Another Reason California Is Tanking

[Offshore Angler]

That article is actually pretty funny.

It states that low prices were the cause of the Depression.

Not even close. It was caused by deregulation of stock market trading which led to a collapse of our financial system. Sound familiar?

Talk about revisionist history! See, faith in bullshit articles clearly written with a political bent show how the right uses pure lies to stoke the emotions of people who are shall we say, not well enough informed to process the data and make a conclusion regarding its validity.

Fuck - even Stephen Hawking was wrong about black holes. And people with some smarts processed his papers, applied critical thinking and challenged him. But if some fat-ass drug addict, draft dodging right wing talk show jackwacker says something, people won't question it, they put it on a bumper sticker and treat it as political dogma.

The way out of the depression was via public spending, but not by giving away money to banks like GWB did. The way we were brought out was by public works projects that took the government money and invested it into the Commons. The alphabet agencies were the beginning of the infrastructure that laid the groundwork for the expansion of our economy in the 50's and 60's.

The Great Depression is the single most studied and well understood financial even ever. For these two dudes to come along 80 years after the fact and put forth unsubstantiated opinion is just silly.

[Offshore Angler]

I've known so many, many people who got excellent grades and were utterly lacking in common sense or even intellectual curiosity.

I've know a lot of guys on the Dean's list that had both spades too. Sorry elicross, but that argument always comes across as sour grapes.

I've also met a lot of uneducated people who can't pour piss out of a boot. So what?

[muddy]

But if some fat-ass drug addict, draft dodging right wing talk show jackwacker says something, people won't question it, they put it on a bumper sticker and treat it as political dogma.

Sad, but true. It is amazing how many folk "tune in" to these clowns to get their political direction??? Their lies, misdirection and propaganda has no bounds.

[Offshore Angler]

Sad, but true. It is amazing how many folk "tune in" to these clowns to get their political direction??? Their lies, misdirection and propaganda has no bounds.

Well, this Glenn Beck thing may be a tipping point.
He is advertising his rally "At the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."

Uh, no. The National Parks Service has no plans to grant him a permit for that. The only permit the organizers have applied for is across the street, and last I heard, that was not approved.

But oh, it gets better. Mr. Beck has asked everyone to donate to a foundation to care for the families of Special Ops soldiers via his website for the rally. Closer examination of the fine print shows that only excess proceeds after the cost of the rally will be donated. Using our warriors as bait and then keeping the money for promoting your personal agenda - disgusting.

Yes, by using the SOWF as bait he also makes your doanation a tax dodge. So he's finding a cute way to screw the very government he claims he cares about. These people sicken me. This is what "infotainment" has spawned. People who openly lie and misconstrue the facts for the almighty dollar.


From his website

"
This rally is compliant with IRS Rules and Regulations found in IRS publication 557 and IRS publication 4221-PC. For tax purposes a gift to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation is deductible in accordance with Internal Revenue Service's tax laws. No goods or services were provided in exchange for your contribution. The purchase of Restoring Honor Rally merchandise is not a donation to SOWF, but all net proceeds from the sale of Restoring Honor Rally merchandise is being donated to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. All contributions made to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation (SOWF) will first be applied to the costs of the Restoring Honor Rally taking place on August 28, 2010. All contributions in excess of these costs will then be retained by the SOWF. Tax ID 52-1183585.
"


Thanks again Ronald Reagan, for getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine because the "Big Three" were bashing you.

[elicross]

I've know a lot of guys on the Dean's list that had both spades too. Sorry elicross, but that argument always comes across as sour grapes.

I've also met a lot of uneducated people who can't pour piss out of a boot. So what?

I could show you my own transcripts and maybe convince you it's not a case of sour grapes...but that would be missing the point.

Bill brought up the old line about Dubya getting better grades in college than John Kerry; my only point was that grades are not a reliable measure of common sense, of intellectual curiosity -- or how someone will perform in the real world. As junior pointed out, George W. Bush's performance as president is actually a pretty good argument in support of that point.

It seems both you and red thought I was denigrating education. I can see how that might appear to be a valid interpretation, if you took my post out of the context of the thread -- or even if you simply missed the two posts that went immediately before it. But that wasn't my intention at all.

