Re: I got mine...

[Taco John]

So I've got a question...

In the other thread, the accusation is that the problem with "conservative" philosophy is that it's centered around "I've got mine." Personally, I contend that is a "feature" of human nature, not limited to conservative philosophy, but inherent in all living, sentient beings. But I digress.

So here is my question: how do you propose to change it? How does anybody propose that they're going to get people to stop thinking about themselves first? What is ever going to happen that is going to cause people to think of others first, and themselves second?

[Taco John]

For what it's worth, libertarian philosophy takes into account that people naturally are concerned about themselves first. It permits this behavior to the extend that it doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.

[W*GS]

I realize the left-wingers won't like it, but the purely altruistic philosophy they espouse is imported from Christianity, at least the version Western left-wingers use.

[Spider]

well you dont want people to stop thinking about themselfs or their families , you want people to strive to become better , Me as a democrat says , there are people in our society for one reason or another can not aspire to reach higher goals or maintain a standard of living , so we have safety nets ,to help these people live , then you have the ones that strive to be better but something happens , makes them stumble , again society is there to help ....
really isnt all that complicated.......

[spdirty]

As a conservative, I go to bed every night and say a little prayer asking God to make my neighbors house burn down, so mine looks better.

[Bronco Jamus]

So I've got a question...

In the other thread, the accusation is that the problem with "conservative" philosophy is that it's centered around "I've got mine." Personally, I contend that is a "feature" of human nature, not limited to conservative philosophy, but inherent in all living, sentient beings. But I digress.

So here is my question: how do you propose to change it? How does anybody propose that they're going to get people to stop thinking about themselves first? What is ever going to happen that is going to cause people to think of others first, and themselves second?

It's impossible. Everyone has self-interests.

For what it's worth, libertarian philosophy takes into account that people naturally are concerned about themselves first. It permits this behavior to the extend that it doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.

That's the best we can hope for in this reality.

[Rohirrim]

Community has ensured our survival up until now, not self-interest. Perhaps, now that we have nearly eradicated nature, we feel that we can split off and make it on our own, as individuals. That is an illusion. We still must go to the farmer for our grains, fruits and vegetables, the rancher for our meat, the textile worker for our clothes, the forester and carpenter for our houses, on and on, ad infinitum. Ergo, community is more crucial to our survival than our individual pursuits. We must live a kind of "enlightened" self interest, realizing that when we support each other, we better support ourselves.

The reverse of this is unenlightened self interest. Also known as greed. The hallmark of a society based on greed is that a few are doing very, very well and most are not doing well at all, or as well as they could be given the overall production of the society. Those at the top tend to amass the power and wealth of the society into their own hands, for their own self-aggrandizement, manipulating the government to funnel even more wealth and power to them. This is a society constantly mired in conflict. The sense of community, cohesion and common purpose is cast aside in favor of a celebration of winners over losers.

In the society of enlightened self-interest, you might see art that celebrates family and the benefits of cohesion, whose moral message is one that extols the benefits of coming together, acting together for the combined best interests, for example, mostly family dramas where the father and mother are revered and give their guidance to their appreciative children in communities that work together.

In the society of unenlightened self-interest, you'll see art that focuses on the individual. The angst of loneliness and separation. Family is unimportant. The parental figures are ludicrous, uninspired and their counsel is meaningless. Music is without meaning and usually just a rehash of older themes. Drama focuses on individual survival, for example, fighting in a cage, surviving on a desert island or back stabbing others in a confined group in order to glom onto a coveted position as the apprentice to a wealty and powerful uber-boss. ;D

[Taco John]

We must live a kind of "enlightened" self interest, realizing that when we support each other, we better support ourselves.


So what's your enforcement plan for the millions who choose to think of themselves first, and maybe others, if they get around to it.

The utopia you describe sounds absolutely wonderful. Pollyannish, to be sure, but it sounds like a nice place. But how do you propose you get people to think about others first, and themselves second? How do you go about changing basic human nature?

[snowspot66]

I can want what Spider and Roh want, and I do, but unfortunately I believe Taco to be right.

Enlightenment actually already had its go. It was one of the sparks of the American Revolution and then the driving force of the French Revolution. Unfortunately the utter failure of the French revolution caused a lot of people at that time to lose faith in the ideals of enlightenment. They saw their brothers die, tens of thousands starved, and society crash down around them only to be replaced by more of the same just with a different job title.

Interesting that you brought up art Roh. You can see the shift in art of the period. The nationalistic Neo Classical pieces are put aside for the Romantic era paintings and then the Realist paintings. From the Realist works in France you can see the gradual decreasing faith that the avante guarde artists have for humanity. And this is all before either of the two World Wars. It only gets more bleak after the first one.

Anyway, to get back on topic. Maybe it's time for round two. Time to try again. But I don't have any idea how. All I know is we need to set our goals a little more realistically.

[Rohirrim]

So what's your enforcement plan for the millions who choose to think of themselves first, and maybe others, if they get around to it.

The utopia you describe sounds absolutely wonderful. Pollyannish, to be sure, but it sounds like a nice place. But how do you propose you get people to think about others first, and themselves second? How do you go about changing basic human nature?

Basic human nature is to work together. That's what got us through the last hundred thousand years of ice ages, plagues, invasions, wars, and what not. Modern, industrialized man is the one who came up with the idea of isolated man striving for his own self-survival against all others. The philosophy of limited, short-term self-interest over everything else is fairly new, and wrong.

Anyway, the Adam Smith model is dead. The concepts that could be applied to individuals should not be applied to corporations. That's where we made our biggest mistake, when the SCOTUS allotted "personhood" to corporations. We've been paying for it ever since. To answer your question, we teach our children that compassion is as important as competition. In the words of Mister Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one." ;D

We have simply taken the wrong road. We need to get back to the right one.

In the environment within which conventional economics was born, in Smith’s time, pursuit of self-interest might have served the interests of society reasonably well. But, the world has changed over the past 200 years. In fact, none of the important assumptions of truly competitive markets -- the prerequisite for efficient resource allocation by free markets – are valid in the economy of today.
------
Corporations are inherently non-human entities – regardless of what the Supreme Court has said and regardless of the nature of their managers and stockholders. Corporations have no heart, they have no soul.
---------
The society of Smith’s day was weak on economics – hunger, disease and early death were common -- but it had a strong cultural and ethical foundation. However, that social and ethical foundation has been seriously eroded over the past two centuries -- as glorification of greed has replaced enlightened self-interest
--------
It’s economics that is out of date – not small family businesses, caring communities, loving families, nations with integrity, and cultures with values. We have no ethical or moral obligation to accept economics as the final arbitrator of who gets a job and who doesn’t, who stays in business and who doesn’t, what we do in communities and what we don’t, where food is produced and where it is not, whether or not we trade, or of anything else. We don’t have to abandon "good" things from the past just because something "more economically efficient" comes along. We don’t have to accept "bad" things in the future just because they are "more economically efficient" than some "good" alternative. We can choose what we want to keep from the past and what we want to accept in the future. The market is not God – no matter what the economic priests would lead us to believe. Economics is a creation of people. We simply cannot turn loose the thing we created for our benefit and allow it to exploit the very people it was designed to serve. It just doesn’t make any sense.
---------------
The transformation of human society from one driven by the economics of short-run self interests to one lead by the economics of enlightenment will not happen overnight, and it may not happen without struggle and strife. But none the less, it must happen. The transformation may happen peacefully or may arise out of the turmoil of an economic collapse . It has already begun, although it may take decades to complete. But, each of us can begin the transformation for ourselves whenever we choose.

We can get off of the treadmill that keeps us running faster and faster as we get farther and farther behind. We can choose at any time to search for balance and harmony in our lives and in our work rather than continue the blind pursuit of our narrow self interest. We can choose a life of quality -- with enough income to sustain us physically, enough friends and neighbors to sustain us socially, following a code of ethics and morality that will sustain us spiritually. We can choose to pursue our enlightened self interest rather than simply give in to our greed. We can set examples and build models that others may choose to follow. We can develop the foundation of reality upon which new theories for an economics of enlightened self interest can be built. We can help guide humanity toward a sustainable future. And, we can do it at anytime we choose.

http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/Rethinking.html

Like the Beatles sang, "It's easy. All you need is love." ;D

[Arkie]

Economics is a creation of people. We simply cannot turn loose the thing we created for our benefit and allow it to exploit the very people it was designed to serve. It just doesn’t make any sense.

The "thing" we created 100 years ago was not designed to serve the people. It was designed to have the people serve it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Community has ensured our survival up until now, not self-interest. Perhaps, now that we have nearly eradicated nature, we feel that we can split off and make it on our own, as individuals. That is an illusion. We still must go to the farmer for our grains, fruits and vegetables, the rancher for our meat, the textile worker for our clothes, the forester and carpenter for our houses, on and on, ad infinitum. Ergo, community is more crucial to our survival than our individual pursuits. We must live a kind of "enlightened" self interest, realizing that when we support each other, we better support ourselves.

The reverse of this is unenlightened self interest. Also known as greed. The hallmark of a society based on greed is that a few are doing very, very well and most are not doing well at all, or as well as they could be given the overall production of the society. Those at the top tend to amass the power and wealth of the society into their own hands, for their own self-aggrandizement, manipulating the government to funnel even more wealth and power to them. This is a society constantly mired in conflict. The sense of community, cohesion and common purpose is cast aside in favor of a celebration of winners over losers.

In the society of enlightened self-interest, you might see art that celebrates family and the benefits of cohesion, whose moral message is one that extols the benefits of coming together, acting together for the combined best interests, for example, mostly family dramas where the father and mother are revered and give their guidance to their appreciative children in communities that work together.

In the society of unenlightened self-interest, you'll see art that focuses on the individual. The angst of loneliness and separation. Family is unimportant. The parental figures are ludicrous, uninspired and their counsel is meaningless. Music is without meaning and usually just a rehash of older themes. Drama focuses on individual survival, for example, fighting in a cage, surviving on a desert island or back stabbing others in a confined group in order to glom onto a coveted position as the apprentice to a wealty and powerful uber-boss. ;D

Another home run! :thumbsup:

The economic philosophy TJ advocates reminds me of that game we all played at one time or another as kids called "king of the mountain." Survival of the fittest, might makes right, etc.

Fun for children - not so great for adults in a civilized society.

[W*GS]

When the Left stops dressing up their neo-totalitarian anti-rights ideology as "caring for others before oneself", I'll listen. Until then, all their piffle about altruism-at-the-point-of-a-gun is just that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Basic human nature is to work together. That's what got us through the last hundred thousand years of ice ages, plagues, invasions, wars, and what not. Modern, industrialized man is the one who came up with the idea of isolated man striving for his own self-survival against all others. The philosophy of limited, short-term self-interest over everything else is fairly new, and wrong.

Anyway, the Adam Smith model is dead. The concepts that could be applied to individuals should not be applied to corporations. That's where we made our biggest mistake, when the SCOTUS allotted "personhood" to corporations. We've been paying for it ever since. To answer your question, we teach our children that compassion is as important as competition. In the words of Mister Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one." ;D

We have simply taken the wrong road. We need to get back to the right one.

In the environment within which conventional economics was born, in Smith’s time, pursuit of self-interest might have served the interests of society reasonably well. But, the world has changed over the past 200 years. In fact, none of the important assumptions of truly competitive markets -- the prerequisite for efficient resource allocation by free markets – are valid in the economy of today.
------
Corporations are inherently non-human entities – regardless of what the Supreme Court has said and regardless of the nature of their managers and stockholders. Corporations have no heart, they have no soul.
---------
The society of Smith’s day was weak on economics – hunger, disease and early death were common -- but it had a strong cultural and ethical foundation. However, that social and ethical foundation has been seriously eroded over the past two centuries -- as glorification of greed has replaced enlightened self-interest
--------
It’s economics that is out of date – not small family businesses, caring communities, loving families, nations with integrity, and cultures with values. We have no ethical or moral obligation to accept economics as the final arbitrator of who gets a job and who doesn’t, who stays in business and who doesn’t, what we do in communities and what we don’t, where food is produced and where it is not, whether or not we trade, or of anything else. We don’t have to abandon "good" things from the past just because something "more economically efficient" comes along. We don’t have to accept "bad" things in the future just because they are "more economically efficient" than some "good" alternative. We can choose what we want to keep from the past and what we want to accept in the future. The market is not God – no matter what the economic priests would lead us to believe. Economics is a creation of people. We simply cannot turn loose the thing we created for our benefit and allow it to exploit the very people it was designed to serve. It just doesn’t make any sense.
---------------
The transformation of human society from one driven by the economics of short-run self interests to one lead by the economics of enlightenment will not happen overnight, and it may not happen without struggle and strife. But none the less, it must happen. The transformation may happen peacefully or may arise out of the turmoil of an economic collapse . It has already begun, although it may take decades to complete. But, each of us can begin the transformation for ourselves whenever we choose.

We can get off of the treadmill that keeps us running faster and faster as we get farther and farther behind. We can choose at any time to search for balance and harmony in our lives and in our work rather than continue the blind pursuit of our narrow self interest. We can choose a life of quality -- with enough income to sustain us physically, enough friends and neighbors to sustain us socially, following a code of ethics and morality that will sustain us spiritually. We can choose to pursue our enlightened self interest rather than simply give in to our greed. We can set examples and build models that others may choose to follow. We can develop the foundation of reality upon which new theories for an economics of enlightened self interest can be built. We can help guide humanity toward a sustainable future. And, we can do it at anytime we choose.

http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/Rethinking.html

Like the Beatles sang, "It's easy. All you need is love." ;D

As I've said before, the sort of society folks like TJ want would be analogous to an NFL game with no rules and no refs.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS attemping to associate democracy at the point of a gun with the left?

That's just too funny. Hilarious!

I guess news of this Gulf War II thing hasn't reached W*GS' cave yet.

[W*GS]

I see LABF, in his haste to make an ad hominem "argument", mis-states what I said and launches into another one of his strawmen.

Typical.

[W*GS]

I wonder when Ro, LABF, and the others will man up, start a company using their own beliefs as guiding principles, and beat the snot out of all their competitors.

No, they'd rather stand on the sideline and whine.

[orangeatheist]

Hmmm...I figure if I keep my best interests in mind, afford that same goal to my neighbor and assure that my pursuits don't interfere with my neighbor's pursuit of same (and vice versa), then we'll both win in the end.

[W*GS]

Nope, "orangeatheist" - you have to do what the government says is in your neighbor's best interest (whether or not you or she actually agrees is beside the point), and if you don't, well, they'll make you (as unpleasantly as needed) or else you be labeled a selfish SOB.

[Rohirrim]

When the Left stops dressing up their neo-totalitarian anti-rights ideology as "caring for others before oneself", I'll listen. Until then, all their piffle about altruism-at-the-point-of-a-gun is just that.

It finally dawned on me who you remind me of:
http://www.midnightchimesproductions.com/BFN/images/Stills%20from%20films/albinocode.gif
That zealot albino on The Da Vinci Code. You've got too much of your identity subsumed to your political dogma to ever question that your basic precepts might be totally wrong.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It finally dawned on me who you remind me of:
http://www.midnightchimesproductions.com/BFN/images/Stills%20from%20films/albinocode.gif
That zealot albino on The Da Vinci Code. You've got too much of your identity subsumed to your political dogma to ever question that your basic precepts might be totally wrong.

ROFL!

[Rohirrim]

I wonder when Ro, LABF, and the others will man up, start a company using their own beliefs as guiding principles, and beat the snot out of all their competitors.

No, they'd rather stand on the sideline and whine.

You are an ugly and bitter little man.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You are an ugly and bitter little man.

Indeed.

And, apparently, he's never heard of COSTCO. ;)

[W*GS]

It finally dawned on me who you remind me of:
That zealot albino on The Da Vinci Code.

Never seen it.

You've got too much of your identity subsumed to your political dogma to ever question that your basic precepts might be totally wrong.

They aren't. What would you (and the jackbooted thugs following your orders) do to me if I was a selfish SOB?

Only leftists claim that "altruism" means "extortionate taxation and an intrusive State".

[W*GS]

You are an ugly and bitter little man.

Why? Because I don't presume to know what's in others' best interest?

A little more humility and a little less hubris and arrogance would do you wonders.

[Taco John]

Basic human nature is to work together.

Yes, but people work together to mostly satisfy their own self interest (no matter what they say). I sell you the milk that my cows made because I want to make a profit so that I can feed my family. Cooperation is great, but the good majority of cooperation happens because people are profiting in some measure in the effort. Sure, there is cooperation that happens because of altruism, but even in that instance, the person being altruistic is profiting themselves in the experience - they get something (intangible) out of it. But let's face it, altruism is the exception, not the standard. It's never going to be the standard no matter how badly you want it to be. That's why I say that the best you can hope for is individual liberty - I go get mine, you go get yours, and the second either of us infringes on the liberty (ie. life & property) of the other, that person REALLY gets theirs...


Anyway, the Adam Smith model is dead. The concepts that could be applied to individuals should not be applied to corporations. That's where we made our biggest mistake, when the SCOTUS allotted "personhood" to corporations.


I agree 100% with that.

[Rohirrim]

Why? Because I don't presume to know what's in others' best interest?

A little more humility and a little less hubris and arrogance would do you wonders.

No. Because you personalize every discussion on this board to the detriment of the discussion. You never bring anything to the table, and never argue the point being discussed. You just stand off slinging turds of doom and taking shots at the posters you disagree with. Sophomoric crap.

Not only that, there is not one mention of government control of the economy in either my posts or the article I posted, and yet you immediately go into some kind of rabid reaction that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. In other words, you didn't even read the material. You just went off on it.

[Taco John]

As I've said before, the sort of society folks like TJ want would be analogous to an NFL game with no rules and no refs.

Wow. Such dishonesty. I'm truly shocked.

What would make you spew such lies about my point of view? It's pretty disturbing to see someone applauded for attacking me by attributing a point of view that I find absolutely disdainful.

The society that I advocate honors individual liberty first and foremost. It's the one that our constitution was designed to protect. Individual liberty doesn't mean I can go around shooting people and doing whatever I want...

I take my cues from Thomas Jefferson:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Please don't ever slander me like that again.

[Taco John]

Hmmm...I figure if I keep my best interests in mind, afford that same goal to my neighbor and assure that my pursuits don't interfere with my neighbor's pursuit of same (and vice versa), then we'll both win in the end.

That's the society that our founding fathers intended.

You, sir, sound like a libertarian.

[W*GS]

No. Because you personalize every discussion on this board to the detriment of the discussion. You never bring anything to the table, and never argue the point being discussed.

Bull and more bull.

Most of that lengthy article you posted was a strawman anyway.

Not only that, there is not one mention of government control of the economy in either my posts or the article I posted, and yet you immediately go into some kind of rabid reaction that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. In other words, you didn't even read the material. You just went off on it.

I read it - I've read much like it over the years. Like I said above, mainly a strawman.

When it's implicitly argued that supply and demand shouldn't determine anything ("We have no ethical or moral obligation to accept economics as the final arbitrator of who gets a job and who doesn’t, who stays in business and who doesn’t, what we do in communities and what we don’t, where food is produced and where it is not, whether or not we trade, or of anything else"), the recommendation is always that the State should step in and attempt to "fix" things via dictates. That never works, and never will!.

We experimented with that ideology in the last century. Need I tell you what the outcome was?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wow. Such dishonesty. I'm truly shocked.

What would make you spew such lies about my point of view? It's pretty disturbing to see someone applauded for attacking me by attributing a point of view that I find absolutely disdainful.

The society that I advocate honors individual liberty first and foremost. It's the one that our constitution was designed to protect. Individual liberty doesn't mean I can go around shooting people and doing whatever I want...

I take my cues from Thomas Jefferson:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Please don't ever slander me like that again.

Sorry, but your invocation of the phrase "individual liberty" in the context of this discussion just sounds like code for socioeconomic Darwinism (given your stated positions.)

[W*GS]

TJ, LABF will slander and slur you as much as he can, because he believes that such things constitute an argument.

