Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The longest journey begins with a first step. (yes, another one.)

by crowsfoot / May 30, 2004 1:55 PM PDT

Unfortunately (no joy and not of our choosing) the first step in this case begins with taking George and the neocons' shovel away. They have not only disregarded the spirit of compromise, they actually brag about disdaining the logic of it. "Base principle, you know!" There can be no smallest merit worth consideration from the other side of our debates. Only revenge. The hole gets deeper all the time, and some of our finest and bravest will have to pay before we even start to fill it in. Divisiveness is their bread and butter. I keep waiting for a Democrat voice, but none emerges. ??? I think the big shots of both parties are just too busy slurping at the trough and don't want to be disturbed. The deserved part of our arrogance comes from our generosity of the past. Where is generosity now? Even the appearance of listening is taboo for fear of looking weak. "Leadership GOOD!"

I have my own pet peeves, (you may have noticed) but they're far from the only urgent reasons for dethroning these people.

Capital Gains Tax Cuts

Inheritance Tax Cuts

Running up The National Debt to choke Social Security

The Trade Debt

Somebody has got to pay the damned bills! No one can possibly think that things will be getting so much better, as we approach the end of oil, that the debt will be a breeze to pay off. I would like to believe that these people are just that stupid. It's a shame that they really are rational, and the reasons for their actions are completely damned cynical, bullying and vengeful. And where the hell are the Dems? "slurp! slurp!"

It's long past time for spending cuts. Republicans? - That's your baby! Name it. Prove it. Convince us. PLEASE!

And tax deductions keep getting more outrageous and costly all the time. Dems? - Speak! Stimulus, shameless shimulus! All deductions are subsidies. Deduct here - add there. "The hell with tomorrow," eh? But what of the kids? And the negative income tax? Idiots! You are proofing and feeding Republican anger! Even if you Democrat leaders can't DO anything... at least SAY something bold! The ground is broken and we're all going down. These people are not the bumbling incompetents they seem. We know it. They're counting on you wimping out. Now is the time!

And yes, Irene! Tragically, Iraq IS and always has been, "Wag The Dog"! I wish it wasn't so, but the sexed-up "intelligence" of the previous administration was accepted and useful for saber-rattling purposes only. I don't think for a minute that these people believed that the scale or immediacy of the Iraqi threat was anywhere close to what they described. 1441 and our unified voice was working just fine, thank you very much Halliburton and George Bush. I'm sure it was supposed to be a show of decisive leadership with a big Iraqi smooch and parade at the end. After all, how were you supposed to know, eh? Nobody warned you, right?

It isn't SELF-hatred (as so many just love to describe it). It's more that we've had enough of the circular-firing-squad, and "With us or EVIL!" Beg to differ on who exactly "us" is, and where "us" is going.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The longest journey begins with a first step. (yes, another one.)
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The longest journey begins with a first step. (yes, another one.)
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Feel better now Bob? My prescription is 2 aspirin and

a good course in basic economics. You'll feel a lot better. BTW, you really should try to focus on one topic. It's really hard to respond to a shotgun.

Collapse -
In that case, maybe you should have prescribed Epsom Salts. Gets rid of it all. nt
by James Denison / May 30, 2004 2:33 PM PDT

nt

Collapse -
It's really hard not to shotgun.
by crowsfoot / May 30, 2004 3:24 PM PDT

But I know what you mean.

It's all coming out of the years of internal right-wing rap. Nothing stands in the way, nothing gets through. Sununu smiles.

Does you basic economics posit that a high employment rate = high inflation, period?

Collapse -
'high employment rate = high inflation'?
by Kiddpeat / May 31, 2004 7:39 AM PDT

Last I heard, it depends how high the employment rate is. 100% employment will tend to be inflationary because, at that level, there are no workers available to fill new or vacant positions. However, I've also heard recently that employment can be higher than previously thought without triggering inflation. What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Collapse -
Re:'high employment rate = high inflation'?
by crowsfoot / May 31, 2004 9:07 AM PDT

Goes back to Carter v. Reagan and the last round of truly revengeful Republican politics.
see: Milton Friedman The real Mr. Trickle.

(I heard him expouse that the Social Security surplus was, pretty much a fig-Newton of our imagination because by the time it was to be spent, we'd have already passed the time of it's reverence. Supply and demand says that all wealth must be current. There's only so much goods and services available at any one time, and spending savings from another time puts more demand on the system than is rightly there supply-wise. What he DIDN'T say, was that the same logic applies to ALL wealth. But that's just a tiny little nit, ain't it?)

