|
05 Oct 10 - 09:07 PM (#3000606) Subject: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert The Tea Party has been preachin' more "indiviual responsiblity" and less "societial responsbility" but there are some major problems with their economic theories... First, they assume that there is a level playing field between the monied class and the working class... That is wrong as the monied class, especially afetr the "Citizens" ruling by the Supremes can buy whatever government they want and therefore get exactly what they want in the way of tax lo9opholes, regs, government contracts, etc... But secondly, if the model is to privatize everything down to fire and olice protection there is a pojnt where there isn't enough money left, fater Boss Hog has scooped it all up, for the working class to be able to afford police and fire protection... Not to mention that the monied class controls employement... So, yeah, on paper the Tea Party folks may think this can work out but in reality, with no decent paying jobs left and no money left in the working class then we are heading for... ...Amerika, after the Thunder Dome... I find it incredulous that so many people who will be hurt the most by this "Atlas Shugged" corpoarte move to take all the marbles are out there campaigning for their own demise??? This economic model has no chance of being sucessfull... Zero... Zilch...Nada... Yet millions of uneducated people are out there fighting for the privatization of everything??? I guess this is what we get when a society decides that what it needs is more epsilons and less folks who can actaully, ahhhh, think??? B~ |
|
05 Oct 10 - 10:23 PM (#3000635) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: John on the Sunset Coast It certainly is less flawed than the Obama model which is following the postwar European model at the same time that much of Europe is returning to a more Capitalist system, away from a failing and failed Socialist system. I'll take our American capitalist system with its flaws any day. The current Administration and Congress could have done so much more good by doing less. I probably will not live long enough to see the mal-effect of Obamaism, but my son and other family most certainly will. |
|
05 Oct 10 - 10:25 PM (#3000637) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe Don;t worry, Bobert, it's all part of the cunning plan - those epsilons who are being noticed by shouting the loudest campaigning (thus proving their intellectual status), after Thunderdome, will be on the top of the list to be sent to the Soylent Green plant.... |
|
05 Oct 10 - 10:40 PM (#3000640) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Well, gol danged, F-troupe... That does gbring it into a new perspective... BTW, John... How about privitizing yer street where if you have to drive anywhere on it that when you back out of your driveway and you credit card gets wacked every 1/4 mile??? How about air??? Privatize it??? *Clean* drinking water??? Privatize... Use of sidewalks??? I mean, we allready have privatized fire departments... A man's house burned down this week and the fire department watched it becuase the guy hadn't given then $75... What next, protection money to take yer dog or kids to the park??? Park?!?!?!? Waht am I thinking??? No parks unless you pay... I mean, there is a point where those of you on the right even have to say, enough of corporate profits to the rich is enough... Guess you must either be so dumbed own that you have no idea how you are being robbed or you are one of the robbers... No other choices left... Ayn Rand for Nutball of the 1900s... But I'm sure all you right winged, Lyndon LaRouchers just loving this, John... B~ |
|
05 Oct 10 - 10:45 PM (#3000642) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe No Bobert, you still don't get it - you see they will have all that they need - private park kiddie play area inside the gated community, all that stuff, who NEEDS all that wasteful 'public infrastructure'? The hardest part they will have to endure will be having to volunteer on the roster to man tailgunner position on the armored bus to be able to visit other centers of culture and refinement .... |
|
06 Oct 10 - 12:38 AM (#3000683) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe Hmm I see the first US house has burnt down while the firefighters stood around and watched, cause the family could not afford the %75 'standover fee' to subscribe to the service. They probably also could not afford insurance too... Now once enough of them are burnt out, they will happily go to the 'Soylent Shelters' .... problem solved ... all part of 'the plan' .... Many years ago, Fire Brigades WERE private subscription, and you put a shield on your patch to show them they could fight your fire, cause you had paid. It was those bloody trouble making 'bleeding heart liberal left wingers' that insisted that the fire fighting was a 'Public Service' to stop the whole damn city burning down. At least we're not back in earlier times (yet), the only way to stop a fire spreading was to pull down th ehouses surroundins it... Trust me my friends, what with the imminent decline of Civilization, God will punish us all for our sins and those times will return! :-) |
|
06 Oct 10 - 01:02 AM (#3000693) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,Ebbie, housesitting That deplorable business of standing by and watching a house burn down for lack of pre-payment could have been easily handled, imo. I can see their point that if the fire department saved every house without payment more people wouldn't pay up but why not charge a hefty fee for it? A person who could have gotten fire protection for an annual $75 but 'forgot' to pay it then found he had to turn around and pay $1000 after the house was saved would quickly see that neglecting the $75 was counter-productive. In addition, the fire district would have a revenue enhancer! |
|
06 Oct 10 - 01:55 AM (#3000705) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: LadyJean I had the privelege of visiting Smokey Mountains National park a few weeks ago. The Federal government and the citizens of the region raised money to buy the land to preserve it for future generations, including me. The Civilian Conservation Corps built the overlook, where I stood to admire the magnificent scenery and the rest room we used before hitting the road. They were young men who learned job skills and essential values while earning money to help their families and they built to last! That is what the government can do when they see themselves as our government, representing all the people, not just special interests or big corporations. Leaving that magnificence we found ourselves in Pigeon Forge, which used to be a quiet little mountain town, and is now a tourist mecca, with some of the most spectacular gridlock I have ever had the misfortune to endure. What should have been a 15 minute drive took 2 hours. We crawled past miniature golf courses, go cart tracks, motels, cheesy souvenir shops. They created that traffic nightmare, but nobody will do anything about it, because they also "create jobs". Those jobs are, mostly, poorly paid and seasonal. But in the economy we've endured since 1980, creating any sort of job is considered a public service. In due time the tax payers of Pigeon Forge will pay to fix that hellish gridlock. The local businesses will insist on it, and they won't contribute towards fixing it, because they create jobs. That is what business does when nobody watches them. |
|
06 Oct 10 - 08:36 AM (#3000891) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Greg F. [TeaBagger economics] is certainly is less flawed than the Obama model What planes do you live on, John? Neo-Con Economics (now re-branded Ttea Party Economics) is what put the U.S. economy in the toilet, and you folks want MORE of the SAME? I guess the U.S. gets the government it deserves; Jefferson's "informed electorate" is apparently largely extinct. |
|
06 Oct 10 - 08:49 AM (#3000908) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Yes, Pigeon Forge is a prime example of the dangers of privatization... If this culture.menatlity had existed in the 50s we wouldn't have an interstate highway system... We would have hundreds of ill-thought-out toll roads that sometimes connect and other times don't... Seems that lotta Repub governors are looking to selling off assests and parks in order to get a quick-fix for budgetary shortfalls... Here in Virgina the Repub governor wnats to sell off thew ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) stores which currently are producing $300M in profits for Virginia's government... He thinks the ABC store will fetch arounf $700M at auction... Hmmmmmm??? Doesn't take the Wes Ginny Slide Rule to tell ya that that just ain't smart 'cause in 2 years we'll be wondering where that $300M a year is going to come from... But nevermind them details... B~ |
|
06 Oct 10 - 09:07 AM (#3000920) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Back to the point that f-troupe made about the wealthy needing to take "protection" when leaving their armed complexes... This is something that I have been predicting going back years... The folks that are being screwed the most by the rich are those in the South and Midwest where incomes lag well behind the rest of the country... These are the folks who now are the ones front-'n-center trying to get the rich even richer... And, I might add, at the expense of the working class.. My premise is that if we don't get back to thinking "community" over "me, me, me" we will arrive at a point where the only people who can afford Pigeon Forge will be the wealthy and the only way they will be able to get there will be dangerous when Southern Man figures out the pea-under-the-shell game... I mean, very dangerous... I mean, hstory is littered with "failed states" that became so corrupt that their rich didn't realize what Henry Ford instictually knew about business when he said, "If I don't pay mjy workers enough who will buy my cars"... Seems this is lost on the current crop of Boss Hogs... B~ |
|
06 Oct 10 - 10:21 AM (#3000982) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe Actually Bobert, I got the idea from various SF mags I used to read in the 1960-70s .... doesn't mean that it's not possible to happen - barbed wire and towers and searchlights and flamethrowers and machine-gun nests, well maybe a bit over the top .... |
|
06 Oct 10 - 10:28 AM (#3000985) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Then again, f-troupe, seems that everytime a major armed conflict occurs people seem shocked that what started out as a disagreement about distribution of power/wealth turns so ugly... Our own Civil (which it wasn't) War being a good example... Seems that the greedy never learn from history... B~ |
|
06 Oct 10 - 12:41 PM (#3001072) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: John on the Sunset Coast Bobert-- "Reductio ad absurdum". Not playing that game. |
|
06 Oct 10 - 02:06 PM (#3001134) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Another stinkbomb has been hurled by someone bent on scaring others with his if then theoretical scenarios, hob goblins and non existent solutions. Bobert is trolling for an argument so he can make personal attacks on anybody that presents facts that he can't dispute. Just where is or where was there ever an example of his idea of a non-flawed economic model? Let him start his rant with a working model of the way he thinks things should be. USPS? Amtrak? Fannie Mae? Cuba? Venezuela? North Korea? Then we can discuss something of substance rather than something that "should" exist. Bobert: Please give us your idea of the correct economic model and something to support that model. No "if thens" please. |
|
06 Oct 10 - 02:29 PM (#3001159) Subject: My GRAND UNIFIED TEA PARTY THEORY From: Donuel Come visit MY TEA PARTY LAND http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/don/TEAPARTYLAND1.jpg |
|
06 Oct 10 - 08:18 PM (#3001425) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Love it, Donuel... BTW, Sawz... Other than two or 3 people no one here reads any of yer posts... You have become the proverbial psycho broken record... B~ |
|
06 Oct 10 - 08:27 PM (#3001433) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe "Just where is or where was there ever an example of ... a non-flawed economic model? " No such model lasts for ever, the world changes and the assumptions on which the model is based are no longer relevant. and so the 'model' just falls apart as what people keep doing now drives the system into chaos and disaster. |
|
07 Oct 10 - 09:02 AM (#3001617) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Rational question: Bobert: Please give us your idea of the correct economic model and something to support that model. No "if thens" please. Rational? answer: BTW, Sawz... Other than two or 3 people no one here reads any of yer posts... You have become the proverbial psycho broken record... Who is the psycho? How's this "progressive" economic model Bobert? Don't hurt your head reading these facts instead of dreaming interminably about your what ifs: Charges were filed against eight current and former Bell officials Tuesday, alleging that they misappropriated $5.5 million in public funds. Robert Boss Hogg Rizzo, Bell's former city manager, has been charged with 53 counts of misappropriation of public funds and conflict of interest. The charges come after a dramatic morning in which authorities swept through Bell and other cities, arresting former and current Bell officials. Among those arrested were Rizzo; Angela Spaccia, former assistant city manager; Mayor Oscar Hernandez; councilmembers George Mirabal, Teresa Jacobo and Luis Artiga; and former councilmembers George Cole and Victor Bello. "This is corruption on steroids," Cooley said. [Updated at 11:28 a.m.: Cooley said officials used the city's tax dollars "as their own piggy bank that they then looted at will." He said that councilmembers, who earned salaries of nearly $100,000, received $1.2 million for "phantom meetings" -- many which never occurred or lasted only a minute or two. Police Chief Randy Adams, who also stepped down after The Times reported he was earning $457,000, was not arrested. "Being paid excessive amounts is not a crime," Cooley said, noting that the investigation is ongoing. Bail for Rizzo has been set at $3.2 million. Bail for the others ranges from $130,000 to $377,500.] Rizzo, whose high salary sparked the outrage that led to the investigations of the city, was among those arrested in the sweep. At 10 a.m., officials emerged from Rizzo's luxury home in Huntington Beach. Rizzo, handcuffed, was escorted into a black SUV. In Bell, a neighbor of Hernandez said authorities used a battering ram on his front door after he failed to answer the door. "They broke the door down," said the neighbor, who only gave his name as Jose. "They knocked down the door and they brought him out in cuffs." The city of Bell released a statement about the arrests, calling it a "sad day" for the city. Given the sheer volume of charges levied against former Bell Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo and former Assistant CAO Angela Spaccia by the district attorney, it is clear that Rizzo and Spaccia were at the root of the cancer that has afflicted the City of Bell. Also, it is a sad day for Bell that four current and two former members of the council also have been arrested. I am prepared to double down our efforts to continue to restore order, establish good government reforms, and to ensure that Bell is providing needed services to its residents, said Pedro Carrillo, interim city manager. Outside City Hall, about two dozen residents gathered as news of the arrests spread. One man used a bullhorn to broadcast the Queen song, "Another One Bites the Dust." Members of the crowd laughed and applauded, happy to see arrests in the scandal. For two months, the Los Angeles County district attorney's office and state and federal authorities have investigated Bell, where high salaries earned by Rizzo and other top officials have sparked widespread outrage. The L. A. Times reported last month that Rizzo was set to earn more than $1.5 million in 2010. Additionally, he gave loans totaling $1.6 million to more than 50 city officials, including himself. |
|
07 Oct 10 - 09:15 AM (#3001627) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "no decent paying jobs left and no money left in the working class then we are heading for" Worker wages, benefits 'unsustainable,' panel tells NLV City Council Layoffs aired as possible option if unions refuse cuts North Las Vegas won't be able to fix its budget problems until it addresses "out of whack" spending on employee salaries and benefits, a committee of business leaders and community members told the City Council on Wednesday. "The current salary structure is unsustainable," said Joe Cain, chairman of the North Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, speaking for the nine-member committee, which was appointed in June by the council. "There's no avoiding it. That's where most of the city's budget goes." The committee's recommendations, which were advisory only, included freezing spending, more aggressively recruiting new businesses, reorganizing city functions and avoiding new taxes and fees. It would be "very unfair to saddle the public that's struggling right now … with fee or tax increases to sustain salaries that are double, triple what their household incomes are," Cain said. The city's only option will be to lay off more workers if the city's employee unions don't "come to the table and offer up something," Cain said. "If you address that issue, you address every other issue." He pointed to public safety salaries, noting that city firefighters' salary and benefits packages average $162,000 and that police officers average $156,000 in salaries and benefits. "We all value the work firefighters and police do," he said. But "that's a package that in the private sector you'd have to be an executive or business owner to have." Mayor Shari Buck said that "unless our unions are willing to come along and help us, there's nothing we can do" because union employees are under contract. "As of right now, what they're due is what they're due." But Councilman William Robinson disagreed. "There is something we can do: We can lay some folks off if they don't come to the table," he said. "We as a council have to start being leaders and make those tough decisions even though they hurt." The city is engaged in talks with its three employee unions. The firefighters union agreed in June to give up cost-of-living and merit raises for a year to save the jobs of 16 firefighters. But the city's largest employee union, Teamsters Local 14, in June rejected a proposal to forgo a cost-of-living raise, saying the city could not guarantee it would save jobs long-term. The union also has argued the city could cut expenses elsewhere. North Las Vegas, which has undergone several rounds of budget cuts in the past two years, must still trim $10 million from this year's budget and $42 million from next year's. The city laid off 188 employees in June. And yet, across America, many government workers are getting rich off taxpayer-funded salaries. City managers get free luxury cars, firefighters get half-million-dollar lump payments and, in California, one city worker is being paid $500,000 annually during retirement. In New York state, $100,000 salaries can't be called rich, but at a time when unemployment remains near 10 percent, there are 99,000 state and local workers bringing home six figure salaries. |