[W*GS]

Sorry, but your use the phrase "individual liberty" in the context of this discussion just sounds like code for socioeconomic Darwinism (given your stated positions.)

And now it's complete. LABF has no use for individual liberty. He continually claims he's not a socialist, and then he makes the above comment, which is exactly what a socialist would say.

LABF is a fraud and a liar.

[Taco John]

Sorry, but your invocation of the phrase "individual liberty" in the context of this discussion just sounds like code for socioeconomic Darwinism (given your stated positions.)


Individual liberty is what this nation was founded on. What people do with their liberty is up to them, so long as they aren't infringing on the liberty of others. This is not socioeconomic darwinism. This is founding father libertarianism.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Individual liberty is what this nation was founded on. What people do with their liberty is up to them, so long as they aren't infringing on the liberty of others. This is not socioeconomic darwinism. This is founding father libertarianism.

But can you honestly say that Wal-Mart is exercising its liberty without infringing on the liberty of others?

[Taco John]

But can you honestly say that Wal-Mart is exercising its liberty without infringing on the liberty of others?

Not any more than you can honestly say that Walmart would be able to do it without the help of an over-reaching government (http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/).

[Taco John]

For what it's worth, I think the ideals of socialism are noble, but ultimately flawed. Socialism provides a safety net in the short term, but there are always going to be those that gain power that use the tools of big socialist government for the ends of greed. We're seeing that happen with the bail-out of Bear Sterns and the effective nationalization of our banking system.

Face it: greed is never going away. The best you can do is install a system in which individual liberty is protected at all costs, and the government is limited in its power.

Protect the atom and you protect the organism.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not any more than you can honestly say that Walmart would be able to do it without the help of an over-reaching government (http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/).

Not an over-reaching government - a failure of government to do its job, i.e., regulating business and policing corporate crime.

(See Dubya and Kenny Boy for another prime example.)

[W*GS]

What sorts of regulations for Wal-Mart does LABF have in mind?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

For what it's worth, I think the ideals of socialism are noble, but ultimately flawed. Socialism provides a safety net in the short term, but there are always going to be those that gain power that use the tools of big socialist government for the ends of greed. We're seeing that happen with the bail-out of Bear Sterns and the effective nationalization of our banking system.

Well, I'm glad you recognize the Bear Sterns bail out as an example of corporate socialism.

I was getting worried there for a minute. ;)

Face it: greed is never going away.


It's one thing to say "greed is never going away" - it's another thing to say "greed is good."

The two views produce two completely different kinds of policy.

Man's aggressive instincts are never going to go away either. That doesn't mean we don't have a responsibility to manage them.

The best you can do is install a system in which individual liberty is protected at all costs, and the government is limited in its power.

But the system we have now is one of private enterprise for the working and middle classes, and socialism for big business and the wealthiest Americans.

[Taco John]

Not an over-reaching government - a failure of government to do its job, i.e., regulating business and policing corporate crime.

(See Dubya and Kenny Boy for another prime example.)


I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem then. I'm not sure what Dubya and Kenny Boy have to do with Walmart, but the fact that you brought them up tells me that you're not actually interested in talking about the issues, you're interested in slandering Bush. I'm no fan of Bush, but I'd rather discuss the source of the problem than finagle with someone over the symptoms.

A progressive government that believes that America can't work without it's guiding hand is the source of the problems. The fact that it's Bush in there manipulating the levers of big government isn't the point. The problem is that the government has such powerful levers to manipulate. But looking at Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution, the government *SHOULDN'T* have these massive levers.

The reason why progressive socialism fails is because as it intervenes in the markets, it creates unintended consequences that become a cause for more intervention. This intervention wreaks economic and social havoc in the markets, and eventually the government has to bail out the companies that are affected by this intervention. Along the way, America elects government officials who don't share the progressive socialist philosophy, and use the levers of government for cronyism. This symptom is inevitable. There's no way around it. The more powerful you make government, the more powerful its corruption becomes. George W. Bush is living proof that progressive socialism doesn't work - it turns into corporate socialism when the government swings right - better known as "fascism."

""Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -Attributed to Mussolini

Progressivism is a Pollyanna philosophy that hopes for the best but gets the worst. I admire the end goals. They're noble indeed. But they'll never work unless we were to make the full fundamental shift to socialism. And even then they're doomed to economic failure in due time.

This is why I favor small government, the smallest possible until one individual crosses the lines of liberty to encroach on the liberty of another. For that person, I favor as much government as can be reasonably thrown at him and the loss of their liberty until restitution is paid.

The most important government, is the government of ones self.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. " -Thomas Jefferson

[Taco John]

But the system we have now is one of private enterprise for the working and middle classes, and socialism for big business and the wealthiest Americans.



Yep. Thank you Teddy Roosevelt... ::)

[BroncoBuff]

how do you propose to change it? How does anybody propose that they're going to get people to stop thinking about themselves first? What is ever going to happen that is going to cause people to think of others first, and themselves second?
Straw man again, TJ. This issue has nothing to do with "changing peoples hearts," or anything like that. Such an effort would be a fool's errand. But like I mentioned several times in the other thread, government exists for exactly these kinds of reasons - to make laws directed toward societal goals and stated public policy.

You have to think much B I G G E R and B R O A D E R ....

All laws are enacted with the specific purpose of encouraging/discouraging behaviors and/or actions that promote the kind of society we want to have. Non-smoking laws, civil rights laws, DUI laws, on and on and on. Your butt is sitting on the biggest ever public policy initiative directed toward societal goals: mortgage interest deduction. That's a huge "government handout" TJ. Laws enacted precisely to encourage mass construction, sales and purchases of single family homes. A wildly successful public policy. The freaking American Dream.

By the exact same reasoning, what's wrong with minimum wage laws sufficient for unskilled labor to pay for health insurance? Or do you "have yours," and not want anybody else to have theirs?


The problem is that the government has such powerful levers to manipulate. But looking at Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution, the government *SHOULDN'T* have these massive levers.
Yeah, it sucks ... so you're not gonna take that mortgage interest deduction then, right? And your parents are gonna send back their social security checks? And if you have any diabled relatives, they're all gonna forego disability benefits, right? THAT'LL SHOW EM!

Those government "levers" are terrible ... :~ohyah!:

[Taco John]

government exists for exactly these kinds of reasons - to make laws directed toward societal goals and stated public policy.



Not the United States Government (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html). The US Government was established to protect individual liberty. I challenge anyone to try and find the words "societal goals" in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You will find exactly zero references to "society."

Society has no rights. Society isn't an entity. It's an abstraction. The Constitution was written to give individuals rights. I would be happy to learn of any references in the constitution which support your assertion that the US government exists to protect the rights of society. But be warned that it's a fools errand. You might as well not even bother looking for it.

[Taco John]

Yeah, it sucks ... so you're not gonna take that mortgage interest deduction then, right? And your parents are gonna send back their social security checks? And if you have any diabled relatives, they're all gonna forego disability benefits, right? THAT'LL SHOW EM!

Those government "levers" are terrible ... :~ohyah!:

There is no doubt that I'm going to take back every penny that the government has absconded from me without remorse. This isn't "free money." This is money that is coming back to its rightful owner.

[Rohirrim]

Personally, I think it is ridiculous for mankind to accept the premise that the basic principle of our economic system is greed. There's a reason the ancients came up with the seven deadly sins, and it wasn't religion. It was because these seven flaws of human character are destructive to the individual and destructive to the community. And why do we keep pretending that government is some alien being operating by its own volition? It's not. The government is us. Or at least, in this country, it's supposed to be.

[W*GS]

Personally, I think it is ridiculous for mankind to accept the premise that the basic principle of our economic system is greed.

I think it's ridiculous that you've set up such a strawman.

What is "greed", exactly? Is working to make your children's lives better than your own "greedy"? Is getting a $10 million salary "greedy"? Is being ambitious "greedy"?

[Taco John]

Personally, I think it is ridiculous for mankind to accept the premise that the basic principle of our economic system is greed.


Our economic system is the Keynesian economic system. It's based on slowly nationalizing everything and calling it "investment in infrastructure." The ultimate goal of Keynesian economics is the consolidation of power. Or better known as greed.

[BroncoBuff]

Federally insured student loans are intended to forge a more educated society .... (I'll bet you had one of those handouts)

Anti-DUI laws are intended to keep our streets safe ... (I'll bet you drive late at night)

Civil rights laws are intended to eliminate racial bias in hiring .... (bet you and your wife and family count on fair treatment when you apply for jobs)

Anti-bulk cold medicine purchase laws are intended to eliminate rampant amateur drug production (bet you're glad there's no meth-house on your street ... I saw on PBS Frontline a year ago that Portland is Ground Zero for the meth epidemic. I had thought it was the LA Inland Empire ... but nope. You're sitting smack in the middle of it, TJ)

Tax-exempt status granted to charities is intended to encourage giving to charities (bet you're glad you don't have to drive 50 miles to get to your church)




Please consider taking the position that you're lucky you got a good education, and that your family is healthy in mind and body. You might also consider taking the position that people who were NOT educated or are NOT healthy should not be just left in the street like in 1800s England. Looking at poor, uneducated or disadvantaged people and complaining they're "getting handouts," or opposing higher minimum wages because the workers are "not skilled, they're just labor," and that they should "go to school," or "look for another job," because you don't want your Wal-Mart stock to drop ... completely ignores the reality that you get many many handouts yourself. If you add up the actual dollars, you and I and those like us actually get much more, dolloar fopr dollar if you add it up, in the way of handouts than the "unskilled laborers" you deride.

You might want to listen to Air America's Thom Hartmann for more on thee issues ... he's right there in Portland, too. He regularly crunches numbers to come up with startling facts like: the sum total of every dollar of federal welfare. food stamps, AFDC, etc, is slightly less than six weeks of Iraq War sending. Those fictional "welfare queens" Reagan made you so mad at actually don't exist .... welfare is a TINY part of the federal budet.

[W*GS]

You might want to listen to Air America's Thom Hartmann for more on thee issues ... he's right there in Portland, too. He regularly crunches numbers to come up with startling facts like: the sum total of every dollar of federal welfare. food stamps, AFDC, etc, is slightly less than six weeks of Iraq War sending. Those fictional "welfare queens" Reagan made you so mad at actually don't exist .... welfare is a TINY part of the federal budet.

That's only if you apply a very limited and narrow definition of "welfare". Does Hartmann count Medicare and Medicaid?

See

http://home.comcast.net/~fedbud/fedbudget/fedbudget.htm

[BroncoBuff]

Not the United States Government (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html). The US Government was established to protect individual liberty. I challenge anyone to try and find the words "societal goals" in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You will find exactly zero references to "society."

Society has no rights. Society isn't an entity. It's an abstraction. The Constitution was written to give individuals rights. I would be happy to learn of any references in the constitution which support your assertion that the US government exists to protect the rights of society. But be warned that it's a fools errand. You might as well not even bother looking for it.
TJ, I don't know how to respond to all this ... you're all over the map, and quite frankly I'm not sure you fully comprehend these topics. The Constitution is about the government, not individuals (those are in The Bill of Rights). Here's the relevant parts:


Preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Article I sect 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
Congress is ORDERED in the Constitution to provide for the common welfare, that's a very simple reality. And we are free to elect representatives whose idea of what constitutes "common welfare" agrees with ours. FDR was beloved, and the DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY would've elected him four more times of they could have.

The people have spoken.

[W*GS]

The people have spoken.

He's right, TJ - they've spoken, so just shut the **** up with your notions of individual rights and liberty. The argument is settled - now be a good cog and do what you're told!

[Taco John]

Federally insured student loans are intended to forge a more educated society .... (I'll bet you had one of those handouts)

Anti-DUI laws are intended to keep our streets safe ... (I'll bet you drive late at night)

Civil rights laws are intended to eliminate racial bias in hiring .... (bet you and your wife and family count on fair treatment when you apply for jobs)

Anti-bulk cold medicine purchase laws are intended to eliminate rampant amateur drug production (bet you're glad there's no meth-house on your street ... I saw on PBS Frontline a year ago that Portland is Ground Zero for the meth epidemic. I had thought it was the LA Inland Empire ... but nope. You're sitting smack in the middle of it, TJ)

Tax-exempt status granted to charities is intended to encourage giving to charities (bet you're glad you don't have to drive 50 miles to get to your church)




Please consider taking the position that you're lucky you got a good education, and that your family is healthy in mind and body. You might also consider taking the position that people who were NOT educated or are NOT healthy should not be just left in the street like in 1800s England. Looking at poor, uneducated or disadvantaged people and complaining they're "getting handouts," or opposing higher minimum wages because the workers are "not skilled, they're just labor," and that they should "go to school," or "look for another job," because you don't want your Wal-Mart stock to drop ... completely ignores the reality that you get many many handouts yourself. If you add up the actual dollars, you and I and those like us actually get much more, dolloar fopr dollar if you add it up, in the way of handouts than the "unskilled laborers" you deride.

You might want to listen to Air America's Thom Hartmann for more on thee issues ... he's right there in Portland, too. He regularly crunches numbers to come up with startling facts like: the sum total of every dollar of federal welfare. food stamps, AFDC, etc, is slightly less than six weeks of Iraq War sending. Those fictional "welfare queens" Reagan made you so mad at actually don't exist .... welfare is a TINY part of the federal budet.


It's hard to argue with liberals because they turn you into a villain for protecting your constitutional rights.

I'll be DAMNED if I've ever derided unskilled labor. This is the second time I have been egregiously slandered in this thread. Why must people lie to advance their arguments? I have not once slandered anyone in this thread. I have advanced my points of view with precision and poise.

I am raised from a LONG line of unskilled labor, and am VERY proud of my roots. My family worked in fields, production plants, farms, myself included. Calling unskilled labor and pointing out the folly of the unionization of it is NOT deriding it. It's just simply telling the truth: the unionization of unskilled labor will fail every single time. There are too many unskilled workers who will cross the picket line to take the job. This will never change unless we were to make a societal shift to a socialist system.

I asked LA, now I'll ask you: please don't slander me like that again. You can shove WAGS into the evil box that you've drawn up for him if you like, but I'll be damned if I let you do it to me.

[Rohirrim]

Our economic system is the Keynesian economic system. It's based on slowly nationalizing everything and calling it "investment in infrastructure." The ultimate goal of Keynesian economics is the consolidation of power. Or better known as greed.

Well, Section 8 of the Constitution does give Congress the power to regulate commerce. I'm not an economist. Haven't really studied it. As I understand Keynes, his idea was that government act as something of a pressure valve to the economy, taking action to control fluctuations in the currency and to try to keep a check on inflation and restoring credit flow and liquidity when necessary, basically to keep the river of commerce flowing.

"Everything" has been nationalized? Like what? The other question I have, since we have decided that corporations are persons, do they also have the right to individual liberty? Don't they also have self interests they might want to exercise and protect? And when it comes right down to it, who has the right of way, individual human beings or corporations?

[BroncoBuff]

That's only if you apply a very limited and narrow definition of "welfare". Does Hartmann count Medicare and Medicaid?

See

http://home.comcast.net/~fedbud/fedbudget/fedbudget.htm
That's actually a very good question (imagine that ::))

No, social security and medicare are not included. Those expenditures are a huge portion of the federal budget. I was referring just to the sudden Reagan-era peroccupation with non-existent "welfare queens." Make the people angry at something - like those greedy welfare bastards - tell them you'll protect them from the (non-existent) danger - and they'll vote for you.

Forget that the total mortgage interest deductions taken each year DWARF the total welfare expenditures ... might even come close to Medicare/Medicaid. You gotta think broader: handouts are not just about money spent, they're also about government foregoing tax revenue. And every homeowner gets that hefty handout.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem then. I'm not sure what Dubya and Kenny Boy have to do with Walmart, but the fact that you brought them up tells me that you're not actually interested in talking about the issues, you're interested in slandering Bush. I'm no fan of Bush, but I'd rather discuss the source of the problem than finagle with someone over the symptoms.

Wow.

I bring up Enron as an example in making a point, and you accuse me of Bush bashing.

Your transformation to the dark side would appear almost complete. ;)

Anyway, Wal-Mart and Enron are both examples of the sort of monopolies, corporate malfeasance, and criminality that result when government fails to do its job, i.e., regulate big business and police corporate crime.

That's the source of the problem.

[BroncoBuff]

I'll be DAMNED if I've ever derided unskilled labor. This is the second time I have been egregiously slandered in this thread. Why must people lie to advance their arguments? I have not once slandered anyone in this thread.
Geez TJ ... I never meant to slander you, I'm sorry you feel that I did. But you definitely did argue aganst a higher minimum wage/union involvement at Wal-Mart because the workers were "not skilled," but were merely "laborers." It's not slander, TJ, you said it. I suppose the word "derided" might be a bit strong, but not that strong ... after all, saying people shouldn't have a union runs counter to the Contract Clause in the Constitution. Seriously. The Contract Clause of the Constitution is the basis for unions.

Has something happened in your life recently that has you all wound up about this stuff?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's actually a very good question (imagine that ::))

No, social security and medicare are not included. Those expenditures are a huge portion of the federal budget. I was referring just to the sudden Reagan-era peroccupation with non-existent "welfare queens." Make the people angry at something - like those greedy welfare bastards - tell them you'll protect them from the (non-existent) danger - and they'll vote for you.

Forget that the total mortgage interest deductions taken each year DWARF the total welfare expenditures ... might even come close to Medicare/Medicaid. You gotta think broader: handouts are not just about money spent, they're also about government foregoing tax revenue. And every homeowner gets that hefty handout.

Don't you just love the way Republican administrations, in their ongoing campaign to roll back the New Deal, loot the living sh*t out of public trust funds (Social Security being the foremost example) and then blame the programs themselves when they appear to be in danger of insolvency? (And then when right-wing ideologues like W*GS dutifully parrot this misinformation?)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Federally insured student loans are intended to forge a more educated society .... (I'll bet you had one of those handouts)

Anti-DUI laws are intended to keep our streets safe ... (I'll bet you drive late at night)

Civil rights laws are intended to eliminate racial bias in hiring .... (bet you and your wife and family count on fair treatment when you apply for jobs)

Anti-bulk cold medicine purchase laws are intended to eliminate rampant amateur drug production (bet you're glad there's no meth-house on your street ... I saw on PBS Frontline a year ago that Portland is Ground Zero for the meth epidemic. I had thought it was the LA Inland Empire ... but nope. You're sitting smack in the middle of it, TJ)

Tax-exempt status granted to charities is intended to encourage giving to charities (bet you're glad you don't have to drive 50 miles to get to your church)




Please consider taking the position that you're lucky you got a good education, and that your family is healthy in mind and body. You might also consider taking the position that people who were NOT educated or are NOT healthy should not be just left in the street like in 1800s England. Looking at poor, uneducated or disadvantaged people and complaining they're "getting handouts," or opposing higher minimum wages because the workers are "not skilled, they're just labor," and that they should "go to school," or "look for another job," because you don't want your Wal-Mart stock to drop ... completely ignores the reality that you get many many handouts yourself. If you add up the actual dollars, you and I and those like us actually get much more, dolloar fopr dollar if you add it up, in the way of handouts than the "unskilled laborers" you deride.

You might want to listen to Air America's Thom Hartmann for more on thee issues ... he's right there in Portland, too. He regularly crunches numbers to come up with startling facts like: the sum total of every dollar of federal welfare. food stamps, AFDC, etc, is slightly less than six weeks of Iraq War sending. Those fictional "welfare queens" Reagan made you so mad at actually don't exist .... welfare is a TINY part of the federal budet.

Buff knocks another one clean out of the park. :thumbs:

I think you just buried the anti-democracy/pro-corporatocracy types with this post.

Nice work.

[Taco John]

Well, Section 8 of the Constitution does give Congress the power to regulate commerce. I'm not an economist. Haven't really studied it. [quote]

You're a Ron Paul fan. Here's an introduction to his economic philosophy (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Real-People-Gene-Callahan/dp/0945466412/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206677964&sr=8-1)


[quote]As I understand Keynes, his idea was that government act as something of a pressure valve to the economy, taking action to control fluctuations in the currency and to try to keep a check on inflation and restoring credit flow and liquidity when necessary, basically to keep the river of commerce flowing.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions, to be sure...