[Offshore Angler]

Oops, sorry then elicross.

[redb]

It seems both you and red thought I was denigrating education. I can see how that might appear to be a valid interpretation, if you took my post out of the context of the thread -- or even if you simply missed the two posts that went immediately before it. But that wasn't my intention at all.

Huh? I don't think I've actually addressed your posts at all.

Bill made an exceptionally vague reference to something someone else said and I responded to that.

Honestly I do think there is some validity to statements amounting to you can't have everything. Honestly I'm pretty dense in some areas.

[elicross]

Huh? I don't think I've actually addressed your posts at all.

Sorry, red. I'd forgotten that Bill used the phrase "common sense" in his own post, so when you wrote that "common sense is no substitute for education," I thought you were referring to my post in that part of your message.

My bad!

[Bill Moore]

Sorry for not getting back sooner, but we got busy at the shop.
You really don't have to argue among yourselves though.
Did you read where the new financial bill will require minority and women quotas in all aspects of implementation. I wonder what aspect of economic theory requires that sort of discrimination to "fix" our system.

[Offshore Angler]

Bill, give it a rest. You are looking sillier and sillier. Please give us the House number for that bill. What are the quotas in percentage of total? Is this a proposed law or a passed one?

Do you have those answers - or is this just propaganda and you are shilling it?

Let's get the facts straight before we start a debate. That's what thinking people do, correct?

Just for grins, where did you get your information?

Also, laws in this country are not passed purely on economic merit. There are social aspects as well. In fact, the societal aspects tend to take precedence over financial concerns. Some might even argue that they are written "In order to create a more perfect union." I take it then, that you are against any laws that give minorities a helping hand? Yes or no?

Let's have less unsubstantiated generalizations and more facts for your arguments. This ain't a Tea Party rally here, it's an open. thoughtful discussion amongst citizens.

And let's all be adults here. When people accuse Obama of being a "socialist" we all know what that is code for. It's ugly and uncalled for.

[redb]

I wonder what aspect of economic theory requires that sort of discrimination to "fix" our system.

The ones that state that women make .75 cents for every dollar a man makes for the same work and that the two primary factors in success in life are socioeconomic status and maternal education.

Efficiency is a fine argument to make, but sometimes equality is a better one.

Look, I got rejected from a state school because of quotas in the Texas higher education system. I have felt it first hand. But honestly, I wasn't that mad then and I'm not mad at all now. It all works out in the end and some kid who really struggled instead of having Mommy and Daddy give them everything got a shot to go to a good school with lots of money for the first time in his life. I had that for 12 years excluding preschool.

That kid needed it more than me, which I think is demonstrated by the fact that I ended up in a really good graduate school regardless.

So honestly, I think it's fine.

[Bill Moore]

OSA, you've gotta get more news than the Obama networks provide!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2549091/posts
Redb, men and women who do the same jobs are paid the same. There is the market demand for lineman, that is different than the demand for secretaries, and there is a salary difference. I know of no place currently, where the same job pays differently. We have even lessened the physical requirements for some jobs so women can qualify. (Firefighters, law enforcement, etc.)
The fact that women as a group earn less is not because of unequal pay for the same work.

[elicross]

OSA, you've gotta get more news than the Obama networks provide!

Says the guy who gets his "news" from freerepublic.com!

[redb]

The mission, it says, is to assure “to the maximum extent possible the fair inclusion” of women and minorities, individually and through businesses they own, in the activities of the agencies, including contracting.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

I don't see how you could honestly say you don't support that.

This latest attempt by Congress to dictate what “fair” employment means is likely to encourage administrators and managers, in government and in the private sector, to hire women and minorities for the sake of appearances, even if some new hires are less qualified than other applicants.

Actually for nearly every position there are far more qualified individuals than positions. It's true, you might have problems trying to find people to run 15 million dollar machines that require special training and a professional degree, but this is an argument built on a bad assumption.

[Offshore Angler]

Says the guy who gets his "news" from freerepublic.com!

LOL!

You gotta love it.

