A Tip o' the Hat to Marc Lamb for giving us a PERFECT example of an exchange of NOTHING for NOTHING. Back in the 70's people exchanged dollar bills, which are INTRINSICALLY WORTHLESS for Pet Rocks which were also WORTHLESS!

Originally Posted by Dave Stafford

The Pet Rock. Now that should keep our great nation depression proof . A fine product with which to base our economy on.

Originally Posted by Robert

A Tip o' the Hat to Marc Lamb for giving us a PERFECT example of an exchange of NOTHING for NOTHING. Back in the 70's people exchanged dollar bills, which are INTRINSICALLY WORTHLESS for Pet Rocks which were also WORTHLESS!

Perhaps, if Mr. Bush is really serious about economy thing, we ought to have a U.S. Ministry of IWP (Intrinsically Worthwhile Products) evaluations board. Designed along the lines of the U.S. Ministry of Patents, this instittution would review all new product releases to the public; judging each "new idea" soley upon a criteria of "reasonable" worthiness of use to the public good.

Obviously the slick design and packaging of the "pet rock" would have failed this "smell test." And thereby saving the public a lot of worthless time. Not to mention all the wasted cardboard packaging and newsprint advertising (unrenewable resources of trees), wasted labor (human capital), and needless humor (nonsensical gift-giving).

Mankind will thus be saved to "live happily ever after" as a result of our efforts to "base our economy on" sound reason. :wink:

Originally Posted by Dave Stafford

The Pet Rock. Now that should keep our great nation depression proof . A fine product with which to base our economy on.

Originally Posted by Robert

A Tip o' the Hat to Marc Lamb for giving us a PERFECT example of an exchange of NOTHING for NOTHING. Back in the 70's people exchanged dollar bills, which are INTRINSICALLY WORTHLESS for Pet Rocks which were also WORTHLESS!

Perhaps, if Mr. Bush is really serious about economy thing, we ought to have a U.S. Ministry of IWP (Intrinsically Worthwhile Products) evaluations board. Designed along the lines of the U.S. Ministry of Patents, this instittution would review all new product releases to the public; judging each "new idea" soley upon a criteria of "reasonable" worthiness of use to the public good.

Obviously the slick design and packaging of the "pet rock" would have failed this "smell test." And thereby saving the public a lot of worthless time. Not to mention all the wasted cardboard packaging and newsprint advertising (unrenewable resources of trees), wasted labor (human capital), and needless humor (nonsensical gift-giving).

Mankind will thus be saved to "live happily ever after" as a result of our efforts to "base our economy on" sound reason. :wink:

The Bush tax plan took me by surprise, although I don't suppose it matters, I'm not that fast anyways.

As far as I can see now, it appears to be a better policy than opportunity. It should be mildly bullish overall I should think.

I was going to buy some perferreds, but after looking into them I am not very impressed

The Bush tax plan took me by surprise, although I don't suppose it matters, I'm not that fast anyways.

As far as I can see now, it appears to be a better policy than opportunity. It should be mildly bullish overall I should think.

I was going to buy some perferreds, but after looking into them I am not very impressed

Originally Posted by George Will

Today's "stimulus package" is psychotherapy for a nation that very recently has become too fixated on the stock market, which has declined three consecutive years for the first time since 1939-1941. But the stock market and the economy are not identical, and indeed they have diverged -- the market slump has been more severe than the recent recession, the mildest since 1945.

President Clinton's 1993 push for a stimulus package flowed from candidate Clinton's 1992 claim that the economy was in crisis. Actually, the supposed crisis -- at that point, the mildest recession since 1945 -- had ended before the election: The economy grew at a 3.1 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 1992.

Will makes his observation of "mildest recession since 1945" twice in his column: with regards to the 1992 economy, and then with regards to today. The interesting thing about this, assuming he is right, is the very different response politically to these two recessions, by the American people. Before the election, back in October, I wrote:

Well, it appears that Bush and the GOP have blown it. But it's certainly not the economy. Or at least it wasn't last week as Gallup notes in their "top of the mind awareness" tracking poll. The very same poll showed a whopping 69% just before the election in 1992, while today it's been tracking at about 35% since early summer.

Similar economic sluggishness, but night and day responses to it from the voters. As it turned out, late polling, as I noted, showed a reversal in fortunes for Bush and the GOP, resulting in a reversal of what happened in 1992. And confirming that people weren't that concerned about the economy.