"Everything" has been nationalized?

Slowly but surely.


Like what?

Name an industry. Airlines... How many bailouts have there been? BearStearns - that deal is the effecive nationalization of the investment banking system. Farming subsidies - do what we command and you get money. Railroads - Teddy Roosevelt started this path with his Hepburn act. The public education system is a nationalized industry. We're talking about nationalizing healthcare now.

Marxism isn't the only flavor of socialism that there is. The American version is to slowly nationalize everything through the levers of over-regulation of industry to the point that it becomes dependent on government in order to operate. Eventually, that industry throws it's hooks into government by way of lobbyists and bought and paid for politicians and it becomes a case of two leeches feeding off eachother.


The other question I have, since we have decided that corporations are persons, do they also have the right to individual liberty? Don't they also have self interests they might want to exercise and protect? And when it comes right down to it, who has the right of way, individual human beings or corporations?

Not so far as I'm concerned. Corporations being granted personhood certainly wasn't the founders intent. I can't imagine how anybody of fair mind could be in favor of this arrangement.

[Rohirrim]

I have to post an excerpt from the article I posted because, for one thing, it says it better than I could, and two, it points out the obvious flaw in our thinking when we equate the "self evident" rights of the individual within the political spectrum to the rights of entities doing business in the economic spectrum. They are not the same thing:

Economics assumes that trade always takes place between two people or groups that are equally competent and capable of pursuing their own self-interest. Sometimes this is a valid assumption, but often it is not. Economics ignores the fact that the world is filled with people (and countries) who are inherently unequal in competence and capabilities. It ignores the fact that giant corporations are capable of totally dominating conditions of trade with smaller businesses or individuals. By their very nature, industrial corporations attempt to dominate in their transactions with all, including with the natural environment.

Any trade that is legal is generally accepted as free trade by economists. Economics ignores the fact that the strong may pressure the weak into trading by simply threatening or withholding benefits, or protection from harm, upon which the weak has become dependent. Since the strong are not legally required to provide these benefits, no law is broken.

When trade occurs between the strong and the weak, particularly when motivated by profit as economists assume, the weak are invariably exploited by the strong. As long as the outcomes for strong and weak added together end up in a larger dollar and cent total, economics concludes that there have been gains from trade -- no matter that the weak are now even relatively weaker and more vulnerable and the strong are now even stronger and more dominant. To the economist, justice and equity are just empty words because they have no means to address them.

We are trying to use the limited palette of the economist to paint ourselves a picture of all of society. In the political spectrum, "all men are created equal." In the economic spectrum, that is woefully untrue. I really wish there was some way to bring Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton back and let them look around at the world of today, where many corporations dwarf whole countries. I wonder what they would include in the Constitution in hindsight?

[BroncoBuff]

It's hard to argue with liberals because they turn you into a villain for protecting your constitutional rights.
I'm telling you, the only rights individuals have are in the Amendments to the Constitution, and none of them correspond to the general complaints you have about government spending ....


Corporations being granted personhood certainly wasn't the founders intent. I can't imagine how anybody of fair mind could be in favor of this arrangement.
NOW you're talking! :thumbsup:

[Los Broncos]

Education is there if you want to go somewhere, your destination is your choice.

[Taco John]

Geez TJ ... I never meant to slander you, I'm sorry you feel that I did. But you definitely did argue aganst a higher minimum wage/union involvement at Wal-Mart because the workers were "not skilled," but were merely "laborers." It's not slander, TJ, you said it. I suppose the word "derided" might be a bit strong, but not that strong ... after all, saying people shouldn't have a union runs counter to the Contract Clause in the Constitution. Seriously. The Contract Clause of the Constitution is the basis for unions.

Has something happened in your life recently that has you all wound up about this stuff?


I never have ONCE said that people shouldn't have unions. I am in favor of people unionizing if they have the power to. What I said, and apparently bears repeating is that unskilled labor, as a fact, do not have leverage in this arena. They simply do not. This isn't deriding unskilled labor. It's stating a fact. If they want to unionize, I say let them try -- but they shouldn't be suprised when the entire slate gets laid off and their positions filled the very next day because there is no shortage of people who will cross the picketline for a job. This is just an economic fact. The only way the unionization of unskilled labor could ever work is if we shifted to a fully socialist economy and the entire body was nationalized.

I'm in favor of free unions. I would personally never join one, but I wouldn't stop anyone from doing so. What I'm not in favor of is unions getting any special benefit from the government, just as I'm not in favor of corporations getting any special benefit from the government.

And as far as the minimum wage goes, I am against it because it does two things: 1) Increases prices, and 2) Reduces jobs. The minimum wage decreases opportunity and inflates costs, ultimately hurting the poorest people in society. The minimum wage is the least of my issues however. There are much bigger fish to fry.

[BroncoBuff]

Economics ignores the fact that the world is filled with people (and countries) who are inherently unequal in competence and capabilities. It ignores the fact that giant corporations are capable of totally dominating conditions of trade with smaller businesses or individuals. By their very nature, industrial corporations attempt to dominate in their transactions with all, including with the natural environment.
Good stuff ... Wal-Mart does this by using the environment of the workplace to warn (in alarmist fashion) about the consequences of unions. An employer warning within the workplace environment has an inherently coercive effect. The union organizers with folding tables in the parking lot can never compete with that.


Any trade that is legal is generally accepted as free trade by economists. Economics ignores the fact that the strong may pressure the weak into trading by simply threatening or withholding benefits, or protection from harm, upon which the weak has become dependent. Since the strong are not legally required to provide these benefits, no law is broken.

When trade occurs between the strong and the weak, particularly when motivated by profit as economists assume, the weak are invariably exploited by the strong. As long as the outcomes for strong and weak added together end up in a larger dollar and cent total, economics concludes that there have been gains from trade -- no matter that the weak are now even relatively weaker and more vulnerable and the strong are now even stronger and more dominant. To the economist, justice and equity are just empty words because they have no means to address them.

We are trying to use the limited palette of the economist to paint ourselves a picture of all of society. In the political spectrum, "all men are created equal." In the economic spectrum, that is woefully untrue.
Powerful stuff ... GREAT stuff.

[Rohirrim]

[QUOTE=Rohirrim;1929968]Well, Section 8 of the Constitution does give Congress the power to regulate commerce. I'm not an economist. Haven't really studied it. [quote]

You're a Ron Paul fan. Here's an introduction to his economic philosophy (http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Real-People-Gene-Callahan/dp/0945466412/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206677964&sr=8-1)




The path to hell is paved with good intentions, to be sure...





Slowly but surely.




Name an industry. Airlines... How many bailouts have there been? BearStearns - that deal is the effecive nationalization of the investment banking system. Farming subsidies - do what we command and you get money. Railroads - Teddy Roosevelt started this path with his Hepburn act. The public education system is a nationalized industry. We're talking about nationalizing healthcare now.

Marxism isn't the only flavor of socialism that there is. The American version is to slowly nationalize everything through the levers of over-regulation of industry to the point that it becomes dependent on government in order to operate. Eventually, that industry throws it's hooks into government by way of lobbyists and bought and paid for politicians and it becomes a case of two leeches feeding off eachother.




Not so far as I'm concerned. Corporations being granted personhood certainly wasn't the founders intent. I can't imagine how anybody of fair mind could be in favor of this arrangement.

Thanks. I've added that to my wish list. I'm going to have to take a vacation just to do all the reading I have backed up. I really should study economics. It's never really appealed to me. I've never been much a math person. I've caught little bits here and there. Mostly just main ideas.

I was never 100% on board with Ron Paul, as I pointed out many times. In fact, on one test, I agreed with 68% of his stance on issues. What I most agreed with was his foreign policy stance which I still think is right on and still the most crucial to this country. To be honest, the currency debate went over my head. I am opposed to the massive subsidy conglomerate our government has become. From what I know of Keynes, I doubt that he would like it much either. I think he favored light touches on the rudder to keep the ship on course, not taking over the whole ship.

But we will not be able to touch this rotten subsidy system until we are able to root out the corruption on Capitol Hill. Frankly, it's metastasized throughout the government so deeply now that I don't see how we can disentangle the damn thing without setting the whole system on fire, burning it to the ground, and starting over.

[Taco John]

I really should study economics. It's never really appealed to me. I've never been much a math person.


Read that economics book, and you'll learn that economics isn't about math... It's about human action.

And everyone who is interested in politics should study economics, because that's all politics is. If you don't understand economics, you'll never understand politics, no matter how hard you try. But once you understand economics (and I'm not saying that I've mastered the subject yet, but I am much more confident in my grasp of the topic since I first started studying it last summer), the layers will peel from your eyes and you'll be able to see the actions that people take in the political arena in a new light -- not to mention the personal arena.

[BroncoBuff]

I'll give you Lesson 1 in Economics: The "Commerce Clause" is the broadest, most powerful Congressional basis for legislation. The courts have upheld 99.999999% of legislation that's based upon the Commerce Clause.

It's all well and good to claim things are "violations of rights," or are "unconstitutional," the problem is - Congress and the courts decide what is unconstitutional and what violates rights. That's the system. As cold as it sounds, your alternative is the ballot box.




Geez, I hate when I sound like Antonin Scalia ... Uhh

[Rohirrim]

Oops. Wait a minute. Brandon Marshall is on the evening news with Reggie.

[BroncoBuff]

Oops. Wait a minute. Brandon Marshall is on the evening news with Reggie.
Yeah, he was sparring with Reggie quite a bit in the presser posted in the main room.

[Rohirrim]

Damn! Reggie Rivers used the phrase COULD have been a "career ending injury." Don't say that ****, Reggie! Geez. Man, that arm does not look good. It's all wrapped up like an elephant trunk with straps attaching the weight around his neck. Brandon says he knew the artery was severed so he didn't wait for the ambulance and instead just wrapped it up, jumped in the truck, and took off to the ER. I swear, sometimes I think the Broncos are just friggin snakebit.

[Rohirrim]

I'll give you Lesson 1 in Economics: The "Commerce Clause" is the broadest, most powerful Congressional basis for legislation. The courts have upheld 99.999999% of legislation that's based upon the Commerce Clause.

It's all well and good to claim things are "violations of rights," or are "unconstitutional," the problem is - Congress and the courts decide what is unconstitutional and what violates rights. That's the system. As cold as it sounds, your alternative is the ballot box.




Geez, I hate when I sound like Antonin Scalia ... Uhh

Back to the subject. You're a lawyer. Is Scalia the worst justice since Taney?

[BroncoBuff]

The description sounds even worse than it looks: "he severed veins, arteries, tendons, muscles and nerves."

Sheesh, what's left?

[REB]

I'm channeling Benjamin Franklin... :)


"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."

-Benjamin Franklin

[W*GS]

Economics assumes that trade always takes place between two people or groups that are equally competent and capable of pursuing their own self-interest. Sometimes this is a valid assumption, but often it is not.

The above is actually a strawman - I've not seen a single economics text or economist state that "trade always takes place between two people or groups that are equally competent and capable of pursuing their own self-interest". If you, Ro, could point me to such a statement, I'd be impressed.

Economics ignores the fact that the world is filled with people (and countries) who are inherently unequal in competence and capabilities.

Well, no, it doesn't. And the "(and countries)" aside is somewhat silly - countries don't trade with each other; businesses and individuals trade with each other, and they are associated with country X or country Y, but X and Y don't trade with each other. What the author is trying to sneak in is the notion that some countries "exploit" other countries in terms of trade. That's a mistaken concept.

It ignores the fact that giant corporations are capable of totally dominating conditions of trade with smaller businesses or individuals. By their very nature, industrial corporations attempt to dominate in their transactions with all, including with the natural environment.

Hunh? A corporation can't (unless it has the connivance of the State helping it) force any given trade, any more than the hot dog vendor down the street can "force" her customers to pay her $100 for a hot dog. Yes, corporations can utilize unfair conditions in a given trade - but both parties to a trade are responsible for looking out for their own interests. Whose fault is it, for example, if you personally don't get paid enough by your own reckoning? You or your employer?

Any trade that is legal is generally accepted as free trade by economists. Economics ignores the fact that the strong may pressure the weak into trading by simply threatening or withholding benefits, or protection from harm, upon which the weak has become dependent. Since the strong are not legally required to provide these benefits, no law is broken.

This really doesn't make much sense. What's "protection from harm" in terms of a trade? It's obvious he doesn't mean (say) the selling of a harmful product (there are many laws against that), so what does he mean? Is he obliquely referring to tobacco companies, which exploit the addiction of smokers to nicotine? Or is he referring to oil companies, which exploit the addiction of Americans to SUVs? Or is he referring to food companies, who "exploit" the fact that we all must eat, sooner or later?

When trade occurs between the strong and the weak, particularly when motivated by profit as economists assume, the weak are invariably exploited by the strong. As long as the outcomes for strong and weak added together end up in a larger dollar and cent total, economics concludes that there have been gains from trade -- no matter that the weak are now even relatively weaker and more vulnerable and the strong are now even stronger and more dominant. To the economist, justice and equity are just empty words because they have no means to address them.

The "invariably exploited" is pure hogwash. Do you, Ro, feel exploited when you buy a loaf of bread from the grocery store? After all, it's likely to have been produced by a large, strong corporation - and you're just one single, weak person. Do you feel even weaker after doing so?

It's true that economics is often called the "dismal science", but what this author seems to want is for trade to become something carefully managed, monitored, and regulated so that some vague notions of "justice" and "equity" are served. Is it "just" that I can't afford the Porsche I dream about? Is it "equitable" that some kinds of food I like can make me fat?

[W*GS]

No, social security and medicare are not included. Those expenditures are a huge portion of the federal budget.

So why doesn't Hartman refer to those as "welfare", when they clearly are just that? Because his argument would disintegrate if he did? I'm not impressed.

You gotta think broader: handouts are not just about money spent, they're also about government foregoing tax revenue. And every homeowner gets that hefty handout.

We don't pay a tax on the air we breathe (yet); does that count as "welfare"?

[kappys]

In the short term no new economic system exists to replace capitalism. I think certain elements of Marxism(though not as practiced in communism) in which workers control the means of production would be of some benefit. Within our own system that is somewhat realized by companies that give options or stocks to employees as bonuses.

Its very hard to predict what the next economic system will be. One of the obstacles is militarism and statist nationalism in which the people take up the identitiy of their governments and the small group of men/companies which control them.

[Rohirrim]

The above is actually a strawman - I've not seen a single economics text or economist state that "trade always takes place between two people or groups that are equally competent and capable of pursuing their own self-interest". If you, Ro, could point me to such a statement, I'd be impressed.



Well, no, it doesn't. And the "(and countries)" aside is somewhat silly - countries don't trade with each other; businesses and individuals trade with each other, and they are associated with country X or country Y, but X and Y don't trade with each other. What the author is trying to sneak in is the notion that some countries "exploit" other countries in terms of trade. That's a mistaken concept.



Hunh? A corporation can't (unless it has the connivance of the State helping it) force any given trade, any more than the hot dog vendor down the street can "force" her customers to pay her $100 for a hot dog. Yes, corporations can utilize unfair conditions in a given trade - but both parties to a trade are responsible for looking out for their own interests. Whose fault is it, for example, if you personally don't get paid enough by your own reckoning? You or your employer?



This really doesn't make much sense. What's "protection from harm" in terms of a trade? It's obvious he doesn't mean (say) the selling of a harmful product (there are many laws against that), so what does he mean? Is he obliquely referring to tobacco companies, which exploit the addiction of smokers to nicotine? Or is he referring to oil companies, which exploit the addiction of Americans to SUVs? Or is he referring to food companies, who "exploit" the fact that we all must eat, sooner or later?



The "invariably exploited" is pure hogwash. Do you, Ro, feel exploited when you buy a loaf of bread from the grocery store? After all, it's likely to have been produced by a large, strong corporation - and you're just one single, weak person. Do you feel even weaker after doing so?

It's true that economics is often called the "dismal science", but what this author seems to want is for trade to become something carefully managed, monitored, and regulated so that some vague notions of "justice" and "equity" are served. Is it "just" that I can't afford the Porsche I dream about? Is it "equitable" that some kinds of food I like can make me fat?

Who's being pollyannish now? What he's saying is that the free market religious dogma you are devoted to is full of holes and rather than serving the human beings who created it, it is enslaving us. I really wouldn't expect a devotee to understand that, any more than I would expect Tom Cruise to suddenly wake up and realize L. Ron Hubbard has played him for a dope.

[W*GS]

What he's saying is that the free market religious dogma you are devoted to is full of holes and rather than serving the human beings who created it, it is enslaving us.

The claim of "enslavement" is nonsense. Nothing about economics or the market compels one to become a mindless consumer, or whatever he alleges. He's just another long line of ninnies who thinks that via wishful thinking, concepts like supply and demand will just go away. Ain't gonna happen.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Who's being pollyannish now? What he's saying is that the free market religious dogma you are devoted to is full of holes and rather than serving the human beings who created it, it is enslaving us. I really wouldn't expect a devotee to understand that, any more than I would expect Tom Cruise to suddenly wake up and realize L. Ron Hubbard has played him for a dope.

Ha!

Great analogy.

[W*GS]

As usual, LABF ignores the content and approves a mere personal attack.

[BroncoBuff]

As usual, LABF ignores the content and approves a mere personal attack.

You're describing yourself there.

[W*GS]

You're describing yourself there.

Well, no. Plenty of content here:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1930086&postcount=75

to which Ro responded with little more than a personal attack, and which got LABF all creamy and so he highlighted the strictly personal part.

Neither one addressed the questions or comments I had in the above post.

Do you want to try?

[footstepsfrom#27]

So here is my question: how do you propose to change it? How does anybody propose that they're going to get people to stop thinking about themselves first? What is ever going to happen that is going to cause people to think of others first, and themselves second?
Well somebody already came up with the answer to this question about 2,000 years ago, but most people are having none of it. I presume however, that you're asking this question in terms of the discussion's context, ie; economics, specifically our system of economic capitalism, which for all its strengths, is at the end of the day as imperfect as we who believe in it and benefit from it are. It has issues we need to work on. Why?

Because ALL human devices ultimately fade or fail over time.

We know socialism's a failed experiment, but the unwavering faith some have in it's logical opposite, while it looked good when the Berlin Wall fell, and the DOW was skyrocketing, seems a bit shakier right now. The entrance by the worlds two largest nations into the competitive markets as capitalistic players...the huge and rapidly widening gap between rich and poor, haves and have-nots...it turns out it's all relevant to whether we make it or not after all. The good news is, a bunch of really smart guys are working on this already. Whether they suceed or not is still an unanswered question but you might want to be aware of their efforts just in case.

I'm talking about the business concept called sustainability. Sustainability in a nutshell is the idea that we need to keep this thing called "society", and all it embodies going for as long as possible, precisely because it's in our own self interest to do so...ie; our survival and that of our kids depends on it. Our other option is to blow ourselves to kingdom come in a nuclear holocaust. To avoid this requires some long range thinking rather than short sightedness based on "I've got mine".

Sustainability refers to business decisions that impact environmental, economic and social survivability over the course of time. If you're a Christian think of it as "doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you." If you're an atheist, think of it as man engineering his own evolutionary progress and continued existence. In either case...it's rapidly becoming a global business concern for corporations and governments, and it transcends politics. That's right...even the commies in China are looking at this now. For those of you still arguing over liberal vs. conservative and capitalism vs. socialism...that is SO 20th century...and you're decidedly behind the curve on this. Sustainability is where you ought to be focusing now. It's where US and international business is focused as well.