Bill, the bill, which is not yet law, according to the unsubstantiated or foot noted article proposes (but fails to name it by House number LOL!) , and I quote:

"Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion."

and then the article says, *GASP*:

"Each office would have its own director and staff to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency’s workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors."

In other words, no mentions of quotas are given, no numbers of any type, and then the usual opinion-as-fact analysis of consequences.

Oh my God! Run for the hills! It's socialism!

Bill, I'm sorry, but for crying out loud, please READ and THINK about the right-wing propaganda you are spouting. It's nonsense plain and simple, directed at low-information voters who make emotional rather than intellectual decisions.

So, I ask you, in a public forum - are you against laws that give equal opportunities to all people, regardless of race and gender? I most definitely am not!

[Bill Moore]

Fair inclusion would mean equality, not special treatment. Seems anything else is unconstitutional.
I don't favor one person over another because of or in spite of their genetic make up, and anyone who does is a racist!

[Offshore Angler]

Fair inclusion would mean equality, not special treatment. Seems anything else is unconstitutional.
I don't favor one person over another because of or in spite of their genetic make up, and anyone who does is a racist!

Well, then you make no sense, since what you expound is exactly the language and intent of the bill as reported. WTF?

[redb]

Well, then you make no sense, since what you expound is exactly the language and intent of the bill as reported. WTF?

I can tell you where he is coming from.

Imagine a foot race at a track. A conservative or libertarian sees that the starting lines are tiered and thinks it's unfair because they, for whatever reason, cannot or will not understand that each runner runs the same distance.

In real life it's the sort of the opposite; they see programs which have no sort of "affirmative action" as being fair because to them that would be like each of the lines starting in the same place. They dont get that some people have to run a longer race.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15689761...-Overhaul-Bill
Look, you guys can find this stuff as easily as I can. Here is the proposed "compromise" bill, all 1100+ pages.
As for setting quotas for or against any other person is wrong. Equality means what is says everyone is equal, whether 4 legs, or 2.

[redb]

As for setting quotas for or against any other person is wrong. Equality means what is says everyone is equal, whether 4 legs, or 2.

Why are quotas necessarily wrong?

For that matter, why are socialism or taxes?

No really, if we look at population statistics and see that ethnicity A makes up 10% of the population, what is wrong with having a quota that says if you want government money at least 7% of the people working on the project must come from ethnicity A.

Again, no one is going to put quotas on space shuttle pilots or deep sea engineers where the talent pool is sufficiently small enough that doing so would be detrimental.

All quotas are bad? I think you fear the word more than you understand the concept.

[Bill Moore]

“ Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article 1, 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Could you point out the part that says we should deny anyone, and favor another.

[Cygnus X1]

I thought it was much more fun to let them argue amongst themselves.

Redb indicated I had no right to be in this discussion so I figured it was best to just let him and his ilk go happily along with their armchair Ivory Tower discussions.

Meanwhile we face ever increasing government intervention, fewer opportunities, more angst on the part of the real people who provide and benefit from those EVIL free markets.

Remember, Reagan was wrong, Bush 43 was a dolt.

That's all you need to know to join this crowd.

Ignore all that you see around you.
Obama is making everything better!
Pelosi holds the keys to your success!
Reid is the best of all, supporting stars like Dodd and Frank, who "go after" those
evil corpowations who don't like anyone!

<cough>

Bill, love you like a brother.
Best to leave "them" alone I guess.
At least we can agree on the gear that makes the music...for the most part.

[redb]

Article 1, 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Could you point out the part that says we should deny anyone, and favor another.

If you protect the continuation of the economic oppression of nearly all peoples not white and male then while you have not done so according to the letter of the law you have done so by the spirit.

Alright, quotas are unconstitutional. That's not what I asked though. What is inherently wrong with using numbers when the talent pool significantly dwarfs the positions available?

Differences between resumes can be very, very small. But having the wrong name or living on the wrong side of the tracks can knock you out of the hunt for a job.

armchair Ivory Tower discussions.

only in America do people scoff at intelligence and disparage training.

dupont doesnt hire people with high school chemistry to make chemicals and we shouldnt "hire" people with 4 year degrees in journalism to be vice president or degrees from unaccredited law schools with overtly Christian doctrines to work in the Justice Department. I'm actually inclined to talk with some of you about economics because you happen to know more than most of our law makers (especially the republicans.

