On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:56:56 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:07:24 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:

then ignore any growth in the economy

WHAT growth?

http://tinyurl.com/3ryowf8


Fascinating if it could possibly be true..but with 21-25% average
unemployment..it simply doesnt have any basis.

Particularly when the shaded area goes from 2008-2009.....laugh laugh
laugh

So Jimmy boio....we are no longer in a "recession"...right?

Now do you want me to make you look like a complete moron..or should I
simply back off and let the other readers make their own judgements?

Gunner

The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 20:38:03 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
On 6/6/2011 7:14 PM, ATP wrote:
"Stuart wrote in message
...
On 6/5/2011 8:28 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 12:26:58 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/4/2011 6:16 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:04:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


"john B." wrote:

I don't watch TV. Too many good books I haven't read.


My TBR List is over 100 books at the moment. I read about 25
last
month.

A tiny portion of "good books". For this group I recommend The
Federalist Papers, which might otherwise be refereed to as
Constitution 101 :-)


Why? Entertaining they are not. If you understand what the Federalist
Papers are then you know they are just an argument for adopting the
constitution by its supporters. Why don't you recommend the writings
of
those who opposed it? Their arguments were also very good.

If you did read the arguments given back in those days it might show
you
that the world is so different today from when they were creating the
constitution that only a small part of it is still relevant. Because
what people thought two hundred years ago is very often nothing we
agree
with now. Times have changed and so has what we believe and want from
our government. Back then a post office and a navy were about all that
people wanted from a governement. It's a little different now.

Hawke


Of course the world is different and the constitution contains the
ability to modify to meet these new conditions. However, the
definitions of "what the founding fathers said" was what I was
referring to.

I agree that it is different now. Do you think you can get the average
citizen to shoulder his rifle and fall out for the militia? From
previous experience it seems likely the population of Canada would
suddenly get a great deal larger.

Previous experience shows that when America is attacked, Americans turn
out to defend her in record numbers (Though curiously, Republican war
hero Bob Dole went through every deferment and exemption he could find),
but when the interests of corporate America are attacked or when America
sticks her nose into places she might not belong (Vietnam, Iraq II), the
people do not all jump up to run for the recruiting station.

Why would you attack Bob Dole's military service record?



Does stating an uncomfortable fact cause you distress?

I was not a Dole supporter, whether he got deferments or not he eventually
served and paid a fairly heavy price. What's the point of attacking him?
Attack the republican chickenhawks who never served at all.

Or attack the Democrat chickenhawks who never served at all.....


The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:34:35 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/6/2011 6:43 PM, john B. wrote:


When the world changed from an agrarian society where everyone could at
least provide food and shelter for themselves, to an industrial one,
people learned they needed the government even more. They also found the
government did a much better job at many things than they could
individually. So they learned to rely on it more and more. Now the place
you find the experts and professionals is in the government. They are
supposed to be there to provide for the people's needs. For the most
part it does a pretty good job.

You are saying that modern man is not capable of taking care of
himself? That he needs a nanny to change his diaper?

No, man is perfectly capable of taking care of himself but he does it
differently now than in the past. We have learned a lot about working
together and about the division of labor over the years. In the past
people worked by themselves and did things individually. They made
everything by hand. Now we do everything collectively because it is all
that works in a world with 7 billion people in it.


A good generalization, except that it is not wholly correct. It is
still quite possible to be an individual in today's crowded world. As
an example, I can think of at least one bicycle frame maker who has a
7 year waiting list and his frames cost upwards of $4,000, and yes, he
builds each frame himself.

Gunsmiths the same, and I'm sure that there are many other examples of
people who are superior craftsmen and can/do easily prove your claim
"that now we do everything collectively" wrong.


I guess that Orwell's "1984" was more apt then we realized, with the
proletariat sitting dumbly in front of their television and all
decisions made by the government.

We send our representatives to Washington to do our bidding. We don't
want them to tell us what to do we want to tell them. The problem is
they are not representing the voters. They are representing the donors
way too much.

Your argument sounds like a valid argument until you read it twice.
You send your representatives off to do the job for you and they don't
do it..... so you send them out next year. Rather then blame it on the
representatives why not assign blame where it belongs... on the people
who send these people off to do a job and then accept it when their
representatives don't do as told?


Well, you may be right. I'm just glad that I'm old enough not to have
been born into the helpless, pablum fed, generation.

It's just that now people understand the world is very complex and
difficult and technical. They know they need experts more than ever
before to get by. So they depend on the organization they created
(government) to work for them so they can do their own work.


But you are saying that the government is not functioning to your
satisfaction. In other words you are patronizing a shop who screws up
your orders, over charges you, and is rude..... and you keep coming
back.

The problem with today's government is that it is captured by monied
interests. So the government is doing for those who donate to the
politician's political campaigns not for the average person, like it was
supposed to. If we can ever get the money (bribery) out of the process
of elections we'll have a government that is far better and will be far
better appreciated by the public than it is now.

Hawke

You don't really believe that, do you? With all the examples that have
been reported around the world?

All you have to do is look at the disparity in wealth in the country and
the maldistribution of wealth and it's obvious who is paying the way for
the government. Only 1% pay anything in political campaigns. Those who
pay get their way.


I do look at it and I see that a substantial number of the richest
people in America "did it on their own". Have a look at people like
Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, George Soros, Jim Walter.
Every one of them started with little and became rich.

It appears that the old American dream of working hard, saving your
money and becoming rich has now become some sort of heresy, in certain
circles.


The Russian revolution - to free the Worker and kill the Kulaks The
Chinese revolution - eliminate the rich? And what is the major problem
in these countries? The emergence of a favored class.

It's the same everywhere. The problem is inequality. Why was the U.S.
the envy of the world when we had the largest middle class of any
country? We were shooting at having the most people in the middle and
less in the poor and rich classes. We did better than anyplace ever but
we have backslid to where we're looking much more like the rest of the
world where there are only two classes, rich and poor.


Tell me during which period in the history of the U.S. when the
country was not divided into two major classes - the haves and the
have not's. The difference was that during much of American history
the citizens believed that if the worked hard and saved their money
they could become rich. And if actually read history you will see that
it worked. John D. Rockefeller I was the 2nd of 6 children, his father
was a traveling salesman and his mother practically raised the kids on
her own. He took a 10 week business course and became a bookkeeper at
age 16.

So yes, you are correct, much of the wealth is in the hands of the
few, but there is a reason. quite simply, all men are not created
equally. Some are complacently awaiting someone to feed them.


Of course the democratic system is different - it glorifies the
tyranny of the proletariat and as Churchill once said, "the best
argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average
voter".

I'd agree. Most people know very little of what is going on. Nowadays
they don't have the time to be up on what is going on. That's why we
have professionals to deal with things that are beyond our knowledge and
ability to do ourselves.

That is utter hog wash! Ed, for one is basically a writer/editor and
he seems to have time to find out what is going on. The Apple Grower
is well informed and so are many bothers.

But if you are intent on hiring experts, how in the world could you
have elected Obama as president? Take a look at his resume, he lacks
any experience in management and y'all hired him to run the biggest
business in the world.


As for the rich taking over, I am reminded of a news item from the
weekend prior to Ms. Clinton resigning from the primary - it compared
her money raising efforts with Obama's and concluded that as Obama's
was greater that Ms Clinton didn't have a chance to be selected as the
Democratic candidate.

I don't understand your point. If you're talking specifically about
campaigns then that's one thing. If you're talking about how the wealthy
are in control of our country that's another. In the Democratic primary,
whichever candidate appears to be the eventual winner will eventually
draw most of the money to himself. That leaves the others without enough
to continue, unless they can find other sources of money. They usually
can't because once you find one person that looks like the winner
everyone donates to him because they want the favor of the eventual winner.

