Ed Huntress wrote:

The psychology of buying into myths and not wanting to be confused by the
facts must be really interesting.



Not really. It's just business as usual in modern America...
--

Richard Lamb

John R. Carroll wrote:

When you look at the actual numbers, practically all of the Tea Party
economic myths collapse like a house of cards.

Calling the teabagger's economic policy a "myth" is given them to much
credit by half.
It's either willful ignorance, fraud, or a combination of the two.



Neither.

It's a power play.

You don't get the great unwashed mass vote by telling them anything
but what they want to hear.

Come on, guys.

You know that!

--

Richard Lamb

On 3/30/2011 12:26 PM, wrote:
On Mar 30, 3:21 pm, wrote:

So when bandying around the term rich it's good to understand who you
really mean. The well off millionaire you know in your local area
probably isn't really rich. If he was he'd live in Beverly Hills or the
Hamptons. In America these days rich means really, really, really, rich.
Anything less than hundreds of millions doesn't even cut it.

Hawke

Who cares? I am not envious of the very rich. Why does it bother you
so much?

Dan



Because when a country has a small segment of it's population that owns
nearly all the nation's wealth you have a banana republic. Countries
with a few who own everything are like what you find in Africa or in
Mexico. They are not countries that anyone uses as a standard or quality.

America was held as the greatest country in the world in the 1950s and
1960 when its wealth was held by the greatest number of people ever.
We've been heading towards banana republic status since 1980. I want a
country like it was when we were the envy of the world, and we had a
huge middle class.

Last, you mistake realizing a problem as envy. I do not envy the rich
because I don't love luxury. I would not live "rich" even if I was rich.
I think the rich are weak. Having too much does that to people. But what
bothers me is what kind of country having a class with so much wealth
becomes. Like Obama, I want a country where the wealth is spread around.
I've seen what it looks like when a few own everything. It's no good.
That's where we've been heading and we don't seem to be changing course.
If we keep it up it'll be revolution time. Would you like to see the
people rise up and overthrow the government? If not then you should
understand why I'm against so few having so much. But then maybe you won't.

Hawke

On 3/30/2011 4:47 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'm not sure the Zero administration has any plans to reduce
the deficit, or the debt. That will be left to later admin.



Yeah!, and maybe we can get a republican administration that will stop
building the debt. But then, since Reagan every single republican
administration just keeps adding and adding and adding to the debt.
Remember when they said deficits don't count? But maybe the next one
will be different. Like Romney. Think he'll stop adding to the debt?
Seen a zebra change it's stripes yet?

Hawke

On 3/30/2011 7:48 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:47:27 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
snip
I'm not sure the Zero administration has any plans to reduce
the deficit, or the debt. That will be left to later admin.
snip
==========
It has been observed that life is what occurs while you are
making other plans...

Current news is that the true Republicans and financial
conservatives are refusing to even consider additional
continuing resolutions so the federal government is
scheduled to begin shutting down 08 April until a new budget
can be enacted.

Even more critical in the slightly longer term is not only
the refusal of the true Republicans and the new tea-party
affiliated members of Congress to vote for any increase in
the national debt, but their avowed intentions to "spike"
[prevent] even the consideration of such increase in either
house.

It should be crystal clear the politicians at every level of
government in the US will spend every cent they can get
their hands on, and the only way to prevent financial/fiscal
disaster is to chop the money tree down, i.e. no increase in
the debt limit. To be sure this will cause great hardship
and upheaval for many people, but nothing approaching the
universal catastrophe of a fiscal crisis with sovereign debt
default that is sure to occur in a few years if the US
national debt limit is again increased or, god forbid,
removed.


It should be remembered that we just experienced the worst recession in
our history. Bush started two wars that are still not over. The baby
boom generation is a once in a century event.

With those problems it's not a surprise that the government has spent
more than it has taken in. Not counting the fact that we've had one
republican administration after another that refused to raise taxes to a
level needed to pay for it's spending.

But all those things are transitory. The recession is over and one of
these days we will return to full employment and even to a boom in the
business cycle. At which point far more money will be coming into the
treasury.

The Bush wars will eventually end reducing our huge financial outlays.
The baby boom generation will all die too. So at some time in the future
business will boom, the baby boomers' retirement will no longer be a
huge cost to the country. As these things happen you will see a reversal
and the debts caused by these events will be replaced by surpluses. But
there is one thing that could prevent that from happening. That would be
if more republicans control the government and they continue to refuse
to raise enough in tax revenues to pay for the country's expenses. So if
that happens expect the debt will never go away.

Hawke

On Mar 30, 6:44*pm, Hawke wrote:


Last, you mistake realizing a problem as envy. I do not envy the rich
Like Obama, I want a country where the wealth is spread around.
Would you like to see the
people rise up and overthrow the government? If not then you should
understand why I'm against so few having so much. But then maybe you won't.

wrote in message
...