|
07 Oct 10 - 07:50 PM (#3002127) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Refreshing ignoring the mental case in the room... |
|
07 Oct 10 - 08:11 PM (#3002136) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce Bobert, Your repeated comments attacking a PERSON who has ideas you disagree with are an indication that you have NO valid argument against his point. I would think you might have SOME reason for your opinions, and wish to present them RATHER than to attack an individual. Otherwise, it seems to a reasonable person that YOU have conceded the points that he has presented. Is THAT the case???? |
|
07 Oct 10 - 08:36 PM (#3002144) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert No, bruce... I am merely counterpunching a cyber-stalker who has stalked me for years from one website to another... There is no reason on Earth why I should give him what he wants... He uses this joint as his own personal Bobert obsessive compulsive playground... He interjects stuff that has no relevence to the topics... I short, he is not worth my time because he isn't being honets with either himself or the folks here... Believe you me, I have tried to accomodate his every little obsessive compulsive thread drift and criticisms of me but he has no real job in life other that being my personal irritant... If you think he wins by me ignoring him, fine... He wins... Who the fuck cares... I have a life without having to get sucked into his little mental illness ballgame... (Oh, that sounds personal, Boberdz...) No, I worked for a couple decades with people with mental illnesses of one variety or another and it is my choice to deal with him when he is saner than what we have seen of late and to ignore him when he going thru these things... Tell ya' what, bruce... You get some asshole out there in cyber world stalk and harass you from one place to another and after awhile, for the pure sake of yer own peace, you quit playing their games... Frankly, I have complained to the powers-at-be and they say "tough it out"... If I had the dough I would hire an investigator to find out who this jerk is and pursue criminal or civil charges against him but I don't so... ...I just ignore the nutball... If you think that makes him the winner, fine... Vote for him for God... I really don't give a danged, one way or another... B~ |
|
07 Oct 10 - 08:42 PM (#3002152) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce Your call. |
|
07 Oct 10 - 09:20 PM (#3002170) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Yeah, it is... |
|
07 Oct 10 - 09:47 PM (#3002180) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Personal attacks? Moi? "You have become the proverbial psycho broken record..." "I just ignore the nutball" I have not called you any names like you have called me. Just wrong and I have presented that facts. But you refuse to answer any rational questions and choose to attack the person that asks rather than answer. You call that harassment? Got a question for me? |
|
07 Oct 10 - 09:52 PM (#3002181) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Failed Economic model: Dead people were ineligible to get the payments. But, the report said, there is no provision in the law to recover payments incorrectly sent to dead people. "Based on the failure of the SSA to properly check its records, and Congress' failure to fully think through the provisions needed to govern these payments, SSA lost $22.3 million in American tax dollars," 72,000 stimulus payments went to dead people Associated press More than 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each went to people who were either dead or in prison, a government investigator says in a new report. The payments, which were part of last year's massive economic recovery package, were meant to increase consumer spending to help stimulate the economy. But about $18 million went to nearly 72,000 people who were dead, according to the report by the Social Security Administration's inspector general. The report estimates that a little more than half of those payments were returned. An additional $4.3 million went to more than 17,000 prison inmates, the report said. Most of the inmates, it turns out, were eligible to get the payments because they were newly incarcerated and had been receiving Social Security before they were locked up. In all, the $250 payments were sent to about 52 million people who receive either Social Security or Supplemental Security Income, at a cost of about $13 billion. Other federal retirees also received the payments, but they were not part of the inspector general's review. Social Security spokesman Mark Lassiter said, "Inaccurate payments are unacceptable. Social Security's Recovery Act payments were 99.8 percent accurate and we quickly collected the majority of the inaccurate payments. Each year we make payments to a small number of deceased recipients usually because we have not yet received reports of their deaths." The inspector general for the Social Security Administration has been performing an audit to make sure no checks went to ineligible recipients. The latest report was dated Sept. 24 but was just recently posted to the agency's website. People were eligible for payments if they were getting benefits during any one of the three months before the law was passed in February 2009. Dead people were ineligible to get the payments. But, the report said, there is no provision in the law to recover payments incorrectly sent to dead people. "Based on the failure of the SSA to properly check its records, and Congress' failure to fully think through the provisions needed to govern these payments, SSA lost $22.3 million in American tax dollars," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. "These findings are yet another example of congressional stupidity and a lack of accountability." The Social Security Administration said that despite tight deadlines, workers accurately processed more than 99.8 percent of the 52 million stimulus payments. "We worked with Treasury, developed new processes, and began issuing (payments) about 30 days earlier than the legislatively mandated deadline," the agency said in a written response included in the inspector general's report. "This was a major accomplishment for our agency." The inspector general's report said that if similar payments are authorized in the future, prison inmates should be ineligible and the government should be able to recover payments made to dead people. The Social Security Administration agreed with the recommendations. |
|
08 Oct 10 - 01:46 AM (#3002255) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe "Sawzaw"'s comments do not discuss any 'model', nor give any 'flaws' with that model but give examples of 'corruption' - any model cam be corrupted - this by itself is not a failure of that 'model'. Human beings can be wonderful, but as I have also been the target of genuine diagnosed psychos, I can comment that they are not part of the 'model human being' - they are just 'corruptions'. |
|
08 Oct 10 - 02:31 AM (#3002263) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Slag Anybody feeling "stimulated" of late? Anyone miss "Voo-Doo" economics yet? Nice thing about facts is you don't need a degreee in Economics to know your wallet is thinner, that you're out of a job, that you 're a victim of CHANGE, and you can believe that! I have no argument to present here. Just consider your position. If you're happy with it, fine, be happy. If not, what else can I say? And that's the way it is, kiddies. |
|
08 Oct 10 - 07:46 AM (#3002375) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Voodoo economics = Supply-side economics, another terrtibly flawed economic model where the lion's share of the wealth is moved to the upper 10% in the hopes that it will "trickle down" to the working/middle class... We've had 30 plus years of it and in those years the working/middle classes' real wages have been stagnant... No other industrialized nation has had such a long run of stagnatedf wages by its working/middle class... Yet, the Repubs and the Tea Party say they want to continue down that road??? Well, I can understand why the politicans want to... Means bigass donations from Boss Hog... The Tea Partiers, however, are dupes shilling for the very same people who clearly have their own agenda that has nuthin' to do with the best interests of these Tea Party dupes... B~ |
|
08 Oct 10 - 08:53 AM (#3002410) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe That's the American Way, Bobert.... |
|
08 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM (#3002468) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert What??? An Epsilon society more interested in the #88 car than whether or not they'll have a home next month??? I mean, how moronic can we get??? |
|
08 Oct 10 - 10:51 AM (#3002496) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Any economic model that incorporates the exploitation of people is a doomed system. Any system that has extremely wealthy people and extremely poor people is a doomed system. Just thought I`d brighten everyone`s day. |
|
08 Oct 10 - 02:12 PM (#3002686) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "no provision in the law" "Congress' failure to fully think through the provisions needed" Corruption or an incompetent body of law following a failed economic model? "Voodoo economics = Supply-side economics, another terrtibly flawed economic model" Obama: "What do you think stimulus is?" Answer: Voodoo economics Failed Economic Policy: "if we don't do this right away unemployment will go up over 8%" |
|
08 Oct 10 - 02:17 PM (#3002695) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw bigass donations from Boss Hog Soros : $23,581,000 to various 527 groups |
|
08 Oct 10 - 02:29 PM (#3002703) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert First of all, I doubt very seriously if Obama referred to his stimulis bill as "voodoo economics"... Of course, the Repubs have shown that no matter what Obama does they are agsinst it so when the stimulis saves or creates a couple million jobs the Repubs just scream "not so" as if by6 screaming that makes it any less yet another Repub BIGASS LIE!!! Only flat earth so-called economists go along with that lie... The real economists will tell ya that the Repubs lie is just that: a lie!!! But nuthin' new 'cause the Repubs have learned that most of their base isn't concerned with, ahhhh, the truth or reality... As for the unemployement??? Yeah, back when the predictions were made there was thinking that the unemployement would cap at 8 to 9%... Reality has set in and what we are seein' is a concerted effort by the corporations to push their employees harder and harder, not make the new-hires and hope to get to November with a Repub take-over thinking that the few "changes" that have occured in terms of regs will be voided and it will ba back to the failed system that got US here... Meanwhile, looks as if these corporation are pouring cash into attack ads against Dems without having to say who they are??? Hmmmmmmm??? I mean, even an accused has the right to face the accuser... But thanks to the legislative mood of the Alito/Roberts Court we now have complete secrecy for corporations to buy up as much government as they need to keep the rich getting richer and everyone else goig backwards... BTW, over the last 30 years the candidate who spend the most wins 90% of the time... Do the math... B~ |
|
08 Oct 10 - 02:46 PM (#3002716) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce "BTW, over the last 30 years the candidate who spend the most wins 90% of the time... Do the math... " So, you agree that Obama should not have been elected, except that he spent twice as much??? Or do you only object when the people YOU dislike are spending the money? |
|
08 Oct 10 - 06:38 PM (#3002886) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe Why get upset just because he outsmarted them at their own game? :-) |
|
08 Oct 10 - 06:48 PM (#3002897) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce Nothing wrong with raising more funds - FOR EITHER SIDE. |
|
09 Oct 10 - 12:04 AM (#3003021) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw The Federal Election Commission has fined one of the last cycle's biggest liberal political action committees $775,000 for using unregulated soft money to boost John Kerry and other Democratic candidates during the 2004 elections. America Coming Together (ACT) raised $137 million for its get-out-the-vote effort in 2004, but the FEC found most of that cash came through contributions that violated federal limits. The group's big donors included George Soros, Progressive Corp. chairman Peter Lewis and the Service Employees International Union. |
|
09 Oct 10 - 12:12 AM (#3003024) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw A Pakistani businessman accused of illegally funnelling tens of thousands of dollars to the political campaigns of US senators Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer surrendered to the FBI on a year-old indictment on Tuesday, then collapsed in Los Angeles federal court, Los Angeles Times reported on Wednesday. Looking tired and disoriented, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, 56, complained of chest pains and began shaking an hour into a contentious bond hearing before US Magistrate Judge Patrick J Walsh. The judge interrupted the hearing for nearly 30 minutes while paramedics attended to Jinnah. After Jinnah's condition was stabilised and he was taken to a local hospital for an examination, Walsh set bond at $300,000. The drama unfolded shortly after Jinnah, who has a history of heart problems and diabetes, flew back to the US from Pakistan to answer charges by a grand jury that he engineered illicit donations to Ms Clinton's political action committee and Ms Boxer's 2004 re-election campaign. Officials from both campaigns have said they were unaware of the alleged wrongdoing and returned the contributions. At Tuesday's hearing, Assistant US Attorney Dennis Mitchell urged the judge to deny Jinnah bond, arguing that he was a tremendous flight risk with a long history of financial misconduct that included five bankruptcy filings that had been dismissed by the courts. Mitchell said authorities suspected that Jinnah returned to the US to face federal charges only because the government had initiated travel restrictions that made it increasingly difficult for the businessman to travel overseas. He could flee again if he believes he will be imprisoned, Mitchell said. But Jinnah's attorney, former federal prosecutor Douglas Fuchs, said that was absurd, noting that his client had voluntarily surrendered and faced only one to two years in prison if convicted. Born in Pakistan, Jinnah immigrated to the US in the late 1980s and settled in Northridge. Over the next decade, he tried his hand at a string of businesses and left a trail of angry creditors and former business partners. But by 2004, Jinnah had positioned himself as a point man who could help the Democratic Party tap the increasingly affluent Pakistani American community for campaign funds. He and his family personally contributed $122,000 to Democratic candidates and organisations that year and held events for Ms Clinton and Ms Boxer at his home. Stuart Schoenburg, 76, a Tarzana television producer charged as Jinnah's co-conspirator, has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour count and is awaiting sentencing. |
|
09 Oct 10 - 10:34 PM (#3003563) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Slag Nothing succeeds like success. So If the economy still hasn't turned around and unemployment is worse than ever, what IS the difference between "Voo-doo" economics and "Obamanomics"? Not two cents, or a plug nickle's worth of difference between them. And personally, I was better off during the Reagan administration. |
|
10 Oct 10 - 01:54 AM (#3003602) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Donuel You can NOT beat sawz logic. Do not even try. Jobs in America will only return when it becomes even cheaper to employ Americans than to hire Chinese, Cambodians, Phillipnos or Indonesians. Thats why a minimum wage will always be unsustainable. The livable wage is a myth and hasn't existed for 30 years in the USA. The Commies were purged from American workforce and goverment by heros like Father Flannagan and Joe McCarthy who were pioneers to ridding America of the scourge of the Communist quote "livable wage". The minimum wage brought this country to its knees, not Wall St. financiers. The minumum wage is simply a bonus we simply can not afford. The average family of 7 working at $1.30 an hour will make more money than one person working for today's minimum wage! That is of course once those crazy self defeating liberal child labor laws get repealed. The beauty of the new wage structure is that the US will no longer attract the illegal flies from across the boreder that were eating our picnic. Then and only then, along with the abolition of all unions, will business in America return with a vengence. Don't forget, the business of America is business, its not Social Security or Medicare or Welfare or giving racist entitlements to ghetto tramps. The only patriots who understand this are the white Christians who founded this country and continue to operate all its businesses. All others are aliens or traitors to the ideals of Real Americans. The White Power structure of Christian America will take care of those who may be in true need. However if those in need are slovenly and poor due to their own laziness and indolence they deserve whatever happens to them. That is why nearly half of all those in prison are urban ghetto trash. The industrious ants will inherit the wealth this nation while the lazy grasshopper will perish in the cold of winter. So honor every man woman and CHILD who are willing to build America back to its former glory with wages comparable to the wages of 1930. This is when all our greatest modern landmarks were built like the Hoover Dam and the Empire State Building. As for other nations helping us to defeat the Socialists in this country, more power to them. In the Revolutionary war we had help from the Prussians and even France before it became a nation of fags. This is a war against the progressive communists and any help is welcome, be it from Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or India or China etc. Until this country gets its wages down to a sustainable level we need to outsource every American job possible to sustain our compassionate green corporations. Until we hear Mr. Barry Obama apologize to BP you can be assured that he is nothing more than an anti colonial Socialist redistributing your wealth to bleed our patriotic businesses dry. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' With logic like that, why would you even bother trying to argue with sawz, or his ilk. Sawz right wing party line, like stupidity, can not be beaten or reasoned with. It is the bedrock of this great nation. None the less, you should never allow anyone to steal and change your history, defile your young with less education or steal everything you spent a lifetime to sustain yourself and your American family. |
