OT .... Thoughts on ..

MajorOz wrote:
And one of the major pieces of legislation that brought us out of that
mess (other than tax cuts, which work every time) ...

Yet another denizen of the Twilight Zone. Where on earth have *you*
been living for the past eight years ?

Reagonomics has passed on! It is no more! It has ceased to be! It's
expired and gone to meet it's maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life,
it rests in peace! It's pushing up the daisies! It's metabolic
processes are now history! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket,
it's shuffled off the mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the
friggin' choir invisible!! IT HAS BEEN DISPROVED AND DISGRACED !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:08:40 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

IT HAS BEEN DISPROVED AND DISGRACED !!

Horse caca.

JFK in 61. Economy recovered.

Reagan in the 80s. Economy recovered.

Bush in the 00s. Economy recovered. Every time there is a tax cut,
more money is returned to the government's coffers. Look back in
history.

Dave

On Feb 10, 3:48*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:

Reagan in the 80s. *Economy recovered.

From the new book, "Tear Down This Myth" by Will Bunch:

"His 1981 tax cut was followed quickly by tax hikes that you rarely
hear about, and Reagan's real lasting achievement on that front was
slashing marginal rates for the wealthy - even as rising payroll taxes
socked the working class. His promise to shrink government was uttered
so many times that many acolytes believe it really happened, but in
fact Reagan expanded the federal payroll, added a new cabinet post,
and created a huge debt that ultimately tripped up his handpicked
successor, George H.W. Bush. What he did shrink was government
regulation and oversight - linked to a series of unfortunate events
from the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s to the sub-prime
mortgage crisis of the late 2000s."


Sorry for the cut & paste, but I took the easy way out instead of
writing it myself. It's been long understood that the Reagan "legacy"
was mostly bull**** concocted as a GOP marketing tool rather than
based on what actually happened under his administration. (And Iran-
Contra is always conveniently omitted from his "legacy".) He's
remembered for his first year tax cuts, but he increased taxes in each
of his subsequent seven years in office. Reagan's real strength and
success was in connecting with the people; but his actual
accomplishments were less than stellar in many ways.

Bush in the 00s. Economy recovered.

Huh? A tidy surplus to a defecit, **** poor job creation for eight
years, now the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression? This
you call an economic recovery? I'm willing to give Saint Ronnie a
little credit; but Bush has been an epic disaster for the economy.

I realize you may be doing okay; but surely you don't see the present
crisis as an economic recovery for America.

Joe F.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
No. Things are going to get worse. But paying $900 billion for 3
million jobs just doesn't make sense, Tom.

But, it does, David. Here's why: by creating/saving 3 million jobs, you
MIGHT boost the public confidence level, and you MIGHT stop that downward
spiral seen in George C's graph. I emphasize the word 'might' because it is
only a best possible guess scenario. I'm just being honest there.


They still haven't gotten
rid of the pork in the bill.

find me one item of 'Pork' that doesn't lead to someone getting or keeping a
job. Otherwise it works as stimulus. Just because it reflects the wishes of
some public official to serve his specific constituency is completely
irrelevant.

It is NOT a stimulus package. Obama
himself called it a "spending" package. I agree that a stimulus
package is needed, but not this one. Are you so blind you can not see
all the pork, all the Democrat paybacks, all the crooks stealing our
money. Pass a package, but it had better be a stimulus package and
not a spending one.

As has been stated, very clearly, in simple English, by the President, and
pretty much every damned economist in the nation, I will repeat for you: A
stimulus package IS A SPENDING PACKAGE!!!!!!!

yeesh!
Tom

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
No, I haven't seen it.

Either your local economy is wildly different from ours, or you ain't
looking too hard.

Like I said, if you take the money being spent and divide it by the
number of jobs being "created", the answer is mind boggling.

If Obama gave me $300,000, I would buy a truck, get a loan and build
another income property. Think how YOU could influence the economy of
this country if YOU were given $300,000 to spend on it.

Where in the dickens do you come up with $300,000 per person, David?? Here's
how your math works: 300,000
times 300,000,000 US residents equals 90 TRILLION dollars. I will guess that
more stimulus will be needed, but I suspect it will fall a bit short of $90
trillion. Maybe that is what has pushed you view of this package, your own
calculations!g
Tom


Dave

"MajorOz" wrote in message
...