I still think you are envious. What you want to see is a country
where no one is rich. Where everyone works hard and no one gets
ahead. The people will not rise up and overthrow the government as
long as they have opportunities.

Dan
*************

Some people are easily indoctrinated and buy into the class envy and
myth about how the rich "stole" their wealth from the "workers".
America is (was) great because there is unlimited opportunity for
someone to succeed IF they are smart, work hard, and have a certain
amount of luck. It's rare if not impossible that anybody will get
rich punching a clock but those willing to take *RISK*, have an idea
and the tenacity to follow through and probably failing a number of
times CAN succeed. The leftist minions believe that the wealth of
these national treasures of people should be confiscated and some of
the wealth distributed among the people that have no idea, not willing
to work hard, have no luck and won't take any risk. They have it in
their minds, as they were indoctrinated, that wealth belongs to all
and has to be redistributed to all. Except that the masters get a
bigger share and votes in return. Should the wealthy pay more taxes?
Probably. But, the leftists want it ALL! And, they want it to be
impossible for the wealthy to leave anything to their family.
Victimhood...what a concept! Without that myth, the left wouldn't
exist.

wrote:
On Mar 30, 3:21*pm, Hawke wrote:

So when bandying around the term rich it's good to understand who you
really mean. The well off millionaire you know in your local area
probably isn't really rich. If he was he'd live in Beverly Hills or the
Hamptons. In America these days rich means really, really, really, rich.
Anything less than hundreds of millions doesn't even cut it.

Who cares? I am not envious of the very rich. Why does it bother you
so much?

Because his liberal philosophy is _based on_ the politics of envy.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

On 3/30/2011 4:55 PM, wrote:
On Mar 30, 6:44 pm, wrote:


Last, you mistake realizing a problem as envy. I do not envy the rich
Like Obama, I want a country where the wealth is spread around.
Would you like to see the
people rise up and overthrow the government? If not then you should
understand why I'm against so few having so much. But then maybe you won't.

Hawke

I still think you are envious. What you want to see is a country
where no one is rich. Where everyone works hard and no one gets
ahead. The people will not rise up and overthrow the government as
long as they have opportunities.

Dan



It's not that. I just don't understand the need for 100 million dollars.
Maybe it was my Christian upbringing, but in the first place I was
taught that greed is wrong. Then my life experience has taught me that
no one has any need for 100 million dollars, let alone billions. I think
any society that allows some of its members to accumulate that kind of
wealth, regardless of how they come by it, is making a big mistake. Once
a person has their basic material needs taken care of then what's left
is just what one wants. If you want so much and you need the luxury of a
pharaoh I think you have a screw loose. It's just not rational to desire
so much. Not only that, allowing a handful of people that kind of money
gives them way too much power, and they often abuse it. So for many
reasons I don't like the idea of a few people accumulating vast sums of
money. It's not good for anyone in my book. Just my opinion but that's
what I think. Would I like to have more wealth than I do? Sure. But do I
want to be grossly rich? No. Do I envy those people? No, because like I
said, I don't want that much. Besides that, I think it's a sign of
weakness to be that needy.

Hawke

On 3/30/2011 7:44 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
wrote in message
...

I still think you are envious. What you want to see is a country
where no one is rich. Where everyone works hard and no one gets
ahead. The people will not rise up and overthrow the government as
long as they have opportunities.

Dan
*************

Some people are easily indoctrinated and buy into the class envy and
myth about how the rich "stole" their wealth from the "workers".
America is (was) great because there is unlimited opportunity for
someone to succeed IF they are smart, work hard, and have a certain
amount of luck. It's rare if not impossible that anybody will get
rich punching a clock but those willing to take *RISK*, have an idea
and the tenacity to follow through and probably failing a number of
times CAN succeed. The leftist minions believe that the wealth of
these national treasures of people should be confiscated and some of
the wealth distributed among the people that have no idea, not willing
to work hard, have no luck and won't take any risk. They have it in
their minds, as they were indoctrinated, that wealth belongs to all
and has to be redistributed to all. Except that the masters get a
bigger share and votes in return. Should the wealthy pay more taxes?
Probably. But, the leftists want it ALL! And, they want it to be
impossible for the wealthy to leave anything to their family.
Victimhood...what a concept! Without that myth, the left wouldn't
exist.




Here's what I want to know from you. We all know that giving children
too much isn't good for them. Most of us know that's true for adults
too. It's your idea of people being given the chance to work hard, be
smart, and be lucky, can make a really great life for themselves in this
country, and leave something to their kids. I don't see anything wrong
with that. But how about leaving huge wealth to the next generation of
your family? Leaving huge estates guarantees that your kids will never
need to work, that they will have a life of ease, that they will have a
life of the idle rich. Do you think that is good for anyone? So not only
do you get the benefit from succeeding in America, from your hard work,
but you hand that same benefit to a number of your relatives who do
nothing to get what you worked for. They get all the benefits but do no
work for it. See anything wrong with that? Then they get to do the same
thing for their kids and on and on. That's good?

Hawke

On 3/30/2011 8:11 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 30, 3:21 pm, wrote:

So when bandying around the term rich it's good to understand who you
really mean. The well off millionaire you know in your local area
probably isn't really rich. If he was he'd live in Beverly Hills or the
Hamptons. In America these days rich means really, really, really, rich.
Anything less than hundreds of millions doesn't even cut it.

Who cares? I am not envious of the very rich. Why does it bother you
so much?

Because his liberal philosophy is _based on_ the politics of envy.


Want to compare that with your philosophy which is based solely on
greediness? As well as inequality and injustice. You might just as well
say I'm for unfairness. And you find fault with my philosophy? That's rich!

Hawke

On 3/30/2011 11:15 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stormin wrote in message
...
Some folks in Washington project things based on static
economy. "Well, we make a trillion dollars in taxes. Double
the taxes, and we'll make two trillion."

What they don't realize, is that when taxes go up, people
say "I guess we won't buy that after all, we'll keep using
the old one."

Raising taxes, after some point, lowers actual revenue.
Ronald Reagan recognized that, and that's part of why his
Presidency was so successful.

Reagan ran up the national debt by deficit spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...residen t.jpg

The budgets that Reagan requested during his terms were HIGHER than the ones
that Congress approved:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

You've been breathing their blue smoke, Chris. Reagan ran a deficit even
when the economy was improving -- a no-no, according to everything that was
known about economics at that time, and a no-no under Keynesian theory.

That's why the GDP and employment kept improving. Reagan put us on that big
credit card, and he didn't even try to pay it down when the economy turned
up. Neither did either of the Bushes. Only Clinton did.

When you look at the actual numbers, practically all of the Tea Party
economic myths collapse like a house of cards.



Yes, but they do sound really good if you're a rube.

Hawke

On 3/30/2011 1:33 PM, jim wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stormin wrote in message
...
Some folks in Washington project things based on static
economy. "Well, we make a trillion dollars in taxes. Double
the taxes, and we'll make two trillion."

What they don't realize, is that when taxes go up, people
say "I guess we won't buy that after all, we'll keep using
the old one."

Raising taxes, after some point, lowers actual revenue.
Ronald Reagan recognized that, and that's part of why his
Presidency was so successful.

Reagan ran up the national debt by deficit spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...residen t.jpg

The budgets that Reagan requested during his terms were HIGHER than
the ones that Congress approved:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

You've been breathing their blue smoke, Chris. Reagan ran a deficit
even when the economy was improving -- a no-no, according to
everything that was known about economics at that time, and a no-no
under Keynesian theory.
That's why the GDP and employment kept improving. Reagan put us on
that big credit card, and he didn't even try to pay it down when the
economy turned up. Neither did either of the Bushes. Only Clinton did.

Not true, Ed.
Bush 1 recognized the problematic direction the budget was headed in and
raised taxes significantly.

The govt debt increased under Bush1 as fast as under Reagon. By the time
those 12 years were done they had created 3 times more debt than all
debt combined of all the presidents preceding.


When you know that to be the truth it really makes you wonder at the
balls of the current republicans in congress. With that kind of a track
record of spending far more than they take in, where do they come off
acting like they are the financially responsible party? Well, actually
they are the responsible party. Yeah, the party responsible for most of
our debt. Now they want us to believe they're not really big spenders
and they aren't the direct cause of most of our debt problems. How many
times do I have to say it? If you believe what they republicans say
about finances then you're an idiot. Actually, if you believe anything
they say you're an idiot.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 3/30/2011 1:33 PM, jim wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stormin wrote in message
...
Some folks in Washington project things based on static
economy. "Well, we make a trillion dollars in taxes. Double
the taxes, and we'll make two trillion."

What they don't realize, is that when taxes go up, people
say "I guess we won't buy that after all, we'll keep using
the old one."

Raising taxes, after some point, lowers actual revenue.
Ronald Reagan recognized that, and that's part of why his
Presidency was so successful.

Reagan ran up the national debt by deficit spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...residen t.jpg

The budgets that Reagan requested during his terms were HIGHER than
the ones that Congress approved:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

You've been breathing their blue smoke, Chris. Reagan ran a deficit
even when the economy was improving -- a no-no, according to
everything that was known about economics at that time, and a no-no
under Keynesian theory.
That's why the GDP and employment kept improving. Reagan put us on
that big credit card, and he didn't even try to pay it down when the
economy turned up. Neither did either of the Bushes. Only Clinton did.

Not true, Ed.
Bush 1 recognized the problematic direction the budget was headed in and
raised taxes significantly.

The govt debt increased under Bush1 as fast as under Reagon. By the time
those 12 years were done they had created 3 times more debt than all
debt combined of all the presidents preceding.


