PDA

View Full Version : 4 more years



cattails
11-06-2012, 10:20 PM
Good luck USA.

jazyd
11-06-2012, 10:27 PM
Gonna need more than luck. I think our country is now an official welfare state, those that don't work just won the right to not have to work and make the rest of us poor slobs take care of their every need. And here comes the illegals, clear path.



Good luck USA.

CitizenBBN
11-06-2012, 10:30 PM
We'll need a heck of a lot more than luck.

Expected him to win from the get go, I just hope my calculations are right that I'll be dead (and I don't have children) before it gets so ugly I have to leave the country. No I'm not being flippant. I came to this conclusion some time ago, Obama's reelection is just the proof of what I've long known.

I see only one salvation for the nation as I see its purpose and mission, and I'm hesitant to say it here for being painted a radical. Half the country wants to go in one direction, IMO on the course laid out by the Founders, and half want to become a Western European nation. I see no way to rectify those two. either the former will whimper and give in or it will come to a head.

That's why these constant calls for "working together in Washington" are so laughable. How does one work together when there are two people sitting in a car in Kansas and one wants to go to LA and the other to New York? Do they go to Chicago or Houston? Is Denver or Cincinnati a compromise? You can only work together if you roughly want to go the same direction then it's just deciding the means. We're talking about 180 degree differences.

the GOP will hold the House and hopefully stalemate domestic policy.

The real prayer is that 2 SCOTUS members who are 76 both are able to stay on the bench 4 more years. Lose just one more Justice to Obama and the 2nd Amendment is in a fight for its very existence.

Can't wait for the next debt ceiling fight. GOP gains in the House may make it a fun one to watch. Obama has already said he plans on ignoring the automatic cuts from the last debt ceiling deal. Think he'll be able to swing another one?

cattails
11-06-2012, 10:44 PM
Kiss health care good bye, welcome to the new USA.

CitizenBBN
11-07-2012, 12:45 AM
Deleted some of this before I lose my perspective. As a mod it's beholden on me to not do that.

KGB
11-07-2012, 12:47 AM
You deleted my post?

KGB
11-07-2012, 12:59 AM
Errr.. Posts.

CBBN,

You may disagree with me, but please do not delete my responses to your posts without reason.

That is simply rude.

CitizenBBN
11-07-2012, 01:02 AM
You deleted my post?

I deleted the conversation in whole, yours and mine. It was heading to a bad place. It's bound to be repeated a few times over the next day or two as people vent.

By tomorrow more will be gone, but like a loss in a game we give a certain amount of time to vent. By the next morning the worst of it is often moved off the boards. It prevents things from getting too overblown between members.

CitizenBBN
11-07-2012, 01:06 AM
Errr.. Posts.

CBBN,

You may disagree with me, but please do not delete my responses to your posts without reason.

That is simply rude.

It's not a matter of being rude, it's a matter of moderation to avoid things from going too far. Yes sometimes that will snare posts that by themselves aren't violations, but it does happen in times of particular strain. I've moderated the political discussion of 3 elections now and by morning most of the night's stuff is gone. It's SOP and is moderated more severely on this board than the others b/c we are primarily a sports board and don't really want the Barber Shop to be the center of things.

I really don't mean to be rude or condemning in any way of your views, but I do have to try to head some of this off tonight. A couple of threads are about to get locked. This one I could have locked but chose to just delete some posts. Theres' no clear cut choice between the two.

CitizenBBN
11-07-2012, 01:09 AM
I'll also note that I started with my own post, trying to curtail my own venting. Deleting mine removes any context that follows and we often delete threads of conversation when the initial post is deleted.

I moderated myself here, not you or anyone else. I was the one at fault for blowing off steam.

CattyWampus
11-07-2012, 02:40 AM
I have a lot of concerns about what the next four years will bring us. At the top of my list is that Obama may very well be appointing three new Supreme Court justices during his second term. That would mean that five of the nine will be bleeding heart liberals that will be around for at least the next twenty years.

bubbleup
11-07-2012, 05:18 AM
That whistle you hear is the National Debt Train....next stop $20 TRILLION.

Pray for John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan.

Catonahottinroof
11-07-2012, 05:40 AM
Folks without basic understanding of economics are now the voting majority in the US....just wow..

cattails
11-07-2012, 07:05 AM
Folks without basic understanding of economics are now the voting majority in the US....just wow..

Well I'm old enough that I will be gone when the total fall out of this election hits home but My children and their children will be the ones to suffer. We are now heading to a socialist state, the power brokers have little reason to put their money in play which means more jobs lost. Obama can continue the trend or look for better ways, only time will tell on this. I would not be shocked to see a state like Texas declare it's independence, Arizone may follow and this could be the beginning of a civil war, all this is possible, let's just hope it doesn't come to this. You just can't keep taking from the working and giving to the non working, soon the working see no reason to work. Let's just hope Obama sees this coming or maybe this is what he wants, I really can only go by the trend he has set.

DanISSELisdaman
11-07-2012, 07:54 AM
Yesterday may well have been the worst day in the history of this great country.

ukcatlvr
11-07-2012, 08:02 AM
We'll need a heck of a lot more than luck.

Expected him to win from the get go, I just hope my calculations are right that I'll be dead (and I don't have children) before it gets so ugly I have to leave the country. No I'm not being flippant. I came to this conclusion some time ago, Obama's reelection is just the proof of what I've long known.

I see only one salvation for the nation as I see its purpose and mission, and I'm hesitant to say it here for being painted a radical. Half the country wants to go in one direction, IMO on the course laid out by the Founders, and half want to become a Western European nation. I see no way to rectify those two. either the former will whimper and give in or it will come to a head.

That's why these constant calls for "working together in Washington" are so laughable. How does one work together when there are two people sitting in a car in Kansas and one wants to go to LA and the other to New York? Do they go to Chicago or Houston? Is Denver or Cincinnati a compromise? You can only work together if you roughly want to go the same direction then it's just deciding the means. We're talking about 180 degree differences.

the GOP will hold the House and hopefully stalemate domestic policy.

The real prayer is that 2 SCOTUS members who are 76 both are able to stay on the bench 4 more years. Lose just one more Justice to Obama and the 2nd Amendment is in a fight for its very existence.

Can't wait for the next debt ceiling fight. GOP gains in the House may make it a fun one to watch. Obama has already said he plans on ignoring the automatic cuts from the last debt ceiling deal. Think he'll be able to swing another one?

Agree totally !

suncat05
11-07-2012, 08:22 AM
Well I'm old enough that I will be gone when the total fall out of this election hits home but My children and their children will be the ones to suffer. We are now heading to a socialist state, the power brokers have little reason to put their money in play which means more jobs lost. Obama can continue the trend or look for better ways, only time will tell on this. I would not be shocked to see a state like Texas declare it's independence, Arizone may follow and this could be the beginning of a civil war, all this is possible, let's just hope it doesn't come to this. You just can't keep taking from the working and giving to the non working, soon the working see no reason to work. Let's just hope Obama sees this coming or maybe this is what he wants, I really can only go by the trend he has set.

I can see Texas, Arizona, and several other States doing just that. But in the end I'm not sure that much aside from a lot of people dying would be accomplished by attempting to leave the Republic. I would fully agree with those wishing to do so, but at this point both in that situation and my own life, it looks like to me that this Republic is doomed to fail and may not be worth salvaging, much less salvagable at all.
This Great Experiment, once called the United States of America, is no longer other than in name only.
If he was still alive, my Sicilian immigrant Father, who was so proud to be an American citizen and loved this country so much, would be stunned and outraged at what our country has degenerated into.
I cannot even begin to tell you how saddened I am by all of this. This is not the same America that I grew up loving, nor the America I have faithfully loved and served for my entire life.

Doc
11-07-2012, 09:32 AM
This confirms my belief that the majority of Americans are 1) stupid 2) care only about themselve or 3) live only for today.

My parents are extremely upset, worried about their healthcare. I don't have any fear for them as they will be okay and will be gone long before the piper needs to be paid. I'm concerned somewhat about myself as it will affect me however I'm mostly saddened because it is my responsibility to care for the well being of my children. To me that is my biggest responsibility and I feel we as a nation have failed them. My 22 year old daughter and 14 year old son will carry this debt and be the one responsible for paying it off and will get nothing for it. IMO our generation is SELFISH because we have taken from our children, spent their money and left the debt for them. Me personally, I'll survive. I have a business that I'll make sure never employees more than 50 individuals lest I be taxed more, I'll hold onto that business for at least 5 years because you can write it down that capital gains is going up and when I sell my business the gov't is going to take twice (30%) in the future what it took in the past (15%) so I'll have to hope that it returns to the lower level once Obama is ousted.

I'm also upset with my party. As a registered republican I can't but be pissed that they continue to do stupid crap. They continue to put forth unelectable people. Seriously, the choice was Newt, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman and Mitt. 4 years ago it was McCain and Sarah Palin. So long as these people are the voice of the party, it isn't going anywhere. The GOP could have won with a more charismatic individual like Marco Rubio or Mitch Daniels. Instead they go with these social conservatives who constantly stick their foots in their mouths.

CitizenBBN
11-07-2012, 09:42 AM
I'm also upset with my part. As a registered republican I can't but be pissed that they continue to do stupid crap. They continue to put forth unelectable people. Seriously, the choice was Newt, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman and Mitt. 4 years ago it was McCain and Sarah Palin. So long as these people are the voice of the party, it isn't going anywhere. The GOP could have won with a more charismatic individual like Marco Rubio or Mitch Daniels. Instead they go with these social conservatives who constantly stick their foots in their mouths.

I think you hit a key, if not the key, point..

The people who decide these elections, the undecided middle who have no ideological framework of any kind, vote for the man as much as anything. There are studies that correlate height to success in politics as much as their actual policies.

Obama is good looking, slick, generally sounds good and as you said is a pure politician so he doesn't make many missteps b/c like a good politician he never says much of anything so there's nothing to hang on him.

The GOP could make this a much better fight if they'd re-examine their whole structure and even ideology in some areas. I doubt they will, they'll just hope more appealing guys come along. Same things the Democrats did when they were losing by putting up weak candidates.

Darrell KSR
11-07-2012, 09:54 AM
I'm also upset with my part. As a registered republican I can't but be pissed that they continue to do stupid crap. They continue to put forth unelectable people. Seriously, the choice was Newt, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman and Mitt. 4 years ago it was McCain and Sarah Palin. So long as these people are the voice of the party, it isn't going anywhere. The GOP could have won with a more charismatic individual like Marco Rubio or Mitch Daniels. Instead they go with these social conservatives who constantly stick their foots in their mouths.

You said what I agree with, 100%, although I think Mitt Romney would have been very good. He waffled too much, and had a couple of gaffes that cost him, where the margin for error was razor thin, and it made him unelectable. His identity, to some, vacillated between a moderate and a conservative. I would've voted for a moderate Bill Clinton over any candidate that we had to offer in a heartbeat (personal issues aside).

I have a lot more faith in America than many in this thread, though. We are a nation of resiliency. Eight years of any president will not ruin the country. There are policies that will be in place, and some of them will be good, even if most are not. The ones that are not we will deal with, fix, repair, tolerate, absorb, and morph into new policies in four more years.

I know the economy is bad; I feel it in my business regularly. I have good barometers that tell me when it is good and when it is not that are reliable. I do not expect that to be fixed overnight, but I do think it will be fixed; not due to anything President Obama does or doesn't do, but due to corrections the free market makes itself over time.

Maybe I'm more optimistic than some because I need to be. I need to have a country that is as great as the country I grew up with for my children, and my children's children, when it comes time for that. I need to believe, so I will believe.

Doc
11-07-2012, 11:29 AM
I'm not far anything. I think a far right conservative is as bad as a far left liberal. I'd have as hard a time voting for Pat Robertson as I would Barack Obama. I hear many in the GOP bitching about "RINO"s (Republican in name only) because they don't get up on a soap box over social issues like abortion and gay rights. "I'll never vote for a RINO" crap, or "I'll vote 3rd party before I vote for a RINO" is stupid. Government should not be about social issues. Those are personal issues and choices (however I'll say I understand why folks are "anti-abortion" and I understand the stance that it isn't a personal choice). But when you constantly put unlikable people out there who hold views that are not mainstream, what do you expect? Good lord, every time Sarah Palin opens her mouth I cringe. Ditto for Michelle Bachman. Rick Perry typically came off looking more confused than Mr MaGoo. Rick Santorum is seen as some type of bible thumper that would make you think of a Jehovah's Witness! Throw in captain crochity Newt and you have nothing anybody wants. And lets not forget about Ron Paul who while he has some good ideas they were hardly appealing to the masses. The only positive was Paul Ryan. Unless you bring somebody who is electable, you won't win.

CatinIL
11-07-2012, 11:44 AM
I'm truly worried about the future of our country, and that future is right around the corner. The elections in 2014/2016 might be this country's last chance to avoid turning into a Euro country. :(

Catonahottinroof
11-07-2012, 11:51 AM
That Euro form of government is working so well....said no one ever.

jazyd
11-07-2012, 11:53 AM
I now know what it must be like to spend the night with an ugly whore, you know you got screwed and feel really bad the next morning.

jazyd
11-07-2012, 12:30 PM
Darrell, I wish I had your faith in this country. The democrat party has totally divided us, rich to poor supposedly, black to white, hispanics to white, liberal to conservative, social issues, economy, free handouts. The democrat party did everything in their power to keep that divide going and when you have the majority of the media in your hip pocket you will win that arguement every time.
Look who swung the vote, women and hispanics. We knew where the black vote would go, couldn't do anything about that. But women, my gosh do they ever think...speaking in terms of the whole and not the few that truly do. What has the democrat party done for hispanics other than allow them so much for free and open the borders, oh wait more welfare, got it. women dont' like confrotation and the democrats played to that. There is no war on women, although right now I dont' like many of them. :)
Why didn't the party use more women on the stump in different states, where was the hispanic lady who gave such a great speech at athe convention, the black lady running for the house at the convention, why just use the same old white men that have been around for some time. Why didn't Romney emphasise where his dad ccame from more, why didn't Jeb Bush go after hispanics more with a hispanic wife, why didn't they use George Bush for the hispanic vote where he did so well.
I like Ryan, but he isn't a great speaker that just reves up the crowd.



You said what I agree with, 100%, although I think Mitt Romney would have been very good. He waffled too much, and had a couple of gaffes that cost him, where the margin for error was razor thin, and it made him unelectable. His identity, to some, vacillated between a moderate and a conservative. I would've voted for a moderate Bill Clinton over any candidate that we had to offer in a heartbeat (personal issues aside).

I have a lot more faith in America than many in this thread, though. We are a nation of resiliency. Eight years of any president will not ruin the country. There are policies that will be in place, and some of them will be good, even if most are not. The ones that are not we will deal with, fix, repair, tolerate, absorb, and morph into new policies in four more years.

I know the economy is bad; I feel it in my business regularly. I have good barometers that tell me when it is good and when it is not that are reliable. I do not expect that to be fixed overnight, but I do think it will be fixed; not due to anything President Obama does or doesn't do, but due to corrections the free market makes itself over time.

Maybe I'm more optimistic than some because I need to be. I need to have a country that is as great as the country I grew up with for my children, and my children's children, when it comes time for that. I need to believe, so I will believe.

CattyWampus
11-07-2012, 01:12 PM
But when you constantly put unlikable people out there who hold views that are not mainstream, what do you expect? Good lord, every time Sarah Palin opens her mouth I cringe.

I'm just curious. Are you talking about what Palin says or how she says it? Do you consider her a far right conservative? If so, what are her positions that make her far right? What views does she have that aren't mainstream? How would any of her record of governance be considered far right? As a Tea Partier, I am somewhat testy when people use the tag "far right". I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm sincerely interested in understanding your definition of "far right" or "out of the mainstream".

cattails
11-07-2012, 01:17 PM
Some things to think about, I won't make a statement until the end, but I'll ask in question form and you fill in the blanks: When our 2 old supreme court members are replaced by Obama how liberal can this country become? With a liberal SC they take away our guns, what states, what people will abide with this? What will be the result of confrontations with states and people that will not give up their guns? At this point will states declare their independence rather than abide with gun control? Do you think the NRA will stand by and let this happen? As big as the NRA is, can you see them getting organized to combat this agenda? When the money runs out and the people on welfare/support are not getting what they are used to getting will they take to the streets? When retirement funds go under (SS included) what will people that depend on this do? When so many are told by this new board that they can't have medical treatment to save their lives but will be made comfortable while they die, how do you think this will go over? When we have a shortage of doctors and others in the medical field and there is no one to help you or you are put on a waiting list (this is Canada all over and it is already happening in our country) how will this be accepted? When these new taxes take effect how will people adjust with less? Yes this all paints a dark hole if you answer right, but the truth is it is happening right before our eyes and what looks like crazy talk is a real threat. What can we do about it? Not really anything, it is a snowball that has been going down hill for some time. Obama did not start this problem but he has more than enabled it to continue, in fact he has added more than anyone to put this out of control. When he is finished (unless he changes course) the word "United" should be taken out of the name of this country. And all this happened right before our eyes.

CattyWampus
11-07-2012, 01:24 PM
The GOP could have won with a more charismatic individual like Marco Rubio or Mitch Daniels. Instead they go with these social conservatives who constantly stick their foots in their mouths.

Mitch Daniels, charismatic? Surely you jest. Don't get me wrong, I think Mitch is a great executive, but charisma is not one of his features. As far as Rubio goes, he was a two year senator who could give a good speech. Once he was elected to the Senate, many in the GOP crowned him the heir-apparent. It was if they were saying, "Hey, he's a clean articulate Hispanic." He may turn out to be a terrific candidate at some point, but I'd rather give him the opportunity to prove he's not just another Bushie.

The GOP's problem is not necessarily the player. It's that they continue to let the Dems and the media frame the issues and to pigeon-hole the candidate, whoever it might be.

CattyWampus
11-07-2012, 01:29 PM
Some things to think about, I won't make a statement until the end, but I'll ask in question form and you fill in the blanks: When our 2 old supreme court members are replaced by Obama how liberal can this country become? With a liberal SC they take away our guns, what states, what people will abide with this? What will be the result of confrontations with states and people that will not give up their guns? At this point will states declare their independence rather than abide with gun control? Do you think the NRA will stand by and let this happen? As big as the NRA is, can you see them getting organized to combat this agenda? When the money runs out and the people on welfare/support are not getting what they are used to getting will they take to the streets? When retirement funds go under (SS included) what will people that depend on this do? When so many are told by this new board that they can't have medical treatment to save their lives but will be made comfortable while they die, how do you think this will go over? When we have a shortage of doctors and others in the medical field and there is no one to help you or you are put on a waiting list (this is Canada all over and it is already happening in our country) how will this be accepted? When these new taxes take effect how will people adjust with less? Yes this all paints a dark hole if you answer right, but the truth is it is happening right before our eyes and what looks like crazy talk is a real threat. What can we do about it? Not really anything, it is a snowball that has been going down hill for some time. Obama did not start this problem but he has more than enabled it to continue, in fact he has added more than anyone to put this out of control. When he is finished (unless he changes course) the word "United" should be taken out of the name of this country. And all this happened right before our eyes.