As an old Jeb, I, more than most, understand the value of liberal
arts. But to conflate that with psych/soch is to illustrate ignorance
of curricula. Every street corner post-sec school in the US has a
feel good Oprah program. The GI bill I propose leaves it out because
it already exists in great number.

gee, I have contact(via contributions and the like) with several 'post-sec'
schools of decent repute. A true, well rounded University Education is not a
feel-good program, and serves it's students and the nation just fine. I read
the inference YOU wrote.

Did you read the whole section? "...when we come out the end...".
Also, the presence of these trained professionals, by itself,
contributes to the climate that creates those specific jobs.

It has never worked that way in the past, and I can cite tons of examples
for you. Why would you assume it would happen now. This nation's basic
science infrastructure has been allowed to deteriorate for a couple
decades-plus. We have to almost force a return to basic scientific research.
Technological(business) development flows from the findings of basic
research. We, as a nation, lost sight of that fact.


While admitting I haven't made an exhaustive study of that portion of
the proposal(s), my limited information and impression is that it
leans more toward the PC types and does little to address the
fundamental problems of the feel-good aspects of "clean" energy --
selenium production, efficiency losses, land use, etc.
When all the smoke clears, both in the skulls and out, we will be
forced to understand that, if any semblance of life-as-we-know-it is
to be maintained, nuclear is the only way it can be done. To think
otherwise may be sweet and gentle, but childish.

or, just a level of farsighted thinking you haven't gotten your head around.
Nuclear fission technology, on a level needed to feed the US grid, is a
potential ecological disaster. Fusion research is a fine idea, but
everything I've ever read indicates potential shortcomings that need serious
work.

Side note: For our own narrow interests, imagine that all the
drinking water in the US was produced as a BYPRODUCT of nuclear power,
and that no dams were needed to produce electricity -- far in the
future, yes, but the obvious end result. It would seem there would be
more and better trout fishing available.

A fine goal, which we can both agree upon. On the other hand, trout fishing
is something I am not going to obsess on, if I have to ignore the ongoing
survival of my nation to do it. Side note, back at ya: With all that water,
you could consider moving it back and forth across the nation, in giant
pipes. I know a guy with a plan for thatg.

Finally, I think that your point of view reflects an attitude of "I'm
doing
OK, so where's the problem?"

Unfortunate that you, again draw an erroneous conclusion.

It says:snipped

Please, if you have time, illustrate to me how this last might have
any semblance of truth.

OK, Oz, and I will try to oversimplify, so forgive me. If the economic
spirals down badly enough, and the nation as a whole doesn't pitch in to
avert the disaster, you might well be looking at:
1. A banking system essentially available for buyout by
foreign entities with the cash to do so.
2. A debt to China that cannot be repaid
3. A nation in social upheaval to the point of revolution
4. No functioning commerce nationwide, due to nonexistant commercial credit.

this set of circumstances, whether you, or Louie, or Bill or Beancounter
wish to acknowledge it, COULD happen.....
if we let it happen. And, it is a scenario that could happen beyond our
ability to restrain the process if we wait on it too long. And that set of
circumstances makes for a damned unpleasant life here, no matter how fat
one's wallet or good one's credit rating is. Bleak? Hell, yes, and I do
think we, as a nation can avoid it. But, there certainly are both economic
models and smaller scale real-life examples of just that sort of scenario
unfolding. I hope we aren't doomed by our own stubborness and
shortsightedness.
Tom

"MajorOz" wrote in message
...
You get as much deep fried, NON GREASY, corn meal rolled catfish, pork
and beans, nutty cabbage, cornbread, pea salad, potato salad, corn,
green beans.........

getting me to thinking that natural gas may be our nation's ticket to energy
independence!


oz, who invites one and all to come with me some Friday night.

Nah, I've got the Union County Sportsmans Club, on the banks of Penn's
Creek, one of the world's finest trout streams. Similar economic setback for
similar cuisine on weekend buffet nights. But, thanks for the invite....if
I'm ever out that way, the food sounds just fine!

Tom

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
JFK in 61. Economy recovered.

start a war in Vietnam, economy picks up.

Reagan in the 80s. Economy recovered.

well, if you consider a fair-sized recession and a Savings and Loan disaster
that cost the nation a ton of money 'recovered', sure.....