|
10 Oct 10 - 02:27 AM (#3003612) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw You are putting words in my mouth. For one thing I have advocated a higher minimum wage of $10, Maybe higher. I assume you are accusing me of being against a minimum wage amongst other things but your rant is so laced with hatred and anger and dripping with sarcasm that it is difficult to determine exactly what you are saying. I have stated my opinion that we should stop buying goods made in China but you seem to indicate I think otherwise. Do you act on assumptions or do you bother to find the out facts first? |
|
10 Oct 10 - 12:01 PM (#3003778) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw PS: I am also for letting the tax cuts for the top income earners expire. I would like to see a curve instead of the stairsteps in the rates that we have now. Did you ever get a raise only to find out your take home shrank? There should be a curve that steepens and ones income increases. |
|
10 Oct 10 - 08:47 PM (#3004118) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,Bobert, on the road... Nah, Slag... The problem is that it took 30 years of supply-side, trickle down economics to get US here and any one who thinks we can get out in a year or two, or even 4 years is very naive... Kinda like going to the doctor and he say's, "Geeze, Slag... Yer purdy sick and it's gonna take a couple months to get you back health" but then after a couple weeks you quit takin' the pills he prescribes and strap on a couple leeches... Throw in 40% of the government that is so steeped in hate and desire to get back on the corporate feed bag that they are willing to sabotage the well being of the country then expecting Obama to turn a 30 year systemic problem in the basic economy is not at all fair... B~ |
|
14 Oct 10 - 12:44 AM (#3006593) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw History starts at 30 years for Bobert. He conveniently forgets the wonderful Carter years. And he never mentions bracket creep. maybe it's over his head. But then his history picks up again at 50 years when he was in his glory. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 12:46 AM (#3006594) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Is this a flawed economic model Bobert? "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work" -Henry Morgenthau Jr. (Secretary of the Treasury to President Franklin D. Roosevelt) |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:48 AM (#3006791) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert The wonderful Carter years were a mess, Sawz... Interest rates were driven thru the roof... The Iranian hostage situation hung over the nation like a black cloud...OPEC flexed it's muscles... Yeah. lotta bad stuff went down... But, in spite of the misery, Carter believed in fiscal responsibility and reduced the deficit every year he was in office... He also tried to get "cpnsumer nation" to change it's attitude toward a culture of "unlimited resources" to one of "limited resources" but just ran outtta time with too much negative stuff, not much of his doing, that plauged the country at the time he was in the White House... This allowed Ronald "Charge it" Reagan to enjoy a recovery that was based on the same economic theory (deficit spending) that Obama used with the "stimulis"... But more importantly, Reagan went further... He wrongly told the nation that the reason for the recovery was less government regs and greater corporate participation in government... That was where the country began down the slippery slope toward where we find ourselves today... B~ |
|
14 Oct 10 - 10:12 AM (#3006831) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: pdq Stuck on 1968By Arnold Kling "Worldviews are more a mental security blanket than a serious effort to understand the world."-- Bryan Caplan, The Logic of Collective Belief Most people who were liberals in 1968 still are. Liberals. In 1968. Recently, economist Jim Miller used the term moral free riding to describe adopting a precarious ideological position when it has little personal risk. George Mason University economics professor Bryan Caplan says that such free riding is the normal state of affairs. He argues that people are insulated from the consequences of their beliefs by the fact that the typical voter has a low probability of influencing the outcome of an election. Caplan, in a book that eventually is to be published by Princeton University Press, argues that most people do not work very hard to arrive at worldviews that are logically consistent and factually supported, because the reward for rational beliefs is too small. He writes: "we should expect people to...believe whatever makes them feel best. After all, it's free. The fanatical protectionist who votes to close the borders risks virtually nothing, because the same policy wins no matter how he votes." Of course, I may be as guilty as anyone of believing whatever makes me feel best. But I believe that I have put considerable effort into examining and correcting my worldview. I am no longer a liberal (in the contemporary sense of the term), because my calendar did not get stuck on 1968. If 1968 were an influential thinker, it would have many disciples who share its folk beliefs. Those folk beliefs are the mental security blanket still being clutched by my liberal friends, even those who are not old enough to remember 1968. I want to contrast the way the world might have appeared to a reasonable liberal in 1968 with the way events have unfolded since then. Afterwards, if you still prefer the folk beliefs of 1968 to my views today, so be it. But at least you have an opportunity to reconsider. The Conventional Wisdom The Conventional Wisdom among well-educated liberals in 1968 included the following: • Anti-Communism was a greater menace than Communism. • The planet could not possibly support the population increases that would take place by the end of the twentieth century. • Conservatives stood in the way of progress for minorities. • Government programs were the best way to lift people out of poverty. • What underdeveloped countries needed were large capital investments, financed by foreign aid from the rich countries. • Inflation was a cost-push phenomenon, requiring government intervention in wage and price setting. The degree of confidence in these beliefs was so strong that liberals in 1968 came to the overriding conclusion that: • Anyone who is not a liberal must be incorrigibly stupid Given the state of knowledge in 1968, I can understand why an intelligent person might have believed in the Conventional Wisdom at that time. However, since 1968, considerable evidence has accumulated that challenges the Conventional Wisdom. In some cases, the evidence turned out to be so overwhelming that beliefs were quietly discarded from the Conventional Wisdom. A rational response to this record of powerful evidence against the Conventional Wisdom might be to reconsider one's views, as I have done. Instead, it seems to me that liberals have become more close-minded and more dogmatic. In 1968, liberals thought that that Communism could work reasonably well for some countries. The Soviet Union was thought to be ahead of us in engineering. Many liberal intellectuals considered Communism a viable option for achieving development in the Third World. A reader of Noam Chomsky's article in the August 13, 1970 New York Review of Books would have thought that North Vietnam's regime, while not perfect, was closer to the ideal than any other existing government. Anti-Communism, on the other hand, was seen by the Conventional Wisdom as only a pretext for misbegotten wars and hysterical blacklists of Hollywood screenwriters. Since 1968, we have seen: • a mass exodus from Communist Vietnam (the boat people) • a large exodus from Cuba (the Mariel boat lift) • the collapse of Soviet Communism, revealing that the system did much broader and deeper damage than most people realized • an unmistakably large gap between North Korea and South Korea in terms of material well-being and personal freedom In 1968, the Conventional Wisdom was that we would see mass starvation in another decade or two. It was still the conventional wisdom a dozen years later, when Julian Simon wrote a contrarian book arguing that population was The Ultimate Resource. Among economists, Simon's views have gained adherents, and almost no economist believes that food scarcity is a material threat (although politically-induced famines are still possible). In 1968, we were just a few years removed from the passage of Civil Rights legislation that ended Jim Crow segregation in the South. Conservatives had opposed the Civil Rights movement, and were caught on the wrong side of history. Rather than declare victory, the Civil Rights movement declared perpetual war. Meanwhile, policies that might really help minorities, such as school vouchers to release them from the obligation to attend failed public schools, have become anathema to liberals. Another perpetual war that began in the 1960's was the War on Poverty. The programs that were enacted in the name of this war had little effect. Nonetheless, poverty had been greatly reduced over the past forty years, thanks to economic growth and the escalation of income. Arguably, government welfare programs served only to corrupt the poor. In the case of foreign aid, a consensus is in fact emerging that aid serves to entrench corrupt governments. Instead, the keys to prosperity are institutional more than material. Friedman on the Fringe In 1968, Milton Friedman was on the fringe of respectability. His Presidential Address to the American Economic Association in 1967 could not have been more defiant of the conventional wisdom. At that time, economists thought that the economy could be "fine tuned" by government to achieve any desirable unemployment rate, with a "trade-off" that allegedly involved accepting higher inflation. Inflation, in turn, could be curbed by government action to control, or at least influence, the price- and wage-setting decisions of private firms. Friedman argued instead that there is a "natural rate" of unemployment to which the economy will tend, regardless of how government manipulates aggregate demand. He warned that attempts to use monetary and fiscal policy to drive the unemployment rate lower would only result in ever-accelerating rates of inflation. Moreover, he argued that the only cure for inflation was control over the rate of growth of the money supply. In 1968, Friedman's views were far from the mainstream. When Paul Samuelson wrote an article for the Canadian Journal of Economics on "What Classical and Neoclassical Economic Theory Really Was," he sneered that for modern economists trying to understand monetarism was like being a farmer who had lost his jackass and having to ask, "If I were a jackass, where would I go?" In short, Samuelson considered Friedman a jackass. About this time, "fine tuning" began to fail, and inflation started to rise, just as Friedman had predicted. In 1971, President Nixon tried the Conventional Wisdom and adopted wage and price controls. The results proved disastrous. Finally, in 1979, President Carter in desperation allowed a new Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker, to attempt the monetarist cure for inflation. The result was successful. Today, it is Milton Friedman's views that are conventional wisdom, and the 1960's Keynesians who are the jackasses. For me, seeing this unfold (I was a freshman economics major when President Nixon tried wage-price controls in 1971, and I was a newly-minted Ph.D in economics working at the Fed in the early 1980's) was a major life experience. Somehow, many liberal economists of my generation managed to forget they ever believed in wage-price controls and hang on to the rest of their Conventional Wisdom security blanket. But I also noticed the other ways in which the Conventional Wisdom failed to match reality. Do conservatives make mistakes? Yes. Do liberals always get things wrong? No. But if I were still a liberal, I would want to be aware of -- and correct for -- a number of biases in thinking. One bias is what Caplan terms in his book "pessimistic bias." People (not just liberals) tend to underestimate recent economic progress and future prospects. Pessimistic bias can be seen in doomsday environmental scenarios, claims that middle-class incomes are stagnating, and other liberal tropes. Another bias is what Caplan calls anti-market bias. Liberals are excessively distrustful of markets and overly confident about the use of government power. The assumption is that government power will always be administered with wisdom and benevolence. I would be the first to admit that markets are not perfect. And government programs are not always failures. But liberals exaggerate market failures and overstate government successes. Anti-market bias leads people to concede government too much power, with liberals actively cheering government expansion. Another bias is the view that other people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. Liberals who send their own children to private school believe that poor families should not be allowed to make the same choice. Liberals make their own choices regarding health care, but they believe that others should have their health care decisions made for them by government. I admit to having the opposite inclination. I do not believe that government can be trusted to make better decisions for individuals than individuals can make for themselves. It seems to me that if liberals had paid attention since 1968 rather than remaining in an ideological deep freeze, they would have seen the evidence that took me along the path to libertarianism. {Arnold Kling is author of Learning Economics.} |
|
14 Oct 10 - 10:18 AM (#3006836) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Stringsinger What economic model? They support corporations and being screwed by corporations at the same time. They are too incoherent to have an economic model. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 01:56 PM (#3006969) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Don Firth Canard: If you cut taxes on the rich, they will increase their investment in corporations, and if you reduce taxes on corporations, this double-barreled infusion of money will give the corporations the necessary funds to invest in new products, and this, in turn, creates more jobs. Truth: When corporations have more funds, within recent decades, they use these funds to develop programming and equipment in order to automate assembly lines and routine work, enabling them to reduce the number of workers. Rather than creating jobs, reduction of taxes on the wealthy and the corporations enables them to trim down their payrolls. This, plus "outsourcing," to countries where labor is cheap, is the current business model. Don Firth P. S. "Trickle down" is simple enough to understand. It means someone is peeing on your head. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 01:58 PM (#3006975) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce "When corporations have more funds, within recent decades, they use these funds to develop programming and equipment in order to automate assembly lines and routine work, enabling them to reduce the number of workers. " So, we should return to sweatshops and 14 hour days???? |
|
14 Oct 10 - 02:18 PM (#3006994) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: John P So, we should return to sweatshops and 14 hour days???? beardedbruce, when you say things like this you lose your debate. Putting words in other peoples' mouths just doesn't cut it. How about a law that says that anything that gets sold in the United States has to be manufactured, sold, shipped, and supported by people who work according to U.S. labor laws? The short-sightedness of sending all our jobs overseas is astonishing. They lost their customers! People who don't have jobs can't afford to buy things, even inexpensive things made with slave labor in third world countries. What idiots! One of the reasons we had to pass a health care bill was that way too many of us lost our health care because having insurance is tied to having a job, and most of the jobs are gone. Why does anyone think we should go back to the Republican economic model after that model caused the last couple years of financial meltdown? Not that I think the Democratic model is much better, but at least they want to keep the billionaires from stealing money so blatantly. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 02:22 PM (#3006997) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce "Putting words in other peoples' mouths just doesn't cut it." Then ALL those comments about what Republicans "want" mean what??? No comment about them, I note. Or do you just think your statement applies to one side? |
|
14 Oct 10 - 02:31 PM (#3007004) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Don Firth Leave it to Bruce to twist it all out of shape. Example: The Boeing Airplane Company. When I worked there in the late 60s and early 70s, I was one of 125 Production Illustrators doing installation drawings to be used on the assembly line. Recently, I talked to someone who currently works in Boeing's Production Illustration department. Now, all that is being done by 12 people with no particular drawing skills working at computers. And much of the sub-assembly work that used to be done in the United States, mostly by Boeing itself, is now done overseas and shipped here. [Do you really want to fly in an aircraft that has essential parts--like the wings--to be made by the lowest bidder?] It was hardly a "sweat shop." We all wore shirts and ties and worked in a well-lighted (and air conditioned) room at large drawing tables. Damned good pay and benefits. And any time we worked for more than 8 hours five days a week, we got paid overtime. In the first quarter of 1968, I worked lots of overtime (time-and-a-half) and on weekends (double time), and in three months I'd made enough money to pay cash for a new car. "Sweat shop" my arse! Don Firth |
|
