I struggle with this ... his Senate hearing was a mess.

Hagel confirmation battle: bruised but standing - CNN.com

No hard feelings.

Thanks for understanding. I feel like an idiot, which is somewhat apropos since I live in Oklahoma.

Please no Raiders jokes.

I've been there, too.

Please no Bengals jokes.

Me too. Please no Razorbacks or Petrino jokes!

I saw this and found it interesting. It's a chart of an aggregate of hundreds of survey questions providing a rough gauge of public support for government intervention. The interesting part is that the public mood moves in the opposite direction of the party controlling the White House.

I think thats largely to be expected tbh - most people like to see things as black and white, good and bad ...

When your ideology isn't in power its easier to see it as the perfect solution and be passionate about it, when it is you're forced to admit that it might not be the be all and end all you'd prefer it to be.

(for most things imho the perfect solution is probably 'somewhere in the middle ground' ...)

AQ #3 died again. Time to reshuffle the depth charts.

French and Chadian forces battling Islamist militants in Mali's remote northeastern mountains are believed to have killed a top al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb commander known as Abdelhamid Abou Zeid, though the fate of at least four French hostages that Abou Zeid was thought to be holding nearby remains unknown.

Chad's president says Abou Zeid and another al-Qaida commander were among those killed in ongoing military operations in the area. French authorities are not confirming the reports.

​​​​The Algerian-born jihadist, if his death is confirmed, could be a significant blow in the ongoing war against the al-Qaida-linked rebels who seized control of northern Mali last April.

Zeid has been described as inflexible, cruel, violent, audacious, intelligent, radical and without pity. He was born in Algeria and commands a southern battalion of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, known as AQIM. His command is known to be one of AQIM's most radical factions.

The buildup to 2014 congressional elections.

Stymied by a GOP House, Obama looks ahead to 2014 to cement his legacy - The Washington Post

Not gonna happen.

Aren't they expected to need about 55% of all votes across the country to retake the house? Hard to see that happening.

it's all about turnout, and turnout can beat how badly these assholes have gerrymandered the districts. Just looking at my district specifically, 280k people vote in presidential elections, and only about 200k vote in the off year. If you can get more of your people to show up from the previous election, you have a fighting chance.

I think it's closer to 57%.

That won't happen in an off year election.

The details are unclear, but I'm all for the shareholder rights and transparency provisions required under a new Swiss referendum. From Talkingpointsmemo:

If history is any indication, the approvals will be few and far between, most stuck in limbo.

I wonder if this will really "cement a legacy". Judge Roberts really didn't cement GWB's legacy.

Obama pushing to diversify federal judiciary amid GOP delays - The Washington Post

This is the pathetic part of this latest issue. There is all kinds of pork available to be trimmed and somehow they can't find a way to target $85B in cuts that make meaningful changes. Instead, we get really smart cuts like this.......


By imposing a foolish deadline rather than making good decisions, they've further demonstrated that the executive and legislative branch are shockingly devoid of any real leadership. It's embarrassing and everyone should be ashamed of the job their doing at a time when leadership is needed now more than ever.

Guantanamo Bay needs more residents!

Bin Laden's son-in-law, once al Qaeda's 'mouthpiece,' held by U.S. - CNN.com

I always wonder how Peter King can cover the NFL and be a representative.

Keep up that war against women's reproductive rights, Arkansas GOP.

Arkansas GOP eyes Planned Parenthood funds next - Yahoo! News

They may want to consult Texas to see how well it worked out for them before doing so though:

Texas May Restore Some Family-Planning Budget Cuts - NYTimes.com

I know its a thankless job but I don't get why Holder didn't just come out and say it before the filibuster.

Rand Paul gets his answer - First Read

Umm ... at this point in his career does that really require an answer beyond "he's a useless twit on his best days"?

And I say that as someone who isn't particularly disturbed by the notion of using drones on U.S. soil (only disturbed by concerns about who happens to be using them).

Actually it's the "crazy" son. Sad that only about 5 republicans and 1 democrat came to support someone asking questions about using drones over US soil against American citizens. The GOP has always been pretty useless for the most part but the Democrats used to at least have some principles every now and then. Wish Romney would have won and then Reid would have been up in arms with Pelosi and all the regular characters. Good god does ether party care about anything but getting reelected and "holding serve" anymore?

I was talking about Holder actually (not sure if that was clear).


Actually I'd say that both parties have kinda figured out that there's not a shortage of folks that need killin' ... they just have serious differences about who is on the list.

My understanding is that this particular question wasn't in the list that Paul submitted.

I'm fine with the filibuster and Holder gave the right answer, IMO, but instead of grandstanding congress should legislate against this shit. This answer doesn't mean shit if Obama or another president decides to change things. The only possibility of stopping this is for congress to stand up and take back their authority.

Of course, nobody wants to do that as then they'd also have to take responsibility for their decisions.

Something for us to think about when we are talking about income/wealth distribution in the US.

