http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4555258.story

Originally Posted by millennialX

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4555258.story

They may have a problem if they nominate someone who doesn't want to run (e.g. Bloomberg). There probably really aren't any candidates out there who are willing to run, who are any better and more electable than the major and 3rd party contenders who already exist or will exist.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I didn't consider you bragging. I considered it sharing what you did. And kudos to you for being there with some of our disadvantaged brothers and sisters.

Thank you. I'll take your kudos and wash off Teddy's tomatoes. (cooties)

Originally Posted by Deb C

I didn't consider you bragging. I considered it sharing what you did. And kudos to you for being there with some of our disadvantaged brothers and sisters.

Of course it was bragging, to this Xer anyway. To a boomer, it was like taking a breath. Y'all can't help it.

Eric, I understood what you meant (that the meal was good, not saying you were).

Originally Posted by millennialX

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4555258.story

I posted something about this too. It is an interesting wrinkle, especially if a popular centrist chose to run.

Found my Candidate in Gary Johnson. Screw the GOP.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1161760.html


Time to dust off your Astrological predictions on him, Eric.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Found my Candidate in Gary Johnson. Screw the GOP.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1161760.html


Time to dust off your Astrological predictions on him, Eric.

I already covered him pretty well in my above posts. He is a good potential candidate, though from the economically-conservative side (of course, not acceptable to folks like me). He cannot get any traction for several months to come, because of his Saturn return. But by the Summer he could get the Libertarian nomination; although that isn't worth much and won't make him a contender; and although he might face competition from Ron Paul who is better known. IF Johnson gets better known, by 2016 he could be what Ron Paul is now in the GOP, or better. I wouldn't count him out by then, IF..... Even so, he won't be what many Americans are looking for who want a centrist candidate. Libertarians aren't centrists, but a combination of extremes from each side.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This was more like the troops doing something without said order.

I agree that this is the most probable scenario.

Originally Posted by Odin

Paul want to repeal the Americans With Disabilities Act, that makes him Persona Non Grata to me.

Because his disagreement with the methodology for caring for people with disabilities obviously means he hates you and wants you to suffer.

I do enjoy that anyone who disagrees with Great Society programs (speaking generally about the federal agencies created in the 60s and 70s, not LBJ in particular) is automatically an opponent of everything good that comes out of those programs, rather than just someone who wants to deal with the problems in a different way. Can't be an environmentalist if you think the EPA is bad, you must support illiteracy if you want to abolish the Department of Education, and you want old people to die if you don't support Medicare.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Because his disagreement with the methodology for caring for people with disabilities obviously means he hates you and wants you to suffer.

I do enjoy that anyone who disagrees with Great Society programs (speaking generally about the federal agencies created in the 60s and 70s, not LBJ in particular) is automatically an opponent of everything good that comes out of those programs, rather than just someone who wants to deal with the problems in a different way. Can't be an environmentalist if you think the EPA is bad, you must support illiteracy if you want to abolish the Department of Education, and you want old people to die if you don't support Medicare.

Unfortunately it is true silifi. There have been no other methods proposed that will actually deal with these problems. Other methods proposed by critics like Paul or the Republicans are just variations or re-assertions of the trickle-down theory, which doesn't work. The free market will not take care of these needs; period.

And people who refuse to admit this, I think, are in a way being cruel. Why else would someone willfully refuse to admit the obvious?

If there are other methods that are not free-market based, let's here them. Don't just say that people who disagree with government programs or regulations have "another way" without specifying what that is, and how it is not just more trickle-down economics.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Unfortunately it is true silifi. There have been no other methods proposed that will actually deal with these problems. Other methods proposed by critics like Paul or the Republicans are just variations or re-assertions of the trickle-down theory, which doesn't work. The free market will not take care of these needs; period.

Black and white thinking.

For the environment example, I'd actually go as far to say that the EPA has essentially become a conservative (in terms of preserving the status quo) organization in regards to the environment; it made things better initially, but has since actually slowed progress because it creates limited liability for companies. Whereas before citizens could potentially sue companies for damages (it didn't because the deck was stacked, but I'm talking about theory) they now have limited opportunity to do so because environmental laws protect companies from civil litigation. BP would not exist as a company anymore if the government had not intervened to protect it and reduce its liability.

There are ways in which non-regulatory methods can achieve better results. And it has nothing to do with "trickle-down" economics.

There are also ways in which state-run education is better; a state has better knowledge of where money needs to be spent to improve their own situation, and the federal government mandating control over state schools only creates more problems because it is a one-size-fits-all policy. The same goes for health care. Again, nothing to do with trickle-down. There are definite advantages to decentralized approaches, namely flexibility and precision. But there's also the fact that decentralized systems means that even if the good is dispersed, so is the bad. Centralized systems are one horrible manager away from a total disaster. One horrible manager in a decentralized system means a much smaller disaster.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Black and white thinking.

As the champion trickle-downer said, "there you go agin' !"

When the facts are black and white, not to think in black and white is simply to be in error.

For the environment example, I'd actually go as far to say that the EPA has essentially become a conservative (in terms of preserving the status quo) organization in regards to the environment; it made things better initially, but has since actually slowed progress because it creates limited liability for companies. Whereas before citizens could potentially sue companies for damages (it didn't because the deck was stacked, but I'm talking about theory) they now have limited opportunity to do so because environmental laws protect companies from civil litigation. BP would not exist as a company anymore if the government had not intervened to protect it and reduce its liability.

There are ways in which non-regulatory methods can achieve better results. And it has nothing to do with "trickle-down" economics.

Sorry, it has EVERYTHING to do with trickle-down economics. Non-regulation is trickle-down. Remove restrictions on business and the benefits trickle-down, it says. It does not work, ever. The EPA has less success now because funding has dried up in the era of Reagan/Bush. Environmental laws protect the people from corporate misbehavior. If you remove them, pollution would skyrocket and we'd be back to 1960. These laws allow environmental groups to sue, which is now all that they have to use, since government agencies are staffed by trickle-downers and free marketers (uh, same thing). They do sue successfully often, according to the groups I belong to; much more-often than when we didn't have the laws.

There are also ways in which state-run education is better; a state has better knowledge of where money needs to be spent to improve their own situation, and the federal government mandating control over state schools only creates more problems because it is a one-size-fits-all policy. The same goes for health care. Again, nothing to do with trickle-down. There are definite advantages to decentralized approaches, namely flexibility and precision. But there's also the fact that decentralized systems means that even if the good is dispersed, so is the bad. Centralized systems are one horrible manager away from a total disaster. One horrible manager in a decentralized system means a much smaller disaster.

The alternatives mentioned by opponents are to remove all government-run education and health care. They oppose it on state and federal level, or whatever level you got. They do the same thing on the state level, as in CA.

Education is already state-run. Health care reform at the state level would be good for those states, but what about others?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I already covered him pretty well in my above posts. He is a good potential candidate, though from the economically-conservative side (of course, not acceptable to folks like me). He cannot get any traction for several months to come, because of his Saturn return. But by the Summer he could get the Libertarian nomination; although that isn't worth much and won't make him a contender; and although he might face competition from Ron Paul who is better known. IF Johnson gets better known, by 2016 he could be what Ron Paul is now in the GOP, or better. I wouldn't count him out by then, IF..... Even so, he won't be what many Americans are looking for who want a centrist candidate. Libertarians aren't centrists, but a combination of extremes from each side.

I think if the main pollsters would even place him on the Polls, he would be better known. The GOP establishment and the MSM, want Newt or Mitch to have the opportunity to run against Obama, we have no choice. They are running scared because a Libertarian Candidate may win Iowa. The jackals are out.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Because his disagreement with the methodology for caring for people with disabilities obviously means he hates you and wants you to suffer.

I do enjoy that anyone who disagrees with Great Society programs (speaking generally about the federal agencies created in the 60s and 70s, not LBJ in particular) is automatically an opponent of everything good that comes out of those programs, rather than just someone who wants to deal with the problems in a different way. Can't be an environmentalist if you think the EPA is bad, you must support illiteracy if you want to abolish the Department of Education, and you want old people to die if you don't support Medicare.

