanders, Clinton didn't perform as well as she did eight years ago with a few demographic groups, in particular Hispanics, young people, and independents.

Hispanics
Sanders captured 53 percent of the Hispanic vote this year in contrast to Clinton's 45 percent. This represents a substantial decline in support for Clinton among Hispanics compared to eight years ago. In 2008, Clinton got 64 percent of the Hispanic vote, compared to Mr. Obama's 26 percent.

Young people
Clinton did not win young people in either 2008 or 2016. But eight years ago she captured 33 percent of those under the age of 30, compared with just 12 percent in Saturday's contest.

Independents
Nevada limits its caucus to registered Democrats, but same-day registration is available. Among those caucus goers who identify as independent, Sanders did well, capturing more than 70 percent of the vote, compared to Clinton's 23 percent.

 

[iceaura]

Obviously, Republicans want to run against the weakest general election candidate. This year they have been and continue to "talk up" and sing the praises of Bernie because they view him as the weakest general election candidate.

Before him, Barack Obama. And Jeb Bush as the strongest, replacing Mitt Romney, who replaced Sara Palin.

The infallible political judgment of Republicans is never to be ignored, true, but one would hardly want to set up one's own political efforts entirely on the basis of Republican propaganda inversion.

The good thing about Hillary is she has survived decades of Republican assaults on her character and because of that she has been immunized to a large degree from Republican sleaze tactics.

And the bad thing is that she has adopted much of the Republican agenda in the course of that survival - not that it was much of a jump from her own basic ideology.

 

[Billy T]

Fareed Zakaria summed it up nicely in his article which I reference below.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...bddb40-d684-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html ...

Yes I agree that Sander would not be able to pay for it if the straw horse they assumed was his finance plan. Sander is not postulating what they assumed, which was quoting from your link:

"Gerald Friedman, an economist who has tried to make Sanders’s math work. To do so, Friedman assumes that per capita growth would average 4.5 percent (more than double the rate over the past three decades), and that the employment-to-population ratio would suddenly reverse its long decline and reach 65 percent, the highest ever. Even more magically, productivity growth would rise to 3.18 percent. As Kevin Drum has pointed out in Mother Jones, “there has never been a 10-year period since World War II in which productivity grew by 3.18 percent.” ..."

That is they totally ignore Sander's financing plan and attack the "pay by growth" straw horse they invented.
Sanders plan is more like the following:

New taxes on automated machine and day trading on Wall Street, no cap on the amount of Social Security tax collected, and higher taxes rates on the top incomes, as US had once when it was growing much better than now. (I. e. Making more money is still an incentive, even if Uncle Sam takes an even bigger bite of it.)"

As I said in post 60, if that above new taxing plan will not cover the cost then we use the saving by lowering of medical care cost by at least 50%. I. e. we adopted the Scandinavian (and most other advanced nation's) health care system, costing at least 50% less per capita than what US society now pays for medical care. That is an enormous sum of money - it would more than fill any gap left over by first paragraph items' increased revenues.

If there is the growth funding the straw horse plan speaks about, all the better, but that invented straw horse plan is not Sander's funding plan.

In order to pay for making college tuition-free for Americans, Sanders said that Wall Street owed the middle class for bailing it out during the recent financial crisis. He said he would demand "that the wealthiest people and the largest corporations, who have gotten away with murder for years, start paying their fair share."

"Well, let’s get specific, how high would you go?" CBS News moderator Nancy Cordes asked. "You’ve said before you’d go above 50 percent. How high?" "We haven’t come up with an exact number yet, but it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower, which was 91 percent," Sanders answered.

 

[joepistole]

Yes I agree that Sander would not be able to pay for it if the straw horse they assumed was his finance plan. Sander is not postulating what they assumed. Quoting from your link:

"Gerald Friedman, an economist who has tried to make Sanders’s math work. To do so, Friedman assumes that per capita growth would average 4.5 percent (more than double the rate over the past three decades), and that the employment-to-population ratio would suddenly reverse its long decline and reach 65 percent, the highest ever. Even more magically, productivity growth would rise to 3.18 percent. As Kevin Drum has pointed out in Mother Jones, “there has never been a 10-year period since World War II in which productivity grew by 3.18 percent.” ..."

