In article ,
Oren wrote:

O
Bill Clinton fired federal prosecutors... not sure how many federal
employees from the lower ranks of the GS scale wage earner....

The Fed prosecutors (if you are talking about the US Attorneys) are
often fired since they are not civil service and serve at the pleasure
of (any) president.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"HeyBub" wrote in message
Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

Have you ever even HEARD of a government employee getting fired?

Plenty of times. As RicodJour said "Your selective memory switch
needs to be toggled." Again.

You do remember your hero, Ronald Reagan, firing the 11,345 striking
air traffic controllers?

Giggle right back at you. A wasted mind is a terrible thing.

I stand corrected on the air traffic controllers. Thanks for reminding me.

Now that I think on it, Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox,
Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William
Ruckelshaus.

I wonder whether being a Republican president has anything to do with it?

Dunno. But I will agree that it's probably much tougher to fire a fed
employee than a private sector one. When my Dad was an SES in the Navy,
they had an employee called "Absolute Zero" who not only did not do any
credible work, he was also squatting in an abandoned Nike site he somehow
had gained access to (this was in the 60's, IIRC). Dad could neither fire
him nor get him evicted from the site without tons of trouble and red tape.
It happened, eventually, but at a tremendous cost in man hours spent with
hearings, etc.

Dad said that in the 80's, when he retired, the situation had improved
markedly so that someone like "Absolute Zero" would be out of a job and his
missile silo a hell of a lot more quickly.

Nowadays, instead of firing bad employees, they try transferring them to
some hell-hole assignment hoping that they will get the message and resign
on their own.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


Even so, the idea that the money is "taken by force" is still pretty
ludicrous. AFAIK, it's all done quite legally through the tax laws and not
"by force." Don't like those laws, run for office and change them.

Of course it is taken by force. Pretty much all taxes are, or at least
the threat of it. Look at what happens to the bank accounts, etc., of
all the anti-tax whack jobs. Try to NOT pay taxes. IRS agent are armed
in many instances. At the least they can come in and clear out your bank
accounts.,

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

wrote in message

stuff snipped

RG facts are much harder to ferret out.

It's not silence you here, it's the empty sound of your own skull.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, Chet. You've once again proven Green's Law. "When you seek to
insult
someone else's intelligence, you will most likely reveal your own
ignorance." And you did it in a single sentence. Bravo. It's almost as
elegant as writing "Your stupid."

It's "You're stupid", stupid. ;-)

Geez. Reread what I wrote. I can't believe that went over your head.
Whoosh!

Thanks for making my day and confirming Green's law.

...and Skitt's.

Any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error
itself

Well, yes, but only as far as you're concerned. You should be embarrassed
by not realizing I was comparing Chet's insult with the sine qua non of
self-reflecting insults: "Your stupid." It's elegant because it expresses
the sentiment of Green's Law (that insults will often contain embarrasing
mistakes) in the fewest words possible. I was sure a blind man could see it
with a cane. I guess I'll have to w-r-i-t-e m-o-r-e s-l-o-w-l-y
next time.

And I thought you were the smart one of the bunch. I'm sorry, but HeyBub
gets his crown back as Conservative Speaker of House (Repair Group). No,
wait. That humor's too complicated. Someone will come back and say "It's
Alt.Home.Repair." Sheesh.

Welcome to the floor, Mr. Speaker HeyBub. Better grab your gavel before KRW
pawns it for beer money. (-:

--
Bobby G.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

Even so, the idea that the money is "taken by force" is still pretty
ludicrous. AFAIK, it's all done quite legally through the tax laws and
not
"by force." Don't like those laws, run for office and change them.

Of course it is taken by force. Pretty much all taxes are, or at least
the threat of it.

Which is it? By force or by threat of force? Two very different animals.

Look at what happens to the bank accounts, etc., of
all the anti-tax whack jobs. Try to NOT pay taxes. IRS agent are armed
in many instances. At the least they can come in and clear out your bank
accounts.

You must mean "freeze them" until you get your day in Tax Court.

Sorry, but the word "force" has serious legal meaning, particularly when
it's coupled with the phrase "taken by." I doubt anyone here has been
accosted by an armed IRS agent and forced to cough up money which is then
given to illegal aliens. Sounds ludicrous when it's put in that context,
doesn't it? That's because it IS ludicrous. You, or your parents, or your
grandparents voted for and approved the means by which taxes are collected
in the US. Using such inflammatory and inaccurate statements are part of
the great and growing inability to have meaningful discussions about
anything in this country.

It's one thing to say "As a taxpayer, I am concerned about the fraud and
abuse in the system and want to see it changed." It's quite another to
accuse the government of armed banditry in the style of Robin Hood. Yes,
abuses occur, but they occur all over the system, from Exxon down to Juan
Valdez. Inflammatory sloganeering hardly ever solves any serious problems.

If, as some insist, the solution to fraud and abuse is dismantling
government, then business must also be dismantled because it's chock full of
fraud and abuse, too. Neither solution makes sense, but people sure seem to
clamor for the first one without, apparently, understanding that the Federal
government protects the rich and poor alike.

People who don't like income taxes should also not like wars, because they
are the reason that income taxes came about in the first place. Oddly, they
don't seem to. They want the magic war fairy to pay for wars. More
precisely they want the Feds to pay for only what functions they believe to
be funded, everyone else be damned.

But to allege that the money's taken by force is nonsensical. There are
plenty of other countries where that statement is true, but not in America.
That's one reason we're at the top of the heap of countries that people
around the world want to invest in. We're stable and we operate under a
system of laws that protects people rather than abuses them. Want to have
your money taken by force and redistributed? Try Russia. Their history of
nationalizing private property is indeed tantamount to taking money by
force. Their history of assassination of businessmen and newsmen that they
don't like is an equally chilling display of "taking by force" - in this
case, taking everything people might have or ever will have - their very
lives.

--
Bobby G.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 07:08:22 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

Even so, the idea that the money is "taken by force" is still pretty
ludicrous. AFAIK, it's all done quite legally through the tax laws and
not
"by force." Don't like those laws, run for office and change them.

Of course it is taken by force. Pretty much all taxes are, or at least
the threat of it.

Which is it? By force or by threat of force? Two very different animals.

Look at what happens to the bank accounts, etc., of
all the anti-tax whack jobs. Try to NOT pay taxes. IRS agent are armed
in many instances. At the least they can come in and clear out your bank
accounts.

You must mean "freeze them" until you get your day in Tax Court.

Sorry, but the word "force" has serious legal meaning, particularly when
it's coupled with the phrase "taken by." I doubt anyone here has been
accosted by an armed IRS agent and forced to cough up money which is then
given to illegal aliens. Sounds ludicrous when it's put in that context,
doesn't it? That's because it IS ludicrous. You, or your parents, or your
grandparents voted for and approved the means by which taxes are collected
in the US. Using such inflammatory and inaccurate statements are part of
the great and growing inability to have meaningful discussions about
anything in this country.

It's one thing to say "As a taxpayer, I am concerned about the fraud and
abuse in the system and want to see it changed." It's quite another to
accuse the government of armed banditry in the style of Robin Hood. Yes,
abuses occur, but they occur all over the system, from Exxon down to Juan
Valdez. Inflammatory sloganeering hardly ever solves any serious problems.

If, as some insist, the solution to fraud and abuse is dismantling
government, then business must also be dismantled because it's chock full of
fraud and abuse, too. Neither solution makes sense, but people sure seem to
clamor for the first one without, apparently, understanding that the Federal
government protects the rich and poor alike.

People who don't like income taxes should also not like wars, because they
are the reason that income taxes came about in the first place. Oddly, they
don't seem to. They want the magic war fairy to pay for wars. More
precisely they want the Feds to pay for only what functions they believe to
be funded, everyone else be damned.

But to allege that the money's taken by force is nonsensical. There are
plenty of other countries where that statement is true, but not in America.
That's one reason we're at the top of the heap of countries that people
around the world want to invest in. We're stable and we operate under a
system of laws that protects people rather than abuses them. Want to have
your money taken by force and redistributed? Try Russia. Their history of
nationalizing private property is indeed tantamount to taking money by
force. Their history of assassination of businessmen and newsmen that they
don't like is an equally chilling display of "taking by force" - in this
case, taking everything people might have or ever will have - their very
lives.

Well thought and expressed.
But it won't fit on a bumper sticker.

--Vic

"Han" wrote in message

BS. If you want another Depression with 20+ % unemployment, do go and
cut everything but the pentagon and Congress's expenses.

I have come to the conclusion that's exactly what some people want. They're
like the nurses who nearly kill patients by stopping their hearts with
medication so they can get credit for reviving them. They never see
themselves as guilty of attempted murder. Yet they are.

When I see the naked contempt people have for the government and for Obama,
I assume they really have the same naked contempt for the entire country.
How could they not? They don't seem able to respect the fact that they were
outvoted and the majority has spoken. If they can't respect the outcome of
an election how can they really respect the institution of democracy? They
can't. They want everything to happen their way and consider any other
viewpoint, even the majority's, as wrong and needing correction or
obstruction. And they're not shy in saying so. )-:

How the near-collapse of the economy by investment bankers taking wild risks
on incredibly mis-rated securities with other people's money turned into an
assault on teachers, unions and governments is beyond me. Those people and
institutions were for the most part the victims of pension fund raiders, not
the perpetrators.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the people who transferred all of that
wealth to themselves are trying to finger *anyone* else for the economy's
collapse. I'll bet they take really extravagant vacations with that money
the carved out of our savings and investments that makes Obama's Spanish
vacation look like a busman's holiday. FWIW, this article:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug...spain-20100807

gives the *real* story, not some made up partisan drivel meant to sling mud
and little more.

