I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I have
not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:58:16 -0800, "Stuart Fields"
wrote:

I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I have
not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218

You may have missed the
major network TV coverage of this historic event because it was GOOD
news that shows that WE are winning!
(from a friend in the Special Forces Network)


Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 7:39 PM

Subject: Fwd: Good Things Really Are Happening In Iraq,Believe It Or
Not.

As Kelly states he "People are not given freedom & democracy, they
take it for themselves"......
MajGen John Kelly, USMC, Commander MNF-West, comments on the election
are copied below:

All Hands:
Major General John Kelly sends this Iraq election notice Classification:
UNCLASSIFIED

I don't suppose this will get much coverage in the States as the news is
so good. No, the news is unbelievable.
Something didn't happen in Al Anbar Province, Iraq, today. Once the most
violent and most dangerous places on earth, no suicide vest bomber
detonated killing dozens of voters. No suicide truck bomber drove into a
polling place collapsing the building and killing and injuring over 100.
No Marine was in a firefight engaging an Al Qaida terrorist trying to
disrupt democracy.

What did happen was Anbar Sunnis came out in their tens of thousands to
vote in the first free election of their lives.
With the expectation of all of the above (suicide bombers) they walked
miles (we shut down all vehicle traffic with the exception of some
shuttle busses for the elderly and infirm) to the polling places. I
slept under the stars with some Grunts at Combat Outpost Iba on the far
side of Karma, and started driving the 200 miles up the Euphrates River
Valley through Karma, Fallujah, Habbiniyah, Ramadi, Hit, Baghdad and
back here to Al Asad. I stopped here and there to speak with cops,
soldiers, Marines, and most importantly, regular Iraqi men and women
along the way. It was the same everywhere. A tension with every finger
on a trigger that broke at perhaps 3PM when we all began to think what
was almost unthinkable a year ago. We might just pull this off without a
bombing. No way. By 4PM it seemed like we'd make it to 5PM when the
polls closed. At 4:30 the unbelievable happened: the election was
extended an hour to 6PM because of the large crowds! What are they
kidding? Tempting fate like that is not nice. Six PM and the polls close
without a single act of violence or a single accusation of fraud, and
nearly by early reports pretty close to 100% voted. Priceless.

Every Anbari walking towards the polling place had these determined and,
frankly, concerned looks on their faces. No children with them (here
mothers and grandmothers are NEVER without their children or
grandchildren) because of the expectation of death. Husbands voted
separately from wives, and mothers separately from fathers for the same
reason. In and out quickly to be less of a target for the expected
suicide murderer. When they came out after voting they also wore the
same expression on their faces, but now one of smiling amazement as they
held up and stared at ink stained index fingers.

Norman Rockwell could not have captured this wonderment. Even the ladies
voted in large numbers and their husbands didn't insist on going into
the booths to tell them who to vote for.
One of the things I've always said was that we came here to "give" them
democracy. Even in the dark days my only consolation was that it was
about freedom and democracy. After what I saw today, and having
forgotten our own history and revolution, this was arrogance. People are
not given freedom and democracy - they take it for themselves. The
Anbaris deserve this credit.

Today I step down as the dictator, albeit benevolent, of Anbar Province.
Today the Anbaris took it from me. I am ecstatic. It was a privilege to
be part of it, to have somehow in a small way to have helped make it
happen.

Semper Fi.
Kelly
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people,
we should look to limit those guarantees."

Bill Clinton 1993-08-12

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:58:16 -0800, "Stuart Fields"
wrote:

I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I have
not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218

=======
----------
snip
"What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the
state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon
told WND.
snip
----------

More fantasies. More time wasted on B/S resolutions rather than
identifying and addressing the problems.

Time for them to make wee-wee in a bottle, and some reservations
for rehab....

What it boils do to is that there ain't any more money. The
polls and the suits spent it *ALL* and everything they could
borrow.

This type of noise will continue until the states need/want the
Federal money. They should also be careful to determine where
their money is coming from. Oklahoma and many of the other
complaining states appear to be net beneficiaries of the existing
Federal tax system in that they get more back than they pay.

