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

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
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."

and how is such a job created.....

I don't know how to create a "make me comfortable without
requiring me to work for it" job and I don't know anyone
who is demanding such a job. You and Rick obviously travel
in different circles than I do.

Obama is right to stress the
need to re-think our whole economic engine, and that is not an overnight
approach.

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.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:26:09 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
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."

and how is such a job created.....

I don't know how to create a "make me comfortable without
requiring me to work for it" job and I don't know anyone
who is demanding such a job. You and Rick obviously travel
in different circles than I do.

Obama is right to stress the
need to re-think our whole economic engine, and that is not an overnight
approach.

Pumping government money

Does the phrase "we the people" hold any meaning for you...?

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.

HTH,
R
....OTOH, maybe Obama can set up a phone room and convince little old Chinese
ladies to sign up for home-equity loans...I hear tell of an appraiser that can
help...

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
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.
I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact, it seems obvious, if you are
expecting the populace to curb spending to responsible levels, the
government is the only source of money to keep the whole thing from grinding
to an unacceptably sudden halt.
Tom

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:49:04 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.. .
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.
I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact, it seems obvious, if you are
expecting the populace to curb spending to responsible levels, the
government is the only source of money to keep the whole thing from grinding
to an unacceptably sudden halt.
Tom

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"...

....guess who the parents are like...?

HTH,
R

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

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

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

On Apr 17, 5:57*pm, wrote:

Interesting. The private sector can't self police so the greedy
innovate entirely new financial shell games, fleece half of most
middleclass peoples savings for their retirement, via hidden fees,
outright fraud, legalized fraud and tax avoidance . . . the American
industrialist opts out of his job creation role and off-shores the
jobs, still fully expecting to be able to sell the products in the US,
and keep the protections of the corporation as a fictional person, etc
etc and the government is the only recourse to the workers of the US,
the people who increasingly live in double and single wides on other
peoples land, the people who fill the ranks of our defence forces, the
people who pay for our skimpy social safety net, and think twice
before they go to the Doctor. And you see the threat coming from
cleaning up the mess your team made of the government? And you don't
need to get out of your bubble? Scheeeeze

And the only tired response you have to these stalwarts of our nation,
after all the goof fortune in your own circumstances, is that its all
their own fault, caveat emptor, and they need "tough love."

Rick, if this country ever goes socialist, folks with your level of
ignorance and arrogance will be the cause.

Dave
Ideology still sucks

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. Get the govt OUT of the
economy so that the economy can recover. Keeping the govt IN the
economy will prolong the problems and create an enormous debt from which
we'll likely NEVER recover.

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.

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