The Most Ignored Stories By The Media

[RedScare]

Editor - I cant help but guess which side of the political spectrum your views lie. I venture to guess that you voted for the messiah. -

bottom line - Regulation in any form that affects SPEECH is bad.

I love it when a poster guesses...and misses the entire side of the barn. Fact is marksmu, the editor generally falls on the other side of the spectrum from the messiah. I, however, voted for him. Since this thread has already experienced the China Syndrome, this is as good a place as any to point out the fallacy of political labels.

I saw a report that for the first time in this great nations history the government now employs more people than the entire manufacturing industry. That means in plain dumb english more people are now being completely supported by fewer people. Sure the service industry (doctors, lawyers, resteraunt staff) still exist, but they too are living off of one thing - manufacturing - the ability to sell a product. So the entire country is now living off of a minority. Great.

By the way, this is not the government's fault. At least, it is not the fault of the liberal government that you aim to smear with this fact. It is the "fault", if you want to call it that, of the "free market", that group of profiteers that pushed to move manufacturing offshore to poor countries where workers make subsistence wages. The US government, which should have been making it easier for manufacturing to stay in this country through programs like universal healthcare, instead made it easier to offshore those jobs. To use your phrase, it is easy to guess which side of the political spectrum your views lie, as you are too quick to blame the government for the actions of corporate profiteers, and way too quick to blame government for getting bigger, when bigger government might have kept many of the jobs you miss here in the states.

[Marksmu]

I love it when a poster guesses...and misses the entire side of the barn. Fact is marksmu, the editor generally falls on the other side of the spectrum from the messiah. I, however, voted for him. Since this thread has already experienced the China Syndrome, this is as good a place as any to point out the fallacy of political labels.

By the way, this is not the government's fault. At least, it is not the fault of the liberal government that you aim to smear with this fact. It is the "fault", if you want to call it that, of the "free market", that group of profiteers that pushed to move manufacturing offshore to poor countries where workers make subsistence wages. The US government, which should have been making it easier for manufacturing to stay in this country through programs like universal healthcare, instead made it easier to offshore those jobs. To use your phrase, it is easy to guess which side of the political spectrum your views lie, as you are too quick to blame the government for the actions of corporate profiteers, and way too quick to blame government for getting bigger, when bigger government might have kept many of the jobs you miss here in the states.

First, I dont follow editors posts - In fact I just found the off topic, and way off topic threads. I usually hover in the heights, and home improvement sections. But since the election I am worked up.

I will not defend profiteers who took jobs offshore. I cant stand that aspect of this country and I cant stand the Fat cats who make insane salaries. Nobody is worth tens of millions/yr if your in a publicly traded company that must answer to stock holders. Privately held companies can do what they want in my opinion b.c they only hurt themselves when they lose. But at the same time a line worker at a GM plant does not deserve $25-$50/hr plus benefits, and a month off...thats insane. The unions are the reasons jobs were taken offshore. They never even looked over seas till the workers demanded that which the market wont bear. At a time when a company is failing the UAW proved that it didnt care about the hand that fed it. They refused to accept no raise, or increase in benefits. They force the hand. They are unreasonable and useless in todays world of attorneys and the ease of getting into court.

In my opinion - and its just my opinion - the government does not do anything better than the free market. The people who ruined these companies should all be prosecuted for their crimes, and rest assured they committed crimes. That would correct the market problems. People broke the law, and inflated numbers to raise stock prices at the expense of the companies all b/c they wanted to cash out options....A precedent of jail time for former millionaires will solve the problem going forward. It wont give back to those who lost, but the market corrects itself.

But universal health care does not work - it has never worked anywhere. Many countries have tried it, and all have failed. Canada's health care is a joke. Its another tax on those who work to benefit those who dont. I have a massive problem looking at my paycheck and realising that I pay more in taxes for programs I dont want or care about than many of my friends make.

If Im going to have to pay rediuclous taxes, I should get to choose where my taxes go. Support the government run initiatives that I actually care about. Parks, wildlife, homeless animals, etc...not to some poor mom, who gets pregnant over and over again to increase her welfare check, and put out thugs who just propogate the problem.

My two cents - actually a long rant, but I am sick of taxes and lazy people taking from me. In my mind Its stealing. I dont consume more health care, more roads, more bridges, more military, more of anything,...but I pay 10-50X more than those who do.

[TJones]

Exactly. I'm not suggesting that Rush or Al Franken or whomever be censored. What I am saying is that the government should reinstate and actually enforce rules that require broadcasters and other non-print media companies to actually serve the public and the communities they're licensed to. The companies should be concerned about losing their licenses if they don't fulfill this role. Right now they aren't, so the number one and two and three priorities are profit, not the public. They've been given a license to use a limited public resource, and so the public good should be in there somewhere.