1025

CattyWampus
11-07-2012, 01:41 PM
Good tweet from @michaelbeck:

Lady just made a good analogy on the @WilliamJBennett show- "This election was the OJ jury on a larger scale."

CattyWampus
11-07-2012, 02:00 PM
This is what losing looks like in the USA:

1026

Doc
11-07-2012, 07:20 PM
I'm just curious. Are you talking about what Palin says or how she says it? Do you consider her a far right conservative? If so, what are her positions that make her far right? What views does she have that aren't mainstream? How would any of her record of governance be considered far right? As a Tea Partier, I am somewhat testy when people use the tag "far right". I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm sincerely interested in understanding your definition of "far right" or "out of the mainstream".

The golly gees shuck routine gets old quick. She sounds like a moron. I think most of her governance is fine but she fails miserably to articulate them in a serious manner. In politics, how you communicate is as important as what you communicate. She communicates as a ditz or "air head". What she says takes a back seat because its always "up here in Alaska" or "I'm a maverick" or "death panels" or "Baaahrack Obaama". It like watching a movie meld of Groundhog Day and Fargo.... only more annoying.

I'm very much a fiscal conservative and a social "I don't give a rats ass". I could care less if you're gay and could care less who you spend your life with. I believe your decision to use contraception is your decision (and one you should pay for). Abortion is between you and your religion. Smoke pot if you want so long as you don't bother me with it. So while you consider yourself a "tea partier", I see that movement as one of fiscal responsibility and getting the gov't out of ones' daily lives. Hence I would consider myself along those lines.

jazyd
11-07-2012, 10:09 PM
Doc, I think Palin has come a long way in the last 4 years, she was thrown into something she was not ready for and she talks the way she lives, she certainly does not come off as pretending to be some elite butt hole. For me she is refreshing because she is honest, but she has gotten much better on her knowledge of what is going on.



The golly gees shuck routine gets old quick. She sounds like a moron. I think most of her governance is fine but she fails miserably to articulate them in a serious manner. In politics, how you communicate is as important as what you communicate. She communicates as a ditz or "air head". What she says takes a back seat because its always "up here in Alaska" or "I'm a maverick" or "death panels" or "Baaahrack Obaama". It like watching a movie meld of Groundhog Day and Fargo.... only more annoying.

I'm very much a fiscal conservative and a social "I don't give a rats ass". I could care less if you're gay and could care less who you spend your life with. I believe your decision to use contraception is your decision (and one you should pay for). Abortion is between you and your religion. Smoke pot if you want so long as you don't bother me with it. So while you consider yourself a "tea partier", I see that movement as one of fiscal responsibility and getting the gov't out of ones' daily lives. Hence I would consider myself along those lines.

jazyd
11-07-2012, 10:22 PM
Carl, like some many things that have happened, we allowd it to happen right before our eyes, we are the only ones to blame. We have allowed our universites and colleges to become so liberal and fill our kids brains with mush, just out and out garbage. We have in Chicago a person who bombed the pentagon, tried to blow up the WH, blew up police stations, said he wished he had done more, and where is he, as a big shot in education.

I went to my cardiologist today for my annual heart checkup and we had a good talk about Obamacare and Medicare. those that are over 50 and not yet on medicare and voted for this moron, are in for a rude awakening. If you don't have a specialized doctor in place before Obamacare totally kicks in, you will be in a waiting line if you can get in to a good doctor or you will end up with a bad doctor who will take anyone to be able to get paid. They are going to turn away medicare patients in the near future because of the cuts to the doctors from this $716 billion cut in medicare to pay for medicaid. And Obama and his team were able to sell their idea because Romney and Ryan did a poor job of explaining what is going to happen and how their plan was better in the long run. They kept saying a $716 billion cut but never really explained exactly what is going to happen. I am fortunate in that I am a current patient of some of the best doctors in our area in the fields I need, as long as they don't give up under this new health code, but there will be many others a tad younger than I am that are going to be very unhappy.

As far as the supreme court and guns, you want to see riots, wait until that happens and it will. Take Iowa as a state for example, I always thought of that state as a good solid Christian midwest group of people, outdoorsmen who loved to hunt and fish, farmers, salt of the earth. They now for the last few elections keep voting liberal democrat, the very group that wants to take away so much of what Iowa used to be.

The big riots though will come when the tank runs dry and it will, we cannot continue to spend so much more than we take in, and when those who produce nothing and want everything for free and have been getting it are cut off, you better hope you still have some of those guns and lots of ammo to protect your family





Some things to think about, I won't make a statement until the end, but I'll ask in question form and you fill in the blanks: When our 2 old supreme court members are replaced by Obama how liberal can this country become? With a liberal SC they take away our guns, what states, what people will abide with this? What will be the result of confrontations with states and people that will not give up their guns? At this point will states declare their independence rather than abide with gun control? Do you think the NRA will stand by and let this happen? As big as the NRA is, can you see them getting organized to combat this agenda? When the money runs out and the people on welfare/support are not getting what they are used to getting will they take to the streets? When retirement funds go under (SS included) what will people that depend on this do? When so many are told by this new board that they can't have medical treatment to save their lives but will be made comfortable while they die, how do you think this will go over? When we have a shortage of doctors and others in the medical field and there is no one to help you or you are put on a waiting list (this is Canada all over and it is already happening in our country) how will this be accepted? When these new taxes take effect how will people adjust with less? Yes this all paints a dark hole if you answer right, but the truth is it is happening right before our eyes and what looks like crazy talk is a real threat. What can we do about it? Not really anything, it is a snowball that has been going down hill for some time. Obama did not start this problem but he has more than enabled it to continue, in fact he has added more than anyone to put this out of control. When he is finished (unless he changes course) the word "United" should be taken out of the name of this country. And all this happened right before our eyes.

DanISSELisdaman
11-07-2012, 10:27 PM
I have a lot of concerns about what the next four years will bring us. At the top of my list is that Obama may very well be appointing three new Supreme Court justices during his second term. That would mean that five of the nine will be bleeding heart liberals that will be around for at least the next twenty years.

You are absolutely right and if he appoints 3 new judges, the constitution wont be worth the paper it's written on.

jazyd
11-07-2012, 10:31 PM
I listend to Frant Luntz today on the Hannity show, and he is someone I like to listen to. He said based on the vote that people didn't vote on how they think, they voted on how they feel, that we have gone over the tipping point where the wagon is full and the ones pulling the wagon has gotten too small.
He also made a comment that I thought was dead on. He told Hannity that conservatives do not have to give up their principles, that we have the answers but the leaderhip does not do a good job of listening to the people, nor do they do a good job of explaining their ideas but rather they lecture to the people. I listened to him, and felt like he was talking about my wife because she had said several times over the last few weeks that she didn't feel like Romney did a good job of explaining any of his ideas. I thought he did but I paid more attention, but there are many like her.

If the GOP is to survive, they are going to have to change their way of doing, not give up their principles because if they do that then they become democrats who have no principles.

Britt Hume said last night that we have been fooled into thinking the country was center right, because of the number of so called moderates. He said it is now obvious that many of those 'moderates' are actually liberals who will just not admit what they are when polled.

The voting block the democrats have built is going to be very to defeat in the future unless the gop does some real soul searching on how to reach them. Getting a few ethnic women on stage during their convention isn't going to cut it. Gays, hispanics...now 10% of the voting block...single women, blacks, unions, true liberals, freeloaders, young adults..well young anyway...big % right there. This group does not care about the economy, jobs, foreign policy, deficits, debt, they only care about themselves and what can they get from the government.

cattails
11-07-2012, 10:53 PM
Carl, like some many things that have happened, we allowd it to happen right before our eyes, we are the only ones to blame. We have allowed our universites and colleges to become so liberal and fill our kids brains with mush, just out and out garbage. We have in Chicago a person who bombed the pentagon, tried to blow up the WH, blew up police stations, said he wished he had done more, and where is he, as a big shot in education.

I went to my cardiologist today for my annual heart checkup and we had a good talk about Obamacare and Medicare. those that are over 50 and not yet on medicare and voted for this moron, are in for a rude awakening. If you don't have a specialized doctor in place before Obamacare totally kicks in, you will be in a waiting line if you can get in to a good doctor or you will end up with a bad doctor who will take anyone to be able to get paid. They are going to turn away medicare patients in the near future because of the cuts to the doctors from this $716 billion cut in medicare to pay for medicaid. And Obama and his team were able to sell their idea because Romney and Ryan did a poor job of explaining what is going to happen and how their plan was better in the long run. They kept saying a $716 billion cut but never really explained exactly what is going to happen. I am fortunate in that I am a current patient of some of the best doctors in our area in the fields I need, as long as they don't give up under this new health code, but there will be many others a tad younger than I am that are going to be very unhappy.

As far as the supreme court and guns, you want to see riots, wait until that happens and it will. Take Iowa as a state for example, I always thought of that state as a good solid Christian midwest group of people, outdoorsmen who loved to hunt and fish, farmers, salt of the earth. They now for the last few elections keep voting liberal democrat, the very group that wants to take away so much of what Iowa used to be.

The big riots though will come when the tank runs dry and it will, we cannot continue to spend so much more than we take in, and when those who produce nothing and want everything for free and have been getting it are cut off, you better hope you still have some of those guns and lots of ammo to protect your family



You must be crazy said the man with his head in the sand. It's all right there to see.

cattails
11-07-2012, 10:53 PM
You are absolutely right and if he appoints 3 new judges, the constitution wont be worth the paper it's written on.

Scary thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jazyd
11-08-2012, 12:31 PM
Do you spell your name Carlos?


