Ahhaa, So your the one that's been watching Fox News!
I feel no need to justify my reading and listening habits to you.
I want a divorce!
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
Ahhaa, So your the one that's been watching Fox News!
I feel no need to justify my reading and listening habits to you.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I do watch/listen to Fox News. It is enlightening but not "news."
I think you have now officially answered my question! Thanks on that.
I think you have now officially answered my question! Thanks on that.
Ron Earp
Admin
I'd second that.
You really have to draw from both right (ex. Fox "News") and left leaning (ex. NPR, Washington Post) sources to try and come up with a true picture of what is happening.
I listen to the BBC quite a bit so I will have some idea of what is going on outside America (yeah, there is life outside of America Beck fans), as well as The German Journal (German parent company), NPR, NY Times, IBD, CNN, and some Fox. Using all of those I can sometimes form a "real" picture of what is happening.
You're welcome.
When someone spends so much time telling you how he is "Fair and Balanced" chances are neither is true!
Any news outlet has a slant and an agenda. If you recognize this, you can gleen some information to use in deciding. Rush is "right" sometimes and on the rare instance so is "Pravda"!!! The trick is to see past the bluster........................
Any news outlet has a slant and an agenda. If you recognize this, you can gleen some information to use in deciding. Rush is "right" sometimes and on the rare instance so is "Pravda"!!! The trick is to see past the bluster........................
Jeff,
The Beck post I put up re Communism wasn't to try and influence you regarding Fox news and its Fair and Balanced perspective. I specifically noted the time line and the goals of the US Communist Party.
The whole idea was for you to see the connection between the 1963 goals of the US Communist Party and the legislative agenda in both the USA and the social democracies of Europe. If you don't see the connection, you may wish to review this.
Regarding news sources, I like Al Jazeera Intl, Russia Today, BBC World Service, RAI International, the Vatican News, Gazetta dello Sport, The Chicago Tribune, the Drudge Report and of course Fox on the web site. Note of all the news sources out there, I think Fox does the best job of blending all points of view. I once was center left, and in fact, years ago, even farther than that. I also understand that the US has a democracy that is far different from our western EU governments have developed, and think the US should remain the US and not adopt a global democratic format.
The only person on today's news that stands for the Constitution as it is is Beck.
The Beck post I put up re Communism wasn't to try and influence you regarding Fox news and its Fair and Balanced perspective. I specifically noted the time line and the goals of the US Communist Party.
The whole idea was for you to see the connection between the 1963 goals of the US Communist Party and the legislative agenda in both the USA and the social democracies of Europe. If you don't see the connection, you may wish to review this.
Regarding news sources, I like Al Jazeera Intl, Russia Today, BBC World Service, RAI International, the Vatican News, Gazetta dello Sport, The Chicago Tribune, the Drudge Report and of course Fox on the web site. Note of all the news sources out there, I think Fox does the best job of blending all points of view. I once was center left, and in fact, years ago, even farther than that. I also understand that the US has a democracy that is far different from our western EU governments have developed, and think the US should remain the US and not adopt a global democratic format.
The only person on today's news that stands for the Constitution as it is is Beck.
Well you do realize that it is a fundementally flawed document.
Love your post! WAKE UP AMERICA! If you don't like it here, this is a free country and you are free to leave. No one forced you to come here. My answering machine message says "If you would like to hear this message in another language, move to the country that speaks it!" I am sick and tired of hearing "we don't want to offend anyone" grow a set of balls!
You guys from down under have a Prime Minister that tells it like it is. Maybe he can give our leaders some lessons.
You guys from down under have a Prime Minister that tells it like it is. Maybe he can give our leaders some lessons.
I suspect that most of us are in the center on policies. For example most Americans are middle-class or would like to be but the burden of policies in taxation, immigration, war, etc., are born by this group. Very few rich and even fewer poor are asked to bear the burden. Now when I say middle class, that is a very broad demografic as defined by the US Government. In other words, this class is not only the merchant class or guild class, but also the class that provides labor in order for the system to work. The greatest tax increase in the last 30 years has been the "Payroll Tax". It seems that when we talk about taxes being level at a maximum of 35%, we fail to take into account the loss of spending for the working class due to the payroll penalty. If you figure in that tax the effective tax rate on the working class and small business owners can reach as high as 48%, and that does not include the local property tax, sales tax, and state income tax. The truth is, most Americans really don't consider how much of their earned money goes to taxes. If they did, there would be a tax revolt in this country.