Does this make broadcasting less profitable? Yes. Does it make broadcasting so unprofitable that it goes under? No. Not even close.

Dang, and I thought I was out on this thread, but here is editor bringing me back in. Dude, as someone who is /was actually IN media broadcasting, I would think that you of all people would be the last one to preach FOR big govt. regulation of what progam you choose to provide on said BOUGHT and PAID FOR license ? What if next, they want to censor YOUR/our HAIF forum here ? This really seems to be coming out of leftfield for you. First you got Niche not caring about innocent 3yr. olds being snuffed out, as it is just too taxing on his delicate sensibilities and would interupt with his long lonely canoe trips. And now you want govt. censorship ? What is this world coming too ? I think this must be two signs of the Apocalypse ???

[Rammer]

Here's another one:

The government's economic statistics are totally bogus.

Although the media will never report it, every economist knows about Shadowstats.com.

The real current economic numbers are:

Unemployment 18%

Inflation 8%

GDP -4%

The government became SO embarrassed by the M3(Money Supply) numbers, they stopped reporting it in 2006!!! Notice the massive escalation of currency being printed(M1) in 2008.

People also don't realize that the unemployed slide off the rolls after 6 months.

** Unemployment numbers ONLY include those collecting unemployment benefits !!! **

Theoretically, if everybody in America lost their job...you would eventually have an unemployment rate of 0%!!

[crunchtastic]

Here's another one:

The government's economic statistics are totally bogus.

Although the media will never report it, every economist knows about Shadowstats.com.

The real current economic numbers are:

Unemployment 18%

Inflation 8%

GDP -4%

The government became SO embarrassed by the M3(Money Supply) numbers, they stopped reporting it in 2006!!! Notice the massive escalation of currency being printed(M1) in 2008.

People also don't realize that the unemployed slide off the rolls after 6 months.

** Unemployment numbers ONLY include those collecting unemployment benefits !!! **

Theoretically, if everybody in America lost their job...you would eventually have an unemployment rate of 0%!!

Rammer is right on with this one. I gave up on MSM long ago for this kind of reporting. The interwebs are full to the brim with people who make it their daily business to point out the undereporting and discrepancies in 'official' economic data.

This is where I make my standard plug for the economics blog, The Big Picture:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/

[TheNiche]

First you got Niche not caring about innocent 3yr. olds being snuffed out, as it is just too taxing on his delicate sensibilities and would interupt with his long lonely canoe trips. And now you want govt. censorship ? What is this world coming too ? I think this must be two signs of the Apocalypse ???

Editor did not get me to not care about publicity surrounding the murder of random three-year-olds. I got that way all on my own, thank you very much.

And if you really must look for the gray cloud in every silver lining, well if anything my long lonely kayak trips are an escapist reaction to those elements of society that pay attention to Caylee in lieu of real news. Why don't you just go ahead an accuse me of that. I'll probably even agree with you.

[J W]

Editor - I cant help but guess which side of the political spectrum your views lie. I venture to guess that you voted for the messiah. - That aside - the left leaning side of the country is overwhelming - Starting in junior high, continuing with high school, college, law school, graduate school, you name it - nearly all the staff are heavily liberal. Then you get to the Newspapers & Magazines - all the "News" (in quotes b/c their bias is a joke) are also very left leaning. Then you move to the Television - ONLY fox news reports the other perspective, and it infuriates a huge portion of the nation. Is Fox biased to the Right? Yes - is it as far Right, as CNN/MSNBC or the others are LEFT - Not a chance. Then you get to the RADIO. The only medium in which Conservatives have a voice - and you want to implement restrictions?! Are you kidding me? If you dont like it - change the channel - its what 50% of the nation has to do in every other form of media. You didnt specifically call out talk radio - but it is the only conservative leaning media, so it can be extrapolated.

The Government should not regulate speech in any way shape of form. Regulation by government ensures ONE Thing - more Government, more control thereby securing that one parties continuous rein of power. Let us not forget - we are a capitalist society, even if you dont like it - the Government does not make ANY money - they spend ours. I for one, work to hard to give the government anything more than I have to. The more regulation the more money I lose to the government. I saw a report that for the first time in this great nations history the government now employs more people than the entire manufacturing industry. That means in plain dumb english more people are now being completely supported by fewer people. Sure the service industry (doctors, lawyers, resteraunt staff) still exist, but they too are living off of one thing - manufacturing - the ability to sell a product. So the entire country is now living off of a minority. Great.

bottom line - Regulation in any form that affects SPEECH is bad.