Scary thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CitizenBBN
11-08-2012, 01:33 PM
He only has to appoint one for things to turn grim. Numerous key decisions of late have been 5-4. Drop one conservative and put an Obama judge on there and it's 4-5 and all these cases get re-tested.

It's esp. true for 2nd Amendment cases. Heller was 5-4, and one of the 4 has gone on record saying she sees the 2nd as being about state militias and not applying to individuals at all. I guess that means it protects the state's "right" to a National Guard.

Other quotes include saying if we were forming a government today she wouldn't look to the Constitution as a guide.

The most dangerous thing we can do as Americans IMO is think we know more than the Founders. When someone who thinks that way is sitting on the Supreme Court we're in the worst possible situation for our future, and Obama could end up putting a majority of them on the Court.

This election wasn't about the policies for me. It was about SCOTUS. That's where the fundamentals of the direction of the country are decided b/c that's where it goes when the two sides end up when it can't be settled politically. Look at Obamacare. one vote different and the whole thing is in question or scrapped.

One justice determined American health care. One has determined the 2nd Amendment the last 10 years. Obama could appoint as many as 3. A nightmare scenario I foresee making the Warren Court look conservative.

My hope now is that the 5 can hold out 4 years and a conservative can get in the White House. Sans that I hope the GOP in the senate goes all in to stop liberal appointments, including filibustering till the next election if necessary. It has only happened with Fortas, a sitting Justice LBJ nominated to be Chief Justice to replace Warren. LBJ withdrew the nomination. Obama won't. They'll have to filibuster and not just threaten it. They wont' get enough GOP Senators to hold out.

So light a candle for the 5 and hope they can stay on the Court long enough to not let Obama determine the ideological course of the nation for decades to come.

blueboss
11-08-2012, 09:55 PM
I got bent over twice yesterday..

1) I woke to the news of Obama staying
2) My first colonoscopy

The good news is the colonoscopy went fine.

cattails
11-08-2012, 10:44 PM
Do you spell your name Carlos?

AKA Carlos, AKA Rocky, AKA Hardrock, AKA Cattails, real name Carl :happy0001:, new plan, move to Mexico, denounce my US citizenship, become citizen of Mexico, come back to US and live off government as Carlos. :4chsmu1:

cattails
11-08-2012, 10:52 PM
I got bent over twice yesterday..

1) I woke to the news of Obama staying
2) My first colonoscopy

The good news is the colonoscopy went fine.

The colonoscopy was the best part of your day. One of my best golf buddies is a general surgeon, we've played for years, always told me he would have my ass one of these days. Well he's had it a few time now and getting ready for another one. On a serious note it is one of the most important things you can do when you turn 50.

jazyd
11-08-2012, 11:19 PM
glad you got it done.

Now, how is everything with the back? I know the birds you killed didn't hurt picking them up. :)



I got bent over twice yesterday..

1) I woke to the news of Obama staying
2) My first colonoscopy

The good news is the colonoscopy went fine.

BigBlueBrock
11-09-2012, 03:02 AM
This is what losing looks like in the USA:

1026

This is what winning looks like:

http://images.bluegartr.com/bucket/gallery/8eb2f24df406f3e696b42d47fea5abda.PNG

Catonahottinroof
11-09-2012, 06:49 AM
I wonder what portion of those with college degrees understand the word "unsustainable" in reference to the federal government's spending? For grins and giggles they will be introduced to the word austerity in a decade or so too.

BigBlueBrock
11-09-2012, 07:00 AM
I wonder what portion of those with college degrees understand the word "unsustainable" in reference to the federal government's spending? For grins and giggles they will be introduced to the word austerity in a decade or so too.

Why wait a decade for austerity? You can look to several European countries for how well austerity measures work during times of deep economic recession (hint: they don't). As for your initial question, I'd wager a decent percentage of the college educated understand how economics works better than anyone on this board. At the very least, all the economics majors do. ;)

ukcatlvr
11-09-2012, 09:19 AM
AKA Carlos, AKA Rocky, AKA Hardrock, AKA Cattails, real name Carl :happy0001:, new plan, move to Mexico, denounce my US citizenship, become citizen of Mexico, come back to US and live off government as Carlos. :4chsmu1:

I said the same thing to a few friends yesterday.

jazyd
11-09-2012, 09:54 AM
I would be willing to bet they don't understand US economics and what it takes to run this country correctly and in many cases their own households based on all of them I see lying in the streets on Wall Street, San Fran, Chicago, and I would put Cititzen up against any of them and he would win a big majority of the time, he would have them so tied up in trying to figure out what he was saying they would look like idiots when he was done with them. Throw in DAllen, cattails, Darrell, Darryl, Mick, dan, doc, cathot, and a few others and I would take my chances with my money.
I have been around alot of young men college educated up to the age of 40 and a vast majority of them are more interested in what app they have than what is going on in this country and what is about to hit us. Between their apps and their video games, they haven't grown up yet, they may do well at their work, but once they leave their brains go into neutral and it is why we lost the last two elections because they are too much mush brains taught by their ultra liberal profs to think and they are all about ideology and not the real world.



Why wait a decade for austerity? You can look to several European countries for how well austerity measures work during times of deep economic recession (hint: they don't). As for your initial question, I'd wager a decent percentage of the college educated understand how economics works better than anyone on this board. At the very least, all the economics majors do. ;)

CattyWampus
11-09-2012, 10:09 AM
As for your initial question, I'd wager a decent percentage of the college educated understand how economics works better than anyone on this board. At the very least, all the economics majors do. ;)

I guess that's why so many college graduates of today end up with huge student loan debt, no real marketable skills and a degree that is pretty much worthless. Yeah, they show a real knowledge of economics. NOT!

Catonahottinroof
11-09-2012, 10:22 AM
I guess that's why so many college graduates of today end up with huge student loan debt, no real marketable skills and a degree that is pretty much worthless. Yeah, they show a real knowledge of economics. NOT!

Exactly....

cattails
11-09-2012, 10:39 AM
I said the same thing to a few friends yesterday.

Hey it's a great plan, join the worthless that live off the working.

cattails
11-09-2012, 10:48 AM
I would be willing to bet they don't understand US economics and what it takes to run this country correctly and in many cases their own households based on all of them I see lying in the streets on Wall Street, San Fran, Chicago, and I would put Cititzen up against any of them and he would win a big majority of the time, he would have them so tied up in trying to figure out what he was saying they would look like idiots when he was done with them. Throw in DAllen, cattails, Darrell, Darryl, Mick, dan, doc, cathot, and a few others and I would take my chances with my money.
I have been around alot of young men college educated up to the age of 40 and a vast majority of them are more interested in what app they have than what is going on in this country and what is about to hit us. Between their apps and their video games, they haven't grown up yet, they may do well at their work, but once they leave their brains go into neutral and it is why we lost the last two elections because they are too much mush brains taught by their ultra liberal profs to think and they are all about ideology and not the real world.


Skip my daughter is highly educated from University of Chicago, masters working on PHD, travels the world doing research. Can't see the forest for the trees, die hard Obama, we can't talk about it, like talking to a wall. They live in Lake Shore, both highly educated and blind to what is really happening. Plan to visit during the up coming holiday and election is off the table. Just wait tile they get the new tax structure.

CitizenBBN
11-09-2012, 10:56 AM
Why wait a decade for austerity? You can look to several European countries for how well austerity measures work during times of deep economic recession (hint: they don't). As for your initial question, I'd wager a decent percentage of the college educated understand how economics works better than anyone on this board. At the very least, all the economics majors do. ;)

Actually, no.

Sadly in your chart there's no way to measure experience. Formal education is easily measured, but the kind of education that teaches common sense has no yardstick.

I'm "highly educated" in a formal sense, so I know of which I speak, and I knew lots of people who graduated with me who weren't nearly as "smart" as people who never went to college when it came to political economy. The reason is they had no experience.

In the theoretical world all the leftist theories sound great. That's why they survive in the ivory towers of academia. They don't fall apart until they hit the real world, where they destroy the very fabric of supplying the needs of the consumer that built this nation. People who work doing that every day know that truth, even when not at an "educated" level where they can show the micro economics supporting it.

Of course "educated" means a lot of different things. First let's peel off the Liberal Arts as any help with understanding political economy. Fine majors, nothing against any of it, but just b/c you know literature or a foreign language doesn't mean you understand more about how the free market works than a self employed plumber or a third generation farmer.

We can also eliminate the sciences and mathematics. While they create a certain discipline through the scientific method, since they dont' study and test economic things it's not particularly helpful in that regard. Maybe a little in conditioning a way of thinking, but not much and certainly not more than growing up in the family business.

Even within economics let's just whack out macro economists. Some have it right, most don't, and if you ask 10 of them a question you'll get 14 answers. Macro economics outside of the Chicago school and rational expectations takes a backward approach, ignoring the individual incentive based decision making of each person in the economy that together make up the macro behavior and instead trying to look at the macro and define it without the micro that composes it.

The best part is I get to say these things b/c I in fact studied economics. I've studied macro with a Fed Reserve board member, political economy with the chairman of Reagan's council of economic advisors. So this isn't just me dismissing the educated, this is me knowing my mother who brought herself up by her bootstraps knows 10x as much about how the economy really works than 90% of the people in those classes. She can't tell you about the elasticity of demand in formal terms, but she understands it intuitively and uses the principle of it in her job regularly.

However, the most important part is this:

The notion that formal education is some indicator of understanding of political economy or especially the true nature of the American Experiment is totally unsupported. The American Experiment is based on self reliance and individual liberty. That isn't something one is educated to understand or desire. One either believes in those things or one doesn't.

America wasn't founded with the goal of being the wealthiest nation, or even the healthiest, or anything else. It was founded to be the most free, the nation with the most individual liberty.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

You either believe that liberty cannot be compromised for security, economic or otherwise, or you don't. Formal education has nothing to do with it.

It's no coincidence the red states are states with high percentages of people who are self reliant and either own or work in small businesses. They are more self reliant and closer to the economic realities of the free market. They are on the front lines of the notion that to survive you have to meet the needs of others by providing a product they want.

No they didn't all go to college, and having done more than my share of going I can safely say they didn't miss a whole lot when it comes to understanding the nature of America or the vision of the Founders or how economics really works. They may not have the formal eloquence to describe it, but they know it far better than someone who has only seen it from a book.

jazyd
11-09-2012, 11:01 AM
Citizen is my man, didn't take long.:)

CitizenBBN
11-09-2012, 11:11 AM
I would be willing to bet they don't understand US economics and what it takes to run this country correctly and in many cases their own households based on all of them I see lying in the streets on Wall Street, San Fran, Chicago, and I would put Cititzen up against any of them and he would win a big majority of the time, he would have them so tied up in trying to figure out what he was saying they would look like idiots when he was done with them. Throw in DAllen, cattails, Darrell, Darryl, Mick, dan, doc, cathot, and a few others and I would take my chances with my money.
I have been around alot of young men college educated up to the age of 40 and a vast majority of them are more interested in what app they have than what is going on in this country and what is about to hit us. Between their apps and their video games, they haven't grown up yet, they may do well at their work, but once they leave their brains go into neutral and it is why we lost the last two elections because they are too much mush brains taught by their ultra liberal profs to think and they are all about ideology and not the real world.

Sadly I'd be disqualified b/c I have a formal economic education and we need people who know this stuff without having had the classes so as to make the case. However I have a list as long as my arm of people I'd be happy to sponsor in such a test.

Of course the reason I really see this the way it is has nothing to do with that education. I could have believed what Lawrence Meyer taught me about macro economics, a devout follower of the IS/LM model. What kept me from it was the understanding I had from outside the classroom.

I grew up with my mother working for herself her whole life, in a family of farmers who by definition work for themselves. I arrived at college already understanding how things really worked b/c I had been taught it in the school of hard knocks.

I took classes with both the regular full time students, 90% of whom had no real work experience, and with the guys coming back to get a degree to be able to move up in their businesses who had decades of real world experience. The difference was beyond stark.

Since I got out I've helped a lot of friends and some family to "formalize" their thoughts for a proposal or RFP or some other written or oral presentation. I'm great at taking it and making it sound sophisticated. I learned it in business school, where so many are in love with the latest buzz words which are the same thing as the old buzz words just sounding different.

What I don't have to do in those cases is teach anyone what they want to say. They know the subject matter, they just need the $5 words I learned in school.

My mother had to get a 2 year associate degree to get some of her designations for real estate, but she knows more about the function of markets than any PhD. I predicted this Fannie Mae disaster to several of my Wall Street friends in detail. They have come back to me and asked me how I knew and I tell them b/c I was smart enough to learn from my mother.

Once you learn to follow the money, to think intuitively in terms of the incentives each party faces, you can see how things will play out. All you have to do is walk through them.

That's no some great feat. Anyone with real experience does it every day. I'm nothing special in that regard. The only difference is that my formal education has allowed me to present it in a formal manner, using the right terms to describe the inescapable truths that need not be taught to anyone who has had to survive by meeting the economic needs of others through supply and demand.

So it sounds better b/c of the $5 words I was taught and b/c I'm idiot enough to work through the steps in a presentation fashion, but no education in the world teaches like the school of hard knocks if you are willing to work hard enough to graduate from it.

Catonahottinroof
11-09-2012, 11:21 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_national_debt_is_beyond_our_comprehension.html #ixzz2BkMNnwaQ

Voting for the status quo equates to little understanding of economics

"We can probably get our minds around a million dollars, but beyond that the numbers become mere abstractions. They simply cease to be real. They are not real, because we really cannot visualize them in a meaningful way. We may have gotten used to hearing about billions, but trillions are really beyond our mental grasp. How many of us, for example, can state the number of zeros in a trillion without having to count them? There are twelve. Now try to mentally visualize the number one trillion. Can you do it? Can you really see a "1" followed by twelve zeros in your mind? I can visualize a billion, but that is only nine zeros: three groups of three. It takes some effort to mentally see four groups of three zeros.

Suppose someone was going to give you $1 every second of every minute, of every hour, of every day without stopping. How long would it take them to give you $1 trillion? Well, let's see. There are 60 seconds in a minute, so that is $60 every minute. Then there are 60 minutes in every hour, so that means we would receive $3,600 every hour. Wow! Even my plumber doesn't charge that much. In a single day, therefore, you would receive $86,400. Most people don't get that much in a year.

Since there are 365¼ days in a year, at the rate of $1 per second the pile of dollar bills would amount to only $31,557,600. Now we are talking real money. That is a lottery jackpot most of us would love to win. But that is still just a number in the low millions.

So, at a dollar a second how long would we have to wait before we could see the pile grow to $1 trillion? Are you ready for the answer? Drum roll, please. It would take over 31,688 years. Even at $10 per second they would still have to have started handing you the money more than a thousand years before the birth of Christ! And even at $100 per second none of us could live long enough to get it all.

At $100 per second we are still only talking about $8,640,000 a day. So in a year you would have accumulated only a little over $3 billion. It will take more than 316 years to reach $1 trillion.

A trillion dollars is so much money that you and I would probably not be able to spend that much for ourselves unless we bought a small country somewhere. Most of us would have trouble trying to spend a billion dollars, and a trillion is a thousand billion. So, if the government wants to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars, it would have to do the equivalent of cutting a billion dollars from each of one thousand government programs.

You could reduce the government's defense expenditures to zero, and you would still not be cutting a trillion dollars from the budget.

The frightening truth is that Congress cannot easily cut $1 trillion from the deficit. The reality is that if you gave a new congressman on his first day on the job a copy of the budget, and told him to cut $10,000 from the budget every second of every day nonstop, his term in Congress would be up before he had cut out $1 trillion.

The numbers are too big, because the federal government is too big."

CitizenBBN
11-09-2012, 11:26 AM
It's absolutely true the numbers are too big, certainly for anyone to understand at a fundamental level. The government is far too big, and has amassed such a debt that it will take decades to cut enough and grow the economy enough to even get it within reason.

We can't even get to a balanced budget, and even that would leave us with every penny of the existing debt and the massive interest payments, we just wouldn't be adding more.

Like someone maxing out their credit cards, we're being eaten alive by the interest. This isn't a hard concept to get, and it's not hard to see how it ends up either.

BigBlueBrock
11-09-2012, 01:26 PM
I would be willing to bet they don't understand US economics and what it takes to run this country correctly and in many cases their own households based on all of them I see lying in the streets on Wall Street, San Fran, Chicago, and I would put Cititzen up against any of them and he would win a big majority of the time, he would have them so tied up in trying to figure out what he was saying they would look like idiots when he was done with them. Throw in DAllen, cattails, Darrell, Darryl, Mick, dan, doc, cathot, and a few others and I would take my chances with my money.
I have been around alot of young men college educated up to the age of 40 and a vast majority of them are more interested in what app they have than what is going on in this country and what is about to hit us. Between their apps and their video games, they haven't grown up yet, they may do well at their work, but once they leave their brains go into neutral and it is why we lost the last two elections because they are too much mush brains taught by their ultra liberal profs to think and they are all about ideology and not the real world.

You'd be wrong. But you're wrong on most things, so that's not a surprise.

blueboss
11-09-2012, 01:51 PM
glad you got it done.

Now, how is everything with the back? I know the birds you killed didn't hurt picking them up. :)

Thanks, all is well with both ends. The neck/back is good to go and we did get after the birds it was a short season this year but we knocked'm down three weekends in a row and then they just dried up. Weird weather I suppose had a lot to do with it.

Now we're going to have to hunker down for the next four years and watch the sheep follow him over the cliff.

BigBlueBrock
11-09-2012, 01:51 PM
Actually, no.

Sadly in your chart there's no way to measure experience. Formal education is easily measured, but the kind of education that teaches common sense has no yardstick.

I'm "highly educated" in a formal sense, so I know of which I speak, and I knew lots of people who graduated with me who weren't nearly as "smart" as people who never went to college when it came to political economy. The reason is they had no experience.

If you have no formal economic education, you cannot pretend to understand how the political economy works. Reading articles from the Cato Institute doesn't make you a competent economist. Understanding how and why systems are connected and how they work to create a modern world economy does.


In the theoretical world all the leftist theories sound great. That's why they survive in the ivory towers of academia. They don't fall apart until they hit the real world, where they destroy the very fabric of supplying the needs of the consumer that built this nation. People who work doing that every day know that truth, even when not at an "educated" level where they can show the micro economics supporting it.

Of course "educated" means a lot of different things. First let's peel off the Liberal Arts as any help with understanding political economy. Fine majors, nothing against any of it, but just b/c you know literature or a foreign language doesn't mean you understand more about how the free market works than a self employed plumber or a third generation farmer.

And Austrian economic theories sound great, too! Problem is too much negative liberty, while it sounds great in theory, is bad for anyone that isn't already rich.

Self-employed plumbers or farmers have not the slightest inkling of how the economy works. They know they provide a service or goods that people want and buy. That's about as far as their "economic" understanding goes, and really that's more business understanding. They don't know how the monetary system works, how the US economy is tied to the economies of the world, or what "world reserve currency" means. Working for yourself doesn't give you an understanding of anything other than how to run a business. Business knowledge =/= economic knowledge.


