This is what losing looks like in the USA:
A7HIadMCYAE7eFg.jpg
This is what losing looks like in the USA:
A7HIadMCYAE7eFg.jpg
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.Originally Posted by CattyWampus
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.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
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.
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 are absolutely right and if he appoints 3 new judges, the constitution wont be worth the paper it's written on.
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.
You must be crazy said the man with his head in the sand. It's all right there to see.
Scary thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you spell your name Carlos?
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.
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.
"I have touched all the so-called capitals of basketball, but when it gets down to the short stroke, the only true capital of basketball is in Lexington." AL McGuire
AKA Carlos, AKA Rocky, AKA Hardrock, AKA Cattails, real name Carl, new plan, move to Mexico, denounce my US citizenship, become citizen of Mexico, come back to US and live off government as Carlos.
Last edited by cattails; 11-08-2012 at 10:50 PM.
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.
Last edited by cattails; 11-08-2012 at 10:57 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.
This is what winning looks like:
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.
I said the same thing to a few friends yesterday.AKA Carlos, AKA Rocky, AKA Hardrock, AKA Cattails, real name Carl
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.
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!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.
Exactly....
Hey it's a great plan, join the worthless that live off the working.
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.
Actually, no.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.
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.
Citizen is my man, didn't take long.
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.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...#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."
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.
You'd be wrong. But you're wrong on most things, so that's not a surprise.
Last edited by BigBlueBrock; 11-09-2012 at 01:52 PM.
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.glad you got it done.
Now, how is everything with the back? I know the birds you killed didn't hurt picking them up.
Now we're going to have to hunker down for the next four years and watch the sheep follow him over the cliff.
"I have touched all the so-called capitals of basketball, but when it gets down to the short stroke, the only true capital of basketball is in Lexington." AL McGuire
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks