|
Post by omaha on Oct 8, 2011 16:08:48 GMT -5
The economy will improve if we are smart enough to generally leave it alone. It will also improve if we stumble into a once-in-a-century technology like steam power, internal combustion engines, electric power, or the internet.
But those things are "black swans", and by definition can not be predicted and therefore not counted on.
So the best we can hope for is to generally leave things alone.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 8, 2011 16:40:58 GMT -5
Jeff, the problem with that is that GOP so called conservatives idea of leaving it alone isn't. It's just messing with the economy from a direction.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Oct 8, 2011 16:58:25 GMT -5
If the economy tanks under a Republican president, it's due to events out of his control. If the economy improves, it's all due to his magnificent management. And vice-versa for Democratic presidents, of course. Write it down, there will be a test. This seems sort of simplistic, but if you say so, who am I to argue? I'm trying hard to be a conservative. If it sounds stupid, don't blame me.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 8, 2011 17:05:20 GMT -5
This seems sort of simplistic, but if you say so, who am I to argue? I'm trying hard to be a conservative. If it sounds stupid, don't blame me. It wouldn't sound so stupid if you came anywhere near the mark of sounding conservative. You're not very good at it yet. It's hard 'cause you have to actually know stuff, but keep trying.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Oct 8, 2011 17:07:15 GMT -5
This seems sort of simplistic, but if you say so, who am I to argue? I'm trying hard to be a conservative. If it sounds stupid, don't blame me. Start by understanding that "conservative" and " republican" are not synonymous.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 8, 2011 18:22:35 GMT -5
I'm trying hard to be a conservative. If it sounds stupid, don't blame me. Start by understanding that "conservative" and " republican" are not synonymous. Not even close. ;D
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 8, 2011 21:57:53 GMT -5
Start by understanding that "conservative" and " republican" are not synonymous. That I understand. I also understand that " Liberal" and " Democrat" are not synonymous. It takes great understanding to understand what I understand. Not all are capable of it. What takes even greater understanding still is understanding that regardless how truly conservative a president is, he will govern like a Republican. And regardless of how truly liberal a president is, he will govern like a Democrat. What takes very little understanding is understanding that no matter who is in office, neither a conservative or a liberal will ever be happy.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 8, 2011 23:06:20 GMT -5
Start by understanding that "conservative" and " republican" are not synonymous. That I understand. I also understand that " Liberal" and " Democrat" are not synonymous. It takes great understanding to understand what I understand. Not all are capable of it. What takes even greater understanding still is understanding that regardless how truly conservative a president is, he will govern like a Republican. And regardless of how truly liberal a president is, he will govern like a Democrat. What takes very little understanding is understanding that no matter who is in office, neither a conservative or a liberal will ever be happy. It's OK Paul. I understand. [ hugs] [ back pats] There now. [ hugs][ back pats]
|
|
|
Post by fatstrat on Oct 9, 2011 5:38:01 GMT -5
Start by understanding that "conservative" and " republican" are not synonymous. That I understand. I also understand that " Liberal" and " Democrat" are not synonymous. That's something that I think a lot of mostly older Democrats are struggling with. I come from a long line of "Missouri Democrats". And was one myself until the late 1990's. My dad always said "the working man always does better under a democrat." And it was hard for him to see and finally admit that what the Democratic party has become is particularly the last 20 years, is a far cry from the one he supported.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Oct 10, 2011 15:42:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Oct 14, 2011 10:53:14 GMT -5
Just for the record, I don't lionize Reagan or Clinton. I happen to be part of a very small minority who think that the economy has thrived in spite of US government. I think the biggest factor in economics for the past thirty years has been technology. Hands down. It's even given government a HUGE amount of rope with which to now hang both them and unfortunately us. Been away for a few days, and missed a lot of this. Cain is interesting. So was Perry. There is much running around in circles trying to find someone to please a particular leaning, who is not Romney. But the GOP ship seems to keep righting itself back down the tried and true. John, I agree to a certain extent. To a very large extent, with the affect government can have on the economy. But then, you have to look at things like the deregulation of the financial industry, and the stupidity around low/no interest mortgages, that led to so much pain in the financial industry, to see that's not entirely true. Governments seem incapable of making big, sweeping changes that in the short term, radically change the economy. But they can certainly make changes that in the longer term cause major grief, or conceivably provide favorable stimulation. But those things are harder to sell and measure - free trade is an example. Good? Bad? Really tough to tell, other than that it's rather profoundly affected how our economies work.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Oct 14, 2011 13:37:44 GMT -5
Who to ridicule and who not to ridicule is not for you to decide. That's Jon Stewart's job. And until HE ridicules "Occupy Wall Street", Cain is simply insane for jumping the gun. I don't have the facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that Herman Cain is actually a robot built in the secret underground laboratories of Comedy Central by the vast Stewart/Colbert comedy-industrial complex to give them something to make fun of. (Hey, this is fun!)