We can also eliminate the sciences and mathematics. While they create a certain discipline through the scientific method, since they dont' study and test economic things it's not particularly helpful in that regard. Maybe a little in conditioning a way of thinking, but not much and certainly not more than growing up in the family business.

Even within economics let's just whack out macro economists. Some have it right, most don't, and if you ask 10 of them a question you'll get 14 answers. Macro economics outside of the Chicago school and rational expectations takes a backward approach, ignoring the individual incentive based decision making of each person in the economy that together make up the macro behavior and instead trying to look at the macro and define it without the micro that composes it.

[QUOTE]The best part is I get to say these things b/c I in fact studied economics. I've studied macro with a Fed Reserve board member, political economy with the chairman of Reagan's council of economic advisors. So this isn't just me dismissing the educated, this is me knowing my mother who brought herself up by her bootstraps knows 10x as much about how the economy really works than 90% of the people in those classes. She can't tell you about the elasticity of demand in formal terms, but she understands it intuitively and uses the principle of it in her job regularly.

However, the most important part is this:

The notion that formal education is some indicator of understanding of political economy or especially the true nature of the American Experiment is totally unsupported. The American Experiment is based on self reliance and individual liberty. That isn't something one is educated to understand or desire. One either believes in those things or one doesn't.

This is all great, but it doesn't mean anything. You haven't demonstrated anything other than an ability to repeat Cato Institute BS about bootstraps and self-reliance and unpredictability of human behavior, etc. Your mother I'm sure is a great lady and I applaud her for what she's done. But pulling yourself up by your bootstraps doesn't grant you understanding of economics, either. Studying economics gives you an understanding of economics.


America wasn't founded with the goal of being the wealthiest nation, or even the healthiest, or anything else. It was founded to be the most free, the nation with the most individual liberty.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

You either believe that liberty cannot be compromised for security, economic or otherwise, or you don't. Formal education has nothing to do with it.

It's no coincidence the red states are states with high percentages of people who are self reliant and either own or work in small businesses. They are more self reliant and closer to the economic realities of the free market. They are on the front lines of the notion that to survive you have to meet the needs of others by providing a product they want.

No they didn't all go to college, and having done more than my share of going I can safely say they didn't miss a whole lot when it comes to understanding the nature of America or the vision of the Founders or how economics really works. They may not have the formal eloquence to describe it, but they know it far better than someone who has only seen it from a book.

The rest of this is idealistic drivel with little relevance to the original question. It's just a massive distraction. I have no interest in debating what you believe to be the "original intent of the founders" in relation to how this economy works, because it isn't relevant. The founders couldn't foresee the size and scope of the US economy, how it would relate to the world economy, or how big the numbers would get. It's why they didn't specify an economic system, only what the government needed to accomplish.

I did want to address the highlighted statement above because it is insanely hilarious.

Red states are red states because they're full of uneducated, ignorant, poor, white people. Red states take far far far far more money from the federal government for social welfare programs (Social Security/Disability, food stamps, welfare, Medicare/Medicaid) than they give in federal taxes. Red states are red, not because they have a bunch of "self-sufficient go-getters" that just want Uncle Sam outta their pockets, but because the GOP has convinced poor white people that BS like gay marriage and abortion matter more than their own financial security. Oh, they also all believe that MURKA won't be safe until/unless we turn the Middle East into a glass sheet. The most successful places in the country - urban areas - vote Democratic. And it's NOT because those areas are full of people that do nothing but leech off the government taxpayer.

BigBlueBrock
11-09-2012, 01:55 PM
It's absolutely true the numbers are too big, certainly for anyone to understand at a fundamental level. The government is far too big, and has amassed such a debt that it will take decades to cut enough and grow the economy enough to even get it within reason.

We can't even get to a balanced budget, and even that would leave us with every penny of the existing debt and the massive interest payments, we just wouldn't be adding more.

Like someone maxing out their credit cards, we're being eaten alive by the interest. This isn't a hard concept to get, and it's not hard to see how it ends up either.

This is a much better post that asks good questions.

You cannot, in any way, relate US government spending and debt to personal spending and debt. They have almost nothing to do with one another, and the reason is simple - Because you nor I can print our own money to pay our debts.

dan_bgblue
11-09-2012, 02:00 PM
:party0052:

CattyWampus
11-09-2012, 02:05 PM
Studying economics gives you an understanding of economics.

You mean like Paul Krugman, right?


The most successful places in the country - urban areas - vote Democratic. And it's NOT because those areas are full of people that do nothing but leech off the government taxpayer.

Are you talking about those people wanting their Obamaphones, their Obama dollars, are worried about their ladyparts, and don't know who the VP is? Who knew these people were examples of highly educated people?

CattyWampus
11-09-2012, 02:07 PM
:party0052:

I see what you did there.:trink39: I hope that's a super-duper sized box.

BigBlueBrock
11-09-2012, 02:07 PM
You mean like Paul Krugman, right?

Are you talking about those people wanting their Obamaphones, their Obama dollars, are worried about their ladyparts, and don't know who the VP is? Who knew these people were examples of highly educated people?

Do you have a point or are you just having fun spouting conservative talking points like they're at all meaningful?

Catonahottinroof
11-09-2012, 02:56 PM
This is a much better post that asks good questions.

You cannot, in any way, relate US government spending and debt to personal spending and debt. They have almost nothing to do with one another, and the reason is simple - Because you nor I can print our own money to pay our debts.

Spending more money than you take in, or have the ability to pay over time is no different for the government than it is for business or private individual. You are buying in to the too big to fail philosophy. The Fed will fail at this rate of spending within our lifetime. See Spain, Greece and soon to be Italy.

dan_bgblue
11-09-2012, 03:01 PM
Spending more money than you take in, or have the ability to pay over time is no different for the government than it is for business or private individual. You are buying in to the too big to fail philosophy. The Fed will fail at this rate of spending within our lifetime. See Spain, Greece and soon to be Italy and France.

Fixed

Doc
11-09-2012, 03:07 PM
Spending more money than you take in, or have the ability to pay over time is no different for the government than it is for business or private individual. You are buying in to the too big to fail philosophy. The Fed will fail at this rate of spending within our lifetime. See Spain, Greece and soon to be Italy.

Clearly you don't understand "political" economics. Thats different than other kinds of economics. In other types you can't spend more than you take in but with "Political" economics you can. All you need to do is give free **** away to 50.00001% of the voters and you can spend until your heart content. Then when you become overdrawn, you demonize the rich as not paying enough despite them supporting 90% of the federal gov't, or you raise the debt limit so you can borrow from future generations or you just print more money and ignore the fact that all that does is devalue the dollar and make everybody who has money poorer. That other type of economics does not apply because "political" economics means you write the rules as you go along then blame somebody else for your failures.

BigBlueBrock
11-09-2012, 03:14 PM
Spending more money than you take in, or have the ability to pay over time is no different for the government than it is for business or private individual. You are buying in to the too big to fail philosophy. The Fed will fail at this rate of spending within our lifetime. See Spain, Greece and soon to be Italy.
I'm on my phone, so this will be kind of short.

It is very different. The reason it's different is because the fed can print money to meet its debt obligations. And because the US dollar is the world reserve currency, inflation isn't an issue because demand for the dollar will be there for the foreseeable future.

The reason Greece and Spain are different is because they were not on their own currency, they were on the Euro.

CattyWampus
11-09-2012, 03:20 PM
Clearly you don't understand "political" economics. Thats different than other kinds of economics. In other types you can't spend more than you take in but with "Political" economics you can. All you need to do is give free **** away to 50.00001% of the voters and you can spend until your heart content. Then when you become overdrawn, you demonize the rich as not paying enough despite them supporting 90% of the federal gov't, or you raise the debt limit so you can borrow from future generations or you just print more money and ignore the fact that all that does is devalue the dollar and make everybody who has money poorer. That other type of economics does not apply because "political" economics means you write the rules as you go along then blame somebody else for your failures.

Now, that's funny right there, I don't care who you are. :sAng_soapbox:

CattyWampus
11-09-2012, 03:21 PM
.... are you just having fun spouting conservative talking points like they're at all meaningful?

Nope, just pointing out the contradictions of your learned pontifications.For every unedumacated red-stater, there are five uneducated palm-upward nanny-staters.

CitizenBBN
11-09-2012, 03:29 PM
Lord I knew this would take a while. Going to have to break this up in parts for time reasons but I promise I'll keep going till I get to your condescending insults about those who live in red states. Can't wait for that one.

First things first, this comment:

If you have no formal economic education, you cannot pretend to understand how the political economy works. Reading articles from the Cato Institute doesn't make you a competent economist. Understanding how and why systems are connected and how they work to create a modern world economy does.

Given your other reference to the Cato institute and me below I think this is directed at me and not the royal "you". I've tried to avoid listing my specific qualifications in large part b/c I don't think they are significant to the discussion (ad hominem fallacy) and it sounds horribly egotistical even though I don't hold paper degrees in terribly high regard. To be clear I have a Bachelors and MBA from a top 20 university including dual masters concentrations in finance and operations and minors in American history and economics. Numerous grad level classes in both history and economics in addition to the undergraduate minor. So I have more than a "read Cato Institute" level of education in the subject.

That said, I love the notion that unless you've been taught something you can't know it. It's nonsense. I once had a discussion with the Dean about this subject, whether a college diploma meant you knew the subject or if it meant simply you'd taken X classes in the subject. He lamented that while it would be nice to be the former, the truth is all they can certify is the latter. That is to say they can prove they led you to the water, they can't prove you drank it in sufficient quantity to be hydrated.