California is rapidly going belly up and would like more, not
less, Federal money. As a point of irony, many of the California
counties and large municipalities like Los Angeles, are saying
the same thing about the California government.
http://localsearch.sacbee.com/sp?eId...1603 508.html
http://localsearch.sacbee.com/sp?eId...2F1600441.html
http://localsearch.sacbee.com/sp?eId...2F1600656.html

Rather than wasting time/money on useless resolutions why aren't
plans for the emergency requisitioning and distribution of food
and fuel being developed, and even beyond that, the emergency
local production/processing of at least minimal food supplies,
such as bread. However it is easier to rearrange the deck chairs
as the Titanic sinks....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:58:40 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:58:16 -0800, "Stuart Fields"
wrote:

I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I have
not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218

=======
----------
snip
"What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the
state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon
told WND.
snip
----------

More fantasies. More time wasted on B/S resolutions rather than
identifying and addressing the problems.

Time for them to make wee-wee in a bottle, and some reservations
for rehab....

What it boils do to is that there ain't any more money. The
polls and the suits spent it *ALL* and everything they could
borrow.

This type of noise will continue until the states need/want the
Federal money. They should also be careful to determine where
their money is coming from. Oklahoma and many of the other
complaining states appear to be net beneficiaries of the existing
Federal tax system in that they get more back than they pay.

California is rapidly going belly up and would like more, not
less, Federal money. As a point of irony, many of the California
counties and large municipalities like Los Angeles, are saying
the same thing about the California government.


George....I said before the election, that if the Dems took
control....they would likely break up the US as we know it today.
And we are seeing the first tentative steps of exactly that.

The states are hurting. Yes indeed. But they know there is NO MO
MONEY from the Feds, not on the scale they are accustomed to getting.
And they can no longer afford to subsidise every half wit buffoonish
unfunded mandate and policy hatched by Sodom on the Potomic.

So its time to cut the umbilical cord, get off the teat and try to
survive as best they can.

Oh..it wont break up the Union...but the Feral Government just got an
appointment for neutering...or at the least...declawing.

As l said...we are living in interesting times. The Sagebrush
Rebellion just went into Phase II

Gunner

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people,
we should look to limit those guarantees."

Bill Clinton 1993-08-12

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:58:40 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:


More fantasies. More time wasted on B/S resolutions rather than
identifying and addressing the problems.


Hide and watch George.....the times...and the People... are changing....

http://www.bornagainamerican.org/

turn up your speakers.....


Gunner

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people,
we should look to limit those guarantees."

Bill Clinton 1993-08-12

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the
government's ability to govern the people,
we should look to limit those guarantees."

Bill Clinton 1993-08-12

Which is why jury nullification is more popular than ever. A valuable tool
in the arsonal of freedom designed
to thwart the bill clintons of this world.

Best Regards
Tom.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:58:16 -0800, "Stuart Fields"
wrote:

I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I
have
not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218

=======
----------
snip
"What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the
state's business," Oklahoma Republican state Sen. Randy Brogdon
told WND.
snip
----------


..

This type of noise will continue until the states need/want the
Federal money. They should also be careful to determine where
their money is coming from. Oklahoma and many of the other
complaining states appear to be net beneficiaries of the existing
Federal tax system in that they get more back than they pay.

California is rapidly going belly up and would like more, not
less, Federal money. As a point of irony, many of the California
counties and large municipalities like Los Angeles, are saying
the same thing about the California government.
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------

Unka' George: I'm impressed with your writing skils and the use of the
english language. Maybe you can answer a question that I've had: Where
does Federal Money come from?

Stu Fields

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...
I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I have
not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218


After tracking down every reference I could find on the subject, and looking
at the votes on these bills in the legislatures of several states, I'll
venture an opinion: It looks like an expression of frustration from two
fronts -- conservative state legislators looking for a reason to live, and
state legislators in general who have their backs to the wall, caught in a
tax bind and a financial trap.

Note that these "bills" actually are all resolutions -- words with no force,
except to blow off some steam:

The New Hampshire bill, HCR6, is in committee.
The Arizona bill, HCR 2004, is in the rules committee
The Washington state bill, HJM 4009, is in the State Government and Tribal
Affairs committee
The Oklahoma bill, HJR 1089, passed the House (in early 2008) and is
referred to the Senate judiciary committee

There are some more now but that's as far as I thought it was worth going.

You'd have to know the politics in each state to be sure, but my sense of it
is that they're telling the feds that they want to get out from under
federal mandates in this economic crisis. No doubt there are some ideologues
in there but it's unlikely they make up more than a small percentage of the
legislators involved. Of course, this is a vote without a downside for any
of them, so these resolutions will be passed, in most cases.

Note that Oklahoma, for example, started the process early last year. I
didn't track the history of each bill, but the anti-mandate thing has been
brewing for years. Whether it has any special meaning now is problematic.

