| Author | Post |
|---|
DavidB
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 01:46 pm |
|
Zathras wrote: The concept of free market entrepreneurship, with limited government regulation, is what has led America to contribute more to the advancement of humanity than any other country in history. From planes, trains, & automobiles, right up to the high tech industries of today, America has led the way.
This didn't happen because America was socialist. It happened because America was NOT socialist. Personal risk/reward is what drives the human spirit to achieve more. Socialism, whether in the car industry, or the health care industry, or the banking industry, is NOT what will help America. This is the lesson Europe is learning.
Very well put. I don't understand why some have such a hard time grasping this basic truth.
|
Bambi2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 01:42 am |
|
Zathras wrote: Bambi2 wrote: Zathras. Good to hear from you. Are you in Town? Haven't heard from you in so long. Hope you are doing well. Your land is doing just fine.
B.
Hiya Bambi-
No, not in town. I think we're gonna make a visit in Sept to meet with builders. Has anyone built any new houses nearby since I was there last year?
I've been busy but have been finding time to catch up on things out there lately.
Z
Sorry. No new houses nearby. Contact me when you get here in Sept. I'll give you a tour. If you're going to build, you should be able to get some good deals from the custom builders, as they're all hungry. We have a builder who is going to build a home for a couple we brought him, and his bids are very good. But not as good as what people are getting for short sales and foreclosurs. Just can't replace those values. We'll talk more when you get here.
|
Zathras
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 17th, 2009 12:52 am |
|
Bambi2 wrote: Zathras. Good to hear from you. Are you in Town? Haven't heard from you in so long. Hope you are doing well. Your land is doing just fine.
B.
Hiya Bambi-
No, not in town. I think we're gonna make a visit in Sept to meet with builders. Has anyone built any new houses nearby since I was there last year?
I've been busy but have been finding time to catch up on things out there lately.
Z
|
qclars
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 153 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16th, 2009 10:09 pm |
|
2 cents wrote: QCVillager wrote: 2cents... is that really what you think DavidB wants ? because of something he wrote ? or because he has espoused Conservative FISCAL values ? i ask, since there are a bunch of us that have likewise pined for the return of fiscal sanitiy and i wonder if you think any/all fiscal conservatives or Republicans want Gov't "giving $ to the rich corps".
To a degree. Mostly to get a rise. But isn't that one of the main planks of the GOP? Don't tax business. Let them make all the money they can make because it will create more jobs and "trickle down" will everyone wealthy.
2
Taxing business is of little value to us taxpayers. Why? Because businesses are just going to pass their tax expenses on to the customer. So--who pays the taxes levied against businesses? We, as consumers, do. Next, do you want to attract international business? Given a choice of a 6% corporate tax in Ireland and a 30+% corporate tax in the US, where are you going to locate your next factory? I'm all for mandatory teaching of Reading, Writing, Arithmetic and Economics in our schools. The result would be a much better-informed voting public, and probably a lot more conservative voters.
|
Bambi2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16th, 2009 03:43 pm |
|
Zathras. Good to hear from you. Are you in Town? Haven't heard from you in so long. Hope you are doing well. Your land is doing just fine.
B.
|
Zathras
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 16th, 2009 01:04 am |
|
2 cents wrote: QCVillager wrote: 2cents... is that really what you think DavidB wants ? because of something he wrote ? or because he has espoused Conservative FISCAL values ? i ask, since there are a bunch of us that have likewise pined for the return of fiscal sanitiy and i wonder if you think any/all fiscal conservatives or Republicans want Gov't "giving $ to the rich corps".
To a degree. Mostly to get a rise. But isn't that one of the main planks of the GOP? Don't tax business. Let them make all the money they can make because it will create more jobs and "trickle down" will everyone wealthy.
2
No. not everyone will become wealthy. There are winners and losers. But, it's not a zero-sum game. "Trickle-down" economics works. The overall total is a net gain in wealth for the average person. Most of the people who are in 'poverty' in America are vastly wealthier than hundreds of millions of humans.
The concept of free market entrepreneurship, with limited government regulation, is what has led America to contribute more to the advancement of humanity than any other country in history. From planes, trains, & automobiles, right up to the high tech industries of today, America has led the way.
This didn't happen because America was socialist. It happened because America was NOT socialist. Personal risk/reward is what drives the human spirit to achieve more. Socialism, whether in the car industry, or the health care industry, or the banking industry, is NOT what will help America. This is the lesson Europe is learning.
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 907 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 09:49 pm |
|
QCVillager wrote: 2cents... is that really what you think DavidB wants ? because of something he wrote ? or because he has espoused Conservative FISCAL values ? i ask, since there are a bunch of us that have likewise pined for the return of fiscal sanitiy and i wonder if you think any/all fiscal conservatives or Republicans want Gov't "giving $ to the rich corps".
To a degree. Mostly to get a rise. But isn't that one of the main planks of the GOP? Don't tax business. Let them make all the money they can make because it will create more jobs and "trickle down" will everyone wealthy.