That is they totally ignore Sander's financing plan and attack the straw horse they invented. Sanders plan is more like the following:

New taxes on automated machine and day trading on Wall Street, no cap on the amount of Social Security tax collected, and higher taxes rates on the top incomes, as US had once when it was growing much better than now. (I. e. Making more money is still an incentive, even if Uncle Sam takes an even bigger bite of it.)"

As I said in post 60, if that above plan will not cover the cost then we use the saving by lowering of medical care cost by at least 50%. I. e. we adopted the Scandinavian (and most other advanced nation's) health care system, costing at least 50% less than what US society now pays for medical care. That is an enormous sum of money - it would more than fill any gap left over by first paragraph items' increased revenues.


If there is growth the straw horse plan speaks about, all the better, but than invented straw horse plan is not Sander's funding plan.

No, that's with his tax increases (e.g. raising marginal tax rates to 85%). No credible economists takes Bernie's numbers seriously per Zakaria's article. His numbers don't add up even with his tax and tariff increases.

 

[Billy T]

No, that's with his tax increases (e.g. raising marginal tax rates to 85%). No credible economists takes Bernie's numbers seriously per Zakaria's article. His numbers don't add up even with his tax and tariff increases.

So you assert. Lets see some annual new revenue numbers. I. e. how much new revenue does removing the cap on Social Security collections produce? How much new revenue does say a 35% tax on day trading and automated machine trading profits yield. How much new revenue does a progressive tax rate increasing up to 85% on the highest incomes raise? What would be the saving achieved with Scandinavian health care system? I. e. what is 50% of the total cost of the US sytem?

And how does that compare to the total college tuitions paid (assuming the current scholarships continue)?

 

[joepistole]

So you assert. Lets see some annual new revenue numbers. I. e. how much new revenue does removing the cap on Social Security collections produce? How much new revenue does say a 35% tax on day trading and automated machine trading profits yield. How much new revenue does a progressive tax rate increasing up to 85% on the highest incomes raise? What would be the saving achieved with Scandinavian health care system? I. e. what is 50% of the total cost of the US sytem?

And how does that compare to the total college tuitions paid (assuming the current scholarships continue)?

If you can disprove Zakaria and the economists he references, do it. But given his credibility and the credibility of his references, you won't be able to.

Bernie's numbers don't add up.

 

[iceaura]

No, that's with his tax increases (e.g. raising marginal tax rates to 85%). No credible economists takes Bernie's numbers seriously per Zakaria's article. His numbers don't add up even with his tax and tariff increases.

Your selection of "credible" economists assumes no cost leverage, on the same basis as they assumed strong cost leverage via the Romneycare free market "exchanges". Their presumptions regarding distribution of income growth are likewise textbook fictions (they assume economic growth distributed throughout the income classes, ignoring the Reaganomic skew). And so forth.

The only thing Sanders has to do to earn a vote is propose something that makes more sense, and adds up better, than his opponents's proposals. That's a bar he jumped a long time ago.

 

[joepistole]

Your selection of "credible" economists assumes no cost leverage, on the same basis as they assumed strong cost leverage via the Romneycare free market "exchanges". Their presumptions regarding distribution of income growth are likewise textbook fictions (they assume economic growth distributed throughout the income classes, ignoring the Reaganomic skew).

Oh, then you should have no difficulty proving it? So let's see it.

 

[iceaura]

Oh, then you should have no difficulty proving it? So let's see it

They are both explicit and implicit in almost every one of the "assumptions" and "estimations" of appendices I, II, and III of your link and single point of reference.

Such as this quote, from page 29:
"Once GDP estimates are made, the effect on employment is estimated from the “Okun’s Law” relationship between income and employment. The value used is the average of the annual data for the relationship between growth in the GDP and employment in recovery years from 1959-2014."

That average is based on the effects of GDP growth much differently distributed than we've seen since the crash of '08, or in fact any time after the breakover in 1982.