In any case, it ought to stir up the Sagebrush Revulsions a bit, and give
WorldNutDaily a semi-exclusive for a while, because it's a non-story that
has interest mostly to their readers. Mainstream attention now is on saving
the economy. If the Republicans hadn't gutted money for the states from the
House version of the stimulus bill, the 10th Amendment issue would die in a
hurry.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...
I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I
have not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218



If the Republicans hadn't gutted money for the states from the House
version of the stimulus bill, the 10th Amendment issue would die in a
hurry.

Don't be surprised to see those funds restored to the conferenced version of
the bill Ed.
What I don't understand is why the bill doesn't contain payroll tax
abatement provisions. That could be accomplished with the stroke of a pen
and would be as quick a stimulous as you could get. Republicans would have
been hoist on their own petard, and they'd have been falling all over
themselves to get behind the bill.


JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...
I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I
have not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218



If the Republicans hadn't gutted money for the states from the House
version of the stimulus bill, the 10th Amendment issue would die in a
hurry.

Don't be surprised to see those funds restored to the conferenced version
of the bill Ed.
What I don't understand is why the bill doesn't contain payroll tax
abatement provisions. That could be accomplished with the stroke of a pen
and would be as quick a stimulous as you could get. Republicans would have
been hoist on their own petard, and they'd have been falling all over
themselves to get behind the bill.

Oh, you underestimate their creativity. I'm sure they'd find something to
bitch about no matter what was or was not in the bill.

To them, this is about trying to score political points, not about helping
the country to recover. If you listen to Limbaugh, that's exactly what the
hard-core wants: failure.

And I'm thoroughly disgusted with McCain's grandstanding and sleazy
manuevering. He had it right the first time, when he said that his
understanding of economics is not one of his strong points.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...
I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I
have not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218



If the Republicans hadn't gutted money for the states from the House
version of the stimulus bill, the 10th Amendment issue would die in a
hurry.

Don't be surprised to see those funds restored to the conferenced version
of the bill Ed.
What I don't understand is why the bill doesn't contain payroll tax
abatement provisions. That could be accomplished with the stroke of a pen
and would be as quick a stimulous as you could get. Republicans would
have been hoist on their own petard, and they'd have been falling all
over themselves to get behind the bill.

Oh, you underestimate their creativity. I'm sure they'd find something to
bitch about no matter what was or was not in the bill.

To them, this is about trying to score political points, not about helping
the country to recover. If you listen to Limbaugh, that's exactly what the
hard-core wants: failure.

And I'm thoroughly disgusted with McCain's grandstanding and sleazy
manuevering. He had it right the first time, when he said that his
understanding of economics is not one of his strong points.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed: I sure didn't vote for McCain but I do share his apparent lack of
understanding of economics (I did get a big fat A in engineering economics
though) but how does decreasing income (tax breaks) and increasing spending
(in spite of an existing and growing large debt) help our economy? If this
is a workable method shouldn't people who recently lost their
jobs(decreasing income)go buy more with their credit cards(increased
spending)? The only difference that I can see is that the Government can
print more money and control the value of the debt.

Stu

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...
I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I
have not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218



If the Republicans hadn't gutted money for the states from the House
version of the stimulus bill, the 10th Amendment issue would die in a
hurry.

Don't be surprised to see those funds restored to the conferenced version
of the bill Ed.
What I don't understand is why the bill doesn't contain payroll tax
abatement provisions. That could be accomplished with the stroke of a pen
and would be as quick a stimulous as you could get. Republicans would
have been hoist on their own petard, and they'd have been falling all
over themselves to get behind the bill.

Oh, you underestimate their creativity. I'm sure they'd find something to
bitch about no matter what was or was not in the bill.

I'd forgotten what happened Ed but there originally was a payroll tax
holiday in the stimulus paseed last year.
It was opposed by the Republicans and taken out infavor of tax incentives
for corporations. Big Oil as a matter of fact.


To them, this is about trying to score political points, not about helping
the country to recover. If you listen to Limbaugh, that's exactly what the
hard-core wants: failure.

I listened to Rush while I drove the Pacheco Pass from I-5 to Gilroy
recently.
In nearly an hour he really didn't say a single thing. I didn't hear one
fact, argument or proposal, just an hour of snarky, high school level
blather. Very strange.


And I'm thoroughly disgusted with McCain's grandstanding and sleazy
manuevering.

That surprised me a little and I haven't given much thought to it.
I figured he'd adopt a populist outlook, especially after hearing his
initial statements
There is a political calculation here that I can't quite fathom. I think the
Republican party is blowing the calculus on 2010.

