Our death or it’s death – from Michael Walsh at the NY Post:
…The debt-ceiling cage match is the culmination of the Democrats’ 75-year-long fight to establish a voting bloc of dependents under the false flags of “compassion” and “social justice.” It’s sapped our strength, created a welfare mentality and, if unchecked, will reduce us to a nation of aging, resentful beggars with eyes cast permanently toward Washington…
The Democrats don’t want citizens – they want easily controlled serfs, and the best way to make them is to put them on the government dole. In 2011 America we have tens of millions of people who don’t work but yet manage to not just live, but have cable television, cars and cell phones. Our factories are shuttered, our mines are closed, our farms go unploughed while people sit on their duffs watching day time television, waiting for their EBT card to be re-filled by the taxpayers and Chinese bond purchasers. And these people are the bedrock of the Democrat party – they people who are horrified that the spigot might be turned off. Horrified, that is, that they might have to get a job.
In a rational, humane and just society, government support for the poor would be just enough to keep body and soul together and always less than the most menial, full time job could provide. It would be just what it is supposed to be – emergency support when through no fault of your own, you can’t survive. When there are simply no jobs, not just no jobs other than “jobs American’s won’t do” – and, by the way, “jobs Americans won’t do” means “jobs Americans don’t have to do because welfare pays better”. Making people dependent robs them of their dignity as human beings – it turns them in to de-facto slaves of government, always willing to do the Master’s bidding in return for the crumbs he provides. Meanwhile, the real raking it in is done by the Ruling Class…in return for bribe of $1,500.00 a month, the dependents allow the Ruling Class to steal trillions.
If we can end this – if we can destroy Big Government – then we will have saved our people. We must awaken from this government subsidized stupor and get back to work. A life of hard work, sobriety and thrift is the only worthwhile life and all aspects of society must be built to encourage and support such a life. There is no room in a republic of free men for anyone to be idle – certainly not idle while receiving so much as a dime of public money.
Get ready for the battle – the Welfare State and its Ruling Class will not give up easily. But the payoff for us is an America we can be proud of – an America where everyone you meet, every day, did their part as a citizen for our republic.
Blogs For Victory 
A large central bureaucracy is not only contradictory to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution, but it has also never been a successful, sustainable model.
Statistics released yesterday by the Heritage Foundation show that 30 million Americans are living in “poverty,” according to the US Census Bureau. Wow, that’s a pretty sizable number … until you remember that what it means to be “poor” in America has become a colossal joke.
Thanks to the Welfare State, what it means to be “poor” in America:
* The typical “poor” household in America has a car
* 78% of “poor” households in America have air conditioning
* 64% of “poor” households in America have cable or satellite TV .. most have two TVs, along with a DVD player and VCR
* Most “poor” households in America with children have a gaming system such as an Xbox or PlayStation
* 38% of “poor” households in America have a personal computer
* Most “poor” households in America have a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. They also have other household appliances such as a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
* The typical “poor” American has more living space than the average European.
* The typical “poor” American family is able to obtain medical care when needed.
The average “poor” household in America claims to have sufficient funds to meet all essential needs. What they are struggling to afford is air conditioning and cable TV, not food.
And let it be known that capitalism is responsible for lifting the poor to a higher standard than other poor people of any nation. The poor people that live in socialist/communist or despotic societies, are much worse off. I will also take this time to remind liberals that poverty can never be fully eliminated.
And how many of them are “poor” because they are uneducated, unskilled, and —more to the point—here illegally?
Why are we importing our “poor”? To keep the numbers up?
Wow, must be great to be poor. Class envy isn’t pretty.
You forget that the typical ‘poor’ person doesn’t vote in your litany of things so, at least for now, they are hardly a voting block. You might want to ask yourself if maybe it’s convenient for all those TV/Coffee Maker/AC makers if the poor have stuff too.
If there is a voting block which shows up to vote like clockwork and gives itself HUGE amounts of money it would have to be the older boomers.
Newscorps shares and the stock market in general are up on the news that even an octogenarian’s wife can manhandle a performance artist with a cream pie.
Don’t believe the astrologers explanations about a debt ceiling deal being responsible.
So when in doubt, attack the poor. Heaven forbid if they have air conditioning and a coffee maker.
I am not “poor” by any means. I do not have air conditioning. Why should the rest of us buy you a coffee maker and pay for your air condiotioning? Are those now basic human rights casper? The whole world will go to hell if the “poor” do not have whatever bleeding hearts like you say they need?
Oh, yeah! Because to the Loony Left, commenting that someone owns something is really an ATTACK!
Oh oh oh, the utter viciousness of it all, the ATTACK mode of commenting on a quality of life!