I was pointing out that money is the major force in politics. I was
referring specifically to the last weekend before the primaries ended
when contributions to Obama, on that weekend were significantly higher
then the contributions that Hillary got and thus the talking heads
said this meant that Obama's machine could propagandize more then
Hill's mob. In other words, money is the major force in electing a
president.

What do you believe is better? The original Greek democracy? That
excluded women, slaves, the poor, and foreigners?

It's not that our democracy is bad it's just that it has been corrupted
by the influence of money so that it doesn't function like it is
intended to. If we had public financing of elections and they went on
for a few months instead of years most of the problems would be fixed or
greatly reduced. When Bill Gates has the same voice in government as you
or I then we have real democracy. I don't thing we're there yet.

Hawke

I keep telling you, it hasn't been corrupted, it was always this way.

Ok, here is your homework for today. Research the background of the
Boston Tea Party and report back on the reason that the tea was dumped
in the harbor.

Next week you can research the backgrounds of the major sponsors of
the revolution and report on their place in society.
Maybe it will open your eyes a tiny bit.

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 12:12:59 +0700, john B.
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:34:35 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/6/2011 6:43 PM, john B. wrote:


When the world changed from an agrarian society where everyone could at
least provide food and shelter for themselves, to an industrial one,
people learned they needed the government even more. They also found the
government did a much better job at many things than they could
individually. So they learned to rely on it more and more. Now the place
you find the experts and professionals is in the government. They are
supposed to be there to provide for the people's needs. For the most
part it does a pretty good job.

You are saying that modern man is not capable of taking care of
himself? That he needs a nanny to change his diaper?

No, man is perfectly capable of taking care of himself but he does it
differently now than in the past. We have learned a lot about working
together and about the division of labor over the years. In the past
people worked by themselves and did things individually. They made
everything by hand. Now we do everything collectively because it is all
that works in a world with 7 billion people in it.


A good generalization, except that it is not wholly correct. It is
still quite possible to be an individual in today's crowded world. As
an example, I can think of at least one bicycle frame maker who has a
7 year waiting list and his frames cost upwards of $4,000, and yes, he
builds each frame himself.

Gunsmiths the same, and I'm sure that there are many other examples of
people who are superior craftsmen and can/do easily prove your claim
"that now we do everything collectively" wrong.


I guess that Orwell's "1984" was more apt then we realized, with the
proletariat sitting dumbly in front of their television and all
decisions made by the government.

We send our representatives to Washington to do our bidding. We don't
want them to tell us what to do we want to tell them. The problem is
they are not representing the voters. They are representing the donors
way too much.

Your argument sounds like a valid argument until you read it twice.
You send your representatives off to do the job for you and they don't
do it..... so you send them out next year. Rather then blame it on the
representatives why not assign blame where it belongs... on the people
who send these people off to do a job and then accept it when their
representatives don't do as told?


Well, you may be right. I'm just glad that I'm old enough not to have
been born into the helpless, pablum fed, generation.

It's just that now people understand the world is very complex and
difficult and technical. They know they need experts more than ever
before to get by. So they depend on the organization they created
(government) to work for them so they can do their own work.


But you are saying that the government is not functioning to your
satisfaction. In other words you are patronizing a shop who screws up
your orders, over charges you, and is rude..... and you keep coming
back.

The problem with today's government is that it is captured by monied
interests. So the government is doing for those who donate to the
politician's political campaigns not for the average person, like it was
supposed to. If we can ever get the money (bribery) out of the process
of elections we'll have a government that is far better and will be far
better appreciated by the public than it is now.

Hawke

You don't really believe that, do you? With all the examples that have
been reported around the world?

All you have to do is look at the disparity in wealth in the country and
the maldistribution of wealth and it's obvious who is paying the way for
the government. Only 1% pay anything in political campaigns. Those who
pay get their way.


I do look at it and I see that a substantial number of the richest
people in America "did it on their own". Have a look at people like
Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, George Soros, Jim Walter.
Every one of them started with little and became rich.

It appears that the old American dream of working hard, saving your
money and becoming rich has now become some sort of heresy, in certain
circles.


The Russian revolution - to free the Worker and kill the Kulaks The
Chinese revolution - eliminate the rich? And what is the major problem
in these countries? The emergence of a favored class.

It's the same everywhere. The problem is inequality. Why was the U.S.
the envy of the world when we had the largest middle class of any
country? We were shooting at having the most people in the middle and
less in the poor and rich classes. We did better than anyplace ever but
we have backslid to where we're looking much more like the rest of the
world where there are only two classes, rich and poor.


Tell me during which period in the history of the U.S. when the
country was not divided into two major classes - the haves and the
have not's. The difference was that during much of American history
the citizens believed that if the worked hard and saved their money
they could become rich. And if actually read history you will see that
it worked. John D. Rockefeller I was the 2nd of 6 children, his father
was a traveling salesman and his mother practically raised the kids on
her own. He took a 10 week business course and became a bookkeeper at
age 16.

So yes, you are correct, much of the wealth is in the hands of the
few, but there is a reason. quite simply, all men are not created
equally. Some are complacently awaiting someone to feed them.


Of course the democratic system is different - it glorifies the
tyranny of the proletariat and as Churchill once said, "the best
argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average
voter".

I'd agree. Most people know very little of what is going on. Nowadays
they don't have the time to be up on what is going on. That's why we
have professionals to deal with things that are beyond our knowledge and
ability to do ourselves.

That is utter hog wash! Ed, for one is basically a writer/editor and
he seems to have time to find out what is going on. The Apple Grower
is well informed and so are many bothers.

But if you are intent on hiring experts, how in the world could you
have elected Obama as president? Take a look at his resume, he lacks
any experience in management and y'all hired him to run the biggest
business in the world.


As for the rich taking over, I am reminded of a news item from the
weekend prior to Ms. Clinton resigning from the primary - it compared
her money raising efforts with Obama's and concluded that as Obama's
was greater that Ms Clinton didn't have a chance to be selected as the
Democratic candidate.

I don't understand your point. If you're talking specifically about
campaigns then that's one thing. If you're talking about how the wealthy
are in control of our country that's another. In the Democratic primary,
whichever candidate appears to be the eventual winner will eventually
draw most of the money to himself. That leaves the others without enough
to continue, unless they can find other sources of money. They usually
can't because once you find one person that looks like the winner
everyone donates to him because they want the favor of the eventual winner.

I was pointing out that money is the major force in politics. I was
referring specifically to the last weekend before the primaries ended
when contributions to Obama, on that weekend were significantly higher
then the contributions that Hillary got and thus the talking heads
said this meant that Obama's machine could propagandize more then
Hill's mob. In other words, money is the major force in electing a
president.

What do you believe is better? The original Greek democracy? That
excluded women, slaves, the poor, and foreigners?

It's not that our democracy is bad it's just that it has been corrupted
by the influence of money so that it doesn't function like it is
intended to. If we had public financing of elections and they went on
for a few months instead of years most of the problems would be fixed or
greatly reduced. When Bill Gates has the same voice in government as you
or I then we have real democracy. I don't thing we're there yet.

Hawke

I keep telling you, it hasn't been corrupted, it was always this way.

Ok, here is your homework for today. Research the background of the
Boston Tea Party and report back on the reason that the tea was dumped
in the harbor.

Next week you can research the backgrounds of the major sponsors of
the revolution and report on their place in society.
Maybe it will open your eyes a tiny bit.

Excellent post.

And nice spanking you gave them both as well.

Gunner

The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 20:38:03 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
On 6/6/2011 7:14 PM, ATP wrote:
"Stuart wrote in message
...
On 6/5/2011 8:28 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 12:26:58 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/4/2011 6:16 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:04:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


"john B." wrote:

I don't watch TV. Too many good books I haven't read.