Many of the great minds had no formal education in their field of excellence. Anecdotally we can list

Henry Knox, a book store owner who became one of the finest artillery and logistical officers in US history, Thomas Edison who had a whopping 3 months total of formal schooling his whole life, Benjamin Franklin who had 2 years of education before he was 10, THomas Paine, a staymaker who stopped school at age 13, this is a long list. Two of the great minds on which American political economy is based.

But let's continue on how education is so key to political economy understanding. 25 of the 55 Delegates did not have college degrees. 30 did and that's a super high number, but remember at that time education prior to college was often not structured but a classical version of "reading of the law",which is how one became an attorney. It was far from "formal" with grades and courses but was a matter of reading a lot. Being well read and able to read in Latin, Greek etc. was considered high education and in fact was the entrance requirement to schools like Harvard. There was no standard education at all.

So in essence what these men did was, to borrow your description, read a lot of Cato Institute papers. They educated themselves through reading, something you dismiss as a preposterous basis for claiming to know a subject. As if learning requires buildings and test scores.

Of course of those 25 we have George Washington, a man who understood this nation perhaps more than any other who had almost no "formal" education. Roger sherman had no formal education beyond grammar school. Alexander Hamilton dropped out of King's College to serve in the Revolutionary Army. Anyway, it's a long list of brilliant men.

Then there's the great industrialists. Andrew Carnegie had no education whatsoever and was a child laborer. John Astor didn't have any. Vanderbilt quit school at age 11. John Gates (who did graduate college but had no education in oil or business or certainly not barbed wire). Jay Gould didn't go to college. JP Morgan's education was formal but bizarre thanks to his father, which included a degree in art history and a near obsessive focus on languages. Certainly no education in the many fields which he would manage as a financier. Rockefeller's "higher education" was a 10 week course in bookkeeping, the equivalent of a vocational school today.

Then some more modern examples, from the computer revolution, America's 2nd great economic step forward after industrialization. Notice how I picked the key economic occurrences in America? Gates, who while educated still dropped out of Harvard without a degree and without much of any formal computer training, or Steve Jobs who dropped out of college after 6 months, Steve Wozniak who dropped out of Berkeley after a year to design the Apple I. The entire computer revolution was mostly driven by college dropouts who had no high and mighty formal education in computers or engineering at all. They were just smart.


So the nation was founded by men with no "formal education", was run by men with no formal education, and the great industrial revolution that made us the most powerful nation on earth was driven by men with no formal education, and the most technologically advanced economic event was driven by men with little or no "formal education".


I could do this all day, but suffice to say there is a huge body of anecdotal evidence to disprove your position. So much so in fact it's hard to maintain your hypothesis that if you "have no formal education in XXXXX you cannot pretend to understand how XXXXX works."

I have shown how specifically in the field of political economy some of the greatest thinkers on the subject had little or no formal education in it, as well as how many of those who most impacted the economic structure of modern America had little formal education.

What this shows is that your inverted hypothesis is false. It is true a formal education can show an understanding of a subject such as economics, but that affirmative cannot be reversed to then say formal education is what defines an understanding of economics and lack of such means you don't understand.

It has to do with the notion of learning versus the notion of sitting in class. You can sit in class and pass them till the end of days and still not have learned what someone with a thirst for learning could learn by spending time in the library without teachers and clocks and core course requirements. For literally 1,000s of years the greatest minds in history learned just that way.

So yes you can teach yourself political economy if you are an honest and dedicated student.

In fact I'll let you in on a secret -- those who have to be fed knowledge and cannot learn on their own and teach themselves as they need are the ones who are at a disadvantage in understanding. If you can go learn to weld b/c you need to weld something you are developing a mind that can grasp new concepts and apply critical thinking and reason and draw from other fields instead of just memorizing.

Formal school is largely memorizing. Doing that makes you no smarter than my computer, and with political economy in academia it's a severe case of garbage in garbage out.

CitizenBBN
11-09-2012, 03:39 PM
It is very different. The reason it's different is because the fed can print money to meet its debt obligations. And because the US dollar is the world reserve currency, inflation isn't an issue because demand for the dollar will be there for the foreseeable future.


Wow. Just wow.

It's OK b/c we can devalue our currency as much as we want and demand for it won't change and it will always be the reserve currency of the world just because.

This view is a big reason why we're in this mess. Currency devaluation is costless. wow.

PS - Greece is lucky it's on the Euro, if it weren't it would be so bad off it would make their current state look like paradise. They'd have complete currency collapse, hyperinflation where it would take a wheelbarrow load to buy bread.

CattyWampus
11-09-2012, 03:43 PM
Lord I knew this would take a while. Going to have to break this up in parts for time reasons but I promise I'll keep going till I get to your condescending insults about those who live in red states. Can't wait for that one.

First things first, this comment:

If you have no formal economic education, you cannot pretend to understand how the political economy works. Reading articles from the Cato Institute doesn't make you a competent economist. Understanding how and why systems are connected and how they work to create a modern world economy does.

Given your other reference to the Cato institute and me below I think this is directed at me and not the royal "you". I've tried to avoid listing my specific qualifications in large part b/c I don't think they are significant to the discussion (ad hominem fallacy) and it sounds horribly egotistical even though I don't hold paper degrees in terribly high regard. To be clear I have a Bachelors and MBA from a top 20 university including dual masters concentrations in finance and operations and minors in American history and economics. Numerous grad level classes in both history and economics in addition to the undergraduate minor. So I have more than a "read Cato Institute" level of education in the subject.

That said, I love the notion that unless you've been taught something you can't know it. It's nonsense. I once had a discussion with the Dean about this subject, whether a college diploma meant you knew the subject or if it meant simply you'd taken X classes in the subject. He lamented that while it would be nice to be the former, the truth is all they can certify is the latter. That is to say they can prove they led you to the water, they can't prove you drank it in sufficient quantity to be hydrated.

Many of the great minds had no formal education in their field of excellence. Anecdotally we can list

Henry Knox, a book store owner who became one of the finest artillery and logistical officers in US history, Thomas Edison who had a whopping 3 months total of formal schooling his whole life, Benjamin Franklin who had 2 years of education before he was 10, THomas Paine, a staymaker who stopped school at age 13, this is a long list. Two of the great minds on which American political economy is based.

But let's continue on how education is so key to political economy understanding. 25 of the 55 Delegates did not have college degrees. 30 did and that's a super high number, but remember at that time education prior to college was often not structured but a classical version of "reading of the law",which is how one became an attorney. It was far from "formal" with grades and courses but was a matter of reading a lot. Being well read and able to read in Latin, Greek etc. was considered high education and in fact was the entrance requirement to schools like Harvard. There was no standard education at all.

So in essence what these men did was, to borrow your description, read a lot of Cato Institute papers. They educated themselves through reading, something you dismiss as a preposterous basis for claiming to know a subject. As if learning requires buildings and test scores.

Of course of those 25 we have George Washington, a man who understood this nation perhaps more than any other who had almost no "formal" education. Roger sherman had no formal education beyond grammar school. Alexander Hamilton dropped out of King's College to serve in the Revolutionary Army. Anyway, it's a long list of brilliant men.

Then there's the great industrialists. Andrew Carnegie had no education whatsoever and was a child laborer. John Astor didn't have any. Vanderbilt quit school at age 11. John Gates (who did graduate college but had no education in oil or business or certainly not barbed wire). Jay Gould didn't go to college. JP Morgan's education was formal but bizarre thanks to his father, which included a degree in art history and a near obsessive focus on languages. Certainly no education in the many fields which he would manage as a financier. Rockefeller's "higher education" was a 10 week course in bookkeeping, the equivalent of a vocational school today.

Then some more modern examples, from the computer revolution, America's 2nd great economic step forward after industrialization. Notice how I picked the key economic occurrences in America? Gates, who while educated still dropped out of Harvard without a degree and without much of any formal computer training, or Steve Jobs who dropped out of college after 6 months, Steve Wozniak who dropped out of Berkeley after a year to design the Apple I. The entire computer revolution was mostly driven by college dropouts who had no high and mighty formal education in computers or engineering at all. They were just smart.


So the nation was founded by men with no "formal education", was run by men with no formal education, and the great industrial revolution that made us the most powerful nation on earth was driven by men with no formal education, and the most technologically advanced economic event was driven by men with little or no "formal education".


I could do this all day, but suffice to say there is a huge body of anecdotal evidence to disprove your position. So much so in fact it's hard to maintain your hypothesis that if you "have no formal education in XXXXX you cannot pretend to understand how XXXXX works."

I have shown how specifically in the field of political economy some of the greatest thinkers on the subject had little or no formal education in it, as well as how many of those who most impacted the economic structure of modern America had little formal education.

What this shows is that your inverted hypothesis is false. It is true a formal education can show an understanding of a subject such as economics, but that affirmative cannot be reversed to then say formal education is what defines an understanding of economics and lack of such means you don't understand.

It has to do with the notion of learning versus the notion of sitting in class. You can sit in class and pass them till the end of days and still not have learned what someone with a thirst for learning could learn by spending time in the library without teachers and clocks and core course requirements. For literally 1,000s of years the greatest minds in history learned just that way.

So yes you can teach yourself political economy if you are an honest and dedicated student.

In fact I'll let you in on a secret -- those who have to be fed knowledge and cannot learn on their own and teach themselves as they need are the ones who are at a disadvantage in understanding. If you can go learn to weld b/c you need to weld something you are developing a mind that can grasp new concepts and apply critical thinking and reason and draw from other fields instead of just memorizing.

Formal school is largely memorizing. Doing that makes you no smarter than my computer, and with political economy in academia it's a severe case of garbage in garbage out.

