Morning Report: New Lows on rates

Vital Statistics:

 

Last Change
S&P futures 2926 -29.25
Oil (WTI) 45.47 -1.79
10 year government bond yield 1.18%
30 year fixed rate mortgage 3.51%

 

Another day in paradise, with the stock market indices down a percent and bond yields at new lows. Stocks are on pace to have the worst week since 2008 as coronavirus fears infect the global markets. Oil is getting slammed as well.

 

Mortgage backed securities have lagged this move in a big way, so don’t be disappointed when you run a scenario. Rate sheets are not driven by the 10 year.

 

St. Louis Fed Governor James Bullard cautioned the market to not get ahead of itself regarding coronavirus. “Further policy rate cuts are a possibility if a global pandemic actually develops with health effects approaching the scale of ordinary influenza, but this is not the baseline case at this time.” That said, ever since 2008, the markets have been the dog and the Fed has been the tail.

 

Personal incomes rose 0.6% in January, which was way more than expected. Personal spending rose 0.2%, which was below expectation, and inflation remained well below the Fed’s 2% target rate.

 

Pending Home Sales rose 5.2% in January according to NAR. “This month’s solid activity – the second-highest monthly figure in over two years – is due to the good economic backdrop and exceptionally low mortgage rates,” said Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist. We are still lacking in inventory.” Supply is the lowest since 1999.

 

Where is iBuying (selling your home directly to Zillow or Opendoor) most popular? Turns out Phoenix and Raleigh. “It’s no surprise Raleigh and Phoenix led the nation in iBuyer share because those housing markets are iBuyer sweet spots and are poised for price growth in 2020,” said Redfin Chief Economist Daryl Fairweather. “These markets work well for iBuyers which tend to purchase homes that are relatively affordable, were built within the last few decades and are easy to price accurately because they are located in tract neighborhoods with largely homogenous housing stock.” Selling your home directly to Zillow (for example) isn’t necessarily cheap. Zillow charges anywhere from 7% to 9.7% to buy your home, so it isn’t like you are escaping the realtor commissions. This process probably appeals most in a competitive housing market, where a non-contingent offer can carry the day if everyone is close.

 

 

155 Responses

  1. This was originally posted on HuffPo but seems to be taking a much more scientific and reasonable approach to the new Coronavirus, certainly much better than what we’re seeing on the news here.

    Before COVID-19, other coronaviruses triggered an international public health emergency: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and Middle-Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 2012.

    These coronaviruses aren’t the same, but they do share a handful of similarities. The makeup of COVID-19 is about a 79% match to SARS-CoV and a 50% match to MERS, so we can potentially learn a thing or two from how those outbreaks played out.

    Looking back at SARS, one study identified an 18-fold increase of infections in colder temps compared to warmer days. Another report looked at how the virus behaved in different environments and found that its viability rapidly declined at higher temperatures and humidity levels. The researchers found the SARS virus became increasingly inactivated as temperatures and humidity rose.

    Similarly to SARS, MERS — which was mostly spread from animals to humans — also seemed to be stronger in cold, dry weather. Researchers in one study stated, “coronaviruses have been shown to exhibit strong seasonal variation in natural hosts.” They found that that colder, drier conditions increased the risk of MERS transmission from camels to humans.

    Four coronaviruses circulate around the world every year, causing common colds. Studies have shown they’re also more prevalent in the fall and winter compared to the summer months.

    https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/02/28/will-coronavirus-slow-down-in-the-warmer-months-like-flu-season/23936357/

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Far more dangerous that the coronavirus is sugar, processed foods, and tech addiction.

    This dude covers it all. It’s like 100 minutes but well worth it, IMO.

    Covers the bs of Coca Cola’s “all calories are the same” campaign. How Nestle is trying to offshore its sugar-drug-pushing. The correlation of healthcare costs with changes in the western diet.

    He doesn’t cover everything I personally think is relevant: we also eat too frequently, keeping our insulin levels high. And he’s got other talks where he dives deeper into how fructose is metabolized in the liver. I’ve generally been content with eating crap (while trying to fast intermittently).

    Gets into how dopamine (pleasure) works against serotonin (happiness).

    I’d recommend watching several of his videos. Also, worth watching some of Dr. Fung’s videos on fasting.

    Like

    • I’ll try to watch that this weekend Kevin. It looks like too much for me for a Friday afternoon.

      I probably won’t be changing my nutrition anytime soon but then maybe I’m already doing what he recommends. I’m not a sugar person anyway so I think I’ve got that covered.

      I’ll be 70 in about 5 weeks and all the reports from all my doctors say I’m in excellent health. My cardiologist says I have the heart and lungs of a 45 year old (probably from swimming my entire life). The bones aren’t in as good of shape but they’re still strong. All bloodwork is great and I don’t take any medications other than the occasional tylenol.

      I don’t think I could fast though. I’ve never been able to workout fasted. I could do a 16:8 IF though if I wasn’t married…………haha

      Like

  3. Another one of his lectures. My current deep-dive medical guy.

    Like

    • I read the Obesity Code and the Diabetes Code. Best health-related books i have ever read. The part where he goes into how the food pyramid came into being is fascinating.

      it should be required reading for everyone who is out there screaming “settled science, bagger!” about global warming.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Correct. Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taube is long and academic but he really goes through how the science on cholesterol and fat as so far off (and end up with such awful government recommendations) and how the whole idea that high-fat causes heart disease became accepted wisdom in the medical community due to consensus.

        In The Case Against Sugar, he covers in detail how Big Sugar has fought to oppress negative information and buy of scientist and buy research papers . . . In both cases, I keep thinking about the scientific consensus on global warming. And the fact that once money is involved, it’s hard to trust anybody.

        The guy I linked above is Robert Lustig. He makes a great (if long) presentation! I just always mention Fung because he’s awesome, too!

        Like

  4. The media and anyone else hyping the new CoronaVirus here in the US needs to get a grip. Nearly 5 times as many people here in the US have died from the B strain flu virus this year in the US than have died worldwide from the CoronaVirus….sheesh

    At least 14,000 people have died and 250,000 have already been hospitalized during the 2019-2020 flu season, according to estimates from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than 26 million Americans have fallen ill with flu-like symptoms.

    “There is a deadly respiratory virus that is circulating throughout the United States, and it is at its peak. It is not novel coronavirus,” said Dr. Pritish Tosh, an infectious disease specialist with the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minn.