This viral video is right: We need to worry about wealth inequality

I've always known whites have lower unemployment rates than minorities and that asian have less employment as a whole (is it the IT thing?).

7.7 Percent | The Weekly Standard

A little surprised as the delta between blacks and hispanics. I would have thought they would be closer. I researched and found a 2005 study on types of jobs different ethnic groups do, see below pg 4.

http://www2.asanet.org/centennial/ra...abormarket.pdf

Hispanics do more % of "construction, extraction, maintenance" and "production, transportation, or materials moving" than blacks. Blacks do more "management, professional", "Service" and "Sales or Office". Asians are by far greater % in "managemet, professional".

Yeah, that's the horn that I been tooting for the last 5 years. Especially the change in that from 2008 to now. Recently there was a story that all of the income lost in 2009 had recently been regained meaning that for you and I we are now back at 0% growth in the last 4 years. However, the income growth of the top earners in the US over the last 4 years has been much, much better

I couldn't find any hard numbers other than a long study that showed that income growth of the bottom 99% from 93-08 was 0.75% while the top 1% had income growth of nearly 4%, I'm sure there will be more recent studies coming out as we move further away from the Great Recession.

Now I get how unfair it is for the top to pay so much in taxes, so shouldn't the solution be to get the lower earners to make more money? Given that outside of the Federal Government, money is essentially a fixed amount so if the lower earners make more that means that the top makes less. Given that drastic increase in income for the top it would seem that they have decided that it's better to make more, and pay more rather than get paid less and pay less. It's just an observation, and it's the primary reason both sides get as pissed off as they do.

So what's the solution? It's easy to point fingers and call names and beat your chest and say you are right. One thing that I can't believe is that we can't all agree that this level of income disparity is bad for our country and the people in it.

People always think I am just being a shit disturber but really I'm not. Where do you stop? Does a Mexican or Caniadian that lives right across the border deserve not to live in poverty? Because a Texan living in Galveston has about as much connection to me as someone loving in Cancun. What about the huge disparity of our middle class to the rest of the world. Do we deserve to play on our computers and video games whe some line in extreme poverty. It's always real easy to "eat the rich" or to act like they all got there by taking advantage of their fellow Americans but what if they just worked harder? What if an African says we don't derserve to make 50K a year? Not being argumentative just want to hear to answers to these questions because it is easy to say we deserve to be equal with those above us but a little harder to say those below us need to be equal with us even if that means we have to move down to make that happen.

Why do you want to hear answers to questions that have nothing to do with the original thought? Do you want to talk about globalization or income disparity in the US? Why try to reduce the argument back to the "eat the rich", "they just work harder" argument?

The argument isn't about the need to be equal it's about what's equal enough. You say we have to move down to make things better, and I say you already moved down you just don't know it because you are so scared someone is catching up to you that you never look up to see how far behind you really are.

Ok so at least you're clear. It's class envy of the rich because of you don't care about those below you it has zero to do with equality.

I feel like if capitalism is run in its purest sense that ultimately just a handful of people will hold the wealth. As long as those at the top allow enough to filter down to those below everything is cool for everyone and people are willing to accept it. Don't let enough filter down and keep too much at the top and the people below start getting really pissed off.

I feel like capitalism needs a reset every 100 years where everyone has to return to a starting position and starts the competition all over again.

Because of things like credit there is not a fixed amount of wealth. Especially in a global economy, there's not a fixed amount of available income that has to be distributed between everyone. If that was the case I could certainly understand why disparity would be a problem.

I think we should be more concerned with standard of living than what people have in relation to other. Inequality had replaced standard of living/poverty as the hot political thing we're all supposed to be outraged by but I think that's misguided. The rich being less successful in the a global economy and having less wealth and income wouldn't benefit the rest of us one bit. Taxing them more might, but that's a different discussion entirely.

If you want for things to be more fair, you could start by depriving your kids of the advantages you give them by being a great father and a great provider. We resent people for having advantages but nobody seems willing to withhold those advantages from their own kids. You are in the global 1%, as are your kids, and that's not fair at all.

Edit: If the bottom 99% tripled their standard of living tomorrow (increased access to health care, more 1-income families where one parent can stay home with the kids, more financial security generally), but it would take an economic boom that increased the standard of living of the top 1% 10 times, that would be a great thing - even if it made us less equal.

How would that be a great thing? Inflation would undo all of the gain plus some extra.

I'm just talking about standard of living, not wealth or income. Whether the very poorest have food to eat, or shelter, or healthcare, is more important than how much wealth or income they have relative to someone else. It doesn't matter to the poorest whether Bill Gates has $60 billion or only $10 billion, the world isn't somehow a better place if Bill Gates is worth less. The world isn't worse if an American businessman makes a big deal in China and suddenly has more wealth and income. (again, what we should tax him is a different argument).

The world being a better or worse place isn't really part of the discussion. The only way for the poor to have a better standard of living is to be closer in income to those above them. Inflation will always keep a certain percentage of people poor. The question is, are they a lot poorer than those above them, or just a little? Standard of living is based on where you are compared to the others.