But then, the Left does shy away from actually defining anything—a political philosophy, a demographic, whatever. It is just so…..limiting…you know? It just, like, ties you down to specifics, and that gets you all tangled up in facts, and first thing you know someone is going to expect you to defend a position, and, well, it’s just easier to use terms which are never explained.
It seems to be the Silly Season in Wind City.
“So when in doubt, attack the poor.”
And when you’re done attacking the poor, tell them how lucky they are that they don’t make enough money to pay as much in taxes as rich people.
No, we’ll tell them how lucky they are to live in a country that at one time, at least, was a nation where the poor could prosper, and that they are lucky that there is still a movement within that country determined to return it to that Constitutional state of opportunity.
Republicans are no longer allowed to say that people are rich. You have to refer to them as ‘job creator’. You can’t even use the word ‘rich’. You have to say, ‘This chocolate cake is so moist and job creator.
Only Liberals are allowed to use the word “rich”, because it is a word they cannot stand to have defined and therefore belongs in the Lefty lexicon, where it can be infinitely “flexible” and “mutable” and other squishy Lefty stuff.
And only DTC would try to find a way to use the word “moist”.
Amazona
That was a John Stewart quote from last night, not my invention.
Your comment “And only DTC would try to find a way to use the word “moist”.” is creepy.
Your projecting too much about panties and moist and bitchy and catty ewwww. Just creepy. You need to go ride a horse.
dolf, YOU are the one who evidently can’t think of a woman and a horse in any context but that of Catherine the Great.
Which, of course leads to the question about which of them makes you envious—Catherine or the horse.
However, out here in the real world, one which effete urban ‘intellectuals’ like to call “cow farming”, horseback riding is a natural, athletic, non-kinky, thing to do. It takes a certain kind of ‘guy’ to automatically snap to a reference to Catherine the Great when a woman mentions a horse. I’m sure there was a little simper when you did it.
But catty is as catty does, and you, dolf, are the cattiest man I have run into since, well, since a long long time ago. Your efforts to insult me are either so, well, effeminate, or so desperately trying to be crude, that you it’s hard not to respond to that. There is no creature on earth as bitchy as a male being bitchy, and sorry, but that’s the only word that covers this quality you exude.
I feel bad sometimes, because you are so easy to lead into more and more blatant examples of that, and the other day I went too far, because even I was embarrassed for you. It was like kicking you when I had already scored a knockout. (Though you insist on coming back for more—you remind me of the Monty Python knight who loses both arms and both legs and demands to be hurt again. And I have to consider the fact that some ‘guys’ get off on being slapped around, perhaps even verbally…. ) So I have decided that while I may be tempted to comment now and then on your ‘specialness’ I will try to keep it more to actual discussion of actual ideas.
Which is, by the way, one of the things I contribute to the blog. Sometimes I discuss ideas, sometimes I point out that others are avoiding the discussion of ideas, and sometimes I try really hard to nudge/force people like you to discuss ideas. Sometimes I give in to the urge to deflate a little pomposity. Those are not my proudest
moments, being too close to teasing the kids on the short bus.
Why don’t you go back to some of the many posts of mine where I have put out ideas about how I think the nation should be governed, and why, and start to post about ideas instead of the new wife of a m man you have never met?
Amazona
You said only I would find a way to use the word ‘moist’. But it was John Stewart not I.
That makes you wrong.
The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
Top earners are the target for new tax increases, but the U.S. tax system is already highly progressive. The top 1 percent of income earners paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes in 2008, while the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent. Forty-nine percent of U.S. households paid no federal income tax at all.
baldork & catspuke the BS twins.
Casper,
No, but heaven forbid that anyone who can work have anything, at all. We have at least 30 million people who can work but don’t – who are subsidized to sit on their rear. I’ve seen too many of these people with my own eyes, Casper. It is immoral to allow any physically fit person to loaf:
If you are helpless you can call on me for the last cracker – I will refuse those who cannot do for themselves nothing. At the end of it all, I’d rather starve, myself, than to see any person who cannot do for themselves starve. But as I’ve also said before, my standards are high – I knew and worked with a lady who was wheel chair bound and nearly incapable of using her own hands and she held down a 40 hour a week job. Don’t give me any feces about “stress” and “carpal tunnel” – they are just dodges to get out work. We all have stress and we all have pain and until the limits of physical endurance are reached, we have a moral obligation to work. If nothing else, then by picking up trash and keeping up the public spaces in our towns and cities.
Enough of this liberal welfarism – enough of making slaves.
Not to encourage you Mark, but I never understood when a natural disaster hit some part of the world and the same part of the world had large unemployment why the TV always shows people sitting down waiting for someone to come in and clean it up.
Mark,
“We have at least 30 million people who can work but don’t – who are subsidized to sit on their rear.”