Oh and Reagan was wrong. The man cut taxes and spent like he was Wesley Snipes. Are you one of those people who thinks the Clinton economic boom was because of Reagan? That's laughable. I already said that prices change in about 6 months, I was trying to imply that long term in economics is shorter than what most people think it is. Clinton owes NOTHING to Reagan or Bush 1. I MIGHT buy that the 2001 recession was on his shoulders but honestly people on the "right" want to blame Clinton for the current one.

Supply side? LOL what a crock of shit. Those people took the money and kept it. It didnt trickle down. Look at a chart of income disparity for the proof. It would have been better to just take the money and give it to homeless people.They would have gone and bought food and booze and cigs and the money would at least have been in the economy. Rich people dont spend like normal people, though they spend more money in absolute terms but they spend less compared to what their income is. Reagan may not of known it, just ask Nixon what he thought about him. But his economists knew it was a lie. Arthur Laffer was a bold faced liar but boy it sounds good if you make a shit ton of money. Maybe it sounds good enough to believe it.

W/ever. You can't convince people that something is the truth if they aren't open to believing it.

Know that the "ivory tower" is trying desperately to save your home and job while "average Joe republican senator" just wants to drink a beer with you while lobbyists line his pockets.

[Bill Moore]

Redb, I'm gonna have to look into charging you tuition, and you definately should get some money back from the school you attended, as they didn't do their job.
Every one I know, looks for the best possible, qualified help, as that will help their business grow. The idea that we have to hire someone brown, because last time we hired someone red is crazy.
The guy I apprenticed to almost 40 years ago is very brown and has a very thick accent. Many of our customers only spoke spanish, but he didn't think hiring a gringo would hurt his business, he needed someone who could fix things. As a matter of fact, many customers followed me when I left.
No amount of affirmative action will help folks who are unwilling to help themselves, they continually have their hand out, if someone keeps putting something in it. You should always apply the "teach a man to fish" rule, as it is what made this country great, and will again if folks will take responsibility for themselves.

[Cygnus X1]

only in America do people scoff at intelligence and disparage training.

dupont doesnt hire people with high school chemistry to make chemicals and we shouldnt "hire" people with 4 year degrees in journalism to be vice president or degrees from unaccredited law schools with overtly Christian doctrines to work in the Justice Department. I'm actually inclined to talk with some of you about economics because you happen to know more than most of our law makers (especially the republicans.

Took it out before it was quoted.

You have no idea what my education is.

I should not waste my time on you.

The very attitude that you spread your pearls of institutional wisdom indicates you have no real experience to "teach" people who have lived the life, stuck their necks out, and extended a REAL hand of charity.


You bait and troll, bait and troll.

I shall simply wait for my own banning?

At some point I can't just sit back and watch.
Keep it up.
Talk to me after you get a life.

[Bill Moore]

I see you've added an edit to your last post, I'll help you out with that also. I was trying to buy another house in the last of the Carter years, 1979. The best interest was 21% for a 20 year note, 18.5% for a 30. I went to work for the mines in 1980, in 1982 we were all sent home.
Reagan forced the congress to enact tax relief, but also wanted budget cuts. The democrat congress allowed the tax relief, but kept spending, this prolonged the Carter misery, but the tax cuts started business back up,(people investing their money, rather that giving it to the government), and the mine called me back in april 1983. I was already working for the power company, so I didn't go back.
In 1986, we had saved a little money, and decided to buy another house, now the interest rate was 12%, and when we closed the deal in early fall, we settled on 11.25%. I know, it fell much more after that through Reagan's, and Bush 41's policies, even though they were having to fight a democrat congress, but my wife and kids got the bigger house we needed.
History is our friend, when we are faced with the same delima we have something to guide us, whatever your politics, you have to recognize the facts. And don't think for a minute that Clinton wouldn't have acted just like Obama if he hadn't lost the congress. That's why they're trying to stuff all the left agenda through before fall!

[elicross]

Bill, the adjective form of "Democrat" is actually "Democratic."

Oh, and the word you want is "dilemma."

I won't charge you any tuition for the above.

[redb]

Every one I know, looks for the best possible, qualified help, as that will help their business grow. The idea that we have to hire someone brown, because last time we hired someone red is crazy.

well it's good that your personal experience contradicts every legitimate economic study conducted on the matter. whites get hired more, men get hired more, period.

no one is making you do anything. take government money, hire in a way that reflects demographics. you are free to not take the money and continue hiring your good old boys.

You have no idea what my education is.

I dont care what education you have, your attitude is exactly as I have suggested.

Ivory tower, intelligentsia, ivy league used as an adjective, all are the same; code words for the embrace of ignorance. Period. You know the first George Bush insulted the man he ran against by saying he was an ivy league elitist! Funny, because he went to Yale.

So far, every thing you (and Roger) said boils down to is you don't like what I'm saying, you don't agree, and your solution is to suggest that I just don't know.

What it is I don't know, I haven't exactly figure out. What I think it is is the anger of living a life of pain. Anger at other people, anger at myself, anger at the things around me for not working out quite the way I planned.

If so, there is nothing to be gained from those experiences. There is nothing to be gained from that so called "life". Having a shitty time doesnt make you smarter, it makes you colder.

Because what I see, is that the older people are, the angrier they tend to be. Not always, but often. The ones that aren't, tend to be pretty rich. And not the type of rich people who got there through hard work, but the ones who just sort of lived a nice, pleasant life.

For example, republicans tend to be pretty angry people, but the really rich ones really aren't. They are just voting for the people who serve their interests because that's the sort of person they are. Oh well, can't help that.

I think I'll pass.

I'm curious Cygnus, how exactly you think your attitude helps people who are unemployed?

Why don't you share with me your education in matters of economics and public finance? I'm curious to know. I won't respect you less, or anyone else, for your training in the field. After all, this site is so kind in the way it allows me to participate and learn from discussions about something I know much less than I would like about (i.e. guitar playing).

edited: wow what a bad place to have a typo lol

[Bill Moore]

Eli, that is a recent development of the party, to try to isinuate something they are not. No one uses the term democratics, as you would republicans, both plural uses of the singular. The singular is democrat, so the plural has to be democrats. You can't have it both ways! Please go back to the party's beginnings and determine the proper spelling.
Sorry I didn't put enough "m's" in my word, but I only went to college at night for 4 years, so I only have a sophmore english education. But you need to do better than a missing "m" to get tuition payments. Maybe if you could work with my oldest public educated grand daughter on her spelling, (and writing), we could have a deal.

[redb]

No one uses the term democratics, as you would republicans, both plural uses of the singular. The singular is democrat, so the plural has to be democrats.

You're confusing your parts of speech.

singular noun: a democrat
plural noun: many democrats
adjective: a democratic idea
adverb: a democratically elected man

[Bill Moore]

Redb, let me tell you the facts, currently there are more white males in the population looking for work, this may change, depending on whether we get the border closed. This alone accounts for the majority of people looking for work getting the job. Nothing else matters! No conspiracy, no racism, just the majority finding employment.

[elicross]

Eli, that is a recent development of the party, to try to isinuate something they are not. No one uses the term democratics, as you would republicans, both plural uses of the singular. The singular is democrat, so the plural has to be democrats. You can't have it both ways!

Bill. No one uses the term "Democratics" because the noun is "Democrat." I'm not suggesting you should use "Democratics" as the plural noun form of the word. Read my post. If I had meant "noun," I wouldn't have said "adjective."

The adjective from of "Democrat" is and has always been "Democratic." The word "Democratic" isn't a recent invention of the Democrats, for God's sake. In fact, the word "democrat" comes from the word "democratic." It's what they call a back formation.

The fact is, the practice of calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" and calling things from that party "Democrat" things instead of "Democratic" things is a relatively recent invention of the political Right, practiced mostly by partisan hacks like Glenn Beck. It's intended as an insult to the Democratic Party -- or maybe just a way for the Right to get around using the word "democratic" every time they refer to the party or anything related to the party.