Most of the criticism of the AwDA that I have seen are essentially typical moaning about how common-sense things that help disabled people is bad because it cuts into corporate profits. The rest seem to be paranoia from business owners who don't know that pre-1990 buildings are grandfathered in unless they renovated.

And besides, I don't believe in the Libertarian doctrine that businesses should be allowed to discriminate people based on race, gender, handicap, etc.

Originally Posted by Silifi

There are also ways in which state-run education is better; a state has better knowledge of where money needs to be spent to improve their own situation, and the federal government mandating control over state schools only creates more problems because it is a one-size-fits-all policy. The same goes for health care. Again, nothing to do with trickle-down. There are definite advantages to decentralized approaches, namely flexibility and precision. But there's also the fact that decentralized systems means that even if the good is dispersed, so is the bad. Centralized systems are one horrible manager away from a total disaster. One horrible manager in a decentralized system means a much smaller disaster.

This is one thing I've learned from my own personal experience as well--in a completely unrelated context but it's made me since doubt whether micro-managing centralized leadership is good for anything. People do their best work when you give them leave to set their own personal definitions and you remove yourself from always standing over their shoulders. Oh sure be there to give advice and work on your own projects that require use of larger forces and longer plans, but there are multiple projects that smaller groups can do much more efficiently--and more quickly--when people are left to their own devices. Centralized leadership quickly evolves into the manager who won't stop micromanaging every little fucking detail--which leads to a depressing work environment (even in the case where the micro-managing team creates a staff "free zone") as well as inefficiency and unhappy workers. One of the things I've seen is that the micro-managing takes out any input or creativity the worker has to give to the job--which stifles them and makes them unhappy. I've seen it again and again, and I've found taking a step back and giving the people under you some room to breathe, but being available if they need you to consult with or work on the solution to a problem, or address a problem within the group dynamic--is a better policy. I'm still there, but I let them manage themselves and decide their own approaches on things. I then have room to focus on what I'm supposed to focus on--next year's workers; improving techniques--often seeing if little individual tricks the workers develop can be taught to the group as a whole (and letting them teach it themselves); dealing with the paperwork that needs to be done; interacting with any upset customers; and working on improving working conditions as well as giving benefits for the group as well as to workers who do good work individually. As well as look out for people who look promising to eventually replace me or be promoted to higher positions. Of course I'll also admit that this approach works best with a group of workers who know what they're doing and like what they're doing even more. Which are important factors to look for when hiring someone. When training new people I've found that pairing them up with an older & more experienced worker that you trust also works well--in addition to doing larger group training of course. The personal interaction is beneficial for the new workers and makes them generally feel accepted a lot faster, as well as gives room for the "older worker" to show some personal tricks that they might have up their sleeve, which will generally inspire the new worker to take chances themselves and be creative with what they do (it shows them that they're allowed to have thoughts outside the box).

And how did I learn all this? By working at a Boy Scout camp, as an Aquatics Director. The Boomer management at the camp likes to micro-manage too often and they often like to do it through use of a puppet figure by forcing their new Millennial or Xer minion they hire to do it for them to do it. That way the Boomer managing team doesn't get all the negative association, but it is landed onto the minion instead, which burns said minion out in a year or two & gets everybody hating the minion when they were "cool" before--etc. which then is transferred "down the leash" (to use a dog show pun) onto the other directors, who then respond in similar micro-managing ways since that's the example being set for them, which creates a depressing work environment that no one wants to work for, which is why we generally have large staff rollovers. If management instead encouraged and rewarded directors for thinking for themselves and kept a larger "hands off" policy and then other directors didn't mirco-manage things themselves--we'd have a fairly good balance between returning staff & the rollover--like we used to. Instead of the big two year rollover that's been happening since the upper management decided to take on this policy.

