lookin

Call me crazy, but I think all paths lead to single-payer health care. Even though some don't like abandoning the toll booths they've erected along the way, no reason they shouldn't do fine if they adapt their business models, as many have done before them. I was disappointed that the Dems gave up on single-payer, but I think they left enough back roads in the legislation that we'll get there eventually. Who knows, it may be just over the next rise.

≈ ≈ ≈ Sarah Palin on Ice ≈ ≈ ≈

Do please ask him to represent me in a second piece of pie! I'm very thankful for the great group of guys assembled here, and there's not a soul I wouldn't enjoy sharing a drumstick with! A Very Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Thanks from me too! Makes me want to go there.

Just be careful not to drop it anywhere. Enjoy!

A different take on California, this time with a few facts. The truth about California Commentary: Maligned state is actually saving the rest of us By Brett Arends, MarketWatch BOSTON (MarketWatch) — Can everyone please stop talking total nonsense about the California budget? I know that facts and truth seem to be optional these days. I know that in the exciting new world of infinite media everyone can choose to believe whatever fantasies they want. But in the case of California, it's getting on my nerves. Last week Chris Whalen, the high-profile analyst at Institutional Risk Analytics, caused a stir by arguing California was going to default on its debts. "I think they're going to default… I think eventually the debt will have to be haircut," he told Henry Blodget, the former dot-com analyst and now editor of Business Insider. "I don't think the Republican Congress is going to sign on for a bailout of California." Default was "inevitable," Whalen added, and suggested Sacramento might have to start issuing its own currency. Alarming stuff. But when I e-mailed Whalen, asking him for specific calculations, none were forthcoming. "My general comments have to do with my guess as to the impact of mounting foreclosures and flat to down GDP on state revenues," Whalen replied. Do the math Your guess? These are important problems, to be sure. But do you have any actual numbers? "Revenues fall and mandates rise to the sky," he wrote. "You do the math." Er, no, actually. It's your assertion. You do the math. Whalen blamed the matter on Blodget. "I am a bank analyst," he wrote. "I have not written anything on this. My comments have taken on a life all their own… This is all Henry's fault. Call him." Some prediction. Meanwhile Blodget chimed in on the e-mail exchange: "It's a bold prediction! Don't back down now!" Bah. Welcome to the media world in 2010. But this is hardly an isolated case. California bashing is everywhere these days — especially since Californians had the temerity not to vote Republican a few weeks ago. You've probably heard a variant of the following storyline: California is a basket case. The Greece of America. Decades of crazy liberalism and runaway spending have crippled the economy. Wealth creators are fleeing in droves. The people left are spending themselves into rack and ruin. They can't balance their budget, once again, so they are asking the rest of us for a bailout. And they even voted for Jerry Brown, a Democrat! It's time we said enough is enough. No bailout for California! And get out of their muni bonds while you can — they're going to default. Basket case It's persuasive. You can hear it anywhere. But it's total hogwash. You might just as well believe that California is inhabited by pixies from the planet Mars, or that the budget problem in Sacramento has been caused by a giant sea monster destroying downtown San Diego. It's not just slightly wrong. It's almost totally wrong. California's a basket case? The state has one of the highest living standards in the country, yet over the past 10 years the economy has still grown much faster, per person, than the national average. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, it's up 15% — compared to 8.9% for the U.S. overall. It's grown faster than low tax neighbors like Arizona, Utah or New Mexico. It's grown three times faster than Texas. And this was from 1999 through 2009: In other words from the peak of the dot-com years through the depths of the recession. It managed this growth despite the double blows of the tech and housing busts. Most of the states that have grown faster than California during that time are farm states, riding an incredible boom in agriculture prices. Fact. Venture dollars Back in the Silicon Valley glory days, in the late 1990s, California attracted an incredible 42 cents of every venture capital dollar invested in America. Ah, those were the days — when the private sector was still willing to back California with its own money. As any conservative will tell you, that's the real voting in the economy. How far has California fallen from those giddy days? According to the latest data from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, in 2010 California just got a miserable, er, 50 cents of every venture capital dollar invested in America. That's right. Venture capitalists are putting a bigger share of their money into California today than they were in 1999. Wow. What a failed state. What a basket case. Will the last person left please turn out the lights? Don't expect to read about this at the far-right Manhattan Institute or the National Review. Don't expect to read a column about it from George Will