When you know that to be the truth it really makes you wonder at the balls
of the current republicans in congress. With that kind of a track record
of spending far more than they take in, where do they come off acting like
they are the financially responsible party? Well, actually they are the
responsible party. Yeah, the party responsible for most of our debt. Now
they want us to believe they're not really big spenders and they aren't
the direct cause of most of our debt problems. How many times do I have to
say it? If you believe what they republicans say about finances then
you're an idiot. Actually, if you believe anything they say you're an
idiot.

Hawke

They're trying to regain the mantle of being the fiscally conservative
party, which they were at one time but which they completely abandoned under
Reagan. When you're in a recession with high unemployment, it's not
difficult to play the demagogue and win votes from people who are looking
for anything that sounds like an answer.

It's a good time, politically, to revive all of their old chestnuts. They'd
resurrect Herbert Hoover if they could. d8-)

I wonder if they actually know better, and are just playing on the lack of
economics education on the part of most voters, or if they actually believe
their nonsense. I'm not sure. Most likely, it's some of each.

--
Ed Huntress

John R. Carroll wrote:

Another that is at least equally good and perhaps better is "Winner-Take-All
Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the
Middle Class"
Paul Pierson (Author), Jacob S. Hacker

The authors used a much broader range of references that are very high
quality and it's newer.
They do an analysis of Richistan abd Broadland that's very good and
referencer "Richistan" and expands on it.

I highly recomend it.



Seconded...



--

Richard Lamb

On Mar 31, 2:34*pm, Hawke wrote:

It's not that. I just don't understand the need for 100 million dollars.
Maybe it was my Christian upbringing, but in the first place I was
taught that greed is wrong. Then my life experience has taught me that
no one has any need for 100 million dollars, let alone billions. I think
any society that allows some of its members to accumulate that kind of
wealth, regardless of how they come by it, is making a big mistake. Once
a person has their basic material needs taken care of then what's left
is just what one wants. If you want so much and you need the luxury of a
pharaoh I think you have a screw loose. It's just not rational to desire
so much. Not only that, allowing a handful of people that kind of money
gives them way too much power, and they often abuse it. So for many
reasons I don't like the idea of a few people accumulating vast sums of
money. It's not good for anyone in my book. Just my opinion but that's
what I think. Would I like to have more wealth than I do? Sure. But do I
want to be grossly rich? No. Do I envy those people? No, because like I
said, I don't want that much. Besides that, I think it's a sign of
weakness to be that needy.

Hawke

Howard Hughes accumulated vast sums of money. Andrew Carnegie
accumulated vast sums of money. So take a look at what they did with
the money. You can do a lot of good things if you have a lot of
money.

Dan

On Mar 31, 2:52*pm, Hawke wrote:


When you look at the actual numbers, practically all of the Tea Party
economic myths collapse like a house of cards.

Yes, but they do sound really good if you're a rube.

Hawke

So Ed and Hawke what is your solution for a government that spends a
dollar and sixty cents for every dollar of revenue?

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Mar 31, 2:52 pm, Hawke wrote:


When you look at the actual numbers, practically all of the Tea Party
economic myths collapse like a house of cards.

Yes, but they do sound really good if you're a rube.

Hawke

So Ed and Hawke what is your solution for a government that spends a
dollar and sixty cents for every dollar of revenue?

Dan

Keep doing it until the economy turns up. Because, if it doesn't turn up,
we're screwed either way.

But put it all into unemployment benefits and infrastructure projects.

Before the recession hit bottom, serious economists were estimating that the
necessary stimulus was in the range of $2.1 trillion. Less than that, and
the most you could do is to keep it from turning into a depression. Which we
did, and it did.

Oh, and the bank bailout should have been focused mostly on getting money to
the bank's ultimate customers, to keep consumption up and to keep people
from defaulting on their mortgages, not to feeding the banks' reserve
accounts. That was a major mistake.

A small amount should have been set aside for prosecuting the banksters.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

John R. Carroll wrote:

Another that is at least equally good and perhaps better is
"Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned
Its Back on the Middle Class"
Paul Pierson (Author), Jacob S. Hacker

I'm not going to talk about the politcs of envy, but your use of the term
"Winner take all" made me think of the perverse electoral system. California
has 55 electoral votes. What happens is, if Al gets 28 electoral
votes, and Bob gets 27, they report that Al got all 55 votes.

In other words, if you voted for Bob, and Bob loses, THEY CHANGE YOUR VOTE!
California turns in 55 electoral votes for Al.

That's just evil.

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:55:31 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
snip
I still think you are envious. What you want to see is a country
where no one is rich. Where everyone works hard and no one gets
ahead. The people will not rise up and overthrow the government as
long as they have opportunities.
===========
And here we have the root of the dilemma.

It is not by accident that Washington DC is increasingly
referred to as Versailles on the Potomac, and the gilded
enclaves of NYC frequently described as Versailles on the
Hudson.