Witch-hunting and demonizing are sadly how societies tend to react: Bad
economy in 1930's Germany, blame the Jews. In Italy? Blame the Gypsies!
In America, blame the illegal aliens, the poor, the Indians - whoever's
close by.

I hoped America would be somehow different and better, able to resist the
base impulses of society. The saddest part? No one seems to remember that
when the poor become so poor that they have nothing left to lose, civil
disorder soon follows and everybody loses.

I remember driving down 14th in DC after the riots, looking at the
shopkeepers standing in the middle of their burned out shops. Just like we
learned nothing, apparently, from the Vietnam war, we appear to have learned
nothing from the outbreaks of rioting we've seen in economic hard times.
General MacArthur made his "bones" burning out the campsites of impoverished
WWI Army vets that wanted the bonuses promised them earlier than 1945 (which
they eventually got, even over FDR's veto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

We're doing much the same thing, but in a hideously different way with the
AfRaq veterans as the debacle of incredibly substandard treatment at Walter
Reed proved. It's likely that as the wars are forgotten, so will the
veterans that fought them. We're condemned to repeat the mistakes of the
past, it seems . . .

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I stand corrected on the air traffic controllers. Thanks for reminding me.

Now that I think on it, Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox,
Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William
Ruckelshaus.

I wonder whether being a Republican president has anything to do with it?

Dunno. But I will agree that it's probably much tougher to fire a fed
employee than a private sector one.

These are bad examples because all are political appointments who
serve only at the pleasure of the president. He can chuck them overboard
at will.




--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

Even so, the idea that the money is "taken by force" is still pretty
ludicrous. AFAIK, it's all done quite legally through the tax laws and
not
"by force." Don't like those laws, run for office and change them.

Of course it is taken by force. Pretty much all taxes are, or at least
the threat of it.

Which is it? By force or by threat of force? Two very different animals.
Both as needed, and I would submit that they are two sides of the
same sword. Our shared experience around the edges of law enforcement
show that over and over again where some people stop doing things if you
threaten to toss them in jail, while others just can't get the concept
until they hit jail (if even then.)


Look at what happens to the bank accounts, etc., of
all the anti-tax whack jobs. Try to NOT pay taxes. IRS agent are armed
in many instances. At the least they can come in and clear out your bank
accounts.

You must mean "freeze them" until you get your day in Tax Court.
That isn't how it works, they put on the lien and then if you don't
pay and/or **** them off somehow, the move it to a levy and they can,
and will come for your money. The interim step is a protection, sure,
but in the end, you don't pay taxes due, they empty the bank accounts
and come after property. That is force by any definition.

Sorry, but the word "force" has serious legal meaning, particularly when
it's coupled with the phrase "taken by." I doubt anyone here has been
accosted by an armed IRS agent and forced to cough up money which is then
given to illegal aliens. Sounds ludicrous when it's put in that context,
doesn't it? That's because it IS ludicrous. You, or your parents, or your
grandparents voted for and approved the means by which taxes are collected
in the US. Using such inflammatory and inaccurate statements are part of
the great and growing inability to have meaningful discussions about
anything in this country.
The illegal aliens part is outside of my expertise and purview of my
answer (grin).


People who don't like income taxes should also not like wars, because they
are the reason that income taxes came about in the first place. Oddly, they
don't seem to. They want the magic war fairy to pay for wars. More
precisely they want the Feds to pay for only what functions they believe to
be funded, everyone else be damned.


Both sides which is a big part of the divide we see. The magic payment
fairy is a bipartisan delusion.
But to allege that the money's taken by force is nonsensical. There are
plenty of other countries where that statement is true, but not in America.

Sorry, but tax levies where someone comes in and takes my money
against my will is force. Period. You can have a system of laws and
still have force for enforcement.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


When I see the naked contempt people have for the government and for Obama,
I assume they really have the same naked contempt for the entire country.

How about the naked contempt for Bush or even Reagan? Do you assume the
same naked contempt for the entire country.

How could they not? They don't seem able to respect the fact that they were
outvoted and the majority has spoken. If they can't respect the outcome of
an election how can they really respect the institution of democracy? They
can't. They want everything to happen their way and consider any other
viewpoint, even the majority's, as wrong and needing correction or
obstruction. And they're not shy in saying so. )-:
See above.




--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

So, the dead people in Chicago elected a socialist. You
can't understand the concept of hating a socialist who (with
a lot of help from Democrats in congress) is destroying the
USA. But at the same time, these people in the tea parties
love the USA. Hard working tea party people, who love the
USA and hate the socialist in charge for what he, and they
(liberals) are doing.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"Han" wrote in message

BS. If you want another Depression with 20+ %
unemployment, do go and
cut everything but the pentagon and Congress's expenses.

I have come to the conclusion that's exactly what some
people want. They're
like the nurses who nearly kill patients by stopping their
hearts with
medication so they can get credit for reviving them. They
never see
themselves as guilty of attempted murder. Yet they are.

When I see the naked contempt people have for the government
and for Obama,
I assume they really have the same naked contempt for the
entire country.
How could they not? They don't seem able to respect the
fact that they were
outvoted and the majority has spoken. If they can't respect
the outcome of
an election how can they really respect the institution of
democracy? They
can't. They want everything to happen their way and
consider any other
viewpoint, even the majority's, as wrong and needing
correction or
obstruction. And they're not shy in saying so. )-:

How the near-collapse of the economy by investment bankers
taking wild risks
on incredibly mis-rated securities with other people's money
turned into an
assault on teachers, unions and governments is beyond me.
Those people and
institutions were for the most part the victims of pension
fund raiders, not
the perpetrators.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the people who
transferred all of that
wealth to themselves are trying to finger *anyone* else for
the economy's
collapse. I'll bet they take really extravagant vacations
with that money
the carved out of our savings and investments that makes
Obama's Spanish
vacation look like a busman's holiday. FWIW, this article:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug...spain-20100807

gives the *real* story, not some made up partisan drivel
meant to sling mud
and little more.

Witch-hunting and demonizing are sadly how societies tend to
react: Bad
economy in 1930's Germany, blame the Jews. In Italy? Blame
the Gypsies!
In America, blame the illegal aliens, the poor, the
Indians - whoever's
close by.

I hoped America would be somehow different and better, able
to resist the
base impulses of society. The saddest part? No one seems
to remember that
when the poor become so poor that they have nothing left to
lose, civil
disorder soon follows and everybody loses.

I remember driving down 14th in DC after the riots, looking
at the
shopkeepers standing in the middle of their burned out
shops. Just like we
learned nothing, apparently, from the Vietnam war, we appear
to have learned
nothing from the outbreaks of rioting we've seen in economic
hard times.
General MacArthur made his "bones" burning out the campsites
of impoverished
WWI Army vets that wanted the bonuses promised them earlier
than 1945 (which
they eventually got, even over FDR's veto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

We're doing much the same thing, but in a hideously
different way with the
AfRaq veterans as the debacle of incredibly substandard
treatment at Walter
Reed proved. It's likely that as the wars are forgotten, so
will the
veterans that fought them. We're condemned to repeat the
mistakes of the
past, it seems . . .

--
Bobby G.

Thanks, Kurt. Your reply was better. Everyone who called GWB
a chimp must hate the USA.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


When I see the naked contempt people have for the
government and for Obama,
I assume they really have the same naked contempt for the
entire country.

How about the naked contempt for Bush or even Reagan? Do you
assume the
same naked contempt for the entire country.

How could they not? They don't seem able to respect the
fact that they were
outvoted and the majority has spoken. If they can't
respect the outcome of
an election how can they really respect the institution of
democracy? They
can't. They want everything to happen their way and
consider any other
viewpoint, even the majority's, as wrong and needing
correction or
obstruction. And they're not shy in saying so. )-:
See above.




--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:40:44 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I stand corrected on the air traffic controllers. Thanks for reminding me.

Now that I think on it, Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox,
Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William
Ruckelshaus.

I wonder whether being a Republican president has anything to do with it?

Dunno. But I will agree that it's probably much tougher to fire a fed
employee than a private sector one.

These are bad examples because all are political appointments who
serve only at the pleasure of the president. He can chuck them overboard
at will.

That's the theory. You do remember Bush and the Attorneys General? If not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismiss...ys_controversy

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:54:32 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:



Sorry, but tax levies where someone comes in and takes my money
against my will is force. Period. You can have a system of laws and
still have force for enforcement.

ANY creditor can repossess your vehicle, lien your home, garnish your
wages, and levy your bank account to zero.
That's what happens to deadbeats who don't pay their bills.

--Vic

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:40:44 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I stand corrected on the air traffic controllers. Thanks for reminding
me.

Now that I think on it, Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox,
Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William
Ruckelshaus.

I wonder whether being a Republican president has anything to do with
it?

Dunno. But I will agree that it's probably much tougher to fire a fed
employee than a private sector one.

These are bad examples because all are political appointments who
serve only at the pleasure of the president. He can chuck them overboard
at will.

That's the theory. You do remember Bush and the Attorneys General? If not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismiss...ys_controversy

That's the law. The rest of this is just political posturing

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Aug 27, 10:29*am, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:54:32 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:



* Sorry, but tax levies where someone comes in and takes my money
against my will is force. Period. You can have a system of laws and
still have force for enforcement.