Why do these corporations care? Why should they give a damn as long as they're making big bucks? Here's why: http://worldbenefit.case.edu/resources/BAWB%20Business%20Case.ppt

The Power Point focuses mostly on environmental (green) sustainability, which most people are aware of, but sustainability covers the entire realm of preservation issues and those impacted by them, estalishing at its core, the principle that we cannot ultimately live together in the world unless we learn to live together with the world...if this sounds like a bunch of pseudo do-gooder talk from liberals and social engineers, consider where it's coming from...of all places, corporate America...and the business MBA programs that drive their thinking from the top 50 universities in the world...among them: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, Duke, MIT, Wharton, NYU Stern, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Georgetown...etc...basically the cream of the crop of US and international business schools are the folks driving this concept that is now a global business reality.

Why are these people invested in this? Because the world isn't changing...it's already changed. When nearly half of consumers make buying decisions influenced by how socially and environmentally responsible a company is...how much they act not only in their own interests, but also in the interest of the PLANET and it's PEOPLE, that's the kind of stuff that gets the attention of even a greedy CEO who might otherwise not give a crap.

Sustainability is good business.

[W*GS]

Sustainability is good business.

Indeed - I expect many people to become millionaires and billionaires from meeting consumer demand for these sorts of products and services.

Capitalism rocks - and profit and wealth are not dirty words...

[BroncoBuff]

Do you want to try?
I really don't know where to start ... I wish people could just discuss in here - exchange ideas - rather than forcing their opinions on others with thin support and big talk.

I'll try to respond though. To begin, you say:

countries don't trade with each other; businesses and individuals trade with each other, and they are associated with country X or country Y, but X and Y don't trade with each other.
This is pretty naive, even for you. In the first place, the biggest business sector in the U.S. by far is defense contractors ... but they can't make any deals - not with the Pentagon or foreign countries - without the government brokering. It's the federal government that decides what products, how many, from whom and to whom they can be sold. There are 10,000 or more lobbysists in DC trying to get the government to make deals to buy stuff or allow them to sell stuff to other governments. Heck, prolly 10,000 on Middle East sales alone. It's near impossible to know where defense contractors end and government begins.

A good analogy: The pieces on the chess board are the corporations, the player moving the pieces is the government. Just like the endless stream of "handouts" TJ gets but apparently doesn't realize he gets, there are a million ways you never think of that government controls international trade - import and export tariffs, MFN status, port authority, graduated customs, rail and highway/roads expenditures and subsidies, byzantine state department regulations regarding who and to what extent you can trade with a foreign government. Just like you can't tell where defense contractors end and government starts ... you also can't tell where foreign traders end and government starts. Government is inexorably tied into every aspect. So the reality is that countries do trade with each other. Again, think B I G G E R. Corporations don't exist in vacuums. It's an "American corporation," or a "Canadian corporation," not just because they are physically in the country ... but because every aspect of their operation is regulated by government. In a thousand different ways.

Maybe this is part of the problem I'm hearing in here, though not clearly enunciated, that people would prefer the government not be involved in any commerce. Good luck with that ... that toothpaste is never going back in the tube. Governments are about control by their very definition.


the author is trying to sneak in is the notion that some countries "exploit" other countries in terms of trade. That's a mistaken concept.
Your American history is either incomplete, hampered by tunnel vision, or both. I hope you realize that the United States has (more than a few times) used its military might to overthrow governments - naked aggression to accomplish regime changes in order that American companies could get their hands on other nations' natural resources. Shah of Iran ring a bell? Coca-Cola in Central America? There's examples from every continent - all in the past 60 years. How about the 2003 overthrow of Sadaam Hussein? There is very compelling evidence now that the Iraqi invasion was accomplished largely so that U.S. treasury dollars could be systematically transferred in massive bulk to private sector multi-nationals. The "WMD" and "freedom" crap is all just white noise ... follow the money! Billlions and eventually trillions of dollars will change hands from the U.S. Treasury to Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, and dozens of other corporations we've never even head of. THAT'S what the neo-cons were really after. Don't listen to white noise, follow the money.

So the the author is not just "sneaking in notions." Countries exploit other countries in business al the time, and overthrowing a government is the most lurid form of "exploitation." You got something our corporations want? Make a deal peaceful-like, hoss, or we might just invade and install somebody who will.


People in these threads argue the most minute slivers of utopian economic ideals. But the reality is - the REAL WORLD is - that it's all about power. Who controls where the massive bulk of tax dollars (the real motherload) is spent. We don't have universal health care, but Halliburton's stock has quadrupled twice in five years. The viters made that choice, whether they realized it or not. Think B I G G E R ... and always follow the money. Discussions of policies and utopian economics are all well and good, but when the rubber meets the road, the most powerful vice president in history is gonna find a way to get 200 BILLION dollars of taxpayer money to Halliburton and its subsidiaries. Because he can.

And hoping Democrats will use this same power to get 200 Billion taxpayer dollars toward ensuring that all Americans can see a doctor if they're sick - is hopiong for a similar naked exercise of power, and some other corporations WILL benefit bigtime. Maybe burgeoning corporate hospital sector, maybe the sneaky massive drug industry, or if Hillary Clinton gets her way it'll be the health insurance industry. But somebody industry/corporation will reap colossal rewards based entirely on political decisions. The diference is - when it's Halliburton, people die. When it's Humana Hospitals or Kaiser, people see doctors. It's your vote, take your pick.

[BroncoBuff]

No, social security and medicare are not included.So why doesn't Hartman refer to those as "welfare", when they clearly are just that? Because his argument would disintegrate if he did? I'm not impressed.
No, PAY ATTENTION! He doesn't include it because SS was not part of the Reagan-era reform crusades against welfare he was talking about, the crusades that culminated in the passage of the landmark 1996 Gingrich welfare reform legislation. SS is the third rail ... not even Reagan would touch it, so why conflate it with other welfare? Sports comparisons: If the Patriots cheat, does that mean the NFL is full of cheaters? Because Mitchell found a couple dozen baseball players using steroids, does that mean baseball is full of steroid abusers? No. Sometimes we talk about parts of things - we differentiate. Bulking things together for ease of labelling is intellectualy lazy, sir.

[BroncoBuff]

It's hard to argue with liberals because they turn you into a villain for protecting your constitutional rights.
TJ, you haven't responded to my recent posts in here ... and in the absence of such, I want to make the following facts very clear:


The only individual rights you have are in the Bill of Rights and amendments, and NONE correspond to your complaints
The Constitution itself deals with government only, and it mandates Congress tax and levy to provide for the common defence and general welfare
Your idea of what consitutes "general welfare" means nothing. Congress and the president are elected to collectively decide what constritutes "general welfare"
Your alternative is the ballot box - electing those who agree with you
That's the American system, and that's the U.S. Constitution
Period

So in the absence of any response from you, other than complaining I "slandered" you or that you "can't argue with a liberal," I just want to clarify that all your compliants about rights in here are pure horse hockey, and you completely misunderstand the U.S. Constitution your candidate Ron Paul extols. Congress decides, the president can veto, and you can vote.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There is very compelling evidence now that the Iraqi invasion was accomplished largely so that U.S. treasury dollars could be systematically transferred in massive bulk to private sector multi-nationals. The "WMD" and "freedom" crap is all just white noise ... follow the money! Billlions and eventually trillions of dollars will change hands from the U.S. Treasury to Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, and dozens of other corporations we've never even head of. THAT'S what the neo-cons were really after. Don't listen to white noise, follow the money.


Yep.

I've been saying since the jump that Bush has been presiding over a huge, reverse-Robin Hood swindle/wealth transfer scheme whereby the contents of the U.S. treasury have been emptied into the coffers of Halliburton, ExxonMobile, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Honeywell, United Technologies, et al.

I invariably get the usual "Bush basher" crap from the mouth-breathers by way of reponse.

http://www.bartcop.com/fill-up-loan.jpg

[BroncoBuff]

Yep.

I've been saying since the jump that Bush has been presiding over a huge, reverse-Robin Hood swindle/wealth transfer scheme whereby the contents of the U.S. treasury have been emptied into the coffers of Halliburton, ExxonMobile, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Honeywell, United Technologies, et al.

I invariably get the usual "Bush basher" crap from the mouth-breathers by way of reponse.
I'm pretty clear on the war profiteers and the administration enabling their looting of the U.S treasury to "rebuild" Iraq .... but I'm not getting the oil angle. By all accounts, there's very very little drilling and production in Iraq even today - 5 years after the invasion. Based upon Cheney divvying up the Iraqi map in his office with the oil CEOs in Spring '03, I think they really screwed that part up. I think they truly believed the part about a "quick" war and such ... Frontline reported pretty heavily that Rumsfeld was hot to get the troops out, out, out .... even as the insurgency was beginning to rage in Fall '03. I think they actually screwed the pooch on the oil part. That might be why prices have skyrocketed.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm pretty clear on the war profiteers and the administration enabling their looting of the U.S treasury to "rebuild" Iraq .... but I'm not getting the oil angle. By all accounts, there's very very little drilling and production in Iraq even today - 5 years after the invasion. Based upon Cheney divvying up the Iraqi map in his office with the oil CEOs in Spring '03, I think they really screwed that part up. I think they truly believed the part about a "quick" war and such ... Frontline reported pretty heavily that Rumsfeld was hot to get the troops out, out, out .... even as the insurgency was beginning to rage in Fall '03. I think they actually screwed the pooch on the oil part. That might be why prices have skyrocketed.

The oil angle is simply to create instability in the region and sustain it for as long as possible. This results in speculation which drives the price of oil artificially higher and higher. Exxon and its shareholders make out like bandits, as do Bush's Saudi friends. Another dividend for the Saudis is that one of their chief competitors (Saddam Hussein) gets knocked out of the box.

[W*GS]

No, PAY ATTENTION! He doesn't include it because SS was not part of the Reagan-era reform crusades against welfare he was talking about, the crusades that culminated in the passage of the landmark 1996 Gingrich welfare reform legislation. SS is the third rail ... not even Reagan would touch it, so why conflate it with other welfare?

Hartman can only claim "welfare" is a "TINY" part of the federal budget by excluding, arbitrarily, the truly massive welfare programs. It's not lazy to call all welfare programs, well, "welfare programs" - it's lazy to exclude them just for the sake of making some argument.

[W*GS]

This is pretty naive, even for you.

Nothing you argue refutes my statement. Countries don't trade with each other - individuals and businesses who happen to be in different countries engage in trade. Yes, that trade is controlled and regulated (far too much), but that doesn't change that essential fact.

In the first place, the biggest business sector in the U.S. by far is defense contractors ...

They are? Prove it.

Government is inexorably tied into every aspect. So the reality is that countries do trade with each other.

Nope. Country X controls trade from businesses and individuals in country X relative to business and individuals in countries A, B, and C, but that doesn't mean X trades with A, B, and C. What you're claiming is akin to saying that since legislators create the laws that regulate trade, it's legislators themselves doing the trading. Obviously incorrect.

[Spider]

I By all accounts, there's very very little drilling and production in Iraq even today - 5 years after the invasion. Based upon Cheney divvying up the Iraqi map in his office with the oil CEOs in Spring '03, I think they really screwed that part up. I think they truly believed the part about a "quick" war and such ... Frontline reported pretty heavily that Rumsfeld was hot to get the troops out, out, out .... even as the insurgency was beginning to rage in Fall '03. I think they actually screwed the pooch on the oil part. That might be why prices have skyrocketed.
they didnt screw up ,disruption of supply ....very little drilling = less oil on the market ..... thye oil companies have done a brilliant job of convincing people Shale oil is a long ways off etc ....... hell they are already drilling shale oil

[Spider]

Hartman can only claim "welfare" is a "TINY" part of the federal budget by excluding, arbitrarily, the truly massive welfare programs. It's not lazy to call all welfare programs, well, "welfare programs" - it's lazy to exclude them just for the sake of making some argument.

Would like for you to take a break from fairy land for a second ......
SS medicare medicade isnt welfare it is insurance . we pay right out of the pay check every week for it , that tax is like premiums ..... ok enough of reality go back to your happy place

[W*GS]

SS medicare medicade isnt welfare it is insurance .

Speaking of fairy tale land... If the gubmint calls it "insurance", well, that's good enough for ol' Spidey.

[Spider]

Speaking of fairy tale land... If the gubmint calls it "insurance", well, that's good enough for ol' Spidey.

wow . just wow , could you point me to the insurance companies that dont charge a premium ? I sure could use one ........ thanks in advance , your bestest online buddy ever . spider

[W*GS]

Tell me how much is in your Social Security fund, Spider. Certainly there's an account somewhere, with your name attached to it, to which your SS contributions have been going, correct?

[Spider]

Tell me how much is in your Social Security fund, Spider. Certainly there's an account somewhere, with your name attached to it, to which your SS contributions have been going, correct?
I would have ot go down to the SS office and fill out a request form , but I am still waiting for the name of the insurance companies that give free coverage

[Taco John]

TJ, you haven't responded to my recent posts in here ... and in the absence of such, I want to make the following facts very clear:


The only individual rights you have are in the Bill of Rights and amendments, and NONE correspond to your complaints
The Constitution itself deals with government only, and it mandates Congress tax and levy to provide for the common defence and general welfare
Your idea of what consitutes "general welfare" means nothing. Congress and the president are elected to collectively decide what constritutes "general welfare"
Your alternative is the ballot box - electing those who agree with you
That's the American system, and that's the U.S. Constitution
Period

So in the absence of any response from you, other than complaining I "slandered" you or that you "can't argue with a liberal," I just want to clarify that all your compliants about rights in here are pure horse hockey, and you completely misunderstand the U.S. Constitution your candidate Ron Paul extols. Congress decides, the president can veto, and you can vote.


The point you miss is Article 1 Section 9, which limits what Congress can do. They ignore this clause constantly and consistently to steal liberty from citizens.

[Cito Pelon]

So I've got a question...

In the other thread, the accusation is that the problem with "conservative" philosophy is that it's centered around "I've got mine." Personally, I contend that is a "feature" of human nature, not limited to conservative philosophy, but inherent in all living, sentient beings. But I digress.

So here is my question: how do you propose to change it? How does anybody propose that they're going to get people to stop thinking about themselves first? What is ever going to happen that is going to cause people to think of others first, and themselves second?

I agree most people are "me first". Conservatives are finer with that than Liberals. Conservatives carry "me first" to an extreme, and that is bad for society as a whole. It's known as a Third-World society or most of the planet.

Show me a society that allows "me first" people to rule, and I'll show you a Third World country. So you can't change human nature - "me first" - it has to be managed by government.

[Cito Pelon]

For what it's worth, libertarian philosophy takes into account that people naturally are concerned about themselves first. It permits this behavior to the extend that it doesn't infringe on the liberty of others.

Libertarian philosophy sounds like chaos to me.

[Cito Pelon]

[QUOTE=Taco John;1929986][QUOTE=Rohirrim;1929968]Well, Section 8 of the Constitution does give Congress the power to regulate commerce. I'm not an economist. Haven't really studied it.

Thanks. I've added that to my wish list. I'm going to have to take a vacation just to do all the reading I have backed up. I really should study economics. It's never really appealed to me. I've never been much a math person. I've caught little bits here and there. Mostly just main ideas.

I was never 100% on board with Ron Paul, as I pointed out many times. In fact, on one test, I agreed with 68% of his stance on issues. What I most agreed with was his foreign policy stance which I still think is right on and still the most crucial to this country. To be honest, the currency debate went over my head. I am opposed to the massive subsidy conglomerate our government has become. From what I know of Keynes, I doubt that he would like it much either. I think he favored light touches on the rudder to keep the ship on course, not taking over the whole ship.

But we will not be able to touch this rotten subsidy system until we are able to root out the corruption on Capitol Hill. Frankly, it's metastasized throughout the government so deeply now that I don't see how we can disentangle the damn thing without setting the whole system on fire, burning it to the ground, and starting over.

That is a real big deal. Step one towards good government.

[BroncoBuff]

The point you miss is Article 1 Section 9, which limits what Congress can do. They ignore this clause constantly and consistently to steal liberty from citizens.

Steal liberty from citizens?

Okay here it is, I'm not sure which portion steals liberty ???

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

[BroncoBuff]

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law

This is the only part that seems to refer at all to your topic ... but it's pretty harmless, it just means no U.S. dollars can be spent without a bill granting spending.


I understand you're torqued off here ... what happened that's got you so mad ... did you get hammered on a tax or something? I'm not trying to be dismissive, but claiming your "liberty has been stolen" is a pretty over-dramatic way to describe a disagreement with taxing or spending. The ballot box is a citizen's only alternative, that or run for office ...

[BroncoBuff]

Hartman can only claim "welfare" is a "TINY" part of the federal budget by excluding, arbitrarily, the truly massive welfare programs. It's not lazy to call all welfare programs, well, "welfare programs" - it's lazy to exclude them just for the sake of making some argument.
Dude, are you impaired in some way?

Hartmann was referring to the '96 Welfare Reform bill ... THE TOPIC was the "welfare" addressed by that bill only, and by the Reagan-era demonization of non-existent "welfare queens." Besides, the term "welfare" is just an umbrella slang term really, adopted from the Constitution. None of the programs are called "welfare," and SS and medicare are only very rarely (if ever) included in the slang "welfare."

By your numbskull logic, we should all be complaining that the Denver Broncos should be listed in the AP Top 25 - because they're a FOOTBALL team after all! College shmollege, AP is just "lazily excluding" our Broncos for the sake of making the argument that LSU is #1.

Do you see any of this? That people make distinctions?



I've never put anybody on Ignore before, but I'm considering this guy now. Would I still see his posts if people quote him? Anybody have any advice?

[W*GS]

Hartmann was referring to the '96 Welfare Reform bill ... THE TOPIC was the "welfare" addressed by that bill only, and by the Reagan-era demonization of non-existent "welfare queens."

In that case, he shouldn't have used the term "welfare" - he should have used something like "the Reagan-era programs that were used by him to create non-existent ``welfare queens''", so he could then accurately say that such "welfare" programs were a "TINY" part of the federal budget.

Besides, the term "welfare" is just an umbrella slang term really, adopted from the Constitution. None of the programs are called "welfare," and SS and medicare are only very rarely (if ever) included in the slang "welfare."

"Very rarely"? Hardly. SS and Medicare/Medicaid are welfare programs, even if left-wingers like to arbitrarily exclude them to make some rhetorical point.

By your numbskull logic, we should all be complaining that the Denver Broncos should be listed in the AP Top 25 - because they're a FOOTBALL team after all! College shmollege, AP is just "lazily excluding" our Broncos for the sake of making the argument that LSU is #1.

You've got that bass-ackwards. What you and Hartmann want is to exclude the Broncos from being called a sports team, because they're a professional football team, and "sports" means "just AP Top 25 college football teams". That's an arbitrary and meaningless distinction.

[Taco John]

Steal liberty from citizens?

Okay here it is, I'm not sure which portion steals liberty ???


None of it does. It's the part where they ignore it and start forcing ridiculous programs on this nation like social security and welfare. The federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to establish these social safety nets. Read Article 1 Section 9. That's what congress has the authority to do, and nothing more.

[Taco John]

Libertarian philosophy sounds like chaos to me.


It sounds like law and order to me.

[Taco John]

I agree most people are "me first". Conservatives are finer with that than Liberals. Conservatives carry "me first" to an extreme, and that is bad for society as a whole. It's known as a Third-World society or most of the planet.

Show me a society that allows "me first" people to rule, and I'll show you a Third World country. So you can't change human nature - "me first" - it has to be managed by government.