How many of you who are not CPA's really have read and understand the 10,000 page document that is the US Tax code. By the way, the unintended consequences of this action by government leads to hundreds of thousands of jobs for 'tax experts'. This is good if you are an accountant, but not so good if you are not. What I am getting at is that when a government makes decisions about who gets taxed, who gets the benefits, who gets the exclusions, etc., it changes the economy. For every job these policy moves make, other potential jobs are lost. It's a Sum-Zero game, but with the intended (or perhaps unindended) consequence of changing the rules of a free society that rewards only best efforts and creativity.
I think that we all agree that some rules are necessary, just like in a sports contest, in order for all players to get a fair win or loss. But sometimes, as we have seen in sports, the referee gets the call wrong. That is the governents main job to Centrists, call the game by the rules and create a level playing field for fairplay. Most Americans believe that this is how government works. Once they figure out that the game is rigged, and it is, they will revolt. That is why there are more declared independents and Tea Party revolters in the news.
There are a lot of opinions on this forum, including mine. But we should all agree that there has to be a better way forward. Nationalizing healthcare was a kneejerk reaction to unfair trade factors in place for insurance companies. But instead of nationalizing the healthcare system, why didn't we re-write the rules so that free market systems could correct the disparity? I suspect that frustration led some to believe the current course was necessary, but it too will lead to unintended consequences as sure as the sun will rise. By the way, the Right wingers got it wrong as well when they controlled congress, since they made a choice to ignore Americans concerns during their time in control. The real winners will be those companies that bought themselves a seat at the table and the losers will be the American people once again.
So what do we do? All of us has an opinion and that is your right. I just hope that there is a way for all sides to get down and have reasonable discourse about our future and understand that change is necessary. As for me, I want everyone who expounds more government to realize that this organization has proved to highly inefficient in managing the micro-economies and most of the time makes the economy worse in the long run. Governemt in the last part of the 20th century has not been your friend.
Garry
How many of you who are not CPA's really have read and understand the 10,000 page document that is the US Tax code. By the way, the unintended consequences of this action by government leads to hundreds of thousands of jobs for 'tax experts'. This is good if you are an accountant, but not so good if you are not. What I am getting at is that when a government makes decisions about who gets taxed, who gets the benefits, who gets the exclusions, etc., it changes the economy. For every job these policy moves make, other potential jobs are lost. It's a Sum-Zero game, but with the intended (or perhaps unindended) consequence of changing the rules of a free society that rewards only best efforts and creativity.
I think that we all agree that some rules are necessary, just like in a sports contest, in order for all players to get a fair win or loss. But sometimes, as we have seen in sports, the referee gets the call wrong. That is the governents main job to Centrists, call the game by the rules and create a level playing field for fairplay. Most Americans believe that this is how government works. Once they figure out that the game is rigged, and it is, they will revolt. That is why there are more declared independents and Tea Party revolters in the news.
There are a lot of opinions on this forum, including mine. But we should all agree that there has to be a better way forward. Nationalizing healthcare was a kneejerk reaction to unfair trade factors in place for insurance companies. But instead of nationalizing the healthcare system, why didn't we re-write the rules so that free market systems could correct the disparity? I suspect that frustration led some to believe the current course was necessary, but it too will lead to unintended consequences as sure as the sun will rise. By the way, the Right wingers got it wrong as well when they controlled congress, since they made a choice to ignore Americans concerns during their time in control. The real winners will be those companies that bought themselves a seat at the table and the losers will be the American people once again.
So what do we do? All of us has an opinion and that is your right. I just hope that there is a way for all sides to get down and have reasonable discourse about our future and understand that change is necessary. As for me, I want everyone who expounds more government to realize that this organization has proved to highly inefficient in managing the micro-economies and most of the time makes the economy worse in the long run. Governemt in the last part of the 20th century has not been your friend.
