lookin

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!

I'm very interested in learning how you see this process unfolding, and over what period of time. Right now, my feeling is that jobs that communities can see being created in the next six-twelve months would make them feel better about shooing away the bedbugs and taking some cash out of the mattress. It seems that would get the economy started as quickly as anything else I can think of. But I'm definitely looking for other ideas if this one turns out to be a stinker. As you say, it does seem that any government-funded jobs program would increase the deficit in the short term. But it also seems that an improving employment rate would get money flowing again, and eventually some of it would turn into taxes that could be used to pay down the deficit. Hasn't TARP turned nearly deficit-neutral in a fairly short time? I've heard people say that extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy would be another way to increase employment, although, as President Obama pointed out on 60 Minutes last night, doing so would indeed add another $700 billion to the deficit. Since I'm not as terrified of deficits as many folks are, I think I'd go along with one of my favorite commentators, Dave Ross, who recommended only half-jokingly that tax cuts for the wealthy be extended for another two years. If the unemployment rate does decrease to a certain bogey in two years, the tax cuts stay extended. If it doesn't, they don't. What do you think of that idea? Sorry, Conway, for directing all my questions to you. I'd also love to hear what others think. There are some very knowledgeable folks here.

Lest we become disheartened, gents, it's good to focus on the increasing number of other countries that have been able to provide universal health care and to let their gay citizens serve openly and successfully. We will only be able to lag for so long and then we too will figure it out. Perhaps with a twist of our own.

Thanks for the insight, Conway. It seems like everyone wants to get our economy moving again, but no one wants to actually pull the trigger. I watched President Obama on 60 Minutes last night and heard him mention all the infrastructure projects that need to be done and are ready to be done. It sounded like he thought it would be a good idea for the feds to put some money into infrastructure. With firm contracts in hand, I can see some small business owners going to the banks for money for equipment and for new hires. But I can also hear those who would rail against more government spending and increased deficits. What do you think? Are we in for more rhetoric from the government, or could they actually create a few new jobs while we're waiting for the economy to improve?

Anybody know how many banks we need? And, if we exclude the ones that hold onto our money at near-zero interest and don't lend any of it out, would the number go lower?

As we begin our national debate between the haves and have-nots, Hugo Chavez ups his ante. Hugo Chavez defends state takeovers of apartments Nov 7, 11:01 PM (ET) By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Facing a wave of criticism from business leaders, President Hugo Chavez is defending his order for government officials to seize control of residential complexes. Chavez promised Sunday to crack down on construction and real estate companies that he accused of unjustly boosting prices, which he labeled "housing fraud." The president, a self-proclaimed revolutionary who idolizes Cuba's Fidel Castro and is currently on a visit to Havana, called his decision last week to order the expropriation of six residential complexes and "the temporary occupation" of eight gated communities in Caracas and other cities "an act of justice. "Venezuela's consumer protection agency and state prosecutors are investigating complaints that construction companies and real estate firms are illegally charging buyers high interest on unfinished apartments, even though the buyers settled on a price years ago and made down payments. "We have decided to put an end to this type of organized crime," Chavez wrote in his weekly newspaper column. Companies accused of violating consumer-protection regulations deny any wrongdoing. Full article

Matrix, mon ami, I had such high hopes for this thread, and now observe how quickly the breeze can shift. Ah, well, no harm done! RA1 and Lucky have brought us back on steady course. Anyway, can't wait to join you for a cocktail on Valentine's day!

Once again, TY, you speak the truth. Curious as to where where all these guys were before the election? For that matter, where was Obama? I'm still a fan and I'm sure he was doing what he thought was best, or what he'd been advised to do, but a little more horn-tooting in October wouldn't have been such a bad thing.

As usual, I think RA1 and Lucky are both right. There is much that has been done, and much to see ahead. One of the things I've been wondering about is how our conservative gay brothers will line up on DADT when the new Congress takes its seat, so to speak. Personally, I hope DADT is repealed in December under this Congress. But, even if it is, the Republican House will not be quiet about the issue. I think the new Tea Shirt members will see to that. At the least, I expect they will seek delay. I don't have many any Republican gay friends, so I'm not sure what the reaction will be. I checked out the Log Cabin Republicans website and, to their credit, they began directly on message. But at the bottom of the page is the usual 'Obama-Broken-Promises' stuff. I think they will lose those talking points early next year, and will have to contend with some frontal assaults from their own party. I'm looking forward to seeing how the spin morphs over the coming months, but I'm even more looking forward to them digging in their heels and confronting their own party. Who knows, maybe they'll even take a walk.

