Deda potpuno otišao u klinac sa razumom

https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1973994459999179086

1 hour ago, Gandalf said:

Nikako, jer grafikon nema veze sa nejednakošću.

Mislim... Ako pretpostavimo da ima neke veze sa nejednakošću, šta bi trebalo da ilustruje dati grafikon? Naglo skočila nejednakost nakon 2020e, a do tada je bilo ok?

Teoretski si u pravu, moze nejednakost da ostane ista, i da svima budu nekretnine isto (ne)dostupne.

Ali u praksi je druga prica:

Edited October 3, 2025Oct 3 by brusli

8 hours ago, bios said:

Deda potpuno otišao u klinac sa razumom

https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1973994459999179086

Je l' se sećate koliko smo se ovde sprdali sa Radulovićem i DJB zbog gitare u skupštini i komentarisali kakvi su to politički diletanti. E pa bivši ministar i partija sa 6% glasova u Srbiji su Čerčil i britanski parlament u odnosu na predsednika Amerika i GOP

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

Danas se vecina radnika, blue-collar, nalaze na ispod granice srednje klase.

Semantika ili ne, mislis unskilled (manual) labor, working poor verovatno? blue collar je ogromna kategorija, generalno iznad gorepomenutih, odokativno…1 mehanicar $50k+ kao neka blue collar sredina™ $24 bucks; tu je i pandur i postar.

single ili ne? mama&tata postari definitivno nisu working poor.

But here’s a kicker glede unskilled mislim da je Pew suludo presirok; lokalni anegdotalni dokaz:

Mek placa $17; imaginarni mek bracni par (+dete) therefore zaradjuje $72k sto ih stavlja u srednju klasu 72>64; srednja ide do $195k, dakle, mnogi u njoj idu u Vegas i skoluju dete u privatnoj skoli (speaking of bizarre yet very popular ways local middle class spends their money on)

ukratko, bitno je imati 2 zarade u porodici, bices srednja klasa barem do 65-te

13 hours ago, Gandalf said:

1) Obzirom da je broj srednjeklasnih pao za 10 procentnih poena i da je taj pad većim delom (cirka 8 poena) prelazak u bogatune, naravno da je značajno pao deo kolača koji pripada srednjeklasnim. 🤷

2) Poređenje sa komšijama znači poređenje sa ljudima sličnog društveno-ekonomskog statusa, ili za nijansu višeg/nižeg. Profesori univerziteta i vodoinstalateri ne porede sebe sa Bangladešanima, ali ni sa Elonom Maskom. Što će reći, velikoj većini ljudi je potpuno nebitno da li Elon Mask ima 50 ili 500 milijardi.

3) Društveno-ekonomski status se ne svodi samo na finansije. Profesor univerziteta možda zarađuje manje od nekakvog vodoinstalatera, ali ima viši društveni status. Dok je nekom vodoinstalateru finansijski položaj bitniji od drušvenog statusa, i super mu je to što ima više para od profesora.

Ovo pod 3 je u neku ruku ravnoteža koja odgovara i profesoru i vodoinstalateru. Ravnotežu su poremetili i demokrate i republikanci. Dobar deo besa MAGA vodoinstalatera je odgovor na profesore koji bi da izobjašnjavaju (i silom nametnu) kako bi ljudi trebalo da žive, kako da se hrane, kako da uzgajaju decu... A demokratama su Tramp i društvo klasičan primer skorojevića koji bi da nametnu idiokratiju.

Ili je pak neko u tripu kako su MAGA glasali za milijardere jer su besni zbog ekonomske neravnopravnosti?

Udeo ljudi pao za 10 procentnih poena, a udeo prihoda za 19. Ne znam što se čudiš, to je istraživanje na čije se podatke sam pozivaš. Ovaj deo si propustio da citiraš: The growth in income for the middle class since 1970 has not kept pace with the growth in income for the upper-income tier.

Što se odnosi i na poređenje sa komšijama. Ne, ne znači znači poređenje među ljudima sličnog statusa, nego poređenje ljudi unutar sistema u kojem žive. Značaj društvenog statusa, MAGA, vodoinstalatere, profesore, kamione, avione ću preskočiti, jer me ovde interesuju samo finansije.