Garry
You may be referring to Mr Howard who unfortunately lost out to Mr Rudd - not a patch on his predecessor - and now they have a W-O-M-A-N in charge!
Jury is out but I bet Pete already has a verdict!
Garry, Well said!
A larger part of the problem, as I see it, was that a large portion of our population preferred to live without exercising financial responsibility...i.e., by carrying insurance if they could not afford to self pay. Agreed, the medical insurance companies had WAAAAAY too much latitude in making the decisions (and, we must keep in mind, that these very companies EXIST in order to make money for their stockholders.....that is their primary allegiance and anyone who thinks insurance, whether health or life or automotive, is there to protect them needs to read their policies...they are filled with "exclusions" designed to lessen the "payout" that the insurance companies must endure), but for those without insurance, the only opportunity the medical community had to recover those losses was to raise prices to spread the cost of covering the "freeloaders" out among those of us who believe in financial responsibility.
It does look like Bee-OH and his cronies have taken a different tack with the financial industry....instead of "nationalizing" credit card companies, they have essentially rewritten the rules. That doesn't mean that the credit card companies can't find new ways to bleed you, they just need to put their best minds to work to figure out how to break, bend, or evade the new rules :thumbsdown: .
Between the insurance companies and the credit card companies, where was the "protection" for the average, middle class citizen? Right....there was none. I, for one, am glad that Bee-OH has done SOMETHING...anything was better than what we had with Gee-Dub and his radical conservative cronies--- :drunk: IMHO, guys, IMHO, OK :drunk: !!
Doug
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Garry, I can understand the anti-government frustration, and I'll go on anti-government rants too. But, let's look at the fundamental point of your post, which I think is this.
You think the government takes too much in taxes and provides too little in return. Ok. I will buy the facial appeal of that position.
But let me ask some specific questions. Most of our yearly tax revenue goes to (a) debt service; (b) defense; (c) Medicare and (d) Social Security. Most everything else is peanuts.
Of these services, what you could cut? And more importantly, which ones do you think the American people, collectively would support you cutting?
In other words, given the level of services required of a modern democracy, and given what we know about the marginal tax rates in other such countries vis a vis the US (we are in the middle or low end), I'd suggest that our tax rates and size of government -- while bigger than we would all like -- is probably as a practical matter in the range of what is necessary in this day in age.
Some other interesting statistics to chew on. Generally speaking, Republicans, and in particular Reagan and the Bushes, have been far more resopnsible for creation of the national debt than Democrats:
U.S. National Debt Graph: What the Press Won't Tell You
Economic growth from 1961 to 2008, showing significantly more growth under Democtractic Presidents:
% Per Annum Democrat Republican Bush43
GDP Growth 4.1% 2.9% 2.2%
Employment 2.9% 1.7% 0.5%
CPI 4.0% 5.1% 3.0%
DJIA 8.1% 6.5% 0.9%
Dollar +0.8% -3.6% -5.9%
And last, a perhaps more theoretical point. If you agree that government twin prime roles are to (a) defend the country and (b) ensure an ecnomic environment that smooths out the damaging effects of the wild business cycles of boom and bust that used to wrack our economy, take a look at his history to see how government management of the economy in teh modern economic era, post depression after the competing theories of Keynes, Hegel and Friedman developed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
Based on that, I'd have to disagree with your assessment that "government has not been our friend" in the 20th and 21st centuries. It sure is frustrting dealing with DMV, or with OSHA or whoever, but at its core function -- stabilizing our economy so that we can all focus on our businesses and lives -- I'd say recent government has been far more successful than ever before (when, frankly, government either didn't care about or didn't understand macroeconomics).
You think the government takes too much in taxes and provides too little in return. Ok. I will buy the facial appeal of that position.
But let me ask some specific questions. Most of our yearly tax revenue goes to (a) debt service; (b) defense; (c) Medicare and (d) Social Security. Most everything else is peanuts.
Of these services, what you could cut? And more importantly, which ones do you think the American people, collectively would support you cutting?
In other words, given the level of services required of a modern democracy, and given what we know about the marginal tax rates in other such countries vis a vis the US (we are in the middle or low end), I'd suggest that our tax rates and size of government -- while bigger than we would all like -- is probably as a practical matter in the range of what is necessary in this day in age.