It is not wealth per se, but rather the isolation,
insulation and general sense of exceptionalism /entitlement
[the rules don't apply to me] that extreme wealth far too
frequently causes that is the problem. It is also highly
dangerous to everyone concerned including the very wealthy,
as it distorts their view of reality and leads to such
stupid remarks as "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" [let them
eat cake].

A, perhaps the, foundational principal of American
government is "the consent of the governed," and it should
be obvious that when the governmental and business power
structures are largely isolated and insulated from
meaningful contact with the huge majority of people, and the
polls/surveys are spun/massaged to reflect elites
preconceptions and prejudices, there can be no consent.
Among the most critical items [in no particular order] are
"too big to fail" businesses, endless wars, continuing
deficits and unsustainable debt, deindustrialization/job
exports, and dependence on imported energy [oil].


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


Oh, and the bank bailout should have been focused mostly on getting money
to the bank's ultimate customers, to keep consumption up and to keep
people from defaulting on their mortgages, not to feeding the banks'
reserve accounts. That was a major mistake.

A small amount should have been set aside for prosecuting the banksters.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


I allways thought that getting the cash directley into the peoples hands
would have been a far better solution than saving bankers. This would
have prevented the credit crunch that hurt a lot of small bussines.
Let the banks fail save the people. New banks would have replaced
the failed banks. As it stands now were back to the same old mindset
that caused the meltdown and the bankers are hard at work developing
the next scam.

Best Regards
Tom.

On Mar 31, 5:42*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Keep doing it until the economy turns up. Because, if it doesn't turn up,
we're screwed either way.

Ed Huntress


The economy will not turn up very much until people have confidence.
Having the government spend more than it takes in does not help people
have confidence. So I guess we are screwed.

Dan

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:42:13 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Mar 31, 2:52 pm, Hawke wrote:


When you look at the actual numbers, practically all of the Tea Party
economic myths collapse like a house of cards.
As does most of the economic/fiscal pronouncements.

Yes, but they do sound really good if you're a rube.

Hawke

So Ed and Hawke what is your solution for a government that spends a
dollar and sixty cents for every dollar of revenue?

Dan

Keep doing it until the economy turns up. Because, if it doesn't turn up,
we're screwed either way.
The problem here is that we have about maxed out the credit
cards. We can borrow some more from the leg-breakers and
knee-knockers, but the vig [interest] will be high and will
keep going higher. Because of the yield curve [short term
money generally costs less than long term] Treasury has
rolled over into shorter and shorter term securities, thus
when interest rates turn around [and these always do] we are
screwed with minimal time to refinance.

But put it all into unemployment benefits and infrastructure projects.
Just calling something an infrastructure project does not
make it one. Where are the coal liquefaction plants? Where
are the thorium reactors? Where are the REE/fissial
materials recovery from fly ash programs?

Before the recession hit bottom, serious economists were estimating that the
necessary stimulus was in the range of $2.1 trillion. Less than that, and
the most you could do is to keep it from turning into a depression. Which we
did, and it did.

As most of the bail-out money was "short stopped by the
banks or poured down rat holes like GM, this is a moot
point. Many of the infrastructure "improvements" were some
ones pet project and not economically viable, and appear to
have contributed little toward increasing the GDP beyond the
initial "investment," i.e. no ROI.

Oh, and the bank bailout should have been focused mostly on getting money to
the bank's ultimate customers, to keep consumption up and to keep people
from defaulting on their mortgages, not to feeding the banks' reserve
accounts. That was a major mistake.

Indeed, and some of the conditions for any bailout funds
should have been re imposition of Glass-Steagall, max limits
on size, possible 1% of GDP, and retirement/termination of
all directors and officers w/no termination pay and "claw
back" of any deferred earnings shown to be the result of
phoney baloney asset valuations/profits.

A small amount should have been set aside for prosecuting the banksters.
d8-)

Indeed, and a larger amount should have been allocated to
preserving the records, and getting these into machine
readable [database] format, particularly the
mortgages/tranches behind the CDOs. While minimal hard data
exists, it appears likely the same mortgage on a physical
property was used as collateral in multiple CDOs/tranches,
which accounts for multiple mortgage service companies
trying to foreclose on the same property.
-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

wrote in message
...
On Mar 31, 5:42 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Keep doing it until the economy turns up. Because, if it doesn't turn up,
we're screwed either way.

Ed Huntress


The economy will not turn up very much until people have confidence.
Having the government spend more than it takes in does not help people
have confidence. So I guess we are screwed.

And what's your historical evidence for this assertion, Dan?

--
Ed Huntress

"azotic" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


Oh, and the bank bailout should have been focused mostly on getting money
to the bank's ultimate customers, to keep consumption up and to keep
people from defaulting on their mortgages, not to feeding the banks'
reserve accounts. That was a major mistake.

A small amount should have been set aside for prosecuting the banksters.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


I allways thought that getting the cash directley into the peoples hands
would have been a far better solution than saving bankers. This would
have prevented the credit crunch that hurt a lot of small bussines.