He had it right the first time, when he said that his understanding of
economics is not one of his strong points.

Isn't that, and comic relief, why he brought Palin to the ticket?
LMAO

JC

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:34:41 -0800, "Stuart Fields"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...
I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I
have not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218



If the Republicans hadn't gutted money for the states from the House
version of the stimulus bill, the 10th Amendment issue would die in a
hurry.

Don't be surprised to see those funds restored to the conferenced version
of the bill Ed.
What I don't understand is why the bill doesn't contain payroll tax
abatement provisions. That could be accomplished with the stroke of a pen
and would be as quick a stimulous as you could get. Republicans would
have been hoist on their own petard, and they'd have been falling all
over themselves to get behind the bill.

Oh, you underestimate their creativity. I'm sure they'd find something to
bitch about no matter what was or was not in the bill.

To them, this is about trying to score political points, not about helping
the country to recover. If you listen to Limbaugh, that's exactly what the
hard-core wants: failure.

And I'm thoroughly disgusted with McCain's grandstanding and sleazy
manuevering. He had it right the first time, when he said that his
understanding of economics is not one of his strong points.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed: I sure didn't vote for McCain but I do share his apparent lack of
understanding of economics (I did get a big fat A in engineering economics
though) but how does decreasing income (tax breaks) and increasing spending
(in spite of an existing and growing large debt) help our economy? If this
is a workable method shouldn't people who recently lost their
jobs(decreasing income)go buy more with their credit cards(increased
spending)? The only difference that I can see is that the Government can
print more money and control the value of the debt.

Stu

----------------
Several factors:

(1) There appears to be a change in the "laws" of economics as
the scale changes, much as occurs when the size of physical
objects change, although their relative size may remain the same,
i.e. from quantum mechanics to Newtonian physics to
Special/General Relativity. For example, savings and ready cash
money are very good at the individual level (and required at some
stages of economic development) at the macro level (and later
stages of economic development) e.g. Japan, these may be
counterproductive, when this leads to an internationally
appreciating currency and you are an exporting country. [drives
your export prices up]

(2) There are different kinds of debt. Even for individuals it
can sometimes make sense to spend, for example buying a new suit
for interviews after a job loss, if you don't have one. For
government, the situation may be that under various entitlement
legislation, they are obligated to spend the funds no matter
what, and it is common sense to spend for infrastructure
improvement rather than simply paying people to sit home and do
nothing, if only because "idle hands are the devil's workshop."

(3) While mildly controversial [values estimated seem too high]
there is the concept of an "economic" multiplier" for different
economic sectors. This is generally assumed to mean that a
profit or "value added" is generated by their economic activity,
and that a dollar "invested" results in more than a dollar
generated. In point of fact, many of the published values IMNSHO
are indeed too high, because of [ignored] externalized and/or
non-economic costs, such as air pollution, and increases in
cancer. Additionally, there appears to exist economic sectors,
that when all the input costs are included, have a multiplier of
less than 1, indicating a increasing net loss of value with
increased investment/activity. Thus it is important, even
critical, if stimulus spending is to be effective, that it is
targeted on economic sectors with high multipliers. One "fly in
the ointment" is that a particular economic sector may have a
high multiplier, but be small in relative dollar volume. Another
caveat is the law of diminishing returns. Much as you can
improve crop yields by the application of fertilizer, too much
fertilizer will burn the crop up and you get nothing.

(4) Frequently there is the situation where to do nothing costs
more, or is likely to cost more, than doing something, for
example putting out a burning building in the middle of town.
Unless steps are taken to put the fire out, there is a high
likelihood of it spreading to other buildings and causing
catastrophic damage. [Lehman Brothers?] It should be noted in
this situation that *CONSIDERBLE* money in the aggregate could
have been saved and possible loss of life could have been
avoided, with a reasonable building code with adequate
inspections/enforcement, for example sprinklers, and the prompt
demolition of derelict and abandoned structures. The same
appears true for the economic community.

==Heroic measures always mean that somebody screwed up.==


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...
I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I
have not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218



If the Republicans hadn't gutted money for the states from the House
version of the stimulus bill, the 10th Amendment issue would die in a
hurry.

Don't be surprised to see those funds restored to the conferenced
version of the bill Ed.
What I don't understand is why the bill doesn't contain payroll tax
abatement provisions. That could be accomplished with the stroke of a
pen and would be as quick a stimulous as you could get. Republicans
would have been hoist on their own petard, and they'd have been falling
all over themselves to get behind the bill.