Anyway, the Republicans did their damnest to promote inflation and tilt the market during Carter's administration. He'd promised "Full employment without inflation" and the Reps went ballistic. All they had to do was raise prices, after all. Then Reagan did his "wage & price freeze" thing and he put Quail in charge of the new Competitiveness Council. Bottom line is that the government paid corporations the entire cost and more to move factories out of the county. Labor is a commodity, don't 'ya know, and there just wasn't enough to go around.

Tea in China? I don't know. Fun with keyboard, I guess. Happy

Collapse -
All wealth must be current?
by James Denison / June 1, 2004 4:52 AM PDT

What do you mean by that?

Wealth that existed in a prior time, may also exist in the future time, but not necessarily. Perishable goods of course will disappear over time. On the other side of it some wealth of a prior time can be saved in a manner that doesn't make it "current", such as stored gold, platinum, or silver upon which no script is issued. In that latter, although the wealth exists in the current time, it's been reserved during a prior time for some future use and therefore is not in an economy's circulation either as hard coinage or script, and therefore shouldn't really be looked on as current.

Collapse -
Addressing a few errors.
by James Denison / June 1, 2004 5:29 AM PDT

Quayle, not Quail.

Appointed to Competitiveness Council by GH Bush, not Reagan.

Anyway, the Republicans did their damnest to promote inflation and tilt the market during Carter's administration.

The biggest impetus to inflation was Carter's failed foreign policy which resulted in the Iran Hostage Situation and the Arab Oil Embargo and it's greatly increased energy cost to the nation, the worst sort of inflation.


He'd promised "Full employment without inflation" and the Reps went ballistic. All they had to do was raise prices, after all.

Carter caused the rise in prices due to his failed Middle East policy.

Bottom line is that the government paid corporations the entire cost and more to move factories out of the county.

I'm assuming you meant "country" not "county".

Then Reagan did his "wage & price freeze" thing

Reagan didn't do that. Nixon had a wage and price freeze. Inflation under his administration was much lower than under Carter.

excerpt from Carter link above.

When Jimmy Carter took office in January 1977, 7.4 percent of the work force was unemployed. Carter responded with an ambitious spending program and called for the Federal Reserve (the Fed) to expand the money supply. Within two years inflation had climbed to 13.3 percent.

With inflation getting out of hand, the Federal Reserve Board announced in 1979 that it would fight inflation by restraining the growth of the money supply. Unemployment increased, and interest rates rose to their highest levels in the nation's history. By November 1982 unemployment hit 10.8 percent, the highest since 1940. One out of every five American workers went some time without a job.



Labor is a commodity, don't 'ya know,

No,...it isn't, not since the abolition of slavery, and that's a legal determination by the US government as related in TITLE 15 - CHAPTER 1 - Sec. 17. which I've posted below.

The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws

Collapse -
Re: Addressing a few errors. ( 1 )
by crowsfoot / June 1, 2004 2:25 PM PDT

Well, that ought to teach me to rattle off the top of my head. You're right to call me on some of my ramblings. I don't know how interesting this will be to anybody else, but you DID catch me on a couple things and did some of my homework for me, so... (And a whole NEW batch of flabbergastories for ya', ta' boot! Happy )

***
Appointed to Competitiveness Council by GH Bush, not Reagan.
You got me, but it's GHW Bush, not GH Bush. Forgot the W! - na-na na-na-na

***
How come your Reagan link opens the same World Book - Quayle page linked before?

***
Labor IS a commodity! It's worth rises and falls according to supply and demand. You can trade it for other goods and services. What else can you call it?

Collapse -
Re:Re: Addressing a few errors. ( 1 )
by James Denison / June 1, 2004 4:19 PM PDT

Yes, I did forget the "W" that should have been in GHWB for George Herbert Walker Bush.


As for that Reagan link going to Quayle that is a browser peculiarity with Netscape 7 it seems. I was looking at the Reagan page, but grabbed the link from the location line, which for some reason didn't change, maybe due to using the Tabs function instead of opening in a new page. I don't really know why it did that, but it did it again just now. Odd. Anyway the Reagan link is here. I took it off the button link on the page for history of presidents this time.


Personally I feel like you do that labor is a commodity, but pointed out that it isn't considered so for legal reasons although maybe one could or should for economic theory. If labor legally became a commodity, the Labor Unions (AFL-CIO) would be all over Congress screaming their heads off, so for now the legal fiction about labor not being a commodity continues according to US law to justify the strong preference in past to labor unions and to protect same unions from anti-trust legislation being used against them, no matter how powerful they were in the past. You can probably blame the Democrats for that one.