Some other interesting statistics to chew on. Generally speaking, Republicans, and in particular Reagan and the Bushes, have been far more resopnsible for creation of the national debt than Democrats:
U.S. National Debt Graph: What the Press Won't Tell You
Economic growth from 1961 to 2008, showing significantly more growth under Democtractic Presidents:
% Per Annum Democrat Republican Bush43
GDP Growth 4.1% 2.9% 2.2%
Employment 2.9% 1.7% 0.5%
CPI 4.0% 5.1% 3.0%
DJIA 8.1% 6.5% 0.9%
Dollar +0.8% -3.6% -5.9%
And last, a perhaps more theoretical point. If you agree that government twin prime roles are to (a) defend the country and (b) ensure an ecnomic environment that smooths out the damaging effects of the wild business cycles of boom and bust that used to wrack our economy, take a look at his history to see how government management of the economy in teh modern economic era, post depression after the competing theories of Keynes, Hegel and Friedman developed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
Based on that, I'd have to disagree with your assessment that "government has not been our friend" in the 20th and 21st centuries. It sure is frustrting dealing with DMV, or with OSHA or whoever, but at its core function -- stabilizing our economy so that we can all focus on our businesses and lives -- I'd say recent government has been far more successful than ever before (when, frankly, government either didn't care about or didn't understand macroeconomics).
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
I can with impunity declare that Joolyah definitely does not have balls.
Same strings different puppet. Same fleas different dog.
Jeff,
Just wanted to point out that you are looking at history, and in that context you are probably right.
But we are looking at the here and now, the fact that BHO adopted many of Gordon Brown's policies (he also sold the EU on the stimulus plan) and you can see the dramatic budget cuts of the new government. At least the voting British people were smart enough to vote him and his labour people out of office.
BHO policies cannot be compared previous democratic governments. As it comes out, he is a Chicago politican at best (I hate to say that but I am from Chitown).
Just wanted to point out that you are looking at history, and in that context you are probably right.
But we are looking at the here and now, the fact that BHO adopted many of Gordon Brown's policies (he also sold the EU on the stimulus plan) and you can see the dramatic budget cuts of the new government. At least the voting British people were smart enough to vote him and his labour people out of office.
BHO policies cannot be compared previous democratic governments. As it comes out, he is a Chicago politican at best (I hate to say that but I am from Chitown).
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
What does any of that mean substantively?
Have you read any of the economic histories of 2008-2009? Every serious economist in this country thought that our banking system and our economy was on the verge of collapse -- and that includes the monetarists.
TARP and the stimulus scared the beejesus out of me, but they apparently they worked. The banking and investment systems in this country did not fail. The recession eased without worsening into depression. The stock market rose.
What am I missing here? Yes it cost money but you act like Obama came to office and just spent money "because he is from Chicago." No. TARP and the stimulus package were past because, again, every serious economist in the country was telling Obama and the Congress that it had to be done.
Have you read any of the economic histories of 2008-2009? Every serious economist in this country thought that our banking system and our economy was on the verge of collapse -- and that includes the monetarists.
TARP and the stimulus scared the beejesus out of me, but they apparently they worked. The banking and investment systems in this country did not fail. The recession eased without worsening into depression. The stock market rose.
What am I missing here? Yes it cost money but you act like Obama came to office and just spent money "because he is from Chicago." No. TARP and the stimulus package were past because, again, every serious economist in the country was telling Obama and the Congress that it had to be done.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Posted by Al.
Al, so you hate these people because they care about others, and use their celebrity and sometimes wealth to help others? There are many many people through out history who cared for others and used their celebrity to try and help others: Ghandi, Mandela, Mother Teresa.....Jesus?
I know that selfish Conservatives only care about themselves but do you actually hate these people because they take the time to try and help people who they feel need it.
Why does that bother you?
Last edited:
Hate is your word. Jane Fonda, please, talk to some POWs. And the others are as far to the left as they can get. You like them, you can have them. You come off as being so wonderful and pious, give it a break!
Ron Earp
Admin
That fabled Jesus fellow, well, in modern terms he'd be considered about as far left as you can get. No doubt about that.