My TBR List is over 100 books at the moment. I read about 25
last
month.

A tiny portion of "good books". For this group I recommend The
Federalist Papers, which might otherwise be refereed to as
Constitution 101 :-)


Why? Entertaining they are not. If you understand what the
Federalist
Papers are then you know they are just an argument for adopting the
constitution by its supporters. Why don't you recommend the writings
of
those who opposed it? Their arguments were also very good.

If you did read the arguments given back in those days it might show
you
that the world is so different today from when they were creating
the
constitution that only a small part of it is still relevant. Because
what people thought two hundred years ago is very often nothing we
agree
with now. Times have changed and so has what we believe and want
from
our government. Back then a post office and a navy were about all
that
people wanted from a governement. It's a little different now.

Hawke


Of course the world is different and the constitution contains the
ability to modify to meet these new conditions. However, the
definitions of "what the founding fathers said" was what I was
referring to.

I agree that it is different now. Do you think you can get the
average
citizen to shoulder his rifle and fall out for the militia? From
previous experience it seems likely the population of Canada would
suddenly get a great deal larger.

Previous experience shows that when America is attacked, Americans
turn
out to defend her in record numbers (Though curiously, Republican war
hero Bob Dole went through every deferment and exemption he could
find),
but when the interests of corporate America are attacked or when
America
sticks her nose into places she might not belong (Vietnam, Iraq II),
the
people do not all jump up to run for the recruiting station.

Why would you attack Bob Dole's military service record?



Does stating an uncomfortable fact cause you distress?

I was not a Dole supporter, whether he got deferments or not he eventually
served and paid a fairly heavy price. What's the point of attacking him?
Attack the republican chickenhawks who never served at all.

Or attack the Democrat chickenhawks who never served at all.....

Lieberman for example, before his political sex change.

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:56:56 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:07:24 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:

then ignore any growth in the economy

WHAT growth?

http://tinyurl.com/3ryowf8

Fascinating if it could possibly be true..but with 21-25% average
unemployment..it simply doesnt have any basis.



I included the rate of change in employment along with change in GDP

And yes there are still 8 million who can't find a job
I would call that a recession

High unemployment used to be considered a sign the nation was
in a recession, but 30 years ago the definition was changed
periods of high unemployment along with GDP growth
have been reached 3 times in the last 30 years
They don't count as recessions any more

" wrote:


If you are expecting the increase
to be the same rate as economic growth
Then you would expect the increase to be half
as much for Reagan than Clinton
You would expect Reagan to be more than Roosevelt
And the rate of increase for
Obama to be more than Bush2 not less




i am not expecting anything.

You are expecting to figure out a way to hide
the fact that Reagan increased spending by 68%
while Clinton increased it only 32%

And you also expect to obscure the fact that
Bush2 increased spending by 89% during his term
And Obama is on track to increase it only 31%

So who is making the Federal government bigger?



I was just looking at data you presented
and noted that the tabular form does not present the data well.

And I noted how backwards that outlook is.

-jim


Dan

On Jun 8, 7:18*am, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:
" wrote:

If you are expecting the increase
to be the same rate as economic growth
Then you would expect the increase to be half
as much for Reagan than Clinton
You would expect Reagan to be more than Roosevelt
And the rate of increase for
*Obama to be more than Bush2 not less

i am not expecting anything.

*You are expecting to figure out a way to hide
the fact that Reagan increased spending by 68%
while Clinton increased it only 32%

And you also expect to obscure the fact that
Bush2 increased spending by 89% during his term
And Obama is on track to increase it only 31%

So who is making the Federal government bigger?

*I was just looking at data you presented
and noted that the tabular form does not present the data well.

And I noted how backwards that outlook is.

-jim



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

You are very conceited. You claim to know how I think and what I
expect, when you do not have a clue. You are truly an idiot.

Dan

On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 06:45:08 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 20:38:03 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
.. .
On 6/6/2011 7:14 PM, ATP wrote:
"Stuart wrote in message
...
On 6/5/2011 8:28 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 12:26:58 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 6/4/2011 6:16 PM, john B. wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 13:04:43 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


"john B." wrote:

I don't watch TV. Too many good books I haven't read.


My TBR List is over 100 books at the moment. I read about 25
last
month.

A tiny portion of "good books". For this group I recommend The
Federalist Papers, which might otherwise be refereed to as
Constitution 101 :-)


Why? Entertaining they are not. If you understand what the
Federalist
Papers are then you know they are just an argument for adopting the
constitution by its supporters. Why don't you recommend the writings
of
those who opposed it? Their arguments were also very good.

If you did read the arguments given back in those days it might show
you
that the world is so different today from when they were creating
the
constitution that only a small part of it is still relevant. Because
what people thought two hundred years ago is very often nothing we
agree
with now. Times have changed and so has what we believe and want
from
our government. Back then a post office and a navy were about all
that
people wanted from a governement. It's a little different now.

Hawke


Of course the world is different and the constitution contains the
ability to modify to meet these new conditions. However, the
definitions of "what the founding fathers said" was what I was
referring to.

I agree that it is different now. Do you think you can get the
average
citizen to shoulder his rifle and fall out for the militia? From
previous experience it seems likely the population of Canada would
suddenly get a great deal larger.

Previous experience shows that when America is attacked, Americans
turn
out to defend her in record numbers (Though curiously, Republican war
hero Bob Dole went through every deferment and exemption he could
find),
but when the interests of corporate America are attacked or when
America
sticks her nose into places she might not belong (Vietnam, Iraq II),
the
people do not all jump up to run for the recruiting station.

Why would you attack Bob Dole's military service record?



Does stating an uncomfortable fact cause you distress?

I was not a Dole supporter, whether he got deferments or not he eventually
served and paid a fairly heavy price. What's the point of attacking him?
Attack the republican chickenhawks who never served at all.

Or attack the Democrat chickenhawks who never served at all.....

Lieberman for example, before his political sex change.

Or the Obamassiah.


The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 06:10:49 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:56:56 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:07:24 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:

then ignore any growth in the economy

WHAT growth?

http://tinyurl.com/3ryowf8

Fascinating if it could possibly be true..but with 21-25% average
unemployment..it simply doesnt have any basis.



I included the rate of change in employment along with change in GDP

And yes there are still 8 million who can't find a job
I would call that a recession

High unemployment used to be considered a sign the nation was
in a recession, but 30 years ago the definition was changed
periods of high unemployment along with GDP growth
have been reached 3 times in the last 30 years
They don't count as recessions any more

We have had 27-50% unemployment and an economic meltdown 3 times in the
last 30 yrs?
Really?

Odd..no one talks about it.

Care to let us all know..when those times were?

Gunner

The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 06:18:57 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:


i am not expecting anything.

You are expecting to figure out a way to hide
the fact that Reagan increased spending by 68%
while Clinton increased it only 32%


You are also trying to hide the fact that Reagan agreed to increase
spending $1, for every $3 the Democrats would cut. Then they refused to
make the cuts.


The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

Gunner Asch wrote:

ATP wrote:

Lieberman for example, before his political sex change.

Or the Obamassiah.


What branch of the service would have wanted him?


--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

" wrote:


You are very conceited. You claim to know how I think and what I
expect, when you do not have a clue. You are truly an idiot.

You mistake disgust for conceit
You represent everything that is wrong with the political process

When you are confronted with the fact that
The politicians that make the most noise about
the evils of excess government spending
Are the very same politicians
that created most of the excess government spending

Your response is to make every effort to dodge and conceal the
truth that is as plain as day

I have absolutely no sympathy for your gripes about government spending
the fault lies squarely with you (and others like you)
and until you change the government spending will remain rampant

That is also truth that is as plain as day

You can cull the liberals - every last one of them
it will do nothing to stop rampant govt spending
They didn't vote for the politicians
that got us to where we are today

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 06:18:57 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:


i am not expecting anything.

You are expecting to figure out a way to hide
the fact that Reagan increased spending by 68%
while Clinton increased it only 32%

You are also trying to hide the fact that Reagan agreed to increase
spending $1, for every $3 the Democrats would cut. Then they refused to
make the cuts.

And that happened where?
Did that happen in Wonderistan where you live?

In the USA during Reagan's presidency
the Congress refused to
budget as much spending as Reagan requested.

Look it up
Total budget presidential requests
compared to total Congressional budget allocations
Reagan wanted to spend more than the congress let him

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Jun 6, 12:03 pm, Hawke wrote:

What do you think the people created the government to do? Originally,
it was not much. But as time passed and times changed people learned the
government could do a lot more than they could on their own.

Our government was founded on the principal of limited government.
That is, the first and most important function of our government is to
limit government.
Over the centuries, th US has become more and more perverted, until
our government's claim is "more limited that those other oppressive
governments".
This limit to government has made our country, with low average IQs,
the most prosperous nation on earth.
Why have other countries not copied our freedom from government?
Why have we not maintained our wonderful freedoms?
Because of liberals like Hawke have infiltrated the educational and
media systems.
Much like an AIDS virus invading the immune system.

Nah, it's a metastizing cancer.

I don't believe in AIDS. You can't acquire _anything_ unless you _already
have_ an immune deficiency.

Cheers!
Rich

Aha, another medical scientist masquerading as an out-of-work machinist.

Where have you published, doktor? I'd like to read your research.

--
Ed Huntress

Gunner Asch wrote:


We have had 27-50% unemployment and an economic meltdown 3 times in the
last 30 yrs?
Really?

The US had $8 million people lose their jobs
If that is 27%-50% of the workforce then the workforce
is only around 20-30 million people

What are the other 280 million people doing?

On Jun 5, 11:57*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Wel,, yes Ed, I can see where that assumption would come from - and
yes indeed, its been true, but not this time. My response was to a
clearly rhetorical question - It was a nonsensical question too, the
Usual Suspects turned out. Sidetracks everywhere, separate arguments,
the usual stuff. Same answers too - Ed, I salute you, some of your
explanations are mind-bogglingly complex, hard work sometimes. And,
sometimes, like the rest of us, your just wrong. Your also right a
lot, or you can persuade me you are. (who checks source material
anyway?)

No one here drinks Fosters anyway, its disgusting stuff we sell
overseas. Far better beers around. Fosters is slightly bad beer
tasting alcohol, thats all. No enjoyment.

Going through Chemo for a few months now, terminal lung cancer, that
stuff does things to your thought processes - (its kept in sealed
bags, the nurses dress up like nuclear reactor workers before they
give it to you - pretty weird stuff, does all sorts of things to ya.
either that, or the thought of imminent death. And the analogy I can
use is that the background noise level goes way down - who cares who
left the milk out? - does it matter? - same for political theory -
your never going to change anyone's mind, the system is beyond control
or understanding cause its run by humans, who had a few bits left out
in the original gene pool - like, er, the ability NOT to get too
bogged down in crap. And argue with each other a lot.

Enjoy recreational crap sometimes - telling complete bull**** stories
round the fire etc - good times indeed.


TC Ed, enjoy your posts,
Andrew VK3BFA.


Help me out hee, Andrew. Sometimes you write like the most level-headed guy
on this NG. Other times you write like you're in a fog of Foster's.

Tell the truth -- do you sometimes write when you're drinking?

Curious.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jun 8, 9:03*am, jim wrote:

You are still an idiot.

Dan

On Jun 8, 9:10*am, jim wrote:


You are still an idiot.

Dan

On Jun 8, 9:17*am, jim wrote:

What are the other 280 million people doing?

Thinking you are an idiot.

Dan

" wrote:

On Jun 8, 9:10 am, jim wrote:

You are still an idiot.

And you are shooting blanks.
When confronted with facts
and your attempts to ignore them fail
All you can do is call people names

On Jun 8, 10:20*am, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:


And you are shooting blanks.
*When confronted with facts
* and your attempts to ignore them fail
* * All you can do is call people names

You are still an idiot.

Dan

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:56:56 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:07:24 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:

then ignore any growth in the economy

WHAT growth?

http://tinyurl.com/3ryowf8


Fascinating if it could possibly be true..but with 21-25% average
unemployment..it simply doesnt have any basis.

Recession is a technical term that has no direct relation to unemployment.
If the rich are getting richer, unemployment can keep rising while GDP
increases in parallel.


Particularly when the shaded area goes from 2008-2009.....laugh laugh
laugh

So Jimmy boio....we are no longer in a "recession"...right?

That's right. Wealthy people are making money hand over fist. Corporations
are sitting on big piles of cash.

Before you go into one of your laughing fits, find out what "recession"
means. It doesn't refer to your gumline. It's a technical term that, in most
contexts, refers to two consecutive quarters of decline in GDP. There are
more complex definitions but this is what's used for most of the graphs
you'll see.

It's usually, but not necessarily, accompanied by increasing unemployment.
But when incomes are as split between the top and the bottom as they are
today, a big increase in incomes at the top can drive GDP up while
unemployment worsens for those at the bottom. Welcome to the outcome of
Reaganomics.

Meanwhile, suckers for trickle-down economics, like you, are sucking wind.


Now do you want me to make you look like a complete moron..or should I
simply back off and let the other readers make their own judgements?

Gunner

We know who the moron is here, Gunner. He lives in a trailer and owes
taxpayers six figures of unpaid bills.

--
Ed Huntress

"john B." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:34:35 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

snip


It's the same everywhere. The problem is inequality. Why was the U.S.
the envy of the world when we had the largest middle class of any
country? We were shooting at having the most people in the middle and
less in the poor and rich classes. We did better than anyplace ever but
we have backslid to where we're looking much more like the rest of the
world where there are only two classes, rich and poor.


Tell me during which period in the history of the U.S. when the
country was not divided into two major classes - the haves and the
have not's. The difference was that during much of American history
the citizens believed that if the worked hard and saved their money
they could become rich. And if actually read history you will see that
it worked. John D. Rockefeller I was the 2nd of 6 children, his father
was a traveling salesman and his mother practically raised the kids on
her own. He took a 10 week business course and became a bookkeeper at
age 16.

If you actually read history, John, you'd see that Hawke is right, income
inequality is on the rise and now exceeds the level we had during the Gilded
Age.

This is a Wikipedia entry, but it's heavily referenced and you can confirm
it for youself:
"Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue
Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the
1970s,[8][9][10][11][12] whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th
century.[13][14] As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels
of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income
countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia
or Turkey,[15] being one of only few developed countries where inequality
has increased since 1980.[16]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_..._United_States

Now, I don't know how reductionist you might get with your statement that
we've always been divided into the halves and have-nots, in order to avoid
having to face the data, but the point is clear: Our income inequality today
makes us look like a Banana Republic in the making. Some people are
beginning to worry if we aren't approaching the level that provokes civil
unrest.

--

Ed Huntress

"Andrew VK3BFA" wrote in message
...
On Jun 5, 11:57 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Wel,, yes Ed, I can see where that assumption would come from - and
yes indeed, its been true, but not this time. My response was to a
clearly rhetorical question - It was a nonsensical question too, the
Usual Suspects turned out. Sidetracks everywhere, separate arguments,
the usual stuff. Same answers too - Ed, I salute you, some of your
explanations are mind-bogglingly complex, hard work sometimes. And,
sometimes, like the rest of us, your just wrong. Your also right a
lot, or you can persuade me you are. (who checks source material
anyway?)

I do. Always, or I'll let you know if I didn't. And I do it *before* opening
my mouth.

That doesn't mean it's always right, but you can count on it having been
double-checked. There are too many vultures sitting on tree limbs around
here to do otherwise.

No one here drinks Fosters anyway, its disgusting stuff we sell
overseas.

Since you said it, I agree. And the same goes for Molson's. They're both
swill, but I don't like to insult my Commonwealth friends by saying so.

And no, I don't drink Budweiser, either.

Far better beers around. Fosters is slightly bad beer
tasting alcohol, thats all. No enjoyment.

Going through Chemo for a few months now, terminal lung cancer, that
stuff does things to your thought processes - (its kept in sealed
bags, the nurses dress up like nuclear reactor workers before they
give it to you - pretty weird stuff, does all sorts of things to ya.
either that, or the thought of imminent death. And the analogy I can
use is that the background noise level goes way down - who cares who
left the milk out? - does it matter?

Oh, damn, I'm sorry to heat that, Andrew. I don't know what to say except
that I wish the best for you.

- same for political theory -
your never going to change anyone's mind, the system is beyond control
or understanding cause its run by humans, who had a few bits left out
in the original gene pool - like, er, the ability NOT to get too
bogged down in crap. And argue with each other a lot.


It's good for procrastinating when you have some miserable job facing you.
Otherwise, you're quite right, it's a lot of fire and smoke about nothing.

Enjoy recreational crap sometimes - telling complete bull**** stories
round the fire etc - good times indeed.


TC Ed, enjoy your posts,
Andrew VK3BFA.

Same to you, Andrew.

--
Ed Huntress


Help me out hee, Andrew. Sometimes you write like the most level-headed
guy
on this NG. Other times you write like you're in a fog of Foster's.

Tell the truth -- do you sometimes write when you're drinking?

Curious.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:17:35 -0500, jim
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:


We have had 27-50% unemployment and an economic meltdown 3 times in the
last 30 yrs?
Really?

The US had $8 million people lose their jobs
If that is 27%-50% of the workforce then the workforce
is only around 20-30 million people

What are the other 280 million people doing?

Blink blink...blink....you simply never cease to look utterly stupid do
you?

Im sure others here will point out your buffoonery on that set of
utterly stupid statements you just uttered.

Im going to sit back and laugh my ass off at you.

Oh..and again you failed to answer the questions I asked.

You afraid of something?

Gunner

The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:03:54 -0500, jim
wrote:

You can cull the liberals - every last one of them
it will do nothing to stop rampant govt spending
They didn't vote for the politicians
that got us to where we are today


More utter stupidity. This guy doesnt know when to stop...does he?

Gunner

The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:56:22 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner Asch wrote:

ATP wrote:

Lieberman for example, before his political sex change.

Or the Obamassiah.


What branch of the service would have wanted him?

Since gays and bisexuals are about to be allowed...Id say all of them
would at least try him out....


He would have never survived basic training in any branch.


--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

On Jun 8, 8:35*am, Gunner Asch wrote:

We have had 27-50% unemployment and an economic meltdown 3 times in the
last 30 yrs?
Really?

Gunner, who had a stroke, can't seem to grab on to a number and hold
it. While the rest of the tinking universe talks about unemplyment
numbers in the 9% - 11% area, Gunner keeps talking about 27%. Today
its 50%. While it's probably true that more than 10% of people are
looking for jobs, I seriously doubt that the 27% number has any basis
in reality. 50%? Seriously?

Of course, in the Gunner household, unemployment is always 100%.

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:17:35 -0500, jim
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:


We have had 27-50% unemployment and an economic meltdown 3 times in the
last 30 yrs?
Really?

The US had $8 million people lose their jobs
If that is 27%-50% of the workforce then the workforce
is only around 20-30 million people

What are the other 280 million people doing?

Blink blink...blink....you simply never cease to look utterly stupid do
you?

Im sure others here will point out your buffoonery on that set of
utterly stupid statements you just uttered.

Oh my goodness...
can somebody please help this poor soul

"Andrew wrote:

No one here drinks Fosters anyway, its disgusting stuff we sell
overseas.


As my wife says, "Fosters, Australian for tourist"

Partial to Coopers Pale Ale myself, which I can get here, and Tooheys
New and Extra Dry there.


Jon

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:10:22 -0500, jim
wrote:


You are also trying to hide the fact that Reagan agreed to increase
spending $1, for every $3 the Democrats would cut. Then they refused to
make the cuts.

And that happened where?
Did that happen in Wonderistan where you live?

In the USA during Reagan's presidency
the Congress refused to
budget as much spending as Reagan requested.

Look it up
Total budget presidential requests
compared to total Congressional budget allocations
Reagan wanted to spend more than the congress let him

Jim...you must have taken the wrong meds this morning. Seriously....

http://conservativedailynews.com/201...just-desserts/


The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:20:34 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



" wrote:

On Jun 8, 9:10 am, jim wrote:

You are still an idiot.

And you are shooting blanks.
When confronted with facts
and your attempts to ignore them fail
All you can do is call people names

Jim...he is calling you an idiot..because you have NO facts..and are
butt ignorant.

Sorry pal...

Btw...see this?

Walter Russell Mead

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...r-for-the-gop/

What makes this book important is WHO is saying it: a business reporter
for the liberal New York Times.”

Fanniegate: Gamechanger For The GOP?
Walter Russell Mead

Democrats, watch out.

The Republican Party and especially its Tea Party wing have just
acquired a new weapon of mass destruction — and it has nothing to do
with any of Congressman Wiener’s rogue body parts. If they deploy this
weapon effectively in the next election cycle — a big if — then they
have the biggest opportunity to move the country rightward since Ronald
Reagan took the oath of office back in 1981.

The Tea Party WMD stockpile is currently stored in book form: Reckless
Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to
Economic Armageddon. By Gretchen Morgenson, one of America’s best
business journalists who is currently at The New York Times, and noted
financial analyst Joshua Rosner, Reckless Endangerment gives the best
available account of how the growing chaos in the mortgage and personal
finance markets and the rampant bundling of dubious loans into
exotically toxic securities plunged the world, and millions of American
families, into the gravest financial crisis since World War Two. It is
gripping reading as well, and its explanations are clear enough that
readers without any background in finance will have no trouble following
the plot. The villains? An unholy alliance between Wall Street, the
Democratic establishment, community organizing groups like ACORN and La
Raza, and politicians like Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Henry
Cisneros. (Frank got a cushy job for a lover, Pelosi got a job and
layoff protection for a son, Cisneros apparently got a license to mint
money bilking Mexican-Americans of their life savings in cheesy housing
developments.)


If the GOP can make this narrative mainstream, and put this picture into
the heads of voters nationwide, the Democrats are toast. The party will
have to reinvent itself (or as often happens in American politics, be
rescued by equally stupid Republican missteps) before it can flourish.
If Morgenstern and Rosner are to be believed, the American dream didn’t
die of old age; it was murdered and most of the fingerprints on the
corpse come from Democratic insiders. Democratic power brokers stoked
the housing bubble and turned a blind eye to the increasingly rampant
corruption and incompetence at Fannie Mae and the associated predatory
lenders who sheltered under its umbrella; core Democratic ideas may well
be at fault.

This is catnip to Republicans, arsenic to Dems. If Morgenson and Rosner
are right, there is someone the American people can blame for our
current economic woes and it is exactly the cast of characters that a
lot of Americans love to hate. Big government, affirmative action and
influence peddling among Democratic insiders came within inches of
smashing the US economy.

The Morgenson/Rosner story is a simple and easily grasped one. It is
made for campaign ads. The Great Villain, the man who almost ruined
America according to the book, is James Johnson, long one of the most
important members of the Democratic establishment. He ran Walter
Mondale’s campaign. He chaired John Kerry’s search for a vice-president
— the brilliantly executed search that chose the revered anti-poverty
warrior John Edwards.