Collapse -
Re:Addressing a few errors. ( 2 )
by crowsfoot / June 1, 2004 2:36 PM PDT

Me: "Anyway, the Republicans did their damnest to promote inflation and tilt the market during Carter's administration." Okay. A little off the cuff and undocumented.

You: "The biggest impetus to inflation was Carter's failed foreign policy which resulted in the Iran Hostage Situation and the Arab Oil Embargo and it's greatly increased energy cost to the nation, the worst sort of inflation."

True, but Carter's push for full employment was blamed in the campaign. Also, it wasn't Carter who assassinated The Shah's way back into power. AND There are those who believe that the Republicans were twiddling in the middle-east to hurt Carter any way that they could. Who knows for how long?

The Dem - Rep grudge goes back and back. (As we all know. duh!) Some of the tricks have been harmful to the country and even down-right treasonous. And we DO have our spooky kind of imperialism with it's own shadowy history, complete with domestic political manipulations. At times it has been WAY out of control, and recently even encouraged by Republican administrations to be so. It fell to Carter to try to clean it up. I guess what I'm getting at is: what you call "Carter's failed foreign policy which resulted in the Iran Hostage Situation and the Arab Oil Embargo" was quite probably actively sabotaged. Both in it's own time frame AND by past screw-ups.

Reagan was a "true believer" (read: lie, cheat, steal). Now there's Bush, and the spooks are back!

Collapse -
'There are those who believe' -- One can say that about almost any proposition.
by Kiddpeat / June 3, 2004 3:37 AM PDT

As Dan likes to point out, there are those who believe that the earth is flat.

'The Dem - Rep grudge goes back and back.'; quite true. In the 1800s the Dems supported slavery (and their record for most of the period since then isn't very good) while the Republicans under Lincoln freed the slaves.

'Reagan was a "true believer" (read: lie, cheat, steal).'; interesting definition of a 'true believer'. I don't think I've ever seen it before, and it usually doesn't imply any of what you assert. Please supply links which will show that your statements are truthful.

Collapse -
Did you mean factual? :) - nt

.

Collapse -
No, I meant truthful. - nt
by Kiddpeat / June 3, 2004 1:32 PM PDT

but no link right? Sad

Collapse -
Carter didn't need any help from the Republicans. He's a (probably) well
by Kiddpeat / June 1, 2004 2:29 PM PDT

intentioned idiot who's done more damage to the country than anyone has a right to expect. Look at Iran and North Korea for starters.

You still need that economics course. It's one way to avoid embarrassing yourself. 'Supply and demand says that all wealth must be current'. Last I heard, supply and demand are about setting prices. Something like an efficient market being able to produce a price that will match supply and demand. It doesn't say anything about wealth. Wealth is more than likely invested and earning a return. It is not all being committed to current demand for the consumption of goods and services.

Collapse -
Re:Carter didn't need any help from the Republicans. He's a (probably) well

Money is a commodity too. It's worth rises and falls with supply and demand.

I was trying to explain Milton Friedman's spiel about why he thought it was no use for the baby-boomers to pre-pay some of their Social Security into the surplus. He said that when it came time to spend it, there wouldn't be production enough. I suppose he was talking about inflation, though he didn't say so. Seems to me that the same thing could be said about ALL wealth. If everybody wanted to spend all their money all at once, I wouldn't be able to afford a potato chip. Milton Friedman is not a stupid man. He IS, however, damn conniving and not without an agenda. He'll take you round and round the mulberry bush explaining why the thing can NOT be done on the basis of "there is only so much current production and any money saved from before is worthless." Or WORSE, hyper-inflationary. The thing that I see that he skipped over is investment. He had some dang long winding reason why excess Social Security money just could not be invested.

I don't know. Maybe I AM stupid.

Jimmy Carter is a well intentioned idiot, huh? You might ought to put down the hymnal and get out more. Aren't you guys rebreathing your air a bit too much?
Ethics does not = idiot.

Collapse -
Hymnal? Is that the only subject that you think about Bob? I surely don't understand

why you're so obsessed with religion when, I thought, you claimed to be an atheist.

Yes Bob, Jimmy Carter is an idiot. How could anyone observing his performance as President or as statesman(?) conclude otherwise? It took Ronald Reagan and some very strong economic medicine to correct the damage done by Jimmy Carter. We're still suffering from his judicial appointments, and his 'statesmanship' both in his own term and under Clinton.

