warpedskydiver 0 #101 December 21, 2006 Social Security is is for the GOVERNMENTS Social Security, read the 1933 act in it's entirety. Pretty fucking sad that FDR filed bankruptcy on the US while pulling the wool over everyones eyes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #102 December 21, 2006 QuoteHe initiated policies that were seen as radical at the time, but which Americans consider to be part of the national fabric today Well, yes, I see that. I have no problem admitting that things like child labor laws had great effects, like children living past the age of ten. And indeed, they ARE part of the national fabric today. As I have said about a number of things, I applaud a number of the substantive policies that were created, much as I applaud the substance of many of the civil rights decisions handed down by the Warren Court, etc. What I DO have a problem with is how FDR did it. The ends rarely ever justify the means. Under FDR, the seizure of unlimited power through the Commerce Clause via the threat of packing the courts was a brutality. He used a new interpretation of the Commerce Clause to authorize him to do everything he wanted to do. Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment? Be damned. It's the feds can bust private cultivation of marijuana - if everybody did it, then that would cause a big impact on interstate commerce. The Feds will an activity that doesn't go beyond state lines on the possible effect. The same procedures can be used for things we both disagree with. Hey, the feds have the right to regulate the use of the phone system under the commerce clause. Seeing as how the Tenth Amendment and Ninth Amendment are historical relics due to commerce clause jurisprudence, why can't the Commerce Clause scoop up the 4th Amendment? What about the 5th? The 2nd? The 1st? The procedure is already there. The "right to privacy" findings, while I support the political concept, is Lochner through and through. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimmytavino 16 #103 December 22, 2006 Hopefully ..the NEXT one......... jmy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #104 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteHe initiated policies that were seen as radical at the time, but which Americans consider to be part of the national fabric today Well, yes, I see that. I have no problem admitting that things like child labor laws had great effects, like children living past the age of ten. And indeed, they ARE part of the national fabric today. As I have said about a number of things, I applaud a number of the substantive policies that were created, much as I applaud the substance of many of the civil rights decisions handed down by the Warren Court, etc. What I DO have a problem with is how FDR did it. The ends rarely ever justify the means. Under FDR, the seizure of unlimited power through the Commerce Clause via the threat of packing the courts was a brutality. He used a new interpretation of the Commerce Clause to authorize him to do everything he wanted to do. Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment? Be damned. It's the feds can bust private cultivation of marijuana - if everybody did it, then that would cause a big impact on interstate commerce. The Feds will an activity that doesn't go beyond state lines on the possible effect. The same procedures can be used for things we both disagree with. Hey, the feds have the right to regulate the use of the phone system under the commerce clause. Seeing as how the Tenth Amendment and Ninth Amendment are historical relics due to commerce clause jurisprudence, why can't the Commerce Clause scoop up the 4th Amendment? What about the 5th? The 2nd? The 1st? The procedure is already there. The "right to privacy" findings, while I support the political concept, is Lochner through and through. QuoteWell, yes, I see that. I have no problem admitting that things like child labor laws had great effects, like children living past the age of ten. And indeed, they ARE part of the national fabric today. Hell, many were part of the Greatest Generation. You don't think, apparently, that the 1938 FLSA was a good thing? Social Security; would you rather we let the old and disabled die in teh streets? QuoteWhat I DO have a problem with is how FDR did it. The ends rarely ever justify the means. Under FDR, the seizure of unlimited power through the Commerce Clause via the threat of packing the courts was a brutality. I'm not aware of that, not saying it didn't happen and to what degree. Does that differ from what the Bush admin did and hell, Reagan. Bush, Bush has done for most of 26 years? How about the Repub Senate threatening to revoke fillibuster rules if the Dems didn't confirm a judge w/o fillibuster? No one leveraged more than Andrew JOhnson, so many times presidents use these leverages to get their way, not saying FDR did or did not. QuoteIt's the feds can bust private cultivation of marijuana - if everybody did it, then that would cause a big impact on interstate commerce. Kind of like the use of RICO by the Reagan admin on to forfeit a person's possessions for having 1 seed or a joint. RICO is from the 1920's, but left dormant for decades until crusty Reagan gave it new life to steal people's property. Quote..why can't the Commerce Clause scoop up the 4th Amendment? What about the 5th? The 2nd? The 1st? Oh, the current and recent past SCOTUS (7-2 Republican appointed) has made them so worthless that they aren't worthy of scooping up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #105 December 22, 2006 QuoteSocial Security is is for the GOVERNMENTS Social Security, read the 1933 act in it's entirety. Pretty fucking sad that FDR filed bankruptcy on the US while pulling the wool over everyones eyes. The US has been bankrupt and in debt since the 1840's. The reason we are still afloat is that we have such good cash flow, but if that were to slow we would be dead, as our credit cards are maxxed. Tell me, what would you do with the 67 YO person with no family? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #106 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteMaybe a fiscally advantaged person would feel that way, but the average citizen was so benefitted by FDR. If the feds don't intervene in a capitalist-controlled economy, we will have tyranny. Three points - first, the average person DID NOT benefit from prolonging a depression. Believe it or not, when the Depression happened, it was because the wealthy lost their worth. Guess what? Because the wealthy no longer had any money, they couldn't afford to hire anybody. Thus, the poor were really screwed. Point two - FDR to the rescue, right? I pointed this out to you a couple of months ago (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2396550#2396550): QuoteFDR that he helped create the Civilian Conservation Corps, where single men between the ages of 18 and 25 got jobs developing new parks, building bridges, planting trees, and helpin with flood control projects. For this work they got one whole dollar each day. Adjusting for inflation, that works out to about 14.00 dollars per day in 2005 dollars (assuming 1935 for the $1.00 pay). Assuming only a four-hour work day, that would be present pay of $1.75 per hour. So, for the honor of sweating your ass off in the desert, you worked out to $1.75 per hour in present-day wages. All that happened was you had a different tyrant - a federal government that had no problem using the poor to do its bidding. THat's tyranny. Point three - fiscaly advantaged? Let's compare net worths. I'm presently in about $300,000 of unsecured debt, and in about $475,000 of secured debt. I've probably got assets of $100,000 (my business) which didn't even pay for itself last month. I reckon that the bum on the fucking street has a higher worth than I have. Fiscally advantaged? The okie wearing a potato sack was worth more than me. QuoteFDR took a piece of garbage economy, even worse than Clinton inherited and turned it into a gem. The economy improved between 1934 and 1937. It nosedived to below 1934 levels in 1938. Even despite the war machine created in 1942, the US economy did not again eclipse the 1934 level until 1946 - AFTER FDR DIED. FDR did not turn the US economy into a "gem." He should be rotting in hell for what he did to the American worker and family - keot them down for far longer and far worse than they should have been. Quotefirst, the average person DID NOT benefit from prolonging a depression. No argument. QuoteBelieve it or not, when the Depression happened, it was because the wealthy lost their worth. NOT. You subscribe 100% to supply side, trickle down where when the rich decide to come off some capital, they do so and the paultry peasants get some. I think the gov should tax teh rich more heavily and redistribute to disempower the rich to some degree. I don't want to be so gross that people can disregard the rich, but let's not continue to make the people slaves of the rich. What FDR did was to do just this and it worked. To blame FDR for taking the country in its dissaray and fix it is tantamount to lending your 20 YO POS car to someone in need of all maintenance and blame the borrower for breaking it. QuoteGuess what? Because the wealthy no longer had any money, they couldn't afford to hire anybody. Thus, the poor were really screwed. Supply side / trickle down..... yawn . FDR ensurred people didn't need to rely on the rich as much, created a balance that has since been thrown out. QuoteFDR that he helped create the Civilian Conservation Corps, where single men between the ages of 18 and 25 got jobs developing new parks, building bridges, planting trees, and helpin with flood control projects. For this work they got one whole dollar each day. Adjusting for inflation, that works out to about 14.00 dollars per day in 2005 dollars (assuming 1935 for the $1.00 pay). Assuming only a four-hour work day, that would be present pay of $1.75 per hour. OK, so when peole are dying in the streets, that is something. What were the unemployed people making? First you decry worker rights, now governments paying squat. Shall we talk your boy, Hoover's Bonus Army? What did they get? Murdered, arrested? QuoteSo, for the honor of sweating your ass off in the desert, you worked out to $1.75 per hour in present-day wages. All that happened was you had a different tyrant - a federal government that had no problem using the poor to do its bidding. And that lasted until the depression was starting to rescind. What were businesses paying back then? Nothing, most were dying/dead. So are you saying FDR should have kept HOOver's tradition of shoveling money off to corps? Quotefiscaly advantaged? Let's compare net worths. I'm presently in about $300,000 of unsecured debt, and in about $475,000 of secured debt. I've probably got assets of $100,000 (my business) which didn't even pay for itself last month. I reckon that the bum on the fucking street has a higher worth than I have. Remind me not to retain you . Joking, I'm sure you're a kickass lawyer. Well, then why practice? What is the issue, too much overhead and not good accounting, not enough clients? It seesm most lawyers do well, why are you not? Are you dong well personally but your business has no asset? Face it, most businesses are doing well right now. QuoteThe economy improved between 1934 and 1937. It nosedived to below 1934 levels in 1938. Based upon what indicators. QuoteHe should be rotting in hell for what he did to the American worker and family - keot them down for far longer and far worse than they should have been. He inherited a mega-shit economy and overall country, installed not even civil, but human rights into place, laid the platform for future civil and human rights, a thing other presidents didn't do. American worker? Please, Hoover had done all he could to supplement corps forever and it wasn't working, it was creating communes all over the place. A PhD at my university claimed that even the rich were voting Hoover out due to fear of the country denouncing capitalism and adopting communism. Hey, they couldn't participate in the monetary system, so why bother? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #107 December 22, 2006 QuoteFunny how Bush was elected while the Clinton/Gore White House was enjoying (arguably) the biggest bull market of all time.... and then he was re-elected after showing the country who he was for four years. How are you going to explain that to your grandchildren? And now you can't find a erson to admit they voter for the criminal..... I bet it wasn't that way after FDR died. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #108 December 22, 2006 QuoteAnd now you can't find a (p)erson to admit they voter for the criminal..... I bet it wasn't that way after FDR died. By criminal I assume you're talking about our current president. If so, you're wrong. I voted for him. I think most people who did, will readily admit it. According to the L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll (12/8-11/06), 42% approve of his overall performance. Kinda gives the impression a fair number of people still like him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #109 December 22, 2006 You just don't understand, reason nor fact matters, all that matters is what lucky thinks (in lucky's world) I could provide links to all of his posts if you like, I am certain that you notice the trend in every one of his posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #110 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteSocial Security is is for the GOVERNMENTS Social Security, read the 1933 act in it's entirety. Pretty fucking sad that FDR filed bankruptcy on the US while pulling the wool over everyones eyes. The US has been bankrupt and in debt since the 1840's. The reason we are still afloat is that we have such good cash flow, but if that were to slow we would be dead, as our credit cards are maxxed. Tell me, what would you do with the 67 YO person with no family? I would like to see the proof of that! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #111 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuote Funny how these people FDR screwed kept re-electing him, isn't it? How would YOU have dealt with the depression? If I were president? Honestly, probably the same way. Much like Bush dealt with the Iraq war - if the war was going so badly then why was he re-elected? I'd like to think that I'd stick to principles - don't let a recession become a depression. A recession is, in my opinion (just my opinion) a market correction. How is it that the tech stock crash of the late 90's, early 2000's didn't cause a depression? Because Clinton and Bush and Congress just decided to let it happen and move on with a minimum of intervention. People lost a lot of money in their retirements from it, and most of that money has been built back. When the stock market crashed in 1987, we didn't see a depression. Unlike FDR, businesses weren't blamed. We didn't punish business (the group that could get us out of a recession by circulating money) as FDR did. Why didn't the real estate bust of the mid-80's cause a depression? Because we let it happen. Property values skyrocketed over the last several years. There will probably be a market correction coming soon (we are in the midst of one). Will the POTUS who is in charge while this is going on simply allow it to happen? Or, will the POTUS launch on an FDR style rhetorical campaign blaming business and punishing business for it? What I'd like to think I'd do is let failing businesses fail. I'd let a failing market fail. I'd let failing practices fail. I'd let failing products fail. It's what I call the 90/10 rule - 90 percent of your problems are caused by 10 percent of your activities. We got rid of the 10 percent of clients who were causing problems. It has made our lives much easier. So, let those businesses that can't cut it die - they'll quit holding back the economy in the long run. QuoteHow is it that the tech stock crash of the late 90's, early 2000's didn't cause a depression? Uh, early 2000's. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EIXIC&t=my Really ddin't bottom until mid 2003. QuoteBecause Clinton and Bush and Congress just decided to let it happen and move on with a minimum of intervention. What are they gonna do? Put stoppers in place? That would be too much gov intervention according to you. QuotePeople lost a lot of money in their retirements from it, and most of that money has been built back. Co0me again? The Nasdaq is at < 1/2 of what it once was. QuoteWhen the stock market crashed in 1987, we didn't see a depression. Unlike FDR, businesses weren't blamed. We didn't punish business (the group that could get us out of a recession by circulating money) as FDR did. What you fail to eqaute here that under FDR and ESPECIALLY Bush, the debt was rising at a fair clip, while under Clinton it was subsiding to the point of at least leveling off. If Clinton wanted to "borrow" 1/2T per year, as GW Bush has done, then perhaps we could live well and pretend the glory days are here, that is, until the bill comes due. This strikes a question I have, you seem to be insightful on many levels to many things, yet younever seem to address teh runaway debt issues or include them in debates such as this where they have relevance. As for the 87 crash, don't forget, the debt was going up fast, so cash was infused into the economy that we still haven't paid back yet, probably never will. QuoteWhy didn't the real estate bust of the mid-80's cause a depression? Because we let it happen. Becuase we let what happen? Do you mean we didn;t let it happen? QuoteProperty values skyrocketed over the last several years. There will probably be a market correction coming soon (we are in the midst of one). Here we go, here is the chronology of events: - The economy was trashed - The fed reserve lowers teh interets rate to speed the economy, raises it to slow it to avoid inflation - The rates were set at such lows (45 year lows) that even that just barely started the economy. Well, it took so long due to Bush's other economical policies that people were able to sell their houses for huge profits. Peoplethen started day trading houses. What caused these low rates and now huge house prices were Bush's economic and tax policies. The fear is that if the economy