Granted, the Gulf War was behind us, in 1992, while today it was in front. But still, this reversal of attitudes is quite striking.

Originally Posted by George Will

Today's "stimulus package" is psychotherapy for a nation that very recently has become too fixated on the stock market, which has declined three consecutive years for the first time since 1939-1941. But the stock market and the economy are not identical, and indeed they have diverged -- the market slump has been more severe than the recent recession, the mildest since 1945.

President Clinton's 1993 push for a stimulus package flowed from candidate Clinton's 1992 claim that the economy was in crisis. Actually, the supposed crisis -- at that point, the mildest recession since 1945 -- had ended before the election: The economy grew at a 3.1 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 1992.

Will makes his observation of "mildest recession since 1945" twice in his column: with regards to the 1992 economy, and then with regards to today. The interesting thing about this, assuming he is right, is the very different response politically to these two recessions, by the American people. Before the election, back in October, I wrote:

Well, it appears that Bush and the GOP have blown it. But it's certainly not the economy. Or at least it wasn't last week as Gallup notes in their "top of the mind awareness" tracking poll. The very same poll showed a whopping 69% just before the election in 1992, while today it's been tracking at about 35% since early summer.

Similar economic sluggishness, but night and day responses to it from the voters. As it turned out, late polling, as I noted, showed a reversal in fortunes for Bush and the GOP, resulting in a reversal of what happened in 1992. And confirming that people weren't that concerned about the economy.

Granted, the Gulf War was behind us, in 1992, while today it was in front. But still, this reversal of attitudes is quite striking.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by George Will

Today's "stimulus package" is psychotherapy for a nation that very recently has become too fixated on the stock market, which has declined three consecutive years for the first time since 1939-1941. But the stock market and the economy are not identical, and indeed they have diverged -- the market slump has been more severe than the recent recession, the mildest since 1945.

President Clinton's 1993 push for a stimulus package flowed from candidate Clinton's 1992 claim that the economy was in crisis. Actually, the supposed crisis -- at that point, the mildest recession since 1945 -- had ended before the election: The economy grew at a 3.1 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 1992.

Will makes his observation of "mildest recession since 1945" twice in his column: with regards to the 1992 economy, and then with regards to today. The interesting thing about this, assuming he is right, is the very different response politically to these two recessions, by the American people. Before the election, back in October, I wrote:

Well, it appears that Bush and the GOP have blown it. But it's certainly not the economy. Or at least it wasn't last week as Gallup notes in their "top of the mind awareness" tracking poll. The very same poll showed a whopping 69% just before the election in 1992, while today it's been tracking at about 35% since early summer.

Similar economic sluggishness, but night and day responses to it from the voters. As it turned out, late polling, as I noted, showed a reversal in fortunes for Bush and the GOP, resulting in a reversal of what happened in 1992. And confirming that people weren't that concerned about the economy.

Granted, the Gulf War was behind us, in 1992, while today it was in front. But still, this reversal of attitudes is quite striking.

No its not. It's actually perfectly natural and consistent with this being the early stages of K-winter/secular crisis. The last time we were here, Hoover didn't take appropriate action. As a result, he and his party were swept from power. But this time the Federal Reserve acted quickly to slash interest rates and the adminstration quickly pushed the country into deficit spending.

The results are twofold. One is a wave of mortgage refinancing has put a great deal of money in consumers' hands--which they have spent. That is, old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus (a liberal policy).

As a result consumer demand did not flag. Low mortgage interest rates also enhanced homebuying, prices have risen strongly. This did NOT happen in the last recession. Since homes are the largest asset for most households, the effect of the stock market collpase on the feelings of well-being were muted. Stronger consumer spending has resulted in a milder recession and fewer layoffs. Unemployment is still fairly low.

The other effect has been a substantial increase in money supply in the early stages of the fall from plateau (in 2001) when deflationary trends were developing. These were spent without emergent deflation. Deflation is what can collpase the economy and must be avoided at all costs. The Fed is prepared to do just that, and the administration is prepared to go to war as well, if need be. Deflation won't happen, I am reasonably sure of it.

What I am saying is the Federal Reserve and Bush administration engineered their own version of a "New Deal" this time which prevented the economy from becoming a major issue in the election. This policy is liberal, the interest rate cuts are a wealth transfer from wealthy asset-holders to middle class debtors. The Bush tax cut seems wealth-friendly, but it is really neutral, a transfer payment from wealthy to wealthy. It was the Reagan and Clinton adminstrations that introduced "Reverse Robin Hood" policies.