    This flu season has come in two waves and has been particularly hard on children, the experts said.

    The season started early, in October, with an unusual wave of influenza B virus.

    Influenza B is less likely than other strains to mutate and become more virulent. That means it poses a greater threat to young people than to older folks, who may have gained immunity because they encountered the strain before.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-02-21/flu-season-thats-sickened-26-million-may-be-at-its-peak

    And as opposed to this…………..

    The latest numbers: The novel coronavirus has killed more than 2,800 people worldwide, the vast majority in mainland China. There have been more than 83,000 global cases, with infections in every continent except Antarctica.

    https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/coronavirus-outbreak-02-28-20-intl-hnk/index.html

    And in other news…………which is also not helpful…………from Trump’s son……….

    Don Jr.: Not at all. I mean, we’ve seen — like you said, we’ve seen this play out for four years. Anything that they can use to try to hurt Trump, they will. Anything he does in a positive sense, like you heard from the reporter that was just suspended from ABC, they will not give him credit for. The playbook is old at this point.
    But for them to try to take a pandemic and seemingly hope that it comes here, and kills millions of people so that they could end Donald Trump’s streak of winning, is a new level of sickness. You know, I don’t know if this is coronavirus or Trump derangement syndrome, but these people are infected badly.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/donald-trump-jr-coronavirus-democrats/index.html

    Like

    • Again, the media is dying for this to be Trump’s Katrina. The narratives are already written, and I suspect the leakers are all lined up and ready to go.

      Like

    • Nearly 5 times as many people here in the US have died from the B strain flu virus this year in the US than have died worldwide from the CoronaVirus

      Assuming it was Coronavirus. Are those all blood-test numbers or cases-determined-by-symptoms numbers?

      Like

  5. Question: If it is illegal to pay someone to vote (or not vote) for a certain candidate, why aren’t all of the Democratic candidates in jail?

    Like

    • What are you defining as pay-to-vote? Who did it? Does your definition include the Trump giveaways where organizers lavish praise on the president as they hand out tens of thousands of dollars to lucky attendees?

      I think, that like the Trump cases, everything I have heard reported skirts around the actual violation of the law. Paying “haulers” to take targeted voters to the polls is OK. Paying for bots to flood the internet is OK. Paying evangelical ministers to tout your candidacy is OK, as is paying any church leader to be a mouthpiece.

      Do you have reports of “I will pay you directly for your vote”?

      When Babe Schwartz was D.A.of Galveston County in the fifties his campaign paid the madames in the whorehouses to get their employees to the polls with the message that a different D.A. might shut them down. The women would also tell their Johns to vote for Babe to keep them open. Ah, those were the days.

      Again, what have you read or heard that fits “I will pay you directly for your vote”?

      BTW, “OK” as I have used it above = not illegal, but I do think it sucks anyway.

      Like

      • Mark:

        What are you defining as pay-to-vote?

        Vote for me and I will give you free health care.

        Vote for me and I will give you a free college education.

        Vote for me and I will cancel your student loan debt.

        Vote for me and I will pay you more in Social Security.

        Vote for me and I will give you free child care.

        Like

        • Why was it ok when FDR did it but not Trump?

          Like

        • That ALL just sounds like politicians doing what they do. Just a change in where they intend to spend Other People’s Money.

          I do believe government programs should be judged by the overall benefit to the nation and economy at large . . . I can see the benefit of, say, offering a free technical education to anyone who wants one.

          I don’t see any benefit in paying for someone’s French Literature degree, though.

          Like

    • Isn’t promising tax cuts the same thing Scott? Also, if tax cuts have helped the economy so much why has the deficit grown by so much more under Trump than it did under Obama? Aren’t they supposed to fuel a better economy? It’s not like we’re in a big war or a recession when deficits tend to grow.

      Most campaign promises from both sides end up being so much bullshit but if they get people to vote, all politicians promise great rewards if we vote for them. It’s not unique to Dems.

      Like

      • lms:

        Isn’t promising tax cuts the same thing Scott?

        No. Not taking someone’s property isn’t remotely the same as giving them someone else’s property.

        Like

        • If it puts money in your pocket over what you had last year then it’s the same. I get the distinction but it’s a hollow one to me. Especially if promised tax cuts end up causing more government spending. Also especially when the guy in the WH told everyone there would be no deficit when he left office in 8 years and that Mexico would pay for the WALL. All politicians lie and all politicians promise things they can’t actually accomplish and it’s always to buy votes.

          Like

        • It’s a tremendous distinction! Who ultimately owns the rewards I receive for my labor? Am I sovereign or not? If there is no distinction between keeping the fruits of my efforts versus being given the fruits of someone else’s efforts then there is no individual freedom, we’re slaves.

          Like

        • lms:

          If it puts money in your pocket over what you had last year then it’s the same.

          You are begging the question, assuming that it “puts money in your pocket”. It doesn’t. Not taking something out of your pocket is, again entirely different from putting something in your pocket.

          I get the distinction but it’s a hollow one to me.

          Do you own your own labor, or does the government? Are you a capitalist or a communist?

          Like

      • Amen, sister. And none of those violate the criminal law. But there ought to be some kind of truth rule, where a buzzer goes off when a politician lies. Not just the Liar-in-Chief, but all presidential candidates who do not substitute for their “promises” the following caveat if Congress passes a [insert here a program or platform, e.g., “personal income tax cut bill”, “college loan forgiveness bill”, “free college bill”, “estate tax repeal bill”] I will sign it.

        Like

      • lms:

        Also, if tax cuts have helped the economy so much why has the deficit grown by so much more under Trump than it did under Obama?

        Deficits are a function of the relationship between spending and tax revenue, not the state of the economy. The economy can be spectacular, but if the government spends more than it takes in, deficits will result.

        Like

        • And conversely if Congress lowers taxes and thus expected revenues below previously budgeted and known expenditures deficits are increased.

          As Joe and I have argued, and I think Brent has agreed, pumping up a heated or healthy economy on invented money, either through EZ money at the Fed or huge deficits from either spending or tax cuts or in the most recent case all three, leaves the nation with no weapons against a down part of the cycle. Cyclical deficit-surplus swings help dampen highs and lows, but constantly increasing deficits during healthy times are ultimate sugar highs, or maybe cocaine.