Many of us who weren't paying attention to the details of TARP, myself
included, assumed that the government dictated terms like that to the banks.
Wrong-o.

--
Ed Huntress

Let the banks fail save the people. New banks would have replaced
the failed banks. As it stands now were back to the same old mindset
that caused the meltdown and the bankers are hard at work developing
the next scam.

Best Regards
Tom.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:08:48 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:55:31 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
snip
I still think you are envious. What you want to see is a country
where no one is rich. Where everyone works hard and no one gets
ahead. The people will not rise up and overthrow the government as
long as they have opportunities.
===========
And here we have the root of the dilemma.

It is not by accident that Washington DC is increasingly
referred to as Versailles on the Potomac, and the gilded
enclaves of NYC frequently described as Versailles on the
Hudson.

It is not wealth per se, but rather the isolation,
insulation and general sense of exceptionalism /entitlement
[the rules don't apply to me] that extreme wealth far too
frequently causes that is the problem. It is also highly
dangerous to everyone concerned including the very wealthy,
as it distorts their view of reality and leads to such
stupid remarks as "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" [let them
eat cake].

A, perhaps the, foundational principal of American
government is "the consent of the governed," and it should
be obvious that when the governmental and business power
structures are largely isolated and insulated from
meaningful contact with the huge majority of people, and the
polls/surveys are spun/massaged to reflect elites
preconceptions and prejudices, there can be no consent.
Among the most critical items [in no particular order] are
"too big to fail" businesses, endless wars, continuing
deficits and unsustainable debt, deindustrialization/job
exports, and dependence on imported energy [oil].

Bravo! Well said, Unka G.

http://goo.gl/T2ay Your Senator is probably a millionaire.
They just can't relate to the common American citizen. They travel in
different circles, breathing different air.

--
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will
preserve for our children this, the last best hope
of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take
the last step into a thousand years of darkness.?
-- Ronald Reagan

Rich Grise wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
Another that is at least equally good and perhaps better is
"Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned
Its Back on the Middle Class"
Paul Pierson (Author), Jacob S. Hacker

I'm not going to talk about the politcs of envy, but your use of the term
"Winner take all" made me think of the perverse electoral system. California
has 55 electoral votes. What happens is, if Al gets 28 electoral
votes, and Bob gets 27, they report that Al got all 55 votes.

In other words, if you voted for Bob, and Bob loses, THEY CHANGE YOUR VOTE!
California turns in 55 electoral votes for Al.

That's just evil.

Thanks,
Rich



That's a Republic.

What? You thought we were a Democracy?


--

Richard Lamb

Maybe Haiti will invade and install a representative democracy?

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:48:58 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

John R. Carroll wrote:

Another that is at least equally good and perhaps better is
"Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned
Its Back on the Middle Class"
Paul Pierson (Author), Jacob S. Hacker

I'm not going to talk about the politcs of envy, but your use of the term
"Winner take all" made me think of the perverse electoral system. California
has 55 electoral votes. What happens is, if Al gets 28 electoral
votes, and Bob gets 27, they report that Al got all 55 votes.

In other words, if you voted for Bob, and Bob loses, THEY CHANGE YOUR VOTE!
California turns in 55 electoral votes for Al.

That's just evil.

Thanks,
Rich
=========

First off, the people do not now and never have voted for
president. The people vote for the electors that select the
president.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/spe...lege/more.html

This is the kind of thing that the electorial college system
was designed and implemented to prevent. That system was
coopted and preempted by the rise of party politics and
pledged electors.
http://www.historycentral.com/electi...collgewhy.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/a2s1.htm

One recent example of how this safeguard was bypassed and
circumvented was the disgraceful example of Bush v Gore in
2000, and how this election was decided [stolen?] not by the
people or their electors, but by 3 of the nine geezers on
the SCOTUS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore {I am still not
sure how that worked as I though at least 5 would be
required...}

One obvious answer would be to ban pledged electors, and let
the electorial college function as it was intended to select
the most suitable candidate rather than choosing between the
lesser of two evils proposed by the major parties.

The electorial college system also prevents the larger
costal states from ramming their choice for president down
the throats of the smaller "fly over" states.

Even if the presidential election was decided by popular
vote, the choice operationally would still be only between
the candidates of the 2 major parties.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Mar 31, 8:02*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

And what's your historical evidence for this assertion, Dan?

--
Ed Huntress

U K in the early 80's.

Dan

" wrote:

On Mar 31, 8:02 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

And what's your historical evidence for this assertion, Dan?

--
Ed Huntress

U K in the early 80's.


What has the "U K in the early 80's"

got to do with your previous statement:

"The economy will not turn up very much
until people have confidence. Having the
government spend more than it takes in
does not help people have confidence."

http://www.johnhearfield.com/History...l_debt_BoE.gif

Them, or Grenada.