Actually, this is innacurate. Conservatives are much less "me first" than liberals are. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns)

[BroncoBuff]

In the first place, the biggest business sector in the U.S. by far is defense contractors ... They are? Prove it.
You seriously doubt that defense contractors are not the #1 destination for tax dollars? That's a bold (and foolish) statement, sir ... even the govt's own pie chart shows this ... and before you get stupid again, social security is not a "sector," it's payments to individuals.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9048/450pxusbudget2007svgki1.png

Isn't it amazing W*GS how they put "welfare" in one pie segment (orange), and SS and Medicare someplace else? Or are they lazy too W*GS? For making lazy distinctions? :~ohyah!:


Actually, this pie chart is a better reprersentation of the budget .... it acknowledges that SS is a trust fund really, and not an expenditure of income tax funds. It also separates the military spending debt - past military spending.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8327/33521485to5.jpg


The defense contractor sector is so large, corporations you've never even heard of are setting alltime IPO records like this one (I never heard of SAI before this IPO a couple years ago anyway). This is what I mean about looking closer - looking B I G G E R ... this mostly unknown defense contractor is bigger than Google:

Top Private Defense Contractor Plans an IPO to Rival Google's
By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer

Science Applications International Corp., the largest privately held defense contractor, announced yesterday that it would go public early next year,aiming to raise $1.7 billion for insiders cashing in on the post-Sept. 11 government spending boom that fueled the firm's growth.</NITF>

The public offering would rival Google Inc.'s $1.8 billion deal in 2004 in size and be the largest IPO of a government contractor in many years. The chief beneficiaries will be SAIC's more than 35,000 shareholders, which include many current and former employees, some of whom stand to make millions of dollars. The company has 16,000 employees in the Washington region.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/01/AR2005090102407.html


This is the REAL economics ... forget all those elegant, sliver segments of economic discussion. The REAL economics is about politicians who have the POWER to transfers 100's of billions of taxpayer dollars from the US Treasury into private corps like this one - like Halliburton, KBR, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, and on and on and on and on and on.........

Now this is not all bad, the contractors do provide jobs and sub out to hundreds of other corps, providing more and more and more jobs and on and on and on. I just think that Universal Health Care would be a better use of this power than the war in Iraq ... don't kid yourself, that's exactly the kind of choice that's made. This is REAL politics, REAL economics ... who has the POWER to direct the movements of the massive pool of taxpayer funds, and to whom and to where they direct that money. The other stuff is just window dressing, itty-bitty stuff.

[BroncoBuff]

It's the part where they ignore it and start forcing ridiculous programs on this nation like social security and welfare. The federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to establish these social safety nets. Read Article 1 Section 9. That's what congress has the authority to do, and nothing more.
I'm sorry TJ, you're just wrong. It's not that we disagree, it's that you're just plain wrong. Not only does Congress have the authority to establish social safety nets, they actually have a MANDATE to "lay and collect taxes to provide for the common defence and general welfare." Nothing - and I do mean NOTHING - in I:9 changes that even slightly. You're free to explain which part does if you'd like to ... ?

Why don't you just call this what it is ... you DISAGREE with the decisions Congress and the presidents have made. Framing your disagreements so over-dramatically as "stealing my liberty" merely dumbs down the debate. Considerably.

[BroncoBuff]

I know I know - wait wait wait .... let me go:

The war in Iraq is stealing my liberty! I never said they could invade, the Constitution doesn't say they can invade! There's been no Declaration of War! MY LIBERTY HAS BEEN VIOLATED!!! :moody:



That was fun!

[Cito Pelon]

It sounds like law and order to me.

That was a poor choice of words if you're a Libertarian, no? Seems to me you're arguing for "law and order", but you are against law and order. You can't have it both ways. Seems like you want to make your own laws that target what is best for you, but if somebody infringes on your liberty you are all for laws against that. Doesn't make sense.

You can't have a government that only works for you. Sorry, but it will never be allowed in this country. You'll have to move somewhere else like Zimbabwe or Syria and become part of the ruling class there.

I've read your posts for a year about this, and the continuing theme is "I want to do what I please, but if somebody infringes on what I want to do, then there should be a law against it." Somehow, and it's psychopathic that you should think so, you think everybody else should agree with you. You're a nation of one, TJ. If everybody thought that way chaos would ensue. In fact there's a guy in the Colorado State Legislature named Douglas Bruce that has your attitude. The Republicans are exasperated with him, they call him "the Caucus of Bruce".

If you want to think the way you do, that's fine with me, and I'll attack it, same as you attack the way I think. You have a point of view that's way out there, but it takes all kinds to make a nation. I'm a central kind of guy that likes a central view and likes to cruise along and only attacks nuts. You're one of the nuts.

[BroncoBuff]

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9048/450pxusbudget2007svgki1.png

Okay W*G-HEAD ... see this chart? This is the official United States Government OMB pie chart (it's kinda confusing, read the key below left to right like a book).

Look closely at the orange segment ... it's called "Unemployment and Welfare." But then ... what's this?! There are other segments called ss and medicare! So ... if the United States Government distinguishes, why can't Thom Hartmann? Isn't the federal goverment the authority on labels for their own spending? Or are you just an idiot that will argue any silly shred of nonsense rather than concede a point that's clearly won?

Or am I the idiot for spending so much time on you? Uhh

[W*GS]

You seriously doubt that defense contractors are not the #1 destination for tax dollars? That's a bold (and foolish) statement, sir ... even the govt's own pie chart shows this ... and before you get stupid again, social security is not a "sector," it's payments to individuals.

Here we go with the tweedlee-ing/tweedledum-ing. The biggest outlays of our taxes go for various social welfare programs - Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, "income security" (i.e., transfers) and health:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/categoryPie07.gif

Tote up those four sets of programs, and you get 58% of the federal budget.

Defense accounts for 19%.

Isn't it amazing W*GS how they put "welfare" in one pie segment (orange), and SS and Medicare someplace else?

SS and Medicare are welfare programs, silly.

Actually, this pie chart is a better reprersentation of the budget .... it acknowledges that SS is a trust fund really, and not an expenditure of income tax funds. It also separates the military spending debt - past military spending.

Taking out SS hugely distorts the federal budget picture - and calling it a "trust fund" is a propagandistic misnomer. SS has always been a transfer program - from younger, poorer working people, to older, richer, retired folks (by and large). There is no account with your SS number attached that contains your (and your employers', if relevant) contributions in it, earning interest, that you will draw from once you're eligible. Today's SS receipts go to today's SS recipients. The only "trust" involved with SS is that our children and grandchildren will pay into it once they reach working age, so you can get their money once you're eligible. It's always been pay-as-you-go.

The real "truth" behind this war-costs-us-a-lot pie chart is that one can manipulate numbers and present them in a deceptive fashion. That's all.

Look - I turn numbers into graphics as a big part of my job. I know all the tricks and deceptions one can use to present any set of numbers in any way you want. This particular pie chart is particularly obvious and egregious.

The defense contractor sector is so large, corporations you've never even heard of are setting alltime IPO records like this one (I never heard of SAI before this IPO a couple years ago anyway). This is what I mean about looking closer - looking B I G G E R ... this mostly unknown defense contractor is bigger than Google

No, it's not bigger - it's IPO is planned to be bigger. Two different things. Besides, that story is from 2005 - pretty old. By comparison, Visa's IPO received nearly $18 billion - more than 10x as much.

See http://www.ipohome.com/marketwatch/biggestALL.asp

[W*GS]

Look closely at the orange segment ... it's called "Unemployment and Welfare." But then ... what's this?! There are other segments called ss and medicare!

Doesn't mean they aren't welfare programs.

What is the purpose of SS and Medicare/Medicaid? Why, the welfare of the people who receive them, no? If not, what is their purpose?

[Spider]

Here we go with the tweedlee-ing/tweedledum-ing. The biggest outlays of our taxes go for various social welfare programs - Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, "income security" (i.e., transfers) and health:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/categoryPie07.gif

Tote up those four sets of programs, and you get 58% of the federal budget.

Defense accounts for 19%.



SS and Medicare are welfare programs, silly.



Taking out SS hugely distorts the federal budget picture - and calling it a "trust fund" is a propagandistic misnomer. SS has always been a transfer program - from younger, poorer working people, to older, richer, retired folks (by and large). There is no account with your SS number attached that contains your (and your employers', if relevant) contributions in it, earning interest, that you will draw from once you're eligible. Today's SS receipts go to today's SS recipients. The only "trust" involved with SS is that our children and grandchildren will pay into it once they reach working age, so you can get their money once you're eligible. It's always been pay-as-you-go.

The real "truth" behind this war-costs-us-a-lot pie chart is that one can manipulate numbers and present them in a deceptive fashion. That's all.

Look - I turn numbers into graphics as a big part of my job. I know all the tricks and deceptions one can use to present any set of numbers in any way you want. This particular pie chart is particularly obvious and egregious.



No, it's not bigger - it's IPO is planned to be bigger. Two different things. Besides, that story is from 2005 - pretty old. By comparison, Visa's IPO received nearly $18 billion - more than 10x as much.

See http://www.ipohome.com/marketwatch/biggestALL.asp

your chart is wrong , no way in hell can you exclude Vet benefits from military spending ...... Look W*GS I understand you are not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes ot issues that dont involve climate change , but even you should see that Vet bennies belong in Military spending , and I tried tell you before , but I didnt dumb it down enough so I will try once again , how can SS, Medicare , Medicade be welfare when we pay for them ? Can you explain to me how a service that YOU pay for is welfare ? on Second thought .......
I suggest you ignore this post , we both know you cant answer it

[Cito Pelon]

Actually, this is innacurate. Conservatives are much less "me first" than liberals are. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns)

Your Sig is interesting.

[BroncoBuff]

You're right about VISA ... but my point was merely that some defense contractor we've never heard of - I hadn't at least - IPO'ed at roughly Google's value. And that it was two years ago is completely irrelevant.


Isn't it amazing W*GS - how they put "welfare" in one pie segment (orange), and SS and Medicare someplace else?SS and Medicare are welfare programs, silly.
Don't call ME silly ... they're not welfare, by the government's own definition.

Why can't you understand that the word "welfare" isn't some blunt cudgel that you can irresponsibly wield to make a point? Words have meaning, and if the federal goverment doesn't call SS and medicare welfare, why should you? Hartmann's was a valid distinction.

Pie charts is a good profession for you ... something that's not dangerous. You remind me a lot of Bob's Your Information Minister ... saying whatever crazy thing to avoid conceding an obvious point. You could actually be him I think ... maybe TJ could check the IP.

[W*GS]

Don't call ME silly ... they're not welfare, by the government's own definition.

The government calls SS a "trust fund". Is it really? The government used to call (it still might) ketchup a vegetable. Is it really?

SS and Medicare/Medicaid are welfare programs. Period.

Pie charts is a good profession for you ... something that's not dangerous.

I don't make pie charts - they're virtually worthless as a means to turn numbers into information. I make many other kinds of visualizations, however.

[Cito Pelon]

I'm a big proponent of taxing the living daylights out of the super-rich in order to defray the inherited costs of entitlements of any kind - I don't mind entitlements and pay 13% of my gross every year to taxes and don't try to cheat on my taxes - I don't mind entitlements. Taking care of our poor is what makes us a first world country.

If the super-rich get taxed too heavily in the US, then it's fine with me if they leave the country. There will be a new generation of go-getters that will pay their taxes and then when they get too big for their britches they can leave the country for a tax haven also - if they can find one. There will be another generation of taxpayers that can take their place.

The US is the land of opportunity, but that doesn't mean the US is the land of royalty. Once you make $10 million a year, then you pay it back, don't try to hide it. If you want to hide it, then move to another country, no need for you here.

I realize it's hard to give up a couple million in taxes, but who made the infrastructure for one to accomplish that? Who made the incorrupt civil-service for one to accomplish that?

The people of the USA is who made fortunes possible, so you pay it back in taxes or get the f out of the country, because we don't need wanna-be royalty feeding off of other people's taxes.

[Rohirrim]

It's funny, really. The manipulation of markets by a bunch of greedy bastards destroyed the economy of the U.S., creating the Great Depression. In reaction to that man-made disaster, FDR instituted social security as part of the New Deal to help Americans who were out of work, starving, standing in bread lines, and living in tar paper shacks. And now, years later, a new batch of greedy bastards want to kill the entire New Deal, Medicare, Medicaid and everything else the greed of their forebears brought into being, while simultaneously whining about how they need to eliminate capital gains and estate taxes. Ha! Let them eat cake!

[W*GS]

Cito's ideology will turn the US into a 2nd-rate country faster than you can say "confiscatory taxes!"

[Rohirrim]

Cito's ideology will turn the US into a 2nd-rate country faster than you can say "confiscatory taxes!"

I suppose that depends on your definition of "2nd rate."

[W*GS]

No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Actually, this is innacurate. Conservatives are much less "me first" than liberals are. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns)
Not necessarily.

I don't trust secondary reporting on analytical research, especially when it comes from writers with a particular political slant (such as George Will). Religion is the highest predictor of charitable giving by far. The findings in Brooks study are heavily influenced by the fact that 60% of charitable giving in the US goes directly to churches or religious organizations, (most of it for facilities and internal costs such as salaries), as opposed to only 2% that goes to social welfare. The question we should ask then, is whether or not giving to churches and religous organizations should be classified as "charity" here, and thus whether it deserves to be considered in the data set.

Since the largest block of religious individuals with disposable income are middle class white Catholics and Evangelicals, who are almost entirely conserative, it's obvious why they show up as giving more. Blacks, who are heavily Democrat, liberal and Evangelical, make up a far smaller percentage of the religious doner base, both in numbers and in terms of dollars given, since they make less money on average than their conservative white counterparts in the Evangelical church.

Obviously when 60% of all charitable giving goes directly to churches or religious organizations, and the individuals who donate to this cause are more numerous and make more money than their more politicaly liberal but poorer counterparts, the statistics that represent charitable giving will be skewed in favor of a conservative doner base that's reflective of this demographic. According to the Stanford Social Innovation Review (http://www.ssireview.org/pdf/2005WI_Feature_Reich.pdf), government "subsidies" in the form of tax deductions also favor wealthier doners since they their deductions are proportionately higher because they are tied to the tax bracket of the doner. Thus, the US government's tax policies incentify wealthier people to give more, and the majority of this giving is coming from politically conservative church members with disposable income and goes to churches and church related organizations.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of non-church related giving, particuarly in the area of social services giving that is the most directly beneficial to the poor. Without this data, the statement that "conservatives give more than liberals" is essentially meaningless.

[Taco John]

Your Sig is interesting.

It's a line from one of my favorite Jane's Addiction songs.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Or are you (W*GS) just an idiot that will argue any silly shred of nonsense rather than concede a point that's clearly won?



Ding ding ding! :yep:

That's W*GS' SOP in a nutshell.

[Cito Pelon]

It's funny, really. The manipulation of markets by a bunch of greedy bastards destroyed the economy of the U.S., creating the Great Depression. In reaction to that man-made disaster, FDR instituted social security as part of the New Deal to help Americans who were out of work, starving, standing in bread lines, and living in tar paper shacks. And now, years later, a new batch of greedy bastards want to kill the entire New Deal, Medicare, Medicaid and everything else the greed of their forebears brought into being, while simultaneously whining about how they need to eliminate capital gains and estate taxes.

A concise economic history since 1928. It is pretty funny. The Keynesian economic model - deficit economics - got turned around to where we're back to pre-Keynesian economics. I still remember when George the Elder called Reaganomics "voodoo" economics. And that is what it is. It's not real economics, its trading. A nation can't build its economic structure on trading. There has to be substance. Sure, there's fortunes to be made trading, speculating, but there has to be substance.

I make some good money trading in international stocks, but I realize that's short term. They'll go broke when they choke their countries with the unmitigated pollution they generate. The US has to keep our air, water, ground clean so we don't choke ourselves. These Trade Agreements aren't going to help us in the long term. Those countries we export our labor to are not stupid, they'll realize they are killing themselves with pollution. It's best we keep our land clean and don't try to exploit other nations. At the same time we have to keep our clean manufacturing jobs here at home, we have to keep our skilled labor here.

I don't mind not making money to have clean air and water. I'm happy as I am, making a decent living and being able to enjoy clean air and water. I don't give a damn if the tool I used to pay $20 for I can now acquire for $5 Made In China. Hell, I have too much stuff right now, I toss good stuff into the trash.

I don't know what's going on right now. Used to be I had to find a use for everything, I never threw anything away, now I have piles of crap that are of no use to me, I can't make anything from them besides what they were originally intended for, hell, I still mow my lawn with a push-mow, my neighbors have 5HP gas mowers. Back when I was a kid we had 1.5HP gas mowers that ran our minibikes and gokarts, they were at a premium to acquire for a frivolous activity like racing a minibike or gokart. A 5hp motor was what ran the mowers at golf courses, we would have had to go onto a countryclub to steal one. When I was a kid we never threw anything away because there was a use for it somewhere. Wiring or switches from an electrical device we always saved, because it would be of use somewhere down the line. Now it takes 25HP to mow a golf course. They're faster and more efficient I guess. I don't know what the hell, I guess progress means faster and more efficient, but it also means trash.

I don't know what to tell you youngsters. I've made a good living because I was grandfathered into the good old days, you youngsters are gonna have to fight the fatcats more than I had to because you don't stick together like we did. Too bad for you. Take a suck of that.

[BroncoBuff]

Seems to me you're arguing for "law and order", but you are against law and order. You can't have it both ways. Seems like you want to make your own laws that target what is best for you, but if somebody infringes on your liberty you are all for laws against that. Doesn't make sense.
You're right, it doesn't make sense .... true libertarian philosophy - in its pure form - would require private police forces for those who can afford them. You know, like in Sudan and northern Afghanistan. The U.S. Constitution is not a Libertarian document.


You can't have a government that only works for you. Sorry, but it will never be allowed in this country. You'll have to move somewhere else like Zimbabwe or Syria and become part of the ruling class there.

I've read your posts for a year about this, and the continuing theme is "I want to do what I please, but if somebody infringes on what I want to do, then there should be a law against it." Somehow, and it's psychopathic that you should think so, you think everybody else should agree with you. You're a nation of one, TJ. You're one of the nuts.
I don't think he's a nut .... I think he's just pi**ed. Maybe he got hammered with a crazy property tax bill or reassessment, I don't know. You're pointing out the weak points in his complaints, Cito, but I don't think he really means much of what he's saying literally, he's just angry. Ron Paul would never dream of saying Congress lacks the power to lay taxes and provide for he general welfare ... or that I:9 restricts that power ... or that Congress and the presidents (and occasionally SCOTUS) don't have the power to decide what the general welfare is.

[Taco John]

That was a poor choice of words if you're a Libertarian, no? Seems to me you're arguing for "law and order", but you are against law and order.

I have no idea what you mean. I'm most definitely in favor of law and order.


You can't have it both ways.

What are you talking about? You've set up a false dichotomy.


Seems like you want to make your own laws that target what is best for you, but if somebody infringes on your liberty you are all for laws against that. Doesn't make sense.

What you just said definitely doesn't make sense. I have no intentions of making special laws. Your argument is falling flat.


You can't have a government that only works for you.

Huh? What in the world are you talking about?


Sorry, but it will never be allowed in this country. You'll have to move somewhere else like Zimbabwe or Syria and become part of the ruling class there.

I don't think you have the slightest idea what it is that I believe. You certainly show a thin grasp of it in this thread.


I've read your posts for a year about this, and the continuing theme is "I want to do what I please, but if somebody infringes on what I want to do, then there should be a law against it."

WHAT!? That's insane! THAT'S what you're getting out of my posts. I'm guessing that it's being filtered through a very liberally warped perspective. I'm sure this is what you *think* that I believe. But wow! Are you ever off!


If you want to think the way you do, that's fine with me, and I'll attack it, same as you attack the way I think. You have a point of view that's way out there, but it takes all kinds to make a nation. I'm a central kind of guy that likes a central view and likes to cruise along and only attacks nuts. You're one of the nuts.

Do whatever you want. It's hard to take attacks on me serious from someone who is so smugly off the mark. Your rambling "rebuttal" made absolutely no sense. I couldn't make heads or tails to even try to "defend" myself.

[Cito Pelon]

I have no idea what you mean. I'm most definitely in favor of law and order.




What are you talking about? You've set up a false dichotomy.




What you just said definitely doesn't make sense. I have no intentions of making special laws. Your argument is falling flat.




Huh? What in the world are you talking about?




I don't think you have the slightest idea what it is that I believe. You certainly show a thin grasp of it in this thread.



WHAT!? That's insane! THAT'S what you're getting out of my posts. I'm guessing that it's being filtered through a very liberally warped perspective. I'm sure this is what you *think* that I believe. But wow! Are you ever off!




