OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

Richard Pearson wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Pumping government money into the economic engine is an
absolute necessity in the short term. Obama has the right
approach for both the short term and the long term in my
opinion.

Underlines your total lack of understanding. ...

LOL !! Well, an overwhelming majority of economists, both
liberals and conservatives, agree with me. From where did
you get your "understanding" ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Like I said, you obviously travel in different circles. You have a
very low opinion of the American working class. The American working
folks I know are the most productive on earth. Give 'em a job and
they'll do it as well, or better, than any other workers on the planet.

Yeah, they don't work for $20 a week or let their 10 year olds work
a 60 hour week for eight bucks but they *are* suited for more than
burger flipping. Obama has the right idea; innovate and educate.

Seems to be a broad brush you paint the people with. If all were such great
workers, why do we have 5 generation welfare families? I worked while going
to university to pay my way. Why it took me twice as long. But I also
worked 70 hour weeks as an engineer and running a constuction equipment
leasing company at the same time. 5 days of engineering and 1.5 days a week
of leasing company fixing. And paying employees. We have highschool
graduates flipping burgers that could not hold much more than that as a job.
They can not read well, math challenged. Hell lots of college students seem
to be pretty ignorant also these days. ...

Well, you were once a college student and you seem pretty ignorant.
Not much has changed, I guess.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

wrote in message
...
Er, excuse me, but "the government" doesn't have jack **** - it's like 15
year
old kid whose parents have money - they can either spoil the kid by
constantly
handing them money to **** away or teach them some responsibility...and
it'll
sometimes require "tough love"...

then again, there is that matter of collective good that you mentioned
earlier, and having a sudden stoppage of purchasing on a huge scale, without
some transition plan is not in the collective good.
Tom

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

"Richard Pearson" wrote in message
...
But your idea is to depend on the govt for everything. That the liberal
mantra. And you just puke out the party line without thinking or
understanding the baseline issues.

thus far, I see no sign that you have a clue what the baseline issues are.
Here's a hint: Government regulation of commerce and banking was much more
pervasive in the 1950's than the present. Oddly, many people view that as a
sort of Golden Age of American Capitalism.....
Tom
p.s. political ideologues aren't going to improve our situation, from either
side.

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:44:50 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Er, excuse me, but "the government" doesn't have jack **** - it's like 15
year
old kid whose parents have money - they can either spoil the kid by
constantly
handing them money to **** away or teach them some responsibility...and
it'll
sometimes require "tough love"...

then again, there is that matter of collective good that you mentioned

And that fails to consider what I also mentioned - that such expenditures should
be minimums, not wild sprees based on panic and demand from those supposedly
needing the help.

earlier, and having a sudden stoppage of purchasing on a huge scale, without
some transition plan is not in the collective good.

You're confusing two issues, and IMO, _possibly_ wrongly assuming another,
depending on what you mean by "sudden stoppage" and "huge scale."

IAC, trillions of dollars in "government" spending is not a "transition plan."
This is not a situation where a for-profit business is making capital
expenditures, it is a government spending money it doesn't have and will
eventually either have to collect from it citizenry or default on the debt. I
think we can agree that the latter option is not good, so that leaves the former
as a possibly positive thing. Keep in mind this is not a situation where the
money is there, but I am simply disagreeing with how "the government" chooses to
spend it. This is a situation where "the government" is spending money it
doesn't have. How is it a positive thing for the taxpaying citizenry to "help"
the little-or-no-taxpaying citizenry by forcing it to spend money for the
benefit mainly of those who not only pay little or no tax now, but that very
same government wishes to further reduce the future tax burden upon?

The current US tax burden is weighted heavily against the highest earners, and
fairness of that aside, there simply won't be enough "rich" in the future to
continue to support a ever-increasing group that pays little or no tax AND repay
all of the borrowed spending that went to help those that pay little or no tax
today.

TC,
R
Tom

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:28:47 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Richard Pearson wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Pumping government money into the economic engine is an
absolute necessity in the short term. Obama has the right
approach for both the short term and the long term in my
opinion.

Underlines your total lack of understanding. ...

LOL !! Well, an overwhelming majority of economists, both
liberals and conservatives, agree with me.

Actually, no, they don't. You've said that several times, and it is simply
wrong. A few prominent-in-the-media economists have said things such as that
the government should, generally, help out, that the debt to GDP ratio itself
produced by this "bailout"/"stimulus" isn't necessarily a dangerous thing, and
I've seen a few more radical ones that have suggested things closer to what you
do, etc., etc., but no "overwhelming majority" of them would agree with what
you've said because it's not economically viable.

And I'd point out that when the single most influential economist of the last 25
years was giving Clinton advice, you and other "liberals" thought he was the
sharpest tool in the shed (well, to be fair, you gave Clinton credit for it all,
but it was Greenspan's ideas) and when he was giving Reagan and both Bushes
advice, you thought it was the worst thing ever (again, most "liberals" didn't
have a clue about Greenspan, raising hell instead about how it was Bush or
Reagan). As it turns out, listening to an economist wasn't such a good thing...

From where did you get your "understanding" ?

Where did you get yours?

HTH,
R

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:37:39 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
rdean wrote:
Unfortunately, the repeated demands of the public to "FIX IT NOW!!!"
(meaning "make me comfortable without requiring me to work for it")
could make things much, much worse
agreed. Completely.
Absolute absurdity. And bull**** to boot. "Fix it now" means
"I want a job that doesn't require me to wear a paper hat and
ask if you want fries with that."

Exactly the problem. For some, even many, that type of job is all they are, or
ever will be, suited to do. ...

Like I said, you obviously travel in different circles. You have a
very low opinion of the American working class. The American working
folks I know are the most productive on earth.

North or South American...?

Give 'em a job and
they'll do it as well, or better, than any other workers on the planet.

Well, hell, then, let's bring every working folk in the world to "America" and
they'll instantly be the world's greatest.

Yeah, they don't work for $20 a week

Well, yeah, there is that - I often wonder how Mickey D's and other fast food
joints manage to hire folks when they only pay $20 a week...and what amazes me
is that Obama hasn't ordered Nepolitano to spend as much time investigating such
overt violations of the law as she does letting illegal aliens go and
apologizing to vets...

or let their 10 year olds work a 60 hour week for eight bucks but
they *are* suited for more than burger flipping.

No, "they" aren't. Some are, some aren't.

Obama has the right idea; innovate and educate.

Uh-huh...

Sheesh,
R

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

wrote in message
...
The current US tax burden is weighted heavily against the highest earners,
and
fairness of that aside, there simply won't be enough "rich" in the future
to
continue to support a ever-increasing group that pays little or no tax AND
repay
all of the borrowed spending that went to help those that pay little or no
tax
today.

and, wouldn't the prudent course be to somehow re-tool our national economy
so that we don't have a handful of
'rich' and a ****load of folks paying no taxes?? As I've stated a few times
here, and elsewhere, the whole trend of a massive gap between a handful of
'haves' and a ton of 'have-nots' will not end well. And, that gap is not, in
large part, due to the unwillingness of the have-nots to work and produce.
Tom

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!
 

OT It could be, it might be, it is !!!