PDA

View Full Version : a point of view on the future of America



ripley699
07-31-2010, 09:51 AM
This is a pretty good read... I am sure there will be many opinions from both sides but the basic concept of this article certainly contains some interesting
and not "too off the mark " comments.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/542171/201007301830/Will-Washingtons-Failures-Lead-To-Second-American-Revolution-.aspx

Pugwash
07-31-2010, 10:05 AM
Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America,The basic concept is stupidity.


Not only that but the link appears in your post as "www.investors.com/NewsandAnal......."

Which made me even less willing to click on it.

ripley699
07-31-2010, 10:31 AM
It must be difficult for the two of you to walk,what with your knees jerking around like that!
I had hoped to hear a reasoned arguement ,one way or the other but I know I was expecting too much especially from you two
TARDS. I suspect there are more out there who will read the link and actually get something out of it...time will tell

Black-Jack
07-31-2010, 10:32 AM
I dont believe the American public is dumb enough to elect Barak Hussein 2x

Captain Blight
07-31-2010, 11:53 AM
Sonofabitch, we've got a mole in the Commisariat. Man, that OP is like word-for-word of the minutes of our last meeting.

Somebody's gonna pay.

<<nibbles corner of thumbnail>>
<<eyes dart about fervidly>>
<<caresses round bomb>>

BETTY-B
07-31-2010, 12:23 PM
The effectiveness of modern day propaganda is incredible.

Please open your eyes and see what they're feeding you, Ripley669.

Captain Blight
07-31-2010, 12:27 PM
It's probably worth noting that this is an opinion piece, not a list of facts. I'm sure that doesn't matter, reason always loses to emotion at the polls.

Dance, puppets; dance.

Captain Intrepid
07-31-2010, 12:34 PM
If anyone hasn't read this yet, I'll sum it up for you.

All taxes are evil! Clinton was a degenerate, Obama is turning the USA into the USSR.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-31-2010, 02:13 PM
It must be difficult for the two of you to walk,what with your knees jerking around like that!
I had hoped to hear a reasoned arguement ,one way or the other but I know I was expecting too much especially from you two
TARDS. I suspect there are more out there who will read the link and actually get something out of it...time will tell

We don't need any more internet librarians. We have a lot already. Especially on the right and especially from NH. You guys fearful of burning up your keyboards? This is the place to spill your guts and all you come up with is some no-name web site.
If you want to defend this stuff the floor is yours. For my part I'm not going to debate some unknown third party who is not available to answer for his sins.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-31-2010, 02:15 PM
I dont believe the American public is dumb enough to elect Barak Hussein 2x

Long ago I said the same thing about George Bush, Blackie, and I was wrong. My God was I wrong!

David G
07-31-2010, 02:51 PM
699,

I had several reactions.

First - the title was so over-the-top as to invite dismissal. But - since I like to hear all sides of an issue, I'm interested in economics, and I realize that headlines are often not written by the article's authors - I carried on.

Second - it seemed to me that the authors had correctly identified some of the issues that face us. Some they seemed quite askew on. Some I can only speculate on what the heck they were on about. But, I certainly think they've identified some of the symptoms.

Third - I finished up a bit unclear about whether the authors were proposing that we take action in the realm of economics, or in the realm of political science. If you assume that they're talking economics, then what they seem to be saying is that we're drifting (or being steered by some sort of leftist conspiracy whose agenda is left unspoken) away from the wisdom of the market. If that's what they're saying, then I'm back to dismissal.

It's true that markets and national economies are cyclical. It's also true that the oscillations of a market can be tempered somewhat by regulatory means. The cost of this is some measure of diminished capital accumulation and, therefore, some dynamism and innovation. In my opinion, the benefits of a more just, secure, and stable economy outweigh the costs. I'll post this again - in case some haven't seen it. See my post #75 on this topic:

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?76079-Liberal-VS-Conservative-%28-defined-%29&p=1772742&highlight=great%20depression#post1772742

Another cost? Further erosion of our national self-image. We regard ourselves as a nation of hardy individualists. We relish the Ol' West, a man's word is his bond, shoot 'em if they need shootin', don't tread on me vision of ourselves as rugged individualists. In truth, that time is long past. In many ways - that's unfortunate, and in many ways - now is better. But that image is part of our national fabric. We do not want to be regarded as a nation of clog-wearing, brie-eating, un-churched, beret lovers. We are Manly Men, by Golly. We don't need to be relying on the Great Government Teat to make our way in the world.

The benefits? From a social standpoint - many. It's not a coincidence that a goodly proportion of the citizens that report a high degree of satisfaction with where they live, and happiness in general, live in market economies that are more regulated than the U.S. has, on average, been.

From an economic efficiency standpoint there are benefits also. When a market economy is operating in its Sweet Spot, there's no more efficient, effective, dynamic, creative system known to man. At other times - when a lack of regulation has allowed this systems natural tendency to overheat to come into play - it's not nearly so efficient.

When we're overheating, we're spending too much time and capital trading tulip bulbs (or complex bundled real-estate based securities). We lose focus on the productive businesses in favor of the allure of speculation.

And - once the bubble bursts - we spend too much time clawing our way back out of the hole caused by the recession/depression. Too many people unemployed. Too much talent underutilized by taking (out of desperation) any job they can find. Too many otherwise solid firms that would want to grow - but can't because the credit market is skittish and doesn't want to lend. Too long a period, in other words, of costly stagnation.