That's why I score Left-Libertarian on all those political quizes people love to post here every now and then when they try to proove a certain political viewpoint is dominant or whatever they're trying to do.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I already covered him pretty well in my above posts. He is a good potential candidate, though from the economically-conservative side (of course, not acceptable to folks like me). He cannot get any traction for several months to come, because of his Saturn return. But by the Summer he could get the Libertarian nomination; although that isn't worth much and won't make him a contender; and although he might face competition from Ron Paul who is better known. IF Johnson gets better known, by 2016 he could be what Ron Paul is now in the GOP, or better. I wouldn't count him out by then, IF..... Even so, he won't be what many Americans are looking for who want a centrist candidate. Libertarians aren't centrists, but a combination of extremes from each side.

When we compare a more equal and caring society, like the Nordic countries, to ours, America's centrists are their right leaning representatives. We are the frog in the boiling water when it comes to seeing that we have become a land of inequality and home of the fearful. We are an individualistic society that's willing to sacrifice future and older generations for our excess'.

There is another way as you know. But if this country is to become a more just society, it will be the people who have to adjust their attitudes to force politicians to work for them. So far, that's not happening on a grand scale.

The Occupy movement is the voice crying out for justice for all. Maybe one day our society will actually move to a compassionate center. A center that is in partnership with a caring society.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

This is one thing I've learned from my own personal experience as well--in a completely unrelated context but it's made me since doubt whether micro-managing centralized leadership is good for anything. People do their best work when you give them leave to set their own personal definitions and you remove yourself from always standing over their shoulders. Oh sure be there to give advice and work on your own projects that require use of larger forces and longer plans, but there are multiple projects that smaller groups can do much more efficiently--and more quickly--when people are left to their own devices. Centralized leadership quickly evolves into the manager who won't stop micromanaging every little fucking detail--which leads to a depressing work environment (even in the case where the micro-managing team creates a staff "free zone") as well as inefficiency and unhappy workers. One of the things I've seen is that the micro-managing takes out any input or creativity the worker has to give to the job--which stifles them and makes them unhappy. I've seen it again and again, and I've found taking a step back and giving the people under you some room to breathe, but being available if they need you to consult with or work on the solution to a problem, or address a problem within the group dynamic--is a better policy. I'm still there, but I let them manage themselves and decide their own approaches on things. I then have room to focus on what I'm supposed to focus on--next year's workers; improving techniques--often seeing if little individual tricks the workers develop can be taught to the group as a whole (and letting them teach it themselves); dealing with the paperwork that needs to be done; interacting with any upset customers; and working on improving working conditions as well as giving benefits for the group as well as to workers who do good work individually. As well as look out for people who look promising to eventually replace me or be promoted to higher positions. Of course I'll also admit that this approach works best with a group of workers who know what they're doing and like what they're doing even more. Which are important factors to look for when hiring someone. When training new people I've found that pairing them up with an older & more experienced worker that you trust also works well--in addition to doing larger group training of course. The personal interaction is beneficial for the new workers and makes them generally feel accepted a lot faster, as well as gives room for the "older worker" to show some personal tricks that they might have up their sleeve, which will generally inspire the new worker to take chances themselves and be creative with what they do (it shows them that they're allowed to have thoughts outside the box).

And how did I learn all this? By working at a Boy Scout camp, as an Aquatics Director. The Boomer management at the camp likes to micro-manage too often (and they often like to do it through use of a puppet figure by forcing their new Millennial or Xer minion they hire to do it for them to do it--which burns said minion out in a year or two & gets everybody hating the minion when they were "cool" before--etc.) which then is transferred "down the leash" (to use a dog show pun) onto the other directors, who then respond in similar micro-managing ways since that's the example being set for them, which creates a depressing work environment that no one wants to work for, which is why we generally have large staff rollovers. If management instead encouraged and rewarded directors for thinking for themselves and kept a larger "hands off" policy and then other directors didn't mirco-manage things themselves--we'd have a fairly good balance between returning staff & the rollover--like we used to. Instead of the big two year rollover that's been happening since the upper management decided to take on this policy.

That's why I score Left-Libertarian on all those political quizes people love to post here every now and then when they try to proove a certain political viewpoint is dominant or whatever they're trying to do.

~Chas'88

Studies have shown that once a level of fair compensation has been met, the single biggest motivator in the workplace is autonomy. It is a bigger motivator than bonus plans, which can sometimes be demotivating.