Do whatever you want. It's hard to take attacks on me serious from someone who is so smugly off the mark. Your rambling "rebuttal" made absolutely no sense. I couldn't make heads or tails to even try to "defend" myself.

I've seen you say that few understand you quite a few times in this thread. Jeez, you sure hard to understand. Maybe I should bang a horseshoe into my head a few times so I could understand.

[Taco John]

I'm not hard to understand at all. I'm very precise in my politics. I say what I mean. So when you say that I want the government to make special laws for me... That's mind boggling. I can't imagine where you'd get such a notion - certainly nothing that I said would even approach that thought. I don't think it's that I'm hard to understand. I think it's that you guys are making things up in your heads without bothering to even try to understand. I've seen it happen several times already where some mind boggling stuff is attributed to me out of the clear blue.

"I don't want to bother to understand your point of view - I just want to attack you and lecture you because your point of view is different than mine."

I remember once you accused me out of the clear blue of being a tax evader. I knew then that you weren't a gentleman. You're just a guy who thinks he knows a lot.

[Taco John]

I just realized that we've gotten six pages into this thread, and nobody has even attempted to answer the question that I proposed in the thread starter. All that has materialized in this thread is more empty preaching.

I had hoped to elevate the discussion. Instead I got called names and told that people were disappointed in me for holding my point of view.

[Rohirrim]

I just realized that we've gotten six pages into this thread, and nobody has even attempted to answer the question that I proposed in the thread starter. All that has materialized in this thread is more empty preaching.

I had hoped to elevate the discussion. Instead I got called names and told that people were disappointed in me for holding my point of view.

I did. Post #10. ;D

[Cito Pelon]

I'm not hard to understand at all. I'm very precise in my politics. I say what I mean. So when you say that I want the government to make special laws for me... That's mind boggling. I can't imagine where you'd get such a notion - certainly nothing that I said would even approach that thought. I don't think it's that I'm hard to understand. I think it's that you guys are making things up in your heads without bothering to even try to understand. I've seen it happen several times already where some mind boggling stuff is attributed to me out of the clear blue.

"I don't want to bother to understand your point of view - I just want to attack you and lecture you because your point of view is different than mine."

I remember once you accused me out of the clear blue of being a tax evader. I knew then that you weren't a gentleman. You're just a guy who thinks he knows a lot.

With all due respect, in a gentlemanly manner, you strike me as the kind of man that would evade taxes. You have this anger at the revenuer's that I've seen before. Apparently, you don't like to be categorized, and you are sure hard to understand.

I see that sig of yours - "If you want a friend, feed any animal." Why did you choose to put that in Bolds and 40 point? You said above that was a favorite line from a Jane's Addiction song. There's more to it than that, with all due respect.

[Taco John]

With all due respect, in a gentlemanly manner, you strike me as the kind of man that would evade taxes.

You're a bad judge of character then. I'm the type that values my freedom, and will do everything I can to stay under the radar and out of the government's crosshairs. I take every legal deduction that I can, to be sure. It's my money that they're taking and I have plans for it.


You have this anger at the revenuer's that I've seen before. Apparently, you don't like to be categorized, and you are sure hard to understand.

I'm an Idaho born conservative. Not hard to figure out at all: "keep your hands out of my pocket, and I'll keep mine out of yours; now let me pick up your lunch. You'll get me next time."


I see that sig of yours - "If you want a friend, feed any animal." Why did you choose to put that in Bolds and 40 point? You said above that was a favorite line from a Jane's Addiction song. There's more to it than that, with all due respect.

Not really. I'm a nature/animal lover and I found the prose to be prescient. I put it in bold because I was fishing. I was going to be impressed if there was another Jane's Addiction fan out there that nibbled on the line.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I just realized that we've gotten six pages into this thread, and nobody has even attempted to answer the question that I proposed in the thread starter.
See post #84

[Cito Pelon]

You're a bad judge of character then. I'm the type that values my freedom, and will do everything I can to stay under the radar and out of the government's crosshairs. I take every legal deduction that I can, to be sure. It's my money that they're taking and I have plans for it.




I'm an Idaho born conservative. Not hard to figure out at all: "keep your hands out of my pocket, and I'll keep mine out of yours; now let me pick up your lunch. You'll get me next time."




Not really. I'm a nature/animal lover and I found the prose to be prescient. I put it in bold because I was fishing. I was going to be impressed if there was another Jane's Addiction fan out there that nibbled on the line.

I still don't understand how you figure the Libertarian point of view can govern a country. It still seems like chaos to me. Let me ask you a question and you tell me how you would deal with it:

I'm up in the high country where you could only hike to before, but now trail machines are there all the time. How would your Libertarian philosophy deal with that? Those trail machines with their noise, fumes and the mudholes they dig that I would previously walk right through infringe on my liberty, how would you deal with that?

[Taco John]

I still don't understand how you figure the Libertarian point of view can govern a country. It still seems like chaos to me. Let me ask you a question and you tell me how you would deal with it:

I'm up in the high country where you could only hike to before, but now trail machines are there all the time. How would your Libertarian philosophy deal with that? Those trail machines with their noise, fumes and the mudholes they dig that I would previously walk right through infringe on my liberty, how would you deal with that?


The simple answer is a question: Who owns the land?

But as an aside, they're not infringing on your liberty unless the land is owned by you, or unless they physically accost you in some manner. If the land is owned by you, then the answer is that you press charges for tresspassing. Otherwise, you need to take the issue up with whoever owns the land.

Chances are that the federal (or perhaps state) government owns the land. In that case, you're screwed because they're making more money collecting taxes on the sale of those trail machines, and then providing them with liscences for their use on public land, than they are off of the purchase of your boots and parking pass.

[Cito Pelon]

The simple answer is a question: Who owns the land?

But as an aside, they're not infringing on your liberty unless the land is owned by you, or unless they physically accost you in some manner. If the land is owned by you, then the answer is that you press charges for tresspassing. Otherwise, you need to take the issue up with whoever owns the land.

Chances are that the federal (or perhaps state) government owns the land. In that case, you're screwed because they're making more money collecting taxes on the sale of those trail machines, and then providing them with liscences for their use on public land, than they are off of the purchase of your boots and parking pass.

It's public land, National Forest, therefore in the jurisdiction of the Dept of the Interior. But we had prior rights. See, you're deferring to the Federal Government, I thought you would have a different point of view?

[Taco John]

It's public land, National Forest, therefore in the jurisdiction of the Dept of the Interior. But we had prior rights. See, you're deferring to the Federal Government, I thought you would have a different point of view?




"There you go again..."

I didn't defer to the Federal Government in the least. It's like you're an assumption robot. I asked a question about ownership without making the assumption that it was any entity in particular, though I could have guessed that the Feds had confiscated it.

So the answer to your question is that you're screwed. The Federal Government owns the land to "protect" its use. How are they doing?

You're screwed. You could try to talk to your congressman, but it won't matter. The Federal Government is making too much money from taxing the sales of the trail machines, and then lisencing the use of those machines than they are from the purchase of your boots and parking pass.

Libertarian philosophy deals with issues through property rights. First, the federal government shouldn't own those lands. They confiscated them under the guise of "protecting them for generations." Sounds like they're doing a wonderful job. This is progressive government in action.

[Cito Pelon]

"There you go again..."

I didn't defer to the Federal Government in the least. It's like you're an assumption robot. I asked a question about ownership without making the assumption that it was any entity in particular, though I could have guessed that the Feds had confiscated it.

So the answer to your question is that you're screwed. The Federal Government owns the land to "protect" its use. How are they doing?

You're screwed. You could try to talk to your congressman, but it won't matter. The Federal Government is making too much money from taxing the sales of the trail machines, and then lisencing the use of those machines than they are from the purchase of your boots and parking pass.

Libertarian philosophy deals with issues through property rights. First, the federal government shouldn't own those lands. They confiscated them under the guise of "protecting them for generations." Sounds like they're doing a wonderful job. This is progressive government in action.

TJ, the fact is the Feds own that land, what can you do help me? With all due respect, if you can't help me reclaim that land, reclaim our former liberty, what is the point in your philosophy?

[Taco John]

TJ, the fact is the Feds own that land, what can you do help me? With all due respect, if you can't help me reclaim that land, reclaim our former liberty, what is the point in your philosophy?


First, "reclaim our former liberty?" How do you mean. I don't follow what you're saying there. You are using the term "liberty" very imprecisely. There is no constitutional guarantee to trails that are unmolested by trail riders.

Second, the fact is that the Feds *shouldn't* own the land. They have no authority under the constitution to do so. The point of the philosophy is exactly that. The only thing I can do is point to the fundamental fact that the federal government is operating outside of its mandate, and lament with you about big progressive government taking land that they shouldn't own and using it to maximize their tax intake.

But you seem to be the progressive here. It's your philosophy of government that is causing you the problems in the first place.

[Cito Pelon]

First, "reclaim our former liberty?" How do you mean. I don't follow what you're saying there. You are using the term "liberty" very imprecisely. There is no constitutional guarantee to trails that are unmolested by trail riders.

Second, the fact is that the Feds *shouldn't* own the land. They have no authority under the constitution to do so. The point of the philosophy is exactly that. The only thing I can do is point to the fundamental fact that the federal government is operating outside of its mandate, and lament with you about big progressive government taking land that they shouldn't own and using it to maximize their tax intake.

But you seem to be the progressive here. It's your philosophy of government that is causing you the problems in the first place.

OK, I figured that would be the case you would state. How is "liberty" an imprecise term? Hell, your philosophy is called "Libertarian". Define "liberty", Libertarian. Jeez, you're a joke gone bad. That was not gentlemanly, but there we are.

[Taco John]

OK, I figured that would be the case you would state. How is "liberty" an imprecise term? Hell, your philosophy is called "Libertarian". Define "liberty", Libertarian. Jeez, you're a joke gone bad. That was not gentlemanly, but there we are.



You attack that which you don't understand. It's robotic behavior biologically programmed in all of us - a defense mechanism. Defeating that program is a measure of character.

I defer to Thomas Jefferson's definition of Liberty:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."


Liberty is not anarchy. It's law and order. It's not "you're free to do whatever you want, regardless of who gets hurt." It's "you're free to do what you want, so long as nobody gets hurt."

[Spider]

The simple answer is a question: Who owns the land? native Americans ......well except for Manhattan New York

[BroncoBuff]

All that has materialized in this thread is more empty preaching.
Yeah right .... I give you the benefit of rock-solid Constitutional information and its well-settled interpretation, all correct, and all at odds with your bizarre rantings. And you call "empty preaching"? What a tool you are.

Whoops ... I guess I "slandered" you again, huh? :~ohyah!:

[yavoon]

Community has ensured our survival up until now, not self-interest. Perhaps, now that we have nearly eradicated nature, we feel that we can split off and make it on our own, as individuals. That is an illusion. We still must go to the farmer for our grains, fruits and vegetables, the rancher for our meat, the textile worker for our clothes, the forester and carpenter for our houses, on and on, ad infinitum. Ergo, community is more crucial to our survival than our individual pursuits. We must live a kind of "enlightened" self interest, realizing that when we support each other, we better support ourselves.

The reverse of this is unenlightened self interest. Also known as greed. The hallmark of a society based on greed is that a few are doing very, very well and most are not doing well at all, or as well as they could be given the overall production of the society. Those at the top tend to amass the power and wealth of the society into their own hands, for their own self-aggrandizement, manipulating the government to funnel even more wealth and power to them. This is a society constantly mired in conflict. The sense of community, cohesion and common purpose is cast aside in favor of a celebration of winners over losers.

In the society of enlightened self-interest, you might see art that celebrates family and the benefits of cohesion, whose moral message is one that extols the benefits of coming together, acting together for the combined best interests, for example, mostly family dramas where the father and mother are revered and give their guidance to their appreciative children in communities that work together.

In the society of unenlightened self-interest, you'll see art that focuses on the individual. The angst of loneliness and separation. Family is unimportant. The parental figures are ludicrous, uninspired and their counsel is meaningless. Music is without meaning and usually just a rehash of older themes. Drama focuses on individual survival, for example, fighting in a cage, surviving on a desert island or back stabbing others in a confined group in order to glom onto a coveted position as the apprentice to a wealty and powerful uber-boss. ;D

community is just the pooling of self-interest. self-interest does not imply a loner life lived in the hills talking to wolves. corporations are built upon self-interest and are some of the most successful cooperative structures ever.

[BroncoBuff]

I just realized that we've gotten six pages into this thread, and nobody has even attempted to answer the question that I proposed in the thread starter. All that has materialized in this thread is more empty preaching. I had hoped to elevate the discussion. Instead I got called names and told that people were disappointed in me for holding my point of view.
I'm fine with your point of view ... it's just wrong to frame your disagreements in Constitutional complainst.

And I definitely did answer your question. You asked:
So here is my question: How does anybody propose that they're going to get people to stop thinking about themselves first? What is ever going to happen that is going to cause people to think of others first, and themselves second?

Roh tried to answer in posts #7 and #10 (7 was great), and several others have tried to answer, and I answered as follows:

This issue has nothing to do with "changing peoples hearts" or anything like that. Such an effort would be a fool's errand. But like I mentioned several times in the other thread, government exists for exactly these kinds of reasons - to make laws directed toward societal goals and stated public policy.

You have to think much B I G G E R and B R O A D E R ....

All laws are enacted with the specific purpose of encouraging/discouraging behaviors and/or actions that promote the kind of society we want to have. Non-smoking laws, civil rights laws, DUI laws, on and on and on. Your butt is sitting on the biggest ever public policy initiative directed toward societal goals: mortgage interest deduction. That's a huge "government handout" TJ. Laws enacted precisely to encourage mass construction, sales and purchases of single family homes. A wildly successful public policy. The freaking American Dream.

The answer is that you cannot change peoples' hearts - no way. Judge Learned Hand famously said, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."

So the answer to your question is: you can't change hearts ... what you CAN do is enact laws to forward policies that have the societal effects that correspond to a utopia where everybody does havea big heart.



Cito is right .... you DO want special laws made for you. Not PERSONALY for you, but what you're really saying is that you disagree with social safety net spending and social security. So then, you're advocating for "special laws" cutting back on and/or eliminating that spending. That is it, right? Behind all the drama - the "stealing my liberty" drama - you're really just advocating massive cuts in social spending. If you just said that, fine. But you keep saying we're "slandering" you, and not answering your questions. I'm not sure you know what your question is yourself anymore.

TJ, if you got hammered with a tax bill or something, I have all the sympathy in the world for you ... but please stop moving the goalposts here, stop wildly misinterpreting the Constitution, and stop accusing people who disagree with you of slander because of it.

[Los Broncos]

It's a line from one of my favorite Jane's Addiction songs.

I was a huge Jane fan back in the day, ahhhh the good ole days.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

News of the New Depression is slowly being beginning to spread
<!-- begin content -->[/URL]

If you're at all familiar with Michael Fox (the columnist, not the actor), and you're trying to decide if the current economic crisis is a recession or a full blown depression, he certainly makes it hard to be optimistic. Back in November, Mr. Fox [URL="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10893"]reported (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/author/michael_kwiatkowski) that the New Depression had already begun. In February, he reported (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12707) that it had entered Phase Two, and that it had gone global (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12836).


Deniers may or may not have paid Mr. Fox much attention, if any at all. But now news of just how bad our current economic crisis really is is starting to bleed into the rest of the Blogosphere. Salon.com's Andrew Leonard writes (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/02/depression):
Most economists are no longer debating whether there will be a recession in 2008. Now, they're arguing over when the recession started -- was it last November, or December? -- and how bad it's likely to get. While they bicker, however, a far more terrifying economic specter from the distant past has sent a chill through the infosphere.