Oh, you underestimate their creativity. I'm sure they'd find something to
bitch about no matter what was or was not in the bill.

To them, this is about trying to score political points, not about
helping the country to recover. If you listen to Limbaugh, that's exactly
what the hard-core wants: failure.

And I'm thoroughly disgusted with McCain's grandstanding and sleazy
manuevering. He had it right the first time, when he said that his
understanding of economics is not one of his strong points.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed: I sure didn't vote for McCain but I do share his apparent lack of
understanding of economics (I did get a big fat A in engineering economics
though) but how does decreasing income (tax breaks) and increasing
spending (in spite of an existing and growing large debt) help our
economy? If this is a workable method shouldn't people who recently lost
their jobs(decreasing income)go buy more with their credit cards(increased
spending)? The only difference that I can see is that the Government can
print more money and control the value of the debt.

That's the question of the hour, Stu. I assume you're not asking for my
opinion on it, which is like dust in the wind, anyway, but rather what the
administration's thinking is on their stimulus program. The most compact
answer I could give, of which it will require your considerable analytical
skills to recognize its full implications, is this:

Debt, at the national scale, is a small problem. An inability to PAY for
that debt, without destructive messing around with the currency, is a very
large problem, especially when you're in a downward-spiraling recession.

The growth rates required to stabilize deficit spending and to reduce it to
zero are actually a lot smaller than most people realize. So the bottom
line, to mainstream economists, is to get the growth rate up. That's the
only thing that will get us out of this mess. And the mess will look less
deep and messy if we *do* get growth going again. It doesn't matter how it
grows. What matters is that it *does* grow. And if we don't get it growing,
and quickly, we can kiss our economic ass goodby. g

That's the theory. Something to keep in mind is that a 1% increase in growth
of the GDP directly increases tax revenues by roughly $50 billion (at an
overall tax rate of 33%, including federal, state, and local). Likewise, a
1% decline directly increases deficits by a like amount. There is a
compounding effect from growth because you can tax some things at higher
rates when your economy is growing, without slowing down growth, and also
because a growing economy reduces the percentage of debt represented by a
given dollar amount of previously acquired debt, both of which decrease the
debt burden as a percentage of income. It also reduces the interest rates
the Fed has to pay.

And there are many other complications and caveats, which can be argued six
ways to Sunday. They aren't the point: The point is that deficits are very
sensitive to the growth rate of the GDP and to tax rates.

That's what's driving the administrations policies.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...
I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that I
have not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218



If the Republicans hadn't gutted money for the states from the House
version of the stimulus bill, the 10th Amendment issue would die in a
hurry.

Don't be surprised to see those funds restored to the conferenced
version of the bill Ed.
What I don't understand is why the bill doesn't contain payroll tax
abatement provisions. That could be accomplished with the stroke of a
pen and would be as quick a stimulous as you could get. Republicans
would have been hoist on their own petard, and they'd have been falling
all over themselves to get behind the bill.

Oh, you underestimate their creativity. I'm sure they'd find something
to bitch about no matter what was or was not in the bill.

To them, this is about trying to score political points, not about
helping the country to recover. If you listen to Limbaugh, that's
exactly what the hard-core wants: failure.

And I'm thoroughly disgusted with McCain's grandstanding and sleazy
manuevering. He had it right the first time, when he said that his
understanding of economics is not one of his strong points.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed: I sure didn't vote for McCain but I do share his apparent lack of
understanding of economics (I did get a big fat A in engineering
economics though) but how does decreasing income (tax breaks) and
increasing spending (in spite of an existing and growing large debt) help
our economy? If this is a workable method shouldn't people who recently
lost their jobs(decreasing income)go buy more with their credit
cards(increased spending)? The only difference that I can see is that
the Government can print more money and control the value of the debt.

That's the question of the hour, Stu. I assume you're not asking for my
opinion on it, which is like dust in the wind, anyway, but rather what the
administration's thinking is on their stimulus program. The most compact
answer I could give, of which it will require your considerable analytical
skills to recognize its full implications, is this:

Debt, at the national scale, is a small problem. An inability to PAY for
that debt, without destructive messing around with the currency, is a very
large problem, especially when you're in a downward-spiraling recession.