14 Oct 10 - 02:33 PM (#3007008) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Reagan inherited the mess that Carter created out of thin air. The hangover from the Carter administration. Carters approval rating was the lowest of any prez except Trueman. Anyway it is a pendulum swing. Bad times lead to good times that lead to bad times. Now these folks that got nowhere during the Reagan administration, did they start and end in the same percentile? Did some of them move up and were replaced by others just starting out working? did this possibly happen in all percentiles including the top? Is that figured into the big bad proof of everything indexed stats? I know as I proceeded through life, my income rose faster than inflation. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 02:38 PM (#3007012) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Donuel Off yur meds again Sawz? tsk tsk The Republican Party is so discredited to the poorest base that something like a tea party needed to be invented as an alternative for religious conservatives even though it is still under the thumb of Republican party chiefs. ------------------------------- to the tune springtime for hitler intro... republicans were in deep shit what a sad sad story needed a new party to restore its former glory Where oh where could it be they looked from sea to sea Dick Army looked around and then he found a group for you and me [and the white girls sing...] CHORUS and now its Springtime for Repubs and tea parties Winter for Barak and Feds We will reload and threaten death We are all tired of massive debt (unless its your debt) Springtime for fox news and tea parties Right wing is happy and gay (no way) We're marching to a faster pace Look out here comes a whiter race. Springtime for Repubs and Tea Parties Our lands a fine land once more Springtime for Big Oil and Multi nats Com' on Corportions go into your dance... spoken: Don't be stupid be a smarty come and join a new tea party Foreigners will give big bucks if we stiff those union f**ks Com'on now Don't be a jerk lets outsource all our work And now its Springtime for Big Oil and billionaires Its time to apologize to me Springtime for Repubs and tea parties Means that Soon well be going WQe've got to be going You bet we'll be going You know we'' be going to WAR!! PS Lets not be too disrepectfull of BB abd Doug R and their friends. After all, for them to hold thier right wing beliefs to be in their best interests they must have a minimum of $6 million dollars as well as property wealth. Thats enough coin to make trouble for any middle class person living month to month. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 02:39 PM (#3007014) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "enabling them to reduce the number of workers." enabling them to reduce costs and avoid moving the work offshore. Maybe people that have actually been in manufacturing know a little more about the subject. Also people can decide to buy stuff that is made offshore or onshore. "Well boys, XYZ corp is importing widgets made in ElCheapostan and we can't compete. Or widget sales are drying up. What can we do to make them cheaper and keep this place going? Can we decrease the cost of production some how or do we need to shut down and get our widgets made in ElCheaperstan?" |
|
14 Oct 10 - 02:46 PM (#3007018) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "The Republican Party is so discredited to the poorest base that something like a tea party needed to be invented as an alternative for religious conservatives even though it is still under the thumb of Republican party chiefs." This is gibberish to me. Did that come with somww sort of a happy meal game? Was it a line from the Thunderdome movie? Try to punctuate and structure your sentences so they mean something. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 03:04 PM (#3007029) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: John P Then ALL those comments about what Republicans "want" mean what??? No comment about them, I note. Well, no, no comment about them. Here's the difference: People say "The Republicans did so and so", and this can be checked and debated. What you did was accuse Don of advocating the return to 14 hour days and sweatshops, which he was VERY obviously not doing. You are accusing someone you are actually talking to of saying something they didn't say. If you can't see the difference between that and making general comments in a political debate, that's fine, but don't expect anyone to take anything you say seriously. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:04 PM (#3007279) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Public service announcement on NC Tea Party today : "Even if you don't know what the candidates stand for or understand the issues you should vote"... I rest my case... B~ |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:30 PM (#3007314) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: LadyJean I clean a house that once had a staff. The house was built sometime between 1910 and 1920. It still has a bell in the kitchen that would summon housemaids to various rooms in the house. The back stairs are still there, that the servants once used so their comings and goings would not disturb the family. Upstairs on the third floor there are small rooms, that were once the servants' quarters. The first woman who lived there possibly cooked a meal once a week, and might have done some sewing. Everything else was done by other women who considered themselves fortunate to live in someone else's house, and work 10 to 12 hours a day for a few dollars a week. Roosevelt's New Deal, post World War II prosperity, that moved blue collar workers into the middle class,the Civil Rights Movement meant women could chose a better life than being the hired help. I think what conservatives really want is a return to those good old days, when good help was anything but hard to find. It must have been very nice to be the lady of that house once upon a time. I can tell you, from experience. It is not nice to be the person who cleans said home. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:31 PM (#3007316) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce Bobert I don't recall your comment on "We have to vote for the bill to find out what it says." Please remind me how you objected to Pelosi saying THAT. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 08:38 PM (#3007326) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Sorry, bruce, but yer gonna have to humm a few more bars... I don't recollect that??? Yeah, LadyJean, what we have seen along with the demise of the iddle/working class is also the demise of the union movement... I can't tell you how it make me feel when my son-in-laws, all loyal Repub voters, tell me what they are goin' thru in their jobs... They have become the new slave-labor class... Is is painfull to hear what the corporate pigs are putting' all 3 of them thru... It should be criminal... B~ |
|
14 Oct 10 - 09:11 PM (#3007362) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Stringsinger Many Tea Partiers suffer from the Hugh Hefner Syndrome. He sold Playboy Magazine not to the well-heeled or the economically elite but by the poor working stiff who wanted to become the bunny-chasing bon vivant. The Tea Partiers often defend the corporate masters because they want to become them and entertain some delusion that somehow they might be included into their inner circle. Bush even tried that ploy by purposely misusing the English language to get working-class people to believe that he was one of them when in fact he was born with lots of money and privilege, and was not a Texas cowboy but a Kennebunkport idle rich kid. He had no intention of helping out middle and lower class families. In a talk to the wealthy businessmen he called them "his base". All the poor deluded people loved Bush. "He made it, so can I!" Only in America Myth Number One. It's not "about economy, stupid". (I don't mean you Bobert, we're on the same page) It's about a misplaced ideology that has the seeds of its own destruction built in. The Tea Partiers will never become the Koch Brothers or Dick Armey They embrace the corporations who in turn will take great pleasure in screwing them (probably from behind so they won't know who is doing it.) |
|
14 Oct 10 - 09:29 PM (#3007379) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe "The Tea Partiers will never become the Koch Brothers or Dick Armey They embrace the corporations who in turn will take great pleasure in screwing them (probably from behind so they won't know who is doing it.) " Americans think they are pretty poor and are going to get rich by some wonderful good luck - including just working hard. Aussies think they are more or less rich and may suddenly become desperately poor by an unexpected uncontrolled twist of fate no matter how hard they work. Which is why the Yank culture (including 2nd rate and failed Yank political advisors and businessmen) falls flat on its face here when it thinks that Australia is the same and acts accordingly. |
|
14 Oct 10 - 09:51 PM (#3007398) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Righto, Strings... Dick Armey and Co. drew all this up on paper and it has worked to perfection for them... Dumbass, clueless people out there defending Boss Hog without the slightest idea that Boss Hog couldn't care less about them... Other then them votes... Morons... B~ |
|
15 Oct 10 - 07:15 AM (#3007644) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert BTW, the Repubs are now blocking an Obama initiative to create 8 think-tanks that would be set up in various parts of the country that would deal with creative energy issues... You know, kinda like the 60's moon-shot think tank that was assembled after Kennedy announced our goal of going to the moon.... The worst part about this is that each would be funded to the tune of $20M, which is a drop in the bucket but, if successful could pay huge dividends for our oil-addicted and under-employed nation??? I just don't get it??? B~ |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:09 AM (#3007681) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe The whole point B, is like the Aussie Liberal Party. They have a Divine Right to Rule, so if they are not running things, then they have a Divine Right to Obstruct. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:54 AM (#3007713) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Yeah, f-troupe... The Repbs **say** they are concerned about unemployment and trade deficits but then block initiatives that would address those exact issues??? Go figure??? B~ |
|
15 Oct 10 - 09:06 AM (#3007722) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Initiatives or Dreams? 800 Billion has already been pissed away and where are the jobs? Yeah there are some happy turtles down in Florida because they got a nice new $3 million plus tunnel to crawl through so they don't have to cross the road any more. So we need more and more turtle tunnels that those mean old republicans don't want. Otherwise it's Thunderdome time. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 07:02 PM (#3008090) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Yo, Sawz... You answered the jobs question in the same post that you asked it... Want a hint??? Who built the tunnels??? B~ |
|
15 Oct 10 - 07:14 PM (#3008096) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe "**say** they are concerned about unemployment and trade deficits but then block initiatives that would address those exact issues" US politics no longer has anything to do with 'serving the people' - like professional sport, professional politics is Big Business, whose only Mission is to be re-elected, in order to keep their snouts in the Public Trough - and con as many 'tips' from their rich mates as possible. It's useful to have few public minded Fools wander in from time to time, as it helps keep the voters conned that there is any 'Public Service' in Politics. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 07:14 PM (#3008097) Subject: TEA PARTY APPROVED ! From: Donuel GRAPHIC I MADE FOR RACHEL MADDOW |
|
15 Oct 10 - 07:29 PM (#3008107) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Who benefited from the turtle tunnel after it was built? Humans or turtles? How about a nice school instead? Maybe feed some hungry kids? Yep, Thunderdome is here it's people VS turtles an Bobert roots fer the turtles. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 07:52 PM (#3008121) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe If you kill off the turtles, you may well kill of the systems that give you food and oxygen. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:02 PM (#3008130) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Meanwhile, looks as if Unions are pouring cash into attack ads against Republicans without having to say who they are??? Hmmmmmmm??? I thought the poor pitiful unions were just barely scraping along and needed a bailout. Maybe that is how it works, you take care of me and I will bail you out. See you at the Thunderdome |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:06 PM (#3008131) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 The banks needed the bailouts. They got it. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 08:08 PM (#3008132) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw WSJ: General Motors Co. has begun to once again contribute to political campaigns, lifting a self-imposed ban on political spending put in place during the auto maker's U.S.-financed bankruptcy restructuring last year. [Remember GM is an international corporation that makes money overseas] The Detroit company gave $90,500 to candidates running in the current election cycle, Federal Election Commission records show. The beneficiaries include Midwestern lawmakers, mostly Democrats, who have traditionally supported the industry's legislative agenda on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. The list also includes Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Republican Whip, who would likely assume a top leadership post if Republicans win control of the House in November. It isn't unusual for big companies like GM to spend on political campaigns, but complicating GM's situation is that the company is majority-owned by the U.S. government. GM is planning to return to the public stock markets later this year, allowing the U.S. to begin to sell off its roughly 61 percent stake in the company. GM, Proud sponsor of Thunderdome |
|
15 Oct 10 - 09:08 PM (#3008164) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "The banks needed the bailouts. They got it." GM and Chrysler needed ?? and they got ?? Their pension funds were ?? The GM stock and bond holders, read pension funds, got ??? The GM investors got a free ticket to Thunder Dome. |
|
15 Oct 10 - 09:16 PM (#3008170) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Well, saws... You asked about jobs... What??? Did they pay the turtles to did the tunnels??? I mean, you logic is, ahhhhhh, bogus... Every dollar that goes into the economy is job producing unless someone steals that dollar and stashes it under their mattress... Man, you said you don't understand economics... You have seriously convinced me that that statement is true... No offense, but you really would benefit from some education... No, not rocket surgery... Just the basics... Like Econ 201... Yeah, I know that Econ is 2 sememsters at most community college 'cause I took 'um both but, geeze.... Okay, howaboutz 001 Econ... That's kinda like remedial Econ... Hey, they'll teach you to balance yer check book and maybe you'll get some of this other stuff, too... Hey, it's a start... $90,000 from GM, ya' say??? Oh, how scarey... But, at least, GM stepped up and disclosed... How about the hundreds of millions that are being spent by Boss Hog which yer boy Sam Alito says is fine to spend to defeat Democrats without having to disclose??? B~ |
|
16 Oct 10 - 11:13 AM (#3008445) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw So Bobert, it is OK for American taxpayer money to be spent on political campaigns benefiting one political party? My question was who benefited from the tunnel after it was built? Please be more observant and logical. "you said you don't understand economics" Where did I say that perfessor? You offer to show people things and refuse to answer questions. Then you reinstate your superior knowledge of rare facts like "Haiti where 1% owns all the wealth" And who said anything about killing off the turtles? |
|
16 Oct 10 - 11:45 AM (#3008458) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Public debt owned by foreigners has increased to approximately 50% of the total or approximately $3.4 trillion. As a result, nearly 50% of the interest payments are now leaving the country, which is different from past years when interest was paid to U.S. citizens holding the public debt. Interest expenses are projected to grow dramatically as the U.S. debt increases and interest rates rise from very low levels in 2009 to more typical historical levels. CBO estimates that nearly half of the debt increases over the 2009-2019 period will be due to interest. Check one: ☐ Flawed? ☐ Not Flawed? |
|
16 Oct 10 - 03:05 PM (#3008579) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Don Firth Bruce and Sawz, educate yourselves. At one time, there were lots of sweat shops in the United States. But not so many any more. The corporations have moved them all overseas. It seems to me that a combination of government regulation along with modifications of our tax structure could modify this substantially. The Production Illustration job I had at Boeing was covered by SPEEA, the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace. If I were actually required to work 14 hours in a given day, the company would have had to pay me triple time! SPEEA is a union. One job I had was at a radio station in eastern Washington State. My board shift started at 6:00 a.m. and lasted until I had done the noon news. Then I turned it over to the next announcer. I was then required to go to one of the production rooms and tape the commercials that had been left in my box. This involved voicing the commercial copy, sometimes complete with sound effects and music, which I was required to find and select from the station record library. When I had finished the commercials, I went to the front office to write commercial copy, including the accounts that the time salesmen bought in that needed to be on the air the following morning. My official quitting time was 5:00 p.m. That's an eleven hour day! More often than not, one or more salesmen would arrive at five minutes to five with fact sheets from clients. I had to take these fact sheets, turn them into commercial copy, and go back into the production room and produce them, so they would go out on the air first thing in the morning. Often, I wasn't able to get out of the station until 9:00 p.m. or later! And by the way, there were no lunch or dinner breaks. If I wanted to eat, I had to bring sack lunches and eat on the fly! This was seven days a week. The schedule on the weekends was slight different, but not much. Now hear this!! My salary was $525 a month! I worked there for one year, from fall 1972 to fall 1973. Then I moved back to Seattle. This particular station was non-union. [When I worked as a technical writer under contract to the Bonneville Power Administration—residential weatherization program (conservation)—in the late 1980s, I made as much money per week as I did at KORD in a month!] When I came back to Seattle, I went to work for a local classical music station. I worked from 6:00 a.m. until noon, five days a week, announcing and playing classical music, along with reading a few program notes on the music. I would also read a few commercials and five minutes of news at the top of the hour. I was not required to produce commercials (although I actually did enjoy doing that, but not when I had already put in a long air-shift and hadn't had a chance to grab a bite of lunch). Five days a week, six hours a day, along with the prestige that went with being part of the on-the-air personnel at this particular station—plus frequent perks: lots of free concert tickets. At this job, once again I was making as much per week as I had made per month at the eastern Washington station. This station was covered by AFTRA, which I joined. The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. A union. There's a lesson in there, Bruce and Sawz. You two figure it out! Don Firth |