"We have not seen a nationwide decline in housing like this since the Great Depression," said the CEO of Wells Fargo late last year. "It is now clear that the U.S. and global financial markets are experiencing their worst financial crisis since the Great Depression," wrote economist Nouriel Roubini last week.
What's kept things from completely collapsing is the hardcore denial by those in power that anything is even wrong. The children running the Federal Reserve "reason" that if they can hold off all public acknowledgment that there is a crisis, and that allowing the "free" market to run wild was the cause, then the problem doesn't exist. And if the problem doesn't exist because no one admits there is one, then the "reasoning" goes that when the next administration comes in and has to tell the public the truth, blame can then be shifted to that bunch. Because, after all, the Depression "didn't exist" until the new folk in charge began talking about it.
Except it does exist, and it shan't be long before even the lazy and all-too-often complicit corporate media are forced to admit it. The independent media has already belatedly come to terms with the fact of the economic crisis. Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive wrote yesterday (http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx040108) about the growing problem of looting other people's homes for metals such as copper and steel. People are getting so desperate, they're ignoring things such as televisions and stereos. Guard your plumbing jealously, ladies and gentlemen. That's what robbers are really after in today's Great Depression.
What's that? You're still not convinced? Let's read more from Mr. Leonard.
In 1933, 24 percent of the workforce was unemployed (http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/depres24.html#). In February 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. unemployment rate was 4.8 percent (though there are reasons to believe that number significantly underestimates the true picture (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/business/05leonhardt.html)). Between 1929 and 1933 (http://www.econlib.org/Library/Enc/GreatDepression.html), U.S. GDP growth declined by around 30 percent, the stock market lost almost 90 percent of its value, and a whopping 40 percent of the nation's banks failed. In the fourth quarter of 2007, GDP growth registered an 0.6 gain. While stocks are down over the last year and a half, there's still no consensus about whether we're living through a "correction" or a full-scale bear market. And even though scores of mortgage lenders have declared bankruptcy in the last year, both the real banking system and the so-called shadow banking system of generally unregulated investment banks and hedge funds are still afloat, thanks in large part to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke's dogged determination to ensure that if economic disaster does strike, it won't be because the Fed failed to pump enough liquidity into the system (an error that conservative economists are convinced helped cause the first Great Depression).
Now let's read some portions of Mike Fox's report from last November:
The Chinese had begun a sell-off of their US securities. They have dollars held by their government and, separately by their treasury (like the Fed).
Today, that entity has made clear that they will be unloading some $400 billion, which they already began in August (according to the China Daily, they sold off $9 billion - without buying any new debt in that month alone) in an attempt to divest of American Government securities. (They still hold over a trillion dollars of, well, other dollars – stock, corporate paper, etc)
The Japanese, not to be outdone, sold off some $24 billion in US treasuries in August.
Today, GM posted a loss of $40 billion in the 3rd quarter, because they had so much anticipated income from anticipated tax credits that they had opted to show as possible income FOR THREE YEARS in order to minimize the appearances of real losses, that they now had to suck it up and stick it all on the balance sheet for this one quarter, even though, at selling cars, they made a profit in that quarter! Can you wrap your mind around LOSING 40 BILLION DOLLARS IN 3 MONTHS? There are many nations that don't have that number for a GDP, annually. This is America's great manufacturing giant. And, as they used to say, what's good for GM is Good for America.
So, America, let's just all write-down our losses in the third quarter and move on, shall we?
Today, Washington Mutual (the one hitherto considered clean), got nabbed on CRIMINAL charges by Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of NY for their mortgages (specifically for defrauding Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae with bundled mortgages).
Today, the Europeans (as I pointed out in my January 07 letter, not published on SC - everyone else thought they were safe) are suffering too. BMW and LVMH both took large hits on their stock values, as they realize that all that entry-level luxe crap - that foolish Americans were mortgaging the floorboards to buy - will no longer sell (3-series BMWs are where the money is, but that market just slammed shut, similarly Louis Vuitton, which has opened dozens of mall stores to sell items that used to be exclusive, may as well close those doors, because the market will revert to the rarified air it used to breathe, and all those middle class gals who've been buying $1200 purses will do so no more, because you can't mortgage a house after it's been foreclosed.
Remember, this was back in November, before the bailout of Bear Stearns. Now let's take a look at Mr. Fox's reports from February:
Egg, a British online bank, said it would cancel the credit cards of 161,000 customers it deemed too risky. The cards will stop working in March. The news provoked angry reactions from some credit-card holders who claimed their credit records were spotless. Egg was acquired by Citigroup last year, before the deterioration in money markets. [From The Economist, Feb. 7, 2008]
Citigroup recently found itself short of cash-on-hand, so they sold another 5% of the company to the UAE. That wasn’t enough, evidently, so now they’re tightening up on lending. First was the mortgage sector, now the consumer credit. Dropping 161,000 credit cards in Britain would work out to dropping over 800,000 were they to do likewise in the United States. Only, this is one small subsidiary bank in Great Britain, and this is only the beginning.
Those credit cards they’ve been “pre-approving” and issuing to anyone who’d sign up will soon be gone. Without the credit card - mad consumerism of the last ten years, store closures will be drastic, and accompanying unemployment will go without saying. Meanwhile, the government is printing more money to keep the spending spree going, even if the banks can no longer underwrite the party. Still, the Fed keeps lowering the interest rates to encourage borrowing – if only anyone were lending! Yet as the cost of money drops for the banks, credit card interest rates and fees are skyrocketing.
And:
Okay, people, if the foreclosure rate, the banks closing perfectly good credit card accounts, or the loss of thousands of jobs a month hasn’t convinced you, this is Earthshaking. Because, as depressed as the real estate market has been, and as volatile as the stock market has been, bonds have been the conservative investment of choice for large investment fund managers and long-term individual investors. Secretly, who hasn’t aspired to “retire and clip coupons?” (Note to the young’uns: tax-free municipal bonds used to have perforations like a sheet of stamps, and each coupon represented a monthly or quarterly interest payment that was like tax-free cash, thus the expression amongst the wealthy, “clipping coupons”; it has nothing to do with 20¢ off a box of Tide). Now this:
UBS AG won't buy auction-rate securities that fail to attract enough bidders, joining a growing number of dealers stepping back from the $300 billion market, said a person with direct knowledge of the situation. The second-biggest underwriter of the securities, whose rates are reset periodically at auctions, notified its 8,200 U.S. brokers of the decision yesterday, said the person, who declined to be identified because the announcement wasn't publicly disclosed. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Citigroup Inc. allowed auctions to fail...Bank of America Corp. estimated in a report that 80 percent of all auctions of bonds sold by cities, hospitals and student loan agencies were unsuccessful yesterday.
That may mean as much as $20 billion of bonds failed to find buyers, based on the $15 billion to $25 billion of auction-rate bonds scheduled for bidding daily…Auctions are failing as confidence in the creditworthiness of insurers backing the securities wanes, and as loss-plagued banks…[Feb. 14 (Bloomberg)]
Yesterday, Warren Buffett, the billionaire head of Berkshire Hathaway Fund offered to personally shore-up the four companies that insure all bonds, and are at risk of having their own credit-worthiness downgraded (which would send a huge ripple of skittishness throughout the economy – a ripple, in my opinion, just waiting to happen). Mr. Bufett’s offer has been publicly rebuffed, and, yet, such bravado on the part of MBIA and Ambac isn’t making anyone feel the rock solid security they’re trying to convey. Everyone knows that when the defaults begin in bundled mortgage backed securities, they will not be able to come up with the $800 billion, and then, those holding more traditional bonds, those issued by municipalities and states, will be dependent upon the tax income of those entities, which are dwindling as the home foreclosure rate goes up.
And the Swiss are having none of it. So, yesterday, New York City's Health and Hospitals Corp.’s auction of $64.9 million failed. Likewise, the Port Authority (of New York and New Jersey), saw its auction debt soar to 20 percent on Feb. 12 from 4.3 percent a week ago.
Meanwhile, the CFO of MBIA, Charles Chaplin (no kidding), has taken his show on the road, telling everyone who’ll listen that everything’s okay, nothing to see over here, have faith. Earlier this week he announced that they had enough to cover any degree of failure that may occur, and today, he’ll be testifying before Congress that “A bailout of highly credit-worthy companies, who, at most, are at risk of losing the very highest ratings available, is misplaced.” But no disclosure of details has been made. So far, this roadshow is all talk, and I, for one would prefer to see the balance sheets. As the bonds themselves aren’t selling, the interest rate will have to go up to entice buyers. But that just increases the risk for the insurers. The problem snowballs.
By the way, did anyone notice that platinum hit $2,000./ounce last night? No wonder.
Convinced yet? If not, don't worry. Sooner or later, the corporate media shall have to acknowledge that the New Depression exists. The only question is whether it will happen under a Democratic or Republican regime. If it's the former, look for blame to be laid on the Democrats. If it's the latter, it'll be those pesky regulations that take the blame, and the resulting wave of further deregulation shall inevitably lead to a meltdown that makes the First Great Depression look like a day at the beach by comparison.
_______
http://liberal-pride.org (http://liberal-pride.org/)

[W*GS]

More doomster bull**** from LABF. Snore.

Why hasn't he hooked up with baja down there in Mexico? Because the two of them can't figure out how to split expenses - especially for essentials like condoms and tampons.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

More "attack the messenger" idiocy and absolutely no refutation by Ken Starr's cabana boy of anything in the article.

Same sh*t - different day.

[W*GS]

You're just pissed that you and baja duke it out over the whole Tampax vs. Playtex thing...

[Spider]

More doomster bull**** from LABF. Snore.

Why hasn't he hooked up with baja down there in Mexico? Because the two of them can't figure out how to split expenses - especially for essentials like condoms and tampons.

doom ? is it here ? maybe not in your cushy white collar world , but the blue collar world is feeling the bite ....... you know Blue collar guys , guys that work hard for a living .. I heard on Serius satellite radio that 28 million Americans qualify for food stamps ........28 million ....thats alot of Americans W*GS .. and they dont share your rosey everything will be ok outlook ....

[W*GS]

Yeah, yeah, Spider.

You spend too much time huffing fumes.

[Spider]

Yeah, yeah, Spider.

You spend too much time huffing fumes.

So you are telling me everything is ok ? there is no crisis in America right now ?

[W*GS]

I've never said everything was OK - but that's a long way from the doomster bull**** LABF has been peddling for months...

[Spider]

I've never said everything was OK - but that's a long way from the doomster bull**** LABF has been peddling for months...

well then what is the opposite of OK ? and if everything isnt ok then what degree would you put 28 million Americans qualifying for foodstamps ? a minor set back ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

well then what is the opposite of OK ? and if everything isnt ok then what degree would you put 28 million Americans qualifying for foodstamps ? a minor set back ?

What makes me chuckle is that Deflection Boy hasn't challenged a single fact or point in the article I posted.

He (in his meglomaniacal mind) seems to believe that simply calling the entire article "crap" is the same thing as refuting it.

Talk about the Limbaugh/Fox News paradigm in action, eh? :D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

doom ? is it here ? maybe not in your cushy white collar world , but the blue collar world is feeling the bite .......

:yep:

Until it affects him significantly, he couldn't care less.

"I've got mine."

[El Minion]

News of the New Depression is slowly being beginning to spread

I know the Republicans have been trying the dismantle FDR's programs, just ironic that it is his policies are really helping today.


-----------------------
<span class="department">moneybox</span><h1>The New New Deal</h1><h2>Roosevelt-era reforms are saving capitalism—again.</h2><span class="author">By Daniel Gross</span><span class="dateline" id="dateline_top"><br>Posted Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at 3:29 PM ET
</span><hr><p>In the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved American capitalism from its own self-inflicted wounds by erecting a new financial infrastructure—often over the vociferous opposition of the bankers and investors whose poor judgment had helped precipitate the Great Depression. During the New Deal, the government reacted to a disastrous systemic failure by creating the sort of backstops, insurance, and risk-spreading mechanisms the market had failed to develop on its own, such as deposit insurance, federal securities registration, and federally sponsored entities that would insure mortgages.</p><p>Despite sustained efforts to tear down the New Deal—from the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp">repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999</a> to President George W. Bush's ill-fated 2005 efforts to dismantle Social Security—the 1930s-vintage infrastructure has proved remarkably durable. And this crisis has elicited new experiments in policy, just as the Great Depression did. The Federal Reserve has been systematically lowering its standards for what it will accept as collateral for loans. This week, Hillary Clinton <a target="_blank" href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jTjCF6LrxPgUAtzZXEF-itt9myOwD8VJRCL01">called for</a> a national panel to recommend solutions to the housing morass. (She said the group should include former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, which is a little like Chicago appointing a cow to a panel on preventing disastrous fires.) But as the nation once again confronts a systemic failure in housing and housing-related credit, the Bush administration is going back to the future, using New Deal-era agencies as the cornerstone of its response.</p><p>Although the Tennessee Valley Authority has yet to pitch in, four 70-year-old agencies are helping to cushion the blow of the housing bust. Let's count them.</p><p>1. The <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fhlbanks.com/">Federal Home Loan Bank</a> system. Last year, the model of originating and securitizing mortgages began to break down in the wake of the subprime debacle. Mortgage companies that relied on the capital markets (rather than deposits) to raise the money for mortgages suddenly found themselves starved for cash. Many of them turned to the FHLB, which was <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fhlbanks.com/html/history.html">created in 1932</a> (so let's give that one to Herbert Hoover) and provides capital to lenders. Indeed, had it not been for the FHLB, it's possible that the nation's largest mortgage lender, Countrywide Financial Corp., might have gone under. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., noted last fall that Countrywide <a target="_blank" href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/21978972/">borrowed a whopping</a> $51.4 billion from the Atlanta FHLB as its troubles mounted. On Monday, the FHLB <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fhfb.gov/GetFile.aspx?FileID=6713">pitched in again</a>, relaxing regulations on member banks to allow them to double the number of mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that they can hold on their books for the next two years. The FHLB noted that this measure could allow member banks to purchase more than $100 billion worth of such securities.</p><p>2. The <a target="_blank" href="http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page?_pageid=33,717234&amp;_dad=portal&amp;_schema=PORTAL">Federal Housing Authority</a>. The FHA, which was <a target="_blank" href="http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page?_pageid=33,717454&amp;_dad=portal&amp;_schema=PORTAL">created in 1934</a>, insures mortgages made by approved lenders to borrowers who are creditworthy but not particularly affluent. As the mortgage market grew like Topsy and subprime lenders peddled credit to underserved markets, the FHA may have seemed outdated. But in the wake of the subprime debacle, the FHA has suddenly become an important part of the effort to stanch the rising tide of foreclosures. Last summer, it <a target="_blank" href="http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page?_pageid=33,717219&amp;_dad=portal&amp;_schema=PORTAL">created FHASecure</a>, a program that lets certain borrowers switch from adjustable-rate mortgages into fixed-rate mortgages. "From September to December 2007, FHA facilitated more than $38 billion of much-needed mortgage activity in the housing market, more than $15 billion of which was through FHASecure, FHA's refinancing product." As part of the recently passed stimulus package, the FHA is also temporarily jacking up the size of the mortgages it will insure (in high-cost housing areas) from $362,790 to $729,750.</p><p>3. The <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fanniemae.com/index.jhtml">Federal National Mortgage Association</a> (Fannie Mae), which was <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fanniemae.com/aboutfm/index.jhtml;jsessionid=0YRNO0YKYXPDHJ2FQSHSFGA?p=A bout+Fannie+Mae">created in 1938</a>. Fannie Mae purchases so-called conforming mortgages (mortgages under a certain size) made by other lenders and packages them into securities, which it effectively insures. (Here's a <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fanniemae.com/media/pdf/historicalloanlimits.pdf">historical table</a> of the conforming loan limit, which was $417,000 for a single home last year.) Fannie Mae and its brother government-sponsored enterprise, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.realtor.org/GAPublic.nsf/Pages/economic_stimulus_fha_limits?OpenDocument">Freddie Mac</a>, are playing a central role in the federal response to the housing crisis. The stimulus package boosted the size of the loans <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fanniemae.com/media/statements/2008/030608.jhtml?p=Media&amp;s=Statements">Fannie and Freddie can buy</a>, from $417,000 to "125 percent of the area median home price in high-cost areas, not to exceed $729,750." And then earlier this month, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ofheo.gov/">OFHEO</a>, the body that regulates Fannie and Freddie, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ofheo.gov/newsroom.aspx?ID=422&amp;q1=1&amp;q2=None">said</a> it would lift the cap on the amount of capital they could use to buy mortgage-backed securities and make loans, providing "up to $200 billion of immediate liquidity to the mortgage-backed securities market." </p><p>4. The <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fdic.gov/">Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.</a> The FDIC, which was <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fdic.gov/about/history/index.html">founded in 1933</a> and insures bank deposits, is playing more of a passive role. Many of the financial institutions that have failed or suffered near-death experiences in the current crisis—subprime lenders, jumbo lenders like Thornburg Mortgage and Bear Stearns—essentially fell victim to runs on the bank. Once customers and counterparties came to believe that it wasn't safe to do business with these firms, their days were numbered. But one sector has been largely immune from runs on the bank—banks themselves. Even as banking companies have racked up significant losses on soured loans, and even as some tiny banks <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2008/pr08021.html">have</a> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2008/pr08007.html">failed</a>, Americans haven't rushed to yank their cash out of their checking and savings accounts. The reason: In the event of a failure, depositors with $100,000 or less at FDIC-insured institutions are made whole.</p>Daniel Gross is the Moneybox columnist for <strong><em>Slate</em></strong> and the business columnist for <em>Newsweek</em>. You can e-mail him at <a target="_blank" href="mailto:moneybox@slate.com">moneybox@slate.com</a>. He is the author of <a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Pop-Why-Bubbles-Great-Economy/dp/0061151548/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2036587-4768832?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1177018293&amp;sr=8-1"><em>Pop! Why Bubbles Are Great for the Economy</em></a>.<br><p><strong>Article URL: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2187039/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/2187039/</a></strong></p></div><script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="http://www.slate.com/js/s_code.js"></script><script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript"

[W*GS]

well then what is the opposite of OK ?

Is being in less than perfect health the same as dead?

and if everything isnt ok then what degree would you put 28 million Americans qualifying for foodstamps ? a minor set back ?

Interesting how taxes are used to subsidize big agribusiness to keep prices up, then taxes are used to help people buy food, because it's too expensive.

Find the problem with the above.

[W*GS]

Until it affects him significantly, he couldn't care less.

You espouse the bull**** "altruism" of socialism, so stick it.

[W*GS]

I know the Republicans have been trying the dismantle FDR's programs, just ironic that it is his policies are really helping today.

Snort.

In the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved American capitalism from its own self-inflicted wounds [...]

That's wrong. Capitalism didn't screw up then, and it's not screwing up now. The government and manipulations of capitalism by politicians are to blame.

I wonder when LABF will commend Clinton for his signing of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, or if he will spin it and blame the GOP for playing another dirty trick on poor ol' Bill.

[Spider]

Is being in less than perfect health the same as dead? are you equating being broke as death ?
Interesting how taxes are used to subsidize big agribusiness to keep prices up, then taxes are used to help people buy food, because it's too expensive.

Find the problem with the above.
are you seriously comparing the propping up of Agriculture to Big oil , Haliburton , GE , GM , ford ?
farmers pay out the ass for fuel to run farm equipment .......then you have transportation cost , store cost , do you even grasp how food gets to the shelves of the store ?

[Spider]

That's wrong. Capitalism didn't screw up then, and it's not screwing up now. The government and manipulations of capitalism by politicians are to blame.

I wonder when LABF will commend Clinton for his signing of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, or if he will spin it and blame the GOP for playing another dirty trick on poor ol' Bill.

where in the hell did you learn history ? Back of a`serial box that had trivia games on it ?

[W*GS]

are you equating being broke as death ?

Somehow you manage to miss the point almost every time.

To carry the medical analogy further, what the economy has is a bad cold. What LABF claims is that it's at stage-IV cancer. Do you see the difference now?

are you seriously comparing the propping up of Agriculture to Big oil , Haliburton , GE , GM , ford ?

Why, yes. Billions of taxpayer dollars going to huge agribusiness.

farmers pay out the ass for fuel to run farm equipment .......then you have transportation cost , store cost , do you even grasp how food gets to the shelves of the store ?

Yeah, you truck it.

The billions in subsidies to agriculture aren't helping the small farmer. Obviously. Besides, many food commodity prices are at or near all-time highs, and the average farming family has 130% of the income of the average family, and the ones at the top, who get most of the subsidies, have 300% of the average non-farming family income.

[W*GS]

where in the hell did you learn history ? Back of a`serial box that had trivia games on it ?

Is that where you learned to spell?

Quit believing the myths of your Democratic Party and left-wing revisionist historians.

[Spider]

Somehow you manage to miss the point almost every time.

To carry the medical analogy further, what the economy has is a bad cold. What LABF claims is that it's at stage-IV cancer. Do you see the difference now? the cold could be caused from AIDS .....
but when a man is broke and trying to feed his family ,about ready to lose his home it is more then a cold ..


Why, yes. Billions of taxpayer dollars going to huge agribusiness.



Yeah, you truck it.

The billions in subsidies to agriculture aren't helping the small farmer. Obviously. Besides, many food commodity prices are at or near all-time highs, and the average farming family has 130% of the income of the average family, and the ones at the top, who get most of the subsidies, have 300% of the average non-farming family income.
pretty much right on , I dont know the percentages , but you pretty much answered your own question about Ag getting help and people getting food stamps

[Spider]

Is that where you learned to spell?

Quit believing the myths of your Democratic Party and left-wing revisionist historians.

ROFL! you calling anyone a revisionist , that would be like LABF calling me a Bush hater ......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

ROFL! you calling anyone a revisionist , that would be like LABF calling me a Bush hater ......

Ha! :yep:

What really cracks me up is the way W*GS dismisses the entire article out of hand as "doomster crap" when the key quotes are from the CEO of Wells Fargo, et al:

"We have not seen a nationwide decline in housing like this since the Great Depression," said the CEO of Wells Fargo late last year. "It is now clear that the U.S. and global financial markets are experiencing their worst financial crisis since the Great Depression," wrote economist Nouriel Roubini last week.

The kind of spinning W*GS has to do to make the CEO of Wells Fargo = Michael Moore must leave him positively dizzy.

The things you gotta believe to be a Bushonomics apologist these days, eh?

:D

[W*GS]

the cold could be caused from AIDS .....

The economy isn't rotten all the way through.

but when a man is broke and trying to feed his family ,about ready to lose his home it is more then a cold ..

That happens even when the economy is doing great. You've changed the subject from the economy as a whole to a specific person. You've fallen for LABF's relentless drumbeating on how bad the economy is - which is what he wants.

pretty much right on , I dont know the percentages , but you pretty much answered your own question about Ag getting help and people getting food stamps

The loser here is the working man - his taxes go up, as does the price of the food he buys to feed his family. What's the solution?

[W*GS]

"[S]ince the Great Depression" doesn't imply "worse than the Great Depression".