You are making some assumptions that just aren’t true. There are a lot of poor people who work. They just don’t make enough to get them above the poverty level. Try surviving on a part time job at minimal wage while supporting a family. We are also in a recession. There aren’t a lot of jobs out there.
Personally, I believe in workfare, not welfare. Everyone should have the opportunity to work for a decent age. The question is where do the jobs come from?
Casper,
“Decent wage” – and just what the heck is that? I’ll tell you what will happen – if you make welfare less than the most menial job pays, then people will find the work. On the other hand, you make welfare pay more than, say, picking tomatoes or doing other laborious work, then you’ll have a horde of illegals doing that work…while a segment of the American population is reduced to the status of dependency.
Mark,
A decent wage would be one that allows a person to afford the basics in life. And in case you didn’t understand my post I am not an advocate of welfare except in the case of those who absolutely can’t work. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to work.
As for doing laborious work, i grew up on a farm and have done about everything from digging ditches to digging up potatoes. I would be more than happy to do so again if it paid more than I can make from teaching. The reason Americans don’t want to do the work that illegals do isn’t because of the work, it’s because of the pay.
“The reason Americans don’t want to do the work that illegals do isn’t because of the work, it’s because of the pay.”
Georgia recently found out just how true this is.
From a historical perspective, as looked back on by future generations, it’s going to be interesting to see how our present dilemma plays out. In reality, there are only about 3 ways it can end.
Is one of the ways that the US drops all the crappy trade agreements like NAFTA, raises tariffs and starts to become economically independent of others by making/buying its own stuff?
Is providing our Independece from all sources of foriegn energy on that list?
Not one of the ones I had in mind.
Why yes it is-
1. Counting on Craig Venter to bioengineer us some bugs to turn solar energy into fuels for the cars. http://www.jcvi.org/
2. Counting on US oil companies to develop the technology to exploit all the oil shale we’ve got
3. Willing to let the oil companies get whatever remains of the easy oil stuck in the ground. The experts don’t think there is much, but they’ve been wrong before.
4. Put windmills up near the Kennedy compound.
5. Organic solar panels
Raise gas taxes to $40 a gallon to discourage driving.
Protectionism goes against my grain. It does. What kind of tariffs would you raise? Would we be using more of our own sources of petroleum?
Imo we are wasting a lot by putting food into gas tanks.
So all that new found oil out there in Montana and Wyoming is not much? Well the experts have been telling us that oil will dry up in ten years for well, the last hundred years.
DTC the Mathematician, why not do a little research and go back to, oh, I don’t know, perhaps the early stages of the 30’s Great Depression (soon to be known as the Not-Quite-As-Great Depression) and let us know how THAT tariff-raising experiment worked out.
GMB
Tariffs was mentioned immediately after NAFTA and the point is to discourage dumping of goods on the US market because of serf labor or other artificial barriers to competition.
I don’t think there is a lot of easy oil to be had, certainly the shale will last a lifetime. The expert speculators make money by saying the world is running out of oil. The US might well be out of cheap crude soon, it’s hard to know.
@Amazona
Imports during 1929 were only 4.2% of the United States’ GNP and exports were only 5.0%. Monetarists such as Milton Friedman who emphasize the central role of the money supply in causing the depression, downplay the Smoot-Hawley’s effect on the entire U.S. economy.
What precisely are you adding to the conversation again?
DTC, are you truly unaware of the fact that you did not answer my question? Or are you completely aware of it and hoping you can get away with pretending you did?
I asked you how increasing tariffs worked out in the 1930s Depression.
“Monetarists such as Milton Friedman who (conveniently) emphasize the central role of the money supply in causing the depression, downplay the Smoot-Hawley’s effect on the entire U.S. economy.” is not an answer.
It is a roundabout way of kind of vaguely giving a semi-opinion of one man. It is not an answer.
What I am adding to the conversation is an attempt to have it center on facts and not on vague generalities which are not backed up with hard evidence, such as your repeated claim that we should increase tariffs.
Are you denying that historical evidence of the successes and/or failures of policies is not of value in determining if they should be repeated? Are you one of those who claims some of us are TRAPPED IN HISTORY !!! ? Do you assert that the only thing of importance is “.. the astronomical weight of the now…” ? If so, just say so, and don’t tap-dance around with pseudo-answers.
Amy
I did some research and found out some economists like the Keynesians blamed tariffs for the depression and some like the monetarists didn’t. I’m not a Keynesian believer so I’ll side with Friedman on the opinion that tariffs weren’t so important because that’s what I want to believe. One could of course look historically, so e.g. Hamilton used tariffs as a tool to get the US economy started and they worked.
But the conversation is never ending about that is not the right lesson to draw from history because these parameters are different blah blah blah. So the ‘historical evidence’ schtick is vastly overrated.