It's every bit as childish as "Freedom Fries." But it's got longer legs because it's subtler. If using "Democrat" as the adjective instead of "Democratic" is an honest mistake on your part, it only reveals how little you've read or listened to political discourse outside of the fringe Right.

But you need to do better than a missing "m" to get tuition payments. Maybe if you could work with my oldest public educated grand daughter on her spelling, (and writing), we could have a deal.

Well, the missing M wasn't the only thing wrong with your spelling of dilemma. But you're right, no tuition is due because I learned how to spell that word in public school. Same place I learned the difference between a noun and an adjective.

[muddy]

I see you've added an edit to your last post, I'll help you out with that also. I was trying to buy another house in the last of the Carter years, 1979. The best interest was 21% for a 20 year note, 18.5% for a 30. I went to work for the mines in 1980, in 1982 we were all sent home.
Reagan forced the congress to enact tax relief, but also wanted budget cuts. The democrat congress allowed the tax relief, but kept spending, this prolonged the Carter misery, but the tax cuts started business back up,(people investing their money, rather that giving it to the government), and the mine called me back in april 1983. I was already working for the power company, so I didn't go back.
In 1986, we had saved a little money, and decided to buy another house, now the interest rate was 12%, and when we closed the deal in early fall, we settled on 11.25%. I know, it fell much more after that through Reagan's, and Bush 41's policies, even though they were having to fight a democrat congress, but my wife and kids got the bigger house we needed.
History is our friend, when we are faced with the same delima we have something to guide us, whatever your politics, you have to recognize the facts. And don't think for a minute that Clinton wouldn't have acted just like Obama if he hadn't lost the congress. That's why they're trying to stuff all the left agenda through before fall!

So to sum it up then, all Democrats (Carter, Clinton, Obama) suck and are evil and all Republicans are great?!

This is the reason a can't stand discussing politics with completely partisan people. They ignore facts, revise history and simply regurgitate what ever nonsense their radio God tells them to. How can you have a debate with folk like that?

and again...Sarah Palin...really???

[Bill Moore]

Eli, let me get this straight, should the singular form of republican be republic? I'm confused, as for 40 years, the voting machines said democrat, and republican, only in the last few years have we been told that they are democratics.
So politician X is a member of the democratic party, but he singular is a democrat. however politician Y is a member of the republican party, but he singular is not a republic? Doesn't make sense, I think politician X is a democratic, and politician Y is a republican. Or better yet politician X is a democrat, and his party are democrats.
All this is not to be confused with democracy, as the democrat(ic) party, in it's platform has a minimun number of minority quotas set aside for minority, gender based, delegates to it's conventions, so the idea of democracy, (one man, one vote) doesn't apply.
What if they changed their name to the affirmative action party? Truth in advertising!

[redb]

Bill, please.

Democrat is a Greek word, and Republican is a latin word. You can't do what you're trying to do.

Is there a point to this? You are trying to argue the minutiae of something you dont fully understand.

Democratics is NOT a word. Look it up if you dont believe me.

[elicross]

Eli, let me get this straight, should the singular form of republican be republic? I'm confused, as for 40 years, the voting machines said democrat, and republican, only in the last few years have we been told that they are democratics.

If someone has told you that the Democrats now want to be called "the Democratics" in the past few years, please show me where. I've never seen it suggested by the Right or Left that the plural noun form of "Democrat" is supposed to be "Democratics" -- but maybe that's because I don't read freerepublic.com, where it appears you can pick up a whole alternate reality to the one most of the world lives in.

So politician X is a member of the democratic party, but he singular is a democrat. however politician Y is a member of the republican party, but he singular is not a republic?

That's right. Not all words work the same way, Bill. I find it hard to believe you've never noticed this before, but hey -- welcome to the English language.