Sorry , radio and television broadcasting are different. The frequency spectrum is limited . Just because I am fortunate enough to aquire and purchase a radio station doesn't give me a right to libel you ( ie. call you a racist or a communist,or simply make fun of you ) and you not have the right to respond . The Fairness Doctrine was not so much government regulation as government being a referee in the name of fair play .

[TJones]

Sorry , radio and television broadcasting are different. The frequency spectrum is limited . Just because I am fortunate enough to aquire and purchase a radio station doesn't give me a right to libel you ( ie. call you a racist or a communist,or simply make fun of you ) and you not have the right to respond . The Fairness Doctrine was not so much government regulation as government being a referee in the name of fair play .

So JW, what you are saying is that it's just another battle between the haves, and the have nots. Ok, good point, but the havenots can and have tried, to buy their own airtime, and failed miserably. It should not be the function of Govt. to enforce "fairplay" when nobody wants to listen to the otherside, that is another form of Socialism. Vietnam had Hanoi Hannah blasting out on the Govt. sanctioned radio everyday to try and demoralize our soldiers, are you suggesting that we as Americans also be demoralized by these same tactics in our own country ?

Being a town crier has a limited range also, but you still have the right to free speech. As far as anyone being called a racist, or a communist, I will guarantee any conservative radio talk show host will WELCOME anyone they may have talked about ,disparagingly, onto their show, and do a whole segment with them, in order to let that person have a chance to defend themselves upon any charges made by said talk show host.

[Marksmu]

The fairness doctrine was designed for one reason - to stifle speech that the liberals could not control. They find a way to couch it in an otherwise legitimate way by declaring the frequencies in the air as limited. It is exactly the same way that the government has used the commerce clause to regulate just about anything that they want to.

Its a JOKE to actually believe the Fairness Doctrine is ANYTHING other than an attempt to quiet the conservative media b/c the conservative media has a strangle hold on talk radio.

Its sad to say but liberals can not succeed with talk radio b/c most of their positions are not defensible when met with common sense. They are ideological points. Wouldn't it be butterflies and rainbows if we all had free health care? SURE it would, but the quality would get so terrible, you would not want to use it. Wouldn't it be nice if we all made plenty of money?? Sure it would but then there would NO incentive to work.

Time and Time again - liberal talk fails b/c they will not let the opposing side call in and argue with them - b/c the opposing side is smarter and can make points the liberal host can not refute. What makes peopel listen to conservative talk radio is that it is normally common sense, its normally not what is heard on the TV, in Print, or on the "legitimate news sites" and they allow both sides to make their statements. Its great when the liberals call in to talk b/c they say one thing, they are refuted with a common sense, and correct answer, and then when asked to respond, they say your just a racist, or repeat the original statement.

Liberal radio will not ever work b/c they cannot defend their positions on the air. Period. The fairness doctrine is designed to stop further progression of the conservative movement. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, or not being genuine.

Period.

Sorry , radio and television broadcasting are different. The frequency spectrum is limited . Just because I am fortunate enough to aquire and purchase a radio station doesn't give me a right to libel you ( ie. call you a racist or a communist,or simply make fun of you ) and you not have the right to respond . The Fairness Doctrine was not so much government regulation as government being a referee in the name of fair play .

[RedScare]

The fairness doctrine was designed for one reason - to stifle speech that the liberals could not control. They find a way to couch it in an otherwise legitimate way by declaring the frequencies in the air as limited. It is exactly the same way that the government has used the commerce clause to regulate just about anything that they want to.

Its a JOKE to actually believe the Fairness Doctrine is ANYTHING other than an attempt to quiet the conservative media b/c the conservative media has a strangle hold on talk radio.

Its sad to say but liberals can not succeed with talk radio b/c most of their positions are not defensible when met with common sense. They are ideological points. Wouldn't it be butterflies and rainbows if we all had free health care? SURE it would, but the quality would get so terrible, you would not want to use it. Wouldn't it be nice if we all made plenty of money?? Sure it would but then there would NO incentive to work.

Time and Time again - liberal talk fails b/c they will not let the opposing side call in and argue with them - b/c the opposing side is smarter and can make points the liberal host can not refute. What makes peopel listen to conservative talk radio is that it is normally common sense, its normally not what is heard on the TV, in Print, or on the "legitimate news sites" and they allow both sides to make their statements. Its great when the liberals call in to talk b/c they say one thing, they are refuted with a common sense, and correct answer, and then when asked to respond, they say your just a racist, or repeat the original statement.