I’m a skeptic. That means I am skeptical of hypotheses made up after the experiment has occurred. Historians haven’t predicted anything of significance in my lifetime. Zippo. They didn’t predict the end of the Soviet Union, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, 9/11, 3 wars in the mideast, and on and on and on down to a black man as president. Economists are as accurate as a coin flip as well. I just don’t believe in any school of economics. I am not going to study and/or develop a coherent school of astrology.
I don’t put any astronomical weight into the now as you put it. Quite the contrary, in general the longer something has survived the longer it will probably continue to survive. I like social security but am pretty sure it won’t survive. The same thing with most of the so-called welfare state. An interesting question to ask is if the middle class will survive. The poor and rich have always existed, but the middle class is relatively recent.
So many words, so few of them on the impact on the American economy in the 1930s.
Hamilton was just a little before that, don’t you think, so not exactly relevant to the period in question.
And they are?
I’m really thinking sort of short-term here, as I think we have few leaders who are capable or desirous of thinking past the next election. (1) The Left can capitulate, regroup and live to fight another day. (2) The country goes bankrupt. (3) We have a 2nd revolution. I suppose you can throw a bunch of nuance at those 3 possibilities, but, to anyone who’s paying even the slightest bit of attention, American and most of the rest of the world is clearly at a major historical turning point. Anyone who professes to know exactly how it’s going to turn out is intellectually dishonest.
“Is providing our Independece from all sources of foriegn energy on that list?” That was for Bardolf.
“And they are” was for you Spook. Disjointed, but hey it worked.
GMB
Answered the question and the $40 tax was a joke.
“joke”=Something really really stupid said by DTC and later excused by claiming it was supposed to be funny.
It’s either a joke or “irony” But you have to be initiated.
Amazona
GMB understood it was a joke. I was pointing it out for the advanced benefit of the humorously challenged like yourself.
Now, how exactly are you contributing to the conversation?
But GMB is clearly initiated.
So initiated means uses common sense.
Are you initiated?
Really, to make a point, all Monty and Cappy and DTC have to do is cite the success of the War On Poverty to convince us that the secret of “helping” the “poor” is to give them other peoples’ money.
Go for it, guys. You can start with the promise to “end poverty in our lifetime” by handing out only a certain amount of money. You can go on to tell us how much money was really spent, and how much “poverty” was eliminated. DTC, you can pull out your math skills and tell us how more MORE poverty should have been “ended in our time” given the percentage of overrun of the original promise. That is, if you can end more than “all” just by throwing even more money at it.
Remember, we are those irritating conservatives, who make our decisions based on facts, figures, and historical evidence.
Well, we HAD a “war on poverty” with a specific promise and a specific cost. All you have to do is show us the success of that promise, at that cost.
You can’t end the “war on poverty”. That would put the donks out of business.
And you obviously can’t WIN it, as we have shown over the past 50 years or so.
What’s that saying about doing the same thing and expecting a different result??????
Of course, If you won the “war on poverty” that would have the same effect. Would it not behoove a person like monty and casper to actually have less poor people. Can’t expect an almost 100% turnout and votes from “Link Card Estates” if those folks don’t need link cards any more.
GMB, what’s a ‘link card’?
You’re right, GMB—the Left needs a dependent class, and if necessary they will create one.
One way to create one is to simply change definitions. Now “the poor” have physical comforts, some luxuries, health care, and the much-vaunted “safety net” but they are still constantly told how miserable they are, how poor they are, how much more they are entitled to just BECAUSE they are “poor”.
I wonder what this country would be like if they were told, just as often “You chose not to work to get a better education, you have few marketable skills, yet you still have this standard of living. That is because this is a great country. If you have all this, even with the choices you have made, your children can have even more if you teach them to make better choices and take advantage of the opportunities available to them.”
As I have said, an author who appeared often on the Oprah Winfrey Show said her research showed her that people who follow three simple rules are extremely unlikely to live in poverty.
1. Finish high school
2. Do not have children until you are married
3. Do not get married until after you finish high school
Oprah’s not what you would call a political conservative. She is hardly likely to promote the writings of someone for any reason other than a belief that they are true, and this woman had plenty of facts, figures and statistics to back up her claims.
But do we praise a nation which offers such opportunity that people who simply make these three good choices in their life stand an excellent chance of being able to earn a good living for themselves and their families?
No, we promote a sense of surly victimhood for those who did not make these intelligent choices, and we go on to reclassify people whose standard of living is one of comfort if not luxury as “poor” so they can be stirred up into the same kind of victimhood and entitlement to what others have earned.
Amazona
As evidence of success in the war on poverty I give:
* The typical “poor” household in America has a car
* 78% of “poor” households in America have air conditioning
* 64% of “poor” households in America have cable or satellite TV .. most have two TVs, along with a DVD player and VCR
* Most “poor” households in America have a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. They also have other household appliances such as a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
* The typical “poor” American has more living space than the average European.