Za finansije istraživanje koje si sam citirao kaže da ima elemenata za tvrdnju da se srednja klasa smanjuje i nazaduje u odnosu na 1970.

9 hours ago, bios said:

Deda potpuno otišao u klinac sa razumom

https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1973994459999179086

44 minutes ago, Engineer said:

Je l' se sećate koliko smo se ovde sprdali sa Radulovićem i DJB zbog gitare u skupštini i komentarisali kakvi su to politički diletanti. E pa bivši ministar i partija sa 6% glasova u Srbiji su Čerčil i britanski parlament u odnosu na predsednika Amerika i GOP

Uopste nisu diletanti.

Moram da se vratim na termin koji (zlo)upotrebljavam jos iz prvog mandata: ovo je odumiranje drzave, ali ne onako kako je to Kardelj zamislio. Zapravo, ovo je plansko i sistematsko ukidanje drzave, a tip iz videa je glavni arhitekta.

U prvom terminu su to oni zvali borba protiv "deep state", a sad to nazivaju pravim imenom: dismantiling of the administrative state.

During Mr. Trump’s first term, Mr. Vought argued that the president had the power to block federal spending Congress had approved. He was part of a group of White House officials who froze military spending for Ukraine in defiance of Congress, paving a path to the president’s impeachment.

He also helped come up with the idea of using emergency powers to build a border wall without Congressional approval, and pushed an executive order that could have enabled the president to easily fire tens of thousands of career civil servants.

The budget office was eventually forced to restore the Ukraine money, and the other moves were reversed by the Biden administration.

I

After the 2020 election, Mr. Vought started the Center for Renewing America, a think tank devoted to sustaining Mr. Trump’s policies.

The clawing of either rats or pigeons in his office walls was so loud that it distracted visitors, according to a recent book, “Mad House." But Mr. Vought remained focused on his mission.

In 2022, he released a 104-page “shadow budget,” a prescription to remove “the scourge of woke and weaponized bureaucracy aimed at the American people”: deep cuts to Medicaid, foreign aid, scientific research and other programs.

Outraged when Kevin McCarthy, the Republican House speaker, cut a deal with Mr. Biden to raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Vought pushed House Republicans to take the extraordinary step of ousting their leader.

Mr. Vought was a constant presence in the group text thread of the House Freedom Caucus, the hard-line conservatives who toppled Mr. McCarthy — bucking them up and pushing them to take what felt like an enormous political risk, said former Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, who led the effort“When people got scared or concerned about political impact, committee assignments, he was always there, strongly encouraging them,” Mr. Gaetz said. “He was instilling backbone in people.”

Mr. Vought’s public comments began to take on a more hard-line tilt. His think tank published papers establishing a rationale for why it would be lawful to deploy troops on U.S. soil, and advocating the elimination of the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence.

Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump adviser whose “War Room” podcast is popular with the base, declared him “MAGA’s Bulldog.”

Mr. Vought during his Senate confirmation hearing in January.Credit...Tom Brenner for The New York Times

After Mr. Trump won a second term, Mr. Vought devoted himself to preparing for a do-over — one that was bigger, bolder and, crucially, lasting.

Eyeing his next role, Mr. Vought described how the White House budget director would be critical in transforming the federal government. “Presidents use the O.M.B. to tame the bureaucracy, the administrative state,” he told conservative commentator Tucker Carlson days after the 2024 election.

Mr. Vought’s research was featured in Project 2025, the policy blueprint prepared by the conservative Heritage Foundation for Mr. Trump’s return to office. Mr. Vought also drafted potential executive orders.

In the White House, Mr. Vought is not seen as a part of Mr. Trump’s inner circle, according to four people with knowledge of the dynamics. He regularly quotes the Bible and never curses — a sharp contrast with a president who sometimes refers to Christians in the third person. But people familiar with the relationship between the two men say that the president recognizes in Mr. Vought something that he highly values: a seasoned loyalist who knows how to use the federal budget to deliver what Mr. Trump wants.