anytime soon. Are wealth creators fleeing? I keep hearing this. Did Apple Inc. and Google Inc. just relocate to Oklahoma? Is Twitter being run from Alabama? When Mark Zuckerberg left Harvard to run Facebook full-time, did he open shop in "low cost" Utah? During the past decade, one of the biggest reasons its residents left California was simply because of the astronomical cost of housing. Tax base Now let's talk about taxes. This is where the lies really earn a Ph.D — as in "piled high and deep." The best study of state and local tax burdens comes from the venerable Tax Foundation, an independent non-profit that's been acting as a taxpayers' watchdog in Washington since 1937. The Tax Foundation is non-partisan, but by the nature of what it does it leans politically to the right. According to them, as of 2008 (the most recent year analyzed) state and local taxes in the average state came to about 9.7% of the annual state economy. What was it in crazy, liberal, communistical, socialistical, un-American, soviet-style California? Er, 10.5%. That's right. The burden was all of 0.8 percentage points higher than the average. Higher wages Paging Leon Trotsky! In the late 1990s, when California was riding high, it was...10.6%. Thirty years ago, when even Meg Whitman thought it was a wonderful place to work, start a family, and hire an illegal immigrant to raise your kids, it was...10.1%. You will occasionally hear horror stories about "public sector teachers" in places like "San Francisco" (shudder) earning, say, $100,000 a year. I've never understood why it's wrong for a teacher to earn a good salary. The same people who wouldn't blink at the news that a Wall Street banker made $20 million anthraxing our economy is horrified that a teacher makes $100,000. But even putting that issue aside, it's worth remembering that wages are higher in San Francisco for a very simple reason. It costs more to live there. A lot more. According to the authoritative ACCRA cost of living index, a $100,000 income in San Francisco will only buy you the same living standard as a $55,000 salary in places like Austin, Texas, or Little Rock, Arkansas. Do we hear horror stories about teachers in Texas earning $55,000 a year? But if you think the lies stop there, think again. Because we haven't even gotten to the biggest of all. That California "bailout." There's no such thing. California bails us out. It has been bailing out the rest of America since, oh, about 1849 — before it even joined the union. Californians are so productive that every year they send billions of dollars in surplus dollars to the rest of America. Year after year they have sent vastly more in federal taxes than they ever get back in federal spending. California isn't our Greece, it's our Germany. It isn't Little Orphan Annie. It's Daddy Warbucks. Fact. The conservative-leaning Tax Foundation, which tracks the data, calls this surplus a "fiscal transfer." I call it a bailout. The numbers are simply staggering. In the quarter century through 2005 (the most recent year for which we have data), Californians bailed out the rest of America to the tune of about $620 billion in today's dollars. In 2005 alone it came to nearly $50 billion. That is 30 times next year's forecast "budget shortfall" in Sacramento. The only reason California has a budget problem at all is because they have, foolishly, spent so much money subsidizing everyone else. If it weren't for that, California could cut its state and local taxes by around $1,300 a person. That's a $1,300 tax cut for every man, woman and child. Hmmm. Funny you never read about that anywhere, isn't it? Meanwhile, take with giant fistfuls of salt those self-serving claims of fiscal rectitude you're apt to hear from politicians in other states, especially in the South and the West. These states haven't balanced their own budgets with their own money in living memory. Without bailout money from states like California, New York and New Jersey, their taxes would be much higher and their citizens poorer. But don't expect to hear any of this from California bashers — least of all those on the right. After this November's electoral humiliations of Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, the Republican Party is putting away the kid gloves and getting out the knife. Could California really default? Run the numbers. State debt costs come to just $6 billion a year — a fraction of the $90 billion-plus budget. Under the state Constitution, the interest on the debt gets paid second, after the $36 billion that goes to K-12 education. Certainly it would be foolish to be complacent. And there are serious problems with long-term budget commitments, especially for the retirement and health care benefits for teachers and other public employees. Future cost growth with have to be restrained, and presumably some planned benefits will end up being renegotiated. But how big are these costs in California? The non-partisan Legislative Analysts' Office in Sacramento estimates there's a $136 billion gap in the state pension and benefits system. It may work out to more or less. But that's the actuarial figure at the moment. Size of the state economy? Oh, $2 trillion a year. That's 14 times the size of this gigantic pension-fund gap. But don't expect any of these facts to surface when Washington starts talking about a California "bailout." This is 2010. Inconvenient facts are optional. - Brett Arends is a columnist for MarketWatch and The Wall Street Journal, based in Boston.

Maybe we could outsource to the TSA. They're already doing physical exams and colonoscopies.

Perhaps then JT's purported public peccadilloes are merely his way of thumbing his nose at the more hidebound views of his adopted religion? Control me, will ya? Ha! Blackmail? I don't think so!! Good for him! Sounds like he's got 'em on the ropes.

You're being far too modest, MsGuy. While Columbus may have happened upon America, it was Isabella who showed him the way.

I think Obama set the strategy, including asking Secretary Gates for the military's report by December 1st and requesting Congress to pass the legislation. I agree that he could have issued an executive order to repeal DADT, but his present strategy involves all three branches of government. If successful, it should not be open to any further challenges. I'm not sure the same would be true of an executive order. The good news is, we should know by New Year's Eve if his strategy worked. If it doesn't, I expect he'll try something else. I believe him when he says that DADT will end on his watch. Must admit to some mixed feelings about the whole issue, as I would like to see our military reduced substantially. If all our gay service members resigned in protest, it would be a start to the reduction in armed forces that I'd like to see. Maybe they could each bring a fellow soldier along with them, and get some of the straight guys back in circulation too.

Indeed there is and, thanks to MsGuy, I've found it as well. On the right of the Similar Topics banner is either a + sign or a - sign, which can be used to toggle the (allegedly) similar posts on or off. They stay on or off until the next time you toggle. Neat, huh? I found them rather unrelated as well and chalked it up to a fledgling algorithm that would improve over time, but no sign of that yet. Still, without the feature, I wouldn't have stumbled upon the doings chez Lucky when the power goes out, and I'd never in a million years have guessed your fantasy upon becoming an Esteemed Member.

Jerry, is that you?

Are you sure you failed? Just looked at the date of your original post, and it's only been a month. You may have just been going down that thirty-pounds-in-thirty-days road that so often leads us back to where we started. Your earlier post inspired me to try to shed a few pounds before my annual physical in May. I decided a little more exercise every day would be my 'permanent' change. Didn't make it every day, but averaged about five days a week, which seems to have convinced my metabolism that I was serious. So I'm down about three pounds in thirty days. I figure I'll put some weight on over the holidays, but it should come off as quickly as it went on. Anyway, longwinded way of saying that if you learned one new thing, or just stopped gaining, that could easily qualify as a success and postion you for the next one. In any event, many thanks for starting the discussion.

Great stories! Thanks! Wonder if somebody from Bel Ami is googling these posts and putting together their next screenplay. I'd love to see Blue Eyes in a featured role.

Never found him particularly attractive myself, and only became aware of him when he took Ralph Woods under his wing, you should pardon the expression. Once he let Ralph go, I knew he was lacking discernment, judgement, or appeal; and likely all three. He won't have to bother cleaning out his chimney on my account.

It does make one wonder how intimately corporate America should be involved with our health, and that includes our food supply as well as our medical treatment. I guess it's possible to be both a doctor and a farmer but, if we're not in that position, big business seems to be perched all along the supply lines. There was a time that I trusted large corporations more than I do today, but I keep hearing these stories that show how their interests are diverging from mine. I'm looking for ways to grab back a bit more control from them, at least in the areas of healthcare and nutrition. I also pretty much believed in the common wisdom that a free market allows me to stop doing business with companies that work against me and start doing business with companies that work for me. But I'm finding it more and more difficult to take advantage of that freedom of choice, and I'm wondering whether my choosing skills are getting worse or whether the good choices are just getting harder to find. I wonder what Tom Brady thinks.