|
16 Oct 10 - 06:48 PM (#3008682) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw The lesson is for the Unions to figure out. Until then they will sink deeper and deeper in their own shit and whine for somebody to bail them out when they milk their cash cow dry. |
|
16 Oct 10 - 09:09 PM (#3008768) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Is it okay to publicaly finance elections??? Yes, yes, yes... BTW, Swaz and Co... If Page County, Va. pays $10M to build a factory for Boss Hog that factory is a taxable assest... If China builds the same factory in China to steal more of out American jobs it isn't... That is out tax code... Not China's... And guess who that crap got but into our tax codes??? Don First is absolutely correct in that the American worker has been obsoleted by a combination of very bad tax policy here and the rest of the worl perfectly willing to dance with Boss Hog and recreate the working conditions that existed here in the US of A a hundred years ago... Bttom line: no jobs here unless we roll the minimum wage back to $20 a day!!! You want that, Sawz??? You want people breaking into yer house to feed their kids... You want 40%, 50% poverty... You wnat massive homelessness.. You want the Thunderdome??? Well, the policies that you seem to favor and the folks who want them are all for that... B~ |
|
17 Oct 10 - 12:31 PM (#3009197) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw There you go again. You cherry pick the question. "So Bobert, it is OK for American taxpayer money to be spent on political campaigns benefiting one political party?" As for bad tax code Obama is announcing tax credits to businesses for new equipment. Hmmmmmmmmm. Automated equipment? Job killers? Me thinks so and where is said automated equipment made? Asia? Yer doin' a heckuva job Barry. At least he could say tax credits for equipment made in the USA and ameliorate part of the job losses this will cause. "The president outlined a proposal for $200 billion in business tax cuts on Sept. 7. It would allow businesses to write off 100 percent of new investments in plants and equipment made between now and the end of 2011. While conservative economists and outlets like the Wall Street Journal are backing the plan, labor-backed economists are not as supportive. Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, ripped the president's plan for the investment tax breaks, saying, "Big corporations are investing in automated equipment, robotics, numerically-controlled machine tools, and software. These investments are designed to boost profits by permanently replacing workers and cutting payrolls. The tax breaks Obama is proposing would make such investments all the more profitable." Check one: ☐ Flawed? ☐ Not Flawed? |
|
17 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM (#3009254) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Don Firth Wrong end of the stick as usual, Sawz. Just as a matter of amusement, I notice that up until now, you have posted 2,172 times, starting almost exactly two years ago, and NOT ONCE have you posted to a music thread above the line. Strictly here to hawk conservative politics to the hippy folk singers, right? Don Firth |
|
17 Oct 10 - 03:51 PM (#3009338) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw I that what you are? A hippy folk singer? Are you interested in only hearing from people that agree with you? I see up at the top mudcat forum and non music threads. On top of old Smokey All covered with snow I found a Hippy Sanger Who didn't want to know Any other opinions Except for his own Because he was obviously A left wing drone. How's that? |
|
17 Oct 10 - 05:42 PM (#3009411) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: The Fooles Troupe "At least he could say tax credits for equipment made in the USA" He can't. Not allowed to by Big Business - who support all Politicians, no matter what name their bunch of clowns has. Big business doesn't want that at all. Period. Big business just wants to be able to export jobs to the the lowest cost location. Period. |
|
17 Oct 10 - 07:44 PM (#3009484) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Must be nice to have such a narrow view of the world, Sawz... I mean, if ignorance is bliss than you must be on complete and total bliss... Here's the big picture... If the US can fight back into the world market as major expoters and robots make the stuff then what happens is a major shift in out balance of trade... That brings more money into the country... More money into the country, if coupled with some other inititaives that Obama has been pushing, means more eduaction for our people and a greater competitiveness in general... We have never gotten back our international trade since Reagan stood by with thumbs up his butt and watched China steal our steel industry and Bush I stood by and watched Pakistan and India make off with our textile industry and Clinton stood by an watched Indai and others make off with our customer service jobs... But the one thing that all thes things have in common is they were all orchestrated by the corportists... Yeah, this recession ain't just a couple years old... It goes back to the 1980s and the Reagan/Mao revolution to bust the union in this country... How do you like a union busted America with the missle/working class in a 30 year downward spiril and poverty rates on the wat up and all out industries having been handed over to other countries??? That is reality... So now Obama is some kinda bad guy for actaully sayin' "No more" and trying to stop the bleeding... You were pissed off that he had the balls to manipulate our currency in response to other countries who have been doing it (mainly Clina) kicking our asses??? Then I point out that he is fighting for American jobs and you say that you don't understand economics but continue mean mouth Obama who does understand them and is trying like hell to fight for American jobs... You are piece of work, Sawz... I mean, eat up igornat on economics and this is all about economics and America is not only losing that battle but ya'll righties are the biggest cheerleaders every time the bad economic news come out... It's one thing to be pissed that yer team ain't in power but quite another to root for the country to do even worse... That's what I call unAmerican... B~ |
|
17 Oct 10 - 10:49 PM (#3009557) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert So to recap Tea Party Econimics 101... 1. Tax cut fir the wealthy because they create jobs... No, they really don't... Top Fortune 500 as flush with cash ($17T) uninvested and so giving them even more cash ain't gonna do squat... 2. Stimilus hasn't created jobs... I mean, how do you argue with retards??? If you put $500B or so into the economy for shovel ready projects someone has to man the shovels.... Of course the stimulis created jobs... 3. The corporations do a better job than the government... Hmmmmmm??? Just ask the millions of working Americans how they liked Boss Hog reniging on the pensions that Boss Hog promised them while they were making Boss Hog a very rich man... 4. Socialism is evil... No, not really... Socialism is kinda the same as civilization... It provides for roads and swage and police and fire fighters and education... Ta ke away those things and you have Haiti... 5. Privatization is wonderful... Oh??? Where do you draw the line??? Let a corrupt government sell the air we breathe and then sell it back to us??? I mean, talk about Mad Max, After the Thunderdome... 6. Rich people are rich because they worked hard... No, 90% of those in the upper 5% were born into the upper 5%... Well, shame on you poor people... You should have picked rich aprents... That's ya'll's bad... 7. You fight deficits with tax cuts... Huh???... Okay, that is like me getting behind on my bills so I figure the best way outta the mess is to quit my job???? I mean, this is some seriously flawed tea... 8. Obama is running up the defict... No, yet another TeaLie... The '09 deficit was 100% on Bush because the incoming president takes on the last presidents budget during the 1st year of his new administration... 9. Well, Obama's 1st budget year is a record $1.3T deficit... Another bogus TeaLie... No, actually the fact is that Obama did reduce the annual deficit from $1.4T... So here we are qagain with Dems being the ones who shrink the defecits... Kinda a patter here going abck 30 years... 10. Well, Obama want's to take your guns away!!! Yeah, when backed into a corner with intellegence and facts Tea Party Nation always reverts to their default position that Obama wants to take their guns way??? What next, Obama is gonna steal yer car??? Molest yer kid??? Burn down yer church??? ******NOTE***** For anyone making it thru Tea Party Econ 101 I'd like to give ya' a pat on the back and 3 credit hours at BobertU... Heck, another 121 hours and you too could be a BobertU grad/alumni B~ |
|
17 Oct 10 - 11:10 PM (#3009563) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Don Firth Heard it all before, Sawz. Same old same old. I believe it was Einstein who said, "The definition of 'insanity' is repeating the same actions over and over again, each time, expecting a different result." Elect a bunch of Republicans and sooner or later, depression or recession complete with intermittent wars and "police actions." And, of course, the people such as you, who believe that this is just peachy keen as long as corporations and fat cats keep piling up the profits. Don Firth |
|
17 Oct 10 - 11:23 PM (#3009566) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Well, this brand of Repubs, that is fir sure, Don... They are unAmerican, ignorant and yeah, mentally deficient if they think that what we need is a few more rounds of voodoo economics... They just about shut dwon the econiomy 2 years ago after a 30 year bout of Reagan econonmics and here we are with them wanting to continue that failed idea... b~ |
|
18 Oct 10 - 08:18 AM (#3009734) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert The most interesting thing about Repubs and Tea Baggers is that if they got cancer they sho nuff be finding the smartest folks around to treat them but when it comes to running thr economy it's, "Let Bubba run it"... B~ |
|
18 Oct 10 - 12:38 PM (#3009903) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "Not allowed to by Big Business" How so? And if he can't specify why would he do it at all? Automated equipment is made in the USA too. Why would those companies not let Obama specify made in the USA? Does not compute. It's a job killer and a bonus for foreign manufacturers. Another example of what the administration is blind to. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 01:25 PM (#3009935) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Bobert:"Hey, here's one fir ya' to ponder... Close down all government funded schools???" And build turtle tunnels with that money. "but when it comes to running thr economy it's, "Let Bubba run it"..." What does that mean? "1. Tax cut fir the wealthy because they create jobs... No, they really don't... Top Fortune 500 as flush with cash ($17T) uninvested and so giving them even more cash ain't gonna do squat..." If they hire people and make things, who buys it? If people have no money to buy stuff why should someone make it? Please read about the great depression and then preach. If you were a home builder sitting on $1 million profit from building homes a few years back, would you continue to build homes when nobody is buying them or would you lay people off and wait to see what this can't figure it out administration is going to do? And when does not taking somebody's money constitute giving them money? I have never heard such ass backwards thinking in my life. Where do you arrive at your conclusions? |
|
18 Oct 10 - 01:39 PM (#3009943) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: pdq "I have never heard such ass backwards thinking in my life. ~ Sawzaw That's because you are relatively new to Mudcat. |
|
18 Oct 10 - 01:40 PM (#3009947) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "7. You fight deficits with tax cuts... Huh???... Okay, that is like me getting behind on my bills so I figure the best way outta the mess is to quit my job???? I mean, this is some seriously flawed tea..." "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government." "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government." |
|
18 Oct 10 - 02:03 PM (#3009974) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "7. You fight deficits with tax cuts... Huh???... Okay, that is like me getting behind on my bills so I figure the best way outta the mess is to quit my job???? I mean, this is some seriously flawed tea..." Hunh? Logicaly you quit spending so much money. Claiming someone is suggesting quitting your job is seriously flawed. What leap of logic or abandonment of logic leads you to this logical fallacy of equivocation? That's what the whole Tea Party thing is about. They are protesting about what the Bush administration did too. You are such a mindless tribalist drone that all you can think about is us against them. You turn everything into Democratic or Republican. And you claim others can't think? The Tea Party movement is a political movement in the United States that emerged in 2009 through a series of locally and nationally coordinated protests. The protests were partially in response to several Federal laws: the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and health care reform. Please keep informed so you will know what you are talking about Bobert. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 09:50 AM (#3010600) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Thank god we don't get all the government we pay for. |
|
19 Oct 10 - 10:17 AM (#3010632) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert No, the Tea Party is the extreme arm of the Republican Party that was organized by Fox unNews and Dick Armey with hundreds of millions of dollars of health insurance company moeny that was funneled thru Armey's lobbiest firm... This money was used to hire hundreds of "community organizers" (remember them) who went out and di what community organizers do... The money also went into printing, media buy buy patriotic sounding organizations that attacxked Obam and Dems... The lobbiest monet also rented bused, took out protest permits, bought ffo, rented offices, etc., etc... That's the prefect storm for the corpoate pigs... Dumbed down people and a couple trillion dollars sitting around with nuthin' with nuthin to do but collect dust... I mean, if you were to give me half of what Dick Armey and Rupert Murdock (in kind) have spent I could take the "Coffee Party" and organize it into antional force that would make the Tea Party look like a backyard cookout in comparasion... Problem is that the progressives down't have that kind dough... That is the facts, Sawz... B~ |
|
19 Oct 10 - 10:51 AM (#3010662) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Hearing and reading about the Tea Party has been an eye-opener to me. I'd thought all the crazies had been elected. NOT SO. So, one of you in the know: is she or is she ain't a witch? |
|
19 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM (#3010798) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Actually, I'm kinda lookin' forward to having some truly looney people in Congress... I mean, I'm tired of LoonieLite... |
|
19 Oct 10 - 11:49 PM (#3011209) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Just watched a Canadian news broadcast in which some stupid misinformed twit (sp?) who's running in Nevada--Sharron Angle--has stated that the terrorists who caused the 9-11 attacks entered the US from Canada. Dear Sharron, I hope you aren't having unprotected sex, because I expect that the pox can still be spread when it's in the third stage. Sincerely, Bruce Murdoch PS Even your director of homeland security has stated that the terrorists having entered from Canada is a myth started because of some erroneous news statements that came out just after 9-11. Get caught up with your reading and may you pass a three-inch diameter gall stone. I hope that the million or so Canadians who visit Nevada in the course of each year boycott your state should you get elected. Bah. The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 12:02 AM (#3011211) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Sorry. I'm so pissed off right now I don't know whether to shit, wind my watch or steal third. I should have said she "implied", not "stated". |
|
20 Oct 10 - 09:25 AM (#3011404) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Well, 999, don't try all three at the same time... But, yeah, yer right... Ahhhhh, make that correct... I mean, Ron Paul wnats to repeal the Civil Rights Act because he thinks that lynchings and keeping black from voting is none of ther federal governments danged business... The guy in Alaska thinks he's like some militart dictator in having his "private" security people (think Blackwater here) ***arrest*** a reporter for trying to ask him a question... The one in Nevada wants to end Social Security and make fun of Hispanics... The one in Delaward wants "creationism" taught in the schools... The one in Wes Ginny thinks it perfectly okay to maul the name of a Hispanic Suprme Court justice??? I mean, lets get real here... These Tealibaners is all about racism and intolerance just their their Afgan counterparts... B~ |
|
20 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM (#3011412) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,Peter Laban Christine O Donnell questions Coons about the first amendment It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sadly stupid. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 10:03 AM (#3011435) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Bobert: Please define fact. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 10:41 AM (#3011467) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Fact = the truth... |
|