We all see your through your transparent games, LABF. Quit playing them.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Employers slashed 80,000 jobs in March

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer 3 minutes ago

<!-- end storyhdr --> WASHINGTON - Employers nervous about diminishing business prospects slashed 80,000 jobs in March, the most in five years and the third straight month of losses.
<table class="ad_slug_table" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td align="center">
<iframe style="display: none;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" src="http://ad.yieldmanager.com/st?ad_type=iframe&ad_size=300x250&site=140477&section_code=12513770&cb=1207313033194765&ycg=&yyob=&pub_redirect_unencoded=1&pub_redirect=http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14t9dcd9u/M=619213.12513770.12865465.1442997/D=news/S=8903535:LREC/_ylt=A0WTUdSJIvZHAPoAgi5v24cA/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1207320233/L=bM8Dg0WTVvqyVebuCR2eORE0Q6Cr30f2IokAAtaU/B=7A4JB9GDJGg-/J=1207313033194765/A=4919452/R=0/*" frameborder="0" height="250" scrolling="no" width="300"></iframe></td></tr></tbody></table> <!-- SpaceID=8903535 loc=RMP noad --> <script language="javascript"> if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['8Q4JB9GDJGg-']='&U=127jme5e8%2fN%3d8Q4JB9GDJGg-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dRMP%2fB%3d-1'; </script><noscript>http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=bM8Dg0WTVvqyVebuCR2eORE0Q6Cr30f2IokAAtaU&T=19gt32snm%2fX%3d1207313033%2fE%3d8903535%2fR%3dn ews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d26 54042736%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PSJ idXNpbmVzcztob3VzaW5nO2NyZWRpdDtyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lha G9vX2NvbSIgcmVmdXJsPSJyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSI gdG9waWNzPSJyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSI-%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dD4519345&U=127jme5e8%2fN%3d8Q4JB9GDJGg-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dRMP%2fB%3d-1</noscript> <!-- SpaceID=8903535 loc=SIPR noad --> <script language="javascript"> if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['8g4JB9GDJGg-']='&U=128dvbkph%2fN%3d8g4JB9GDJGg-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dSIPR%2fB%3d-1'; </script><noscript>http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=bM8Dg0WTVvqyVebuCR2eORE0Q6Cr30f2IokAAtaU&T=19g3157f5%2fX%3d1207313033%2fE%3d8903535%2fR%3dn ews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d35 47965715%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PSJ idXNpbmVzcztob3VzaW5nO2NyZWRpdDtyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lha G9vX2NvbSIgcmVmdXJsPSJyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSI gdG9waWNzPSJyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSI-%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dD4519345&U=128dvbkph%2fN%3d8g4JB9GDJGg-%2fC%3d-1%2fD%3dSIPR%2fB%3d-1</noscript><script language="javascript"> if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['7A4JB9GDJGg-']='&U=13blnb9gr%2fN%3d7A4JB9GDJGg-%2fC%3d619213.12513770.12865465.1442997%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d4919452'; </script><noscript>http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=bM8Dg0WTVvqyVebuCR2eORE0Q6Cr30f2IokAAtaU&T=19gfg2n2b%2fX%3d1207313033%2fE%3d8903535%2fR%3dn ews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d33 12283181%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PSJ idXNpbmVzcztob3VzaW5nO2NyZWRpdDtyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lha G9vX2NvbSIgcmVmdXJsPSJyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSI gdG9waWNzPSJyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3lhaG9vX2NvbSI-%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dD4519345&U=13blnb9gr%2fN%3d7A4JB9GDJGg-%2fC%3d619213.12513770.12865465.1442997%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d4919452</noscript>At the same time, the national unemployment rate rose from 4.8 percent to 5.1 percent, the clearest signal yet that the economy may already be in a recession.

The new snapshot of the job market, released by the Labor Department Friday, underscored the damage that a trio of crises - in the housing, credit and financial sectors — has inflicted on companies, jobseekers and the economy as a whole.

The unemployment rate was the highest since September 2005, when significant job losses followed the devastating blows of Gulf Coast hurricanes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

[Rohirrim]

Shadows are falling and I've been here all day
It's too hot to sleep and time is running away
Feel like my soul has turned into steel
I've still got the scars that the sun didn't heal
There's not even room enough to be anywhere
It's not dark yet, but it's getting there

Well my sense of humanity has gone down the drain
Behind every beautiful thing there's been some kind of pain
She wrote me a letter and she wrote it so kind
She put down in writing what was in her mind
I just don't see why I should even care
It's not dark yet, but it's getting there

Well, I've been to London and I've been to gay Paree
I've followed the river and I got to the sea
I've been down on the bottom of a world full of lies
I ain't looking for nothing in anyone's eyes
Sometimes my burden seems more than I can bear
It's not dark yet, but it's getting there

I was born here and I'll die here against my will
I know it looks like I'm moving, but I'm standing still
Every nerve in my body is so vacant and numb
I can't even remember what it was I came here to get away from
Don't even hear a murmur of a prayer
It's not dark yet, but it's getting there.
(Bob Dylan)

[Spider]

The economy isn't rotten all the way through. not yet , but we are on that train track ......



That happens even when the economy is doing great. You've changed the subject from the economy as a whole to a specific person. You've fallen for LABF's relentless drumbeating on how bad the economy is - which is what he wants. sure it happens when the economy is doing great , but it is from self inflicted wounds , but this go around is different W*GS , I am no economical expert , I dont know trends ,etc , but I know when I see fellow Americans having a hard time , to blame this all on LABF when I see waitress in truckstops working 2 jobs , while their husbands take on 2 full time jobs , leaves little doubt that things are bad ...... I have a joke now when I call my wife .... Honey have you got a job yet to support my trucking habit .Sad when that joke is close to reality ...



The loser here is the working man - his taxes go up, as does the price of the food he buys to feed his family. working man has always gotten the short end of the stick , republicans secret motto , keep em poor so they keep working hard .


What's the solution? Been a down hill slide since the Reagan era , declaring war on the middle class , not much can be done to help us now , Though I dont have it as bad as the next guy or even other drivers , I am very skilled in my trade , if I wasnt loyal to my brother , I could have a driving job doing exactly what I want , and time off when I want it ... But I want my Brother to make it , I dont want him to fail , so I am in my 40's still doing crap runs ,staying out 2 - 3 weeks , in the end it will all be worth it .......

[W*GS]

not yet , but we are on that train track ......

No. To quote Sarah Connor: "The future's not set".

Been a down hill slide since the Reagan era , declaring war on the middle class , not much can be done to help us now ,

Would that "down hill slide" include 1992-2000? As for "not much can be done to help us now", that's wrong too.

[Spider]

No. To quote Sarah Connor: "The future's not set". Meanwhile back in reality , we understand that it would be great if this were a movie script ......



Would that "down hill slide" include 1992-2000? of course it would , if I thought different I would have noted the Clinton Era . things eased up a bit , but it was still brutal on Unions .... As for "not much can be done to help us now", that's wrong too.

Look I know where you are coming from , and your lets stop paying taxes , live in Teepeees and every man woman and child for themselfs despite age or ability to provide for themselfs , that system never works , not even in a hippie commune ..... Just like David Koresh , the guy you so vehemently defended , he ran a socialistic damn near communistic compound to keep his flock together .... What you got to understand W*GS is there are great Ideas , then there are practical Ideas .....

[W*GS]

Look I know where you are coming from , and your lets stop paying taxes , live in Teepeees and every man woman and child for themselfs despite age or ability to provide for themselfs , that system never works , not even in a hippie commune ..... Just like David Koresh , the guy you so vehemently defended , he ran a socialistic damn near communistic compound to keep his flock together .... What you got to understand W*GS is there are great Ideas , then there are practical Ideas .....

You musta hauled a lot of manure lately, because you're full of ****.

[Spider]

You musta hauled a lot of manure lately, because you're full of ****.

are you saying you never defended Koresh ?
or you are anti Tax ?
you want to get rid SS, Medicare , Welfare programs ?

[W*GS]

are you saying you never defended Koresh ?

Nope - not "vehemently". I attacked the BATF/FBI/et.al. response to Koresh, which isn't the same thing. You're acting like LABF - quit it.

or you are anti Tax ?

I'm against many taxes - not all taxes.

you want to get rid SS, Medicare , Welfare programs ?

We need to transition away from those programs to assure the fiscal future of the government and the country.

[Spider]

Nope - not "vehemently". I attacked the BATF/FBI/et.al. response to Koresh, which isn't the same thing. You're acting like LABF - quit it. Oh Bull**** , me and you went rounds over this , you made Koresh out to be a pillar of the community ........



I'm against many taxes - not all taxes. LOL , and I am a professional tourist with ****ty travel agent .......



We need to transition away from those programs to assure the fiscal future of the government and the country.

LOL how about not picking fights with other countries that run us in the billions per week to fight .......

[W*GS]

Oh Bull**** , me and you went rounds over this , you made Koresh out to be a pillar of the community ........

To quote you: "Oh Bull****". Show me where I said Koresh was a "pillar of the community".

LOL how about not picking fights with other countries that run us in the billions per week to fight .......

That, too.

[Spider]

To quote you: "Oh Bull****". Show me where I said Koresh was a "pillar of the community". color yourself lucky , we had this debate before the server change , those post are long gone ..... you took up for Koresh , thats when I asked if your wife was 18 when you nailed her , or was you a pedophile like him ..... needless to say you flew off the handle .......Then you babbled on about children getting bent backwards and stuff

[W*GS]

color yourself lucky , we had this debate before the server change , those post are long gone .....

Backpedaling with a pathetic excuse...

you took up for Koresh , thats when I asked if your wife was 18 when you nailed her , or was you a pedophile like him ..... needless to say you flew off the handle .......

To quote you: "Oh Bull****".

Then you babbled on about children getting bent backwards and stuff

You never did understand the topic.

[Spider]

Backpedaling with a pathetic excuse... LOL huh .. yeah thought so .....



To quote you: "Oh Bull****". so you didnt take offense ?



You never did understand the topic.And what topic was that ?

[W*GS]

LOL huh .. yeah thought so .....

The OM has a nice "Search" feature. Try it some time. It goes back to 2004, at least. I looked over our posts about Koresh, and nowhere did I see that I held him up as a "pillar of the community".

As usual, your memory is ****ed.

so you didnt take offense ?

At being called a pedophile? Did you call me one? Why?

And what topic was that ?

That being heavily critical of the government's actions at Waco in no way supports or endorses David Koresh, his beliefs or his actions. Do you get that?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

are you saying you never defended Koresh ?
or you are anti Tax ?
you want to get rid SS, Medicare , Welfare programs ?

W*GS lost whatever credibility he might have had left on this thread when he called the CEO of Wells Fargo a "doomster."

:rofl:

[W*GS]

W*GS lost whatever credibility he might have had left on this thread when he called the CEO of Wells Fargo a "doomster."

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1936617&postcount=176

I didn't call that guy a doomster, I call you a doomster.

Do you know what intellectual honesty is? Oh yeah - you're a ****ing liar. Never mind....

[Spider]

The OM has a nice "Search" feature. Try it some time. It goes back to 2004, at least. I looked over our posts about Koresh, and nowhere did I see that I held him up as a "pillar of the community".

As usual, your memory is ****ed. you looked at all 3 threads ?



At being called a pedophile? Did you call me one? Why? Yeah I did , even asked you if your woman was a underaged mail bride .Koresh was banging the you girls of the compound cause only his seed is pure ....



That being heavily critical of the government's actions at Waco in no way supports or endorses David Koresh, his beliefs or his actions. Do you get that?

LOL you was painting Koresh as a victim .....

[Spider]

W*GS lost whatever credibility he might have had left on this thread when he called the CEO of Wells Fargo a "doomster."

:rofl:

LOL yeah but he is fun

[W*GS]

you looked at all 3 threads ?

You do the search and find the proof for your claims.

LOL you was painting Koresh as a victim .....

No. The children who died were the victims - of Koresh and the government.

[Spider]

You do the search and find the proof for your claims.
LOL getting right on it , oh and besides I said made him out to be a pillar of the community , didnt say you said he was ...........But keep trying


[
No. The children who died were the victims - of Koresh and the government.

I see time has mellowed your hard core stance ...... perhaps as you get older you realize you understand how big of an Idiot you was

[W*GS]

LOL getting right on it , oh and besides I said made him out to be a pillar of the community , didnt say you said he was ...........But keep trying

Keep trying, Spider - eventually you'll backpedal all the way to (if you're honest) admitting that you were wrong. The posts are there; it's up to you to make your case. Unless you ain't got the balls to do it, of course.

One of these days you'll figure out that you better be right when you claim I (or anyone) said something, because the evidence is there. Quit relying on that flawed memory of yours...

I see time has mellowed your hard core stance ...... perhaps as you get older you realize you understand how big of an Idiot you was

My views haven't changed at all - I never said the government was entirely to blame.

[Spider]

Keep trying, Spider - eventually you'll backpedal all the way to (if you're honest) admitting that you were wrong. The posts are there; it's up to you to make your case. Unless you ain't got the balls to do it, of course.

One of these days you'll figure out that you better be right when you claim I (or anyone) said something, because the evidence is there. Quit relying on that flawed memory of yours...



My views haven't changed at all - I never said the government was entirely to blame.

LOL you are so full of **** , you are making stuff up again W*GS ......since you are all high and mighty son , show me where I said you said he was the pillar of the community . and no you laid the blame clearly on Reno and the clintons

[W*GS]

You're the one making up ****, Spider.

Show us where I said what you say I said.

Or apologize.

[Spider]

You're the one making up ****, Spider.

Show us where I said what you say I said.

Or apologize.

LOL , there were 3 threads and over 30 post .......If People care ( something tells they dont ) they will look it up for themselfs .....

[Spider]

Oh and W*GS , I am still waiting for you to show me , where I said you claimed he was the Pillar of the community ... I know you are busy and it will take some time ROFL!

[W*GS]

Spider got no balls.

You ain't much of a real blue-collar working man, are ya?

[Spider]

Spider got no balls.

You ain't much of a real blue-collar working man, are ya?

LOL seeing how I dont want to sift through 3 threads and over 30 post ...... I guess not ROFL! ....

[W*GS]

Yep - Spider admits he got no balls...

[Spider]

Yep - Spider admits he got no balls...

LOL yep ..BTW did you find that post yet of me saying , you Said Koresh was the pillar of the community ?

[W*GS]

Not what I said that you said, son.

As usual, you're full of ****, ol' Spidey.

[Spider]

Not what I said that you said, son.

As usual, you're full of ****, ol' Spidey.

LOL .... if you say so http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1936841&postcount=186
I report you decide ROFL!

[W*GS]

OK, you got me there. I was looking at

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1937080&postcount=190

Now, go back and find where I made the claims you've said I made. Go on - you can do it.

[Spider]

OK, you got me there. I was looking at

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1937080&postcount=190

Now, go back and find where I made the claims you've said I made. Go on - you can do it.

LOL . I get you all the time , but I am not sifting through 3 threads and over 30 post ,if you want to believe you never defended Koresh from Clintons and Reno go ahead ... who am I to disrupt your world

[W*GS]

I never defended Koresh, son.

Show me where I did. I'm honest enough to admit when I was wrong - when you gonna have the balls to be as honest as me, Spider?

[Spider]

Besides W*GS , I made a thread about the evil Clintons and their tax returns .... you should go see it ........;D

[Spider]

I never defended Koresh, son.

Show me where I did. I'm honest enough to admit when I was wrong - when you gonna have the balls to be as honest as me, Spider?
LOL if I cared enough I would ..... besides , you are wrong all the time , remember when you posted that article about Wal Mart being Compared the A.G. scandal ?

[Spider]

LOL W*GS , you should just walk away now and let it go , I have your exact words where you claimed Koresh was Innocent .......

[W*GS]

Go ahead, Spider.

[Spider]

Go ahead, Spider.

Ok I tried to leave you some wiggle room ..... this is just 1 example .....http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=592498&postcount=19
W*GS
Ring of Famer


Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,442

Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by §Pide®
W*GS you have to be one of the biggest Idiots I have ever met ........

You're speaking from near-total ignorance of what happened at Waco.

You prattle on and on about how all we need to do is "obey the law" and that means we're safe. That is sheer idiocy. You haven't provided one teeny bit of evidence that the Davidians were violating any law that justitified the military-style attack of dozens of BATF agents, and the final chemical-weapons attack - on civilians (children!) no less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by §Pide®
In your own little world , you have this romantic Idea , that the goverment swoops dow on innocent people very day , and kill them cause the Goverment has nothing better to do that day .....

In the case of what happened at Waco, that pretty much describes it. The BATF wanted to show off how big their balls were (to get more $$$) by making an example of the Davidians. Their overall incompetence and criminal behavior, as well as that of the FBI, led directly to the deaths of more children than died at OKC.

Why do you excuse child-killers? Your moral sense is sick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by §Pide®
your are to idotic to argue with , your entire argumnet is based on assumption , that you take as fact

You haven't countered one single argument I've made. All you say is "obey the law and everything will be OK". That's bull****.

[W*GS]

Where do I say Koresh was innocent?

[Spider]

Here is another one W*GS ....... http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=592507&postcount=20
I think I have proved enough .......... no need to admit you was wrong , you have being wrong down to an art

[W*GS]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1937453&postcount=213

Show me one post in which I said Koresh was innocent, Spider. As you say, my "exact words".

[Spider]

Where do I say Koresh was innocent?

Is English your second Language ?

[W*GS]

Is English your second Language ?

It's obviously not your first.

Show me one post in which I said Koresh was innocent. As you say, my "exact words".

[Spider]

It's obviously not your first.

Show me one post in which I said Koresh was innocent. As you say, my "exact words".

LOL . you are something else , you have ot be the most dishonest person posting here , bar none .......post after post in that thread , there are 2 more threads I remember , that are even longer , one is completely gone . but I gave you some examples , deal with it

[W*GS]

I have your exact words where you claimed Koresh was Innocent .......

Show me.

[W*GS]

[...]I remember[...]

There's your problem.

[Spider]

Show me. dont you ever call LABF a liar again ...... Koresh was the leader of the Branch Davidians , you said , the entire case the Government had was made up of Lies ...... and that the surviving Davidians were found innocent of Charges ....... but thas ok W*GS , I have suspected for sometime was a liar ....... but I am not alone in believing that ...... this exchange between yo uand me proved it

[Spider]

There's your problem.

this coming from a proven liar .......

[Spider]

Quote:
Originally Posted by §Pide®
In your own little world , you have this romantic Idea , that the goverment swoops dow on innocent people very day , and kill them cause the Goverment has nothing better to do that day .....

In the case of what happened at Waco, that pretty much describes it. The BATF wanted to show off how big their balls were (to get more $$$) by making an example of the Davidians. Their overall incompetence and criminal behavior, as well as that of the FBI, led directly to the deaths of more children than died at OKC.
you telling me Koresh wasnt part of WACO ?
How long have you had this lying Problem W*GS ? or is it a mental block you have ?

[W*GS]

Show me where I said Koresh was innocent.

My "exact words".

[W*GS]

dont you ever call LABF a liar again ...... Koresh was the leader of the Branch Davidians , you said , the entire case the Government had was made up of Lies ...... and that the surviving Davidians were found innocent of Charges ....... but thas ok W*GS , I have suspected for sometime was a liar ....... but I am not alone in believing that ...... this exchange between yo uand me proved it

You keep making claims about things I said - yet you can't find proof.

Who's the liar? Not me...

[Spider]

Show me where I said Koresh was innocent.

My "exact words".

LOL I dont know why I am bantering words with a liar , but was Koresh in WACO ? Was Koresh the leader of the Branch Davidians ?
The entire case by the government against the Davidians was built on lies. Do you deny that?



The surviving Davidians did go to court - and were completely and totally exonerated on every charge the government levelled against them. In fact, the jurors in every case were horrified at what the government did, and were ashamed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by §Pide®
In your own little world , you have this romantic Idea , that the goverment swoops dow on innocent people very day , and kill them cause the Goverment has nothing better to do that day .....

In the case of what happened at Waco, that pretty much describes it. The BATF wanted to show off how big their balls were (to get more $$$) by making an example of the Davidians. Their overall incompetence and criminal behavior, as well as that of the FBI, led directly to the deaths of more children than died at OKC.

[Spider]

You keep making claims about things I said - yet you can't find proof.

Who's the liar? Not me...

if you say so ......done trying to convince a liar he isnt lying

[W*GS]

[...]I have your exact words where you claimed Koresh was Innocent .......

Show me, Spider.

[Odysseus]

So I've got a question...

In the other thread, the accusation is that the problem with "conservative" philosophy is that it's centered around "I've got mine." Personally, I contend that is a "feature" of human nature, not limited to conservative philosophy, but inherent in all living, sentient beings. But I digress.

So here is my question: how do you propose to change it? How does anybody propose that they're going to get people to stop thinking about themselves first? What is ever going to happen that is going to cause people to think of others first, and themselves second?

When there own perpetuity matters more than their own survival. Community was created by violent circumstances. We've taken all the violence out of society so in our new perfect and kind world we really don't need others to get along. They either work for us or we work for them and unless some element of danger is involved nothing is going to shatter that belief.