Barack Obama, impressed by this track record of discernment, reportedly
asked him to lead Obama’s search in 2008 — though Johnson withdrew when
word got out that he benefited from the disgraced and disgusting Angelo
Mozilo’s corrupt program of ‘special’ mortgages for political friends.
(Mozilo was the head of Countrywide, a massively fraudulent and
predatory lender which benefited hugely from its business connections
with Fannie Mae.) He is a director of the much hated Goldman Sachs, a
former director of Lehman Brothers, has chaired the board of the
Brookings Institution, is a major Democratic Party fundraiser who
bundled several hundred thousand dollars for President Obama, helped
bring old Clinton friends into the Obama organization, and has been at
the center of Democratic finance and politics for a generation.
Named CEO of Fannie Mae (a government backed mortgage corporation)
Johnson decided to make untold wealth by making and securitizing junk
housing loans and by massaging the financial reports to ensure that he
qualified for the obscenely generous maximum bonus no matter what was
actually happening to the company under his care.

Fannie Mae, a historically staid and predictable government linked
company, needed to turn into a cutting edge speculative growth engine to
make the hundreds of millions Johnson wanted. Since taxpayers stand
behind Fannie Mae’s debts, Johnson needed to get the politicians to back
his desire to turn this milkwagon into a Porsche. Fortunately for him —
and unfortunately for the country and the world — he found a way.
Fannie Mae would adopt the goal of increasing the percentage of
Americans who owned their own homes, targeting the inner city poor who,
allegedly, were blocked from home ownership by racial discrimination. (A
bogus study to this effect was widely circulated; devastating criticisms
and rebuttals quietly ignored.) This is where such luminaries of the
American political scene as ACORN and La Raza get into the act. They
served as cheerleaders for Johnson’s self-enrichment plan, camouflaging
a Wall Street rip-off by hymning its benefits for the poor.

The purpose of no doc, no money down loans wasn’t, Heaven forbid, to
generate rich fees and high interest rates for mortgage brokers and Wall
Street. No, the smarmy defenders of the Great American Rip-off told us,
those features were necessary to make sure that poor people (so cruelly,
unfairly locked out of mortgages because they didn’t qualify for the
stuffy old-fashioned kind) could participate in the American Dream.
Anybody who opposed Jim Johnson’s get rich scheme was a racist who hated
the poor. Political correctness married Wall Street chicanery as Maxine
Waters, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank led the band; crooked accountants
and clueless rating agencies performed the ceremony; big government
dowered the couple with a debt guarantee and bankers dressed as flower
girls showered the happy pair in a confetti of junk mortgages and junk
bonds.

Fannie Mae and the housing market were off to the races — and where
Fannie Mae led the way, the financial markets followed. Regulators were
captured by the interests they were supposed to regulate; favors were
dispensed with a lavish hand; taxpayer-provided money was used to
assemble a vast lobby focused on extracting more money from hapless
taxpayers to make James Johnson even richer. In the process, millions of
financially unsophisticated low income people were stuck with obscenely
unfair mortgages, honest whistle blowers were subjected to savage
personal attacks, home prices lost all touch with reality, taxpayers
were stuck with losses that may approach one trillion dollars, and
financial markets were poisoned almost beyond repair.


But there’s a bright side. Mondale-Kerry-Obama confidant Johnson made a
boatload of money, and Fannie Mae was able to pay many of his personal
bills — at least until it went broke.
That at least is the story of Reckless Endangerment. No doubt Johnson’s
memoirs will tell the story in a different way. The housing bubble and
the financial market meltdown were very complex phenomena, many cooks
were required to spoil this broth and the arguments over what caused the
crash may never end.

Truth is one thing; politics is another. Politically, this story is a
killer app for the GOP. It demonizes Dems, lends itself to attack ads,
divides Democrats between their Wall Street and union bases, and
combines GOP hate figures in ways calculated to unify the GOP and
heighten the intensity of the faithful.

The story illustrates everything the Tea Party thinks about the corrupt
Washington establishment and the evils of big government. It
demonstrates the limits on the ability of government programs to help
the poor. It converts a complicated economic story into a simple
morality play — with Dems as the villain. It allows Republicans to
capitalize on public fury at the country’s economic problems. It links
the Democrats to Wall Street — the one part of the private sector that
the Republican base loathes. It exposes that mix of incompetence and
arrogance that is the hallmark of the modern American liberal
establishment and links this condescending cluelessness to the real
problems of real American families. It links President Obama (through
appointments, associations and friendships) with the worst elements of
the Clinton legacy and it blunts some key Democratic talking points.
The story can also be a devastating wedge issue. The Democratic Party
today is a fragile coalition of elite liberals, traditionally Democratic
ethnic blue collar whites, African Americans and Hispanics. The Fannie
Mae story is essentially a story of how liberal Wall Streeters raped
every one else — and how the organized leadership of the other groups
colluded in the attack. Hammering this picture home will demoralize and
divide the Democratic Party, reducing enthusiasm among minorities and
pulling swing white ethnic votes toward the GOP.

The story builds GOP unity even as it divides the Democrats, allowing
GOP populists and establishment figures to find some common ground. For
one thing, it builds the idea that Wall Street is a liberal Democratic
institution rather than a conservative Republican one. In fact, Wall
Street is in love with power and cuts deals with whoever can make them,
but for years Democrats have prospered by making running on Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s platform against ‘the malefactors of great wealth’. There
are many powerful Wall Street figures who are closely linked to the
Democrats, however, and the James Johnson story puts a face on that
alliance. Socially and culturally, most of Wall Street stands closer to
the Democratic establishment than to the Republican Party these days;
linking the Democrats to Wall Street, teacher unions and race hustlers
is an easy and compelling way to push the Democrats closer to the cliff
even as it allows GOP candidates to lace their speeches with populist
anti-Wall Street rhetoric without embracing anti-business policy.
The story doesn’t just attack a failure of Democratic policy execution;
it exposes a key flaw in New Democratic thinking. The Third Way as
dreamed up by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sought to harness the power of
financial markets to a public service agenda. Old style command and
control liberalism believed in directly mandating business to do what
politicians thought should be done. AT&T had to serve rural communities,
but in exchange it had a phone monopoly and regulators made sure that it
made a good profit. The airlines and bus companies had to service
unprofitable routes, but regulators made sure that their route networks
as a whole were profitable.

As competition became more global and the inflexible regulations of the
old liberalism proved less workable, a new and updated liberalism
appeared. Instead of old fashioned mandates, liberals would use new
approaches that capitalized on the power of the market. Use cap and
trade schemes rather than command and control to control carbon through
the market — and by creating an international market that will make
money for financial firms. Tweak the mortgage regulations to spread home
ownership to the poor. Both Britain and the US are looking at fun new
ideas like ‘infrastructure banks’ that can fund projects that liberals
like without putting large new debts on the public accounts. Private
profits can grow even as the public interest is served: this was the
Clinton-Blair dream that was billed as liberalism’s response to the
Thatcher revolution. Additionally, liberal politicians like Al Gore and
James Johnson were well placed to capitalize on the new arrangements.
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have both become much wealthier after
leaving office than old style liberals like Harry Truman ever could.
The story also undercuts what little is left of the credibility and the
moral authority of the American establishment. What is especially
shocking in this story is that the higher up and more powerful people
are usually the most venal and corrupt. Low level researchers and
bureaucrats are constantly raising questions and preparing devastating
reports that expose the flawed premises behind Fannie Mae’s policies.
They are being constantly slapped down by the well connected and the
well paid. The American establishment does not have the necessary moral
strength and intellectual acuity to run the affairs of this country; Tea
Party believers will find much in this book that confirms their worst
fears.