Liberal radio will not ever work b/c they cannot defend their positions on the air. Period. The fairness doctrine is designed to stop further progression of the conservative movement. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, or not being genuine.

Period.

I believe the conservative movement has done a fine job of stopping its further progrssion by itself, even without the Fairness Doctrine.

Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, or not being genuine.

[N Judah]

Edit: n/m

[Marksmu]

I believe the conservative movement has done a fine job of stopping its further progrssion by itself, even without the Fairness Doctrine.

Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, or not being genuine.

I Can not argue that Bush was not a major setback - but I will argue that Bush was NOT a conservative. Bush was a very moderate, if not liberal republican. Though still technically a republican he broke ranks over several MAJOR issues which made him NOT a conservative. Not the least of which were immigration and fiscal responsibility, welfare, healthcare, etc.

About all he got right were conservative appointees to the Supreme Court and Taxes.

[Rammer]

Back to story #3.

It's beyond comprehension. After Goldman Sachs has been caught by '60 Minutes' controlling oil commodity prices...they continue to scheme unnoticed by the worthless media.

Let's go slow...in case anyone from the media may be watching.

Goldman Sachs was able to manipulate oil prices via a change in ICE rules.

In January 2006, ICE Futures in London began trading a futures contract for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil. ICE Futures also notified the CFTC(Commodity Futures Trading Commission) that it would be permitting traders in the United States to use ICE terminals in the United States to trade its new WTI contract on the ICE Futures London exchange. ICE Futures as well allowed traders in the United States to trade US gasoline and heating oil futures on the ICE Futures exchange in London. The CFTC is SUPPOSED to be an oversight agency.

So, who does Obama appoint to head the CFTC on December 18th? Gary Gensler, from GOLDMAN SACHS! He's a Robert Rubin underling! Gee, let's see which company had the second largest employee contributions to Obama's campaign? GOLDMAN SACHS....$955,223!!! Who had the largest holdings on 'long' oil contracts until midsummer when oil hit almost $150 per barrel? GOLDMAN SACHS! Who then switched to a 'short' position on oil contracts? GOLDMAN SACHS! Hello? Hello? Does ANYONE in the media have a brain besides '60 Minutes'? And THEY only got PART of the story.

[J W]

I Can not argue that Bush was not a major setback - but I will argue that Bush was NOT a conservative. Bush was a very moderate, if not liberal republican. Though still technically a republican he broke ranks over several MAJOR issues which made him NOT a conservative. Not the least of which were immigration and fiscal responsibility, welfare, healthcare, etc.

About all he got right were conservative appointees to the Supreme Court and Taxes.

Oh , so if he didn't obey his marching orders from Rush, Hannity and Laura, he's not a REAL conservative .

[TheNiche]

So, who does Obama appoint to head the CFTC on December 18th? Gary Gensler, from GOLDMAN SACHS! He's a Robert Rubin underling! Gee, let's see which company had the second largest employee contributions to Obama's campaign? GOLDMAN SACHS....$955,223!!! Who had the largest holdings on 'long' oil contracts until midsummer when oil hit almost $150 per barrel? GOLDMAN SACHS! Who then switched to a 'short' position on oil contracts? GOLDMAN SACHS! Hello? Hello? Does ANYONE in the media have a brain besides '60 Minutes'? And THEY only got PART of the story.

So what? The guy is clearly very competent and is quite an operator. As long as compensation is properly structured so as to assure loyalty, these are the qualities you want for a political appointee.

It should not come as a shock that Goldman Sachs employees donated the most to Obama; their mission is profit by way of foresight and certainly there was a point at which Obama's candidacy was strong enough that Goldman folks no doubt backed Obama because he was certain to win (not necessarily because they liked his policy) and because donors always get favors.

As far as Goldman Sachs' changing oil positions, do you reckon that they might've actually just made some good investment decisions? Good for them.

[Rammer]

So what? The guy is clearly very competent and is quite an operator. As long as compensation is properly structured so as to assure loyalty, these are the qualities you want for a political appointee.

It should not come as a shock that Goldman Sachs employees donated the most to Obama; their mission is profit by way of foresight and certainly there was a point at which Obama's candidacy was strong enough that Goldman folks no doubt backed Obama because he was certain to win (not necessarily because they liked his policy) and because donors always get favors.

As far as Goldman Sachs' changing oil positions, do you reckon that they might've actually just made some good investment decisions? Good for them.

It's easy to make good decisions when you completely CONTROL the price of the commodity!

Their arrogance is so extreme, they've even been 'pumping & dumping' their short position.

Buy oil ETFs like USO & DIG today!(Oil is currently only $35 per barrel)

And tear that poster of Tim Donaghy off your wall.