[Bill Moore]

Muddy, you're not listening, I'm only giving facts as I know them. Unless you look at both sides, you are the partisan people. Don't we all remember how Bush 43 tried to be the compromise president, and let Ted Kennedy write the education bill, which all dems denounced. Many the republicans started acting like democrats, throwing money away like crazy!
The cure to our problems is to curb spending, and to take a pro business agenda, which will put folks back to work.
You guys have been bad mouthing the (conservative) ideas of the T.E.A. Party, but they are the future of this country. Not republican, nor democrat, but fiscal conservative. Her in my little town, the were ahead of the pflag float,(yeah in my little town) in the 4th of July parade. When people starting yelling, and throwing trash at the pflag float, the T.E.A Party marchers fell back to both sides of the other float, waving the flags. I guess that demonstrates the intolerance of the horrible T.E.A Party folks.

[redb]

The cure to our problems is to curb spending, and to take a pro business agenda, which will put folks back to work.

I'm willing to accept that statement, if you are willing to admit you love Jimmy Carter and of every president we had in the 20th century he was the greatest economic genius amongst them.

This guy:



spent money like it was going out of style

So did this guy:



If you're unwilling to admit that Jimmy Carter is a genius, perhaps you would like to offer an economic explanation as to why we should cut government spending when demand is down.

Cutting government spending, by definition, reduces employment, all other things being equal (i.e. nothing else changing). Please reference the aggregate demand and supply curve. So I would like to hear your explanation as to why focusing on businesses would increase employment more than the loss from the cut in spending.

Will businesses hire more? Not if people aren't going to be buying things. Please demonstrate how people will be buying more stuff.

I personally believe (as do most economists, even many Austrians/Chicago schoolers) that the best course of action is to spend money employing middle class Americans on infrastructure projects to boost demand for consumer goods and slowly ease back into normalcy.

That normalcy would involve a raise in tax rates for the very wealthy in the future as well as some adjustment to spending. But if you do that NOW, effective demand goes down the shitter.

[Cogs]

This thread is going nowhere.
Or maybe it is

[Mesotech]

All spelling and grammar issues aside, I'd like to address one question that was asked above and not answered.

What is wrong with socialism? Nothing, for a socialist nation. However, the United States is a Republic, and to change that would mean it would no longer be the United States in anything other than name. The United States is also not a Democracy, it is a Republic. I personally oppose any attempt of anyone to try to change that. If you want to be a socialist, then be one, in a socialist nation. If you want to live in a Democracy, then do so, in a nation that is a Democracy. If you desire to live in a Republic (and millions of people still do, even worldwide as evidenced by the sheer number of people attempting to gain entrance into this country) then adopt and abide by its principles. Simple stuff really.

I remember liking Carter when I was a kid and before he was actually elected. During the course of his term in office, I discovered just how bad a President he actually was. Reagan was in my experience the best President that I can remember. After him, I see only Progressives that have each attempted to change the nation into something it was never intended to be. Some were more progressive than others, with Bush 41 being the least of the bunch, yet he was still a progressive in many ways. Clinton would have been far worse if the nation had not realized what was happening and overturned Congress to help curtail his progressive agenda. I guess in that way, Clinton was probably one of the great presidents we have had in a long time because it took him less than 2 years to lose the Congress to Republicans that had been held by Democrats for several decades. President Obama looks to be performing just as well in that regard.

As for the Affirmative Action issues mentioned above, I am of the opinion that everyone starts life equally, and they either get better or worse from there. Perhaps there are some social issues that drive people in one direction or the other, but I do not see those issues as brick walls that they could not have avoided if they had wanted to do so. If someone is living "in the projects" and can't seem to get a break, it is because they choose to not leave "the projects". I have been through several economically depressed areas in this nation and don't remember seeing any armed guards or walls keeping anyone in, or keeping anyone out. Self determination seems to be the only thing they lack in order to make their lives better. You can blame education, but there are far too many self educated people that have been extremely sucessful, so I don't buy a poor education as an excuse. Neither do I see race and a valid excuse, for the same reasons, there are many people of ALL races that have self improved their lives without having to change the color of their skin (with the possible exception of Michael Jackson, whom I recall actually had some skin condition that attributed to his skin color change). It is my opinion that if people stopped treating people as being different, then they would stop being different (in the definition of being oppressed, economically deprived, or whatever "social deficit" that keeps getting tossed about as an excuse to brand them as "different").