ANY creditor can repossess your vehicle, lien your home, garnish your
wages, and levy your bank account to zero.
That's what happens to deadbeats who don't pay their bills.

--Vic

LOL. That's a hoot! The IRS regularly sends people to jail
for not paying their income tax. Everyone from Al Capone
to Wesley Snipes. If you're a contractor and you do work
for me and I don't pay you, the most you can do is sue me
to collect. Refuse to pay the IRS and they send you to
jail. No other creditor has that power. Now
that's what I call FORCE.

On Aug 27, 7:44*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
BS. *If you want another Depression with 20+ % unemployment, do go and
cut everything but the pentagon and Congress's expenses.

I have come to the conclusion that's exactly what some people want. *They're
like the nurses who nearly kill patients by stopping their hearts with
medication so they can get credit for reviving them. *They never see
themselves as guilty of attempted murder. *Yet they are.

When I see the naked contempt people have for the government and for Obama,
I assume they really have the same naked contempt for the entire country.
How could they not? *They don't seem able to respect the fact that they were
outvoted and the majority has spoken. *If they can't respect the outcome of
an election how can they really respect the institution of democracy? *They
can't. *They want everything to happen their way and consider any other
viewpoint, even the majority's, as wrong and needing correction or
obstruction. *And they're not shy in saying so. )-:

Were you asleep during the Bush years? You who
claim to be a Republican? The lib loons villified him
every day and never accepted that he won the election.




How the near-collapse of the economy by investment bankers taking wild risks
on incredibly mis-rated securities with other people's money turned into an
assault on teachers, unions and governments is beyond me. *Those people and
institutions were for the most part the victims of pension fund raiders, not
the perpetrators.

Much is beyond you. Let me help you out. First,
as I've pointed out to you many times, this recession
was not caused solely by wall street. It was collective
greed from not only wall street, but people who
bought homes they could not afford, often with little
or no down payment. Govt encouraged and even
forced these loans to be made. People bought
these houses in many cases on the false notion
that real estate can only go up. No different
than other boom/bust cycles in free economies.

What you call an assault on teachers and unions
is citizens realizing that a lot of their ever higher tax
burden is going to unions and teachers that have
employment benefits that are far better than their
own. As an example, our local police chief
retired here and the next week started a job
as the head of the police training academy.
That type of deal is common. You can retire
with a very generous pension and then
immediately take another govt job.

So, citizens decided it was time to bring
things more in line. Little things, like asking
those unions to pay a small part of their
healthcare coverage costs. Things that
are common in the private sector.





I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the people who transferred all of that
wealth to themselves are trying to finger *anyone* else for the economy's
collapse. *I'll bet they take really extravagant vacations with that money
the carved out of our savings and investments that makes Obama's Spanish
vacation look like a busman's holiday. *FWIW, this article:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug...chelle-spain-2...

gives the *real* story, not some made up partisan drivel meant to sling mud
and little more.

Witch-hunting and demonizing are sadly how societies tend to react: *Bad
economy in 1930's Germany, blame the Jews. *In Italy? *Blame the Gypsies!
In America, blame the illegal aliens, the poor, the Indians - whoever's
close by.

You mean like how you always blame Wall Street?

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 07:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 27, 10:29Â*am, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:54:32 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:



Â* Sorry, but tax levies where someone comes in and takes my money
against my will is force. Period. You can have a system of laws and
still have force for enforcement.

ANY creditor can repossess your vehicle, lien your home, garnish your
wages, and levy your bank account to zero.
That's what happens to deadbeats who don't pay their bills.

--Vic

LOL. That's a hoot! The IRS regularly sends people to jail
for not paying their income tax. Everyone from Al Capone
to Wesley Snipes. If you're a contractor and you do work
for me and I don't pay you, the most you can do is sue me
to collect. Refuse to pay the IRS and they send you to
jail. No other creditor has that power. Now
that's what I call FORCE.

Go ahead and organize a picket line calling for the release of Capone
and Snipes.
The IRS only puts natural born criminals and incredibly stupid people
who want to be criminals in jail.
Deadbeats all.
And a cop can jack you up against a car drive a knee in your nuts
if that's what you want.
Not true about non-gov creditors having your ass in jail either.
http://www.startribune.com/investigators/95692619.html

Stupid is as stupid does.
Look up "mechanics lien" before you deadbeat a contractor.

--Vic

On Aug 27, 11:16*am, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 07:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:29*am, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:54:32 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

* Sorry, but tax levies where someone comes in and takes my money
against my will is force. Period. You can have a system of laws and
still have force for enforcement.

ANY creditor can repossess your vehicle, lien your home, garnish your
wages, and levy your bank account to zero.
That's what happens to deadbeats who don't pay their bills.

--Vic

LOL. *That's a hoot! * The IRS regularly sends people to jail
for not paying their income tax. *Everyone from Al Capone
to Wesley Snipes. *If you're a contractor and you do work
for me and I don't pay you, the most you can do is sue me
to collect. *Refuse to pay the IRS and they send you to
jail. * No other creditor has that power. * Now
that's what I call FORCE.

Go ahead and organize a picket line calling for the release of Capone
and Snipes.


Boy you sure like to twist things into a whole new
area. I never suggested any tax evader should be
released. I only pointed out that people regularly
are sentenced to jail for refusing to pay the IRS.


The IRS only puts natural born criminals and incredibly stupid people
who want to be criminals in jail.
Deadbeats all.

I believe the discussion was whether the govt
uses force to extract tax payements. Sounds
like force to me.



And a cop can jack you up against a car drive a knee in your nuts
if that's what you want.
Not true about non-gov creditors having your ass in jail either.http://www.startribune.com/investigators/95692619.html

Go read that again and see if you can understand
the difference. The article talks about people being
arrested and dragged into court for debts they owe.
Whereupon, they are required to fill out forms,
disclosing assets, etc. Show me one guy
there that was actually sentenced to say 3 months
or a year in prison for not paying a debt to a creditor.




Stupid is as stupid does.
Look up "mechanics lien" before you deadbeat a contractor.

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again. You think you're the only
one here who's heard of a mechanics lien?
Again, show me someone who's be sentenced
to actual jail time, even 3 months via a
mechanics lien. I can show you people
serving time via the IRS.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 10:30:09 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:40:44 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I stand corrected on the air traffic controllers. Thanks for reminding
me.

Now that I think on it, Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox,
Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William
Ruckelshaus.

I wonder whether being a Republican president has anything to do with
it?

Dunno. But I will agree that it's probably much tougher to fire a fed
employee than a private sector one.

These are bad examples because all are political appointments who
serve only at the pleasure of the president. He can chuck them overboard
at will.

That's the theory. You do remember Bush and the Attorneys General? If not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismiss...ys_controversy

That's the law. The rest of this is just political posturing

The interesting thing about theories is that in theory, reality and theory are
the same. In reality, they're not (see: global warming).

In theory, the law means something.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 09:29:39 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:54:32 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:



Sorry, but tax levies where someone comes in and takes my money
against my will is force. Period. You can have a system of laws and
still have force for enforcement.

ANY creditor can repossess your vehicle, lien your home, garnish your
wages, and levy your bank account to zero.
That's what happens to deadbeats who don't pay their bills.

*THE* (NOT "any") creditor can repossess your vehicle because you contracting
him that right. The IRS can seize your assets without trial.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:50:16 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 27, 11:16Â*am, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 07:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "



Boy you sure like to twist things into a whole new
area. I never suggested any tax evader should be
released. I only pointed out that people regularly
are sentenced to jail for refusing to pay the IRS.


The IRS only puts natural born criminals and incredibly stupid people
who want to be criminals in jail.
Deadbeats all.

I believe the discussion was whether the govt
uses force to extract tax payements. Sounds
like force to me.


Maybe to you. I see it as law and lawbreakers.
Force is ALWAYS used against anti-social wackos.
IRS doesn't stand out at all to those who follow the law.
If I get pulled over for doing 5 over the speed limit and refuse to
cooperate with law enforcement, where do you think I end up?
Only criminals (fraud) and wackos who won't cooperate in any fashion
end up in jail because of IRS violations.
IRS is always making settlements for unpaid taxes, arranging payment
plans, and doesn't want people in jail where they can't pay.
They are pussycats.
Traffic courts are lions in comparison.
This "force" bull**** only happens to anti-socials who want to break
the law, same as somebody going 5 over, then refusing the results.
Criminal conduct.



And a cop can jack you up against a car drive a knee in your nuts
if that's what you want.
Not true about non-gov creditors having your ass in jail either.http://www.startribune.com/investigators/95692619.html

Go read that again and see if you can understand
the difference. The article talks about people being
arrested and dragged into court for debts they owe.
Whereupon, they are required to fill out forms,
disclosing assets, etc. Show me one guy
there that was actually sentenced to say 3 months
or a year in prison for not paying a debt to a creditor.


I'm going to make you stay honest and put this back in.

Refuse to pay the IRS and they send you to
jail. No other creditor has that power. Now
that's what I call FORCE..