Forget the buttered popcorn. Bring me a big tub of popcorn with dark chocolate, white chocolate and raspberry drizzles.:happy0030:

CitizenBBN
11-09-2012, 03:46 PM
US debt isn't like consumer debt b/c the US government can just print more money.

I didn't see the first post of this, but between the two this is clearly the statement. And I'm having to defend my formal knowledge of economics? It'll be a while before I can completely formulate a response.

Catonahottinroof
11-09-2012, 05:40 PM
Printing currency to cover debt, devalues currency for that debt and any other spending in the consumer economy. If anything, that situation is worse than the debt itself.

DanISSELisdaman
11-09-2012, 05:42 PM
I'm on my phone, so this will be kind of short.

It is very different. The reason it's different is because the fed can print money to meet its debt obligations. And because the US dollar is the world reserve currency, inflation isn't an issue because demand for the dollar will be there for the foreseeable future.

The reason Greece and Spain are different is because they were not on their own currency, they were on the Euro.

Do you really believe this???? :sCo_huhsign:

BigBlueBrock
11-09-2012, 06:04 PM
Wow. Just wow.

It's OK b/c we can devalue our currency as much as we want and demand for it won't change and it will always be the reserve currency of the world just because.

This view is a big reason why we're in this mess. Currency devaluation is costless. wow.

PS - Greece is lucky it's on the Euro, if it weren't it would be so bad off it would make their current state look like paradise. They'd have complete currency collapse, hyperinflation where it would take a wheelbarrow load to buy bread.

We're not devaluing the currency. That's the point. There is incredible demand - worldwide - for the US dollar. Because EVERYTHING is purchased with US dollars. OPEC prices oil in US dollars. Exports are bought and sold in US dollars. Until demand for the dollar dries up, which is likely to NEVER happen, it is almost impossible for the United States to devalue its currency to the point of hyperinflation. The Fed has been holding interest at or below 0% for years now, and inflation is at barely 3%. We're nowhere near this hyperinflation debt crisis nightmare the GOP wants people to believe we are, and we're not getting closer to it.

You CANNOT relate the debt crises of Greece or Spain to the United States because their currency isn't in demand around the world and neither is the Euro. Hyperinflation of currency occurs when supply vastly outstrips demand. The US isn't anywhere close to that happening because our dollar is used by most of the world to buy and trade internationally.

BigBlueBrock
11-09-2012, 06:11 PM
Printing currency to cover debt, devalues currency for that debt and any other spending in the consumer economy. If anything, that situation is worse than the debt itself.

In most situations, that is true. But because the currency of the United States is used by the worldwide economy as the reserve currency (i.e., countries all over the world buy VAST quantities of it because it is used for global trade pricing, such as oil), it doesn't hold true for us.

Catonahottinroof
11-09-2012, 08:24 PM
I have to disagree Brock. The most shining example I can give you is our neighbor to the north, Canada. 15 years ago the Canadian Dollar was .60 to $1 USD. Now the currencies are exchanged 1 for 1. Canada has debt, to the tune of $600 Billion currently, snowflakes compared to the blizzard that is innudating the US financially. 15 years ago the US national debt was under a trillion dollars, still within reach. that is a 40% devaluation against a less than powerhouse Canadian dollar.
I've traveled overseas in the 90's with General Motors and within the last 2 years for pleasure. US currency used to buy quite a bit overseas. Now US currency is a pitiful exchange to nearly all currencies except the Euro which is absorbing the French, Spanish, Greek and Italian floundering economies. The Euro is drowning faster than the US buck. Paying debt with watered currency is economic suicide. If Germany were to exit the Eurozone the others around it would collapse, or just maybe all of Western Europe will speak German......

kencat
11-10-2012, 01:55 PM
Ben Franklin nailed it. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

dan_bgblue
11-10-2012, 09:07 PM
Ben Franklin nailed it. "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Excellent quote, and 230 years later, it is accurate today, if not more accurate to the state of affairs we face, than it was back then.

HerbTarlek
11-11-2012, 04:09 AM
In most situations, that is true. But because the currency of the United States is used by the worldwide economy as the reserve currency (i.e., countries all over the world buy VAST quantities of it because it is used for global trade pricing, such as oil), it doesn't hold true for us.

You seem quite self assured and smug. What are your bona-fides?

Also, I must say, you're wading quite deeply into the weeds, here. I hope you know what you're doing.

CattyWampus
11-11-2012, 06:22 AM
You seem quite self assured and smug. What are your bona-fides?

Also, I must say, you're wading quite deeply into the weeds, here. I hope you know what you're doing.

I'm glad you posted this. I wanted to post something similar, but since my posting history here is pretty limited, I thought it better to let some one else do it.

CitizenBBN
11-11-2012, 04:10 PM
We're not devaluing the currency. That's the point. There is incredible demand - worldwide - for the US dollar. Because EVERYTHING is purchased with US dollars. OPEC prices oil in US dollars. Exports are bought and sold in US dollars. Until demand for the dollar dries up, which is likely to NEVER happen, it is almost impossible for the United States to devalue its currency to the point of hyperinflation.

This will take forever so I'll hit it in snippets. Will take probably 10 posts to rebut all of the stuff on the list here. Let's look at OPEC, and try to show a timeline of what is really happening.

Post 9/11, currency reserves were already being shifted by key nations in OPEC and othersThis is from 2004, showing "BIS data reveals that OPEC states have reduced their dollar deposits from 75 per cent in the third quarter of 2001 to 61.5 per cent today - a fall of of some 13 percentage points. "
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/6/211118.shtml

In 2007 there was a lot of buzz about decoupling the dollar from OPEC oil transactions.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2004022383_opec19.html
http://gata.org/node/5755

Fortunately Saudi Arabia and other US allies took it off the table in 2007 and have slowed the process since that time: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=avaHAh3PQvUE

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil exporter, rejected a proposal by Iran and Venezuela to discuss the weak dollar at this weekend's OPEC summit in Riyadh, saying it didn't want the U.S. currency to ``collapse.'' Saudi Arabia won't discuss pricing oil in currencies other than the dollar, Saudi Foreign Minister said

By 2008 OPEC's Chairman was publicly saying they could switch to the Euro but will take time: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/02/08/uk-opec-euro-idUKL0882239220080208

Now move forward a year. Re OPEC. Iraq was already on the Euro before the war fwiw, but within a year of the OPEC statement with Iran lobbying for non-dollar transactions, OPEC allowed each nation to denominate as they chose. Iran, the 2nd largest producer, moved away from the dollar in 2009. They quote in Euros.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-4057490.html

More recently we see the move away from dollar reserves, including by Saudi Arabia, continuing. http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=622626

The constantly declining value of the dollar and persisting economic crisis in the US has encouraged many countries to drop the currency in favor of a more stable one.

Saudi Arabia, South Korea, China, Venezuela, Sudan and Russia have taken steps to replace the US dollar in their foreign exchange reserves.

Basically our foreign policy ties is propping up the dollar through OPEC pricing among other things. Sans our military support of certain OPEC nations and Saudi Arabia's desire to spend money to prop up our currency the dollar would already be trashed. That's not limitless demand for the dollar, that's "we need to not be invaded so we'll have to keep using the dollar". Wholly different realities.

There is no such thing as limitless demand, it is always a function of supply and alternatives to satisfy the needs that create that demand. Micro economics 101. There will come a point when the OPEC nations either don't need our military support or lose so much money by tying to the dollar and losing money as the currency devalues between contract and delivery they'll make the move.

Anyway, that covers OPEC currency base. While many OPEC nations still price in dollars, others do not, and there is growing pressure to change to the Euro and even our OPEC allies are quietly hedging away from the dollar in their reserves. Rather than being a statement supporting this endless demand for dollars, it shows a growing potential crisis for the strength of the dollar.

OPEC actions prove the dollar is just the opposite of strong or impervious to devaluation, it shows it's gotten so bad OPEC is looking at other options despite our overwhelming military influence over those nations.

I'll hit the other devaluation stuff next. May be tomorrow.

jazyd
11-11-2012, 11:56 PM
Wampus, dont' ever feel like you can't weigh in, you have done well so far.

this is fun, like watching a guy bring a pop gun to a gunfight.



I'm glad you posted this. I wanted to post something similar, but since my posting history here is pretty limited, I thought it better to let some one else do it.

blueboss
11-12-2012, 08:53 PM
Pull CBBN off of him before he hurts him too badly.

jazyd
11-12-2012, 10:37 PM
nope, always love to see the pain on someone who is rather smug when they go against Citizen. I dont' need an economic course, just tune in here with Citizen plus I get a good history lesson to go with it.



Pull CBBN off of him before he hurts him too badly.

cattails
11-15-2012, 05:58 PM
Wampus, dont' ever feel like you can't weigh in, you have done well so far.

this is fun, like watching a guy bring a pop gun to a gunfight.

That is funny Skip, a friend of mine won a local long drive contest. So he advanced to regional competition and there he got smoked. One of his fellow competitors who had the lastest in long drive equipment, special type shaft, 50" long (legal limit), special head etc, etc., says to my friend "you brought a knife to a gun fight". True story.

jazyd
11-15-2012, 10:24 PM
Never trust a guy with a 'long shaft' LOL



That is funny Skip, a friend of mine won a local long drive contest. So he advanced to regional competition and there he got smoked. One of his fellow competitors who had the lastest in long drive equipment, special type shaft, 50" long (legal limit), special head etc, etc., says to my friend "you brought a knife to a gun fight". True story.

cattails
11-16-2012, 08:07 AM
Never trust a guy with a 'long shaft' LOL

Are we still talking about drivers? Well on second thought there are a few different drivers. :tongue08:

CattyWampus
11-17-2012, 08:44 AM
The answer to why Obama got re-elected.

1164