speeds up to the point where we need to raise rates, the banks won't due to fears of massive foreclosures on ARM's, so the result of Bush's great economy could be runaway inflation. In wildlife, they call it a boom and bust cycyle when hunters overhunt, now we have the same instability under Bush's economy. QuoteWill the POTUS who is in charge while this is going on simply allow it to happen? Or, will the POTUS launch on an FDR style rhetorical campaign blaming business and punishing business for it? Either way, it will be another Dem wiping up for the dirty deeds of a Repub pres, then have some silver-tongued Repub come along and tell the idiotic masses he will lower their taxes and they will bite, revitalizing the cycle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #112 December 22, 2006 QuoteBy criminal I assume you're talking about our current president. When you have a criminal record for drunk driving.. I guess you could cal him that....and then there is always the reason he did not show up for his flight physical while he was "serving" in the USAF Reserves..... I remember the golden flow tests that were part of flight physicals at the time.( I was on flight status and jump status when I was active duty) Cocaine would have been sure to show up on party boys tests. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #113 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteBy criminal I assume you're talking about our current president. When you have a criminal record for drunk driving.. I guess you could cal him that....and then there is always the reason he did not show up for his flight physical while he was "serving" in the USAF Reserves..... I remember the golden flow tests that were part of flight physicals at the time.( I was on flight status and jump status when I was active duty) Cocaine would have been sure to show up on party boys tests. Well hell. If we're gonna include misdemeanors, why don't we throw minor infractions into the mix. Then we can say 99% of adult US citizens are criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #114 December 22, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ..why can't the Commerce Clause scoop up the 4th Amendment? What about the 5th? The 2nd? The 1st? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, the current and recent past SCOTUS (7-2 Republican appointed) has made them so worthless that they aren't worthy of scooping up. Exactly - by using the same well-settled commerce clause jurisprudence. Clarence Thomas himself said it: Quote While the scope of the CSA and the Attorney General's power thereunder are sweeping, and perhaps troubling, such expansive federal legislation and broad grants of authority to administrative agencies are merely the inevitable and inexorable consequence of this Court's Commerce Clause and separation-of-powers jurisprudence... I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure. Raich, supra, at ___ (Thomas, J., dissenting); cf. Whitman, supra, at 486-487 (Thomas, J., concurring) (noting constitutional concerns with broad delegations of authority to administrative agencies). But that is now water over the dam. The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich, when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. Such considerations have little, if any, relevance where, as here, we are merely presented with a question of statutory interpretation, and not the extent of constitutionally permissible federal power. This is particularly true where, as here, we are interpreting broad, straightforward language within a statutory framework that a majority of this Court has concluded is so comprehensive that it necessarily nullifies the States' " 'traditional ... powers ... to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.' The Court's reliance upon the constitutional principles that it rejected in Raich--albeit under the guise of statutory interpretation--is perplexing to say the least. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. So, FDR set the standard for a seizure of federal power usurping "the States' " 'traditional ... powers ... to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.'" Whomever happens to be in charge at the time has the "bully pulpit" to advocate and implement such things - forcing their agendas on states that otherwise would be left alone to do their own thing. FDR started it. It continues now. But for FDR, Bush would have little of the power that he has now. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #115 December 22, 2006 So.. Is Commerce Claus bringing you anything this year??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #116 December 22, 2006 QuoteUh, early 2000's. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EIXIC&t=my Really ddin't bottom until mid 2003. It had already started before Bush was in office, too. And, it didn't cause a depression, did it? in fact, the recession Quote Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because Clinton and Bush and Congress just decided to let it happen and move on with a minimum of intervention. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What are they gonna do? Put stoppers in place? That would be too much gov intervention according to you. Yes, it would. For example, those tech companies with lousy business plans died, and weren't propped up to continue as lousy businesses, which would cause more long-term harm. Government intervention is like methadone - the core issue of addiction is still there. Free market is like detox - it hurts like hell, and nobody WANTS to go through it, but they end up better in the long run. QuoteThis strikes a question I have, you seem to be insightful on many levels to many things, yet younever seem to address teh runaway debt issues or include them in debates such as this where they have relevance. Runaway debt is ridiculous. It's why I'm a libertarian. I look at how much money I have, and I don't spend more than that. The government should be in the business of slashing spending, and doing it dramatically. The war? Hey, Congress - don't approve spending any more money on it. Medicare? Phase it