November 2, 2010, 11:59 PM How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms By TIMOTHY EGAN If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought. For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price. Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here's why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power. As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent. But markets, though forward-looking, are not considered accurate measurements of the economy, and the Great Recession skewed the Bush numbers. O.K. How about looking at the big financial institutions that keep the motors of capitalism running — banks and auto companies? The banking system was resuscitated by $700 billion in bailouts started by Bush (a fact unknown by a majority of Americans), and finished by Obama, with help from the Federal Reserve. It worked. The government is expected to break even on a risky bet to stabilize the global free market system. Had Obama followed the populist instincts of many in his party, the underpinnings of big capitalism could have collapsed. He did this without nationalizing banks, as other Democrats had urged. Saving the American auto industry, which has been a huge drag on Obama's political capital, is a monumental achievement that few appreciate, unless you live in Michigan. After getting their taxpayer lifeline from Obama, both General Motors and Chrysler are now making money by making cars. New plants are even scheduled to open. More than 1 million jobs would have disappeared had the domestic auto sector been liquidated. "An apology is due Barack Obama," wrote The Economist, which had opposed the $86 billion auto bailout. As for Government Motors: after emerging from bankruptcy, it will go public with a new stock offering in just a few weeks, and the United States government, with its 60 percent share of common stock, stands to make a profit. Yes, an industry was saved, and the government will probably make money on the deal — one of Obama's signature economic successes. Interest rates are at record lows. Corporate profits are lighting up boardrooms; it is one of the best years for earnings in a decade. All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes. "We have done things that people don't even know about," Obama told Jon Stewart. Certainly. The three signature accomplishments of his first two years — a health care law that will make life easier for millions of people, financial reform that attempts to level the playing field with Wall Street, and the $814 billion stimulus package — have all been recast as big government blunders, rejected by the emerging majority. But each of them, in its way, should strengthen the system. The health law will hold costs down, while giving millions the chance at getting care, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Financial reform seeks to prevent the kind of meltdown that caused the global economic collapse. And the stimulus, though it drastically raised the deficit, saved about 3 million jobs, again according to the CBO. It also gave a majority of taxpayers a one-time cut — even if 90 percent of Americans don't know that, either. Of course, nobody gets credit for preventing a plane crash. "It could have been much worse!" is not a rallying cry. And, more telling, despite a meager uptick in job growth this year, the unemployment rate rose from 7.6 percent in the month Obama took office to 9.6 today. Billions of profits, windfalls in the stock market, a stable banking system — but no jobs. Of course, the big money interests who benefited from Obama's initiatives have shown no appreciation. Obama, as a senator, voted against the initial bailout of AIG, the reckless insurance giant. As president, he extended them treasury loans at a time when economists said he must — or risk further meltdown. Their response was to give themselves $165 million in executive bonuses, and funnel money to Republicans this year. Money flows one way, to power, now held by the party that promises tax cuts and deregulation — which should please big business even more. President Franklin Roosevelt also saved capitalism, in part by a bank "holiday" in 1933, at a time when the free enterprise system had failed. Unlike Obama, he was rewarded with midterm gains for his own party because a majority liked where he was taking the country. The bank holiday was incidental to a larger public works campaign. Obama can recast himself as the consumer's best friend, and welcome the animus of Wall Street. He should hector the companies sitting on piles of cash but not hiring new workers. For those who do hire, and create new jobs, he can offer tax incentives. He should finger the financial giants for refusing to clean up their own mess in the foreclosure crisis. He should point to the long overdue protections for credit card holders that came with reform. And he should veto, veto, veto any bill that attempts to roll back some of the basic protections for people against the institutions that have so much control over their lives – insurance companies, Wall Street and big oil. They will whine a fierce storm, the manipulators of great wealth. A war on business, they will claim. Not even close. Obama saved them, and the biggest cost was to him.

Matrix, I can't figure out if I agree with everything in your post, or disagree with everything in your post. What say we go fire up a bowl and get our heads clear? PS: Lucky, who says your posts don't get a response?

Thank you. The silence has indeed been awesome. Better yet, why not run a contest? Best Thai Trip Under $3500! The winner gets to go along for free. I'm sure you can convince TY and OZ to help sponsor it, as new members will be flocking here to help you design the perfect trip. Who knows, maybe even Daddy will enter! Once you've picked the winner, get a travel consultant to feature Lucky's Special Package on his website, and offer special discounts to MER members and a kickback an earmark to you. Money in the bank, my friend, as who here could resist Giant Member Savings in Thailand?

Well someone certainly thinks well of herself!