Autonomy in how to do the work, when and where to do it, and who to do it with. These conditions most closely match "flow." That is when you are doing something for the sheer enjoyment of it. When you are doing something and you are so engrossed, you don't notice how much time has gone by. Can't achieve flow all the time, but by trusting employees, they will almost always do better work than when micromanaged.

Daniel Pink wrote a great book on this subject: http://www.danpink.com/drive

I have adopted a lot of this in a pretty traditional environment. It works, although it is constantly under attack from the outside, but the results, and employee satisfaction, make the case. Most controversial is letting people work whatever hours they want -- wherever they want to do the work (i.e. home, starbucks, etc..). Paradoxically, my group works more hours than the 9-5 clockwatcher divisions, but do so on their own accord. Even more importantly is that their level of engagement and productivity is higher.

In my experience, Boomer hates this approach to management and will attack it. Xer loves it. Millie takes a little prodding, but once they get the hang of it, they exceed at it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Sorry, it has EVERYTHING to do with trickle-down economics. Non-regulation is trickle-down. Remove restrictions on business and the benefits trickle-down, it says. It does not work, ever. The EPA has less success now because funding has dried up in the era of Reagan/Bush. Environmental laws protect the people from corporate misbehavior. If you remove them, pollution would skyrocket and we'd be back to 1960. These laws allow environmental groups to sue, which is now all that they have to use, since government agencies are staffed by trickle-downers and free marketers (uh, same thing). They do sue successfully often, according to the groups I belong to; much more-often than when we didn't have the laws.

There's no point in talking to you if you are just going to talk right past me.

Environmental laws in some cases allow people to sue, but in other cases they create limited liability, for example CERCLA, which puts in place mechanisms by which tax payers are held liable for environmental hazards. There are other examples, but the basic premise of most environmental laws is that you cannot sue a company with a tort involving environmental damages unless they have violated EPA standards: which means that where these standards are low, there's nothing that can be done about it except to go to the legislature.

Polluters should be forced to pay for absolutely all damages they cause, and environmental laws protect them from doing so.

The alternatives mentioned by opponents are to remove all government-run education and health care. They oppose it on state and federal level, or whatever level you got. They do the same thing on the state level, as in CA.

Some do, some don't. You can't paint everyone with a broad brush. The real reason that few advocate simple federalism is because the media environment drowns out anyone who takes a nuanced position.

Education is already state-run. Health care reform at the state level would be good for those states, but what about others?

Not entirely, otherwise there would be no need for a Department of Education. NCLB is a prime example of the federal government taking over large portions of education policy.

Originally Posted by Silifi

For the environment example, I'd actually go as far to say that the EPA has essentially become a conservative (in terms of preserving the status quo) organization in regards to the environment; it made things better initially, but has since actually slowed progress because it creates limited liability for companies. Whereas before citizens could potentially sue companies for damages (it didn't because the deck was stacked, but I'm talking about theory) they now have limited opportunity to do so because environmental laws protect companies from civil litigation. BP would not exist as a company anymore if the government had not intervened to protect it and reduce its liability.

It is better that business entities not go awry on environmental quality and workplace safety. For some a legal windfall might solve every economic problem that one has (as in some stay-at-home wife loses a husband that she sees only as a breadwinner and after her husband falls into a vat of molten metal can find someone else and live happily ever as a "princess on insurance payments") -- it is of course better that the metal worker not fall into the vat of molten metal and be cooked alive. The legal system is an expensive and capricious way of dealing with the misconduct of large businesses.

There are also ways in which state-run education is better; a state has better knowledge of where money needs to be spent to improve their own situation, and the federal government mandating control over state schools only creates more problems because it is a one-size-fits-all policy. The same goes for health care. Again, nothing to do with trickle-down. There are definite advantages to decentralized approaches, namely flexibility and precision. But there's also the fact that decentralized systems means that even if the good is dispersed, so is the bad. Centralized systems are one horrible manager away from a total disaster. One horrible manager in a decentralized system means a much smaller disaster.