out within 20 years. Medicaid? Phase it out within 20 years. Social Security? Phase it out within 20 years. "Entitlement" Earmarks? Slash them. Cut 5 percent of the budget every year for ten years and we will be spending 60 percent of what we had been spending. Keep taxes the same to pay off debts. Let a fucking recession happen. Let a brief depression happen. But don't give the federal smack to the national junkie hurting for a fix. QuoteHere we go, here is the chronology of events: - The economy was trashed - The fed reserve lowers teh interets rate to speed the economy, raises it to slow it to avoid inflation - The rates were set at such lows (45 year lows) that even that just barely started the economy. Well, it took so long due to Bush's other economical policies that people were able to sell their houses for huge profits. Peoplethen started day trading houses. What caused these low rates and now huge house prices were Bush's economic and tax policies. Or, you could look at it another way. When the tech stock frenzy started, our government and Presidential bully pulpit owner encouraged it. Property values did not rise. Money was moving from real estate into stocks. The ridiculous bubble burst, and people moved their money from the stock market into property. The real estate bubble began and grew. It is now bursting, and people are moving their money back into the stock market, which will itself burst and move back to property. Let's take a look at the policies of Hoover and see how sensible it is that a recession began: 1) Restrict the money supply, whihc caused inflation and a stagnation of money because it was being hoarded. FDR further tightened this money supply, by the way, making this factor worse. 2) Raise taxes, which went to federal coffers instead of investment, stagnating the circulation of money - 3) Cut spending - which further stagnated the circulation of money - well, FDR and the US government have never done this since. 4) Enact more restrictions on business, which made business less profitable, which meant lack of investment, which in turn stagnated money, leading to inflation - which FDR amplified; and 5) Increase tariffs on imported products, causing inflation due to scarcity and the lack of cheaper alternatives for Americans. Now, what the hell do you think happens when you restrict the money supply, raise taxes, cut spending, put restrictions on business, and increase tariffs? Nobody can afford anything anymore and the economy goes into recession. QuoteHere we go, here is the chronology of events: - The economy was trashed - The fed reserve lowers teh interets rate to speed the economy, raises it to slow it to avoid inflation - The rates were set at such lows (45 year lows) that even that just barely started the economy. Well, it took so long due to Bush's other economical policies that people were able to sell their houses for huge profits. Peoplethen started day trading houses. What caused these low rates and now huge house prices were Bush's economic and tax policies. The fear is that if the economy speeds up to the point where we need to raise rates, the banks won't due to fears of massive foreclosures on ARM's, so the result of Bush's great economy could be runaway inflation. So, what you are describing is an economy that was trashed. How'd it get there? Whatdid Clinton do or fail to do that got it there? Interestingly, you claim FDR inherited a trashed economy so it wasn't his fault. How could he fix it? He only had about 15 years? Meanwhile, Bush inherits a faiing economy, and the recessaion did not become a depression, and yet he is faulted? WTF??? Well, what caused the economy to go south in Clinton's last term? Was it government intervention? The failure of government intervention? Now you've mentioned the fed (controlled by the government) doing its best to prevent a depression by lowering interest rates to the poitn where it may cause a depression. So, the Fed may have done something counterproductive. The government in trying to stop the bad merely prolonged the inevitbale with a continuation of misery? You have four possibilities: 1) the Bush policies have been maintained misery and will end in more misery; 2) they have prevented misery temporarily but will ultimately prevent long-term misery; 3) they have staved off misery for the time being, but will end in misery; or 4) they prevented misery then and will ultimately prove successful in preventing long term misery. Which one do you think? If any of the first three, you have government intervention and Bush to thank for it. The free market would have allowed misery, but wouldn't unnecessarily prolong it. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Will the POTUS who is in charge while this is going on simply allow it to happen? Or, will the POTUS launch on an FDR style rhetorical campaign blaming business and punishing business for it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Either way, it will be another Dem wiping up for the dirty deeds of a Repub pres, then have some silver-tongued Repub come along and tell the idiotic masses he will lower their taxes and they will bite, revitalizing the cycle. Your rhetoric answered my question. Republicans can do it, too. Remember the crack epidemic of the 80's? Bill Bennett, the drug czar, fought the drug war brilliantly, eh? He diverted attention to street gangs and violence and let the crack epidemic die out naturally by letting the crackheads kill themselves off. War on crack successful. Same thing with economic cycles. The government can only take away wild fluctuations, meaning the bad isn't as intense but also isn't as short. Conversely, it means the good isn't as intense but lasts longer. Different popriorities. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #117 December 22, 2006 QuoteSo.. Is Commerce Claus bringing you anything this year??? On the first day of Christmas, Commerce Claus gave to me: a fine for pruning my front yard scrub oak tree (a protected species) On the second day of Christmas Commerce Claus gave to me: 2 federal wiretaps and a fine for pruning my front yard scrub oak tree On the Third day of Christmas Commerce Claus gave to me: 3 agents searching 2 federal wiretap and a fine for pruning my front yard scrub oak tree On the Fourth Day of Christmas Commerce Claus gave to me: 4 excise taxes 3 agents searching 2 federal wiretaps and a fine for pruning my front yard scrub oak tree On the Fifth day of Christmas, Commerce Claus gave to me: FIVE Consent Decrees! 