Hey, that's why Ohio State hired Jim Tressel...to lock up all the good Ohio football prospects.Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59
I'll bet you would! Maybe we'll start by locking up all the Ohioans ;-)Banish "both parties," in favor of "one"???
Are you a Communist, or a Nazi, Mr. Parker? Inquiring minds wish to know. :?
The Main Stream Media is to the media as the Mainline Protestant congregations are to Christianity.
Yes, yes. You certainly enjoy dissembling. But we all know that you understand very well what's being said. Eventually, the oppressed turn on their oppressors. Isn't that what they taught you in Sunday School? Perhaps the lessons provided by the French in the 18th century are now passe, since you find the French in the 21st century so utterly repugnant.Hmm, I coulda swore I sensed a bit of excitement, not to mention hearty approval, in your post: "and start a new one that actually works for us."I'll bet you would! Maybe we'll start by locking up all the Ohioans ;-)Banish "both parties," in favor of "one"???
Are you a Communist, or a Nazi, Mr. Parker? Inquiring minds wish to know. :?
If I am somewhat mistaken, Mr. Parker, perhaps you clarify what "actually works for us," if not the "one party" you suggested replace "both parties" in 2008?
No problem. The issue will arise and be settled one way or the other - with or without your acquiescence.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Deficits are common during wartime. The current one, in terms of a "percent of the GDP," is on the record books as the 17th largest in U.S. history. Furthermore, while Conservatives do not believe that a new federal government program is a cure for every ailment, we embrace the dictum that the key to many ailments, including deficits, is strong economic growth.
When Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 to 28%, he was effectively downsizing the federal government revenue, right? But while deficits did occur, it was not because revenues fell do to the tax cuts. Tax revenues did not not fall, during Reagan's tenure. They did not because the tax cuts caused economic growth, which in turn cause tax revenues to increase. Bush is simply repeating Reagan's method. So, economic growth will reverse the deficit trend, in time.
Bush is spending way too much money, however. And I am not pleased that he is. But, as I have said before, WOT trumps that card big time. Besides, I believe that raising taxes in any large measure will blunt the economy, just as it did when Hoover and FDR raised them back in the thirties. So Kerry's way ain't good at all.
Fair enough. Deficits during wartime can be acceptable deficits. And as spurs to growth (such as borrowing to start a business). It's the overlarge deficits at every level that trouble me. And I wonder if this growth is real growth, or growth that is unsustainable because of its leverage. Anyway, that's my worry.
Truth to tell, I wouldn't want to be Kerry.
I am quite confident that Mr. Parker can answer any question directed his way, without a rude rebuttal from you, sir. At least you ought be more considerate and give him that chance.Yes, yes. You certainly enjoy dissembling. But we all know that you understand very well what's being said.Hmm, I coulda swore I sensed a bit of excitement, not to mention hearty approval, in your post: "and start a new one that actually works for us."I'll bet you would! Maybe we'll start by locking up all the Ohioans ;-)Banish "both parties," in favor of "one"???
Are you a Communist, or a Nazi, Mr. Parker? Inquiring minds wish to know. :?
If I am somewhat mistaken, Mr. Parker, perhaps you clarify what "actually works for us," if not the "one party" you suggested replace "both parties" in 2008?
As a once and now partial supply-sider, I have a question for you. If what you say is categorically true, how is it that the Clinton tax increases were followed by an economic boom and a serious reduction in deficits?Deficits are common during wartime. The current one, in terms of a "percent of the GDP," is on the record books as the 17th largest in U.S. history. Furthermore, while Conservatives do not believe that a new federal government program is a cure for every ailment, we embrace the dictum that the key to many ailments, including deficits, is strong economic growth.
When Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 to 28%, he was effectively downsizing the federal government revenue, right? But while deficits did occur, it was not because revenues fell do to the tax cuts. Tax revenues did not not fall, during Reagan's tenure. They did not because the tax cuts caused economic growth, which in turn cause tax revenues to increase. Bush is simply repeating Reagan's method. So, economic growth will reverse the deficit trend, in time.
Bush is spending way too much money, however. And I am not pleased that he is. But, as I have said before, WOT trumps that card big time. Besides, I believe that raising taxes in any large measure will blunt the economy, just as it did when Hoover and FDR raised them back in the thirties. So Kerry's way ain't good at all.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Your advocacy for Kevin is disingenuous and what's more you pull this maneuver all the time yourself so criticism of it on your part is hypocritical. Your arguments remind me of the "deconstruction" stuff my communist, post-structuralist brother-in-law used to pull on occasion. Maybe it's your Trotskyite-Neocon affiliations? I don't know.I am quite confident that Mr. Parker can answer any question directed his way, without a rude rebuttal from you, sir. At least you ought be more considerate and give him that chance.Yes, yes. You certainly enjoy dissembling. But we all know that you understand very well what's being said.Hmm, I coulda swore I sensed a bit of excitement, not to mention hearty approval, in your post: "and start a new one that actually works for us."I'll bet you would! Maybe we'll start by locking up all the Ohioans ;-)Banish "both parties," in favor of "one"???