This New Deal is more subtle and so can be implemented politically by the Right. The transfer from the wealth is time-delayed. The recipients (mortage holders and high-bracket taxpayers) get their goodies now, but the loss to the wealth-holding class will come later.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by George Will

Today's "stimulus package" is psychotherapy for a nation that very recently has become too fixated on the stock market, which has declined three consecutive years for the first time since 1939-1941. But the stock market and the economy are not identical, and indeed they have diverged -- the market slump has been more severe than the recent recession, the mildest since 1945.

President Clinton's 1993 push for a stimulus package flowed from candidate Clinton's 1992 claim that the economy was in crisis. Actually, the supposed crisis -- at that point, the mildest recession since 1945 -- had ended before the election: The economy grew at a 3.1 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 1992.

Will makes his observation of "mildest recession since 1945" twice in his column: with regards to the 1992 economy, and then with regards to today. The interesting thing about this, assuming he is right, is the very different response politically to these two recessions, by the American people. Before the election, back in October, I wrote:

Well, it appears that Bush and the GOP have blown it. But it's certainly not the economy. Or at least it wasn't last week as Gallup notes in their "top of the mind awareness" tracking poll. The very same poll showed a whopping 69% just before the election in 1992, while today it's been tracking at about 35% since early summer.

Similar economic sluggishness, but night and day responses to it from the voters. As it turned out, late polling, as I noted, showed a reversal in fortunes for Bush and the GOP, resulting in a reversal of what happened in 1992. And confirming that people weren't that concerned about the economy.

Granted, the Gulf War was behind us, in 1992, while today it was in front. But still, this reversal of attitudes is quite striking.

No its not. It's actually perfectly natural and consistent with this being the early stages of K-winter/secular crisis. The last time we were here, Hoover didn't take appropriate action. As a result, he and his party were swept from power. But this time the Federal Reserve acted quickly to slash interest rates and the adminstration quickly pushed the country into deficit spending.

The results are twofold. One is a wave of mortgage refinancing has put a great deal of money in consumers' hands--which they have spent. That is, old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus (a liberal policy).

As a result consumer demand did not flag. Low mortgage interest rates also enhanced homebuying, prices have risen strongly. This did NOT happen in the last recession. Since homes are the largest asset for most households, the effect of the stock market collpase on the feelings of well-being were muted. Stronger consumer spending has resulted in a milder recession and fewer layoffs. Unemployment is still fairly low.

The other effect has been a substantial increase in money supply in the early stages of the fall from plateau (in 2001) when deflationary trends were developing. These were spent without emergent deflation. Deflation is what can collpase the economy and must be avoided at all costs. The Fed is prepared to do just that, and the administration is prepared to go to war as well, if need be. Deflation won't happen, I am reasonably sure of it.

What I am saying is the Federal Reserve and Bush administration engineered their own version of a "New Deal" this time which prevented the economy from becoming a major issue in the election. This policy is liberal, the interest rate cuts are a wealth transfer from wealthy asset-holders to middle class debtors. The Bush tax cut seems wealth-friendly, but it is really neutral, a transfer payment from wealthy to wealthy. It was the Reagan and Clinton adminstrations that introduced "Reverse Robin Hood" policies.

This New Deal is more subtle and so can be implemented politically by the Right. The transfer from the wealth is time-delayed. The recipients (mortage holders and high-bracket taxpayers) get their goodies now, but the loss to the wealth-holding class will come later.

"There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom." --Garet Garrett (The Revolution Was, 1938)

That's an interesting take on the current scene, Mike. But are we seeing a real revolution?

Their are many, on my side of the aisle, who believe that E2002 proved that 1994, the election that ended forty years of Democrat rule in the U.S. House, was no fluke and that a major new political realignment has either occured or is now coalescing fast.

I have long argued, like those in my party, that Reagan was our Teddy Roosevelt. Perhaps we are wrong. Perhaps we should be looking over at the other side of the aisle for analogies?

It has been said by more than one historian that while William Jennings Bryan enabled the Democrats to see the promised land, it was Wilson that took them across the Red Sea. FDR, of course, led them to the river Jordan, while Truman took across the river and into the Promise land.