The growth rates required to stabilize deficit spending and to reduce it
to zero are actually a lot smaller than most people realize. So the bottom
line, to mainstream economists, is to get the growth rate up. That's the
only thing that will get us out of this mess. And the mess will look less
deep and messy if we *do* get growth going again. It doesn't matter how it
grows. What matters is that it *does* grow. And if we don't get it
growing, and quickly, we can kiss our economic ass goodby. g

That's the theory. Something to keep in mind is that a 1% increase in
growth of the GDP directly increases tax revenues by roughly $50 billion
(at an overall tax rate of 33%, including federal, state, and local).
Likewise, a 1% decline directly increases deficits by a like amount. There
is a compounding effect from growth because you can tax some things at
higher rates when your economy is growing, without slowing down growth,
and also because a growing economy reduces the percentage of debt
represented by a given dollar amount of previously acquired debt, both of
which decrease the debt burden as a percentage of income. It also reduces
the interest rates the Fed has to pay.

And there are many other complications and caveats, which can be argued
six ways to Sunday. They aren't the point: The point is that deficits are
very sensitive to the growth rate of the GDP and to tax rates.

That's what's driving the administrations policies.

--
Ed Huntress

Thanks that makes a bunch of things a bit more understandable. It does
bring up a problem that we are having in our valley. The old adage "If you
ain't growing your dying". Has some very negative unintended consequences.
We are using more water now than is being replenished. Yet the city fathers
are actively trying to get more industry into the area as well as more
people. This water problem, I believe, is going to become an increasing
problem as we continue to "Grow". I can see from the discussion provided
by both you and McDuffee how growth has become an economic necessity. We
appear to be caught up in a giant Ponzy scheme.

Stu

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...
I wonder why this hasn't hit some of the news channels. I know that
I have not seen this before.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88218



If the Republicans hadn't gutted money for the states from the House
version of the stimulus bill, the 10th Amendment issue would die in a
hurry.

Don't be surprised to see those funds restored to the conferenced
version of the bill Ed.
What I don't understand is why the bill doesn't contain payroll tax
abatement provisions. That could be accomplished with the stroke of a
pen and would be as quick a stimulous as you could get. Republicans
would have been hoist on their own petard, and they'd have been
falling all over themselves to get behind the bill.

Oh, you underestimate their creativity. I'm sure they'd find something
to bitch about no matter what was or was not in the bill.

To them, this is about trying to score political points, not about
helping the country to recover. If you listen to Limbaugh, that's
exactly what the hard-core wants: failure.

And I'm thoroughly disgusted with McCain's grandstanding and sleazy
manuevering. He had it right the first time, when he said that his
understanding of economics is not one of his strong points.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed: I sure didn't vote for McCain but I do share his apparent lack of
understanding of economics (I did get a big fat A in engineering
economics though) but how does decreasing income (tax breaks) and
increasing spending (in spite of an existing and growing large debt)
help our economy? If this is a workable method shouldn't people who
recently lost their jobs(decreasing income)go buy more with their credit
cards(increased spending)? The only difference that I can see is that
the Government can print more money and control the value of the debt.

That's the question of the hour, Stu. I assume you're not asking for my
opinion on it, which is like dust in the wind, anyway, but rather what
the administration's thinking is on their stimulus program. The most
compact answer I could give, of which it will require your considerable
analytical skills to recognize its full implications, is this:

Debt, at the national scale, is a small problem. An inability to PAY for
that debt, without destructive messing around with the currency, is a
very large problem, especially when you're in a downward-spiraling
recession.

The growth rates required to stabilize deficit spending and to reduce it
to zero are actually a lot smaller than most people realize. So the
bottom line, to mainstream economists, is to get the growth rate up.
That's the only thing that will get us out of this mess. And the mess
will look less deep and messy if we *do* get growth going again. It
doesn't matter how it grows. What matters is that it *does* grow. And if
we don't get it growing, and quickly, we can kiss our economic ass
goodby. g

That's the theory. Something to keep in mind is that a 1% increase in
growth of the GDP directly increases tax revenues by roughly $50 billion
(at an overall tax rate of 33%, including federal, state, and local).
Likewise, a 1% decline directly increases deficits by a like amount.
There is a compounding effect from growth because you can tax some things
at higher rates when your economy is growing, without slowing down
growth, and also because a growing economy reduces the percentage of debt
represented by a given dollar amount of previously acquired debt, both of
which decrease the debt burden as a percentage of income. It also reduces
the interest rates the Fed has to pay.

And there are many other complications and caveats, which can be argued
six ways to Sunday. They aren't the point: The point is that deficits are
very sensitive to the growth rate of the GDP and to tax rates.