YOU said that "No other creditor has that power."
To send you to jail..
Not true. I don't care how long they spend in jail.
Their asses got thrown in jail.
It's a damn shame I have to paste back what was said to keep you
straight..
You show me one person the big bad IRS has in prison that isn't a
stone lowlife or out-and-out wacko.
My sister is an IRS auditor, and it take years to put together a
criminal prosecution. They only go after real assholes.
Most lowlifes never see jail.
She mentioned one rich sleazy medical practice operator who was
pocketing the SS and Medicare payments of his low wage workers
for years.
Never did a day of jail time



Stupid is as stupid does.
Look up "mechanics lien" before you deadbeat a contractor.

--Vic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There you go again. You think you're the only
one here who's heard of a mechanics lien?
Again, show me someone who's be sentenced
to actual jail time, even 3 months via a
mechanics lien.

Why? I never said a mechanics lien could lead to jail.
You said this:

"If you're a contractor and you do work for me and I don't pay you,
the most you can do is sue me to collect."

Wrong. I can tie up your house with a lien.
Since you didn't mention that, I just thought I'd let you know.
Shouldn't get upset about that.


I can show you people
serving time via the IRS.

Bring 'em on. I sometimes enjoy reading about scum getting their
comeuppance.
Looking forward to it.

--Vic

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 11:23:46 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 09:29:39 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:54:32 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:



Sorry, but tax levies where someone comes in and takes my money
against my will is force. Period. You can have a system of laws and
still have force for enforcement.

ANY creditor can repossess your vehicle, lien your home, garnish your
wages, and levy your bank account to zero.
That's what happens to deadbeats who don't pay their bills.

*THE* (NOT "any") creditor can repossess your vehicle because you contracting
him that right. The IRS can seize your assets without trial.

All I said about non-gov creditors can happen with a court hearing
before a judge. Call it a "trial" if you want, but you don't have to
show up.
Deadbeats hardly ever qualify for a "trial."
Only a fool or admitted guilty would let the IRS seize their assets
without trial.
You can petition anything the IRS wants to do to you in Tax Court or
U.S. District Court, and get a jury trial.
All before the IRS can get at your assets.
Then you can appeal to the Supreme Court.
I don't where you come up with "without trial".
This bull**** about the power of "force" the IRS has is just bull****.
Traffic cops have more power over lawbreakers than the IRS.

--Vic

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:40:44 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I stand corrected on the air traffic controllers. Thanks for
reminding me.

Now that I think on it, Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald
Cox, Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney
General William Ruckelshaus.

I wonder whether being a Republican president has anything to do
with it?

Dunno. But I will agree that it's probably much tougher to fire a
fed employee than a private sector one.

These are bad examples because all are political appointments who
serve only at the pleasure of the president. He can chuck them
overboard at will.

That's the theory. You do remember Bush and the Attorneys General?
If not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismiss...ys_controversy

Yep. Bush fired most of the Deputy Attorneys General. This is not to be
confused with Clinton who fired ALL of the Deputy Attorneys General.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

That's the law. The rest of this is just political posturing

The interesting thing about theories is that in theory, reality and
theory are the same. In reality, they're not (see: global warming).

In theory, the law means something.

Then there's the entire discipline of "Theory of Law."

wrote:

The rest of the Mad Dog leadership is equally dedicated to march in
step, beating back any feeble attempts to make them obey their oath
of office. Instead, they work exclusively and shamelessly for their
funders and masters, the oil, Wall Street, off-shore banking, and
arms manufacturers.

As if the Dems don't have similar goals. You gonna tell
us that you never heard a Democrat leader talk about
making Bush a one term president?


My goodness! Look at Wisconsin where the Democrats decamped for a period to
prevent the passage of bills they didn't like. Then they poured (literally)
millions into a nonpartisan election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Not
yet discouraged, they caused six recall elections for Republican legislators
they didn't like (to be fair, the Republicans did the same for three
Democrats).

Vic Smith, Robert Green, Kurt Ullman wrote

stuff snipped

You must mean "freeze them" until you get your day in Tax Court.

Sorry, but the word "force" has serious legal meaning, particularly when
it's coupled with the phrase "taken by." I doubt anyone here has been
accosted by an armed IRS agent and forced to cough up money which is then
given to illegal aliens. Sounds ludicrous when it's put in that context,
doesn't it? That's because it IS ludicrous. You, or your parents, or
your
grandparents voted for and approved the means by which taxes are
collected
in the US. Using such inflammatory and inaccurate statements are part of
the great and growing inability to have meaningful discussions about
anything in this country.

It's one thing to say "As a taxpayer, I am concerned about the fraud and
abuse in the system and want to see it changed." It's quite another to
accuse the government of armed banditry in the style of Robin Hood. Yes,
abuses occur, but they occur all over the system, from Exxon down to Juan
Valdez. Inflammatory sloganeering hardly ever solves any serious
problems.

If, as some insist, the solution to fraud and abuse is dismantling
government, then business must also be dismantled because it's chock full
of
fraud and abuse, too. Neither solution makes sense, but people sure seem
to
clamor for the first one without, apparently, understanding that the
Federal
government protects the rich and poor alike.

People who don't like income taxes should also not like wars, because
they
are the reason that income taxes came about in the first place. Oddly,
they
don't seem to. They want the magic war fairy to pay for wars. More
precisely they want the Feds to pay for only what functions they believe
to
be funded, everyone else be damned.

But to allege that the money's taken by force is nonsensical. There are
plenty of other countries where that statement is true, but not in
America.
That's one reason we're at the top of the heap of countries that people
around the world want to invest in. We're stable and we operate under a
system of laws that protects people rather than abuses them. Want to
have
your money taken by force and redistributed? Try Russia. Their history
of
nationalizing private property is indeed tantamount to taking money by
force. Their history of assassination of businessmen and newsmen that
they
don't like is an equally chilling display of "taking by force" - in this
case, taking everything people might have or ever will have - their very
lives.

Well thought and expressed.
But it won't fit on a bumper sticker.

Thanks. No one ever accused me of being terse. (-: I cut my teeth working
at a county newspaper that paid the princely sum of 1/2 cent per word. Old
habits die hard.

I've also been robbed at knifepoint and have several friends robbed at
gunpoint. No matter how much fear the IRS strikes in me (and it's
considerable) I never once felt my life was on the line. That's a feeling
that only comes from being robbed by force and threat of serious harm.

--
Bobby G.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Sorry, but tax levies where someone comes in and takes my money
against my will is force. Period. You can have a system of laws and
still have force for enforcement.

ANY creditor can repossess your vehicle, lien your home, garnish your
wages, and levy your bank account to zero.
That's what happens to deadbeats who don't pay their bills.

And even WORSE things happen to people who skip on on their bail bills. The
courts have given bail bondsmen (aka Dog the Bounty Hunter) pretty
remarkable powers when it comes to bringing those sorts of deadbeats to
justice. Their powers (against bail jumpers, anyway) seem to me to exceed
the powers of any IRS agent tracking a tax dead beat. Or come very, very
close to being equal.

Besides, I assume by this time Ms. Ronnie Deutsch the tax lady's ads have
reached the entire USA. She'll "unforce" the IRS's seizure, or so she
claimed:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/13/362...ch-closes.html

Deutch's slide began in August, when then-Attorney General Jerry Brown
sued her for allegedly swindling her clients. Brown alleged that Deutch's
firm charged up to $4,700 per client, but did little work on their behalf.
Less than 10 percent of clients had their federal tax debts resolved, he
said. The lawsuit demanded that she return $34 million to customers and
cease advertising. Later that month, a court order was issued to prevent
Deutch from destroying evidence. Brown's successor, Attorney General Kamala
Harris, alleges that Deutch violated the court's orders "almost before they
came off the printer" by embarking on a massive shredding operation that
claimed as many as 2.7 million documents by the end of March

Maybe that's what poor Bob's worried about in the other thread! A shredding
party. I've seen a few - it's another thing, like forgery, that is terribly
common in bitter litigation. Divorce judges so routinely hear horrific
stories of molestation by one parent or the other that they give them very
little weight unless remarkably well-substantiated.

Well. The now infamous "Hi, I'm Ronnie DEUTCH" would be of no help anymore.
When I
heard those ads, I thought to myself "if she can get cases settled for
pennies on the dollar maybe the smart move is to let a huge debt accrue then
knock it down in negotiations." I am glad I only thought about it. It
seems to have been the scam I always thought it was.

But plenty of legit tax lawyers can "unforce" that seizure or if not,
serious slow the IRS down. Let's see someone try to legally reverse of a
bullet in the heart, the potential result of resisting a true "taking by
force."

--
Bobby G.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

Go ahead and organize a picket line calling for the release of Capone
and Snipes.

Those guys worked VERY hard to get thrown in jail. The IRS isn't stupid.
They know that the Feds don't make any money putting someone in jail, in
fact it costs them. Snipes isn't making movies, isn't earning income and
may not have any money left to pay them with. Actors are notorious for
being some of the worst money managers on earth. If he had hired Ronnie
Deutch, he might have been able to claim "ineffective counsel" on appeal.
Is there anything lower than scamming someone already deep in debt to the
IRS for another few thousand dollars. We may see Ronnie Lynn do some
Federal time. She's someone that qualifies, like Snipes, for the "make an
example out of them" treatment.

The IRS only puts natural born criminals and incredibly stupid people who
want to be
criminals in jail.

According to this site the risks of jail are small:

http://www.taxattorneydaily.com/topi...tax-crimes.php

It is a crime to cheat on your taxes. In a recent year, however, fewer
than 2,000 people were convicted of tax crimes -0.0022% of all taxpayers.
This number is astonishingly small, taking into account that the IRS
estimates that 15.5% of us are not complying with the tax laws in some way
or another. The number of convictions for tax crimes has increased less than
1% over the most recent five-year period.