If the analogy fits for a renewed GOP, Reagan is Bryan, and Newt is Wilson and Bush Jr, FDR. The analogy fits even in that Newt, like Wilson, failed to deliver and left his party dangling at the edge of the river following the Budget Battle of '95 (and the Impeachment saga of '99). Alas, there the analogy falls apart.

I mean, where on God's green earth was our wilderness?

"There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom." --Garet Garrett (The Revolution Was, 1938)

That's an interesting take on the current scene, Mike. But are we seeing a real revolution?

Their are many, on my side of the aisle, who believe that E2002 proved that 1994, the election that ended forty years of Democrat rule in the U.S. House, was no fluke and that a major new political realignment has either occured or is now coalescing fast.

I have long argued, like those in my party, that Reagan was our Teddy Roosevelt. Perhaps we are wrong. Perhaps we should be looking over at the other side of the aisle for analogies?

It has been said by more than one historian that while William Jennings Bryan enabled the Democrats to see the promised land, it was Wilson that took them across the Red Sea. FDR, of course, led them to the river Jordan, while Truman took across the river and into the Promise land.

If the analogy fits for a renewed GOP, Reagan is Bryan, and Newt is Wilson and Bush Jr, FDR. The analogy fits even in that Newt, like Wilson, failed to deliver and left his party dangling at the edge of the river following the Budget Battle of '95 (and the Impeachment saga of '99). Alas, there the analogy falls apart.

I mean, where on God's green earth was our wilderness?

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

"There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom." --Garet Garrett (The Revolution Was, 1938)

That's an interesting take on the current scene, Mike. But are we seeing a real revolution?

Their are many, on my side of the aisle, who believe that E2002 proved that 1994, the election that ended forty years of Democrat rule in the U.S. House, was no fluke and that a major new political realignment has either occured or is now coalescing fast.

I have long argued, like those in my party, that Reagan was our Teddy Roosevelt. Perhaps we are wrong. Perhaps we should be looking over at the other side of the aisle for analogies?

It has been said by more than one historian that while William Jennings Bryan enabled the Democrats to see the promised land, it was Wilson that took them across the Red Sea. FDR, of course, led them to the river Jordan, while Truman took across the river and into the Promise land.

If the analogy fits for a renewed GOP, Reagan is Bryan, and Newt is Wilson and Bush Jr, FDR. The analogy fits even in that Newt, like Wilson, failed to deliver and left his party dangling at the edge of the river following the Budget Battle of '95 (and the Impeachment saga of '99). Alas, there the analogy falls apart.

I mean, where on God's green earth was our wilderness?

I don't think the analogy is valid. The "promised land" we were headed towards over 1896-1932 was someplace we had never been.

The place where Reagan and his successors would take us is not someplace new. If it was they wouldn't call themselves conservatives.

I just had another idea. Perhaps Bush and Co. are taking us in a new direction after all. I'll have to think about this for a while. It's kinda wild.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

"There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom." --Garet Garrett (The Revolution Was, 1938)

That's an interesting take on the current scene, Mike. But are we seeing a real revolution?

Their are many, on my side of the aisle, who believe that E2002 proved that 1994, the election that ended forty years of Democrat rule in the U.S. House, was no fluke and that a major new political realignment has either occured or is now coalescing fast.

I have long argued, like those in my party, that Reagan was our Teddy Roosevelt. Perhaps we are wrong. Perhaps we should be looking over at the other side of the aisle for analogies?

It has been said by more than one historian that while William Jennings Bryan enabled the Democrats to see the promised land, it was Wilson that took them across the Red Sea. FDR, of course, led them to the river Jordan, while Truman took across the river and into the Promise land.

If the analogy fits for a renewed GOP, Reagan is Bryan, and Newt is Wilson and Bush Jr, FDR. The analogy fits even in that Newt, like Wilson, failed to deliver and left his party dangling at the edge of the river following the Budget Battle of '95 (and the Impeachment saga of '99). Alas, there the analogy falls apart.

I mean, where on God's green earth was our wilderness?

I don't think the analogy is valid. The "promised land" we were headed towards over 1896-1932 was someplace we had never been.

The place where Reagan and his successors would take us is not someplace new. If it was they wouldn't call themselves conservatives.

I just had another idea. Perhaps Bush and Co. are taking us in a new direction after all. I'll have to think about this for a while. It's kinda wild.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The place where Reagan and his successors would take us is not someplace new. If it was they wouldn't call themselves conservatives.