Wasn't there a move in the seventies, about some Black
Africans who came to the US to teach us how to behave in a
civilized manner?

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


"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Maybe Haiti will invade and install a representative
democracy?

wrote in message
...
On Mar 31, 8:02 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

And what's your historical evidence for this assertion, Dan?

--
Ed Huntress

U K in the early 80's.

Dan

'Doesn't work, Dan. The UK's GDP climbed right through the most severe
deficit spending in its history. It dropped from 1980 to 1984, and then it
went 'way up -- just as deficit spending took off like a rocket:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...=e n&q=uk+gdp

http://www.johnhearfield.com/History...l_debt_BoE.gif

Your first point, that confidence is a big factor in economic recovery,
probably is correct. Notice that consumer sentiment turned up in every case
before each recession receded -- right through a period of sharp deficit
spending:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UMCSENT

(see below for deficit spending)

The idea that deficit spending leads to a loss of confidence doesn't seem to
have any validity. Mostly, it's a scare tactic used by the right when they
need a talking point/scaring point to make some political hay, with people
who don't check the actual numbers. They didn't talk about it during the
Reagan or G.W. Bush terms, but they're screaming about it now, so it may be
influencing public confidence through the throw-weight of relentless
demagoguery.

In the US, we've had fierce deficit spending through all six recessions
since 1970:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=FYFSD (click "Edit" and when
the screen re-loads, set the start date to 1970. The gray bars represent
recessions.)

It didn't seem to prevent recovery. And recovery starts with consumer
spending.

The consumer is the key to all modern US recoveries. If sentiment is down,
consumer spending is down, almost regardless of what else is happening. And
businesses don't invest until they see signs of consumption recovery. That's
another issue, but it's germane here because there is no evidence that
investment leads recovery. It begins after recessions turn up -- usually,
just as the recession ends, which means recovery has been going on for a
while before there is significant investment:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GPDI

In other words, supply-side economics is a load of crap, as is nearly all of
the conservative economics agenda.

--
Ed Huntress

On 3/31/2011 12:06 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/30/2011 1:33 PM, jim wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Stormin wrote in message
...
Some folks in Washington project things based on static
economy. "Well, we make a trillion dollars in taxes. Double
the taxes, and we'll make two trillion."

What they don't realize, is that when taxes go up, people
say "I guess we won't buy that after all, we'll keep using
the old one."

Raising taxes, after some point, lowers actual revenue.
Ronald Reagan recognized that, and that's part of why his
Presidency was so successful.

Reagan ran up the national debt by deficit spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...residen t.jpg

The budgets that Reagan requested during his terms were HIGHER than
the ones that Congress approved:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

You've been breathing their blue smoke, Chris. Reagan ran a deficit
even when the economy was improving -- a no-no, according to
everything that was known about economics at that time, and a no-no
under Keynesian theory.
That's why the GDP and employment kept improving. Reagan put us on
that big credit card, and he didn't even try to pay it down when the
economy turned up. Neither did either of the Bushes. Only Clinton did.

Not true, Ed.
Bush 1 recognized the problematic direction the budget was headed in and
raised taxes significantly.

The govt debt increased under Bush1 as fast as under Reagon. By the time
those 12 years were done they had created 3 times more debt than all
debt combined of all the presidents preceding.


When you know that to be the truth it really makes you wonder at the balls
of the current republicans in congress. With that kind of a track record
of spending far more than they take in, where do they come off acting like
they are the financially responsible party? Well, actually they are the
responsible party. Yeah, the party responsible for most of our debt. Now
they want us to believe they're not really big spenders and they aren't
the direct cause of most of our debt problems. How many times do I have to
say it? If you believe what they republicans say about finances then
you're an idiot. Actually, if you believe anything they say you're an
idiot.

Hawke

They're trying to regain the mantle of being the fiscally conservative
party, which they were at one time but which they completely abandoned under
Reagan. When you're in a recession with high unemployment, it's not
difficult to play the demagogue and win votes from people who are looking
for anything that sounds like an answer.

It's a good time, politically, to revive all of their old chestnuts. They'd
resurrect Herbert Hoover if they could. d8-)

I wonder if they actually know better, and are just playing on the lack of
economics education on the part of most voters, or if they actually believe
their nonsense. I'm not sure. Most likely, it's some of each.



I'd say thirty five years of nothing but deficits defines a party as the
party of deficit spending, and you do remember when "deficits don't
matter", was the slogan of the day, don't you? So, it's all baloney. The
republicans are not going to do anything any different when they get
control than they always do. Look at what they have done since they have
taken over the House. They talked about jobs, jobs, jobs, when they were
in the minority but since taking over jobs has taken the back seat. It's
back to the good old social issues like abortion, gays in the military,
and other social issues.