They only want to punish the brazen assholes who openly flaunt their
evasion. There are plenty of those around. I am sure some here would love
to not pay the percent of their tax dollars that fund wars, welfare,
universal health insurance, etc. And every year the IRS gets the returns of
the (what did you call them, DG? - ah yes) whackadoos and moonbats that
decide to make their Stand on Zanzibar and no longer pay for what they find
distasteful. I think the 2,000 is low considering over 15% are out of
compliance that they KNOW about.

Deadbeats all. And a cop can jack you up against a car drive a knee in
your nuts
if that's what you want.

God, I love to watch Cops when they arrest a "street educated"
Constitutional lawyer. You KNOW that bad boy's going to jail. You can just
watch them work their way deeper and deeper into the shi+. Hooking them up
usually quiets them down a bit, but not all of them. One day, I would like
to see: "Cops, what you don't see on Fox." I've witnessed a lot of arrests
in my life and the ones they show on cops are ultra-polite, by the book,
every chance to go easy offered and reoffered.

Not true about non-gov creditors having your ass in jail either.
http://www.startribune.com/investigators/95692619.html

Fascinating. I wonder if this has more to do with the fact that a shocking
large percentage of judges out in the boonies are not lawyers, just elected
shlubs, and they know less about the law than some of our esteemed
colleagues. If you're getting jailed for CC debt, you probably can't afford
a lawyer to get you out. I am mailing the article to my
lawyer/sister/former DA/judge to get her comment on this, which is SURELY
unconstitutional as I understand it!

In January, a judge sentenced a Kenney, Ill., man "to indefinite
incarceration" until he came up with $300 toward a lumber yard debt.

That sounds like it rises to the level of judicial misconduct or at least
violation of the state's sentencing guidelines. Way back when I was a
reporter, we had a District Judge sentence a habitual DWI driver to death,
jokingly. The joke was on him because the guy fainted, bashed his head on
the corner of the desk on the way down, bled all over everywhere (those
headwounds bleed like crazy) and sustained a concussion. The judge earned a
judicial reprimand from the same judge who heard my appeal in the State
Police drag racing case and who is my sister's boss.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Two thousand convictions just about matches the rate of loons per general
population. I'm of the impression Snipes crossed over into loonytown. Too
many superhero roles, I guess. He reminded me at trial of that baby-f&cker
Jeffers, who was arguing about religious persecution and not presenting any
valid legal defense at trial. GUILTY! - Next case!

Look up "mechanics lien" before you deadbeat a contractor.

Don't stiff your car mechanic either or you could find a surprise when you
go to sell your car, and not a good one, either. The rule is you have to
pay THEM and then sue for it back if they did a lousy job. Stiffing them is
seen as "self help" by judges who take great offense at having their role
usurped.

--
Bobby G.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Only criminals (fraud) and wackos who won't cooperate in any fashion
end up in jail because of IRS violations.
IRS is always making settlements for unpaid taxes, arranging payment
plans, and doesn't want people in jail where they can't pay.
They are pussycats.
Traffic courts are lions in comparison.

So true. To get the IRS to use actual coercive physical force on you, you
basically have to beg them for it. Repeatedly. And with the kind of bad
attitude you might expect from badass (or is it "bad add") Wesley Snipes.

If you place the IRS rules on a street thug, he would first have to demand
money in a note about 20 times, then show up and ask you in person for the
money, then show you a gun and say "I could take it from you" and finally,
if you didn't meet his demands he would shove the gun in your face - but
probably STILL ask you to hand it over without any trouble.

To most people the only "force" they see are dunning letters sent by
computers. That's enough to get most of them to pay. Not because of force,
but because there are serious consequences for failing to comply. Besides,
most taxes are collected not by force, but by payroll deductions. What
would Robin Hood say?

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message

Yep. Bush fired most of the Deputy Attorneys General. This is not to be
confused with Clinton who fired ALL of the Deputy Attorneys General.

To my lib and not lib friends I say the same thing. The law SAYS they can.
Move on to something that's a *real* problem. It's patronage and LBJ had to
promise quite a bit of it on the Hill to the Republicans whose votes he
needed for the Civil Rights Act to pass. It's like the old saying - you
wouldn't eat sausage if you knew how it was made. Some of the phone calls
made by LBJ during that era are available at the National Archives and I've
heard a few on TV news programs. A Texan horse-trader through and through.
IIRC, Jack Valenti was his professional pork dealer, handing out
Chairmanships for various Fed agencies to Senators that LBJ needed to pass
his bill.

There's a description of it he

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar.../valenti2.html

Indeed, in 1952, when the post of Democratic leader fell open, all the
senators said to Russell, "Dick, you be our leader." Russell said, "No,
Lyndon Johnson should be our leader." At that time, Johnson was four years
into his first term; he was only 44 years old. But with Russell's support,
they elected him leader, and so he became the youngest ever Democratic
leader in the history of the nation in the Senate, and soon became the
Senate's greatest parliamentary commander. So when Russell arrived - this
small, baldish Russell, with his penetrating blue eyes, and the six foot
four Johnson; they made an interesting pair - Johnson put his arm around him
and sat him down, and they sat very close to each other, and President
Johnson leaned over and he says, "Dick, I love you, and I owe you. I
wouldn't be President if it wasn't for you. You made me leader in '52. I
wouldn't have been Vice-President without you; I wouldn't be President
without you. So I owe you so much." And then he said, "Now Dick, I asked you
to come here because I want to tell you something. Do not get in my way on
this Civil Rights Bill, Dick, because if you do, I'm going to run you down."
And I remember Russell, in those rolling accents of his Georgia countryside,
said, "Well, Mr. President, you may very well do that, but if you do, you
will not only lose the South forever, you will lose this election."?

I had the experience of helping to renovate LBJ's alleged bag man, Bobby
Baker's hotel in Ocean City, MD. I was a totally unqualified but highly
paid (off the books) Formica mechanic. This was in the hippy 1970's where
my friend (whose father, a minor local mobster had the contract) got knocked
out by getting his shoulder length hair caught in a router. Zip, zoom,
bang! He was down on the floor with the router humming like a huge angry
bee. Ripped up a nice chunk of hair, too.

The work elevators weren't sealed at the roof so when strong winds came, the
elevators shafts screamed like something out of an old horror movie. The
cars bucked as well as the air pressure in the shaft varied from the venturi
effect. It made me spill a 5 gallon bucket of red contact cement on one of
the floors. There was more red goo than in an episode of Starz' Spartacus,
Blood and Sand. There's hardly anything worse you can spill, cleanup wise.
(Here come the stories of what's worse!) (-:

But there was a good side. His my buddy's teenage girlfriend from Dallas, a
5'2' natural platinum blonde with an unbelievably perfect 36" bustline
bounded out of the surf to greet me one day but her bikini top stayed
behind. I don't even think she knew it was missing until she saw my stunned
mullet expression. That image is burned into my mind like a brand into a
steer. It's those moments that make life worth living.

--
Bobby G.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

When I see the naked contempt people have for the government and
for Obama, I assume they really have the same naked contempt for the
entire country.

How about the naked contempt for Bush or even Reagan? Do you assume the
same naked contempt for the entire country.

I said government, too. It may be the crummy economy, but levels of hate
and belligerence are way up from anything I remember. Bush never took the
sort of abuse that's been heaped upon Obama. I started thinking about why I
drifted away from the Republican party. I campaigned for Goldwater as a kid
and wrote a paper saying why the US had to threaten to use nuclear weapons
on any country that tried to build an A-bomb and that we should (then -
196X) immediately forcibly disarm Russia while they still had a limited
nuclear arsenal.

I used to think every Dem president since FDR thru Clinton was a joke, each
in their own way. I also don't think much of the Rep presidents since FDR
either.

Along the way I mellowed but the world around me has grown more strident.
You might think members of party that lost the last presidential election
would be looking to make converts. Instead, they seem quite content to ****
people off by the boatload. I smile whenever a Republican here loses
control of his tongue and starts insulting people. There can't be any
better agents for the Democrats than rude Republican boosters that make the
more sane members of their party stand up and take notice.

How could they not? They don't seem able to respect the fact that they
were outvoted and the majority has spoken. If they can't respect the
outcome of an election how can they really respect the institution of
democracy? They can't. They want everything to happen their way
and consider any other viewpoint, even the majority's, as wrong and
needing correction or obstruction. And they're not shy in saying so. )-:

See above.

I don't think so. Obama worked very hard to try to be bi-partisan and
include the Republican voices. The *Democrats* themselves complain about
how he wasted so much time trying to work with people who were determined to
thwart every initiative he brought forth. I don't see any reciprocal
bi-partisan efforts from the Republicans. All I here is "we have to STOP
him" coming from the minority that lost the election. There's been a
sea-change and a bad one and a person has to be pretty blind not to see all
the (mostly) bad changes that have occurred in the last decades.
It used to be that a political party wanting to change U.S. policy would try
to achieve that goal by building popular support for its ideas, getting
elected to office, then implementing those ideas through legislation. Our
Constitution designed our system to work that way. But somewhere in the
last couple of decades, all that changed.

Republicans decided the form of government that the Constitution dictates
wasn't good enough for them to achieve their goals. They then discovered
there's no reason to have bargain for enough votes to pass a bill, they
could tangle the Congress in procedural knots (as in the massive increase in
the use of the filibuster by Republicans in the last two years). They could
use all sorts of political tactics, some dirtier than others, to get their
way. They've discovered they can override the will of the electorate and
get what they want by threatening to hurt the country if their demands aren'
t met. While some will take offense at the term, it's the classic
definition of terrorism. "Do what we want or we'll hurt something you care
about."

They were willing to risk a downgrade of our credit rating by holding the
debt-ceiling increase hostage, even though much of that money was earmarked
for the post 9/11 wars and the security fever that followed. Now it's
happening over disaster aid with Mr. Cantor using hurricane victims as pawns
in the budget battle.

We'll see what happens as the Republicans in the states hardest hit by Irene
are faced with proving they don't need "Federal help for anything" by
turning down the government's disaster relief money. If they're anything
like Rick Perry, they'll take the money and run, principles be damned. It's
almost biblical. To remind Mr. Cantor of just how much Virginia might need
the Feds one day, God not only sent hurricane Irene. He sent a nearly
magnitude 6 earthquake centered in Mr. Cantor's home state.

--
Bobby G.

On Sep 2, 10:20*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
*"Robert Green" wrote:

When I see the naked contempt people have for the government and
for Obama, *I assume they really have the same naked contempt for the
entire country.
How about the naked contempt for Bush or even Reagan? Do you assume the
same naked contempt for the entire country.

I said government, too. *It may be the crummy economy, but levels of hate
and belligerence are way up from anything I remember. *Bush never took the
sort of abuse that's been heaped upon Obama.

LOL. And you still claim to be a Republican, right?
Bush was villified by the left from the time he was
elected. They denied he was a legitimate president
because they say he really didn't win the election.
Sound familiar?
Then they called him everything from a liar to a
war criminal over Iraq, despite
most of the Dems having held similar positions
prior to the wars.


*I started thinking about why I
drifted away from the Republican party.

From your socialist, leftist views, it's clear you
never were a Republican.


*I campaigned for Goldwater as a kid
and wrote a paper saying why the US had to threaten to use nuclear weapons
on any country that tried to build an A-bomb and that we should (then -
196X) immediately forcibly disarm Russia while they still had a limited
nuclear arsenal.

I used to think every Dem president since FDR thru Clinton was a joke, each
in their own way. *I also don't think much of the Rep presidents since FDR
either.

Along the way I mellowed but the world around me has grown more strident.
You might think members of party that lost the last presidential election
would be looking to make converts. *Instead, they seem quite content to ****
people off by the boatload. *I smile whenever a Republican here loses
control of his tongue and starts insulting people. *There can't be any
better agents for the Democrats than rude Republican boosters that make the
more sane members of their party stand up and take notice.

How could they not? *They don't seem able to respect the fact that they
were outvoted and the majority has spoken. *If they can't respect the
outcome of an election how can they really respect the institution of
democracy? They can't. *They want everything to happen their way
and consider any other viewpoint, even the majority's, as wrong and
needing correction or obstruction. *And they're not shy in saying so.. )-:
* *See above.

I don't think so. *Obama worked very hard to try to be bi-partisan and
include the Republican voices. *

Oh sure he did. You mean like a few months ago, when
he took special care of Paul Ryan? Ryan at least
came up with a budget plan to tackle our deficits.
You know, a real plan, as opposed to Obama who
never put forward any specific plan at all.
How did Obama respond?
Did he call him up, invite him to the WH to discuss it?
Why no. Obama gave him a seat
in the front row of his big press conference and then
proceeded to lambast the guy and accuse him of
tying to kill grandma. That's bipartisanship for
ya.!



The *Democrats* themselves complain about
how he wasted so much time trying to work with people who were determined to
thwart every initiative he brought forth. *I don't see any reciprocal
bi-partisan efforts from the Republicans. *All I here is "we have to STOP
him" coming from the minority that lost the election.

That's because they have been tricked like in the
above example so many times and they have seen
that he is so far left that there isn't anything that will
work, short of getting him out of office.

For proof of that, look no further than what Obama
is doing to Boeing. Boeing has a $1Bil new plant
in SC ready to build parts for the new 787. The
Obama administration has it blocked because
a union in WA claims Boeing built the plant
in retaliation for a strike years ago. The impact?
Staggering. Not only are the jobs in SC
on the line, but jobs throughout the country
and world. Boeing has $100bil+ in orders and
Obama is ****ing with this during this
recession? How exactly does anyone
reason with this kind of moron?

This could be fixed by Obama picking up
the phone and firing the idiots at the NLRB.
And then holding a press conference and
telling the country that he won't stand for
stupidity standing in the way of America's
recovery or business. That will happen, but
it will only be when he's out of office.
So, see why that is so important and
necessary?






*There's been a
sea-change and a bad one and a person has to be pretty blind not to see all
the (mostly) bad changes that have occurred in the last decades.
It used to be that a political party wanting to change U.S. policy would try
to achieve that goal by building popular support for its ideas, getting
elected to office, then implementing those ideas through legislation. Our
Constitution designed our system to work that way. *But somewhere in the
last couple of decades, all that changed.

It didn't change. The above is precisely what the Tea Party
Republicans did. The only problem is that with limited
numbers, they had limited success.






Republicans decided the form of government that the Constitution dictates
wasn't good enough for them to achieve their goals. *They then discovered
there's no reason to have bargain for enough votes to pass a bill, they
could tangle the Congress in procedural knots (as in the massive increase in
the use of the filibuster by Republicans in the last two years). *They could
use all sorts of political tactics, some dirtier than others, to get their
way. *They've discovered they can override the will of the electorate and
get what they want by threatening to hurt the country if their demands aren'
t met. *While some will take offense at the term, it's the classic
definition of terrorism. *"Do what we want or we'll hurt something you care
about."

There you go again. Nice for a guy bemoaing the lack
of civility and bi-partisanship. Call Tea Party people,
terrorists. Terrorists for what? Wanting a balanced
budget ammendment? Wanting to reduce spending
that has grown 40 PERCENT in just FOUR YEARS?
Wanting to reduce spending before the USA
becomes Greece and we have a real economic
collapse?

The sad thing is that it took them pushing with all
their might to get just $60bil in spending cuts over
the next two years. During that time, we'll still be
spending $7.5tril. And you libs call them
terrorists. I call them patriots.





They were willing to risk a downgrade of our credit rating by holding the
debt-ceiling increase hostage, even though much of that money was earmarked
for the post 9/11 wars and the security fever that followed. *Now it's
happening over disaster aid with Mr. Cantor using hurricane victims as pawns
in the budget battle.

That's a lie. The total cost of the two wars to date is
around $1.2 tril. That's for 10+ years of war. One of
those is essentially over this year. So, it's nonsense
that any major part of the $2.5 tril debt increase is
because of the wars.

As for risking a downgrade, that downgrade came
because the rating agencies know we are spending
too much money.

As for the hurricane vicitms, I see absolutley nothing
wrong with wanting money for that effort to come
from some cuts in a budget that has grown
40 PERCENT in FOUR YEARS.





We'll see what happens as the Republicans in the states hardest hit by Irene
are faced with proving they don't need "Federal help for anything" by
turning down the government's disaster relief money.

They won't turn it down, nor should they.


*If they're anything
like Rick Perry, they'll take the money and run, principles be damned.


As would any reasonable person. The feds take as
much of your money as they can. Then, they decide
who to give it to. You can be damn sure if they are
handing it out all over the country, I'm going to be
taking all I can get just like everyone else.


*It's
almost biblical. *To remind Mr. Cantor of just how much Virginia might need
the Feds one day, God not only sent hurricane Irene. *He sent a nearly
magnitude 6 earthquake centered in Mr. Cantor's home state.

--
Bobby G.

So, the chance that during a hurricane some Americans
may need help justifies having govt spending that has
increased 40% in just the past 4 years?

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:

When I see the naked contempt people have for the government and
for Obama, I assume they really have the same naked contempt for the
entire country.

How about the naked contempt for Bush or even Reagan? Do you assume the
same naked contempt for the entire country.

I said government, too. It may be the crummy economy, but levels of hate
and belligerence are way up from anything I remember. Bush never took the
sort of abuse that's been heaped upon Obama.
Which alternative universe are you in. Called war criminal on
multiple occassions. The general things about Shrub. The vitriol was
just as abusive. It is an ongoing and escalating bipartisan effect
probably since the days of Nixon (who brought it on himself to a certain
extent and wasn't a well-established ball cutter like LBJ). The birthers
of yesteryear were those questioning Bush's Air Guard duty or the
decades old drunk driving record (I even heard talk from Dem talking
heads about him being a dry drunk because he had the adaucity to not go
to AA.)
He took every bit of the abuse except for a few months around 9/11.
This is nothing new to Obama. I am not going to pretend he hasn't gotten
more than his share, but it is hardly "way up".


Republicans decided the form of government that the Constitution dictates
wasn't good enough for them to achieve their goals. They then discovered
there's no reason to have bargain for enough votes to pass a bill, they
could tangle the Congress in procedural knots (as in the massive increase in
the use of the filibuster by Republicans in the last two years).
This, too has been trending up since RMN. Heck it got so bad under
Bush with the Dems playing games that the moderates on both sides felt
the need to tell their respective Leadership to stuff it and thus formed
the gang of 14.
For my information, do you have a website that shows the increase in
filibusters. Couldn't figure out what to ask Google to get that
information.
It would also be interesting to track the use of the filibuster
recently. A few years ago (don't remember if it was late Clinton or
early Bush any more) where they changed the rules and you basically
filed a "hey I'm filibustering" paper and you no longer had to
physically stand in the box and rant to hold things up. I think that
made it too easy to pull the trigger. You should have to work for the
filibuster.


use all sorts of political tactics, some dirtier than others, to get their
way. They've discovered they can override the will of the electorate and
get what they want by threatening to hurt the country if their demands aren'
t met. While some will take offense at the term, it's the classic
definition of terrorism. "Do what we want or we'll hurt something you care
about."