Keep in mind, there is a reason why Reagan admirers like Patton and Saari despise conservatives, today.

Keep in mind, the Republican Party, of 1928, was known as the "progressive party." And the Democratic Party, the party of the old Confederacy.

Keep in mind, there was a reason why, at a time when the word "liberal" was admired, nobody pointed to FDR as "That cripple in the White House," just after he initiated the Welfare State.

Keep in mind, there was a reason why, at a time when "liberal" was a dirty word, Clinton was not removed from office, just after signing Welfare Reform.

Keep in mind, there is a "Conservative Generation Gap" among Republicans, these days.

Keep in mind, there are many liberals out there who don't appreciate "fine art," these days.

Keep in mind, there is a reason and a rythmn for why labels like liberal and conservative fall in and out of style, these days.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The place where Reagan and his successors would take us is not someplace new. If it was they wouldn't call themselves conservatives.

Keep in mind, there is a reason why Reagan admirers like Patton and Saari despise conservatives, today.

Keep in mind, the Republican Party, of 1928, was known as the "progressive party." And the Democratic Party, the party of the old Confederacy.

Keep in mind, there was a reason why, at a time when the word "liberal" was admired, nobody pointed to FDR as "That cripple in the White House," just after he initiated the Welfare State.

Keep in mind, there was a reason why, at a time when "liberal" was a dirty word, Clinton was not removed from office, just after signing Welfare Reform.

Keep in mind, there is a "Conservative Generation Gap" among Republicans, these days.

Keep in mind, there are many liberals out there who don't appreciate "fine art," these days.

Keep in mind, there is a reason and a rythmn for why labels like liberal and conservative fall in and out of style, these days.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The place where Reagan and his successors would take us is not someplace new. If it was they wouldn't call themselves conservatives.

Keep in mind, there is a reason why Reagan admirers like Patton and Saari despise conservatives, today.

Mr. Lamb I do not despise conservatives (they are so rare) today; nor do I despise liberals (they seem to teem) today. I find fault with the ideas of most all flavors of Progressivism and utopian thought but not the thinkers. Hate the sin, love the sinner as I was taught in ages gone by...even dining with CP hacks when that group was still thought of as most Utopian and most Progressive in some circles.


As to the love of the "new" by todays CINO's in the matter and manner of the "arts"...it is a tale of the very un-Conservative dislike of tradition; a very PC (progressive-conservative) stance. I think it a Zone thing rather than a generational one...the folks at the Weekly Standard still want to be well thought of at Mr. Walter Duranty's publication. HTH

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The place where Reagan and his successors would take us is not someplace new. If it was they wouldn't call themselves conservatives.

Keep in mind, there is a reason why Reagan admirers like Patton and Saari despise conservatives, today.

Mr. Lamb I do not despise conservatives (they are so rare) today; nor do I despise liberals (they seem to teem) today. I find fault with the ideas of most all flavors of Progressivism and utopian thought but not the thinkers. Hate the sin, love the sinner as I was taught in ages gone by...even dining with CP hacks when that group was still thought of as most Utopian and most Progressive in some circles.


As to the love of the "new" by todays CINO's in the matter and manner of the "arts"...it is a tale of the very un-Conservative dislike of tradition; a very PC (progressive-conservative) stance. I think it a Zone thing rather than a generational one...the folks at the Weekly Standard still want to be well thought of at Mr. Walter Duranty's publication. HTH

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I just had another idea. Perhaps Bush and Co. are taking us in a new direction after all.

I don't think so, Mike. We have been here before. In actuality, the New Deal did not begin under FDR; it began under Hoover who was in fact about the biggest bureaucrat in history. All FDR did was push past the line beyond which Hoover would not go: direct transfers to individuals. But the whole Keynesian explosion really began under Hoover. In fact, we often forget that FDR never really said a word about the New Deal when he ran in 1932. He specifically ran on balancing the budget. This was only an issue because Hoover had already begun the governmental explosion which came to be known as the New Deal.

Might we see a Democrat in 2004 run on balancing the budget so grossly exploded by the current Republican administration? If so, history will be repeating very neatly.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I just had another idea. Perhaps Bush and Co. are taking us in a new direction after all.