2
|
QCVillager
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 15th, 2009 04:47 am |
|
so check this out... seems the Socialists in Europe are giving consideration to changing their name... to... DEMOCRATS
what a HOOT ! ha ha ha ha
European Socialists Get Asses Kicked In Elections http://groups.google.com/group/can.politics/browse_thread/thread/d1bd15c4567c5fb6/a19fd103a79ef398?lnk=raot
Socialists across continent left licking wounds
By Joshua Chaffin in Brussels
Joshua Chaffin
Financial Times
June 8, 2009
European socialists were left in disarray on Sunday night after
failing to capitalise on a historic economic and financial crisis to
harvest disaffected voters in parliamentary elections.
In spite of such seemingly favourable conditions, the socialists fell
further behind the parliament’s largest group, the centre-right
European People’s party, as voters punished them in key countries,
including the UK, while flocking to parties on the far-left and
far-right elsewhere.
Projections released late on Sunday night by the parliament showed the
socialist group shrinking to between 155 and 165 seats – well below
the 217 the group previously occupied.
By contrast, the EPP was set to occupy 263 to 273 seats. (While the
outgoing parliament had 785 seats, the new one will have 736).
“It was a very difficult night,” Martin Schulz, the socialist group
president, conceded from Berlin.
“We would be well advised to carry out a very close analysis over the
coming days,” he added.
Party officials cast the blame on a combination of a low turnout,
which tends to favour fringe parties, and the vagaries of distinct
national contests.
Turnout, according to early estimates, fell to a new low of 43.3 per
cent – down from 45 per cent five years ago – in spite of an extensive
promotional campaign by the parliament.
While Mr Schulz urged socialists to maintain their principles, other
party officials struck a more dire tone. “If the socialists can’t do
well now, when can we do well?” one asked.
Some socialists have even spoken of possibly changing their name to
“Democrats”. The thinking is that a different title might help the
group, particularly in eastern Europe.
But outside analysts indicated the group’s problems were more
fundamental as they failed to win over crisis-hit voters. “They’re
being punished for not coming up with strong alternatives to what the
centre-right is proposing,” said Sara Hagemann, an analyst at the
European Policy Centre in Brussels.
In France, for example, the socialists were set to lose roughly half
their seats to President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling centre-right UMP.
“People are looking for practical solutions to lift us out of the
crisis,” said Joseph Daul, a UMP member and the leader of the EPP.
Mr Daul said that his group would now deliberate over its candidate
for the presidency of the European Parliament – a choice between new
and old member states including Poland’s Jerzy Buzek and Italy’s Mario
Mauro.
Mr Daul also pledged to push for the early adoption of the Lisbon
reform treaty, which would expand the parliament’s powers.
As the results rolled in, the mainstream parties were bracing
themselves for the arrival in Brussels of as many as 50 to 60
Eurosceptic MEPs from the far-right and far-left. From a relatively
low base, groups such as the Danish People’s party and Austria’s Hans
Peter Martin list emerged as big winners on an evening when the
centre-left wilted.
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1670 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 03:31 am |
|
Zathras wrote: I'd say no.
I believe that much of the current economic situation has its roots in the housing bubble, which was caused to a large degree, by the government putting laws in place which incentivized lenders to make loans to people they would not otherwise have lent to.
The president is not giving $ to the rich corps. He's buying them, and he's using our kids' money to do it.
This is a fundamentally bad idea- when has the government ever run anything efficiently and profitably?
The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.
Amen Zathras
|
Zathras
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 13 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 03:11 am |
|
2 cents wrote: DB, the pres. is doing exactly what you want for the most part, giving $ to the rich corps.. What's wrong with that? They, through their own greed and p...poor business practices, put themselves in the position to beg from the public. Yes-no?
I'd say no.
I believe that much of the current economic situation has its roots in the housing bubble, which was caused to a large degree, by the government putting laws in place which incentivized lenders to make loans to people they would not otherwise have lent to.
The president is not giving $ to the rich corps. He's buying them, and he's using our kids' money to do it.
This is a fundamentally bad idea- when has the government ever run anything efficiently and profitably?
The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.
|
QCVillager
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 11:30 pm |
|
2cents... is that really what you think DavidB wants ? because of something he wrote ? or because he has espoused Conservative FISCAL values ? i ask, since there are a bunch of us that have likewise pined for the return of fiscal sanitiy and i wonder if you think any/all fiscal conservatives or Republicans want Gov't "giving $ to the rich corps".
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 907 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 10:28 pm |
|
| DB, the pres. is doing exactly what you want for the most part, giving $ to the rich corps.. What's wrong with that? They, through their own greed and p...poor business practices, put themselves in the position to beg from the public. Yes-no?
|
DavidB
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 08:40 pm |
|
tigershark wrote: It is amazing to me how republicans are so quick to condemn Obama just 3 1/2 months into his presidency and talk of getting one of their own into office the next time around.