Higher taxes on the rich accomplishes this. If you tax the rich and let the poor/middle class make gains compared to them, their standard of living goes up and the poor/middle class have more purchasing power. The poor/middle class will then spend their money and it will back into the hands of the rich who handle more of the wealth/investments. The money is always filtering to the rich, but higher taxes means more fluid cash flow and more chance for the rich to compete against each other. People don't reset to a starting position, but they do have to keep working to maintain their position.

Well, poor is really a relative term so ya, there will always be poor in any group, even a group of millionaires. Do those "poor" millionaires have a bad standard of living? Would it be unjust if they were "too far" removed from the billionaires wealth and income-wise?

Whether the world is better/worse is exactly what I'm discussing because that's what I'm concerned with, and whether wealth inequality is inherently bad. If two millionares move into my neighbhoorhood tomorrow the wealth equality of my neighborhood will become more unequal, and I'll become more "poor" on the relative scale, but my standard of living might actually increase if the city or state tax those people enough and I get better bridges and museums and healthcare. By the same token, if we took the 100,000 richest Americans by wealth or income and plopped them into Germany or Sweden or whatever, their countries would become a lot more unequal, but they'd also get a financial boost from all that new tax revenue.

When I am talking about poor, I think talking more poverty-line poor. Income inequality isn't inherently bad in individuals. Me having a low income compared to my neighbor isn't bad. Me being close to the poverty line because my neighbor has all the wealth is bad. A healthy economy is made up of money in circulation. Having large chunks of money tied up with the wealth collectors is not good for the economy

Ideally you are correct. Though, having adequate food, shelter, and healthcare tend to require a bit more from the rich than they are giving currently in the US. But I think, if I read your argument right, is that you think we are putting the wrong thing first to accomplish the same ends.

I don't know how the video defines "wealth" (disappointed no context provided) so there may be some fudge here but it stated top 1% has 40% of wealth and bottom 80% has 7% of wealth. This is what resonated with me ... the bottom 80%.

I don't really know how but I do like the idea of redistribution to a certain extent but suspicious of government doing it as there will be alot of waste. However, I recognize that there are only some things that government can do.

White House stop giving tours but Kerry promised Egypt $190m to pay its bills and Congress gives out staff bonuses.

Isn't that sort of what the Estate Tax is for? Resetting the race each generation. I know it's been changed to a point that it really doesn't accomplish that, but I think the general idea was there.

I think the whole concept of wealth inequity is too simplified, and that it can somehow be "fixed" with a magic wand.

1) Globalization and technology has broken down our barriers to connect, sell, and trade with other countries and individuals from all around the world. This allows a company and entrepreneurs to sell to billions of people now, instead of being geographically limited. The revenues and incomes increase for these individuals who are "driving" the train, but the worker's salary is still the same, because his personal situation hasn't changed (still working the same job in same location).

2) The U.S. is no longer the lone wolf, and we now compete on a global scale with countries and individuals from all over the world. We are being attacked in terms of talent, resources, financial resources, and innovation from all corners of the globe. This is impacting our ability to pull the train, so to speak, of the economic classes here in the U.S. Capital and talent is fleeting, and will go where they are best rewarded.

3) To expand on the technology point of No.1, I think we are in a new era of employment. Technology is, and will continue to, make human-filled positions more and more unnecessary. I do foresee a shift to contracting/project-based work.

For (2) the revised immigration law to allow the highly educated foreigners to stay in the US is a good first step.

Having immigrated myself and undergone the tedious process, I'm biased. But this was such an obvious answer to help with the problem.

Some humor.

Obama tosses barbs at joke-filled, annual Gridiron dinner | Fox News

I appreciate the loyalty.

Susan Rice as national security adviser? U.N. ambassador said to be front-runner. - The Washington Post

That doesn't explain how the correlation between increased productivity and increased wages stopped around 1980. For the past thirty years increases in productivity have seen the wealthy pocket almost all the gains.

It actually perfectly explains why the correlation stopped. The wealthy (in certain industries) are in a position now to gain wealth from literally billions more people than they used to be able to access. Meanwhile, the pizza delivery guy's job hasn't changed at all. If the very most successful Americans and corporations weren't as competitive in the global economy, they'd have less and we'd be more equal here, but the pizza delivery guy wouldn't be any better off (and our government would have a lot less tax revenue and the economy would have less consumer spending).

The last time we had a discussion here about class mobility people were trying to convince me that you could increase the number of people rising from the lower classes to the middle classes without the same amount of people getting knocked down from the middle classes (or higher) to the lower classes. I'm still trying to figure out how that would work. Point is, everybody likes the idea of people rising up (relative to others, of course), but not as many people are comfortable (or willing to acknowledge the necessity of) people in the middle and upper middle class getting knocked down as a necessary part of that.

But the delivery guy's job didn't change from 1930 to 1970, but his wages went up as productivity went up. The issue is that now as productivity rises the gains aren't as shared as they were for the thirty years after WW2.