Are you a Communist, or a Nazi, Mr. Parker? Inquiring minds wish to know. :?
If I am somewhat mistaken, Mr. Parker, perhaps you clarify what "actually works for us," if not the "one party" you suggested replace "both parties" in 2008?
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
My question to Mr. Parker was intended to illuminate the dangers (ergo my use of the inflammatory words "Communist, or a Nazi") of wishing for a one party power structure, in order to achieve something that "works for us." The quote includes his emphasis of "us."
By 1937, this country was virtually a "one" party state. The remaining Republicans left in Congress were virtually nil. Aside from the SCOTUS, all political power was flowing from the Executive branch, thru Congress, and being stifled by the last remaining Republican stronghold, the Supreme Court. With the landslide of 1936 behind him, FDR sought to do something about that out-of-touch bunch of renegade judges.
FDR's "court packing" scheme was an attempt to get all three branches thinking alike, the New Deal way. While FDR lost that battle, he won the war: Social Security, the now wounded institution threatening to bust the budget, would survive a Court challenge, and FDR then turned his attentions to Europe. And the Republican Party survived to fight another day.
According to Mr. Saari, I suspect, true liberalism, (or what is now called paleoconservatism) ended in these American states that very year of 1937.
I tend to agree. But I also tend toward living with it, not just b-tching about it while tossing my votes in the trash, as a sign of protest.
In a sense, FDR's fourth was an anomaly, as most real Crisis periods are a time of great division and strife domestically. That's the real reason they are Crisis periods (Torys v. Patriots), because people fight like hell, rather than tow a "moderate" line.
American democracy thrives on dissent, and upon a "two party" system that gives that dissent real meaning and power.
Wishing for a "one" party system is quite naive and dangerous.
Devil's Advocate post
Excellent warning re: "one party system."
Re: Devil's Advocate post
Wow, somebody noticed! Thanks. :oops:
Re: Devil's Advocate post
I noticed as well. That post was quite good. 8)Wow, somebody noticed! Thanks. :oops:
They would have a point. It was FDR that supervised the transformation of the Federal Government from a Congress-centered system to a President-centered system, a change that has never been reversed.
To my mind, the most egregious, dangerous violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution is the practice of every President from FDR on of issuing 'Executive Orders', which have in effect the force of law unless Congress overrides them, something the votes rarely exist to do.
We're used to this, because it's been in place and customary for a lifetime, (and it's been extensively abused!). Since we're used to it, we take it for granted while flying into foaming rages about relatively minor bad ideas like the PATRIOT Act or the abuses from the war on drugs. But the idea of a President ruling by such near-diktats would have been anathema to the Founders.
While something resembling this power might have been necessary given the changes in the modern world, it should have been done through a process of Constitutional Amendment, it should have been far more restricted, and a simple majority in Congress should be sufficient to override any Executive Order.
All very nice, Mr. Advocate. But I find your position surprising considering how you have treated anyone who disagrees with the (your) "party line" with nothing less than contempt. We all get lumped into the category of "liberal" with disdain and scorn (even if we are decidedly not liberal).
Oh, but I forgot. You are only playing a "persona" and "carrying a cross" . . .
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
Interesting points!They would have a point. It was FDR that supervised the transformation of the Federal Government from a Congress-centered system to a President-centered system, a change that has never been reversed.
To my mind, the most egregious, dangerous violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution is the practice of every President from FDR on of issuing 'Executive Orders', which have in effect the force of law unless Congress overrides them, something the votes rarely exist to do.
We're used to this, because it's been in place and customary for a lifetime, (and it's been extensively abused!). Since we're used to it, we take it for granted while flying into foaming rages about relatively minor bad ideas like the PATRIOT Act or the abuses from the war on drugs. But the idea of a President ruling by such near-diktats would have been anathema to the Founders.
While something resembling this power might have been necessary given the changes in the modern world, it should have been done through a process of Constitutional Amendment, it should have been far more restricted, and a simple majority in Congress should be sufficient to override any Executive Order.
Curious. Within the context of the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, what do you think about the ending of the power of executive impoundment in 1974 (a kind of de facto line-item veto)?
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
response to HC68 post
Could we see a return to a Congress dominant system?
We almost have a Court Dominated System. Such major changes as abortion rights can be delivered by five people, and a pro-life President or Congress can't overturn it.
But they can appoint and confirm, respectively, the members of the Supreme Court who can decide on issues like abortion. :wink:
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
That's why I said "almost".
Three years later, a new headline, from the Washington Post...It certainly appears I was right on the, er, money! :wink:
- Surviving the Cruelest Month
By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, September 12, 2004; Page B07
Don't believe T.S. Eliot. Bloody September is the cruelest month, not deceitful April.
