Some interesting parallels
 

On Jan 18, 2:43*pm, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:52:35 -0500, hk wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:14:34 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:

Did you see one of the
"shovel ready" projects Obama wants to fund is a Mob Museum in Nevada?

Cite, please? *The Mayor of Las Vegas, Oscar Goodman, is *seeking*
Federal funding. *No where will you find Obama stating he "wants" to fund
it.

I think we'll be seeing a lot of heavy and highway projects and other
federal construction that falls under the purview of Davis-Bacon and
prevailing wages.

The Big Dig - oh joy. *15 Billion for what was supposed to be a 3
Billion project. *12 years in the making when it was supposed to take
7. Union featherbedding rampant. *Cement contractors cheating on the
concrete. *Bad epoxy leading to the death of some poor schmuck who was
on her way to the airport. *1.6 Billion in legal expenses. *The
tunnels leak at a gazillion gallons a day. Tripled tolls on the Mass
Pike.

Yep - let's go for broke.

Pun intended.

--

Chaos! Panic! Disaster! (My work here is done)



http://wikimapia.org/1361663/Marble-...lant-Abandoned

Some interesting parallels
 

On Jan 18, 2:46*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

...



thunder wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:54:24 -0500, BAR wrote:

This highway work should have been occurring for the last 40 years due
to it being funded by federal gasoline and diesel taxes.

Yup, there's been lots of infrastructure neglected. *Hopefully, this
stimulus package will kill two birds, get the economy moving again, and
fix our crumbling bridges, and roads.

This stimulus package is nothing but a power grab. The Congress should be
strung up and beaten with a stick until the funds from the gasoline and
diesel taxes are actually spent on the roads instead of redirected into
the general fund.

The stimulus package is not going to get the economy moving again. You
could send everyone a check for $1000 and it wouldn't do anything to get
the economy moving again.

We need a long term solution, something that is going to give everyone
long term confidence that the economy is going to improve. Eliminate
corporate taxes, reduce capital gains taxes and cut personal income taxes
in half but, make sure that everyone who earns income pays taxes. No
individual gets a free ride on taxes. This will get the economy moving
again. The people will have confidence that they will have more money to
spend themselves. Businesses will have more money to spend on capital
equipment and the ability to hire more people. Investors will be
encouraged to move their money into ventures that may produce greater
returns.

The government is the last last place to turn to get the economy moving
due to the fact that they haven't got the foggiest idea of what to invest
in or how to spend money to gain the greatest impact due to the
professional politicians who control the purse strings.

You're as bad as Justhate... always looking to weasel out of paying your
fair share of taxes.
Who's supposed to pay for Bushs' adventures in the Middle East?

Don. I'm glad you brought that up.

A friend of mine asked the same type of question.

something like...

"I don't see how the 'govt' is going to pay for all of this."

I has sort of a tongue 'n cheek reply...

"Have you ever known the 'govt' to be concerned abotu paying anything
back?"

I may be wrong, but I thought that was a fair evaluation.

Some interesting parallels
 

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:00:10 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
t...

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:30:33 -0500, BAR wrote:


We need a long term solution, something that is going to give everyone
long term confidence that the economy is going to improve. Eliminate
corporate taxes, reduce capital gains taxes and cut personal income
taxes in half but, make sure that everyone who earns income pays
taxes. No individual gets a free ride on taxes. This will get the
economy moving again. The people will have confidence that they will
have more money to spend themselves. Businesses will have more money
to spend on capital equipment and the ability to hire more people.
Investors will be encouraged to move their money into ventures that
may produce greater returns.


Sell that tired Republican BS to someone else. If you haven't noticed,
we have been doing what you suggest for the past 20 years, and look
where it's gotten us.



A growing, expanding and healthy business base and Wall Street swindling
are two different issues. The latter was in some cases initiated by
government intervention and in all cases by the lack of government
oversight of what they initiated.

If we intend to keep capitalism as our economic engine, BAR is
absolutely correct and many honest (meaning non-politically motivated)
economic experts agree. Growing and investing businesses have always
been the catalyst for an expanding economy, employment and consumer
confidence/spending. Throw a wet towel on business in the form of
taxes and the economy slows down. Happens everytime.

Now, if you are suggesting we replace our business based economic engine
with something else, then all bets are off.

I'm suggesting that since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been running on
"government being the problem". Deregulation and privatization were the
mantras. I'm suggesting recent events have put an end to such
silliness. A literal handful of fat cats have just choked the *world's*
economy, and people are looking to their governments to save it.

Now, I don't know how deep this recession is going to be, but if it is
deep and long, people are going to demand changes. Capitalism is going
to be redefined, and laissez-faire is not going to be part of the
definition.

Capitalism is a healthy and robust adjunct to democracy, but in my world,
business is here to serve people, not the other way around. When greed
runs amuck on Wall Street, and thousands on Main Street are put out of
work, there should be, and, I suspect, there will be changes. Look
closely at the social turmoil during the Great Depression. I would
suggest that as a country, we are not nearly as polite now, as we were
then.

I would also suggest that on this increasingly small planet, this
consumption based economy that has sustained us all these years, is a
dying paradigm, but that's another story. ;-)

Some interesting parallels
 

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:00:10 -0500, Eisboch wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
t...