I think if you want to discuss Friedman, you need to provide some links. You barely understand economics, and you want to interpret Friedman? For example, "there is only so much current production and any money saved from before is worthless." That's pretty much nonsensical. Current production can be purchased by any money whether is comes from savings or current income. If the total amount of money seeking a product is excessive, no matter what the source of the money, the product's price will rise to achieve a match between the supply and demand of that product. Savings are irrelevant. It can just as easily be caused by current income.

Collapse -
I think you are trying not to understand me.

I don't really blame you. I say some things that I know will irritate. But I only pick at inanities as I see them and foibles of denial.

Collapse -
The problem is that King Bush
by gearup / May 30, 2004 11:02 PM PDT

like many monarchs.or wannabees before him is so thick that he thinks his lies are believable!

Collapse -
and his opponents are so thick that they call him a liar without
by Kiddpeat / May 31, 2004 7:40 AM PDT

bothering to prove that he is.

Collapse -
Re:and his opponents are so thick that they call him a liar without

Hi, KP.

"I am a uniter, not a divider." Liar -- QED.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
It is the left which has divided. GW has bent over backward to unite often

to his own disadvantage. He even cooperated with Teddy on an education bill. - QED

Collapse -
Re: Well said, Bob

It seems to be, other opinions now a days, are not respected.

Collapse -
Re:The longest journey begins with a first step. (yes, another one.)
by Evie / May 30, 2004 11:02 PM PDT
The deserved part of our arrogance comes from our generosity of the past. Where is generosity now?

Hmmm....

Through our government, we give 10 billion each year. American companies tack on 3 billion more, American foundations another 3 billion and personal contributions are over 15 billion.

Read the positive info being provided to us by Del, LOTS of generosity in there for the Iraqi people.

Even the Christians you seem to despise and revile give about 3-4 billion/year through our churches and affiliated charities. And YES, we are Americans too and it counts towards the generosity of our country.

We shoulder the lion's share of funding for every global organization beginning with the UN.

If that's not enough for you, *sigh*

Evie Happy
Collapse -
Front page news, everyday.

NOT!

Collapse -
Re:Re:The longest journey begins with a first step.

You're right, of course. We give an awful lot. It's just that the biggest kid in class has got to act a certain way. And it's not being a bully. Where's the need? The whole world was with us after 9/11. Now, Bush's syndrome has brought us to here.

So the Reps are solidly in control. I can't really fault them for changing some things. The problem is THEY DON'T LISTEN TO ANYBODY. They believe their own lies. That's how they got control in the first place and that's how they're governing. They're like a no listening steamroller. There's no generosity of spirit. I think it's a bit of a Neapolitan complex combined with way too much religious certainty and huge chip on the shoulder. Maybe we over here (remember us?), maybe we just didn't believe that yall could really be as up-set as you claimed to be about Clinton's *****. So now we pay?

There are traditions and well thought-out reasons why there has not, until now, been Faith-Based, cabinet level! government departments. (and steamrolled by fiat!) Not the least of the reasons is our diversity. Being the melting-pot nation that our forefathers were so proud of, we have got to try, just that much harder to avoid chopping ourselves up into little emotional enclaves. It's best that we don't have to deal with a "tyranny of the majority" in every conceivable way. In some things we are Americans first. But again, no listening, no introspection - no quarter! "With us or EVIL!"

Collapse -
How does your philosophy inspire generosity?
by Kiddpeat / May 31, 2004 7:56 AM PDT

Christians believe in generosity. That I understand. God commands them to be generous. In fact, that's why the country has a tradition of generosity. However, you think we're rocks or mud. Why should we, more specifically I, be concerned about generosity? It doesn't give me any warm fuzzies. I don't feel better when I give my money away. To your way of thinking, why should we be generous?

Collapse -
PS. I am glad to see you believe in the truth,
by Kiddpeat / May 31, 2004 8:00 AM PDT

although I'm not sure where that fits into your philosophy. You say that Republicans 'believe their own lies', so it is clear that you believe in truth. I guess, like the Christians, it has to be YOUR truth before it is truth.

Collapse -
Ah ha! The old "there is no truth, only facts and opinions" thing. Yep, that's me! There clearly ARE lies, however. :-) Roundy, roundy, round! - nt
by crowsfoot / May 31, 2004 9:21 AM PDT

.

Collapse -
(NT) Waiting ...
by Evie / June 1, 2004 11:00 PM PDT
In reply to: Focus

.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.