Now its your turn
How is that war on drugs working out?
What specific promises were made in the war on terror?
Where are all the jobs which were going to accompany the tax cuts?
DTC, if your examples are proof of “success in the war on poverty” then why do we have more people officially declared to be in poverty now than we did when it started?
Is your list evidence of “success in the war on poverty” or evidence of a new definition of the word?
My turn:
The “war on drugs” is just as big a failure as the “war on poverty”, just as poorly thought out, nearly as expensive (ooops—–sorry about that word. I’d hate to see you spinning off into space again. Let me replace it with “almost”) ALMOST as expensive, and in equal need of being discarded onto the trash heap of good intentions and bad outcomes.
I don’t remember specific promises made in the “war on terror” other than every attempt possible would be made to make America, and Americans, safe from terrorism. If you have examples, it would be less coy to just give them.
There have never been promises of jobs accompanying “tax cuts” because there were no “tax cuts”. This is a Leftist semantic trick which sucks in the gullible. There were tax RATE cuts, which resulted in higher tax revenues once they had time to make an impact on the economy. For a specific list of specific jobs that WERE created, sorry, no can do. For proof of more jobs, we had population increases in the years following those tax RATE cuts, yet unemployment went down.
More people yet less unemployment has to mean more jobs.
I understand why some of you get so bumfuddled by the contradiction of “tax CUTS” resulting in more revenue. After all, if you cut something, it gets smaller, right?
But taxes did not get cut, tax RATES got cut. I’m sure we will have to explain this again, over and over, as we have in the past. We may just give up and leave you all in the weeds, fretting over your misunderstanding.
As for where those jobs ARE , well, they are just gone. New business has not been begun, established business has not expanded, and some business has merely gone under. Credit, the lifeblood of small business, has been shut down if not completely off by the tourniquet of “reform” and increased regulation. Higher tax RATES loom on the horizon, inhibiting the inclination to risk capital on new enterprises. The crippling effect of massive debt threatens to further inhibit economic vitality. Is this all new to you?
Great, Amazona is for drug legalization. (Wait she didn’t say that, she said that the effort to control illegal drugs was useless and overcrowding prisons at a huge cost). Nearly a libertarian.
And the GOP should have been saying that Obama needs to extend the Bush tax RATE cuts. Okay. The tax rate cuts were extended and still all the jobs from the housing BUBBLE went away. At least you are on record as believing the numbers the BLS puts out. You can’t believe how many whackos think the BLS is in the pocket of the president.
Tax rates increases LOOM sounds like Nostradamus. Good thing the GOP controls the purse strings. So you don’t think credit needed to be reformed in the light of bailing out the banks.
I understand the theory of the Laffer curve. Lots of evidence goes against it too. In fact, the “tax rate cuts generate more revenue” idea was listed as one of the worst ideas in economics http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/4065
What’s not new is that people would like to make a 10% ROI even when there isn’t an investment which will return 10%. In that case they either speculate (GOLD at 1600 an ounce) or hold onto their money and complain or what you would call ‘inhibition’.
“In fact, the “tax rate cuts generate more revenue” idea was listed as one of the worst ideas in economics”
In the real world, yes. In the right-wing world, it’s an unassailable, bedrock truth that is absolutely true because they believe it is absolutely true.
Even tax rate cuts can’t overcome a massive body blow to the economy, which is what happened when the housing and lending and investment bubbles all burst at the same time. An economy has a lot of moving parts, and the failure of so many at one time needs time to recover. Even Barry agreed that raising taxes in a time of recession was a very bad idea. Do try to keep up.
So a lot of people think the Laffer curve is a bad idea. And a lot more people think Keynes had lots of bad ideas. History is full of bad ideas, and even more full of people who could not recognize good ideas. So what’s your point?
Even Dem icon JFK (as opposed to JF’nK) argued passionately for tax rate cuts, famously stating that “a rising tide lifts all boats”. While Lefties like to make up bogus rules for determining the effectiveness of lower tax rates on the economy, applying arbitrary criteria such as specific time frames which allow you to point at a snapshot in time and squeal “LOOK!!! It didn’t work THERE!!” the fact is, over time, we have more economic vitality and prosperity, both as a nation and as individuals, when tax rates are lower and prosperity and productivity are not punished.
Don’t like “LOOM”? Gee, more quibbling over my vocabulary instead of just addressing the issue. Did, or did not, Joe Biden angrily announce that “we’ll be back in two years” and then go on explain that when they had another chance they would get rid of the Bush tax rate cuts—which, interestingly enough, while raising the amount of money Americans pay in taxes, would NOT be a “tax hike”.