[Marksmu]

Oh , so if he didn't obey his marching orders from Rush, Hannity and Laura, he's not a REAL conservative .

I laughed so hard when I read this - because I was actually telling people at work about this discussion, and I said I cant wait for someone to say that. It was very predictable.

But no - he was not a REAL conservative b/c he completely disregarded CONSERVATIVE views. You cant say one thing and do another. Conservatives are by definition for responsible spending in government, and smaller government. GW, spent like a democrat, and actually enlarged the government. Conservatives are for controlled immigration, and GW was willing to grant amnesty to the people who are bankrupting our society by using resources without contributing to the pot.

Rush, Hannity, & Laura just happen to call him out on it. They are not the leaders of the conservative party - they are a more radical voice willing to cross their own party line to point something out.

None if it matters anyway - the new "stimulus" bill has just bankrputed this country for good. Now its just a matter of time till the Messiah tells us that the government needs money, and they "nationalize" 401K programs and you lose your retirement completly, but much like Social Security, they will "promise" you can have it all back with interest later. You dont know best what to do with YOUR money - they do.

[TheNiche]

It's easy to make good decisions when you completely CONTROL the price of the commodity!

So you're asserting that Goldman Sachs exerted complete control over the price of oil from 2006 to present, and that the price of oil actually has nothing to do with changing global economic patterns of supply or demand? You're making the conspiracy theorists' foremost error and are confusing correlation with causation.

There are cases where it is plausible that a single trading operation could influence oil prices, but they could not keep it up for very long. The oil market is very deep. A study in contrast would be where Enron was able to corner the market on propane. They were able to do that only because propane is much more thinly traded.

Their arrogance is so extreme, they've even been 'pumping & dumping' their short position.

Irrespective of Goldman Sachs' actions, I've become increasingly long on oil over the last month and a half. Is that a signal that I am also extremely arrogant in your opinion?

[TheNiche]

I laughed so hard when I read this - because I was actually telling people at work about this discussion, and I said I cant wait for someone to say that. It was very predictable.

But no - he was not a REAL conservative b/c he completely disregarded CONSERVATIVE views. You cant say one thing and do another. Conservatives are by definition for responsible spending in government, and smaller government. GW, spent like a democrat, and actually enlarged the government. Conservatives are for controlled immigration, and GW was willing to grant amnesty to the people who are bankrupting our society by using resources without contributing to the pot.

Rush, Hannity, & Laura just happen to call him out on it. They are not the leaders of the conservative party - they are a more radical voice willing to cross their own party line to point something out.

Depends on how you define "conservatism". The alignment between religion and business within the Republican party muddles any attempt at a concise and widely-accepted description of a so-called political philosophy.

None if it matters anyway - the new "stimulus" bill has just bankrputed this country for good. Now its just a matter of time till the Messiah tells us that the government needs money, and they "nationalize" 401K programs and you lose your retirement completly, but much like Social Security, they will "promise" you can have it all back with interest later. You dont know best what to do with YOUR money - they do.

I don't like it either, but I should point out that it is impossible for a nation to go bankrupt. I would also point out that even though I do not believe that the prospect of 40% of GDP being government spending is a wise course of action, we've done it before in our nation's history. The result is higher taxes, higher interest rates on debt, inflation, or some combination of those. Those things suck, yes. But that is not bankruptcy. Drop that useless device from your rhetoric and go read a frickin' economics textbook.

[RedScare]

I laughed so hard when I read this - because I was actually telling people at work about this discussion, and I said I cant wait for someone to say that. It was very predictable.

But no - he was not a REAL conservative b/c he completely disregarded CONSERVATIVE views. You cant say one thing and do another. Conservatives are by definition for responsible spending in government, and smaller government. GW, spent like a democrat, and actually enlarged the government. Conservatives are for controlled immigration, and GW was willing to grant amnesty to the people who are bankrupting our society by using resources without contributing to the pot.

Rush, Hannity, & Laura just happen to call him out on it. They are not the leaders of the conservative party - they are a more radical voice willing to cross their own party line to point something out.

None if it matters anyway - the new "stimulus" bill has just bankrputed this country for good. Now its just a matter of time till the Messiah tells us that the government needs money, and they "nationalize" 401K programs and you lose your retirement completly, but much like Social Security, they will "promise" you can have it all back with interest later. You dont know best what to do with YOUR money - they do.