“Russ knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end weaponized government,” Mr. Trump wrote in a statement when nominating Mr. Vought.

Now Mr. Vought is building the case to achieve one of his primary objectives: securing the president’s authority to block congressionally approved spending on programs he dislikes.

To that end, Mr. Vought is laying the groundwork for a legal battle over the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, enacted by Congress in the wake of President Richard Nixon’s moves to block agency spending he opposed.

Mr. Vought, who says the law is unconstitutional, would like to see it overturned.

That goal has driven him to his current “pocket rescissions” package.

Mr. Vought’s friends say that his actions are designed to provoke a lawsuit from the Government Accountability Office, the congressional watchdog, which has said the pocket rescission is illegal and “would cede Congress’s power of the purse.”

“Russ absolutely believes he is on sound legal footing and that he will be vindicated at the Supreme Court,” Mr. Grogan said.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez, the general counsel of the Government Accountability Office, disagreed, saying in an interview: “In order to not spend the money, the laws would have to be changed. And the president does not have the unilateral power to change the laws.”

Rob Fairweather, who spent 42 years at the Office of Management and Budget and wrote a book about how it operates, said there is reason for Mr. Vought to have confidence in a legal victory.

“What he’s doing is radical, but it’s well thought out,” Mr. Fairweather said. “He’s had all these years to plan. He’s looked clearly at the authorities and boundaries that are there, and is pushing past them on the assumption that at least some of it will hold up in the courts.”

Mr. Vought is already looking forward to that outcome, declaring on Glenn Beck’s show this spring: “We will have a much smaller bureaucracy as a result of it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/29/us/politics/russell-vought-trump-budget.html

Ovo je isto bilo u tvitu, zanimljivo poslusati:

7 hours ago, Peter Fan said:

Uopste nisu diletanti.

Moram da se vratim na termin koji (zlo)upotrebljavam jos iz prvog mandata: ovo je odumiranje drzave, ali ne onako kako je to Kardelj zamislio. Zapravo, ovo je plansko i sistematsko ukidanje drzave, a tip iz videa je glavni arhitekta.

U prvom terminu su to oni zvali borba protiv "deep state", a sad to nazivaju pravim imenom: dismantiling of the administrative state.

During Mr. Trump’s first term, Mr. Vought argued that the president had the power to block federal spending Congress had approved. He was part of a group of White House officials who froze military spending for Ukraine in defiance of Congress, paving a path to the president’s impeachment.

He also helped come up with the idea of using emergency powers to build a border wall without Congressional approval, and pushed an executive order that could have enabled the president to easily fire tens of thousands of career civil servants.

The budget office was eventually forced to restore the Ukraine money, and the other moves were reversed by the Biden administration.

I

After the 2020 election, Mr. Vought started the Center for Renewing America, a think tank devoted to sustaining Mr. Trump’s policies.

The clawing of either rats or pigeons in his office walls was so loud that it distracted visitors, according to a recent book, “Mad House." But Mr. Vought remained focused on his mission.

In 2022, he released a 104-page “shadow budget,” a prescription to remove “the scourge of woke and weaponized bureaucracy aimed at the American people”: deep cuts to Medicaid, foreign aid, scientific research and other programs.

Outraged when Kevin McCarthy, the Republican House speaker, cut a deal with Mr. Biden to raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Vought pushed House Republicans to take the extraordinary step of ousting their leader.

Mr. Vought was a constant presence in the group text thread of the House Freedom Caucus, the hard-line conservatives who toppled Mr. McCarthy — bucking them up and pushing them to take what felt like an enormous political risk, said former Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, who led the effort“When people got scared or concerned about political impact, committee assignments, he was always there, strongly encouraging them,” Mr. Gaetz said. “He was instilling backbone in people.”

Mr. Vought’s public comments began to take on a more hard-line tilt. His think tank published papers establishing a rationale for why it would be lawful to deploy troops on U.S. soil, and advocating the elimination of the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence.

Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump adviser whose “War Room” podcast is popular with the base, declared him “MAGA’s Bulldog.”