          Tell that to Democrats OR Republicans, and see how far you get. Trump is arguing for more EZ money from the FED and more tax cuts. I am not at all happy that the only Ds running who even admit the deficit is a problem are Pete and Mike, who coincidentally ran cities that had to balance budgets, and weren’t ever legislators with open checkbooks.

          Like

        • Scott, you and George are conflating political campaign promises with the real and serious debate as to how to have a fair taxation system on the one hand, and how to have an effective and useful budget on the other, one that can be pretty much balanced over a business cycle.

          So if your idea of a fairer tax is straight proportional taxation regardless of personal income that is one plausible place to start the taxation discussion. My idea that there should be cabinet consolidation and elimination of replication and cross-purposes of mandates and regulations is a plausible starting point. Your idea that almost all of the created bureaucracy should be eliminated is a starting point, but one I think that has less plausibility. YMMV. My idea that the ATTP at an extremely low rate on ALL transactions would resolve most taxation issues is a starting point, but perhaps less plausible, considering that it has been passed over as an idea for 20 years and considering that one party only proposes it for financial markets rather than for everyone.

          These are big and worthwhile discussions and we have had them. But tinkering around with tax cuts while increasing budgets all with a knowing grin on both sides is bullshit. In that instance, a tax cut is just like a giveaway because it is paid from a bigger deficit and EZ money. Same result. Kick it down the road, but we all pay.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Mark:

          Scott, you and George are conflating political campaign promises with the real and serious debate as to how to have a fair taxation system on the one hand, and how to have an effective and useful budget on the other, one that can be pretty much balanced over a business cycle.

          My mention of campaign promises had nothing to do with a discussion of the budget or tax system, so I don’t know why you think I have conflated one with the other. I brought them up as an example of violating laws against paying people for votes.

          The tax issue came up only because lms conflated not taking something from someone with giving that someone something.

          So if your idea of a fairer tax is straight proportional taxation regardless of personal income that is one plausible place to start the taxation discussion.

          I think any such discussion needs to start with an agreement over whether or not an individual owns his own labor. Do you agree that an individual, not the state, owns his own labor? If we do not agree on that, then any discussion of a “fair” tax system could never get anywhere.

          Like

        • I think any such discussion needs to start with an agreement over whether or not an individual owns his own labor.

          I have never heard of this argument and do not know what you mean. Explain.

          Like

        • Mark:

          I have never heard of this argument and do not know what you mean. Explain.

          It’s not really an argument, just a starting premise, which will ground the direction of the argument. It is important for this discussion because if the state owns your labor, then the starting point of the discussion is that the state rightfully controls 100% of the fruits of your labor, ie your income, and the discussion revolves around what circumstances might create an obligation for the state to give some portion of it back to you. If each individual owns his own labor, then the starting point of the discussion is that each individual rightfully controls 100% of the fruits of his labor, and the discussion revolves around what circumstances might create an obligation for the individual to give some portion of it to the state.

          So we really need to agree on the premise in order for the discussion to be sensible going forward.

          FYI, on my way to a dinner party, so may be delayed in any responses.

          Like

        • I cannot have this conversation on these terms.

          What the boundaries and responsibilities are of the self as a hermit, or as in a family, or as in a clan, or as in a society, are all relative to me, but one’s self includes one’s work, I would assume. And while one has more responsibilities to a society in which one lives than one would have to anyone else living as a hermit, we could agree that the self should not be owned by another.

          The law assumes that property and liberty are each a bundle of rights and responsibilities. In Texas, and in California, all income of either party to a marriage is jointly and severally the community property of the marital couple. This is an example of a law presumably agreed to over time by the persons who live in CA and TX, without rebellion or argument over who owns whose labor. Engineers who work for major research firms commonly must assign at least part of any invention to the management. This is a contractual limitation of the fruits of one’s labor. We see these all the time. Sometimes they are not truly voluntary, because of uneven bargaining power.

          I only want to demonstrate why I cannot have this conversation with you. I don’t accept the proposition that I am the sole owner of the fruits of my labor while living with others and I do not accept the proposition that any state is the sole owner of the fruits of my labor. Indeed, the latter would lead me and others like me into open rebellion. I want a say in how that bundle of rights gets managed but I understand that I may not get my druthers when all is said and done.

          Like

        • Mark:

          …but one’s self includes one’s work, I would assume…we could agree that the self should not be owned by another.

          This sounds to me like you agree with me that individuals own their own labor. If that is not what this means, then I don’t know what you mean by one’s self includes one’s work.

          The law assumes..

          As ever, we must have a moral/ethical framework that exists independently of the law in order to approach the question of what the law should be. Otherwise we are just begging the question. Our law, ie US law, assumes the existence of things called “rights” that pre-exist the law. It is within that moral framework, ie assuming the existence of natural or moral rights, that the framers created our system of governance, and that I approach the question of what the law should be in any instance. Specifically, in our current context, I think that all individuals have a natural/moral right to their own labor.

          I don’t accept the proposition that I am the sole owner of the fruits of my labor while living with others…

          That wasn’t the proposition I put forward. You have added a circumstance, “while living with others”, that did not exist in my original premise. As I said, once we agree on the premise, then we can go on to discuss the kinds of circumstances that might create an obligation that qualifies the original premise. But we need to have a starting point.

          Like

        • Mark:

          And conversely if Congress lowers taxes and thus expected revenues below previously budgeted and known expenditures deficits are increased.

          I’m not sure what exactly this is the “converse” of. It is an example of exactly what I said, ie the government spending more than it takes in.

          Cyclical deficit-surplus swings help dampen highs and lows, but constantly increasing deficits during healthy times are ultimate sugar highs, or maybe cocaine.

          I am all for decreasing federal spending in order to avoid deficits, whether the economy is good or bad.

          BTW, when you say “tax cuts”, you need to distinguish between a cut in tax rates, and a cut in tax revenues. They are not the same thing. For example, although Trump has cut tax rates, the US still set a record for tax revenue collected in every year of his presidency.

          Like

        • If only it were so! More than 50% of federal expenditures exist explicitly to put more money in someone’s pocket.

          Typically not the kinds of folks politicians pledge to get money to when they are campaigning. Or very narrow special interests, like sugar and corn subsidies. Although even WIC subsidized giving kids type 2 diabetes with apple juice and processed foods so the government just ought to stay out of it.