As Niche pointed out, you appear to confusing "Republican" with "Conservative". As presidents cannot spend without the approval of Congress, to blame Bush alone for doubling the National Debt without mentioning the GOP controlled Congress for 6 of his 8 years that sent those spending bills for his signature is laughable. And lauding tax cuts as "conservative" is ludicrous. A fiscal conservative limits spending, but more importantly, a fiscal conservative PAYS HIS BILLS. This less taxes mantra that Republicans are chanting is not conservatism. It is a continuation of the easy credit, "buy now, pay later" policies that got the entire country in the situation it finds itself in today. More insidious, it is a refusal on the part of Republicans to provide a sound fiscal base on which the government sits. Republicans may think that less taxes starves entitlement programs, but it also starves infrastructure, the military, justice and other useful and necessary parts of government. And, by running up the deficit and collecting less taxes during economic expansion when people can afford to pay them, it lessens the ability of government to increase spending during recessions when it is needed.

It is probably best that you use your "conservative" argument on talk radio where no one will question you. Because over here in the real world, some of us still use a real definition of fiscal conservative.

[KinkaidAlum]

I laughed so hard when I read this - because I was actually telling people at work about this discussion, and I said I cant wait for someone to say that. It was very predictable.

But no - he was not a REAL conservative b/c he completely disregarded CONSERVATIVE views. You cant say one thing and do another. Conservatives are by definition for responsible spending in government, and smaller government. GW, spent like a democrat, and actually enlarged the government. Conservatives are for controlled immigration, and GW was willing to grant amnesty to the people who are bankrupting our society by using resources without contributing to the pot.

Rush, Hannity, & Laura just happen to call him out on it. They are not the leaders of the conservative party - they are a more radical voice willing to cross their own party line to point something out.

None if it matters anyway - the new "stimulus" bill has just bankrputed this country for good. Now its just a matter of time till the Messiah tells us that the government needs money, and they "nationalize" 401K programs and you lose your retirement completly, but much like Social Security, they will "promise" you can have it all back with interest later. You dont know best what to do with YOUR money - they do.

You are 100% correct in your 2nd paragraph.

So, who did you vote for in 2004?

I know many people who consider themselves "true conservatives" and ALL of them voted for Bush in '04 because he had an ® by his name despite the growing deficit, two unmanaged wars, failed immigration policies, largest government in history, etc...

[TheNiche]

You are 100% correct in your 2nd paragraph.

So, who did you vote for in 2004?

I know many people who consider themselves "true conservatives" and ALL of them voted for Bush in '04 because he had an

[Marksmu]

As Niche pointed out, you appear to confusing "Republican" with "Conservative". As presidents cannot spend without the approval of Congress, to blame Bush alone for doubling the National Debt without mentioning the GOP controlled Congress for 6 of his 8 years that sent those spending bills for his signature is laughable. And lauding tax cuts as "conservative" is ludicrous. A fiscal conservative limits spending, but more importantly, a fiscal conservative PAYS HIS BILLS. This less taxes mantra that Republicans are chanting is not conservatism. It is a continuation of the easy credit, "buy now, pay later" policies that got the entire country in the situation it finds itself in today. More insidious, it is a refusal on the part of Republicans to provide a sound fiscal base on which the government sits. Republicans may think that less taxes starves entitlement programs, but it also starves infrastructure, the military, justice and other useful and necessary parts of government. And, by running up the deficit and collecting less taxes during economic expansion when people can afford to pay them, it lessens the ability of government to increase spending during recessions when it is needed.

It is probably best that you use your "conservative" argument on talk radio where no one will question you. Because over here in the real world, some of us still use a real definition of fiscal conservative.

If the messiah gets his way there will not be a talk radio - but that is beside the point. Tax cuts create business by giving more money to those who create jobs. More money in the hands of the people, equates directly to more spending. More spending, means more sales tax, more jobs, more of everything - even TAXES - if you give back 5% in taxes via a tax cut you will collect 3-4% more than had you kept the 5% originally. The 3-4% more comes from new jobs and new spending created by the jobs. It is not buy now pay later - that is an extremely short sided view of the economy and just shows that you do not understand how the system works at all.

What killed us this time, was NOT the tax cuts - tax cuts are proven to work - what killed us was tax cuts, coupled with the money LEAVING THE COUNTRY. When people had the money they still spent it just like republicans said they would - only this time it was not spent on domestically made products that created addittional tax dollars - this time it was on spent on foreign made goods that did nothing but take the money that would have been created and gave it to China. Not how it is supposed to work. Unfortunately, everyone in this country still wants to buy the cheapest thing possible, and you cant buy American if you do that, b/c our standard of living is way above that of other countries, so are our wages, so our products are also more expensive.