It might help to update those charts with the projections of the Obama plan.
|
DavidB
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 11th, 2009 09:14 pm |
|
| The fact of the matter is ALL of these politicians are spending too much money. Our country MUST start being run responsibly and the debt of our nation's children needs to start being serviced. The Obama plan not only demonstrates no desire to do this, but goes on to exacerbate the problem by increasing the debt by huge orders of magnitude. Enough is enough.
|
DavidB
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 11th, 2009 09:12 pm |
|
Bambi2 wrote: "The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years."
You might want to dig a little deeper on the mythical Clinton budget surplus.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativepoliticalopinion/surplusfallacy.html
http://www.sbstatesman.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=3eb1b365-6daf-44c2-b121-79c959f0f0cb
|
Bambi2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 02:50 pm |
|
Well, sometimes it can't be avoided.....making that "hole" bigger. Here's an excerpt from an article 2 cents posted this a.m. on the Pinal site, that I thought covers it all pretty well.
"The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years."
"You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama. "
"The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years."
Wall Street bailout
About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt."
And the beat goes on.....
|
DavidB
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 10th, 2009 02:40 am |
|
| You are absolutely right. Bush spent too much too. But when you have a leak in a ship, it really doesn't make sense to make the hole much bigger, does it?
|
tigershark
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 04:26 pm |
|
It is amazing to me how republicans are so quick to condemn Obama just 3 1/2 months into his presidency and talk of getting one of their own into office the next time around. Are we supposed to forget about the last eight years? Bush added more to the debt than anyone ever, with the possible exception of the Reagan/first Bush tandem, and then he got four more years!
To those of you who say this information is unfair, how about the debt when adjusted for inflation:
The numbers speak for themselves. Now I am not a democrat, in fact I don't register with either party because I am more interested in the best candidate for the job. The decisions we are seeing Obama make may, ultimately, prove to be the wrong ones, but what president has ever made all of the right ones? It seems to me that Obama is at the least making them with the best of intentions in mind to try and fix what is so clearly borken, and not with an eye towards 2012! It also seems to me that Obama is at the least attempting to work with both sides of the aisle. How much did that occur in the last eight years? I would rather support the man trying to right the ship than the one refusing to believe it's sinking in the first place.
|
Bambi2
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 03:22 pm |
|
QCVillager wrote: i would normally tend to agree with you on this one nybrian... except that President Obama has TURBO-charged the march. today, we hear he intends to go into WARP speed on the spending. (seemed entirely too fast already for me)
so, if you believe like i do that this is not sustainable and that spending faster will simply get us to a bad place quicker... then you can see how it is entirely possible that getting to the bad place more quickly will bring about the day of voter reckoning that much more quickly.
that said... there are countless other variables at play, so i am not prepared to give you even odds on it.
One cannot double the size of the national debt and call oneself a conservative. That's what the Republicans did for the last 8 years.....that's warp speed change from what the conservatives were before Bush. We're having a day of reckoning now, because of the former Republican Administration and Congress's spending spree. Now, were making corrections as quick as possible, so we don't completely sink into oblivion. We are making headway.......
Treasury: 10 big banks can repay bailout
Ten of the nation's largest banks to repay $68 billion in TARP money
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31183784/
I'm going to buy a good book for you Jeff, on conservatism.....or the need to return to the old ways of true conservatism. It just came out. You'll like it as it speaks to what you are speaking.
Last edited on Tue Jun 9th, 2009 04:09 pm by Bambi2
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 07:16 am |
|
| Well, we probably are in agreement overall. If the economy is doing well (for any reason---stimulus, business cycle, luck) he will probably get re-elected. If not, he will have a tough time, since he is really doing so many things and will take blame for the continued problems. I just think the economy will be doing well in a couple years---not so much from anything anyone is doing, but just from the normal cycle. I think it would be pretty unusual for the economy to still be in recession 3 years from now...
|
QCVillager
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 05:54 am |
|
i would normally tend to agree with you on this one nybrian... except that President Obama has TURBO-charged the march. today, we hear he intends to go into WARP speed on the spending. (seemed entirely too fast already for me)
so, if you believe like i do that this is not sustainable and that spending faster will simply get us to a bad place quicker... then you can see how it is entirely possible that getting to the bad place more quickly will bring about the day of voter reckoning that much more quickly.
that said... there are countless other variables at play, so i am not prepared to give you even odds on it.
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 04:29 am |
|
| Anything's possible, but I doubt it. The Dems will lose a couple seats in the senate and house but will still have majorities. And in 2012 the economy will be in full recovery mode and Obama gets 4 more years. Remember, most of these countries have been left leaning for years, America has been left leaning for a year or two. I think we'll probably give the Dems a few more years...
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1670 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 9th, 2009 03:45 am |
|
This is a shadow of things to come here in America. Turns out even left leaning Euros know when enough is enough and when crazy-wild spending must be stopped. Democrats here in America had better brace themselves for a slaughter when the next round of elections roll around, because the backlash to this bailout is going to be legendary.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7781123&page=1
|
Current time is 01:27 am | |
|