          Like

        • KW:

          Typically not the kinds of folks politicians pledge to get money to when they are campaigning.

          On the contrary, most of this is going to exactly the kinds of people they are making promises to. Roughly 60% of the federal budget goes to spending on entitlement programs like SS, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare benefits, etc.

          Like

        • @Scottc1: On the contrary, most of this is going to exactly the kinds of people they are making promises to. Roughly 60% of the federal budget goes to spending on entitlement programs like SS, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare benefits, etc.

          Well, first, I’d argue overhead doesn’t count. I also can’t see it as direct vote buying for a lot of Medicare, when 50%-75% of medical spending is in the last year of life–typically on people who aren’t going to be casting votes while alive and, hopefully, not after they are dead. Perhaps it’s a way of buying the votes of relatives of those people, but it gets harder to argue that there’s a direct understanding for individuals that those politicians are indirectly buying those votes.

          Ultimately, I think most votes aren’t bought. People voting for Trump wanted tax cuts and they wanted a wall and see it as the kind of thing a president delivers. People who wanted the government to administer SS (it was supposed to be more of a retirement program rather than a welfare benefit, which is why you don’t trust the government with such things) and Medicare and want universal healthcare now . . . almost none of them run the numbers on it, nationally or even personally. They just like the idea of it.

          And I think lots of politicians are more arrogant than desirous of bribing voters. They think the elites should run our lives, and that government programs are the way to do that, while beneficently preventing people from making poor personal choices (and, ideally, any individual choices at all). I don’t particularly think that’s better than buying votes, but I don’t believe that most voters (or most politicians) do that math in their head.

          Some do and have, though. No doubt about that!

          Like

        • KW:

          Ultimately, I think most votes aren’t bought.

          I agree. But when a millennial votes for Bernie because he’s promised to cancel his student loans, that vote has been bought, in a very real sense. It might have been fraudulently bought, but still bought.

          Like

        • Also, the majority clearly doesn’t want politicians do touch SS or Medicare. And probably not Medicaid.

          Beyond that, though, the Democrats are bad at “buying” votes. The folks who work and want to keep more of their money–and old people wanting to benefit from their capital gains–and property owners generally seem much more likely voters than those who are presently just looking for a handout from the government. Once they’ve got theirs, why should they be bothered to show up an vote?

          Not sure what the numbers are but I feel a lot of voters just earnestly believe in quasi-socialism and think it’s how we should live. Because justice and stuff! 🙂

          Like

        • But tinkering around with tax cuts while increasing budgets all with a knowing grin on both sides is bullshit.

          Seems to be what we vote for. If voters approved budgets it might be different, but we don’t. So this is apparently going to be how it works.

          Like

      • lms:

        Most campaign promises from both sides end up being so much bullshit…

        So offering to pay someone for their vote isn’t illegal if you don’t fulfill your end of the bargain after the fact?

        Like

        • No promising someone to put more money in their pocket is usually a lie, whichever side it comes from.

          Like

        • lms:

          No promising someone to put more money in their pocket is usually a lie, whichever side it comes from.

          If only it were so! More than 50% of federal expenditures exist explicitly to put more money in someone’s pocket.

          Like

        • Yes, buying votes!

          Like

        • Not to be to obsessive here but are you arguing against politicians making campaign promises? I don’t think you are, but the idea that Trump is somehow uniquely dangerous re campaign promises seems weird to me. Unless it’s believing he’s uniquely dangerous re campaign promises because he has acted on the ones that other POTUS’s have made, knowing full well they wouldn’t keep them. Like leaving the Paris Accords (no other Republican would have actually done that.) or pulling out of the Iran agreement, or TPP or tariffs or NAFTA. If that’s what makes him uniquely dangerous, is it the campaign promises themselves or that he has acted on them?

          Like

        • lms:

          Yes, buying votes!

          I guess we agree. The massive welfare budget is indeed the result of vote buying.

          Like

        • McWing, the discussion started with Scott wanting to put Dems in jail for buying votes. All I’m saying is that most campaign promises buy votes so I think it’s kind of a silly discussion and really proves nothing…………just my opinion though. Promising tax cuts and then increasing deficit spending ends up costing someone money at some point so another broken promise. Scott mentioned that I must think a broken promise negates the fact of buying a vote…………not true.

          I think all politicians buy votes in some form and they also all break campaign promises. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t think there’s much distinction between the parties on this stuff.

          Like

        • lms:

          All I’m saying is that most campaign promises buy votes…

          But you are conflating/confusing the metaphorical use of “buy” with an actual quid pro quo for money or its equivalent. Again, “buying” votes by promising to keep abortion legal or make pot legal is an entirely different order of “buying” than is buying votes by promising cash benefits.

          Your original example, tax cuts, involves actual money, but can only be grounded in the belief that the state, not individuals, own their own labor. If you believe that a person owns his own labor, then a promise not to take the fruits of that labor is entirely different from a promise to give someone the fruits of someone else’s labor, which is the kind of promises being made by most of the D candidates.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Ok,thanks, I understand.

          Like

        • @scottc1: So offering to pay someone for their vote isn’t illegal if you don’t fulfill your end of the bargain after the fact?

          If you aren’t directly and personally paying them specifically for votes, it apparently isn’t illegal. I don’t understand why the politicians set it up like that! 😉

          Like

  6. Sheesh, Walter was clicking around the news stations this morning and there was a big alert on Fox News about the CoronaVirus Outbreak and an update at 1:00.

    Don’t any of the media outlets understand that 5 times more people have died right here in the US from this years A/B flu viruses than the number of people who have died worldwide from this thing.

    I even received an email update from Ken Calvert (my Conservative Rep) regarding it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I expect the daily death rate of people slipping and falling in the bath tub is higher. Surely traffic fatalities are and there’s no news about how “don’t go driving, it will kill you!”

      But it’s the novelty of it and the scariness of contagions and plagues that make it interesting to the public, and the desire for money that makes so-called news outlets scream at you that you’re going to die. Alas.

      Like

  7. Scott, my last word on this buying votes issue is that no matter the distinction you make (which I do understand), it’s not a distinction to me. Making financial promises, including tax cuts or having Mexico pay for a wall (which I will ultimately pay my share of), all constitute buying votes. I keep things simple.