I suppose “IMPENDING” would also be too ominous for you.
Now here’s a classic dolfism:
“So you don’t think credit needed to be reformed in the light of bailing out the banks.”
???????????????????
OK, what does “credit reform” actually MEAN? And what does it have to do with “bailing out the banks”?
Banks were “bailed out” because of a political decision to get the federal government into the banking business. Or have you forgotten what happened when some banks wanted to repay their loans and were told they could not?
And what “reform” to “credit” was necessary? Why? What was actually legislated? How much of the problem was lack of enforcement instead of lack of sufficient laws?
As for MY idea, no, I think the so-called “reform” was not necessary. From my experience, which by the way involved trying to work with both national and community banks for five months to get a loan which would have skated by a year ago, they were constantly being bombarded with new “regulations” which imposed such stringent and unreasonable criteria they were hamstrung. They had retaliatory actions LOOMING over them every time they turned around. Did it matter that they had done nothing wrong? No. Did it matter that the old regulations were quite adequate, IF ENFORCED? No.
What mattered was that the banking industry, reeling from the fallout from a true crisis, was saddled with an invented crisis, which was most definitely not allowed to go to waste, and which was manipulated and demagogued into yet another power play on American business.
Interesting Leftist spin on the fact that people who hesitate to risk their capital in a sinking economy are just “complaining”. I suppose to people like you, they OWE “the people” that money and have no right to make their own decisions about when to risk it, or how.
Hmmmm—now, who was that famous political philosopher who stated that there should be no right to private property? MMMMM-something, I think.
Monty, is there an idea in there somewhere?
It’s pointing out the through-the-looking-glass quality and believing-makes-it-true style of conservative thought. Not an original idea, I know, but one that bears repeating as you continue to hunker down behind a barrier through which facts cannot pass intact.
OT.
Looks pretty much like the rethugs are going to cave.
http://news.yahoo.com/debt-hope-obama-praises-gang-six-plan-214605262.html
“DTC” is that something like “WTF”? Don’t tell me what it actually means, please.
liberal stupidity over your head in debt?
borrow more on the 21% CC to pay last months bills.
OVER 800 days with NO budget as mandated by LAW!!
constitution?
WES DON NEEDS NO STEENKING CONSTITUTION!!!
we have al-O bamanation the DONK
GMB
DTC mean dynamic traction control and my favorite new appellation. Amazona thinks that under any circumstances I am able to take control of the conversation by deftly employing humor, critical thinking and that famous liberal new tone.
It’s kind of her way of breaking the ice, making up for past differences and showing her charm.
baldork
dont get carried away, you are still a MORON in our eyes.
when does your basket weaving course begin again?
my favorite old appellation is baldork
Sorry Neo, I have already had requests to add the class and it is full. The classroom is limited for fire safety reasons, I hope you understand.
neo, see what I mean about him being just too too pweshuss for words? Isn’t he just the most darlingest little thing? Flutter flutter, titter titter, tee hee.
Amy
Still think you have a tin ear. Pweshuss? Really?
Dolf The Cluless. It’s a really benign moniker.
I’ll let DTC himself explain his preoccupation with Catherine the Great and why this is what comes to mind when he thinks of women and horses.
The national historic society used to have bake sales in high school. The flyers typically read ‘Catherine the Great says don’t horse around, buy something at the NHS bake sale on MM/DD.
dolf, as usual, is tap-dancing around and refusing to defend his demand for higher tariffs or to discuss the economic impact of the last round of tariffs intended to shore up the American economy. Vague pseudo-responses about Friedman finding them “not important” hardly address the issue—which is, admittedly, one of ideas and therefore foreign territory evidently to be avoided.
I will present a couple of quotes about the Smoot-Hawley tariff act, possibly even sparking a little discussion that goes beyond snark.
****************************************
“This catastrophic event (the Depression) was the outgrowth of many poor
decisions in the United States and abroad. Yet, some economists and politicians blame a single American legislative action: the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This governmental action was not the cause of the depression that started in 1929. Enacted at a crucial point of the downturn, the tariff did contribute to the deepening of that depression by reducing world trade.
The Smoot-Hawley Act ushered in the partial collapse of international trade through the
immediate retaliation of Spain, Italy, Switzerland and Canada. It contributed to a complete
collapse of trade through the delayed reaction of Great Britain and France.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff remains one of the most controversial legislative measures in U.S.
history. The publicity and furor over the debates in Congress makes the recent NAFTA
controversy look tame. It was a classic example of extreme protectionism. It should serve as a caveat for all major international trade issues.”
******************************
“The mutilation of the billion dollar market that was Canada may be regarded as the most deplorable and the most costly single fruit of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
The reason it became such a disaster was because of the immediate retaliation of Canada. Canada instituted its own general protective tariff, which served to sever the strong economic ties it had with the United States and further reduce world trade.”