Interesting that when the Dems do that, it is them upholding their
rights and because it is something they Truly Believe In, yet the GOP
does it and fits the classic definition of terrorism.


They were willing to risk a downgrade of our credit rating by holding the
debt-ceiling increase hostage, even though much of that money was earmarked
for the post 9/11 wars and the security fever that followed. Now it's
happening over disaster aid with Mr. Cantor using hurricane victims as pawns
in the budget battle.

PART of the downgrade was related to that. If you read what S&P said
it was also (even largely) related to the fact that the cuts weren't
what S&P had warned both sides ahead of time they needed to be. I am
also convinced that this was about 50% S&P getting back at Congress for
their hearings. You want a hard nosed rating agency, by God you'll get a
hard nosed rating agency. Be careful what you wish for, Congress, you
might just get it.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


You're too smart to *really* believe what you just wrote. "Reckless
spending?" The economy, as handed over by Bush, was in free fall and
near
collapse. Stimulus spending, while it might seem reckless to you,
cushioned
the blows delivered by Wall Street's ruthless repackaging of America's
real
estate wealth into mortgage securities and selling it abroad. Without
that
"reckless spending" to help free up frozen credit we would probably be
in a
deeper abyss than the first Great Depression.

You are too smart to **really** believe what you just wrote. Heck
there was a CBO report within the last couple of months that showed a
hefty part of the stimulus money (especially on "shovel-ready" projects)
hasn't been spent yet.

My two dogs have created more shovel-ready projects than Obama. If I come
down too hard on the Republicans, I want to apologize and make it clear
everybody worked very hard on both side of the aisle to screw things up
starting with Nixon for waking the Sleeping Dragon to Clinton for Feeding
the Sleeping Dragon to Bush for borrowing from the Wide Awake Dragon and
right through to Obama for praying to the Angry Dragon.

A point that non-libs seem to forget it that Obama had *nothing to do*
with the collapse. He simply got stuck with the thankless job of fixing
the incredible mess that under-regulated financial markets and reckless
spending wreaked on America. Blaming him for trying to right a
sinking ship is more than a little disingenuous. It's partisan BS
taken into the stratosphere.

I'd agree with last part. The mess was very much 20 years in the
making and much of the deregulation was enabled by LEGISLATION passed by
Congress, some as far back as the Clinton Administration. Heck the
repeal of Glass-Stegal, for instance, was approved by a voice vote in
the Senate. Same with most of the other laws that were changed.

The Clinton folks presided over a good part of the sell off of large
segments of our economy to China. As long as the "daily numbers" looked
good, people didn't seem to mind the massive change in the American economy.
For a while, all was good. Cheap Chinese goods gave people the sense of
much higher disposable income. Factory owners invested the money they got
moving their factories to China and the economy boomed. There's more than
enough blood on Clinton's hands. Plenty of people were saying back then
that intercourse with China might give us financial clap. It would be great
if we still had a leading industry that could provide the economic engine to
haul us out of our financial doldrums. But where will those jobs come from
if everyone's getting squeezed? The less spending, the more people will be
jobless. Having less money to spend equals lower overall demand and still
more cutting back.

The ONLY
person I can find without blood on his hands in this mess is Barney
Frank who consistently voted against these measures every chance he got.
(It boils me something fierce to have respect him--grin)

I just saw him on a new version of "Ethics in America" - an educational TV
series that he participated in during the early eighties. When asked if a
man cheating on his wife was a suitable PTA president candidate, he
suggested that the man run for city council where they wouldn't see his
cheating as a fault. He was on the wrong side of things for a little while
IIRC, but once he saw the runaway train going down the tracks, he became
very active in trying to slow it down when no one else seemed to care.

This was inevitable given the psychology of humans. We had a very
long run of good times with even the recessions being short and shallow
by historical standards. We had good times to the point that we forgot
about bad times, and figured it would go on forever.

I understand that, but can it be that we forget so quickly? This crash
seemed to have been a particularly bad one. What really drove this last
bust to be so big and ugly? Could it be as simple as the entire world had
been brainwashed into thinking real estate prices could only rise
(meteorically)? It seems that rising real estate prices drove a lot of the
train that went off the bridge. But there were other reasons. I think in
the future we'll discover There may have to be some sort of limitations
placed on contracts that specify "the worse things look, the more you owe."

The attempt to "change the deal" unilaterally in midstream has unfortunately
become the new norm and I don't think it's a good one. I seethe whenever my
credit card issuer decides to change the three-year deal I signed whenever
it suits them. Contracts with "sliding fees according to risk increases"
*seem* to be great deals for the lenders (which is why they exist) but it
didn't really work out for them, either, since the collapse those escalation
clauses helped caused hurt everyone. Badly. Such clauses have a built in
"domino doom" factor written all over them.

While I never quite believed in the domino effect in SE Asia, I surely do
believe in dominoes and Wall St. There were lots of cross-riggings in
effect in 2008 that seemed to exacerbate the collapse. I believe that all
this may have happened because analysts became obsessed with "offloading"
risk to helpless third parties (-: like pension funds and apparently,
sovereign wealth funds, too.

Risk often can *appear* to be eliminated until external factors reveal that
wherever the financial markets collapse, people are going to get hurt and
that offloading risk comes back to bite the unloaders on the ass as well as
everyone else. The bad part is that it seems that in the process, they've
dragged down risk averse as well as the risk-takers as the entire economy
around them tanked.

For instance, the personal savings rate has been negative (my
definition is not necessarily that of the economists. I say if the
savings rate goes down from one year to the next, that is a negative
savings rate) since the late 80s. Even see a downward trend in how much
it increases during recessions, a time when traditionally savings rates
skyrocket.

The PSR has been very bad for a long time. Worse, still, people found it
easier and easier to eat away the equity in their homes to buy a Lexus and a
plasma TV. I don't know if you've seen the rising rate of foreign
"investment" (aka ownership) in the US. But IIRC, it's growing like a
malignant tumor. Economists argue about the net effect selling our
mortgages (and promises to pay) to China and the EU. Some say it matters
little, some say it can trigger political instabilities. That's why a bunch
of bailout money went to Deutsche Bank. America is now a wholly-owned
subsidiary of China and the EU, Inc. )-: (Hyperbole alert)

The average American was spending much more than making. And, this
was not only in housing, but across the board.

And businesses were falling all over themselves to get them further
indebted. It was a slow but deliberate process of reaching down lower and
lower, lending to the less and less creditworthy. In real estate the
assumption was that when those subprime borrowers busted out, the mortgage
holder could simply foreclose and re-sell the house into the "eternally hot"
housing market. That idea was only valid until the bubble burst. Putting
monthly rent payments into building equity appeals to almost everyone.
Until they found out that THEY had to fish the tampons out of the toilet
drain for them, pay the real estate taxes and caulk their own windows.

The same was being seen
in Corporate America which had their equivalent in overleveraging.

"Overleveraging" was the key villain in the 1929 crash. It took a long time
for banks to throw off the regulations that they claim were choking them but
were really protecting the economy. R's & D's both signed on with glee,
claiming we *had* to do this to be competitive with the EU. Oh, I wish that
we had "stayed the course" and were now watching the disaster confined to
the EU.

Largely because the psychology of the situation that thinks a tree grows
to the sky. It is fascinating that this pattern is much more similar to
when you are expecting inflation (and thus buy things on credit to pay
it back in cheaper dollars).

I have my doubts that many (if any) people borrowing more than they can ever
hope to repay are banking on inflation to help cushion their fall.
Businesses might think and act that way but people will borrow whatever
banks, car dealers and other lenders will lend them. They ALWAYS believe
that getting that brand new car will enable them to get a better job and
thus afford all the things they bought on credit. Sure. One of the issues
of the last big crash was writing "mirror fogging" loans to people who
clearly didn't have the wherewithal to repay them. I wince when I see
"Cashpoint" car-title loan ads that promise loan dollars AND you get to keep
your car! For a little while, anyway. )-:

I still haven't figured that one out.

Balancing inflation and economic growth is pretty much black magic and what
works in one decade won't work in another. I've paid a lot of attention to
explanations of "stagflation" and the dangers of an economy getting out of
whack when both lack of growth and inflation are present. However, my own
experience in modeling a very specific situation (nuke war) tells me that
most economic models are junk. Why? To paraphrase someone, "The economy
does whatever it damn well pleases." There are just too many wildly
varying inputs into the econometric universe to get them all right. We end
up with economic projections that tend to mainly support the various and
conflicting claims of politicians.

There have been so many times when the best and the brightest have tried to
steer a shaky economy only to make things much, much worse. Some say
Germany's ill-fated attempt to return to the gold standard helped propel
Hitler to power. Price fixing didn't work out well for Nixon although the
nation demanded it. There are some very few areas, mostly monopolies, where
governments should intervene. That's based on the time-honored list of
abusive practices that monopolies can't seem to help but engage in. (-:
But by and large, the attempts to "steer" the economy have produced very
spotty results. The most popular steerage mechanism, fiddling with interest
rates, ran out of gas when interest rates dropped into the sewer.