I have noticed that our one-size-fits-all state-run schools (at least into the 1970s) when I was a kid were designed to make factory workers, farm hands, and stay-at-home moms of those who didn't specialize even in high school and perhaps prepare someone for an apprentice into a skilled trade if one was lucky. College prep? You had to be special and obvious, and the high-school education was not rigorous enough to be good preparation for college. There's something to be said about elite boarding schools; I wish that I had attended one.

But it was a good idea to prepare people for the mindless world of the factory with its stern discipline.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

In my experience, Boomer hates this approach to management and will attack it. Xer loves it. Millie takes a little prodding, but once they get the hang of it, they exceed at it.

I agree with the assessment. Core Millies usually want clearer & specific definitions on how to do things, but once they've been given those directions and told to "think on it" they generally start thinking for themselves. Like you said, they have an initial aversion to the approach, but do well in it once they get the hang of it. The ones I know all took to it like water.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

This is one thing I've learned from my own personal experience as well--in a completely unrelated context but it's made me since doubt whether micro-managing centralized leadership is good for anything. People do their best work when you give them leave to set their own personal definitions and you remove yourself from always standing over their shoulders. Oh sure be there to give advice and work on your own projects that require use of larger forces and longer plans, but there are multiple projects that smaller groups can do much more efficiently--and more quickly--when people are left to their own devices. Centralized leadership quickly evolves into the manager who won't stop micromanaging every little fucking detail--which leads to a depressing work environment (even in the case where the micro-managing team creates a staff "free zone") as well as inefficiency and unhappy workers. One of the things I've seen is that the micro-managing takes out any input or creativity the worker has to give to the job--which stifles them and makes them unhappy. I've seen it again and again, and I've found taking a step back and giving the people under you some room to breathe, but being available if they need you to consult with or work on the solution to a problem, or address a problem within the group dynamic--is a better policy. I'm still there, but I let them manage themselves and decide their own approaches on things. I then have room to focus on what I'm supposed to focus on--next year's workers; improving techniques--often seeing if little individual tricks the workers develop can be taught to the group as a whole (and letting them teach it themselves); dealing with the paperwork that needs to be done; interacting with any upset customers; and working on improving working conditions as well as giving benefits for the group as well as to workers who do good work individually. As well as look out for people who look promising to eventually replace me or be promoted to higher positions. Of course I'll also admit that this approach works best with a group of workers who know what they're doing and like what they're doing even more. Which are important factors to look for when hiring someone. When training new people I've found that pairing them up with an older & more experienced worker that you trust also works well--in addition to doing larger group training of course. The personal interaction is beneficial for the new workers and makes them generally feel accepted a lot faster, as well as gives room for the "older worker" to show some personal tricks that they might have up their sleeve, which will generally inspire the new worker to take chances themselves and be creative with what they do (it shows them that they're allowed to have thoughts outside the box).

And how did I learn all this? By working at a Boy Scout camp, as an Aquatics Director. The Boomer management at the camp likes to micro-manage too often and they often like to do it through use of a puppet figure by forcing their new Millennial or Xer minion they hire to do it for them to do it. That way the Boomer managing team doesn't get all the negative association, but it is landed onto the minion instead, which burns said minion out in a year or two & gets everybody hating the minion when they were "cool" before--etc. which then is transferred "down the leash" (to use a dog show pun) onto the other directors, who then respond in similar micro-managing ways since that's the example being set for them, which creates a depressing work environment that no one wants to work for, which is why we generally have large staff rollovers. If management instead encouraged and rewarded directors for thinking for themselves and kept a larger "hands off" policy and then other directors didn't mirco-manage things themselves--we'd have a fairly good balance between returning staff & the rollover--like we used to. Instead of the big two year rollover that's been happening since the upper management decided to take on this policy.

That's why I score Left-Libertarian on all those political quizes people love to post here every now and then when they try to proove a certain political viewpoint is dominant or whatever they're trying to do.

~Chas'88

I think the problem is that most managers think there is only one "right" way to manage, a "one way" based on their own personality and worldview. They don't get that different management styles are needed for different situations.