20 Oct 10 - 10:41 AM (#3011468) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: pdq Christine O'Donnell is the one who is correct. The Constitution bans the government from establishing a State Religion, a very different concept than the current goal of eliminating all religious referances from the government. Her opponent said that "separation between Church and State" is found in the First Amendment, a really stupid statement. The problem is largely in the people who populate our news media. They don't know anything about anything. They live for gossip and not much more. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 10:55 AM (#3011475) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Please define truth Bobert. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 11:06 AM (#3011487) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: pdq A few years ago, I was listening to a TV reporter when he said "the Titanic sank when it ran into a glacier". These "doofus with a microphone" types are really just looking for an excuse to damage a candidate they don't support. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 11:19 AM (#3011500) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce Bobert: "The guy in Alaska thinks he's like some militart dictator in having his "private" security people (think Blackwater here) ***arrest*** a reporter for trying to ask him a question..." Sincre this is a false statement, I expect Bobert would call it a lie. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 11:21 AM (#3011503) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,TIA Sorry pdq, but you are buying the post-hoc "she was talking about the exact phrase" excuse. If you listent to the run-up conversation, she was clearly making the argument that public schools (the government) should be allowed to teach religion. She was saying that Coons was advocating "government interference" in local school boards when he asserts that public schools should teach science, while families and churches teach religion. Listen to the whole conversation please, and you will see that she really does *not* understand the 1st Amendment. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 12:05 PM (#3011551) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: pdq Perhaps the news media failed to bring this to our attention... CTV.ca News Date: Wed. Apr. 22 2009 1:22 PM ET The furor began when {Janet} Napolitano was asked to clarify statements she had made about equal treatment for the Mexican and Canadian borders, despite the fact that a flood of illegal immigrants and a massive drug war are two serious issues on the southern border. "Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on, it didn't have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year," she said. "Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there." When asked if she was referring to the 9-11 terrorists, Napolitano added: "Not just those but others as well." However, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan downplayed the comments and said that Napolitano is well aware that Canada was not the source of the 9-11 terrorists. "We spoke about it back in March, and we were sharing a chuckle at the fact that the urban myth does circulate," he told CTV's Power Play. "Ms. Napolitano understood quite clearly, then and now, that none of the September 11 terrorists came through Canada, as the 9-11 Commission found." Still, that positive outlook wasn't shared by other Canadian officials. On Tuesday afternoon, RCMP Commissioner William Elliot expressed frustration with the comments during an interview on CTV's Power Play. "I was somewhat surprised and disappointed," he said, adding he hopes the misconception has been cleared up. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 12:23 PM (#3011565) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Bobert's havin' a little trouble with the definition of truth methinks. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM (#3011571) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Is the way to Thunder Dome? |
|
20 Oct 10 - 01:15 PM (#3011610) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Is Thunderdome in Arizona? DAY 58 June 16 Obama meets with BP CEO for 20 minutes DAY 59 June 17 Meets with advisers to start lawsuit against Arizona DAY 60 June 18 Beers and baseball! |
|
20 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM (#3011638) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw On Feb. 9, 2009, Mary Rakovich, a recently laid-off automotive engineer, set out for a convention center in Fort Myers, Fla. with protest signs, a cooler of water and the courage of her convictions. She felt compelled to act, having grown increasingly alarmed at the explosion of earmarks, bailouts and government spending in the waning years of the Bush administration. Today the ranks of this citizen rebellion can be counted in the millions. The rebellion's name derives from the glorious rant of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who in February 2009 called for a new 'tea party' from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. By doing so he reminded all of us that America was founded on the revolutionary principle of citizen participation, citizen activism and the primacy of the individual over the government. That's the tea party ethos." Actually, as we understand it, the Tea Party phenomenon was inspired by the libertarian-republicanism of the Ron Paul presidential campaign that created small activist cells. Rick Santelli and we have seen his "glorious rant" had nothing to do with this spontaneous manifestation of anti-state protesting. Santelli's TV statement came much later. The reason we have concentrated on this article is because it is a superb example of how the mainstream media reworks memes to make them palatable and useful to the powers-that-be. The Tea Party, initially, was an amorphous and generalized uprising against the modern welfare/warfare state. It was libertarian in nature and fairly specific about its point of view. Today, that specificity has been mislaid (perhaps the movement is too big for one point of view) and the mythmaking has begun. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM (#3011673) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Thanks, pdq. Trust you`re well. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 04:52 PM (#3011765) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Sorry, Swz but I given you the defination of the truth... BTW, pdq... The reporter was "arrested" and handcuffed by the private security people hired to protect the Republican candidate for trying to ask a question of the candidate... I mean, there is video of it... What part of this is, in your opinion, not factual??? B~ |
|
20 Oct 10 - 05:44 PM (#3011811) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: pdq Sorry, but what case are you taking about? Sharron Angle, Janet Napolitano or Christine O'Donnell? |
|
20 Oct 10 - 05:51 PM (#3011815) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert None of the above... Google up "Alaska Senate race, Reporter arrested" and you'll get the story... |
|
20 Oct 10 - 06:06 PM (#3011817) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce "A reporter for the Alaska Dispatch, an online news site, was handcuffed and arrested by private security guards at a middle school in Anchorage Sunday after trying to question Republican Senate hopeful Joe Miller following a town hall meeting. The guards who arrested the reporter worked for Miller through Drop Zone Security, a private security firm in Anchorage. According to accounts in the Anchorage Daily News and the Dispatch, the problems started when the reporter, Tony Hopfinger, followed Miller down a hallway in an effort to ask questions about Miller's time as a government lawyer for the Fairbanks North Star Borough in 2009. Miller did not respond to the questions, having announced last week that he will no longer speak about his past work experience or personal life. Hopfinger told the Dispatch that as he followed Miller, he was wrapped up in a crowd of Miller supporters and security guards and pushed someone away from him. That's when a Drop Zone guard grabbed him. "He throws me up against the wall," Hopfinger said. "He handcuffs me." Hopfinger also said the guards took his video camera, the contents of which had been erased when it was later returned to him. The guards then called the Anchorage Police to report Hopfinger for trespassing and assault. Anchorage police responded to the scene, took statements for nearly an hour and released Hopfinger. William Fulton, the owner of Drop Zone Security, would not identify the guards who handcuffed the reporter, but said that Hopfinger was "getting really pushy with Joe. Joe was trying to get away from him." He said the reporter then "shoulder-checked a guy into a locker." Fulton also said that Hopfinger was technically trespassing at the school because the Miller campaign had rented out a room there for the town hall meeting, which the Miller campaign considered a private event. " http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/18/joe-miller-security-guards-handcuff-reporter-at-alaska-campaign/ |
|
20 Oct 10 - 06:07 PM (#3011818) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: beardedbruce "the reporter then "shoulder-checked a guy into a locker."" NOW I know how Bobert wants me to treat Obama... |
|
20 Oct 10 - 07:01 PM (#3011855) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: pdq I also looked into this incident. Calling the guy who was detained by private security guards a "reporter" is not correct. He has his own political website. There is no paper or news organization to work for. He has been following Joe Miller around and asksing personal questions that no candidate should have to put up with. He has filed harassing lawsuits also. The blogger tried to get to Miller by bodychecking someone into a gym locker, which is why he was detained. He had already been asked to leave and told he was in trespass before he bumped the Miller supporter. |
|
20 Oct 10 - 08:04 PM (#3011888) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Ahhhh, that ain't exactly what the video shows but interesting take (mythology) on the events... I mean, if that was a body check then they got some purdy wussy folks up there in Alaska... But if ya'll want to stick with the body check mythology, have at it... BTW, Joe MIller is a grad of West Point, ain't he??? I mean, don't they teach 'um how to defend themselves there??? Tell ya' what, it's been 30 years since I was into martial arts but if someone assaults me (body check) I still know what to do... Ya'llz story is a little on the unbelievable side, especially since some of it was caught on video... B~ |
|
20 Oct 10 - 10:42 PM (#3011959) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "Sorry, Swz but I given you the defination of the truth..." Not in this thread Bobert. You sure keep information to yourself. You claim you know a lot of things and when asked, you just clam up and throw another stink bomb. Has anybody seen Bobert's definition of the truth? The so called reporter followed the candidate into the restroom. Harassment? Stalking Bullying? Said reporter refuses to make any charges. The prosecutor is not charging the candidate with anything. So what is the problem? Need a hankie? |
|
20 Oct 10 - 10:48 PM (#3011961) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "In this day and age, money is almost never the difference between victory and defeat." Impact of campaign money overstated Charlotte Observer Wednesday, Oct. 20, 2010 Over the past few months, there's been a torrent of commentary about political donations and campaign spending. This lavish coverage is based on the premise that campaign spending has an important influence on elections. I can see why media consultants would believe money is vitally important: The more money there is, the more they make. I can see why partisans would want to believe money is important: They tend to blame their party's defeats on the nefarious spending of the other side. However, I can't see why the rest of us should believe this. The evidence to support it is so slight. Let's start with the current data. A vast majority of campaign spending is done by candidates and political parties. Over the past year, the Democrats, most of whom are incumbents, have been raising and spending far more than the Republicans. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats in the most competitive House races have raised an average of 47 percent more than Republicans. They have spent 66 percent more, and have about 53 percent more in their war chests. The Wesleyan Media Project says that between Sept. 1 and Oct. 7 Democrats running for the House and Senate spent $1.50 on ads for every $1 spent by Republicans. Despite this financial advantage, Democrats have been sinking in the polls. I suppose they could argue that the conditions could be even worse if they didn't have the money edge, but this is a weak case. It's more plausible to argue that the ad buys just didn't make that much difference. After all, money wasn't that important when Phil Gramm and John Connally ran for president. In those and many other cases, huge fundraising prowess yielded nothing. Money wasn't that important in 2006 when Republican incumbents outraised Democrats by $100 million and still lost. Money wasn't that important in the 2010 Alaska primary when Joe Miller beat Lisa Murkowski despite being outspent 10 to 1. It wasn't that important in the 2010 Delaware primary when Mike Castle, who raised $1.5 million, was beaten by Christine O'Donnell, who had raised $230,000. The most alarmed coverage concerns the skyrocketing spending of independent groups. It is true that Republicans have an edge when it comes to outside expenditures. This year, for example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending $22 million for Republicans, while the Service Employees International Union is spending about $14 million for Democrats. But independent spending is about only one-tenth of spending by candidates and parties. There is no way the $13 million Karl Rove influences through the group American Crossroads is going to reshape an election in which the two parties are spending something like $1.4 billion collectively. Moreover, there's no real evidence that independent expenditure is any more effective than candidate expenditure. In 2008, Democrats had a huge independent advantage, now the Republicans do. The main effect of this money is to make the rubble bounce. Let's say you live in Colorado. Conservative-leaning groups have spent $6.6 million attacking Michael Bennet, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, according to Opensecrets.org, a nonprofit site that monitors spending in politics. Liberal-leaning groups have spent $6.9 million attacking his Republican opponent, Ken Buck. There is no way a slightly richer ad campaign is going to make much difference. Political scientists have tried to measure the effectiveness of campaign spending using a variety of methodologies, but there is no consensus in the field. So why is there so much money in politics? Well, every consultant has an incentive to tell every client to raise more money. The donors give money because it makes them feel as if they are doing good and because they get to hang out at exclusive parties. The candidates are horribly insecure and grasp at any straw that gives them a sense of advantage. In the end, however, money is a talisman. It makes people feel good because they think it has magical properties. It probably helps in local legislative races where name recognition is low. It probably helps challengers get established. But federal races are oversaturated. In this day and age, money is almost never the difference between victory and defeat. It's just the primitive mythology of the political class. Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/10/20/1773505/impact-of-campaign-money-overstated.html#ixzz12xNe4sgJ |
|
21 Oct 10 - 08:24 AM (#3012120) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Glad to see that you are enjoying the Charlotte Observer, Saws... It's "right" up yer alley with the Front Pagew being the editorial page as well... Like the printed version of Fox... |
|
21 Oct 10 - 11:03 AM (#3012215) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Old Yiddish expression: For instance is not proof. |
|
21 Oct 10 - 11:07 AM (#3012219) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Donuel Overstated or not, it is a game changer this was my first picture of the problem but am now working on a masterful illustration of the problem http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/constitution.jpg |
|
12 Nov 10 - 01:31 PM (#3030487) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Red Ink For Post Office: $8.5B Lost Last Year WSJ Nov 12, 2010 AP The Postal Service said Friday it lost $8.5 billion last year despite deep cuts of more than 100,000 jobs and other reductions in recent years. The post office had estimated it would lose $6 billion to $7 billion, but a sharp decline in mail took a toll. Increased use of the Internet and the recession, which cut advertising and other business mail, meant less money for the agency. For the year ending Sept. 30, the post office had income of $67.1 billion, down $1 billion from the previous fiscal year. Expenses totaled $70 billion, a decline of about $400 million. The post office also was required to make a $5.5 billion payment for future retiree health benefits. "Over the last two years, the Postal Service realized more than $9 billion in cost savings, primarily by eliminating about 105,000 full-time equivalent positions more than any other organization, anywhere," chief financial officer Joe Corbett said in a statement. "We will continue our relentless efforts to innovate and improve efficiency. However, the need for changes to legislation, regulations and labor contracts has never been more obvious." The post office is currently in contract negotiations with two of its unions, with two more scheduled to be negotiated next year. The loss of $8.5 billion in 2010 was $4.7 billion more than the previous year. Mail volume totaled 170.6 billion pieces, compared with 176.7 billion in 2009, a decline of 3.5 percent. At the same time, volume was declining the post office was required to begin service to thousands of new addresses to accommodate population growth and new businesses. The post office has asked Congress for permission to reduce mail delivery to five-days-a-week and to eliminate annual payments for future retiree health benefits. A request from the agency for a 2-cent increase in postage rates to take effect next year was recently turned down by the independent Postal Rate Commission. The post office has appealed that decision in federal court. While the post office does not receive tax money for its operations it still must answer to Congress, which has been reluctant to agree to closing of local post offices and centers. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., blamed the loss on the recession and "operating restraints placed on postal management." The result, he said, may represent the most serious threat to the post office in its 200-year history. "If corrective action is not taken quickly, the Postal Service will likely run out of cash and borrowing authority by this time next year, placing its ability to continue operations in serious jeopardy," said Carper, who urged quick congressional action. Fredric V. Rolando, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, said the loss "comes as no surprise." "For the Postal Service to improve its financial situation, the government must let the USPS manage its financial affairs in the most effective manner possible, like any other business," he said. "Essential to that process would be for Congress to fix an onerous congressional mandate from 2006, which obligates the Postal Service to make annual payments of $5.5 billion to pre-fund future retiree health benefits. No other institution in America, public or private, has to do this." Some have suggested privatizing the service, but the requirement to provide service everywhere in the country at the same price is not likely to be attractive to private companies. Of particular concern has been the decline in the lucrative first-class mail, largely consisting of personal letters and cards, bills and payments and similar items. First-class mail volume fell 6.6 percent in 2010, 8.6 percent in 2009, and 4.8 percent in 2008. Traditionally, this mail has produced more than half of total revenue. Volume for standard mail advertising and similar business items improved somewhat, indicating some signs of economic recovery, but generates less income. Postmaster General John Potter, who retires in December, has developed a 10-year plan for the future of the post office, but parts of that plan require congressional action. |