Mr. Vought during his Senate confirmation hearing in January.Credit...Tom Brenner for The New York Times

After Mr. Trump won a second term, Mr. Vought devoted himself to preparing for a do-over — one that was bigger, bolder and, crucially, lasting.

Eyeing his next role, Mr. Vought described how the White House budget director would be critical in transforming the federal government. “Presidents use the O.M.B. to tame the bureaucracy, the administrative state,” he told conservative commentator Tucker Carlson days after the 2024 election.

Mr. Vought’s research was featured in Project 2025, the policy blueprint prepared by the conservative Heritage Foundation for Mr. Trump’s return to office. Mr. Vought also drafted potential executive orders.

In the White House, Mr. Vought is not seen as a part of Mr. Trump’s inner circle, according to four people with knowledge of the dynamics. He regularly quotes the Bible and never curses — a sharp contrast with a president who sometimes refers to Christians in the third person. But people familiar with the relationship between the two men say that the president recognizes in Mr. Vought something that he highly values: a seasoned loyalist who knows how to use the federal budget to deliver what Mr. Trump wants.

“Russ knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end weaponized government,” Mr. Trump wrote in a statement when nominating Mr. Vought.

Now Mr. Vought is building the case to achieve one of his primary objectives: securing the president’s authority to block congressionally approved spending on programs he dislikes.

To that end, Mr. Vought is laying the groundwork for a legal battle over the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, enacted by Congress in the wake of President Richard Nixon’s moves to block agency spending he opposed.

Mr. Vought, who says the law is unconstitutional, would like to see it overturned.

That goal has driven him to his current “pocket rescissions” package.

Mr. Vought’s friends say that his actions are designed to provoke a lawsuit from the Government Accountability Office, the congressional watchdog, which has said the pocket rescission is illegal and “would cede Congress’s power of the purse.”

“Russ absolutely believes he is on sound legal footing and that he will be vindicated at the Supreme Court,” Mr. Grogan said.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez, the general counsel of the Government Accountability Office, disagreed, saying in an interview: “In order to not spend the money, the laws would have to be changed. And the president does not have the unilateral power to change the laws.”

Rob Fairweather, who spent 42 years at the Office of Management and Budget and wrote a book about how it operates, said there is reason for Mr. Vought to have confidence in a legal victory.

“What he’s doing is radical, but it’s well thought out,” Mr. Fairweather said. “He’s had all these years to plan. He’s looked clearly at the authorities and boundaries that are there, and is pushing past them on the assumption that at least some of it will hold up in the courts.”

Mr. Vought is already looking forward to that outcome, declaring on Glenn Beck’s show this spring: “We will have a much smaller bureaucracy as a result of it.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/29/us/politics/russell-vought-trump-budget.html

Ovo opisano mi ne lici ni na kraj drzave ni na dismantiling of the administrative state nego na ukidanje svih checks and balances i bilo kakvih prepreka za apsolutnu moc Predsednika.

7 hours ago, Peter Fan said:

Uopste nisu diletanti.

Moram da se vratim na termin koji (zlo)upotrebljavam jos iz prvog mandata: ovo je odumiranje drzave, ali ne onako kako je to Kardelj zamislio. Zapravo, ovo je plansko i sistematsko ukidanje drzave, a tip iz videa je glavni arhitekta.

U prvom terminu su to oni zvali borba protiv "deep state", a sad to nazivaju pravim imenom: dismantiling of the administrative state.

Slažem se da nisu diletanti, što ne znači da ludilo kod dede ne napreduje. Ovakve besmislice uglavnom tivtuje pod okriljem noći dok pati od nesanice.

U prilog tome da znaju šta rade, dok ovo pišemo dešava se government shutdown i lagano će da okrive demokrate za to. Kako je to moguće kad GOP ima predsednika, kongres i senat? Pa prosto, njihova poruka publici je vrlo jednostavna- demokrate nisu podržale budžet kojim je predviđeno ukidanje healthcare ilegalcima. Naravno da to nije tačno, ali to je tačno ono što njihova publika želi da čuje.

