Can It Happen Here?

Then I would say that they are in a better position than you to say that it is out of control. Besides, before I saw that video I knew that the fat cat syndrome in D.C. was bad. And we have discussed here that the lobbyist are a hugh problem in our gov. Furthermore, if the message is correct, who cares who put it out? What is their evil agenda or alterior motive? SO, if that was an attempt to rile us up, like Devil, you lose. And I find it incredible that a successful lawyer of your age has time to blather away in a coal forum to regular people.

Kevin

jpete wrote:"Arrogant intellectualism"? Is that what the left is calling research, education, and knowledge these days? Ron Paul is a medical doctor, an Air Force veteran and multi term Congressman. He's also a lifetime student of economics. I think he's a little more informed than a leach on the scrotal sack of society who's best argument is a schoolyard epithet. I half expect you to tell me my mother wears combat boots. Devil's not around anymore. You really need to pick up the slack. When you can make a logical argument as to how more defecit spending is the cure for defecit spending, then we'll listen to you. Until then, I'll stick with the guy fighting for solid currency, limited government, and more personal liberty.

Hey, Jeff, not so much fun when the rejection of thoughtful arguments is traveling in the other direction, huh?

Look, I've explained to you before that I don't have the time or patience for idealistic long-shots. Ron Paul ran for President, in fact, you're probably aware that his "R-LOVE-ution" raised a fair amount of cash and was strongly supported by the libertarian base.

But his radical ideas just didn't sell. And that's the way our gov't works: we have elections, people choose, and the winners get to govern for the terms they've won.

And, as you know, that just happened. Which is why I suggested, and still suggest, that, if you have some wisdom to contribute to the people now making economic and fiscal policy to explain to them that they're making a fundamental mistake which will lead us all to certain economic doom, you shouldn't waste it here, you should send it to the people who are making that policy and to those who represent you at all levels of gov't. Then, if they don't make the right decision, run for office or, at the least, vote for somebody else next time.

That's the way our system works. The people have the absolute right to make the wrong decision in the voting booth. In my view, they did from 1994-2006 in Congress, and in 2004 for President. (Of course, Dubya wasn't elected in 2000; his Dad's judges gave him the job.)

In the meantime, stop being a whiner about the pinhead comments being pointed back at your side.

KLook wrote:Then I would say that they are in a better position than you to say that it is out of control. Besides, before I saw that video I knew that the fat cat syndrome in D.C. was bad. And we have discussed here that the lobbyist are a hugh problem in our gov. Furthermore, if the message is correct, who cares who put it out? What is their evil agenda or alterior motive? SO, if that was an attempt to rile us up, like Devil, you lose. And I find it incredible that a successful lawyer of your age has time to blather away in a coal forum to regular people.

Kevin

Educating you is a form of public service I do.

And thanks for the link. I checked them out and the group they oppose and I am with them. We don't need Eurotrash telling us how to run our country. New world order comes to mind.

Kevin

If they graded teachers(unions wont let them) you would be fired.

Kevin

KLook wrote:If they graded teachers(unions wont let them) you would be fired.

Kevin

Funny thing is that the reason teachers have tenure is so they don't lose their jobs for giving a failing grade to the Mayor, or his kids, or his sycophants.

So actually it would be the other way around; you guys are failing in "Understanding Electoral Politics 101."

And you want to fire the messenger.

Wow, you really are a tilt-a-whirl. Teachers need protection? What a socialist idea. we are all very good comrade, screw results. I have 2 retired educators in my family and both think the teachers union is just a left wing political org. I remember a teacher that was coming to school drunk and it took several years to get rid of her because of the union. Protectionism is a double-edged sword.

Gotta go get my grade school education watching NOVA. See ya.

Kevin

stockingfull wrote:

jpete wrote:"Arrogant intellectualism"? Is that what the left is calling research, education, and knowledge these days? Ron Paul is a medical doctor, an Air Force veteran and multi term Congressman. He's also a lifetime student of economics. I think he's a little more informed than a leach on the scrotal sack of society who's best argument is a schoolyard epithet. I half expect you to tell me my mother wears combat boots. Devil's not around anymore. You really need to pick up the slack. When you can make a logical argument as to how more defecit spending is the cure for defecit spending, then we'll listen to you. Until then, I'll stick with the guy fighting for solid currency, limited government, and more personal liberty.

Hey, Jeff, not so much fun when the rejection of thoughtful arguments is traveling in the other direction, huh?

Look, I've explained to you before that I don't have the time or patience for idealistic long-shots. Ron Paul ran for President, in fact, you're probably aware that his "R-LOVE-ution" raised a fair amount of cash and was strongly supported by the libertarian base.

But his radical ideas just didn't sell. And that's the way our gov't works: we have elections, people choose, and the winners get to govern for the terms they've won.

And, as you know, that just happened. Which is why I suggested, and still suggest, that, if you have some wisdom to contribute to the people now making economic and fiscal policy to explain to them that they're making a fundamental mistake which will lead us all to certain economic doom, you shouldn't waste it here, you should send it to the people who are making that policy and to those who represent you at all levels of gov't. Then, if they don't make the right decision, run for office or, at the least, vote for somebody else next time.