So I can talk it all that I want both here and on talk radio b/c it is true and it is supported by the facts. Your statement that it is buy now pay later holds no water, and is easily refuted. As to the house/senate argument - I am aware of the problems there. Unfortunately every person is now only in public office for their own personal gain - they are not there anymore to help the "people" they want the money, or prestige, or both. It used to be a public service, now its a way of getting something for very little work. All politicans are now crooks. We need to get rid of all of them, and put in new people who actually care about solving problems.

We need to stop spending money on irresponsible programs, we need to close un-necessary military bases that cost billions per year, we need to impose an equalizer on products brought into this country, we need to stop importing everything we use and start making it(especially agricultural products), we need to deny medical care to illegal aliens at our hospitals, we need to eliminate the born on US soil laws, we need to check id at polling places, we need to see social security cards to enroll in school, we need english as the national language, we need to stop sending aid to the countries who hate us, regardless of what we do, we need to impose limits on how long one can receive welfare benefits, and we need to reform the tax code so it is understandable by anyone. What we need is common sense, and we need to start workign together as a country. Common sense long sense left the building - we have illegal aliens, collecting welfare, and having MORE children here, who become citizens, SOLELY so they can get a larger welfare check, which they then western union to mexico! Are you kidding me!? People who do not even pay taxes at all, are GETTING MONEY from this stimulus joke of a bill. Its rediculous - common sense is gone - the government has become to large to function. PERIOD. There is no longer common sense, and its to big to keep track of.

You are 100% correct in your 2nd paragraph.

So, who did you vote for in 2004?

I know many people who consider themselves "true conservatives" and ALL of them voted for Bush in '04 because he had an

[RedScare]

If the messiah gets his way...

I stopped reading after that. Use of kitschy buzzwords is a surefire way to devalue the argument.

Oh, I did see this...

tax cuts are proven to work

No, they are not proven to work...unless what you mean is that they are proven to work at increasing the deficit. The biggest economic expansions in US history were accompanied by top tax rates of 50%, 70%, and even 90%.

[Marksmu]

I stopped reading after that. Use of kitschy buzzwords is a surefire way to devalue the argument.

Oh, I did see this...

No, they are not proven to work...unless what you mean is that they are proven to work at increasing the deficit. The biggest economic expansions in US history were accompanied by top tax rates of 50%, 70%, and even 90%.

Typical - when a point can't be refuted there is a snotty liberal response to go for the reason why - such as - "use of kitschy buzzwords is a surefire way to devalue the argument"

Instead of actually trying to show some evidence as to why Im wrong - we get an I'm better than you response, so your wrong.

The largest Expansion is US history immediately followed WWII - and it was not because the tax rates were high it was because during the war nearly everything was devoted to the war, and there were very few consumer goods. At the conclusion of the war, many Americans had several YEARS worth of paychecks accumulated in the bank, and they wanted to spend them on things they could not buy during the war bc they were not available. Following, the war, consumer goods were again made available, soldiers returned home from abroad, and the baby boom occurred. Money, new children, and a total lack of consumer goods during the previous years were the reason for the economic expansion - NOT TAXES

[RedScare]

Typical - when a point can't be refuted there is a snotty liberal response to go for the reason why - such as - "use of kitschy buzzwords is a surefire way to devalue the argument"

Instead of actually trying to show some evidence as to why Im wrong - we get an I'm better than you response, so your wrong.

The largest Expansion is US history immediately followed WWII - and it was not because the tax rates were high it was because during the war nearly everything was devoted to the war, and there were very few consumer goods. At the conclusion of the war, many Americans had several YEARS worth of paychecks accumulated in the bank, and they wanted to spend them on things they could not buy during the war bc they were not available. Following, the war, consumer goods were again made available, soldiers returned home from abroad, and the baby boom occurred. Money, new children, and a total lack of consumer goods during the previous years were the reason for the economic expansion - NOT TAXES

This reponse refutes your argument, not mine.

I went back and read the rest of your post. It really is a shame that you began with the phrase you did, because there are actually some paragraphs in there that I agree with, specifically the last one. Perhaps ignoring your post because of the phrase you used is snottily liberal, but if you wish for snotty liberals...or anyone else for that matter...to be persuaded by your post, it behooves you not to begin by sounding like a beer guzzling suburban redneck who posts on freerepublic. If I were to begin my posts with references to Nazis and Fascism, I suspect that the mental triggers in your brain would immediately shut down. It is rather foolish of you to think that your catchphrases will not do the same for anyone reading your posts. So, yes, my ignoring the rest of your posr IS typical, as it is for anyone who starts a debate with namecalling.

[Marksmu]

This reponse refutes your argument, not mine.