I don't think so, Mike. We have been here before. In actuality, the New Deal did not begin under FDR; it began under Hoover who was in fact about the biggest bureaucrat in history. All FDR did was push past the line beyond which Hoover would not go: direct transfers to individuals. But the whole Keynesian explosion really began under Hoover. In fact, we often forget that FDR never really said a word about the New Deal when he ran in 1932. He specifically ran on balancing the budget. This was only an issue because Hoover had already begun the governmental explosion which came to be known as the New Deal.

Might we see a Democrat in 2004 run on balancing the budget so grossly exploded by the current Republican administration? If so, history will be repeating very neatly.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Mr. Lamb I do not despise conservatives (they are so rare) today;

Where is Meece?! Why aren't conservatives on the Endangered Species List? If a suckerfish can be on that thing, so can a conservative.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Mr. Lamb I do not despise conservatives (they are so rare) today;

Where is Meece?! Why aren't conservatives on the Endangered Species List? If a suckerfish can be on that thing, so can a conservative.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The place where Reagan and his successors would take us is not someplace new. If it was they wouldn't call themselves conservatives.

Keep in mind, there is a reason why Reagan admirers like Patton and Saari despise conservatives, today.

Mr. Lamb I do not despise conservatives (they are so rare) today; nor do I despise liberals (they seem to teem) today. I find fault with the ideas of most all flavors of Progressivism and utopian thought but not the thinkers. Hate the sin, love the sinner as I was taught in ages gone by...even dining with CP hacks when that group was still thought of as most Utopian and most Progressive in some circles.

As to the love of the "new" by todays CINO's in the matter and manner of the "arts"...it is a tale of the very un-Conservative dislike of tradition; a very PC (progressive-conservative) stance. I think it a Zone thing rather than a generational one...the folks at the Weekly Standard still want to be well thought of at Mr. Walter Duranty's publication. HTH

So I'm a commie, now! :wink:

Oh, well. Now a few words from our Commie sponser:

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Yes, change your world. One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said, "We have it within our power to begin the world over again." We can do it, doing together what no one church could do by itself.

Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals Orlando, Florida March 8, 1983

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

Farewell Address to the Nation Oval Office January 11, 1989

Wasn't Reagan, like the folks at the Weekly Standard, a former liberal New Dealer, too?



Yup.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The place where Reagan and his successors would take us is not someplace new. If it was they wouldn't call themselves conservatives.

Keep in mind, there is a reason why Reagan admirers like Patton and Saari despise conservatives, today.

Mr. Lamb I do not despise conservatives (they are so rare) today; nor do I despise liberals (they seem to teem) today. I find fault with the ideas of most all flavors of Progressivism and utopian thought but not the thinkers. Hate the sin, love the sinner as I was taught in ages gone by...even dining with CP hacks when that group was still thought of as most Utopian and most Progressive in some circles.

As to the love of the "new" by todays CINO's in the matter and manner of the "arts"...it is a tale of the very un-Conservative dislike of tradition; a very PC (progressive-conservative) stance. I think it a Zone thing rather than a generational one...the folks at the Weekly Standard still want to be well thought of at Mr. Walter Duranty's publication. HTH

So I'm a commie, now! :wink:

Oh, well. Now a few words from our Commie sponser:

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Yes, change your world. One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said, "We have it within our power to begin the world over again." We can do it, doing together what no one church could do by itself.

Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals Orlando, Florida March 8, 1983

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

Farewell Address to the Nation Oval Office January 11, 1989

Wasn't Reagan, like the folks at the Weekly Standard, a former liberal New Dealer, too?



Yup.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The place where Reagan and his successors would take us is not someplace new. If it was they wouldn't call themselves conservatives.

Keep in mind, there is a reason why Reagan admirers like Patton and Saari despise conservatives, today.

Keep in mind, the Republican Party, of 1928, was known as the "progressive party." And the Democratic Party, the party of the old Confederacy.

Keep in mind, there was a reason why, at a time when the word "liberal" was admired, nobody pointed to FDR as "That cripple in the White House," just after he initiated the Welfare State.

Keep in mind, there was a reason why, at a time when "liberal" was a dirty word, Clinton was not removed from office, just after signing Welfare Reform.

Keep in mind, there is a "Conservative Generation Gap" among Republicans, these days.

Keep in mind, there are many liberals out there who don't appreciate "fine art," these days.

Keep in mind, there is a reason and a rythmn for why labels like liberal and conservative fall in and out of style, these days.