The republicans are simply not built to rule. They're great as an
opposition party but once you give them the reins they revert to form.
It's all conservative social issues, military adventures, tax cuts for
the rich, gifts to business and Wall Street, and cuts in services for
everybody else. I've seen it all my life. They do the same thing over
and over. They say they're for small government and the first thing they
do when in power is expand the power of the government, and the next
thing they do is cut taxes on the rich while increasing spending. It
just amazes me that they continue this way and still get anyone to
believe a word they say. It just confirms how ignorant and foolish the
public really is. No wonder the founding fathers were so dead set
against democracy.

Hawke

On 3/31/2011 2:27 PM, wrote:
On Mar 31, 2:52 pm, wrote:


When you look at the actual numbers, practically all of the Tea Party
economic myths collapse like a house of cards.

Yes, but they do sound really good if you're a rube.

Hawke

So Ed and Hawke what is your solution for a government that spends a
dollar and sixty cents for every dollar of revenue?

Dan



Simple. Stop doing that! The problem is how you do it. As we all know,
if you can't afford something you can't have it. At this point I don't
think we can afford war. So that's the first place I'd save some money.
I'd get out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and save us billions in
spending per day.

Then I'd go after the entitlement programs and make some modest cuts
there. Medicare is where all the money is going so some measure of
reduction in spending there has to be done. But not all that much.

The real way to fix the problem is to get people back to work and paying
taxes. With another month of job growth, over 200 thousand last month,
we're moving in the right direction. So you keep going with Obama's
economic recovery program, it's working.

That's about all it takes. End the wars, make some modest cuts in
entitlements, and keep going with stimulating the economy. One more
thing. Taxes on business and the wealthy have to go up substantially.
Follow my recommendations and I guarantee we'd be on the road to ending
the deficit spending in nothing flat. Is anyone in the government going
to do what I advise? Of course not.

Hawke

On Apr 1, 3:21*pm, Hawke wrote:

Follow my recommendations and I guarantee we'd be on the road to ending
the deficit spending in nothing flat. Is anyone in the government going
to do what I advise? Of course not.

Hawke

I do not agree with you. Not that your recommendations are bad, but
if the government did do what you advise, they would immediately say "
What wonderful folk are we. Now we can increase government
spending." And they would still be spending more than the revenue.

Dan

On Apr 1, 1:38*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

In the US, we've had fierce deficit spending through all six recessions
since 1970:


Ed Huntress

And we pretty much had deficit spending all the times we were not in a
recession too.

Parkinson's law says work expands to fill the time available.

Whose law says government spending expands to exceed revenues.

Dan

On Apr 1, 1:38*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

'Doesn't work, Dan. The UK's GDP climbed right through the most severe
deficit spending in its history. It dropped from 1980 to 1984, and then it
went 'way up -- just as deficit spending took off like a rocket:


My point exactly. UK was in a recession from 1980 to 1984. They did
not do a lot of deficit spending to end the recession. They kept
business as usual, steady as she goes. And the recession ended anyway
because 1. recessions end after some time unless you do something
stupid, and 2 the brits knew what changes the government was making
( essentially none. ).



The idea that deficit spending leads to a loss of confidence doesn't seem to
have any validity.

Ed Huntress


And I was not trying to say that deficit spending leads to a loss of
confidence. But if there is a lot of change, people hesitate until
they understand what the new business environment is. Or at least I
think they do.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Apr 1, 1:38 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

In the US, we've had fierce deficit spending through all six recessions
since 1970:


Ed Huntress

And we pretty much had deficit spending all the times we were not in a
recession too.

Hey, Reagan, Bush et al. read the first chapter of Keynes' _General
Theory..._ They never got to chapter two.


Parkinson's law says work expands to fill the time available.

Whose law says government spending expands to exceed revenues.

g Something tells me the subject has been changed from a lack of
confidence to a sort of general economic grumbling for all reasons. I'll
play rhythm and you take it from here.

--
Ed Huntress

" wrote:

On Apr 1, 1:38 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

'Doesn't work, Dan. The UK's GDP climbed right through the most severe
deficit spending in its history. It dropped from 1980 to 1984, and then it
went 'way up -- just as deficit spending took off like a rocket:


My point exactly. UK was in a recession from 1980 to 1984. They did
not do a lot of deficit spending to end the recession.

The National debt of the UK increased at the fastest pace in history in
the early 1980's.


They kept
business as usual, steady as she goes. And the recession ended anyway
because 1. recessions end after some time unless you do something
stupid, and 2 the brits knew what changes the government was making
( essentially none. ).

The idea that deficit spending leads to a loss of confidence doesn't seem to
have any validity.

Ed Huntress

And I was not trying to say that deficit spending leads to a loss of
confidence. But if there is a lot of change, people hesitate until
they understand what the new business environment is. Or at least I
think they do.

The change that occurred is an economic meltdown
resulting in a 10% unemployment rate
and declining home prices and declining individual net worth
And it is certain that will get considerably worse
if the government balances the budget.

Now a good old-fashioned Economic Depression may well be
just what the country needs or at least deserves.
But is that what you want?





Dan