That's what's driving the administrations policies.

--
Ed Huntress

Thanks that makes a bunch of things a bit more understandable. It does
bring up a problem that we are having in our valley. The old adage "If
you ain't growing your dying". Has some very negative unintended
consequences. We are using more water now than is being replenished. Yet
the city fathers are actively trying to get more industry into the area as
well as more people. This water problem, I believe, is going to become an
increasing problem as we continue to "Grow". I can see from the
discussion provided by both you and McDuffee how growth has become an
economic necessity. We appear to be caught up in a giant Ponzy scheme.

Stu

g Well, I wouldn't call it a Ponzi scheme. That would be a case of leaving
future generations with large debts AND a weak economy that can't pay for
them. That's what we're trying to avoid.

But your water problem is real, and there's a more general point to be made
about that, which is that capitalism itself, which structurally and
inherently depends on growth, is again being brought into question. And
you'll be surprised at who is questioning it. It's intellectual
conservatives, not liberals. In certain reaches of intellectual
conservatism, it's believed that the conservative enterprise is inherently
in conflict with capitalism, which they (rightly) identify as a
liberal/progressive enterprise of the 18th century. This has been addressed
in a number of articles in the conservative journals recently.

You can have growth in an economy without growth in population; or even
without growth in the consumption of non-renewable resources; or resources
like your water supply which are renewable, but not at a rate sustainable
with increasing rates of consumption. That's the theory, anyway. Evidence
pointed to is such things as the growth in the electronics industry, the
Internet, and longer-lasting cars. "Green" development of such things as
renewable energy, recycling, and so on also are part of that picture. And
one school of thought is that nearly everything we manufacture really is
just "packaged services," and services have no inherent limits to growth --
at least, until we run out of shoe polish to polish each other's shoes. But
services *do* fulfill some functions previously fulfilled by manufactured
goods, and it's clear that the opportunities for growth there are much
greater than for manufactured goods.

Unfettered development has led to many of our problems, and may be coming to
the end of its days. Expect more planning at all levels, with an eye to
available resources necessary to sustain specific kinds of growth. This
applies more to real estate than to manufacturing. We in the West, even in
the US, don't yet have a population-growth problem. But the world as a whole
has one on the way. Expect to hear more about that over the coming years.

The times they are a' changin.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:22:03 -0800, "Stuart Fields"
wrote:

Thanks that makes a bunch of things a bit more understandable. It does
bring up a problem that we are having in our valley. The old adage "If you
ain't growing your dying". Has some very negative unintended consequences.
We are using more water now than is being replenished. Yet the city fathers
are actively trying to get more industry into the area as well as more
people. This water problem, I believe, is going to become an increasing
problem as we continue to "Grow". I can see from the discussion provided
by both you and McDuffee how growth has become an economic necessity. We
appear to be caught up in a giant Ponzy scheme.

Stu
==========
This is true, but only if one uses/accepts the current standard
socio-economic-political model/assumptions, and even here it is
important to differentiate between "growth" and "progress." As a
counter example, consider the many of traditional societies that
have managed to exist on a static basis for millennia, but they
have a very different view of property rights, ownership,
entitlement, etc.

This also why a new socio-economic/political is needed.

In your case of a limiting and over exploited resource [water], a
very useful and insightful article is "The Tragedy of the
Commons" by Garrett Hardin. For background and overview see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
For the actual article see
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/...e_commons.html

In many cases "growth" is substituted for "progress" as this is
considerably easier, generally cheaper in the short run, and most
politicians understand the concept of "more of the same only
better." Unfortunately, "progress" rather than "growth" is
generally required for any sustainable long-term increase in
aggregate benefits. "Progress" also has a general tendency to
reduce the power and influence of the existing elite, while
"growth" tends to increase their power and influence, so it is a
"no brainer" to see which one will be preferred/suggested.

While Harden makes a number of valid points, he is a
neo-Malthusian and disparages technical solutions. In your
particular case of limited water availability, all that may be
required is the introduction of industries that don't require
much water, encouragement of home owners to use native plantings
adapted to semiarid conditions rather than attempting to grow the
traditional suburban lawn, minimum lot sizes to limit population
density, and possibly the use of gray water from sinks, washing
machines, and dish washers to water the garden/trees. Minor
adaptations to conditions rather than an absolute ban on growth.
One of the least successful approaches is the creation of a water
conservation district, complete with licenses, fees, permits,
inspectors, and the seizure of individual water rights, with the
water then allocated to the "most worthy."