Paul BANNED from upcoming debate

Submitted by adam1mc on Thu, 12/01/2011 - 18:58
in Ron Paul 2012
14
votes On Wednesday, Dec. 7, the Republican Jewish Coalition will host a presidential-candidates forum featuring Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. Not invited is the GOP candidate currently polling around third in New Hampshire and second in Iowa: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The explanation:

Paul was not invited to attend the RJC's candidates forum because the organization - as it has stated numerous times in the past - "rejects his misguided and extreme views," said [RJC Executive Director Matt] Brooks.

"He's just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization," Brooks said. Inviting Paul to attend would be "like inviting Barack Obama to speak."

http://www.dailypaul.com/189975/paul...pcoming-debate

A public service...

Look what the supposed financially-savvy one of the GOP field had to say -

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news...bama-reelected

"I think we hit a Greece-like wall. I think before the end of his second term, if he were reelected, there's a very high risk that we would hit a financial crisis that Greece or Italy have faced"

Now since the S&P downgrade of US sovereign debt last summer, most idiots have shut-up their yammering about even the remotest possibility of federal govt default. And even CNBC's senior financial editor calls Mittens out on it -

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45755017

Mitt Romney's Ridiculous Comparison of US to Greece

But there's no need to start saying crazy things like the U.S. is about to become Italy or Greece if Obama is elected for another term. This simply isn't in the cards.

The problems faced by Greece and Italy are nowhere near comparable to those faced by the United States. We have far more dynamic economies — and far lower tax rates — than those countries. More important, our government can indirectly self-finance by having the Federal Reserve buy Treasurys on the secondary market.

As we've seen, the Fed has an unlimited balance sheet, something that Greece and Italy do not enjoy.

Our government will never run out of money. Greece and Italy can definitely run out of money.

So it's a shame to see Mitt Romney, the Republican frontrunner for president, spouting this nonsense.

Carney, as he notes himself, is a quasi-deficit hawk (based on some 'gut feel' that federal debt is bad; apparently he doesn't know that what he describes as his concern is the laughable "Ricardian Equivalence" - http://www.cnbc.com/id/44316987/ ), but even he sees how moronic Romney is about this.

Or maybe, it's just that Romney will say anything and he realizes how dimwitted most voters are and likely long forgotten the lesson of just 6 months ago. Heck, people have now come to believe that federal debt had something to do with the financial meltdown and resulting recession. And we, here on the 4T forum, know otherwise. right?




And what has been going on since is that the non-federal sector is deleveraging like mad -



And guess what that does to employment -



What's keeping us afloat so far? This, probable the most important graphic of our time, tells you -



Now imagine if federal expenditures or reduced or taxes are raised and take that money out of the economy. It will not be good.

This is not rocket science. Candidates for the Presidency should understand all this. However, maybe they do but counting on all the sheeple to stay clueless. I wonder why? Well, not really, but you should.

Originally Posted by radind

I agree. We should only go to war when our national interests are at stake. Then we should go all out and try to end hostilities is the shortest time possible.

Define "national interests".

The reason I ask this, is that both recently and historically, that very phrase has been used by various powers (not just the US mind you--far from it) for securing resources on foreign soil, for securing favorable conditions (including cheap and captive labor--see United Fruit) for a nation's corporations on foreign soil, for forcing open markets that don't want to be opened (see Opium Wars), and other morally dubious acts and ventures that assume one powerful nation's supposed "needs" trump another nation's sovereignty--up to the point of the moral equivalent of armed robbery, if need be. Needless to say, I am quite skeptical of the term--about as skeptical as I am of the phrase "national security" and all that supposedly justifies. And both terms have been abused greatly to the point of not merely meaninglessness, but actual red flags. And too many people still accept those phrases at face-value when they're thrown at us by politicians or "opinion leaders", without demanding an explanation.

Not sure how you mean it, but I'd beware using the term, because it has been abused and twisted and used to hoodwink a lot of people into supporting morally indefensible acts.

I think "don't attack unless attacked" is a fairly good rule of thumb. And very much in our "national interest", especially long-term.