I went back and read the rest of your post. It really is a shame that you began with the phrase you did, because there are actually some paragraphs in there that I agree with, specifically the last one. Perhaps ignoring your post because of the phrase you used is snottily liberal, but if you wish for snotty liberals...or anyone else for that matter...to be persuaded by your post, it behooves you not to begin by sounding like a beer guzzling suburban redneck who posts on freerepublic. If I were to begin my posts with references to Nazis and Fascism, I suspect that the mental triggers in your brain would immediately shut down. It is rather foolish of you to think that your catchphrases will not do the same for anyone reading your posts. So, yes, my ignoring the rest of your posr IS typical, as it is for anyone who starts a debate with namecalling.

I havent been to freerepublic - but your agreement with me goes to show - I dont actually think the people of the two parties are actually that different - its the politicians. They are dishonest cheats - all of em. But the whole point is that high taxes did not spur the growth of the economy - money coupled with previously unavailable luxury items caused the growth. The tax rate was irrelevant at that time. People didnt have anything, and all of a sudden they could afford things. That is not the case now. Now, what we need to get out of our situation here is not irresponsible spending, or social projects - we need lower taxes, to create more jobs, but those taxes cannot go to companies taking the money out of the US. If it isnt made here it should cost more - not less. We enter into these "trade" agreements, so the big companies can get more money with the promise of more jobs - but it doesnt happen - the big companies are corrupting the politicians, and the only people that benefit from these agreements are the big companies, and the other countries.

[RedScare]

I havent been to freerepublic - but your agreement with me goes to show - I dont actually think the people of the two parties are actually that different - its the politicians. They are dishonest cheats - all of em. But the whole point is that high taxes did not spur the growth of the economy - money coupled with previously unavailable luxury items caused the growth. The tax rate was irrelevant at that time. People didnt have anything, and all of a sudden they could afford things. That is not the case now. Now, what we need to get out of our situation here is not irresponsible spending, or social projects - we need lower taxes, to create more jobs, but those taxes cannot go to companies taking the money out of the US. If it isnt made here it should cost more - not less. We enter into these "trade" agreements, so the big companies can get more money with the promise of more jobs - but it doesnt happen - the big companies are corrupting the politicians, and the only people that benefit from these agreements are the big companies, and the other countries.

I agree that the citizens are not that different...and that neither are the politicains.

You are taking the tax argument and distorting it. You claimed that lowering taxes is proven to work. I disagreed. Now, you are suggesting that I said higher taxes spurred the postwar economy. I said no such thing. You stated that that the tax rate was irrelevant at that time. I agree. The tax rate is almost always irrelevant, at least as a mechanism for spurring the economy. There is virtually always some other stimulus or depressant that influences the economy more than tax rates. Otherwise, we would not be in the midst of potentially the biggest recession since the 1930s 6 years AFTER Bush lowered the tax rates.

Some lowering of tax burdern can help as a stimulus. Just as food stamps and unemployment benefits are spent immediately by the recipients, lowering the tax rate on the middle class wage earners can spur spending, IF it is retroactive to the beginning of the year, and ONLY for those who receive a paycheck. For everyone else, the money goes into savings, or the tax savings are not realized until April 15 of the next year. So, for targeted and immediate stimulus, tax cuts are not very effective. Studies suggest that tax cuts return $1.02 for every dollar cut.

This is not to suggest that the stimulus package is great. To get it passed, they had to put in pork for the Dems and pork for the GOP. However, even pork can stimulate the economy. In that sense, some of the programs will still work. Others are just as futile as the tax cuts. To give just one example, the Smoking Cessation programs actually work AGAINST stimulating the economy, as they depress tobacco sales, and theoretically, health care costs (years down the road). For all of its merits, a smoking cessation program does not belong in a stimulus package.

In a bill this size, you have to look at the big picture. Is it better to have a flawed stimulus package than nothing? My opinion is yes, even though I have issues with many of the provisions. I think we'd be worse off without it. The time to fight deficits is during expansions, not during recessions. I recognize this fact, even though I am not pleased by it.

[crunchtastic]

If it isnt made here it should cost more - not less.

Time to go check out that econ 101 book, chief.

Increasing the price of imports increases the trade deficit. Perpetually increasing trade deficit= bad. High trade deficit + slow GDP gowth= worse. Oh, and the dollar's weak, so we're already paying more for imports, so tarrifs compound the problem even more. Your bizarre protectionist fantasy is not economically sound, and must be motivated by some sort of xenophobic reaction, because true conservatives oppose artificial trade barriers.

[memebag]

The stories that are truly ignored by the media aren't stories at all. Everything discussed here was obviously not ignored by the media.