I am keeping it in mind, this was the purpose of my last statement.

As you know I employ an almost mechanical methodology to characterize the saeculum. Looking at the political element, which appears to be your area of greatest interest, I have a liberal/conservative cycle that appears to line up with the saeculum. This cycle predicts a shift to "liberalism" from "conservatism" around 2000.

I am NOT necessarily predicting a time of greater Democratic dominance. I have data of Congressional composition by party. There is no regular cycle in that data and it certainly does not align with the saeculum or Schlesinger political cycles. Thus I have no direct basis for making prediction of electoral outcomes.

I can operationalize my "liberal era" prediction by making the arbitrary assumption that "liberal (in the sense of the cycle) = democratic dominance" for today. Then I would predict a Democratic victory in 2004, as Brian Rush is. This would imply that if the GOP wins instead, the cycle prediction was invalid. But this would not be strictly correct, it might be because my assumption was invalid.

To verify the prediction directly I have to go to the definition of liberal/conservative used to identify the cycle. This defintion was an event density analysis of liberal and conservative events performed from a historical retrospective. I could apply this definition directly by waiting some 30 years, constructing a list of important political events in the intervening years and then label them as liberal or conservative (according to the meaning of those terms in the future) and then doing the density analysis. Obviously this method is useless for obtaining an assessment today.

There is no direct way to verify the prediction today. The situation is just like the saeculum, there is no way to assess a turning change in real time in an unambiguous fashion. One has to use aligned cycles that can be characterized in real time.

I have identified such a cycle.

http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex...e/Lib-Cons.htm

Application is simple. If the total return from a fixed portfolio of financial asset classes outperforms the rate of wage/salary growth after 2000, as it did for the 20 years before 2000, then the conservative era will be continuing on after 2000 and my prediction was wrong. On the other hand, if the financial return is below the gains to income for a sustained period after 2000, then the shift will have occurred. So my prediction can be tested this way and we should have an answer by 2006-2008.

Assuming the cycle holds, what will the shift to liberalism look like? This brings in the question of how to operationalize the prediction so it will have meaning in the ordinary sense. To do that I have to look at what has to happen to depress financial returns below those of labor. One way to do this would be for the government to arrange for a whole lot of valuable money be to be borrowed from wealth holders today--to be paid back later with money worth a whole lot less, thus effecting a wealth transfer from lenders to borrowers.

It seems to me that the first part of this (the borrowing) is going on right now. In the private market it is being implemented by the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan. It is unabashedly a wealth transfer policy and it is liberal in that it will help promote conditions consistent with prior liberal eras by the financial measure I described above. So Greenspan is acting as a liberal. There is no love lost between Bush and Greenspan; it is not clear that Bush approves of Mr. Greenspan's policy.

So we need to look at what Mr. Bush is doing. He is running a big deficit that is growing larger with time, so he is taking wealth from rich lenders, which the intent of paying them back with less valuable money. But what is he doing with it? To the extent that the funds are being used to cut taxes, the effect is neutral and niether liberal or conservative. To the extent they are being used to fund other spending, such as the war, it is liberal. Thus, the WOT is a liberal policy. As a liberal I support Mr. Bush in his liberal war policy.

This is not an artifice. The major wars have all been instruments of growing liberalism and occurred within liberal eras. Conservatives favor peace. If war becomes necessary (War of 1812) or desirable (Mexican War), it should be as small as possible in terms of both lives and treasure.

It is interesting that neoconservatives are talking about implementing democracy in totalitarian regimes as sort of an idealistic jusification for protracted war on the Axis of Evil and other hateful regimes. If this is a real desire, it would make the neos progressives, which argues even more that they are liberals in terms of my cycle.

Interestingly, Democratic opposition to the war and deficit spending puts them in the same role as the GOP during the last crisis. That is, the Democrats are starting to play the conservative role in the crisis. This is not completely silly because I note how libertarians are starting to show more alignment with the Democrats rather than the GOP.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The place where Reagan and his successors would take us is not someplace new. If it was they wouldn't call themselves conservatives.

Keep in mind, there is a reason why Reagan admirers like Patton and Saari despise conservatives, today.

Keep in mind, the Republican Party, of 1928, was known as the "progressive party." And the Democratic Party, the party of the old Confederacy.

Keep in mind, there was a reason why, at a time when the word "liberal" was admired, nobody pointed to FDR as "That cripple in the White House," just after he initiated the Welfare State.