*******************************
“. Editors of the Economist in London would later conclude that “institutional obstructions to a free flow of capital” caused the U.S. to make no economic progress in the decade of the 30s.”
*****************************
This is just some of the easily available information on what so many around the world considered to be the true effect of our protectionism in the early 1930s. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many details of the retaliatory tariffs imposed by nations all over the world—-Great Britain, Spain and Italy just to name a few.
It’s a topic requiring far more attention than simple declarations that we “should” impose tariffs and a casual dismissal of concerns by saying someone has chosen to believe Friedman was right because it is what he wants to believe. It might call for less flippancy.
BTW, tariffs are not the only “institutional obstructions to a free flow of capital”. Over-regulation and high and erratic taxation certainly qualify, particularly punitive taxation on business and prosperity.
Not tap-dancing Amy. Sorry you’re better at talking points and sound bites. You didn’t find objective information. You found examples of economists who heavily favor all free trade and run data through that filter. Moreover I was talking about tariffs against dumping not general tariffs.
Instead of 80 years ago we could look at last week. A recent agreement between Mexico and the US allowing long hauls into the US interior in exchange for Mexico dropping agricultural tariffs. It is not a loss for everyone, the middle class union truckers will lose their jobs or have their wages undercut but some agribusiness will sell more product to Mexico. (I understand prices are flat for farmers) Cluster is right that it’s not a zero sum game. The Mexican truckers will make a tad more, the trucking companies a lot more and the farmers in Mexico will see the prices of their produce go down.
Well, it IS a lot easier to ignore historical data and patterns and make snap judgments made on discrete snapshots in time.
It is also easier to restate what you really said to try to make it sound more reasonable.
And it must be a whole lot easier to just snidely dismiss several references as mere “talking points and sound bites”.
You said you wanted tariffs. I asked you the effect on the economy the last time tariffs were put in place in a recession. You refused to answer. I asked again. I got more of the vague “well, this one guy didn’t think they were important”. I offered up specific reasons why so many people DID think they were important, and how, and why, giving details and hints about how to find out more.
And you sniff and dismiss my reasoned and detailed response as mere “talking points and sound bites”. As if your very narrow reference to a very specific policy, allowing you to wallow in more of your anti-agriculture bigotry, is supposed to qualify as an actual discussion of the effect of tariffs on the economy, or of the Smoot-Hawley Act on pushing a recession into a depression.
Evidently this is what passes for discourse in the adobe towers of lower-level academia. Here, it’s just tap dancing.
There are no patterns. You are seeing things you want to see. It is an illusion.
What you found are not references. They are biased sources. They have an agenda. Every single argument used to promote NAFTA turned out false when data came in. By then it was law. China and India have huge tariffs and are the growing economies.
Once in a while you need to ask, what kind of information would get me to change my mind. Otherwise you are a partisan hack.
Actually, Clueless, I HAVE said I am in favor of legalizing drugs. Yep. Came right out and said it. I leave coy hints and implications to you. The last time I said it was last week, in a discussion with mitch about the literal and political definitions of the word “liberal”.
I pointed out that I am, in fact, quite liberal, mentioning my being in favor of legalizing drugs as one of the examples of my liberalism.
I went on to explain that, however, I am ardently NOT “Liberal” as the movement is antithetical to everything I believe about the best way to govern our nation.
It probably went right past you, being about ideas and political philosophy and all………
I am in favor of legalizing drugs to. With one caveat. The druggies have to be in favor of getting thier asses shot off if they break into my house to steal stuff to support thier habit.
The thing about legalizing is that it is easier to get drugs so you don’t have to break into houses. I am in favor shooting the ass off anyone who breaks into my house for any reason, but maybe that’s just me.
I have a few caveats to legalization;
No advertising, no posters or cool-looking stores. Just bare-bones, functional shops. We can make it legal (and this is one place I am in favor of taxes) but we don’t have to make it fun.
No passing out of drugs. You buy for yourself—you don’t sell. You sell, you do time. You want a party where everyone gets high, everyone goes to buy his or her dope.
Making drugs available to minors is a life sentence.
Aside from that, if they are so intent on getting high, maybe they will remove themselves from the gene pool before they reproduce.
They tried this in europe. Amsterdam was famous for it. Thier crime rates shot up. Switzerland used to boast many areas wher drug use was decriminilized. Again drug related crime shot sky high.
The only way to keep the hard core druggies out of the crime business would be for the government to supply free drugs to them.
Somehow, I just don’t think that will go over to well.
Is it a coed under water basket weaving class? I might be interested 🙂
It is coed (60% female) but it’s advanced basket weaving 202 with a prerequisite of basket weaving 201. 🙂
How about pole siting? I once sat on a pole 40 or so feet in the air for about 30 hours. No where near a record at all but the GMG was really mad at me. It was a good place to hide.