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 14, 2011 13:57:45 GMT -5
Rick said:
They didn't deregulate the financial industry they just changed who the regulations favored.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Oct 14, 2011 15:20:13 GMT -5
Good point. Same conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Oct 17, 2011 7:58:41 GMT -5
You know, I would just like to state for the record that even with 9 toppings, I think $9 for a crummy-9-inch pizza is a ripoff. ![>:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/angry.png)
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Oct 17, 2011 14:36:40 GMT -5
How about an excellent 9" pizza?
Damned press are only showing the downside of everything, yet again. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2011 14:42:53 GMT -5
Herman sings movingly about pizza. Catch it before Yoko gets it removed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2011 16:37:59 GMT -5
It's been a while since a presidential nomination was wrapped up before the campaign occurs. But, that's the p[osition Romney has enjoyed this cycle. His lead in fundraising and organization are pretty insurmountable, and the nomination was essentially determined by 2010.
But, even that kind of advantage brings problems. The candidate has to avoid projecting some sense of inevitability, and his party does not want to appear to be reduced to a supporting role. It's virtually impossible to lure some credible opposition from candidates who can read the wind. So, the field is open for a few gadflies, or a few politicians seeking to increase their visibility. The prefect forum for Donald Trump, Michele bachman, or Rick Perry to play the roles. Newt, ever the selfless party man, even agreed to play a bit part, for the right price. Heck, they will snag some air time in dabates, if not some reality show gig on Fox. And, they will rehearse the "loyal soldier" speech, and heap praise on the candidate at the right time. each will vie for a chance to stand on the stage at the GOP convention to raise Romneys hand in victory, and pledge unity in the battle against evil. Meanwhile, let them enjoy the process.
I have no idea if Cain fits in that picture. But, we can be relatively sure he's smart enough to realize he's out of the "race" in a couple months, at most, and never had a remotely viable chance to be the nominee in 2012. But, he will emerge with some kind of arguable credentials if he contemplates some elected political office in the future. Or, it may be a pretty expensive application for a cabinet position. But it certainly isn't a serious campaign to win the nomination.
We like mystery and suspense too much, I think. There was never actually any kind of "race" for this nomination, so we've had to kind of create one by inserting a peculiar group of celebrities and gadfles as "contenders", even though none of them had the fundraising and organizational structure to be viable candidates.
The real mystery is pretty cool, anyway: Who is the next flavor of the week? Most established poiticians will decline the role, but there are probably dozens of restless celbrities/millionires who'd love to step in, and enjoy a week of intense media attention. I'm thinking we just might see Ted Nugent throw his cowboy hat in the ring for a week or two.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 17, 2011 16:47:15 GMT -5
As long as it's not his loin cloth...
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Oct 17, 2011 17:05:44 GMT -5
Rasmussen has Cain 43%, Obama 41%But I still think Cain will fade. I think its a pretty good bet that Romney's campaign has better 'bones', and he will eventually emerge as the nominee. At the same time, Cain has something that can't be discounted and can't be ignored: He is a fabulously likable guy. No one (including Obama) in the current crop of candidates can hold a candle to him in terms of pure, infectious enthusiasm. He has a lot of backfilling to do to his organization if he is going to get there, but he could get there.
|
|