4 excise taxes 3 agents searching 2 federal wiretaps and a fine for pruning my front yard scrub oak tree My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #118 December 22, 2006 Ok you crack me up man.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #119 December 22, 2006 QuoteOn the first day of Christmas,... You have way too much time on your hands. Get back to work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #120 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd now you can't find a (p)erson to admit they voter for the criminal..... I bet it wasn't that way after FDR died. By criminal I assume you're talking about our current president. If so, you're wrong. I voted for him. I think most people who did, will readily admit it. According to the L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll (12/8-11/06), 42% approve of his overall performance. Kinda gives the impression a fair number of people still like him. I've read many more recent polls suggesting he's in teh high 20's to low 30's. Again, there aren't a lot of people bragging about voting for him, they may not deny, but they don;t wear it like a badge as compared to teh number of people who voted for him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #121 December 22, 2006 QuoteYou just don't understand, reason nor fact matters, all that matters is what lucky thinks (in lucky's world) I could provide links to all of his posts if you like, I am certain that you notice the trend in every one of his posts. Yes, make this a referendum against me, easier than addressing the actual issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #122 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteSocial Security is is for the GOVERNMENTS Social Security, read the 1933 act in it's entirety. Pretty fucking sad that FDR filed bankruptcy on the US while pulling the wool over everyones eyes. The US has been bankrupt and in debt since the 1840's. The reason we are still afloat is that we have such good cash flow, but if that were to slow we would be dead, as our credit cards are maxxed. Tell me, what would you do with the 67 YO person with no family? I would like to see the proof of that! Proof of what? Our debt? The date? WHat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #123 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteBy criminal I assume you're talking about our current president. When you have a criminal record for drunk driving.. I guess you could cal him that....and then there is always the reason he did not show up for his flight physical while he was "serving" in the USAF Reserves..... I remember the golden flow tests that were part of flight physicals at the time.( I was on flight status and jump status when I was active duty) Cocaine would have been sure to show up on party boys tests. Just becuase he's the first president to have a criminal record & just because he's the first president that has military service that didn't immediately and voluntarily post his service record for public display.... well, that makes him a scumbag liar, criminal, low ethics POS? OK, ok, you're right . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #124 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteBy criminal I assume you're talking about our current president. When you have a criminal record for drunk driving.. I guess you could cal him that....and then there is always the reason he did not show up for his flight physical while he was "serving" in the USAF Reserves..... I remember the golden flow tests that were part of flight physicals at the time.( I was on flight status and jump status when I was active duty) Cocaine would have been sure to show up on party boys tests. Well hell. If we're gonna include misdemeanors, why don't we throw minor infractions into the mix. Then we can say 99% of adult US citizens are criminals. What percentage of the people are and have been presidents? We are supposed to have the best and wisest represent us..... we have failed with Bush, but that's just what 90%+ of the world thinks, what do they know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #125 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSocial Security is is for the GOVERNMENTS Social Security, read the 1933 act in it's entirety. Pretty fucking sad that FDR filed bankruptcy on the US while pulling the wool over everyones eyes. The US has been bankrupt and in debt since the 1840's. The reason we are still afloat is that we have such good cash flow, but if that were to slow we would be dead, as our credit cards are maxxed. Tell me, what would you do with the 67 YO person with no family? I would like to see the proof of that! Proof of what? Our debt? The date? WHat? Hey you went to college, oh wait that's right, there is no guarantee that you could comprehend that I was referring to that text which was highlighted in BOLDtype. Geez talk about intentionally evading something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 5 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