No rush, but I very much look forward to hearing it.

Just back from a look at Daddy's home page where it shows the record high number of online users was 243 in early June before the lock-out. If I recall, it was sitting between 40-50 after Daddy returned from vacation, and it's rarely been out of the 60's ever since. As you say, some have returned, but it appears that most have not, and many of those who returned have reduced their participation substantially. While a few came over here to 'roost', many more did not. And I think those who 'straddle', self-included, have not become prolific posters on either site. There still seem to be a significant number of posts that are going unposted. I continue to believe that, as with so many things, the first step is figuring out exactly what you want. Then comes the second step of figuring out how to get it, followed by the third step of deciding whether or not you're willing to do it. Can't think of any other solution at the moment but, hey, at least I made it into the 'Today's Top Posters' roster!

I think the issue goes beyond party politics, and perhaps beyond politics itself. At least the way we currently practice politics in this country. I think the issue that needs to be debated right now is what kind of society we want to be. If we want to care for all of our citizens, then I think we can decide to tax ourselves in pursuit of this ideal. If we decide it's every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost, then taxes will be lower and we can all learn to live in that kind of world. But, until we decide that fundamental issue, we're just going to be reshuffling soundbites and hiding behind party labels. And that's exactly what I think is happening now. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a society where every one of our citizens is housed, clothed, well-fed, healthy, and educated. I'd be proud to live in that kind of society, and would be willing to reach deeper into my pocket to pay for the privilege. If that makes me a 'liberal' in the pejorative sense of the word, so be it. If someone else takes the 'I've got mine and the hell with you' position, I'd prefer he step forward and actually say so, rather than hide behind some 'compassionate conservative' label, whatever that means. While I think this kind of national debate is absolutely necessary if we are to move forward as a country, I must confess that I don't see anyone on the national political stage stepping forward to lead the debate. I think Obama has come closer than anyone in recent times, but he has been met with nearly insurmountable resistance. Therefore, my personal plan is to rein in my definition of 'society' to the state or local level. For example, I'm impressed by what San Francisco has accomplished in a few short years with the Healthy San Francisco program. I'm used to seeing blurbs on restaurant menus to the effect that 'a dollar of your bill is going to provide health care for all of our employees'. Fine. I recently read of a health clinic being set up and staffed by volunteers who have retired from the health care profession. With the City and County of San Francisco working to show it can be done, then perhaps similar programs can be picked up by the state and, one day, by the nation. Once we decide what kind of society we want to be, then it will be time to put together the budget/economy that gets us there. When we do get around to putting together a budget that reflects our values, then I think it's absolutely necessary that we figure out how to support our values in good times and in lean times. In my opinion, values are values and should not be abandoned because we find ourselves in the inevitable economic downturn. And that will necessarily lead us to a budgeting process that is based on surpluses as well as deficits. A budget that allows for good times and bad times is not revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination. It's the same process my parents used to keep our family thriving, and it's the same process I use today. Rather than a deficit that's 10% of the GDP, we need a surplus that's 10% of the GDP. Or 15% in a good year. We need to erase our deficit and interest expenses, and build a surplus that will keep us housed and fed when times are tough. I'm not saying that it will be easy to make that transition, but I am saying that it will be impossible if we don't first decide that it's necessary. I think we can make that decision today, and then start down the path to get us there. Building a surplus won't be easy. It's been more than a decade since we were even heading in the right direction. But two things are clear, at least to me: (1) it will require higher rather than lower taxes, and (2) it will be necessary to look at military spending in addition to so-called 'entitlement' spending. As always, I welcome other views and the more facts, the better. Soundbites we've got plenty of.

Everything marcanthony and xenofile said goes for me too. Although the participation issue comes up every week or so, I'm still not sure exactly what's being asked, and of whom. I can see at least three possibilities, each with its own solution(s): 1. More members - This will probably require some marketing, and some financial outlay for advertising. It would require a decision by TY and OZ to do so. 2. Turning members who lurk into members who post - Again, this will probably require some marketing. The contest that TY and OZ sponsored a couple of years ago increased the number of posts dramatically, as I recall. A week or so ago in a similar thread, I suggested a contest to help Lucky plan his trip to Thailand. But there were no nibbles, so maybe the will to repeat this approach isn't here at present. 3. Changing the posting habits of existing posters - The August Challenge got a lot more people posting. It took some cajoling on Lucky's part, and an increased investment of time by a number of members, but it worked. Some of the benefits are still here in November. But I think that's a process that needs to be repeated occasionally, and with increased time investments by all. Personally, I was glad to support Lucky's efforts by doubling my time on the site for one month, but that's not usually going to be practical, for me anyway. I could see changing the type of posts I make, transitioning from relatively few posts that take a while to write to a greater number of short posts of the 'Attaboy!' variety. Some additional clarity on what's wanted would be helpful and if there's anything I can do, within reason, I'll give it my best shot.

Thanks. Conway makes a lot of sense, as you say, and I pay close attention. He has a direct line to an important part of the solution. I find it often helps the debate when actual proposals are on the table, and I like putting them out there. Often, they are shot right down, as I expect this one will be. But being derided, so to speak, is a small price for me if it helps to get other concrete ideas on the table. I welcome a process that draws out all the objections, until there's nothing left but something that could work. The worst outcome for me is one in which we're left with nothing but objections. That's what the political landscape has been littered with recently, and I think it's time we start moving forward.

One of my favorite Saturday Night Live sketches highlights the concern that we could do a walk-away on China.

I've tried to follow all the debates about what would get lenders to lend and businesses to hire and am starting to come to the conclusion that the discussions are likely to go on endlessly. Some think tax cuts will inspire business owners to hire, some think rolling back regulations will do the trick, and still others believe that a strong 'message' from Washington is what's needed to start creating jobs. The difficulty for me is that I haven't heard anything in the way of how many jobs and when they might start to appear. Somebody gave me an envelope the other day, and I've been running some numbers on the back just for fun. Somewhere I read that it will take the creation of 300,000 jobs a month to begin bringing down the unemployment rate. I don't know what kind of jobs those would be, so I pencilled in an average U. S. living wage of $2,000 a month, which would, of course, vary according to geography. That got me to a payroll of about $87 billion annually. (3,600,000 jobs annually * $24,000 a year) Since these folks would be back at work, many would not need to collect unemployment benefits any more, so I rounded down to an even $70 billion a year to create the 300,000 jobs a month that would start bringing down the unemployment rate. Interestingly, if I accept the government's estimate that extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans would cost $700 billion over ten years, that equals exactly the $70 billion a year that I estimate would cover the cost of putting 3,600,000 Americans back to work. Must confess, I'm one of those folks who really likes to see problems fixed, rather than just debated forever. I don't mind discussing them first but, after a while, I get the strong urge to actually do something. So, if I had to choose between hoping that $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy would maybe lower the unemployment rate at some time in the future and knowing that $70 billion in direct wages would start to do so within a year, it becomes a no-brainer for me. And, yes, it would require another government program similar to Roosevelt's WPA and we could continue to debate big government vs. small government for another few years but, for me, there's a definite appeal in actually seeing people go back to work soon. Besides, look at some of the nice stuff that came out of the WPA.

My understanding is that the quality of protein is just as good as that in meat, and it contains no fat at all. I'm not aware of any cons from the standpoint of nutrition but, unlike meat, it has very little taste of its own. I believe it's typically made from soybeans, sold dry, and reconstituted with broth or water before using it as a cooking ingredient. I first became aware of it several years ago when hamburger prices went through the roof, and TVP was sold as an extender. Some butchers sold a premixed hamburger/TVP blend which was pretty close to the real thing. The TVP picks up the flavor and juices of whatever it's mixed with. I've heard it makes a pretty good chili. Don't know if you cook, but there are tons of recipes on the internet. You'll find some here. It doesn't sound like you're giving up meat entirely, so you should be able to mix and match TVP with meat to find a combination you can stay with easily. Finally, I understand it's a lot cheaper to buy it in bulk and it's a staple in health food stores, as Vegans love it. Good luck, and bon appétit!