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:30:33 -0500, BAR wrote:


We need a long term solution, something that is going to give everyone
long term confidence that the economy is going to improve. Eliminate
corporate taxes, reduce capital gains taxes and cut personal income
taxes in half but, make sure that everyone who earns income pays
taxes. No individual gets a free ride on taxes. This will get the
economy moving again. The people will have confidence that they will
have more money to spend themselves. Businesses will have more money
to spend on capital equipment and the ability to hire more people.
Investors will be encouraged to move their money into ventures that
may produce greater returns.

Sell that tired Republican BS to someone else. If you haven't noticed,
we have been doing what you suggest for the past 20 years, and look
where it's gotten us.


A growing, expanding and healthy business base and Wall Street swindling
are two different issues. The latter was in some cases initiated by
government intervention and in all cases by the lack of government
oversight of what they initiated.

If we intend to keep capitalism as our economic engine, BAR is
absolutely correct and many honest (meaning non-politically motivated)
economic experts agree. Growing and investing businesses have always
been the catalyst for an expanding economy, employment and consumer
confidence/spending. Throw a wet towel on business in the form of
taxes and the economy slows down. Happens everytime.

Now, if you are suggesting we replace our business based economic engine
with something else, then all bets are off.

I'm suggesting that since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been running on
"government being the problem". Deregulation and privatization were the
mantras. I'm suggesting recent events have put an end to such
silliness. A literal handful of fat cats have just choked the *world's*
economy, and people are looking to their governments to save it.

Now, I don't know how deep this recession is going to be, but if it is
deep and long, people are going to demand changes. Capitalism is going
to be redefined, and laissez-faire is not going to be part of the
definition.

Capitalism is a healthy and robust adjunct to democracy, but in my world,
business is here to serve people, not the other way around. When greed
runs amuck on Wall Street, and thousands on Main Street are put out of
work, there should be, and, I suspect, there will be changes. Look
closely at the social turmoil during the Great Depression. I would
suggest that as a country, we are not nearly as polite now, as we were
then.

I would also suggest that on this increasingly small planet, this
consumption based economy that has sustained us all these years, is a
dying paradigm, but that's another story. ;-)

"consumption based economy?" Please tell me you do not want us all to be
come subsistence farmers? If you do I want to live up stream from you.

Some interesting parallels
 

On Jan 18, 8:38*am, BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
* *http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...action=view&cu...

Parallels? What parallels.

agreed. I watched the entire vid and saw no parallel to anything.

Great tribute to Abe, though.

Some interesting parallels
 

On Jan 19, 8:22*am, Tim wrote:
On Jan 18, 8:38*am, BAR wrote:

hk wrote:
* *http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...action=view&cu...

Parallels? What parallels.

agreed. *I watched the entire vid and saw no parallel to anything.

Great tribute to Abe, though.

That's because you're not a dilusional narcissist like Harry!

Some interesting parallels
 

On Jan 18, 4:37*pm, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
...

Your comments are typical of those who neither did well nor go far in
formal education.

Education is a must. *Degrees are very desirable. *Degrees aren't a
problem.
People who judge their value or the value of others simply by the type
or number of degrees he/she holds is the problem.

Eisboch

I make my judgments here based upon the contents of the posts. JustWait
is a parrot of the uninformed right-wing Flatland. The conclusions he
jumps to wouldn't allow him to clear an expansion crack in a concrete
sidewalk.

Those would be control joints, unless the installation was done
improperly, then they would be cracks from contraction.

Some interesting parallels
 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:59:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Jan 18, 4:37*pm, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
...

Your comments are typical of those who neither did well nor go far in
formal education.

Education is a must. *Degrees are very desirable. *Degrees aren't a
problem.
People who judge their value or the value of others simply by the type
or number of degrees he/she holds is the problem.

Eisboch

I make my judgments here based upon the contents of the posts. JustWait
is a parrot of the uninformed right-wing Flatland. The conclusions he
jumps to wouldn't allow him to clear an expansion crack in a concrete
sidewalk.

Those would be control joints, unless the installation was done
improperly, then they would be cracks from contraction.

Hey Loog!

Hope you understood my response to your post yesterday about the political
ramifications of porta-potties, slammer, and Salty.
--
* I Have a Degree in Liberal Arts; Do You Want Fries With That? *

John H

Some interesting parallels
 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:10:08 -0500, BAR wrote:


"consumption based economy?" Please tell me you do not want us all to be
come subsistence farmers? If you do I want to live up stream from you.

No, I mean we have become an incredibly wasteful, resource intensive,
society. In the long run, it is unsustainable, especially with a couple
of billion Indians, and Chinese, wanting to be like us. I don't know
what the future of capitalism will be, but I'll wager it will be
considerably different than the laissez-faire system we have had over the
past century.

Some interesting parallels
 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:59:12 -0600, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:10:08 -0500, BAR wrote:


"consumption based economy?" Please tell me you do not want us all to be
come subsistence farmers? If you do I want to live up stream from you.

No, I mean we have become an incredibly wasteful, resource intensive,
society. In the long run, it is unsustainable, especially with a couple
of billion Indians, and Chinese, wanting to be like us. I don't know
what the future of capitalism will be, but I'll wager it will be
considerably different than the laissez-faire system we have had over the
past century.

Perhaps this article in today's Washington Post is a portent of things to
come - the future your discussing.

Read the article. The entire premise is that Obama is going to give money
away - money to pay off mortgages, for example.

http://tinyurl.com/8fb72t
--
* I Have a Degree in Liberal Arts; Do You Want Fries With That? *

John H