|
12 Nov 10 - 02:43 PM (#3030559) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Yeah, like who needs mail delivery every danged day but Sunday??? How about 4 deliveries a week??? That alone would put the Postal Service back in the black.... And up the rates on junk mail... Right now they pay less to have their junk delivered (and it's heavier) than do I when I pay a bill... 4 days is plenty... B~ |
|
12 Nov 10 - 03:45 PM (#3030592) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Ups runs OK, No gummint bailouts needed. Fedex doin' fine. And they pay taxes to boot. DHS couldn't keep up with the competition so they are history. But how about the Post Office branch of the government, like Fannie and Freddie allways inefficient and needin' a bail out. Why the hell shouldn't they compete with the successful businesses? The non-failed economic models? The big problem for the PO is Email and online commerce. They should have seen it coming and gotten into the Internet at the beginning. I would personally like to have one entity in charge of Email that could fight spam which is 90% of email traffic. |
|
12 Nov 10 - 06:24 PM (#3030709) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert UPS doesn't have to deliver bills and junk mail, Sawz... That ain't the government's fault... Tell ya' what... Start mailing yer bills using UPS then maybe you'll get it... |
|
20 Nov 10 - 01:48 PM (#3036840) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "Yeah, like who needs mail delivery every danged day but Sunday??? How about 4 deliveries a week??? That alone would put the Postal Service back in the black.... And up the rates on junk mail... Right now they pay less to have their junk delivered (and it's heavier) than do I when I pay a bill... 4 days is plenty..." I am 100% in agreement with Bobert. Hooray! I object to the junk mail. #1. It causes the destruction of more trees and pollutes the environment, increases use of energy and pollution from transportation, production, delivery. #2. It increases the load on land fills except for what gets recycled. #3. The companies gets to deduct it as an advertising expense. #4. Who wants it anyway? I regard it as spam. My wife showed mw a little crystal vase about 2" high she bought 5 years ago. The company has been mailing her a catalog ever since then. Why? Evidently it costs them nothing. I am getting two identical ads from a health care outfit every week, one with a middle initial and one without. |
|
23 Nov 10 - 09:44 PM (#3039154) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "UPS doesn't have to deliver bills and junk mail, Sawz... That ain't the government's fault." Who's fault is it? |
|
23 Nov 10 - 09:51 PM (#3039159) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert We agree... Make the junk mail folks pay the same $$$ to mail me junk as I have to pay to mail a letter then they might think twice... But, no, because the mailer companies do a certain amount of sortin' before the junk mail is taken to the Post Office they get "bulk rate"??? Hey, that is messed up... And their junk is heavier/larger than the average letter or check sent to pay a bill??? UPS needs to do some serious rethinking... B~ |
|
23 Nov 10 - 11:21 PM (#3039215) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw What I am asking Bobert is if it is not the government's fault that UPS doesn't have to deliver bills and junk mail, who's fault is it? If it is nobody's fault, what bearing does it have on anything. Should it be somebody's fault? Bills have to pay the full rate so they should not be a money looser, They should raise the rate on junk mail, I think they call it bulk mail to .44 like everything else. A bunch of lobbyists [who Obama said weren't going to run things in Washington any more] fight raising the rates. I think people should have to pay a penny to send email. I think the Post Office should have gotten into the Email business on the ground floor. I realize it would be a real task to charge for email now but at the early stages it could have been done. They should have seen it coming. 90% of email is now spam. The annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam e-mails results in the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as 3.1 million passenger cars using 2 billion gallons of gasoline. The annual energy used globally for spam totals 33 terawatt hours (TWh)--enough energy to power 2.4 million homes each year. Industry Ramps Up Efforts to Preserve Junk Mail A little-noticed, April 2008 press release from an organization called the National Association of Printing Leadership (NAPL) announced that it had awarded its 2008 "Technical Leadership Award" to Benjamin Y. Cooper for his work as "a dedicated champion and eloquent spokesman for the print media." Sounds innocent enough, but who exactly is Cooper, and what did he do to merit this award? Cooper is a principal in the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm Williams & Jensen, who for almost three decades has been the chief lobbyist for the U.S. printing industry. He also heads Mail Moves America (MMA), a pro-junk mail front group that works to prevent the passage of "Do Not Mail" laws that would give consumers a way to opt out of receiving junk mail, similar to the way "Do Not Call" lists have helped people end unwanted telemarketing calls. Formed in 2007, MMA is the creation of the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), a trade association for companies and industries that profit from the creation and sending of junk mail, like printers, advertisers, paper manufacturers and paper catalogue retailers. On its web site, MMA says "Do Not Mail" laws would be "bad public policy." It dismisses the accusation that junk mail destroys trees as "a myth," saying simply, "Direct mail is not trees, it is printed communication." In a July 10, 2007 press release, DMA President & CEO John A. Greco, Jr. called state bills to set up "Do Not Mail" lists "misguided legislation" that is "being driven by environmental, privacy, and consumer groups who often distort the facts in their efforts to eliminate advertising mail to consumers." Greco said MMA responds aggressively to Do Not Mail list initiatives with "convincing information about the consumer benefits of advertising mail." U.S. Postal Service: Using Third Party Technique to Preserve Junk Mail? The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is another player with a vested interest in the junk mail issue. It derives a substantial portion of its revenues from bulk mailers, so giving people the ability to opt out from receiving junk mail would threaten its budget. The Postal Service is prohibited from lobbying Congress on its own behalf, so it cannot directly oppose "Do Not Mail" legislation. According to the Washington Post, however, the USPS is "working closely with the Direct Marketing Association ... in its new campaign -- Mail Moves America -- which is designed to quash the Do Not Mail initiatives." Thus, even our trusted post office is not beyond using the third party technique to achieve a business goal. A related pro junk-mail effort is a new web site called IP Moves the Mail, started by the International Paper Company. International Paper is a multinational corporation with offices around the world, and as a paper manufacturer, it stands to lose business if laws are enacted that reduce the quantity of paper being dropped into mailboxes. "IP Moves the Mail" therefore facilitates pro-junk mail activism, urging visitors to contact their legislators and oppose passage of "Do Not Mail" bills. Most people don't like the mounting number of unsolicited ads that arrive in their mail and would be happy to have a way to be rid of them. In a world of diminishing resources, junk mail consumes tremendous amounts of dwindling resources, most of which ends up as trash. At a time when people are increasingly using electronic communication, is it right or sensible to give credence to a fight to preserve what might be an anachronistic industry whose time might be naturally winding down anyway? Would it be so bad to create a way for only those consumers who want paper junk mail to be the ones to receive it? Despite the junk mail industry's "sky-is-falling" attitude, legislation allowing consumers to block unwanted mail probably wouldn't end the world. "Do Not Mail" bills, in addition to saving increasingly precious natural resources, just might give people some peace until advertisers start finding more ingenious and less harmful ways to put their ads under our noses. |
|
24 Nov 10 - 01:09 AM (#3039250) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Ebbie Just for clarification - When you say that "a bunch of lobbyists... fight raising the rates", I'm sure you realize that it is the direct marketing industry that is fighting them. You say: "I think people should have to pay a penny to send email. I think the Post Office should have gotten into the Email business on the ground floor." I disagree. By this time we would be paying a dollar for each email. Or maybe they would be charging per word. For something sent through the air that costs them nothing. We buy the machines that send the messages. We pay the costs of internet hookups. We provide the bodies who perform the actions. Why should the Post Office profit? Why not the Utility companies? Why not your local Congressperson? "90% of email is now spam." Not in my house. Source, please. This sounds very impressive, but I really would like to see the source: The annual energy used to transmit, process and filter spam e-mails results in the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as 3.1 million passenger cars using 2 billion gallons of gasoline. The annual energy used globally for spam totals 33 terawatt hours (TWh)--enough energy to power 2.4 million homes each year." |
|
24 Nov 10 - 04:07 AM (#3039303) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,Shimrod Members of the US Tea Party should have been with me yesterday when I walked through the Manchester (UK) suburb of Ancoats. This was the world's first industrial district - which started to develop in the last half of the 18th century. It was largely a place of cotton mills driven by steam and jerry-built houses for the workers. For around 150 years it represented huge profits for the mill owners, who didn't live there, and a living hell for their workers who did - a place permanently shrouded in smoke, grime and poverty. When UK manufacturing collapsed in the 20th century, so did Ancoats. For nearly all of the time that I have known it, it has been a wasteland - a vast, empty, brick-strewn acreage dotted with the decaying hulks of cotton mills. But in the opening years of this century a decision was taken to re-develop it and property developers bought up huge swathes of the empty acreages. But Manchester planners take a completely laissez-faire approach to planning (they appear to exist purely to 'rubber-stamp' the excesses of property developers) and now Ancoats is randomly dotted with extravagant architectural creations - mostly empty - and, in an odd way, it even more bleak and depressing than it was before. Ancoats demonstrates, to me at least, that unregulated capitalism is malign and insane - and sorely in need of much more regulation - not less! |
|
24 Nov 10 - 07:34 AM (#3039411) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert We have towns like that here, too, Shimrod... If you drive thru downtown Youngstown, Ohio, it's block after block of boarded up buildings where there used to be shops, department stores and restaurants... All empty since the Japanese stole our steel industry in the 80s and the "Jeanette Furnace" was closed down... "With Jenny burnin' things gonna be all right" (from a song I wrote about Youngstown entitled "Youngstown Night...) The theft of our steel industry is a prime example of what can happen when government has it's blinders on and refuses to participate pro-actively in the global economy... This is purdy much what we hear from Tea Bag Nation... They are ignorant of economic theory/practice and think simple solutions such a "free trade" will just magically fix everything... They blame the government when those approaches don't work, however, but are too darned stubborn in their ignorance to bother to learn how economies work and how little "free trade" exists in the real world of tax loopholes, subsidies, tariffs, currency manipulation, etc. ... But like I have said many times, these people will seek out the very best doctor if they get cancer but are perfectly willing to turn the government over to angry people who don't understand economics any better than they do???? Go figure??? B~ |
|
24 Nov 10 - 08:55 AM (#3039468) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert BTW, in case anyone didn't get the "Jenny burnin'" reference, "Jenny" is what the folks in "Yunks-town" called the Jeanette Blast Furnace and it was the heart-'n-soul of "yunks-town's" economy... In reality, there are lots of small towns in Ohio that are dependent on the auto industry... The Repubs like to proclaim that the stimulus didn't create/save jobs... I'd bet the farm that there were one heck of alot of happy people when it was announced that the "mean 'ol gov-mint" was going to make a loan to GM and Chrysler... I mean, entire Ohioian town would have been wiped out like Youngstown was wiped out during Reagan's "asleep-at-the-wheel", laissez faire, "free trade" botcheded experiment... Same thing is going on today... Obama devalues the dollar to make the US more competitive on the world market and the same flat-earthers scream for "free trade"... Like Barney Frank asked a flat-earther, "On which planet do you reside???" I mean, Tea Party Nation is so hypocritical it is beyond belief... They say that want or don't want "this-'er-that" but are ready to blame the "mean 'ol gov-mint" for everything that happens bad??? B~ |
|
24 Nov 10 - 11:11 AM (#3039554) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: akenaton Look Bob, Of course you are right, these people are politically naive and easy pickin's for those who would manipulate them. But they are no more naive than those on the left who think they can make this system work by regulation. We have ever increasing numbers of old folk, sick folk, unemployed folk and an ever decreasing number of people contributing to the revenue pot. Govt actually encouraged deregulation, not primarily to make the rich richer(although this did happen and is still happening), but to boost growth and provide revenue to replace what we have lost since becoming uncompetitive globally. The balance has gone, we are bust. If we believe in Capitalism, we must accept what is happening as a natural progression of the system. It will survive and prosper in the "underdeveloped" East. At least the Tea Party are promoting the idea that govt doesn't always know best what is good for us .....Their goals might be different in some respects from yours and mine, but if the capitalist model is not shaken to the core, we might as well lie down and let the bastards cover us up. All protest is Progressive the goals can only be achieved when the obstruction has been removed. |
|
24 Nov 10 - 04:55 PM (#3039820) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Regulation and govern, Ake, are words with very similar meanings... We have had a 30 year moratorium on regulating stuff and we now have arsenic and anti-biotics in our water, we have air that in many parts of the country is not at all safe to breath, we have oil spills that make the Exxon Valdez look like nuthin'... We have mines blowing up... We have a major decline in life expectancy... We have the highest infant mortality rate of any industrialized nation... We have slipped from 1st in math and science to 21st... We have had over 2400 police officers shot since January, 2000... We have stagnated wages of the working class... We have not seen our minimum wage (indexed) go up but go down... We have more poverty... No, Ake... What we need is one shitload of regulation/governing... B~ |
|
24 Nov 10 - 05:24 PM (#3039842) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: GUEST,999 Government agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA) have the best code breakers and hackers in the world. It`s unfortunate they don`t give a shit about spam. I am sure it`s within their abilities to find and deal with people who generate spam and hack various sites. |
|
26 Nov 10 - 09:30 PM (#3041187) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Ebbie: The thing about the lobbyists fighting raising rate on junk mail iis in the article I posted. I don't understand your question. Lobbyists work for whoever hires them. ISPs profit from providing internet service and people use email which lowers the income of the post office. Why shouldn't the post office provide the service and regulate email? The information on spam is easy to find if you google a string of the text in qoutes: "The annual energy used globally for spam totals 33 terawatt hours" |
|
26 Nov 10 - 09:51 PM (#3041191) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw Hummmmmmmm. Bobert blames the "mean 'ol gov-mint" for letting the Japanese steal our steel industry: "The theft of our steel industry is a prime example of what can happen when government has it's blinders on and refuses to participate pro-actively in the global economy" But then he says the tea baggers are wrong for blaming things on the government. He complains about the government and then he denounces others for complaining about the government. What we need is shit load of enforcement of the existing regulations and laws. If we cannot enforce them how can we enforce new ones? Whose responsibility is it to enforce regulations and laws? You know like regulations about offshore oil drilling and the regualtions about the response to an oil spill? |
|