    Like

    • lms:

      Making financial promises, including tax cuts or having Mexico pay for a wall (which I will ultimately pay my share of), all constitute buying votes. I keep things simple.

      And when a mugger takes your wallet but leaves you with your watch, it constitutes philanthropy. Simple!

      Liked by 1 person

      • I hope that was a joke Scott.

        Like

        • I think that was what we call hyperbolic metaphor. The distinction being that the government taking your money is not the same as that government giving you money, I think.

          I see taxes more like rent to live in the country. You may disagree with how the landlord spends the rent money he collects. And sometimes the landlord raises the rent but doesn’t actually make anything about the house better. But if you want to live there, you gotta pay the rent. You want to live somewhere and pay very little rent, you move to Belize.

          Like

        • lms:

          I hope that was a joke Scott.

          What’s the joke? Is there a difference between giving someone a watch as charity and not taking the watch that the person already owns?

          Like

        • I think there’s an issue of implied or explicit social contract. We essentially “agree” to taxation as part of residence in an area, while we don’t agree to potentially having our watch stolen in that scenario.

          Like

        • KW:

          We essentially “agree” to taxation as part of residence in an area…

          The tax rate in my “social contract” is only 10%, but they take a lot more.

          Like

        • Originally the income tax was set at 1%, I believe.

          As a wise man once said, the rent is too damned high!

          Also they spend most of the revenues on nonsense that has nothing to do with making the building a better place to live. And rarely seem to revisit the wisdom of that ongoing expenditure.

          Like

        • Scott

          What’s the joke?

          The joke was I can call myself simple but you can’t.

          Like

        • lms:

          The joke was I can call myself simple but you can’t.

          I thought you were calling “things” simple, not yourself. In any event, I wasn’t calling you simple, even in jest. I think you are, like most women, extremely complicated!

          Like

    • While I certainly see a difference, myself, I get it. Which makes the “vote buying” aspect of it non-important, but what they are selling–some people want tax cuts, other people want universal healthcare.

      And thus are our choices made!

      Like

      • Kevin, I get it too and I see the difference, I just don’t think there’s that much difference between the parties in promising financial rewards and then going on to fall short. I hope Bernie falls short if he wins…………..I’m not a socialist and he’s “not buying my vote”, he would be the non-effective President who can slow Trump’s vision down. Still hoping for anyone but Bernie here!

        As soon as Republicans can do away with the capital gains tax, they can buy my vote…………… 😉 ………..promises, promises!

        Like

  8. It’s still early, polls just closed, but it looks like Biden will live up to his promised win in So Carolina. I hope that puts a little stall in Bernie’s popularity.

    Like

  9. So hey, I’m just going to throw this out there while I’m still hanging around with you guys. I wasn’t a political science major (wasted most of my time in Psychology), I’m smart but unfocused (give me a technical challenge though and I’ll solve it), I hate getting into the weeds of things and would rather just fly by the seat of my pants, I like to read about politics but can’t seem to find non-partisan authors (from either side), I’m practical and organized but I’m also an issue voter. I don’t love paying taxes but I do believe there are things the government has a community responsibility for…………those taxes I don’t mind paying.

    I’m really just a middle class wife and mother. I continue to think I don’t really fit in here but I will stick around until the election at least (I think).

    I will eventually get tired of a discussion that has no end in sight!

    I like all of you but sometimes I’m just trying to stay afloat with your discussions….LOL

    Like

    • lms:

      I do believe there are things the government has a community responsibility for…

      So do I! And the political debate is usually pretty much all about what those things are.

      Like

      • Oh wow, we agree on something! 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        • I think you’ll find there’s actually a lot more agreement on desirable outcomes than sometimes we think–or that one side attributes to the other.

          We often tend to see their preferred methods leading to a negative outcome, and thus assume that that negative outcome is their goal–while they actually pretty much agree on the place, just not what will get us closer.

          The more granular goals get, the more you’ll people agreeing in principle but not on cost or relative priority. I see most of the technical goals of the climate change folks as a positive–better solar and wind power, developing alternative energy, expanding the use of very fungible electricity so that any power source can be translated to everything that uses that power, less pollution, greater efficiency, and so on. I may not agree it’s our top priority, or that some of the solutions proposed are either effective or wise in terms of unintended consequences . . . but I think it’s a good idea.

          I think the government plays a role and an important one, that some restriction on individual choice is appropriate and necessary (from the enforcement of contract law to saying companies can’t put cocaine into their consumer soft drinks).

          I also think there are more utopian things that the government can contribute to, such as scientific research, space exploration, etc.

          However, the bigger a government is the poorer a steward of tax dollars it’s going to be. The more negative or at least “not positive” its input is going to be in the culture and economy. The more money it’s going to spend–and the more power it’s going to take–with increasingly smaller or even negative returns. This is because the government is a large organization of humans, and humans are flawed.

          Thus the urge to reduce the size of government is generally positive, even if we don’t like the immediate results. Much like the companies that the government regulates, unchecked they can become bad news for consumers and stockholders and communities.

          Same thing is true of government. So I’m generally for limiting the power of politicians and government bureaucracies. Because otherwise they do what any large organization of people tend to do unconstrained–take more, contribute less, and ultimately fail the customers/patrons/citizens it exists to serve in the first place.

          /rant

          Like

        • Kevin, I enjoyed your rant. I also happen to agree with most of it.

          There’s a prop 13 here which will change the structure of the original prop 13 so business property owners (non-residential) will pay more in property taxes. They talk about how much money it will raise etc etc. The problem is businesses pay plenty of taxes here between workman’s comp, unemployment etc that I don’t think it will do anything but run businesses out of CA. In addition to that, CA has a several billion dollar surplus right now and there appears to be some money misplaced or missing from a portion of the gas tax we pay. So yes, I agree government is too big, too wasteful and tends to interfere in things it doesn’t really need to.

          That does not change the fact though that I think there are good things the government is doing or trying to do. I’m one of those who appreciates medicare and SS, especially now that I’ve paid my dues and am reaping the rewards. I think they could be re-structured so they work for the generations behind me, although I don’t know how that would look or who would be able to make it happen.

          I also think Medicaid and Disability insurance are fair and necessary. Are there people abusing that, you bet.

          As you all know immigration and health care are my main issues and I honestly have no clear idea on how to fix either one. I’m open to compromise and suggestions.