So... if their prescription is simply... Trust The Market, then I reject it. Here's another recent thread on the topic:

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?117720-Disappearing-Middle-Class

If that's the approach they are suggesting, I suggest to them that they climb in the old Time Machine and dial up the beginning of the Hoover administration. They'll feel right at home, and they might learn something by seeing the similarities between then and the runup to our recent collapse.

Fourth - my final thought on the article is that they might be actually raising a serious topic regarding the accumulation of power in the executive branch over the course of our nation's history. As opposed - that is - to cravenly using this issue to masquerade their backward, greedy, yearning for a time when they could let their own personal cupidity run wild.

If they are actually raising the issue of accumulation of government power, it would be of interest. They didn't do much of a job of making a case. What they did instead was to launch a rant.

Perhaps someone here would like to pick up the ball they dropped? I don't have much of an opinion on the issue, but would certainly enjoy seeing it discussed.

David G
08-01-2010, 05:12 PM
It must be difficult for the two of you to walk,what with your knees jerking around like that!
I had hoped to hear a reasoned arguement ,one way or the other but I know I was expecting too much especially from you two
TARDS. I suspect there are more out there who will read the link and actually get something out of it...time will tell

699,

So... you post this article. Then, when a couple of liberals ruthlessly point out the failings of the article... you take umbrage. You say you were hoping for reasoned argument (see highlight, above).

So, I give you reasoned, evenhanded argument, and you ignore it. Instead of responding - as one would who was actually looking to discuss the article - you move on. You post some inflammatory article about Ronald Reagan.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're a liar. If you're NOT looking for discussion at all, but - perhaps - simply for attention.

Also, I'm wondering if your primary role here is to be... what's that word? You know. Someone who just wants to stir up a bunch of muck instead of promoting, and contributing to, a discussion. Come on now... I know you know the word. Refresh my memory. Look, it's the person who's actually looking for the opposite of "reasoned argument".

Oh - I remember!

A TROLL!!! That's the word I'm looking for!!!!

http://booparn.blogg.se/images/2007/troll_1172481730_10774527.jpg

David G
08-02-2010, 08:07 PM
699,

So - another day has gone by, and I'm simply bereft that you haven't responded to any of my previous posts.

This post is, I think, one of two things. First, maybe it's an opportunity for you to post an argument, an explanation, an apology, or some other sort of response. Or, maybe it's simply a reminder that you're a liar and a troll?

PeterSibley
08-02-2010, 08:32 PM
Ripley's capacity for reasoned debate is even lower than mine ,so don't hold your breath on this one .

ripley699
08-02-2010, 09:12 PM
When I post a C & P it is because i found something that I found to be of interest.I post it for others to read.
Some times I post it because I think it is very accurate and sometimes because it is so far fetched that it is rediculous.
Ialso DO have a life,something that some [many] of you seem to be missing.I don't come on here and hand out like I am at Kelsey's bar.I usually visit this forum 3 maybe 4 times a week.
IT is quite well known that I am a rabid conservative. I tell people that I am little to the right of Ronald Reagan.
These are things you know.If you have a problem with this then........you have a problem. I don't answer to you.

RIPLEY

PeterSibley
08-02-2010, 09:29 PM
We were hoping to hear you support your C&P with some ''reasoned'' argument , some hope .

David G
08-02-2010, 09:51 PM
It must be difficult for the two of you to walk,what with your knees jerking around like that!
I had hoped to hear a reasoned arguement ,one way or the other but I know I was expecting too much especially from you two
TARDS. I suspect there are more out there who will read the link and actually get something out of it...time will tell

699,

Cool! You're back! You were just away having a life. I get it. That's a reasonably good story. It's slightly limp-wristed as presented, but I'd stick with it if I were you. It certainly offers plausible deniability. Hmmm... maybe, just maybe, you're NOT simply a liar and a troll.

Well... we'll see.

Now that you're back, and have had a chance to read my post #12, you have the first stab at a 'reasoned argument'. Are you gonna respond now... or later... or just do some more ducking and dodging (thus leading us back to the liar/troll conclusion)?

David G
08-04-2010, 10:35 PM
699,

Well... a couple more days have passed, and you still have not posted any substantive response. I guess you're choosing not to. That's too bad.

It wasn't your politics that led me to wonder if you're a liar and a troll. It was the fact that you posted something inflammatory, and then became insulting when you got inflammatory responses in return - saying, "I had hoped to hear a reasoned arguement ,one way or the other but I know I was expecting too much especially from you two TARDS."

Even thought I wasn't one of the "TARDS" you were addressing, and I don't exactly share their politics, I thought your response was suspiciously two-faced.

What really made me suspicious, however, was the fact that I wrote a non-inflammatory response to your article, and you responded to it not at all. Seemingly no interest in actually discussing the topic. So why did you post it? Just trolling?

My suspicions are now hardened into firm opinion. I extended you several opportunities to prove me wrong, by posting some reasoned argument of your own. You did not... making the excuse that you were busy having a life outside of the Bilge. But then you came back a few times, posting new threads.

My conclusion? You lied when you claimed you were looking for reasoned argument. You were trolling. Plain and simple.

Not only are your opinions on political and economic issues foolishly simplistic - lacking in discernible critical thinking skills - but you are untrustworthy. A liar and a troll.

I may remind you of this if you choose to post such trollish drivel in the future.