Republicans of course have a few financial scandals of their own that
Democrats can take out and rattle. But because Fanniegate offers a clear
storyline, identifiable villains linked to specific disasters that have
hit tens of millions of Americans in the pocketbook, and is overwhelming
a story of Democratic abuses of Democratic ideas, it is potentially a
game changing event. It is also an issue that a GOP candidate for the
nomination can use to break away from the field; it is an issue a
contender could ride all the way to the White House.

Paul Krugman once told me that he thought that Enron would have a
greater impact on American politics than 9/11. He was wrong about that
scandal, but if the GOP plays its cards right, Fanniegate could push
this country into a new political era.


The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:20:34 -0500, jim "sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



" wrote:

On Jun 8, 9:10 am, jim wrote:

You are still an idiot.

And you are shooting blanks.
When confronted with facts
and your attempts to ignore them fail
All you can do is call people names

Jim...he is calling you an idiot..because you have NO facts..and are
butt ignorant.

No he called me an idiot when
he was unable to succeed with his attempts
to avoid the facts




Sorry pal...

Btw...see this?

That is a very interesting read.
But it is just your attempt to sidetrack
by introducing a completely different topic.
Your article didn't say one word about which presidents
were responsible for expanding the federal expenditures

When presented with evidence you can't handle
you immediately switch to something else

Gunner Asch wrote:


http://conservativedailynews.com/201...just-desserts/


That article implies that Reagan spent so much
because he didn't know what
was going on and took bad advice from Baker

Maybe its true maybe it isn't.
It doesn't change the fact that Federal spending
grew 89% during Reagon's administration
and only 32$ during the Clinton administration.

The president's budget proposals and
the actual budget are matters of public record
Reagan proposed more spending than Congress was willing to pass

On 6/7/2011 10:12 PM, john B. wrote:

No, man is perfectly capable of taking care of himself but he does it
differently now than in the past. We have learned a lot about working
together and about the division of labor over the years. In the past
people worked by themselves and did things individually. They made
everything by hand. Now we do everything collectively because it is all
that works in a world with 7 billion people in it.


A good generalization, except that it is not wholly correct. It is
still quite possible to be an individual in today's crowded world. As
an example, I can think of at least one bicycle frame maker who has a
7 year waiting list and his frames cost upwards of $4,000, and yes, he
builds each frame himself.

Do you think that because a tiny portion of what is done today by
individuals makes my point about industrial production being how just
about everything is produced not true? Because it doesn't. You can use
all the exceptions you want, but the fact remains that nearly everything
produced today is done collectively. Take a look at China if you don't
think so.


Gunsmiths the same, and I'm sure that there are many other examples of
people who are superior craftsmen and can/do easily prove your claim
"that now we do everything collectively" wrong.

Don't make the mistake of thinking every statement means 100%. There are
always exceptions to everything. When I say everything is done
collectively that means everything that is statistically significant.
Not absolutely everything. Thought you'd understand that.


I guess that Orwell's "1984" was more apt then we realized, with the
proletariat sitting dumbly in front of their television and all
decisions made by the government.

We send our representatives to Washington to do our bidding. We don't
want them to tell us what to do we want to tell them. The problem is
they are not representing the voters. They are representing the donors
way too much.

Your argument sounds like a valid argument until you read it twice.
You send your representatives off to do the job for you and they don't
do it..... so you send them out next year. Rather then blame it on the
representatives why not assign blame where it belongs... on the people
who send these people off to do a job and then accept it when their
representatives don't do as told?

Who do we blame for the problem is a little like which came first, the
chicken or the egg. Who's to blame? The rich for bribing the
politicians, the politicians for being venal, or the people for electing
those people and letting them get away with it. You can make a good
argument for any of those. There's blame to go around everywhere but I
personally put it on the rich and the politicians. The people don't
understand what's going on most of the time and they're too naive the
rest of the time. They're natural followers so they trust people.



Well, you may be right. I'm just glad that I'm old enough not to have
been born into the helpless, pablum fed, generation.

It's just that now people understand the world is very complex and
difficult and technical. They know they need experts more than ever
before to get by. So they depend on the organization they created
(government) to work for them so they can do their own work.


But you are saying that the government is not functioning to your
satisfaction. In other words you are patronizing a shop who screws up
your orders, over charges you, and is rude..... and you keep coming
back.

Yeah, like today I just got back my string trimmer from the repair shop.
I took it in May 10th. I've been ****ed off at the slow service for two
weeks. My problem is they're the only game in town. Same with the
government. It's the only one we've got.


The problem with today's government is that it is captured by monied
interests. So the government is doing for those who donate to the
politician's political campaigns not for the average person, like it was
supposed to. If we can ever get the money (bribery) out of the process
of elections we'll have a government that is far better and will be far
better appreciated by the public than it is now.

Hawke

You don't really believe that, do you? With all the examples that have
been reported around the world?

If the problem is the system is being unduly influenced by a wealthy
minority, which it is, doesn't it make sense that if you change the
system so they can't keep doing that, won't that make the system
function better? I believe it would.



All you have to do is look at the disparity in wealth in the country and
the maldistribution of wealth and it's obvious who is paying the way for
the government. Only 1% pay anything in political campaigns. Those who
pay get their way.


I do look at it and I see that a substantial number of the richest
people in America "did it on their own". Have a look at people like
Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, George Soros, Jim Walter.
Every one of them started with little and became rich.

I could go to Vegas too and show you a number of people coming out of
there with huge amounts of money after hitting big jackpots. Would that
group be a good example of what happens to most people who go to Vegas?
I think not. Most people who go there lose. Most people who work barely
make enough to live decently and a lot can't do that. Besides, I can go
anywhere else in the world and show you billionaires who started with
nothing. Carlos Slim in Mexico, oligarchs in Russia, or business people
in China, George Soros. In any crap game somebody does exceedingly well.
So what does that prove? Somebody always gets lucky?



It appears that the old American dream of working hard, saving your
money and becoming rich has now become some sort of heresy, in certain
circles.

It was just a myth right from the beginning. They used to call those
Horatio Alger stories. Look around. Want me to show you all the people
who did just what they were supposed to and have lost their jobs, their
homes, and their self respect? There's millions of them who can't even
find any work and are dead broke. Is that what they told you to expect
if you worked hard and played by the rules? But that's what happened.



The Russian revolution - to free the Worker and kill the Kulaks The
Chinese revolution - eliminate the rich? And what is the major problem
in these countries? The emergence of a favored class.

It's the same everywhere. The problem is inequality. Why was the U.S.
the envy of the world when we had the largest middle class of any
country? We were shooting at having the most people in the middle and
less in the poor and rich classes. We did better than anyplace ever but
we have backslid to where we're looking much more like the rest of the
world where there are only two classes, rich and poor.


Tell me during which period in the history of the U.S. when the
country was not divided into two major classes - the haves and the
have not's. The difference was that during much of American history
the citizens believed that if the worked hard and saved their money
they could become rich. And if actually read history you will see that
it worked. John D. Rockefeller I was the 2nd of 6 children, his father
was a traveling salesman and his mother practically raised the kids on
her own. He took a 10 week business course and became a bookkeeper at
age 16.

People never got rich from working for wages and saving. That is bunk.
I'll give you two periods where there were not just the haves and the
have nots in America. In the Great Depression everybody was a have not.
Now don't go and jump to conclusions again and think that applies to
every single person. I'm generalizing. The fact is so many people were
poor that just about all Americans were poor. The rich were so few that
we didn't have two classes. Most everyone was in one class, poor.

Then in the 1950s when the middle class was at its peak there weren't
just rich and poor. We actually had a huge class of people who were
neither rich or poor. If we could ever get back to that kind of country
again I'd be real happy.