Whether they were mimicking Washington or Washington was taking its
cue from the Public, is an interesting discussion I don't want to get
into (g).

It's human nature. Unrestrained.

Thus, when the bubble of bubbles broke, NOBODY, consumers, governments
or corporate had any money to pull us out. However, as I noted, this is
hardly solely Bush's problem any more than it is Obama's. This is a
financial cluster f*** with many fathers over literally generations.

I still think that the government *could* have done much more to bail us
out, but then I can't stand seeing someone getting a government check
sitting home on a couch when there are parks to be cleaned. I wouldn't mind
the Feds paying for clean-up and repair work like the WPA and CCC. It's
better to teach them to work and HAVE them work than just cut a check.
Cutting a check is much easier, though.

At least you sort of acknowledge that Bush spent too much on needless
wars,
the "junk touching" TSA agency and about a trillion in new and improved
security measures. We've spent at least 100 times and perhaps 1000
times
the total of the actual monetary damage done on 9/11. Would you pay $1
million in insurance premiums to protect against a $40,000 loss? No, of
course not, but that's exactly what the US did because it was so
"terrified"
by terrorists. Bush's spending will probably go down in history as the
most
wasteful expenditures ever made by the Feds. Yet you're eager to blame
Obama for trying to clean up the mess of Bush spending trillions he/we
couldn't afford.

That is what the government, at all levels did, because they wanted
to avoid getting grilled by constituents, press, and talking heads that
should have known better and so they could say they did all they could
to avoid the next one.

A lot of our troubles come from the media's very bad habit of creating
controversy to sell their product. They have been more than happy to
exacerbate the growing partisan divide.

This is quintessential politician and bureaucrat
ass-covering behavior. You SURE you spent a lot of time in DC????
(grin).

Yeah, (grin) indeed. I just wonder where all the pandering to press and
preening for the public will lead us. Nowhere good, I fear.

We've heard your endless criticism of Obama, Chet. Now I'd be
interested in
hearing what *you* would have done, President Hayes, had you been Obama
in
2008, entering office with the stock market dropping like a paralyzed
falcon, a $700 billion bill for Bush's bailout payments to Wall Street
on
your desk, credit markets frozen like Antarctica in winter and major
investment banks and manufacturers staring down the barrel of
bankruptcy.
It's easy to find fault - a lot easier than finding solutions.


The bill was one that Obama, for better or worse, had a hand in.
One of the classier (maybe the only one) thing that Bush did was consult
with Obama coming in.
The stimulus bill was the same as 9 months of tax revenues. I would
have returned the money to the American public and trusted them spend it
much more efficiently than I could have. I would have been right.

I dunno. Study after study shows when you give money to taxpayers of the
middle class in this kind of economy, they sock it away for a rainy day. On
the other hand, the poor people can be counted on to spend it as soon as
they get it, thus stimulating demand more. As much as people like to
compare the US economy to the a typical household budget, there's no
comparison. Giving money to poor people seems so morally bankrupt, but it's
the one area where you can input money and expect consumer spending. Look
at when the Feds gave money to Bank of America to lend. Instead, they
bought Merrill Lynch and Countrywide "Collapse the Housing Market" Financial
instead. Those poisonous acquisitions might end up killing BoA in the long
run.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



The Clinton folks presided over a good part of the sell off of large
segments of our economy to China. As long as the "daily numbers" looked
good, people didn't seem to mind the massive change in the American economy.
For a while, all was good. Cheap Chinese goods gave people the sense of
much higher disposable income. Factory owners invested the money they got
moving their factories to China and the economy boomed. There's more than
enough blood on Clinton's hands. Plenty of people were saying back then
that intercourse with China might give us financial clap. It would be great
if we still had a leading industry that could provide the economic engine to
haul us out of our financial doldrums. But where will those jobs come from
if everyone's getting squeezed? The less spending, the more people will be
jobless. Having less money to spend equals lower overall demand and still
more cutting back.

We are still doing as much mfg (adjusted for inflation) as we did in
the 70s and 80s. It is just that mfg productivity increases have been
about 2% greater per year than the rest of the economy. We have lost
many more good paying jobs to the robots than to the Chinese. Heck the
auto industry is one of the most highly automated in the US
What happened this time, unlike most of the others, is that
EVERYBODY went on a spending spree. LONG before housing busted
(although it certainly contributed) we were overleveraged on credit
cards, etc. Industry had high debt and the Feds were being tied down.
So, there was no one left to lead us out. It took us 30 years or more to
get into this mess, it will take us more than 3 to get out...(the dirty
little political secret being) no matter who is in charge.


This was inevitable given the psychology of humans. We had a very
long run of good times with even the recessions being short and shallow
by historical standards. We had good times to the point that we forgot
about bad times, and figured it would go on forever.

I understand that, but can it be that we forget so quickly? This crash
seemed to have been a particularly bad one. What really drove this last
bust to be so big and ugly? Could it be as simple as the entire world had
been brainwashed into thinking real estate prices could only rise
(meteorically)? It seems that rising real estate prices drove a lot of the
train that went off the bridge. But there were other reasons. I think in
the future we'll discover There may have to be some sort of limitations
placed on contracts that specify "the worse things look, the more you owe."

Humans think that this time is different. WHen I hear that word
more often on CNBC, I tend to sell the stocks.(grin). Part of what
drives this one, is that this expansion (overall) was exceedingly long
and large. Even the recessions (at least by Post war standards) were
relatively shallow and short lived. This lead most of us to think it
would never end, but, as the economists like to point out, no tree grows
to the sky.
It wasn't just homes, we were maxed out on credit cards and biz was
heavily leveraged, etc.


The attempt to "change the deal" unilaterally in midstream has unfortunately
become the new norm and I don't think it's a good one. I seethe whenever my
credit card issuer decides to change the three-year deal I signed whenever
it suits them. Contracts with "sliding fees according to risk increases"
*seem* to be great deals for the lenders (which is why they exist) but it
didn't really work out for them, either, since the collapse those escalation
clauses helped caused hurt everyone. Badly. Such clauses have a built in
"domino doom" factor written all over them.
So pay off the cards at the end of the month or don't use them. Then,
as long as you avoid annual fees, you don't really care what the other
stuff is.

While I never quite believed in the domino effect in SE Asia, I surely do
believe in dominoes and Wall St. There were lots of cross-riggings in
effect in 2008 that seemed to exacerbate the collapse. I believe that all
this may have happened because analysts became obsessed with "offloading"
risk to helpless third parties (-: like pension funds and apparently,
sovereign wealth funds, too.
Pension funds were among the biggest hits in the down turn.


Risk often can *appear* to be eliminated until external factors reveal that
wherever the financial markets collapse, people are going to get hurt and
that offloading risk comes back to bite the unloaders on the ass as well as
everyone else. The bad part is that it seems that in the process, they've
dragged down risk averse as well as the risk-takers as the entire economy
around them tanked.

I have always thought that the only requirement for the SEC should be
that a group of 6th graders can understand what is being sold in 15
mintues or less.

The PSR has been very bad for a long time. Worse, still, people found it
easier and easier to eat away the equity in their homes to buy a Lexus and a
plasma TV. I don't know if you've seen the rising rate of foreign
"investment" (aka ownership) in the US. But IIRC, it's growing like a
malignant tumor. Economists argue about the net effect selling our
mortgages (and promises to pay) to China and the EU. Some say it matters
little, some say it can trigger political instabilities. That's why a bunch
of bailout money went to Deutsche Bank. America is now a wholly-owned
subsidiary of China and the EU, Inc. )-: (Hyperbole alert)
This is nothing new. We were all worried about Japan buying up all
of America, then the market collapsed and we bought it all back for
pennies on the dollar. (g).


I have my doubts that many (if any) people borrowing more than they can ever
hope to repay are banking on inflation to help cushion their fall.
Me neither, especially since inflation had been tame since the early
80s. One of the reasons I did not think the behavior made any sense.


whack when both lack of growth and inflation are present. However, my own
experience in modeling a very specific situation (nuke war) tells me that
most economic models are junk. Why? To paraphrase someone, "The economy
does whatever it damn well pleases." There are just too many wildly
varying inputs into the econometric universe to get them all right. We end
up with economic projections that tend to mainly support the various and
conflicting claims of politicians.

And that has been shown in any number of instances. That is one of the
reasons I get a kick out of "scoring" things 10 years out. I am really
sure that all of the models that looked at the Tax cuts took into
account the tax consequences of the last 3 years. Right. It is true that
6 months before the surpluses most models were talking about deficits as
far as the eye could see. Six before the surpluses ended (under the
budget passed in the last Clinton year) it was still showing surpluses
as far as the eye could see (and Congress was spending them in
anticipation.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 09/28/11 09:09 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:

We are still doing as much mfg (adjusted for inflation) as we did in
the 70s and 80s. It is just that mfg productivity increases have been
about 2% greater per year than the rest of the economy. We have lost
many more good paying jobs to the robots than to the Chinese. Heck the
auto industry is one of the most highly automated in the US

Decades ago we were told that automation would mean a reduction in the
working week. It has happened, but not in the way we were led to
believe: the *average* working week is shorter, with many people working
zero hours because they are no longer needed (4.5 unemployed for every
opening) and others working long hours at two low-paying jobs just
trying to make ends meet.

Perce