          Anyway, I know my opinions are not clear always and sometimes have conflicting messages, that’s who I am though. 😉

          Like

  10. The race for the Dem nomination keeps narrowing and the choices keep getting worse. Why am I surprised? Steyer and Buttiegieg both bowed out today. I heard Bloomberg say he’s in it to the very end but he’s got the money to do that I guess.

    Looks like Super Tuesday is between Sanders and Biden…………..blech!

    Like

    • If Sanders wins (I know you don’t like him so much, but a lot of people do) and it’s a brokered convention and they are seen to be taking it from Sanders and just giving it to Biden they will lose a lot of people for more than one cycle. They won’t become Republicans but they will no longer remain Democrats. If they do this and Trump wins, they will lose a few more.

      Even though Sanders is problematic, if he seems to win in the primary process they need to let him run. Any other option is going to be bad news for the Democrats for an extended period.

      Although with the divisions, no outcome is ideal.

      Liked by 1 person

      • You’re right Kevin, I don’t think they should keep the nomination from him if he goes into the convention with the numbers. I do think we’re going to see the men and women dropping out of the race going all in for Biden though. I read somewhere that Buttigieg and Biden have been conversing/texting. It may be too late though with Super Tuesday being tomorrow and most or all minds made up.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Bloomberg should should just tell Biden he’ll pay his son $10mm for a no-show job if he drops out. $20mm if he drops out and endorses Bloomberg.

          Liked by 1 person

        • I’m not sure any of the 3 of them can beat Trump but I’m terrible at predictions.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Trump is now the youngest man in the race! Lol!

          Liked by 1 person

        • That’s right McWing, still a bunch of old white guys though.

          Liked by 1 person

        • What does that say about Democratic primary voters?

          Like

        • To me, it doesn’t say anything different than when the Republican primary electorate also rejected African Americans, Hispanics and women.

          Like

        • I honestly don’t know McWing. I’d have to look at the demographics for each candidate still in the race I guess. That’s something I haven’t done yet. Most of the people I know are all disappointed with the candidates and their ages. I try not to discuss politics in real life very much though. It’s a good way to lose friends. 😉

          What do you think it says?

          Liked by 1 person

        • What do you think it says?

          With elections with so many filters, I don’t think it says much of anything. In this case, it’s just how it shook (is shaking) out, based on who people find compelling and who others think can actually beat Trump. Some people might think they really need an old white man to beat Trump. But others might just love Bernie or Warren or Biden.

          I would conclude that diversity alone isn’t something that appeals generally to the electorate. Has to be more.

          Like

        • Well McWing, IMO, at least we got something right with Obama, and we’ve had women do pretty well running for President, and even a gay guy who got pretty far, not there yet though.

          I’m not all that familiar with Republican candidates or party leaders who may or may not be African American, Hispanic or women.

          As to why the old white guys are doing well, I have no clue but I am definitely disappointed. I mean Reagan basically ended his presidency in the early stages of Alzheimers, you’d think we all would have learned a lesson from that.

          Hopefully, whichever old guy wins the nomination selects a vibrant and young VP!

          Like

        • Hopefully, whichever old guy wins the nomination selects a vibrant and young VP!

          Didn’t work out so well for Bush #1 or McCain. They tend to be gimmicks. When a candidate needs a gimmick they have other problems that make their (re)election problematic.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Nominee has to go diverse in their selection—So Cory Booker or Kamala Harris or Stacey Abrams. IMO. A ticket of two white guys isn’t going to sit well.

          Like

        • I agree Kevin………….Dems need to shake things up with the VP pick. If it’s Biden he needs to find a DC outsider………..if it Sanders, he needs to find someone with a track record as a centrist…………..which will never happen…….LOL

          Like

        • lms:

          Dems need to shake things up with the VP pick.

          I’m skeptical that the VP pick is all that meaningful for elections. I suppose if people think the candidate might keel over at any moment, it could be important, so perhaps it will be more relevant this time around. But I doubt very many people are driven to vote for a candidate based on the VP pick.

          Like

        • Scott

          I suppose if people think the candidate might keel over at any moment, it could be important, so perhaps it will be more relevant this time around.

          That was my thought but I didn’t want to appear as though I was hoping it would happen. 😉

          Like

        • I’m skeptical that the VP pick is all that meaningful for elections.

          As a general principle, I think you’re right. In this case, I just don’t think they can pick another old white guy–i.e., a Biden/Bloomberg ticket–and have the work out for them.

          There is a sizeable segment of the party that will want to see some social justice in the VP pick if they don’t see it in the candidate. Buttigieg is gay but I doubt that’s sufficient, so I would think a Stacey Abrams or Cory Booker makes more sense, or at least the very Biden-compatible Klobuchar.

          Rather than the VP choice working *for* Biden or Sanders, the wrong one could work against them. Not necessarily for the typical reasons (i.e., this VP choice sews up this group or this state or adds geographical diversity to the ticket) but because it’s necessary to signal some particular virtues–to prove both candidate and party have not just forgotten social justice, diversity, and inclusion.

          If it’s just two old white guys–one of whom is super-rich–that’s a really problematic ticket for the Dems.

          Like

        • If Abrams is the pick (and I think it will be for either Sanders or Biden) then who will be the new governor of Georgia?

          Like

        • Kev…no tornadoes near you?

          Like

        • VP pick can be important in many ways but probably not in the traditional “balance the ticket sense.”

          Does the POTUS want a liason to the Senate? Well, a VP who was a respected Senator might work. See Gore, or Biden.

          Does the POTUS want a brown noser? Then Pence works.

          Does the POTUS realize he is older than sin? Then a younger person works better than another old person. Of course, that is how we got Palin.

          Biden won’t need a “person of color”, but Corey Booker still works for Bloomberg, as a younger person and a liason to the Senate, both while being black.

          I voted Bloomberg today. I don’t think Trump loses to any D at this point, but Bloomberg or Biden don’t lose the House like Bernie, who is, after all, I think the medical description is nuts.

          Like

        • Does the POTUS want a brown noser? Then Pence works.

          In what way is Pence behaving that is different than any other VP?

          Like

        • Joking, but from this, which I assumed all had seen again and again…

          Like

        • Ok, thanks! But do you think Pence is a brown noser?

          Like

        • Compared with Cheney?

          He seems less independent than the previous three Veeps, but I would not call that brown nosing.

