|
Post by trbixler on Jul 6, 2010 1:34:13 GMT
Optimistic? None of the stimulus money hit my small business, I make do by working harder, but with brilliant children running the country and commenting, that have never employed anyone doing a manufacturing job my worries are more than real. "With the US trapped in depression, this really is starting to feel like 1932" "Perhaps naively, I still think central banks have the tools to head off disaster. The question is whether they will do so fast enough, or even whether they wish to resist the chorus of 1930s liquidation taking charge of the debate. Last week the Bank for International Settlements called for combined fiscal and monetary tightening, lending its great authority to the forces of debt-deflation and mass unemployment. If even the BIS has lost the plot, God help us." www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7871421/With-the-US-trapped-in-depression-this-really-is-starting-to-feel-like-1932.html
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 6, 2010 1:46:14 GMT
We are talking about real people losing their jobs. This is not about fictional temperatures at the north pole. "WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Barack Obama: The great jobs killer" "The current occupant of the White House claims to know how to create jobs. He claims jobs have been created. But so far the score is Great Obama Depression 2.2 million lost jobs, Obama 0 -- a blowout. Obama is as hopeless, helpless, clueless and bankrupt of good ideas as the manager of the Chicago Cubs in late September. This "community organizer" knows as much about private-sector jobs as Pamela Anderson knows about nuclear physics. www.lvrj.com/opinion/barack-obama--the-great-jobs-killer-97758294.html
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 6, 2010 1:50:58 GMT
Stranger, I just copied and pasted the examples.
I wasn't around in 1936, so I'll have to take your word for that.
Predictions are fine. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not sure about your statistics because some of them seem to differ significantly from what I read elsewhere, but I'll let that slide.
But when people start definine other people as things like "Republican in name only," yes, it trips my disgust string. I'm actually independent, but who defines what a "real" republican or democrat is? Can there be no difference of opinion? Especially since the Republican party votes on the platform, it seems like it should be open for discussion. The term RINO triggers an emotional response within me from when, if I didn't think a certain way, I wasn't a "real indian" something especially easy to push when the person in question (me) is not full blooded Indian to begin with ... but someone else decides what a "Real" indian (or "real" Republican) must think like?
From Wikipedia:
Tea party in my mind, and from my memory is consistent with that article in that it was first associated with the Boston tea Party, and later the "Taxed Enough Already" was attached. I agree that we're taxed enough, and have some major points of agreement with them. But once again, these are individuals, and political discussion has a tendency to group people together conveniently to quickly dismiss them. Tea-bagger is one of those. The consistent thing about these names whether they be "tea-bagger" or RINO is that they are usually made by the group's (or person's) enemies to dismiss their ideas quickly, and they are usually based on a distortion.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Jul 8, 2010 2:13:45 GMT
slh, at the moment we might as well call the two "official parties" the Demopublicans and the Republicrats. As far as any real difference, I find none. Both have gone to a tactic that is as old as politics, to retain power by promising largesse from the public treasury. And to blazes with the aspirations of the makers who filled that treasury in the first place. Karl Denninger repeats what I have heard from economists, albeit with more emphasis, here: market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2471-Our-Douchebag-Government-Midyear-Debt-Update.htmlNote Denninger's estimate of the reduction in the size of government necessary to bring the situation under control. My economist guests estimate runs a bit larger, but not dramatically so. Of course, neither of the "official" parties have any thought of reducing the size of government by as much as one bureaucrat. So, if the Republic is to survive it must be done by a third party. Something that is, under most of the fifty states laws, practically impossible. So what to do? A third party must take over one of the two official parties. Which party should do the taking? The one that is best educated, most affluent, most realistic, and that is prepared to make hard decisions. Such as abandoning a popular tax and spend incumbent for a much more thrifty newcomer. And which party should be taken over? The weakest and most vulnerable. If the United States is not to find itself in the same position as an impala being eaten by a pride of lions, the reduction in the size of government to the bare minimum necessary to govern must be done. No more, no less. If it is not done, you would do well to buy a rifle and find a blade of grass. Because a rifle behind every blade of grass is the only thing that will keep the United States from dismemberment. Stranger
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 8, 2010 12:03:42 GMT
Interestingly, the total military budget for the US in 2010 is $685.1 billion. The budget deficit in 2009 was $1.9 trillion. So even if you could completely eliminate the military spending, you would still be about $1.3 billion from balancing the budget. So it seems that there is a lot of big government out there that is not military. In fact, the military is a small minority of just the deficit. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_Statesen.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debtRINO, whatever you call the other side, it seems to me that politics still boils down to "Hooray for my above reproach side! The other side is just <insert distortions, name calling, straw men, fear mongering, etc. here>. and I arrived by all of that logically of couse, which the other side just can't do." Actually not quite. I deride both major parties for adding to the problem of big government spending. Sometimes the boat tacks left, sometimes right but it is always headed in the same direction. It is what happens when the Constitution is disregarded - the Federal Government ignores the 10th Amendment and continues to accrue power. Possibly due to professional politicians wanting to entrench and increase their status. Perhaps it is time for strict term limits for involvement in politics and Texas style constraints on the US Congress and Senate. There should be no such thing as a 'career politician'.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 8, 2010 15:57:42 GMT
There should be no such thing as a 'career politician'. Agreed! There is something wrong with the system when you have people like Kennedy and Byrd turning into dottering old fools and still getting elected.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 8, 2010 20:11:54 GMT
There should be no such thing as a 'career politician'. Agreed! There is something wrong with the system when you have people like Kennedy and Byrd turning into dottering old fools and still getting elected. Certain folks still pine for a king! Somebody they can blindly follow and call royalty! The English are especially good at it. Like McIntyre pointing out "Who would question a Lord!" Its not necessarily limited to one party though.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 9, 2010 1:41:53 GMT
Agreed! There is something wrong with the system when you have people like Kennedy and Byrd turning into dottering old fools and still getting elected. Certain folks still pine for a king! Somebody they can blindly follow and call royalty! The English are especially good at it. Like McIntyre pointing out "Who would question a Lord!" Its not necessarily limited to one party though. Richard S. Courtney is that way. I was opining on the evils of an oligarchy and he chimed in. He loves being in a Monarchy and is actually quite socialist.
|
|