And so forth.

 

[brucep]

And neither do you, but it has never stopped you from doing it.



Ok, you have your opinons and you are entitled to them. But that doesn't make them valid. Even though I have never been a big Clinton fan, the Clintons haven't done that badly. Hillary in particular has been a very competent and accomplished individual. That's some of the history you like to exclude.



Well, here is the thing, Republicans don't share your views in that regard. Republicans have a long history of "talking up" (i.e. glorifying) the Democratic candidate they want to run against in the fall. Obviously, Republicans want to run against the weakest general election candidate. This year they have been and continue to "talk up" and sing the praises of Bernie because they view him as the weakest general election candidate.

The good thing about Hillary is she has survived decades of Republican assaults on her character and because of that she has been immunized to a large degree from Republican sleaze tactics. Republicans have accused her of everything from malfeasance to murder and it hasn't stuck. If Bernie should become the Democratic nominee, and I doubt he will, he will have to face the same gauntlet of Republican slime and character assassination. Bernie hasn't been immunized. He could well be the next "swift boat" victim if he should become the party nominee. Before you accuse others of naivety, you should take a very long and serious look at yourself.

Bernie's numbers don't add up. Bernie is doing exactly what Republicans have done and continue doing. He's selling things he cannot deliver because his numbers don't add up.

I wouldn't be so concerned about Bernie's numbers at this point in his evolution. I don't think he's running 'to be President' because he's not a 'poser' and most importantly because he wants to put a stop to all the oligarch crap our nation has come to stand for. He's a warrior in my estimation. The Devil is always in the details and I'd be concerned that would seem to make victory technically improbable. But he's a warrior and the Sparks would fly. He might get fed up and 'began a coversation' with the justice department 'defining sedition'.

 

[joepistole]

I wouldn't be so concerned about Bernie's numbers at this point in his evolution. I don't think he's running 'to be President' because he's not a 'poser' and most importantly because he wants to put a stop to all the oligarch crap our nation has come to stand for. He's a warrior in my estimation. The Devil is always in the details and I'd be concerned that would seem to make victory technically improbable. But he's a warrior and the Sparks would fly. He might get fed up and 'began a coversation' with the justice department 'defining sedition'.

Bernie has many good attributes. I love his passion. But it takes more than passion to become POTUS and to be a good POTUS. I wish Hillary had more of Bernie's passion for electoral reforms. Electoral reform will be tough for any POTUS. Obama wanted electoral reform too. But he didn't get very far and that's very unfortunate. But Obama from day one was faced with massive and extraordinarily critical problems. He had a lot on his plate. Thankfully he had a Democratic congress for the first 2 years of his administration. If a Democrat is elected POTUS, as I think will be the case, he or she, and I think it will be a she, will also need a Democratic congress and a Democratic Supreme Court or at least a non Republican Supreme Court in order to effect any meaningful change.

 

[Billy T]

If you can disprove Zakaria and the economists he references, do it. But given his credibility and the credibility of his references, you won't be able to. ...

I agreed that their invented straw horse ("pay by growth") funding plan will not provide the funds needed for Bernie's free education plan, BUT that is not his plan for financing his plans.

His plan is for an end to the cap on Social Security collection plus new and higher higher top tax rates in a progressive tax schedule – I. e. pay for tuition free education exactly how it has been done for decades in Scandinavia - So we know it works - can fund free education.

SUMMARY: The economic feasibility has been PROVEN in use for decades! Only economic analysis of a straw horse plan can can show failure.

 

[joepistole]

I agreed that their invented straw horse ("pay by growth") funding plan will not provide the funds needed for Bernie's free education plan, BUT that is not his plan for financing his plans.

His plan is for an end to the cap on Social Security collection plus new and higher higher top tax rates in a progressive tax schedule – I. e. pay for tuition free education exactly how it has been done for decades in Scandinavia - So we know it works - can fund free education.

SUMMARY: The economic feasibility has been PROVEN in use for decades! Only economic analysis of a straw horse plan can can show failure.

Again Billy T, if you can disprove anything in Zakaria's article, do so.