          Like

        • McWing:

          In what way is Pence behaving that is different than any other VP?

          Orange man bad.

          Like

        • @scottc1Kev…no tornadoes near you?

          No. Hit Nashville and Murfreesboro area, about 3 hours away.

          Like

        • Are you in Memphis? I was just there Thursday through Saturday.

          Like

    • Klobuchar is out as well and also endorsing Biden.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, I saw that too. I kind of figured that was going to happen. I guess Biden is going to be my best hope to beat Sanders and then Trump. I don’t see Bloomberg getting enough traction. I wonder if Obama will come out for Biden now that the field has narrowed, even though he said he wouldn’t.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. A friend of mine at Last Movie Outpost fixes The Last Jedi:

    Like the Colin Trevorrow Duel of the Fates script being far better than Rise of Skywalker, I would much rather watch this movie.

    Also–if I haven’t already mentioned it–I wrote an article on Hollywood Narcissism for The Last Movie outpost. If’n you want to read me rambling even more than I do here.

    https://www.lastmovieoutpost.com/hollywood-narcissism-goose/

    If anyone is interested. 😉

    Like

    • Although I did my own even better fixing of The Last Jedi. But that’s a story for another time!

      Like

    • I liked your piece, I had a lot of hope for JJ (loved the Star Trek reboot) as well as Rain (Looper is really, really good) but they failed us for the reasons you point out. Do you think any of the problems could be laid at the feet of the studio trying to satisfy the Chines government?

      Like

      • I liked Looper a lot. Knives Out was great, even with pointless anti-Trump stuff. He was the wrong guy for Star Wars.

        Like

      • Chinese government: absolutely. That will be referred to in a future piece on the topic on fake wokeness—because they often censor LGBQT stuff they do to virtue signal for the domestic market when it gets to Asia. So they will be woke as long as they believe it doesn’t cost them anything, but it’s all preening and virtue-signalling and they don’t give a shit about it if it might keep them out of a market.

        That being said, there are ways to make a passable movie and still target the Chinese market. Rogue One did it—cast a identifiable Chinese (not generic Asian but Chinese) actor and give them something to do.

        Asian market doesn’t really explain Dr. Who or Dark Fate or some of these other films.

        At the same time, there are some films whose poor performance is entirely explained by the pull of the Chinese market. The Escape Plan sequels, for example, are obvious cash-grabs with heavy Chinese involvement (and yet these tend to underperform in China, too).,

        Like

      • Also first Star Trek was not Star Trek, IMO, and not that well written but it wasn’t horrible. Into Darkness was just awful. And awful because fans could identify all sorts of problems and pitch good solutions to them and it makes people ask—why? Making Cumberbatch Kahn in attempt to memberberry The Wrath of Kahn was a terrible decision doomed to backfire. And I think the Box Office of Star Trek beyond—not great but unquestionably a Better Star Trek movie—underperformed. Star Trek Discovery is hot garbage and unimpressed with Picard. Poorly written, IMO. But to each their own!

        Like

  12. “Russia!” is apparently the new “Racist/Sexist!” for the Dems. Donna Brazil calls suggestion that the D establishment will use Superdelegates to prevent a Bernie nomination a “Russian talking point.”

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/03/donna-brazile-tells-gop-chairwoman-to-go-to-hell-stop-using-russian-talking-points/

    Liked by 1 person

    • I have seen that segment and she really was perturbed. Her message was that any Republican discussion of the Democratic Party nomination process is WRONG and constitutes interference, more precisely, constitutes Russian interference. It was hilarious. No one asked her, if the 2016 process wasn’t rigged against Bernie, why did she apologize to him?

      The Democrats are all in on the Russians being all powerful and pulling all election strings. My question is once an entity has that power, why would they give that up? That’s what I never get about the Bush cheated in 2004 diehards, if he found a way to crack the code why didn’t he use it again in 2008 for McCain?

      Liked by 1 person

      • According to HRC, Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset. As such, how is it they didn’t use all their immense power over US elections to make her the nominee? Certainly, she should have done better, being the chosen Russian Democratic candidate?

        Also, if you wanted to make sure Trump got re-elected, wouldn’t you want the candidate that seemed the most senile to be the guy running against Trump? So why isn’t Biden the Russian candidate?

        Like

  13. BTW…I haven’t seen any discussions here about Chris Matthews departure from MSNBC, but having just read the comments of his that caused such a brouhaha last week, I think he deserves to be gone from MSNBC primarily because of the embarrassing and grovelling apology that he made for those comments. He needed to sprout a pair, and stand up against all of this faux-outrage over what was a a transparently disingenuous interpretation of what he said.

    I actually find it quite irritating that even those who would defend him are characterizing what he said as “comparing Bernie to the Nazis”. No, he didn’t compare Bernie to the Nazi’s. Has everyone completely lost their minds?

    Like

  14. BTW…Mini Mike is out.

    Like

    • Warren will probably be next I guess.

      Like

      • lms:

        Warren will probably be next I guess.

        Probably, but I would imagine that the party elites wants her to stay involved because she pulls votes from Bernie.

        Like

        • But what if she ends up endorsing Biden? That might be an even bigger boon for the elites. I think it’s interesting that everyone thinks the elites are playing this behind the scenes. They don’t have a crystal ball either and maybe the people who supported other candidates originally just wanted to vote for someone who wasn’t a Democratic Socialist.

          That’s what I would have done, although I probably would have voted for Bloomberg rather than Biden.

          Like

        • lms:

          I think it’s interesting that everyone thinks the elites are playing this behind the scenes.

          It would be way more interesting to me if they weren’t.

          They don’t have a crystal ball…

          Agreed. But the question isn’t whether what they know what they are doing, just whether they are doing something. Whether or not it works out best for the party is certainly uncertain. (Let’s hope it doesn’t!!!)

          maybe the people who supported other candidates originally just wanted to vote for someone who wasn’t a Democratic Socialist.

          Or a plain old socialist, even.

          Like

        • Trump used the Republican elite’s hatred and colluding against him as a way to differentiate himself from the rest of the field and as a way to identify with a disaffected base. The problem Sanders has is an inability to do this. He’s just not a bare-knuckle brawler and cant convert that DNC collusion against him into a campaign advantage.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Warren would be nuts not to endorse the candidate who will end up running against Trump. If it’s Bernie or Biden, I expect either would get her full-throated support. And it looks like Biden so I suspect a Biden endorsement is imminent. Get on the fastest train!