It should come as no particular surprise that it was in September that American fatalities in Iraq passed the 1,000 mark, terrorists shot down fleeing schoolchildren in Russia and Americans prepared to memorialize for the third time their greatest single day of national horror. The calendar reserves supremely dark moments for its ninth month.
September 1939 wrenched the globe from its hinges with a world war. A bitter internal fight between Jordanians and Palestinians 34 years ago this month gave birth to the "Black September" movement, which launched the media-centered techniques of mass terrorism perfected by al Qaeda and its allies. This year Fallujah and Beslan have joined the World Trade Center as sites of eternal infamy and instant death.
Calendars no more than poets obey or study geopolitics and the grand strategies of the State Department and Pentagon. Stalin would no doubt want to know how many divisions Eliot commanded, before unsentimentally reminding Americans that when one man dies it is a tragedy, but when thousands die it is a statistic.
The 1948 Nobel laureate nonetheless created a useful framework for thinking differently about this somber moment, when menace and abiding sorrow stalk Americans gathered around their emotional Ground Zero. Eliot saw through April's falseness. Our task is to see through -- and overcome -- September's cumulative gloom and anguish.
In poetic terms, September delivers the vengeance and human suffering that April conceals in Eliot's "The Wasteland," where spring rains stir dull roots and inspire hope as false as lilacs springing from dead land, as unreliable as memory mixing with desire.
April, 17 months ago, was a moment of such illusion. Quick combat victories in Baghdad set the stage for the 1,000 and more American fatalities to come, many of them at the hands of Baathist fighters who went underground with funds and weapons rather than resist the American war machine out in the open.
Not even America's well-funded intelligence agencies could see this September from the vantage point of that April. They did not predict the insurgency that has taken over towns throughout the Sunni heartland for use as bases to spread terror. The mistakes of April have brought greater-than-needed sacrifices and suffering in September in a liberation that has gone awry.
It is especially hard for spies, generals and policymakers to reexamine, recognize and correct mistakes and assumptions as the U.S. presidential campaign roars into full fury: The incumbent is unable to allow himself to consider -- much less admit -- error. The challenger is unable to see anything but error on his foe's part. September's final small cruelty is to lock the candidates and those who work for them into imaginary omniscience until Nov. 2.
The third anniversary of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, provides Americans a moment not only to mourn but also to reflect on the strengths the nation has shown since that day of horror and to see beyond September's hard challenges. The words not of a poet or a politician but of the nation's most powerful and distinguished economist help do that.
Testifying before the House Budget Committee last week, Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, was asked about the economic effect of Sept. 11 and what could be done to minimize damage from future attacks. We have already done much of it, Greenspan replied.
"What helped us during that period and immediately thereafter was an extraordinary amount of flexibility in both our financial and product and labor markets. We had the ability to absorb shocks and rebound," Greenspan said.
"I think we did that inadvertently; we didn't do it as a part of an antiterrorism economic policy," he continued. Over two decades "we lowered our tariffs, we increased globalization, we deregulated the airlines," as technology changed the workplace and markets. The specific actions he listed, whatever their relative merits, are far less important than his analysis of the U.S. economy and the way cohesive societies respond to crisis from the bottom up.
"All of those things, while not directed at the issue of terrorism per se," brought a flexibility to the American economy, which "is based on voluntary actions of people acting largely on bilateral trust." Terrorism "induces fear and withdrawal" from economic activity, Greenspan added. He cited protectionism and the "calcification" of the international economy as potential damaging consequences of terrorist acts.
Terrorists aim to extinguish the hope and the trust of the citizens and nations they attack. How and why they failed in America three years ago shines through Greenspan's words, which are a wise guide through the September sorrows.
Nah, it was considerably before then. Try 1896.
Was he just right a little bit early?
http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/DRI/WDRIE704/
So we are just starting domino #2?
BTW, what is it with October? I would think with elections coming up, October would be the month LEAST likely to have a financial panic (politicians do anything to keep the ship steady). Yet even when the "biggies" of 1929 and 1987 are discounted, it is my understanding that October has more economic plunges than any other month. Is it Satan reving up for Halloween, or what!?
Fall Panics
The reason why there are so many financial panics in the Fall is that the farmers are bringing in the harvest. When the farmers bring in all their harvest they have to sell it. They ship all this produce to the cities to be processed. When they do that they get paid. In other words money flows out of the city banks into the country banks. This causes a temporary deflation in the cities which triggers panics. Of course all this money eventually flows back to the city banks as farmers buy new implements, machinery, seed and all the other manufactured products they need.
In fact the original reason for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was to have a central bank to inflate and try to prevent this temporary deflation every Fall. Of course this originally admirable idea has been grossly abused in the intervening 90 years. Now continuous massive inflation is needed to prop up the economy and keep it from collapsing. Sort of like a junky who needs a bigger fix every time.