lawrocket 3 #116 December 22, 2006 QuoteUh, early 2000's. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EIXIC&t=my Really ddin't bottom until mid 2003. It had already started before Bush was in office, too. And, it didn't cause a depression, did it? in fact, the recession Quote Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because Clinton and Bush and Congress just decided to let it happen and move on with a minimum of intervention. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What are they gonna do? Put stoppers in place? That would be too much gov intervention according to you. Yes, it would. For example, those tech companies with lousy business plans died, and weren't propped up to continue as lousy businesses, which would cause more long-term harm. Government intervention is like methadone - the core issue of addiction is still there. Free market is like detox - it hurts like hell, and nobody WANTS to go through it, but they end up better in the long run. QuoteThis strikes a question I have, you seem to be insightful on many levels to many things, yet younever seem to address teh runaway debt issues or include them in debates such as this where they have relevance. Runaway debt is ridiculous. It's why I'm a libertarian. I look at how much money I have, and I don't spend more than that. The government should be in the business of slashing spending, and doing it dramatically. The war? Hey, Congress - don't approve spending any more money on it. Medicare? Phase it out within 20 years. Medicaid? Phase it out within 20 years. Social Security? Phase it out within 20 years. "Entitlement" Earmarks? Slash them. Cut 5 percent of the budget every year for ten years and we will be spending 60 percent of what we had been spending. Keep taxes the same to pay off debts. Let a fucking recession happen. Let a brief depression happen. But don't give the federal smack to the national junkie hurting for a fix. QuoteHere we go, here is the chronology of events: - The economy was trashed - The fed reserve lowers teh interets rate to speed the economy, raises it to slow it to avoid inflation - The rates were set at such lows (45 year lows) that even that just barely started the economy. Well, it took so long due to Bush's other economical policies that people were able to sell their houses for huge profits. Peoplethen started day trading houses. What caused these low rates and now huge house prices were Bush's economic and tax policies. Or, you could look at it another way. When the tech stock frenzy started, our government and Presidential bully pulpit owner encouraged it. Property values did not rise. Money was moving from real estate into stocks. The ridiculous bubble burst, and people moved their money from the stock market into property. The real estate bubble began and grew. It is now bursting, and people are moving their money back into the stock market, which will itself burst and move back to property. Let's take a look at the policies of Hoover and see how sensible it is that a recession began: 1) Restrict the money supply, whihc caused inflation and a stagnation of money because it was being hoarded. FDR further tightened this money supply, by the way, making this factor worse. 2) Raise taxes, which went to federal coffers instead of investment, stagnating the circulation of money - 3) Cut spending - which further stagnated the circulation of money - well, FDR and the US government have never done this since. 4) Enact more restrictions on business, which made business less profitable, which meant lack of investment, which in turn stagnated money, leading to inflation - which FDR amplified; and 5) Increase tariffs on imported products, causing inflation due to scarcity and the lack of cheaper alternatives for Americans. Now, what the hell do you think happens when you restrict the money supply, raise taxes, cut spending, put restrictions on business, and increase tariffs? Nobody can afford anything anymore and the economy goes into recession. QuoteHere we go, here is the chronology of events: - The economy was trashed - The fed reserve lowers teh interets rate to speed the economy, raises it to slow it to avoid inflation - The rates were set at such lows (45 year lows) that even that just barely started the economy. Well, it took so long due to Bush's other economical policies that people were able to sell their houses for huge profits. Peoplethen started day trading houses. What caused these low rates and now huge house prices were Bush's economic and tax policies. The fear is that if the economy speeds up to the point where we need to raise rates, the banks won't due to fears of massive foreclosures on ARM's, so the result of Bush's great economy could be runaway inflation. So, what you are describing is an economy that was trashed. How'd it get there? Whatdid Clinton do or fail to do that got it there? Interestingly, you claim FDR inherited a trashed economy so it wasn't his fault. How could he fix it? He only had about 15 years? Meanwhile, Bush inherits a faiing economy, and the recessaion did not become a depression, and yet he is faulted? WTF??? Well, what caused the economy to go south in Clinton's last term? Was it government intervention? The failure of government intervention? Now you've mentioned the fed (controlled by the government) doing its best to prevent a depression by lowering interest rates to the poitn where it may cause a depression. So, the Fed may have done something counterproductive. The government in trying to stop the bad merely prolonged the inevitbale with a continuation of misery? You have four possibilities: 1) the Bush policies have been maintained misery and will end in more misery; 2) they have prevented misery temporarily but will ultimately prevent long-term misery; 3) they have staved off misery for the time being, but will end in misery; or 4) they prevented misery then and will ultimately prove successful in preventing long term misery. Which one do you think? If any of the first three, you have government intervention and Bush to thank for it. The free market would have allowed misery, but wouldn't unnecessarily prolong it. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Will the POTUS who is in charge while this is going on simply allow it to happen? Or, will the POTUS launch on an FDR style rhetorical campaign blaming business and punishing business for it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Either way, it will be another Dem wiping up for the dirty deeds of a Repub pres, then have some silver-tongued Repub come along and tell the idiotic masses he will lower their taxes and they will bite, revitalizing the cycle. Your rhetoric answered my question. Republicans can do it, too. Remember the crack epidemic of the 80's? Bill Bennett, the drug czar, fought the drug war brilliantly, eh? He diverted attention to street gangs and violence and let the crack epidemic die out naturally by letting the crackheads kill themselves off. War on crack successful. Same thing with economic cycles. The government can only take away wild fluctuations, meaning the bad isn't as intense but also isn't as short. Conversely, it means the good isn't as intense but lasts longer. Different popriorities. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #117 December 22, 2006 QuoteSo.. Is Commerce Claus bringing you anything this year??? On the first day of Christmas, Commerce Claus gave to me: a fine for pruning my front yard scrub oak tree (a protected species) On the second day of Christmas Commerce Claus gave to me: 2 federal wiretaps and a fine for pruning my front yard scrub oak tree On the Third day of Christmas Commerce Claus gave to me: 3 agents searching 2 federal wiretap and a fine for pruning my front yard scrub oak tree On the Fourth Day of Christmas Commerce Claus gave to me: 4 excise taxes 3 agents searching 2 federal wiretaps and a fine for pruning my front yard scrub oak tree On the Fifth day of Christmas, Commerce Claus gave to me: FIVE Consent Decrees! 4 excise taxes 3 agents searching 2 federal wiretaps and a fine for pruning my front yard scrub oak tree My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #118 December 22, 2006 Ok you crack me up man.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #119 December 22, 2006 QuoteOn the first day of Christmas,... You have way too much time on your hands. Get back to work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #120 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd now you can't find a (p)erson to admit they voter for the criminal..... I bet it wasn't that way after FDR died. By criminal I assume you're talking about our current president. If so, you're wrong. I voted for him. I think most people who did, will readily admit it. According to the L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll (12/8-11/06), 42% approve of his overall performance. Kinda gives the impression a fair number of people still like him. I've read many more recent polls suggesting he's in teh high 20's to low 30's. Again, there aren't a lot of people bragging about voting for him, they may not deny, but they don;t wear it like a badge as compared to teh number of people who voted for him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #121 December 22, 2006 QuoteYou just don't understand, reason nor fact matters, all that matters is what lucky thinks (in lucky's world) I could provide links to all of his posts if you like, I am certain that you notice the trend in every one of his posts. Yes, make this a referendum against me, easier than addressing the actual issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #122 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteSocial Security is is for the GOVERNMENTS Social Security, read the 1933 act in it's entirety. Pretty fucking sad that FDR filed bankruptcy on the US while pulling the wool over everyones eyes. The US has been bankrupt and in debt since the 1840's. The reason we are still afloat is that we have such good cash flow, but if that were to slow we would be dead, as our credit cards are maxxed. Tell me, what would you do with the 67 YO person with no family? I would like to see the proof of that! Proof of what? Our debt? The date? WHat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #123 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteBy criminal I assume you're talking about our current president. When you have a criminal record for drunk driving.. I guess you could cal him that....and then there is always the reason he did not show up for his flight physical while he was "serving" in the USAF Reserves..... I remember the golden flow tests that were part of flight physicals at the time.( I was on flight status and jump status when I was active duty) Cocaine would have been sure to show up on party boys tests. Just becuase he's the first president to have a criminal record & just because he's the first president that has military service that didn't immediately and voluntarily post his service record for public display.... well, that makes him a scumbag liar, criminal, low ethics POS? OK, ok, you're right . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #124 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteBy criminal I assume you're talking about our current president. When you have a criminal record for drunk driving.. I guess you could cal him that....and then there is always the reason he did not show up for his flight physical while he was "serving" in the USAF Reserves..... I remember the golden flow tests that were part of flight physicals at the time.( I was on flight status and jump status when I was active duty) Cocaine would have been sure to show up on party boys tests. Well hell. If we're gonna include misdemeanors, why don't we throw minor infractions into the mix. Then we can say 99% of adult US citizens are criminals. What percentage of the people are and have been presidents? We are supposed to have the best and wisest represent us..... we have failed with Bush, but that's just what 90%+ of the world thinks, what do they know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #125 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSocial Security is is for the GOVERNMENTS Social Security, read the 1933 act in it's entirety. Pretty fucking sad that FDR filed bankruptcy on the US while pulling the wool over everyones eyes. The US has been bankrupt and in debt since the 1840's. The reason we are still afloat is that we have such good cash flow, but if that were to slow we would be dead, as our credit cards are maxxed. Tell me, what would you do with the 67 YO person with no family? I would like to see the proof of that! Proof of what? Our debt? The date? WHat? Hey you went to college, oh wait that's right, there is no guarantee that you could comprehend that I was referring to that text which was highlighted in BOLDtype. Geez talk about intentionally evading something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