8 minutes ago, Radoye said:

Ovo opisano mi ne lici ni na kraj drzave ni na dismantiling of the administrative state nego na ukidanje svih checks and balances i bilo kakvih prepreka za apsolutnu moc Predsednika.

Sve je do tančina bilo napisano u Project 2025, koji je ismevan u publici, i kao “ma ne, to je samo mala grupica anonimusa”…

25 minutes ago, bios said:

Slažem se da nisu diletanti, što ne znači da ludilo kod dede ne napreduje. Ovakve besmislice uglavnom tivtuje pod okriljem noći dok pati od nesanice.

U prilog tome da znaju šta rade, dok ovo pišemo dešava se government shutdown i lagano će da okrive demokrate za to. Kako je to moguće kad GOP ima predsednika, kongres i senat? Pa prosto, njihova poruka publici je vrlo jednostavna- demokrate nisu podržale budžet kojim je predviđeno ukidanje healthcare ilegalcima. Naravno da to nije tačno, ali to je tačno ono što njihova publika želi da čuje.

Niko ne sprecava demokrate da posalju poruku publici koja ce isto tako biti jednostavna..

39 minutes ago, Radoye said:

Ovo opisano mi ne lici ni na kraj drzave ni na dismantiling of the administrative state nego na ukidanje svih checks and balances i bilo kakvih prepreka za apsolutnu moc Predsednika.

Prosirivanje moci predjesnika ide ruku pod ruku sa ukidanjem drzave. To "ukidanje" ima svoju ideolosku podlogu u SAD maltene od formiranje drzave, a zalafuala se od Regana na ovamo - "more government is not a solution, government is THE problem".

Sirenje predsjednickih moci nije cilj - to je sredstvo.

Nema strpljenja, legacy je now!

On 4. 10. 2025. at 1:00, Venom said:

Značaj društvenog statusa, MAGA, vodoinstalatere, profesore, kamione, avione ću preskočiti, jer me ovde interesuju samo finansije.

1) Prva početna teza je (bila) da se srednja klasa klasa smanjuje i nazaduje. Za smanjivanje se slažem. Kako to tačno nazaduje ako je dato smanjivanje uglavnom prebacivanje iz srednje klase u bogatune?

2) Druga početna teza je bila o izluđenim Amerima, što ipak spada u nefinansijski deo. ono što je Veblen predvideo početkom 20og veka je ono što gledamo u USofA ovih dana. zadovoljenje osnovnih potreba, gde skoro svako može sebi priuštiti i više nego pristojne životne uslove, je dovelo do toga da društvena nejednakost ima veći značaj nego finansijska u životu prosečnog Džoa. Velikoj većini ljudi je potpuno nebitno da li Elon Mask ima 5, 50, ili 500 milijardi, jer je na drušvenoj lestvici on daleko ispred svih nas i ostaće tako sve i da izgubi 90% svog bogatstva.

"In the nature of the case, the desire for wealth can scarcely be satiated in any individual instance, and evidently a satiation of the average or general desire for wealth is out of the question. However widely, or equally, or “fairly,” it may be distributed, no general increase of the community’s wealth can make any approach to satiating this need, the ground of which is the desire of every one to excel every one else in the accumulation of goods. If, as is sometimes assumed, the incentive to accumulation were the want of subsistence or of physical comfort, then the aggregate economic wants of a community might conceivably be satisfied at some point in the advance of industrial efficiency; but since the struggle is substantially a race for reputability on the basis of an invidious comparison, no approach to a definitive attainment is possible."

The Theory of the Leisure Class, by Thorstein Veblen

Dag Ford premijer Ontarija i nas lokalni Tramp na baterije namerava da uz bojkot svog americkog alkohola sad bojkotuje i Smirnof:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/toronto/politics/queens-park/article/smirnoffs-next-ford-said-ontario-will-look-to-remove-more-booze-from-lcbo-shelves-following-crown-royal-plant-closure/

Doduse, ovo je oko zatvaranja fabrike a ne tarifa ali ovim tempom cemo uskoro imati full monty prohibiciju...