26 Nov 10 - 09:54 PM (#3041192) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw In his nomination speech in July, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told the nation he was "reporting for duty." But when it comes to shaping America's trade policy toward China and the rest of the world, it remains unclear which John Kerry would report for duty next January if he's elected president. As a four-term Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Kerry has compiled an impressive record of support for free trade. He voted in favor of every major trade bill to come before Congress: the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the North American Free Trade Agreement, normal trade relations with China and then permanent NTR in 2000, more generous market access for imports from Africa and the Caribbean, and trade promotion authority for Presidents Clinton and Bush. He was one of a minority of his party in the Senate to reject steel quotas in 1999. Kerry's record on trade has its blemishes. He voted for the huge farm subsidy bill in 2002 that President Bush signed. He voted for more restrictive language on labor, environmental, and human rights standards in trade agreements. He voted to make it more difficult to reform America's much abused antidumping laws in World Trade organization negotiations. But those deviations aside, his record in Congress has been pro-trade, especially for a Democrat. Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. More by Daniel Griswold As a presidential candidate, however, John Kerry has staked out a more skeptical line on trade. While paying lip service to the need to trade, he has ratcheted up his call for "enforceable labor and environmental standards at the core of every trade agreement," skipping over the fact that most developing countries in the WTO have made it perfectly clear they will not sign agreements that contain such language. In his July speech, Kerry said, "We will trade and compete in the world. But our plan calls for a fair playing field" -- whatever that would mean in practice -- "because if you give the American worker a fair playing field, there's nobody in the world the American worker can't compete against." To deliver that "fair" playing field, Kerry has proposed reviewing and even re-opening existing agreements and aggressive use of the Super 301 trade law that threatens other countries with unilateral U.S. sanctions. To slow "outsourcing," he wants to impose new regulations on U.S. companies and restrict government contracts to companies that promise to do all the work in the United States. Equally disturbing has been Kerry's attacks on the patriotism of his fellow Americans. He's described executives who've tried to control costs by moving some operations overseas as "Benedict Arnold CEOs" -- as if trying to stay competitive in global markets is somehow un-American. He's promised to "appoint a U.S. Trade Representative who is an American patriot and who will put American jobs first" -- as if past and present USTRs have not been good, decent Americans committed to the same bi-partisan, post-war trade expansion that has brought so much peace and prosperity to the United States and its trading partners. His choice of Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina as a running mate only reinforces this retreat from free trade. In contrast to Kerry, Edwards voted in favor of steel quotas and against opening the U.S. market to apparel imports from Africa and against final passage of trade promotion authority. Edwards ran against NAFTA during his 1998 campaign and even voted against free trade agreements last summer with Chile and Singapore. (Kerry missed those votes.) The one bright spot on the Edwards record has been his support in the past for normal trade relations with China. What would all this mean for trade policy in a Kerry administration? Probably not as much as the campaign sound bites would indicate. The anti-trade noise generated in U.S. elections is always worse than any legislation the politicians finally enact. John Kerry's swipes at trade are popular with the Democratic Party's core constituencies of organized labor and environmental activists, but trade has simply not been a decisive issue in recent presidential or congressional campaigns. Nonetheless, trade policy would change under a Kerry presidency. If he wins what everyone expects will be a close race, his anti-trade constituencies will want to collect on their victory. The price may be fewer bilateral and regional trade agreements, and probably none with less developed countries where labor and environmental standards would be an issue. The first casualty would likely be the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which Kerry has vowed to either renegotiate or veto. Fortunately for the global trading system, economic and foreign-policy realities, as well as what is likely to be another Republican Congress, will probably block any sharp turns toward protectionism by a Democratic administration. |
|
26 Nov 10 - 10:56 PM (#3041213) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Yeah, Sawz... You are confused as to which government is the "mean 'ol government" and which one ain't... The laissez faire, "free market", Voodoo economics of Ronnie Reagan thought that free market was allowing other nations to mess you up but you didn't fight back or defend yourself... That is the "mean 'ol gov'mint" I'm talkin' about... It's the fantasy government that Tea Party Nation has dancing in its head that just needs to "get off out backs", "we want our country back", etc... I mean, the crybabies complain that the gov is too intrusive and shouldn't be doing this or that but reality is that had the go0vernment been the "mean 'ol gov'mint" that the crybaby Reganites were so against it might have pro-acted and protected our steel industry, much the wasy it protect agribusiness today... See, Sawz... That is the probem... It isn't government that is bad is "bad" government that is bad... The entire idea of a government is to protect it's people and provide a safe atmosphere for them to live and make a living... When government doesn't take defensive steps to protect it's resources (i.e., the steel industry) when another nation attempts what is in essence a hostile takeover, then that government deserves to take the blame later on down the road when folks need that resource back... So we had a mini-Pearl Harbor on Youngstown, Ohio and mill cities throughout the Mid Atlantic and Mid Western states While Ronnie Reagan, defender of (drum roll please) "free markets" sat on his thumbs thinkin' just how cool it was... Yeah, "bad mean ol' gov-mint" is when it refuses to step the plate, take on the lobbiests and act to "protect its people and provide a safe environment for them to live and make a living"... In other words: What the Tea Party thinks about "gov-mint" is flawed... "Gov-mint" is always going to the enemy in their eyes (even more so if a Dem is in the White House)... So if another country wants to pull another industry theft and the "mean 'om gov'mint" steps in and stops it then the Tea Partiers are just fine with it, right??? "Free market" means "free market", right??? Like I said, "Ya'll Tea Party folks got some serious limitation on understanding how the real world works... I'd suggest, ahhhhhh, maybe a couple college courses Economics... Hey, it ain't all the tough... Well, it shouldn't be tough but seems that about 40% of the American people are not quite up to learning it??? (There you go again with that elitists stuff, Boberdz...) So I have... B~ |
|
27 Nov 10 - 12:10 AM (#3041236) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw All I know about is one government that resides in Washington DC. Is there another one? The one I know about "refuses to step the plate, take on the lobbiests" Obama said the lobbyists weren't going to run Washington any more but they are more in control than ever. Is that a flawed economic model? Here is the government I know about: Bill Clinton: Today we turn to face the challenge of our own hemisphere, our own country, our own economic fortunes. In a few moments, I will sign three agreements that will complete our negotiations with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Free Trade Agreement. In the coming months I will submit this pack to Congress for approval. It will be a hard fight, and I expect to be there with all of you every step of the way. We will make our case as hard and as well as we can. And, though the fight will be difficult, I deeply believe we will win. And I'd like to tell you why. First of all, because NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement. The middle class that was created and enlarged by the wise policies of expanding trade at the end of World War II has been under severe stress. Most Americans are working harder for less. They are vulnerable to the fear tactics and the adverseness to change that is behind much of the oppostion to NAFTA. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994. Securing U.S. congressional approval for NAFTA would have been impossible without addressing public concerns about NAFTA's environmental impact. The Clinton administration negotiated a side agreement on the environment with Canada and Mexico, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. To alleviate concerns that NAFTA, the first regional trade agreement between a developing country and two developed countries, would have negative environmental impacts, the CEC was given a mandate to conduct ongoing ex post environmental assessment of NAFTA. Is NAFTA a flawed economic model? |
|
27 Nov 10 - 01:33 AM (#3041252) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: LadyJean I caught part of Glenn Beck's show today. He was holding up a replica of a Revolutionary War uniform he claimed his mother had made for his father during the bicentennial. Beck claimed she drafted the pattern herself, and made the coat by hand. (One could buy patterns for 18th century style clothing in the mid seventies. I know. I did. But never mind.) He held the coat up, the camera focussed on the sewn in label, "Made For Bill Beck by Varsity Clothing"! You could see the store name plainly. But he went on and on about the love his mother had put into the coat, sewing it by hand. I don't believe I have ever seen such an impressive liar! Yet he has thousands of admirers. It amazes me! |
|
27 Nov 10 - 03:40 AM (#3041282) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Lonesome EJ Well, whether the economic model that the Tea Party is based on is flawed or not is a matter for history to judge. It is certainly nothing new under the sun. The concept was popularized by the Austrian School of Economics ( a group of economists,not a physical structure.) I believe it is referred to as Milesian Theory, and it stands in opposition to Keynesian Theory, and those are the two principal economic schools of thought, at least in western applied economics. Now, I'm not saying that the guy driving around in his Ford F 150 with an Obama Sucks bumper sticker is a Milesian, but Rand Paul certainly is, and the Tea Party is essentially a derivative of his thinking. The base concept of Milesian thought is that capitalist markets are self-correcting, and should be left alone with no government interference. The concept states that flawed companies, no matter how large, should be allowed to fail, and that the resultant economic suffering is necessary if the market is to regain its health. High unemployment is a necessary evil in Milesian thought. Austrian economic theory was quite prevalent in the early years of the 20th century. What labeled it as a flawed economic model was the collapse into the Great Depression, and its aftermath. Essentially, it is argued, abuses and a lack of governmental regulation in the market led to economic collapse. Hoover was a believer in a Milesian approach to the crisis, and with enough prolonged suffering and enough unemployment, the market may have eventually followed the Austrian doctrine and self-corrected. Another possible alternative was insurrection, and many feared at the time that a communist or fascist movement could overthrow both the economic system and the government. What happened was the election of Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt adopted a Keynesian approach immediately, with massive governmental involvement in manipulation of the banks, the currency, in programs to immediately alleviate unemployment through works programs, in colossal federally funded infrastructure programs, and in nearly unbridled deficit spending. The result was an almost immediate onset of recovery. But, in all of those years since then, the discredited concepts of the Milesians are no longer associated with their actual impact in the real world, especially from an historical aspect in connection with the Great Depression. I believe there is a certain "serves 'em right" emotional component to Milesian thought that appeals to the less cerebral Tea Party minions, who are mainly pissed at the banks and anybody who wants to raise their taxes. But on the purest level, Tea Party economic thought is not really greedy nor should it be condemned on account of that. It should be condemned if you agree with me that it is rather heartless science based on a poor concept...that business does what's right because that is in it's best interest, and because it has never been shown to have been successfully applied to crisis. And in 2008 and 2009, we faced a tremendous crisis. |
|
27 Nov 10 - 03:45 AM (#3041284) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Lonesome EJ Sorry, when I said "Rand Paul certainly is(a believer in Austrian economics), and the Tea Party is essentially a derivative of his thinking", I meant Ron Paul. And the Austrian economists are Miseians, not Milesians. |
|
27 Nov 10 - 08:41 AM (#3041367) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Quite right, E-Jay... And is a good follow-up on the points I was making about "mean 'ol gov-mint" interventions... Reality is that, like it or not, we are part of a global economy where the other players are perfectly willing to follow a more Keynesian model... If we want another fleecing by countries taking aim at our various sectors of industry, like the steel industry heist, then we can do as Ronnie Reagan and both Pauls want and do nothin'... More recently we say our textile industry heisted and sat back and did nothin'... Maybe this is the kind of America that Sawz wants but, IMO, it is irresponsible... If ya'll want to to blam,e the high unemployment rates ya'll don't have to look too far to see how this has happened... We've had 30 years of "less mean ol' gov-mint" and look where it has gotten US??? 1st to 21st in math and science scores... 27th in life expectancy... This is what happens when you let the the fox not only gurad but live in the hen house... Like I said at the very beginning of this thread: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model"... B~ |
|
27 Nov 10 - 10:05 AM (#3041389) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert BTW, I find it very interesting how much effort the righties and the Re3pubs have made to revise the reality that TARP, a very Keynesian act on the "mean 'ol gov-mint's" part, was pushed by both so-called "free marketers" George4 Bush and his sidekick, Dick Cheney... Might of fact, the righties have also tried very hard to stick the "socialist" label on Obama for the "auto bailout" in spite of the fact that Bush and Cheney also pushed for for it to occur by allowing a portion of the TARP money to be used for the auto "bailout"... But I do have to hand it to the rightie/corporatists in that their control of the media has done a superb hatchet job on Obma for things that the rightie/corportists had their boys push thru before Obama was even president... Magnificent piece of mythology... But reality is that, though the rightie/corporatists won't ever admit it they understand that when the chips are down that Keynesian economics will always gert them out of the jams that the "free marketers" get US into... I guess that is the silver lining??? Of course, the Tea Party folks ain't smart enough to understand that... B~ |
|
27 Nov 10 - 12:44 PM (#3041482) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Lonesome EJ Of course, Bob, the real hardcore Miseians believe that the fundamental source of financial crisis is governmental manipulation, devaluation of the currency and the move away from the gold standard. In their view this, and not leveraged stock acquisition, bank malfeasance, and downright embezzling, was the cause of both the Depression and our current crisis. A book entitled The Road to Serfdom written in the early 1900s by Friedrich Hayek, and recently endorsed by Glen Beck, lays out the Misesian principles. It was recently made a mandatory part of the curriculum in Texas. |
|
27 Nov 10 - 02:50 PM (#3041572) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Great, E-Jay... Now we are going to have an entire group- of new flat-earthers coming out of Texas... (It's, Texas, Boberdz...) Silly me... BTW, I reckon that the Tea Partiers were too busy partying to recall that Bush and Cheney pushed for and got a $186B stimulus bill passed in last 2008??? Why do we not hear them talkin' about these things... BTW, E-Jay... Is Lyndon LaRouche still alive??? Last I heard he was in Sweden or Norway... I mean, other than Nancy Reagan being a drug smuggler. Milesian econo9mic theory was what he was all about... Loved that gold standard... Why not make it conk shells or sharks teeth rather than gold is what I want to know??? No, old Superman comic books!!! Yes, that would make a great international standard to value currency behind... (What you got against Archie comic books, Boberdz???) Hey, ya'll wnat to use Archie comic books then that's fine, too... Just settle on somethin' soon 'cause once that is settled then everyone will have good jobs, right??? B~ |
|
02 Dec 10 - 01:21 AM (#3044647) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Sawzaw "the kind of America that Sawz wants" We got the kind of America Bobert wants, he still ain't happy and never will be. Now he has to claim there are two governments in order to defend his latest conflicted untenable position. He can talk about "30 years of supply-side, trickle down economics" and then claim that right in the middle of that everything was find because of a mythological "Clinton surplus" You can show Bobert innumerable times that the tea party was a protest going all the way back to the Bush bailouts, which were throughly approved by president elect Obama and he chooses to ignore that fact. Rather, he accuses people who disagree with his distorted version of facts of being out of touch with reality, not in the real world. Well I am certainly not in Bobert world an AK47 can be strapped to a mans leg. Well I guess it could but it wold be hard to walk and the ammo clip would be hitting him in the balls. Or a world where a BB gun is the same as an AK47. I think I would rather be shot with the BB gun myself but he does not see any difference. Seems like a gun obsession there. Shit, I will take any kind of America there is even if Bobert hates it and runs it down 'cause it is a thousand times better than those other "industrialised nations" he keeps saying are better. That thundering stampede of people trying to get to this America must think it is great too. |
|
02 Dec 10 - 07:27 AM (#3044808) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert Usual Sawz-post... I other words... (yawn)... B~ |
|
02 Dec 10 - 09:13 AM (#3044873) Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model From: Bobert BTW, Saws... If you'd stick with the topic of the thread, rather than interjecting yer usual list of stupid stuff that has nothin' to do with the topic then maybe I'd take your post more serious... Then again, maybe not... B~ |