That's the way our system works. The people have the absolute right to make the wrong decision in the voting booth. In my view, they did from 1994-2006 in Congress, and in 2004 for President. (Of course, Dubya wasn't elected in 2000; his Dad's judges gave him the job.)

In the meantime, stop being a whiner about the pinhead comments being pointed back at your side.

Give it a rest SF. I'm not whining, I'm trying to educate. You have a lot to say but like your buddy Devil, not a lot of answers.

What good does it do me to say anything to the criminals in D.C.? Even though I do, just for the record. What I need to do is to reach as many people as possible and educate them so that they can go into the booth and vote the "right" way. Of course you knew that, you're just an arrogant bastard.

So I'll do to you what I did to Devil. I'll keep asking you the same question over and over, and you'll keep avoiding it over and over, and everyone will decide for themselves who's right and who's wrong.

Now, explain to me how out of control spending is the cure for out of control spending.

Answer: Reaganomics.

KLook wrote:Wow, you really are a tilt-a-whirl. Teachers need protection? What a socialist idea. we are all very good comrade, screw results. I have 2 retired educators in my family and both think the teachers union is just a left wing political org. I remember a teacher that was coming to school drunk and it took several years to get rid of her because of the union. Protectionism is a double-edged sword.

Gotta go get my grade school education watching NOVA. See ya.

Kevin

Tilt-a-whirl, my posterior. Talk about projection; what you guys can't stand is the same kind of critique of your "feces theses" that you like to level at me.

There still are damned good reasons for tenure, although keeping it from turning into a negative filter for incentive is a challenge. But, once again, the Luddites would throw away the baby with the bath water. (Note that the teachers you cite are retired. Does that tell you something, or do I need to draw pictures?)

If you work on some extra credit in economics and the political process, you might squeak out a "D."

Give it a rest SF. I'm not whining, I'm trying to educate. You have a lot to say but like your buddy Devil, not a lot of answers.



So I'll do to you what I did to Devil. I'll keep asking you the same question over and over, and you'll keep avoiding it over and over,

Jpete, Although the devil and i had our disputes and disagreements, i have something called respect and choose not to slander the banned.

stockingfull wrote:Look, I've explained to you before that I don't have the time or patience for idealistic long-shots. Ron Paul ran for President, in fact, you're probably aware that his "R-LOVE-ution" raised a fair amount of cash and was strongly supported by the libertarian base.

But his radical ideas just didn't sell. And that's the way our gov't works: we have elections, people choose, and the winners get to govern for the terms they've won.

Ron Paul was portrayed by the main stream media as a lunatic and never given fair coverage. The powers that be on both sides of the isle wanted him silenced and marginalized because they knew his message was true and would be unpopular. He was the only one talking about the impending economic crises, what it's causes and cures were. His ideas weren't radical, they were reality faced head on.

stockingfull wrote:Answer: Reaganomics.

Aren't you one of the people running around trying to discredit Reaganomics? Besides, while I agree with cutting taxes(tax rates) it means nothing without an equal cut in spending. And Reagan certainly didn't do that. He expanded the debt and put us in a deeper hole. That answer=FAIL.

brckwlt wrote:

Give it a rest SF. I'm not whining, I'm trying to educate. You have a lot to say but like your buddy Devil, not a lot of answers.



So I'll do to you what I did to Devil. I'll keep asking you the same question over and over, and you'll keep avoiding it over and over,

Jpete, Although the devil and i had our disputes and disagreements, i have something called respect and choose not to slander the banned.

First, slander implies I said something inaccurate. I'm pretty sure everything there is correct. Second, Devil never did anything to earn my respect. In fact, he went out of his way to provoke pretty much everyone. He'll get my respect when he earns it.

jpete wrote:

stockingfull wrote:Answer: Reaganomics.

Aren't you one of the people running around trying to discredit Reaganomics? Besides, while I agree with cutting taxes(tax rates) it means nothing without an equal cut in spending. And Reagan certainly didn't do that. He expanded the debt and put us in a deeper hole. That answer=FAIL.

So you agree that Reaganomics was bunk? That's a start.

The thesis behind the stimulus is that the economy is an engine that, when operating at a high level, creates wealth, employs people and generates tax revenue. If it is allowed to "cool off," all those things will be lost and we'll have a worldwide Depression. So the stimulus is exactly the same as stoking your fire when it's going out. We're spending tax money to keep the fire going until the weak housing/banking sectors start coming back.

Reaganomics was a similar deficit approach, only from the other direction. It was based on the assumption that first cutting taxes would bring more investment by leaving more capital in the hands of the "investor class," which they'd then invest, with the result that new businesses would be started or existing ones enlarged and the benefits of that expansion would "trickle down" to the working class in the form of employment and wages. And the gov't would be richer in the end due to the higher tax revenues generated by a bigger economy, even at lower rates.

What Reagan actually grew, of course, was the deficit.

Now tell me, how does Ron Paul's "tiny gov't" approach stave off a World Depression?