Your use of "Ponzi scheme" seems appropriate. The promoters and
the people at the front of the [water] line reap the benefits,
while the people at the back of the line get nothing but the
bills and water rationing.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:22:03 -0800, "Stuart Fields"
wrote:

Thanks that makes a bunch of things a bit more understandable. It does
bring up a problem that we are having in our valley. The old adage "If
you
ain't growing your dying". Has some very negative unintended
consequences.
We are using more water now than is being replenished. Yet the city
fathers
are actively trying to get more industry into the area as well as more
people. This water problem, I believe, is going to become an increasing
problem as we continue to "Grow". I can see from the discussion provided
by both you and McDuffee how growth has become an economic necessity. We
appear to be caught up in a giant Ponzy scheme.

Stu
==========
This is true, but only if one uses/accepts the current standard
socio-economic-political model/assumptions, and even here it is
important to differentiate between "growth" and "progress." As a
counter example, consider the many of traditional societies that
have managed to exist on a static basis for millennia, but they
have a very different view of property rights, ownership,
entitlement, etc.

This also why a new socio-economic/political is needed.

In your case of a limiting and over exploited resource [water], a
very useful and insightful article is "The Tragedy of the
Commons" by Garrett Hardin. For background and overview see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
For the actual article see
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/...e_commons.html

In many cases "growth" is substituted for "progress" as this is
considerably easier, generally cheaper in the short run, and most
politicians understand the concept of "more of the same only
better." Unfortunately, "progress" rather than "growth" is
generally required for any sustainable long-term increase in
aggregate benefits. "Progress" also has a general tendency to
reduce the power and influence of the existing elite, while
"growth" tends to increase their power and influence, so it is a
"no brainer" to see which one will be preferred/suggested.

While Harden makes a number of valid points, he is a
neo-Malthusian and disparages technical solutions. In your
particular case of limited water availability, all that may be
required is the introduction of industries that don't require
much water, encouragement of home owners to use native plantings
adapted to semiarid conditions rather than attempting to grow the
traditional suburban lawn, minimum lot sizes to limit population
density, and possibly the use of gray water from sinks, washing
machines, and dish washers to water the garden/trees. Minor
adaptations to conditions rather than an absolute ban on growth.
One of the least successful approaches is the creation of a water
conservation district, complete with licenses, fees, permits,
inspectors, and the seizure of individual water rights, with the
water then allocated to the "most worthy."

Your use of "Ponzi scheme" seems appropriate. The promoters and
the people at the front of the [water] line reap the benefits,
while the people at the back of the line get nothing but the
bills and water rationing.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Unka' George. Thank you roundly for the link to the Harden paper. I found
some of his "leaps of logic" a bit loose, but in general liked his
presentation and firmly agreed with his last paragraph. I have shared this
bit of wisdom with some of my more philosophically bent (dented?) friends.
You distinguish between "Growth" and "Progress" which stirred my little grey
cells. I have a lot of problems when arguments support "Progress" without
some agreement as to which goal is being "Progressed" towards. Looking at
the web sites for both the Democrats and the Republicans, I can't find out
just what they think is a place or goal to "Progress" to.
Water issue: In Utah you get your deed to the property with a deeded amount
of water. So many acres get so many acre feet of water each year. Here in
our valley in California that is not done and the "Commons" is being raped
by Alfalfa growers, Pistachio orchards etc. But being good Americans we are
waiting for the necessary pressure to build required in the excercising of
our normal problem solving technique called Knee Jerk
As an editor of a magazine, I enjoy your writing and discussions.

Stuart

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:21:06 -0800, "Stuart Fields"
wrote:
snip
I have shared this
bit of wisdom with some of my more philosophically bent (dented?) friends.
You distinguish between "Growth" and "Progress" which stirred my little grey
cells. I have a lot of problems when arguments support "Progress" without
some agreement as to which goal is being "Progressed" towards. Looking at
the web sites for both the Democrats and the Republicans, I can't find out
just what they think is a place or goal to "Progress" to.
snip
While "progress" and "growth" are quite different things, these
are frequently confused in political discourse, possibly because
the politicians don't [want to] understand the difference. [ I
consider "progress" and "development" as generally used to be
synonymous.]

for some bullet points see
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Eco...conomic_Growth
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/cus...cno =EJ489969
{and many others google on growth development difference}

You may also find these sites interesting
http://www.epa.gov/livability/
http://www.epa.gov/livablecommunities/water_density.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...8e2b32f3b2478a


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).