Keep in mind, there was a reason why, at a time when "liberal" was a dirty word, Clinton was not removed from office, just after signing Welfare Reform.

Keep in mind, there is a "Conservative Generation Gap" among Republicans, these days.

Keep in mind, there are many liberals out there who don't appreciate "fine art," these days.

Keep in mind, there is a reason and a rythmn for why labels like liberal and conservative fall in and out of style, these days.

I am keeping it in mind, this was the purpose of my last statement.

As you know I employ an almost mechanical methodology to characterize the saeculum. Looking at the political element, which appears to be your area of greatest interest, I have a liberal/conservative cycle that appears to line up with the saeculum. This cycle predicts a shift to "liberalism" from "conservatism" around 2000.

I am NOT necessarily predicting a time of greater Democratic dominance. I have data of Congressional composition by party. There is no regular cycle in that data and it certainly does not align with the saeculum or Schlesinger political cycles. Thus I have no direct basis for making prediction of electoral outcomes.

I can operationalize my "liberal era" prediction by making the arbitrary assumption that "liberal (in the sense of the cycle) = democratic dominance" for today. Then I would predict a Democratic victory in 2004, as Brian Rush is. This would imply that if the GOP wins instead, the cycle prediction was invalid. But this would not be strictly correct, it might be because my assumption was invalid.

To verify the prediction directly I have to go to the definition of liberal/conservative used to identify the cycle. This defintion was an event density analysis of liberal and conservative events performed from a historical retrospective. I could apply this definition directly by waiting some 30 years, constructing a list of important political events in the intervening years and then label them as liberal or conservative (according to the meaning of those terms in the future) and then doing the density analysis. Obviously this method is useless for obtaining an assessment today.

There is no direct way to verify the prediction today. The situation is just like the saeculum, there is no way to assess a turning change in real time in an unambiguous fashion. One has to use aligned cycles that can be characterized in real time.

I have identified such a cycle.

http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex...e/Lib-Cons.htm

Application is simple. If the total return from a fixed portfolio of financial asset classes outperforms the rate of wage/salary growth after 2000, as it did for the 20 years before 2000, then the conservative era will be continuing on after 2000 and my prediction was wrong. On the other hand, if the financial return is below the gains to income for a sustained period after 2000, then the shift will have occurred. So my prediction can be tested this way and we should have an answer by 2006-2008.

Assuming the cycle holds, what will the shift to liberalism look like? This brings in the question of how to operationalize the prediction so it will have meaning in the ordinary sense. To do that I have to look at what has to happen to depress financial returns below those of labor. One way to do this would be for the government to arrange for a whole lot of valuable money be to be borrowed from wealth holders today--to be paid back later with money worth a whole lot less, thus effecting a wealth transfer from lenders to borrowers.

It seems to me that the first part of this (the borrowing) is going on right now. In the private market it is being implemented by the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan. It is unabashedly a wealth transfer policy and it is liberal in that it will help promote conditions consistent with prior liberal eras by the financial measure I described above. So Greenspan is acting as a liberal. There is no love lost between Bush and Greenspan; it is not clear that Bush approves of Mr. Greenspan's policy.

So we need to look at what Mr. Bush is doing. He is running a big deficit that is growing larger with time, so he is taking wealth from rich lenders, which the intent of paying them back with less valuable money. But what is he doing with it? To the extent that the funds are being used to cut taxes, the effect is neutral and niether liberal or conservative. To the extent they are being used to fund other spending, such as the war, it is liberal. Thus, the WOT is a liberal policy. As a liberal I support Mr. Bush in his liberal war policy.

This is not an artifice. The major wars have all been instruments of growing liberalism and occurred within liberal eras. Conservatives favor peace. If war becomes necessary (War of 1812) or desirable (Mexican War), it should be as small as possible in terms of both lives and treasure.

It is interesting that neoconservatives are talking about implementing democracy in totalitarian regimes as sort of an idealistic jusification for protracted war on the Axis of Evil and other hateful regimes. If this is a real desire, it would make the neos progressives, which argues even more that they are liberals in terms of my cycle.

Interestingly, Democratic opposition to the war and deficit spending puts them in the same role as the GOP during the last crisis. That is, the Democrats are starting to play the conservative role in the crisis. This is not completely silly because I note how libertarians are starting to show more alignment with the Democrats rather than the GOP.