So yes, you are correct, much of the wealth is in the hands of the
few, but there is a reason. quite simply, all men are not created
equally. Some are complacently awaiting someone to feed them.

And sometimes matters of luck and timing and circumstances combine to
allow a few to get most of the wealth of a country into the hands of a
few. In history this was the norm. Those with the military power were
able to get control of the wealth of each region. They didn't share either.

In addition belief about people waiting to be fed by others is not
supported by facts. For example, it was said in the 20th century that
Koreans were stupid, lazy, and good for nothing and would not and could
not work hard enough to make anything of themselves. This was said about
the Japanese too. It was also thought by the Japanese that Americans
wouldn't fight if attacked. Lots of incorrect assumptions have been made
over the years. Your idea about lazy Americans waiting to be fed fits
right in with those other foolish contentions.


Of course the democratic system is different - it glorifies the
tyranny of the proletariat and as Churchill once said, "the best
argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average
voter".

I'd agree. Most people know very little of what is going on. Nowadays
they don't have the time to be up on what is going on. That's why we
have professionals to deal with things that are beyond our knowledge and
ability to do ourselves.

That is utter hog wash! Ed, for one is basically a writer/editor and
he seems to have time to find out what is going on. The Apple Grower
is well informed and so are many bothers.

But not about high tech subjects that only specialists understand. How
much do they or we know about deep sea oil drilling? Or about nuclear
reactors, or about how the space shuttle operates, or the Federal
Reserve, or how derivatives work? The point is the government is the
source of all kinds of knowledge that average people have no clue about.


But if you are intent on hiring experts, how in the world could you
have elected Obama as president? Take a look at his resume, he lacks
any experience in management and y'all hired him to run the biggest
business in the world.

You make the same basic mistake a lot of conservatives do in thinking
that running a government is like running some kind of business
operation. It's not. In the first place business experience is of little
or no value when it comes to running a government. Neither is being in
the military. I'm sure you don't think that if you're a successful
politician that qualifies you to be a general, do you? Then why would it
work the other way around. It doesn't. There is no single thing that
makes someone qualified to be the president. No one would have thought
that Truman had what it takes to be a great president but he did. Lots
of people thought having a businessman with an MBA would make a great
president. It didn't. So don't think business qualifies anyone to be
president. It doesn't.




As for the rich taking over, I am reminded of a news item from the
weekend prior to Ms. Clinton resigning from the primary - it compared
her money raising efforts with Obama's and concluded that as Obama's
was greater that Ms Clinton didn't have a chance to be selected as the
Democratic candidate.

I don't understand your point. If you're talking specifically about
campaigns then that's one thing. If you're talking about how the wealthy
are in control of our country that's another. In the Democratic primary,
whichever candidate appears to be the eventual winner will eventually
draw most of the money to himself. That leaves the others without enough
to continue, unless they can find other sources of money. They usually
can't because once you find one person that looks like the winner
everyone donates to him because they want the favor of the eventual winner.

I was pointing out that money is the major force in politics. I was
referring specifically to the last weekend before the primaries ended
when contributions to Obama, on that weekend were significantly higher
then the contributions that Hillary got and thus the talking heads
said this meant that Obama's machine could propagandize more then
Hill's mob. In other words, money is the major force in electing a
president.

It is not. It is very important but it is not the primary force in
politics. If anything, charisma is every bit as important as money.
Other things are also very important. But getting anywhere without
plenty of money is definitely a lot harder. The candidate with the most
money is not always the winner, which he should be if money made the
difference.

What do you believe is better? The original Greek democracy? That
excluded women, slaves, the poor, and foreigners?

It's not that our democracy is bad it's just that it has been corrupted
by the influence of money so that it doesn't function like it is
intended to. If we had public financing of elections and they went on
for a few months instead of years most of the problems would be fixed or
greatly reduced. When Bill Gates has the same voice in government as you
or I then we have real democracy. I don't thing we're there yet.

Hawke

I keep telling you, it hasn't been corrupted, it was always this way.

To a certain extent that is true. But now it's worse than ever.



Ok, here is your homework for today. Research the background of the
Boston Tea Party and report back on the reason that the tea was dumped
in the harbor.

Next week you can research the backgrounds of the major sponsors of
the revolution and report on their place in society.
Maybe it will open your eyes a tiny bit.


I already know American history very well so I don't need to look it up.
But why do you want me to? Because you don't think I know that it was
the elites and the wealthy who were backing the revolution? People like
John Hancock, who just happened to be the richest man in Boston.

Maybe I should assign you the task of showing some uprisings that were
real grassroots events and didn't have the backing of any wealthy
sponsors or leaders. They're out there too.

Hawke

On 6/7/2011 8:16 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:56:56 -0500, jim"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:



Gunner Asch wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:07:24 -0500, jim"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net
wrote:

then ignore any growth in the economy

WHAT growth?

http://tinyurl.com/3ryowf8


Fascinating if it could possibly be true..but with 21-25% average
unemployment..it simply doesnt have any basis.

Particularly when the shaded area goes from 2008-2009.....laugh laugh
laugh

So Jimmy boio....we are no longer in a "recession"...right?

Now do you want me to make you look like a complete moron..or should I
simply back off and let the other readers make their own judgements?

Gunner
\'



If there ever was anything that is truly impossible it would have to be
the case where Gummer made anyone, and I mean anyone, look like a moron
when it comes to economics. Now that is absolutely impossible.

Hawke

On 6/7/2011 5:25 PM, wrote:
On Jun 7, 4:07 pm, jim"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net wrote:

Interesting. Because all of these presidents did not serve 8 years
the tabular data does not show the data as well as a graph. I graphed
the data and the rate of budget rise is about the same for the first
four presidents.



Sure you take 400 billion of the increase from Bush
and assign it to Obama and
then ignore any growth in the economy
and those 2 combined
makes it look like what you want it to look like

That is not what I said. What I said is that if you graph the data,
you will have a better understanding. Starting with Bush II the
budgets increase at a much higher rate and continue to do so using the
projected figures for Obama. Since the figures are projected for
Obama, I do not trust them a lot. But a graph shows that Obama is
very close to Bush II as far as budget increases.

Dan



What you're not taking into account when comparing economic data from
Bush and Obama is the economic situation the country was in when each of
them took the helm.

Bush took over with the country in very good shape but going into a mild
recession. He started with a budget surplus and unemployment was not bad.

Obama took over in the worst economic situation any president has had to
deal with since FDR. The economic situation was dire when Obama took
over and he had the choice of doing nothing or of taking drastic steps
that required extremely high deficit spending to stop the bleeding.

Bush took a good situation and made a mess of it. Obama took a hell of a
mess and was asked to fix it, and fast. So you can't just compare the
two head to head. Their situations were totally different.

Hawke

Pooping diapers.
Attending elementary school.
Attending middle school.
Attending high school.
workforce
Retired.
Pooping diapers.

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


"jim" wrote in message
.. .

The US had $8 million people lose their jobs
If that is 27%-50% of the workforce then the workforce
is only around 20-30 million people

What are the other 280 million people doing?

On 6/8/2011 7:42 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

It's usually, but not necessarily, accompanied by increasing unemployment.
But when incomes are as split between the top and the bottom as they are
today, a big increase in incomes at the top can drive GDP up while
unemployment worsens for those at the bottom. Welcome to the outcome of
Reaganomics.

Meanwhile, suckers for trickle-down economics, like you, are sucking wind.


Now do you want me to make you look like a complete moron..or should I
simply back off and let the other readers make their own judgements?

Gunner

We know who the moron is here, Gunner. He lives in a trailer and owes
taxpayers six figures of unpaid bills.


Yeah, and he makes fun of other people for being stupid!

Hawke