How about pole siting?
Not nearly as much fun as pole dancing – “watching” pole dancing, that is.
Spook.. If I ever did something like that the GMG would not just be mad at me. Emergency room doctors would be removing triple ought buckshot out of my backside. If I survived that is. 😦
GMB
The pole sitting department is down the hall.
@Spook
I’ll bet if you looked through enough university catalogs you’d find a pole dancing class offered through recreation department. Most likely place is University of Illinois or Northwestern.
Again—
DTC, if your examples are proof of “success in the war on poverty” then why do we have more people officially declared to be in poverty now than we did when it started?
Is your list evidence of “success in the war on poverty” or evidence of a new definition of the word?
Bardolf, I think the question I would ask is, If you have all these material possesions should you even be considered poor. If you have the money to buy stuff I would say you are not poor. Why are you classified as poor and why should you be able to cell phones, tv, whatever, on the taxpayers dime?
GMB
You probably live way better by most standards than the kings did 300 years ago and just about everyone on the planet in 200 years will live way better than you live today. Poor/Rich is always a relative position.
I don’t believe there are lots of cell phones being bought on the taxpayer dime. If they are I am against. The same thing for TV’s and whatever. Heck, I am even against free school breakfast which is pretty heartless.
@Amazona
It was a copy of tiredoflibbs list and make the point that some progress must have been made if the new ‘poverty’ allows those things.
Green Mountain Boy,
Having things doesn’t mean you are rich. You can buy a TV or DVD player for $25 at a garage sale. Most apartments have a refrigerator, an oven and stove. I could furnish a house or apartment for $1000 bucks, but it wouldn’t make me a rich person. Also you are assuming that everything is purchased on the taxpayers dime. That’s simply untrue.
I am assuming that everything is being purchased on the government dime? Thats a good one. Mind if I use that line?
How does someone that is so poor that they recieve snap and tanf aquire these consumer goods if not on the government dime?
I said nothing about stoves or refrigerators. Go look at your local public housing area. You tell me how those folks can afford what they are driving and still be in taxpayer funded housing. Oh sure you find a few jalopies but not many.
“Go look at your local public housing area. You tell me how those folks can afford what they are driving and still be in taxpayer funded housing.”
I have. Didn’t see a lot of new cars. In fact, I didn’t see any. Do you think poor people shouldn’t be allowed to have vehicles? If so, that would make it very difficult for them to get to work.
GMB
you are arguing with IDIOTS
both catspuke and baldork are leftist drones who work at “jobs” that are OPM they produce NOTHING.
Yet they bleep on about what they know nothing about just TROLLS dumping on a conservative site.
I get into many peoples houses through my business.
I see the clothes, “Do’s” jewelery, cigarettes beer, and wine as well as LARGE screen TV’s, computers, and electronics.
catspukes BS that “HE” could furnish an apt for 1K is laughable.
Besides where are these “PO” going to gey a grand, 1st last and first months money for rent???
OPM….thats where.
sit on porch, drink beer, smoke, and whine they are PO yet demand more from you and me.
Been there done that got the tee shirts to prove the Hypocrisy of these never was wanna be lefty loons like catspuke and baldork.
Those who CAN…DO
Those who CANT…TEACH!
Neoconehead
Remind me what Mark ‘produces’ to earn a living.
You’re just the usual looter. Gets 20 years of education and then says the teachers didn’t produce anything. Takes money from those on welfare to fix their AC and complains that they shouldn’t have that money to give him.
Bardolf, not really relevant to the discussion but you will find quite a few government paid for cell phones being given out.
http://www.mygovernmentcellphone.com
“Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires all citizens to prove they are insured……but not all must prove they are citizens.”
Neo got to disagree with you a little bit about Bardolf. Comes accross more as a libertarian than a donkrat. Libertarianism is not my cup of tea so to speak. But me this but though, Libertarians do have some principles. Misguided imo but still very much better than donkrats.
It is very unlikely Ron Paul will win the repub nomination but If it comes down to the choice of voting for bams or Ron Paul, I am pretty sure Mr. Paul would get my vote. He would at least fulfill some of the social conservative agenda albeit not for the reasons we would like.
Libertarians are not filthy, stinking, back stabbing, lowest lifeforms known to mankind,rinos.
GMB
Libertarians are not filthy, stinking, back stabbing, lowest lifeforms known to mankind,rinos.
No they are not I agree, not sure about baldork I think he is a lefty ideologue playing role of a centrist lefty.
Remember he is in academia, hardly a place for a libertarian.
Which is why he probably would never state openly where he teaches at. It would be a end of career descion. like a conservative in hollywood.