Bush in the 00s. Economy recovered.

yeah, the country is doing swell. Actually, history shows that most times
when you have a radical tax cut, deficits grow by massive amounts.....then
the nation elects a bunch of Democrats to right the ship as best they
can....
Tom

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:14:22 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
No, I haven't seen it.

Either your local economy is wildly different from ours, or you ain't
looking too hard.

Like I said, if you take the money being spent and divide it by the
number of jobs being "created", the answer is mind boggling.

If Obama gave me $300,000, I would buy a truck, get a loan and build
another income property. Think how YOU could influence the economy of
this country if YOU were given $300,000 to spend on it.

Where in the dickens do you come up with $300,000 per person, David?? Here's
how your math works: 300,000
times 300,000,000 US residents equals 90 TRILLION dollars. I will guess that
more stimulus will be needed, but I suspect it will fall a bit short of $90
trillion. Maybe that is what has pushed you view of this package, your own
calculations!g
Tom

Who said anything about U.S. residents????? The bill is costing us
$900 billion, thats 900 with 9 zeros behind it. Right? Are you
following me so far?

Obama says that the bill will create 3 million jobs - that's a 3,
with, what, ummmmm, yeah, a 3 with 6 zeros behind it. Ifn I am
correct, but I may not be, seein' hows I's only got me one of them
there high skool thingies and NO formal education, $900 B divided by 3
M (the number of jobs it will create) = $300,000.00. Now, please,
correct me ifn I is wrong, Tom. I would not want to be puttin' out
any bad info here. The bill is costing $900,000,000,000 and we are
getting 3,000,000 jobs created because of it, so, therefore each job
"created" by the government (which doesn't create jobs, but we will
let that go for now), costs $300,000.00 U.S. of A currency. Let me
prove that math....... 3,000,000 (jobs) X $300,000 = 3x3=9 with
1234567891011 =9 with 11 zeros behind it, which is 900,000,000,000.
Well, by golly, ain't math fun? The gozintas equalled the gozoutas.

And, oh, yeah, these aren't my numbers. They are Obama's numbers. Go
figure.

Like I said, please, PLEASE, give me $300,000.00 U.S. and I will
definitely "create" more than just one job.

Dave














Dave

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:09:44 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
No. Things are going to get worse. But paying $900 billion for 3
million jobs just doesn't make sense, Tom.

But, it does, David. Here's why: by creating/saving 3 million jobs, you
MIGHT boost the public confidence level, and you MIGHT stop that downward
spiral seen in George C's graph. I emphasize the word 'might' because it is
only a best possible guess scenario. I'm just being honest there.

It is costing us $300,000 to "create" ONE job. Do the math, please.


They still haven't gotten
rid of the pork in the bill.

find me one item of 'Pork' that doesn't lead to someone getting or keeping a
job. Otherwise it works as stimulus. Just because it reflects the wishes of
some public official to serve his specific constituency is completely
irrelevant.

Pork, is pork, is pork. Pork is political pay off. We need none of
that right now. NONE.

It is NOT a stimulus package. Obama
himself called it a "spending" package. I agree that a stimulus
package is needed, but not this one. Are you so blind you can not see
all the pork, all the Democrat paybacks, all the crooks stealing our
money. Pass a package, but it had better be a stimulus package and
not a spending one.

As has been stated, very clearly, in simple English, by the President, and
pretty much every damned economist in the nation, I will repeat for you: A
stimulus package IS A SPENDING PACKAGE!!!!!!!

Omama used to call it a spending package, but someone in the press
spoke to him about it and he is now using the term Stimulus Package.

He only gets one chance at this, Tom. He promised EVERYBODY
EVERYTHING, and if this pork loin sandwich doesn't make it, he has no
one but himself (plus Nancy and Harry) to blame for it. If I was a
Senator representing the people of a state, I sure as hell could not
commit myself to this package. It stinks. Even Obama's Sec of
Treasury says they have no plan yet to distribute the money. If that
is so, then why the rush? Why must he have it signed before
Presidents' Day?

Tom, there are few people that love this country more than I do. I
want to see it healthy and safe, but this spending makes no sense at
all. You can not spend your way into prosperity, and "make work" jobs
only help for a very short time. The people that need the help are
the small business men/women who employ most of us. I doubt very much
that there is enough money in this bill to make a hill of beans to
these people.

I am tired of arguing this point. So, eot for me. You may have the
last words.

Dave



yeesh!
Tom