          Like

        • (Let’s hope it doesn’t!!!)

          Does this mean you’re hoping Sanders is the candidate? Why? Do you think he has less of a chance against Trump? Does it mean you’re willing to take the chance that we end up with a “socialist” as president?

          Like

        • lms:

          Does this mean you’re hoping Sanders is the candidate?

          No, it means that I hope that whatever the D’s do, it works out in the worst possible way for them.

          Why?

          Because the D party has become the party of the progressive left, and there is no bigger threat to the future of the nation than progressivism. Not even the uniquely dangerous Trump!

          Do you think he has less of a chance against Trump?

          After 2016, I am loathe to make electoral predictions. But I hope that whoever the D’s pick has less of a chance against Trump than the person they don’t pick.

          Does it mean you’re willing to take the chance that we end up with a “socialist” as president?

          It isn’t a question of “willingness”. I have no choice in the matter, and with regard to the president, being a self-declared socialist is a smaller problem to me than being an anti-Constitutionalist, and pretty much all of the D’s are that. So on that front each of the D’s are just as bad as any other, no matter what they call themselves.

          Like

        • I was hoping Tulsi Gabbard would take it because it would mean the DNC primary voters were open to something other than Stalinism or the DNC establishment. She’s very left on some things for me, but I’m all with her on ending endless wars. Of course, she said “if you don’t have a border you don’t have a country”, which I entirely agree with but is not a good quote for a Democrat. Yet she supported Bernie in 2016 . . . I dunno. I like her. I thought she was good on Joe Rogan. Also, she went on Joe Rogan.

          But I don’t think it matters much because history in the current scenario much favors the incumbent, and does not favor the non-incumbent.

          Like

        • Thanks for breaking that down for me Scott. I guess I’m hoping Sanders isn’t the candidate mostly because it’s embarrassing having a “socialist” running for President of our country. It was embarrassing enough having Trump run.

          I wonder sometimes if we’ll ever see anything change from either party? At my age, probably not in my lifetime.

          Like

        • lms:

          I guess I’m hoping Sanders isn’t the candidate mostly because it’s embarrassing having a “socialist” running for President of our country.

          Why do you put “socialist” is quotation marks? Bernie is a full on, self-declared socialist.

          Like

        • lms:

          I wonder sometimes if we’ll ever see anything change from either party?

          Change in what sense? I think we’ve seen quite a bit of change over the years. The R’s went from Reagan to Trump in less than 40 years, and the D’s went from Clinton to Sanders in less than 20.

          I also find it curious when people lament the quality of politicians, but then go on to argue that even more power should be given to them. It is totally inexplicable to me.

          Like

    • Damn, that moniker really stuck and was fun to say. I’m gonna miss that little bastard.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Did you see Trump’s troll of Bloomberg last night?

        “His ‘political’ consultants took him for a ride. $700 million washed down the drain, and he got nothing for it but the nickname Mini Mike, and the complete destruction of his reputation. Way to go Mike!”

        Trump truly is a first class troll.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, he’s in their head 24/7.

          Liked by 1 person

        • It’s interesting that Bloomberg has apparently found a way around PAC coordination rules by simply keeping his campaign going and targeting Trump 100%.

          So his spending isn’t washed down the drain if Trump loses. That was Bloomberg’s goal more so than getting elected himself.

          Like

        • Well, it would be nice if the demise of Bloomberg’s candidacy would put in end to the notion that elections can be literally bought by people with lots of money (the Koch’s!!!!). But it probably won’t.

          Like

        • Only rich people on the right can buy elections, that’s a known, known.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Nope. People will still argue that elections they don’t like were bought, not won. And rich people will still think they’ve cracked the code and *they* are the one that can finally buy an election.

          I’ve never had a problem with Citizen’s United because for all the bitching about “money is not speech”, the reality is a candidate who spends a billion dollars on advertising doesn’t accomplish anything more than spending a hundred million and probably not any more than spending 10 million.

          Once you get over the “awareness” threshold–that is, the ads let lots of people know the person exists and is in a certain party and loves kids and believes in America–then all additional ads are overkill. They don’t bring in anybody else, once there is general exposure.

          Saturation can, in fact, cost them votes and goodwill–over-exposure can make you less palatable, not more. People often get sick of political ads and outreach ahead of elections. The media benefits from selling ads but otherwise, I don’t think unlimited campaign spending makes any difference.

          Liked by 1 person

        • I think there’s still a diminishing return. The more anti-Trump stuff he runs, the more people will turn it out or motivate lazy Trump supporters to go out and vote because these rich Washington fat cats are trying to manipulate them.

          Yelling at the voters has limited effectiveness. Attack ads work when the attack is novel–like Gabbard attacking Harris on her record as a prosecutor. What is he going to say about Trump that everybody hasn’t heard at this point?

          Liked by 1 person

        • Kevin, I agree that most of the money being spent on campaigns is wasted once the news is out of who is actually running. Speaking for my household, we’re dreading the next 8 months of campaign ads and if anything they turn me off rather than on.

          I also think the amount of money being spent probably keeps some good people from throwing their hat in the ring, and that’s the worst part for me. Especially when I consider the caliber of candidates either party has to show up to the actual party.

          I would eagerly watch town hall type events and debates but even those are a joke most of the time. A non-partisan interview with candidates would be interesting. Not Chris Matthews though………..haha

          I think our democracy is mostly broken to be honest.

          Liked by 1 person

        • I think our democracy works about as well as it can. As Winston Churchill said: democracy is the worst form of government except for all others ever tried.

          Or maybe he was quoting somebody. Anyway, I tend to agree.

          Like

        • lms:

          I think our democracy is mostly broken to be honest.

          Why do you think so? Do think think that a properly functioning democracy must produce results that are appealing to you, so when it doesn’t, it must be “broken”?

          Like

        • “I think our democracy is mostly broken to be honest.”

          I don’t think the problem is the system. It’s the people.

          H.L. Menken saw this coming:

          “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

          https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/27042-as-democracy-is-perfected-the-office-of-president-represents-more

          Liked by 1 person

        • H.L. Menken saw this coming

          And speaking of democracy and HL Mencken, let’s not forget:

          Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard.

          Like

        • jnc, well it took a little over half of a century at least!

          Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: