Turning too many voters into parasites

Posted by LetsThink on March 27, 2008 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Very good letter, Bob. Thanks.

The Democrats are luring voters by promising more and more free handouts.

This policy won't work in the long run.

Time to wake up.

Posted by Earl on March 27, 2008 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

the only thing free the dems are not promising are free oil changes of which I would like.
which of free hand outs are the dems willing to pay for through higher taxes on the lower and middle class? oops wait that goes against how they feel, so raise the taxes on the rich to lower their standard of living to the dems who dont want to work.
why is it that class envy is so big with dem politicians that they continue to attack successful people to pay for the hand outs they always want to give? its bad enough to have to pay taxes and then learn that some pay very little all year and get it all refunded plus extra that they never paid in. that is why we need a fair and just tax code and not the one today that only makes the rich pay for everything.
and now to hear from all of the bottom feeders and our local progressive socialist liberals like og observer backward96 and wrongside. please wise ones tell us again with your lies from 40 years ago how you have a right to all things free from the government.

Posted by VVVV on March 27, 2008 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Every person that lives in this society benefits from the work of others, whether they defended our country, served our food, built our roads, or cleaned our toilets. Just because they didn't get paid as much, or didn't have middle class parents sending them to college doesn't mean they didn't work as hard. I think they all worked harder.

If you want to talk about parasites, you should mention the lawyers who suck the people dry by preying on vulnerability, the insurance companies who deny benefits after collecting premiums for decades, and our politicians who enjoy our money only to spend their time bickering about a perceived unfair advantage the other party has, while ignoring the real issues plaguing our country. You should probably also blame the middle class idiots who don't understand anything about economics, energy, health care, foreign policy, etc, but think that they know best when it comes to how they should be run, so they pressure for legislation that only costs us all more, makes the rich richer, and digs the poverty pit even deeper.

Of course the society would collapse if they didn't have all these different types of parasites, so that really redefines them all as symbionts.

Posted by greenleaf on March 27, 2008 at 7:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

belletennis and Earl,

This old independent has to observe that the deficit spending the author refers to occurred on 7 years of a Republican president's watch, with 6 years of a Republican congress going right along. Admittedly, the last year and a half with Democrats in charge ( with, of course, the same Republican president) hasn't been much better. The Democrats have rarely been able to balance a budget, but lately, neither have Republicans.

We need leaders who are statesmen, who have the courage to limit entitlements and resist " Bridges to nowhere" ( proposed by a Republican senator I believe!).

So, I would suggest not pointing fingers and waving the fiscal conservative banner again until you Republicans start exercising it yourselves.

Posted by dilligaf on March 27, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

belltennis & Earl:

I just wish you two would be as upset about the billions going into Iraq while their oil profits sit and pile up. Do you remember when Bush said the rebuilding of Iraq would come from there oil revenues?

Posted by Old_Grouch on March 27, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Having treated the elderly with complete contempt throughout the period of Enron, Qwest, and the other examples of criminal financial defalcation that mark the tenure of "conservative" Republicanism; while at one and the same time trying to steal even more from them by "privatizing" Social Security, and draining off retirement funds through other schemes; we now read the latest message concerning how these "leaders of our nation" regard their elders: They are now called "parasites".

And of course, our own resident "moral/religious/political superiors" immediately jump on the bandwagon, to proclaim how it is now the turn of the elderly to be the object of the "conservative" Republican mantra: "It's (always) the other fellow's fault."

Is 4 more years of this - or 100, if McCain's warmongering becomes the precedent for international relations, and action in the Middle East - all that the future holds for America?

Posted by Michael on March 27, 2008 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dilligaf - Let's break the Iraq War cost down with regard to total US dollars spent over the last 5 years. At this time the total cost of the Iraq War is roughly $650 billion. That is over 5 years. In the last 5 years the US budget has averaged about $2.8 trillion per year (+/-). That is a total of $14 trillion spent by our government in 5 years on EVERYTHING. That is $14,000 BILLION. $650 billion of that total is 4.6% of the total. So, for every $100 our government spent in the last 5 years, $4.60 went for the Iraq War. I am not saying that the Iraq War costs (treasure) are small or insignificant, but put into perspective with the entire budget, it is not an overwhelming amount.

Posted by mrfxx on March 27, 2008 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Our politicians have made parasites out of the elderly" - how? Because they actually expect to collect on what they paid into social security & Medicare after a lifetime of hard work? Seniors who often chose to work for businesses which paid less, but had fixed benefit pension plans, hich the businesses - and government employers - CHOSE to underfund, which was allowed by the Feds - then when "the bill came due" the businesses dumped those pension plans on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which proceeded to SLASH those retirement benefits by 2/3 or more (note that the CEOs who ran the business were given lump sum multimillion dollar payouts on retirement)?

I truly can't wait for the screaming and gnashing of teeth when the bill comes due for all the veterans permanently maimed (mentally or physically) by the war of choice comes due - heaven forbid a member of the military should actually LIVE for this country and expect it to honor the promises made when the individual enlisted! Count on the chickenhawks to raise hell about those "entitlements"!

Then there are "those who chose not to take advantage of opportunities present in our society through education and hard work" - whose jobs Congress not only allowed, but actively encouraged to be offshored, without some form of alternative employment to take its place? By the way - this impacts people who work 2500 hours/year, have 30 years experience - and are often degree - but it is OUR fault that the US appears to be the only country in the world which CHOOSES not to protect its workforce. In the IT/engineering community alone over 230,000 are without work in their field (which the US USED to be a leader in) while corporations are offshoring ever more jobs, as well as lobbying for more H1B employees, who make 1/3 of what US citizens/permanent residents would make. (Of course if offshoring is such a dandy idea, why hasn't a single overpaid CEO's job gone offshore?) Then there are the illegal employers (those who hire illegals) who give what used to be decent paying blue collar jobs (meatpacking, construction, etc) to illegals to bolster their profits - again the workers' fault for actually expecting the American dream to work for the working class was well as upper management!

Frankly, every time I see the unemployment figure, I want to know how many people have given up looking for work, since only people receiving unemployment benefits "count" (and recall that until Reagan became president, members of the active military weren't included in the counts - and when you add a group of 100% fully employed folks to a total, the unemployment rate automatically goes down) - but that's a separate debate.

If the author is truly concerned about "entitlements", how about cutting all tax breaks going to big oil or other businesses? Or is welfare only bad when it assists individuals?

Posted by Michael on March 27, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Old_Grouch: Do you conveniently forget (again) that Enron's meltdown and fraud ALL occurred during the administration of Bill Clinton and that the arrest and prosecution of the Enron execs all occurred during the administration of George W. Bush?

Posted by Truth on March 27, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.
– Alexander Tytler

Posted by sschow on March 27, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Every person that lives in this society benefits from the work of others, whether they defended our country, served our food, built our roads, or cleaned our toilets. Just because they didn't get paid as much, or didn't have middle class parents sending them to college doesn't mean they didn't work as hard. I think they all worked harder."

This reminds me of the quote, "A man's worth about a dollar an hour from the neck down." You are confusing hard work with skill or knowledge. As much as you hate it companies pay you for your results, not your effort! It doesn't take anybody special to scrub the inside of a toilet. It does take somebody special to design a satellite that will provide wireless communication for millions of Americans. We can lament all day long that the toilet scrubber is trying to hard, but at the end of the day, all they do is scrub.

But here's the wonderful part about capitalism, and I'm going to switch job descriptions to something that is happening in real life. Machinists, welders, and the like have been in short supply recently. Students would much rather learn trades like nursing or IT. A school in California is offering a 2-year program after which machinists can expect to make $70,000+.

Shortage of a particular need = rise in cost (read: wages)

The system works! No government programs or lawsuits were needed to fill these jobs, no outsourcing, insourcing...Plain. Old. Free. Markets.

Posted by Eagle5 on March 27, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Watch who you are calling a parasite. I am a retiree and I believe I've earned every dollar I receive in my pension. There are a lot of folks who were getting their behinds shot off just so you could have the freedom you have

Posted by Spencer on March 27, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

no one has spent more than Bush. And lets not forget who referred to him as "Kenny Boy".

Posted by NotChasB on March 27, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bob Stamp
The biggest parasites I see are the elected politicians. Some voters like the ones on perpetual welfare are parisites the Democrats created. The only elderly that I consider parasites are the ones that paid into social security for a few years then started a suceessful business for 40-50 years and then retired to Boca Raton Florida or simular exclusive areas and are very well off finacially and will receive a social security check for the rest of their lives that is way more than they ever paid into the system. Veterns and the disabled deserve every cent the receive.

Posted by fairness on March 27, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sschow,

Wow, $70,000 in California. To someone living in Colorado, that may sound like a good wage. However, depending on where in California, it is barely above poverty levels. If you are talking about LA or Sanf Fran, where the average home price is about $1,000,000, how far do you think that paycheck is going to go.

You know, it gets tiring hearing these Republican "victims" complaining when other people don't follow in their view of this perfect world, where capitalism solves all problems, and anyone who doesn't agree is a whining liberal.

mrfxx is right on. Republicans keep telling people that lose their manufacturing job that if they get educated, there will be a better job for them. Well, people DID get educated, only to have THOSE jobs sent somewhere else as well. WHY? I guess you'll have to look at the bank accounts of the wealthy business owner.

They tell us it is to help them be "competitive". Do they think we are stupid? If that is the case, why don't Nike shoes cost about $10? They are made in China for pennies? Why do they still cost $100 here?

The Republicans complain about high taxes. Where do they expect money for roads, schools, our basic infrastructure to come from? They must think that the wealthy, out of the goodness of their hearts, will just donate all their profits to help everyone out. Talk about a Utopian dream!

How about you guys asking for BUSINESSES to pay THEIR fair share? How do you feel about the government giving huge no-bid contracts, running into the billions of dollars, to companies that move their headquarters offshore to AVOID TAXES? If you or I did that, we would be sitting in jail. Why is it OK for large mega-corporations?

So, Republican apologists, stop your complaining and DO something constructive! You want people to have jobs and "pay their fair share of taxes", then tell your congressman to keep American jobs here! You want your taxes lowered, then tell your congressman to make mega-corporations PAY TAXES!

Or do you just like picking on the people who have nothing?

Posted by Michael on March 27, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"...tell your congressman to keep American jobs here! You want your taxes lowered, then tell your congressman to make mega-corporations PAY TAXES!" - fairness
A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted the primary differences in the economies of Texas and Ohio as the primaries in those 2 states were coming up. Ohio has some of the highest individual income and corporate taxes in the country (not to mention some of the worst weather too - I grew up in Cleveland). Texas has no state income tax at all and the corporate tax rate is relatively low. Guess which state has a growing economy, upward job growth, and people and businesses relocating there??? Guess which state is suffering from job loss, plant closures, and no one or no companies wanting to relocate there??? Ohio loses more companies and jobs to other states than it does to other countries. The costs of locating there are TOO PROHIBITIVE. NAFTA has benefited states that have adapted to it - Texas in particular. Watching BO and HRC slam NAFTA as causing Ohio's economic woes was nauseating. Ohio is its own worst enemy when it comes to jobs and economic growth. And they should pay people and companies to move there with that crappy weather!!!!

Posted by mytwosense on March 27, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Our politicians have made parasites out of the elderly and those who chose not to take advantage of opportunities present in our society through education and hard work."

Ironically, Bob Stamp probably believes public education is "parasitic" too.

And our elderly aren't parasites. They earned and paid into their Social Security annuities through years of HARD WORK that Bob Stamp supposedly espouses.

Posted by mytwosense on March 27, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NotChasB: "The only elderly that I consider parasites are the ones that paid into social security for a few years then started a suceessful business for 40-50 years and then retired to Boca Raton Florida or simular exclusive areas and are very well off finacially and will receive a social security check for the rest of their lives that is way more than they ever paid into the system."

Huh? They still had to pay Social Security taxes, even if they were self-employed.

Posted by fairness on March 27, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Michael,

We can all agree that there is a balance between having taxes too high and a healthy business climate. But you may be oversimplifying the comparison between Ohio and Texas to make your point. I'm sure there are many other factors involved other than taxes that have an impact on their respective economies.

Unfortunately, many Republicans try doing the same thing to make their point. They simplify things into this nice black-and-white world that doesn't exist. They twist things like "the top 1% pay 50% of all taxes". The truth isn't that simple.

The facts remain that you have corporations doing business in the U.S. that have P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands or the Bahamas to avoid taxes. I'm not advocating taxing them into extinction. I'm just saying that if they are using the resources of this country, benefiting from our labor, benefiting from our laws, etc, then they should also be paying taxes. Period.

Posted by Michael on March 27, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fairness,
Point taken. There are probably other factors. But the ones I mentioned are huge. Business looks at total cost of doing business when deciding to locate or relocate to any area - taxes, enviro laws, workman's comp laws, OSHA laws, labor costs and quality, incentives, climate, quality of life, etc.
Also, the GOP is not the only culprit that simplifies - my comment about BO and HRC blaming NAFTA for Ohio's economic woes is a prime example of the "boogeyman" story that the Dems use so often. They pick a "usual suspect" (the rich, BIG oil, BIG corporations, BIG anything) and blame it all on that. They invented that tactic.
And yes, the "rich" (people who EARN large wages) do pay the lion's share (aggregate dollars paid) of personal income tax in this country. There is no avoiding that fact. I don't know if it is 1% paying 50% but that is not that far off the mark.
We agree on companies having a PO Box in the Caymans for tax purposes. I loathe that practice and I believe legislation should be passed that gives incentives for staying in the USA and creating wealth and jobs here - but guess what???? The left will call that "corporate welfare" as they do now for the tax breaks and incentives that BIG oil was given years ago when they were barely surviving at $20 a barrel. Now that their ship (tankers??) have come in, the left is attacking them for "making too much money??? HRC has actually said she wants "to take it" from them. That scares me.

Posted by NotChasB on March 27, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mytwosense

What they paid and what they are getting now is doubled. They don't need it and seeing that the condition Social Security is in and these days and the young people are footing the bill for these greedy and selfish people. I'd call that parasite. Huh?

"Bob Stamp probably believes public education is "parasitic" too"
If he doesn't he should. Not only parasites but theifs as well!
For the money they take in from the taxpayers and the sorry product they have been churning out for the past 20-25 years, we are not getting our money's worth. We call that The "Gross" National Product. Public schools use to educate kids in the three R's. Now they are indocrination centers of the left to expand liberalism, socialism and of course atheism. Did I leave out revised history. also?
Sounds like you may be from that time span I mentioned. Huh?

Posted by dilligaf on March 27, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Michael:

You have missed my point. People like Earl wants to jump all over anyone in this country that may be in need of government assistance but has no problem with sending billions to a country that won't help themselves and has enough oil to sell that they could buy this country 5 times over. Now I know if they condemned the war they would not be loyal to their great republican commander and chief.

Posted by Michael on March 27, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dilligaf - Earl can be a bit "zealous" and over the top in his remarks. I agree. But to be specific about this (and as Barack has pointed out, words do have meaning!) the USA is not just "sending" billions to Iraq while they do nothing to help themselves. That is a gross oversimplification of the Iraq War. We are spilling blood and spending treasure to try and stabilize a key Middle Eastern nation because we deposed their tyrannical dictator who failed to PROVE (as he agreed to) he did not have WMDs and who threatened the region and had invaded and started 2 wars already.
Also, Iraq does not have enough oil to "buy" the USA 5 times over. If we were for sale - land, buildings, companies, knowledge base, etc. - I would imagine the price would have so many freakin' zeros that no one or no country could afford us. That type of statement is as over the top as anything Earl says.

Posted by mytwosense on March 27, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NotChasB, sure, I went to public school. Didn't you?

Posted by Old_Grouch on March 27, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I really enjoy the way Michael "deplores" those U.S. businesses that have P.O. Boxes in the Cayman Islands, and elsewhere, to get out of paying taxes, while at one and the same time insisting that to get these businesses back into the U.S.A., they should be offered "incentives and tax breaks", to come back. Oh, and of course, those who would oppose merely changing addresses, with the same lack of responsibility for paying a fair share of the Nations tax structure are immediately blamed, as "whining liberals", for seeing through that kind of smoke and mirrors.

Leave it to the "conservative" Republicans to want their bread buttered on both sides, with jelly added if they behave as if they were at least partially responsible for a share of the Nation's cost of living. They don't pay now; but they don't want to pay were they to come back either. Now that's real "free enterprise".

Posted by fairness on March 27, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Michael,

I agree on some of your points. Ohio was in bad shape even before NAFTA. And I'm sure that the GOP is as much to blame as the Dems for "that tactic". That is why I am an avowed independent. I know that will set off some of the bloggers. Oh well.

Anyway, I call it welfare no matter who is getting the hand-out. When a government entity, whether at the local, state, or federal level, gives huge tax breaks for multi-national companies like Wal-Mart, then it makes me wonder how they can then talk about "free enterprise". Shouldn't we have let the market handle itself instead of bailing out Chrysler? If I am going bankrupt, no one is going to bail me out. Why should we do it for a business?

I have a problem when people change their views depending on the situation. If it isn't OK to give help to individuals who are in need, why is it OK to give it to big business? Companies like Wal-Mart make enough money that they shouldn't be given more money to open a store. And the argument that "they provide jobs" doesn't always hold water. The small town I grew up in has higher unemployment now AFTER Wal-Mart opened there than before, as well as putting all the mom-and-pop stores out of business. The town is now bankrupt. I'll bet they are re-thinking those tax-breaks now!

What I am saying is, when you think more of the business's needs than those of the people, you get a distorted view of what is good for everyone. This goes along with the "trickle-down" economic theory. You give the wealthy more money, they will invest it and create jobs. Well, it doesn't matter what they wealthy want to build, if no one has the money to buy it.

Posted by Michael on March 27, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Old_Grouch - How grumpy are you today? More fine financial and economic wisdom from you today I see. I would really like to know what, if any, business world or financial world experience and/or training you really have. You are just all "full up" with wondrous ideaologies on money and taxes and who should pay their "fair share". I would like to see how steadfast your left wing ideaologies would stand up if you were given the opportunity to sell your house at fair market value to a fellow hard working American or to sell it at 5 times that to a rich, GOP tax lawyer who would also show you how to set up a trust to avoid paying capital gains taxes on the proceeds. I would pay to see you react to a sitation like that to see how your rigid ideaology holds up.
Also, maybe your hero Hugo Black made some legal rulings on this type of situation back in his day when he was not attending KKK meetings and recruiting for them or driving prayer out of the public schools due to his hatred and loathing of Catholics. What a great man he was OG.

Posted by NotChasB on March 27, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mytwosense

I went to parochial schools until high school and we were way head of my public school friends. Then I went to high school for three years at South High and graduated. They taught me what I had already learned in the previous years in parochial school. That was before the public schools really went to seed with guns, metal detectors, condom hand outs and drugs in just about every locker and no liberal indotrination or politics of any kind. Just pure education.

What's your story?

Posted by Spencer on March 27, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gosh I always thought parochial schools taught people how to spell better than Notchas. Must not have been much of a student.

Posted by Old_Grouch on March 27, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Michael,

Unlike you, I have no "rigid ideology". You may, of course, invent one for me - as so many others do on other topics as well - but, all I did was call attention to your own little gem of duplicity, and disingenuousness.

How do you "deplore" those who avoid American taxes by moving corporate headquarters to some offshore tax-free location, while at one and the same time expecting everyone - except, of course, for those who you despise as "liberals" - to give them subsidies and tax breaks - i.e., let them get away without paying taxes - to get them to bring corporate headquarters back here?

Why bother to "deplore" something elsewhere that you eimply expect to have as a norm right here? To me, that's amusing rhetoric.

Posted by Michael on March 27, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

fairness,
Good and valid points. Let me try to address them.
1.We live in a country of regulated competition - not only between companies and individuals, but also as we are a republic of 50 states, between those 50 states and every city and municipality in those states. The competition for jobs, economic growth, companies to relocate there, and to maintain and grow the tax base to support the services that we all want (and need) is fierce. Sure, in an ideal world (the one that Old_Grouch lives in) companies should compete on their own and there should be no need for tax breaks and incentives. But if your town, city, state is less competitive than others are, you need to sweeten the pot to atrtact companies and jobs. You need to COMPETE or you DIE. There is not an infinite supply of jobs and companies to provide those jobs. There is a finite supply and everyone wants the good, clean, high paying jobs. So guess what? Towns, cities, and states compete for them. Sometimes they make good deals. Sometimes they do not make good deals. It is not a perfect world. (Sorry OG!!)
2. With regard to the "Trickle-Down" or supply side theory of economics, which I support (I do have a Masters Degree in Econ from CU Class of 81). When the "rich", affluent, or wealthy (or any of us!!) are allowed to keep more of what they have EARNED through their work or investing, there are a limited number options open to what they can do with that $$$. The only thing they could do that would have zero or a negative effect would be to stick it in their mattress or wall safe. It would not circulate into the economy. Few rich people are so dumb. But, if they invest it or spend it on anything, it "trickles down" through the economy driving economic activity. If they invest it, more $$$ is now available for companies to call upon to buy new equipment or hire workers or build new facilities. If they spend it (new car, new boat, new plane, new house, remodel old house, vacation, travel, etc.) ALL of those activities generate economic activity with the people and companies that provide the goods or services being purchased. If a rich guy buys a new car, some skilled, blue collar worker has to BUILD THE CAR HE BUYS. If the rich guy takes a trip, some skilled pilot (union man) has to fly the plane. If the rich guy remodels his house, he needs to hire a company to do it. Skilled workman will be required to do the work - hopefully not illegals. Do you see how the $$$ trickles down through the economy?

Posted by mytwosense on March 27, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NotChasB, I went to public school for the most part. Briefly attended two private schools.

Most of the public schools I went to were good - the academic requirements were pretty rigorous. But I did go to one that was awful. It was also located in a very poverty-stricken county, and most of the time, the teachers were having to instruct kids in basic things they should have learned at home. I learned very little there. The school was probably very under-funded, too, as the county didn't reap much in taxes.

The private schools were good, but most of the students were white, well off, and lived a very sheltered life. Which doesn't really prepare one for the realities of the real world. But I know there are numerous private schools now that are much more diverse.

One thing about all the schools I went to was that there were always art, music, and physical education classes. My understanding is that this isn't a given anymore in public school.

I also don't remember much of an emphasis on civics, US government, etc. It was mostly incorporated into that all-too-general subject, "Social Studies."

I believe we should engage students more in civic life, teach them good debating skills, get them interested in participating with and overseeing the running of their elected government. But it's very hard to incorporate that kind of curriculum, because teachers have to be extremely careful not to voice their opinions. Which I mostly agree with, but again, it does pose challenges to having more classes about political theory and so on.

Think about it. If you were a teacher, and a child asked you questions like, "Why are we at war in Iraq?" and "How was God able to create the world in seven days?" and "Where can I get birth control?" it would be very hard for you to answer those questions without injecting at least some of your personal beliefs, no matter what they are.

I don't think we realize what a delicate line teachers have to walk every single day, as the adults who spend more time with children than their parents do.

Posted by Alive on March 27, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The coming war will soon cleanse us of our foolishness. Perhaps half of the 6.5 billion will perish, perhaps more. After such horror as human race has never before seen, we will then be humbled into cherishing what we have and the beauty we are cabable of creating. At least for a time.

Those who survive will proceed one bit wiser, one bit closer to joining in the conversation of worlds that we are not yet privy to. We still evolve by fire and suffering. In time we will learn to evolve a different way, but we are not yet ready.

I both welcome and fear the coming correction. Can you feel it?

Posted by mytwosense on March 27, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Alive, when has any war ever made mankind any wiser?

You put your faith in something humans have done since the beginning of time: war with each other.

Isn't it patently obvious it's time to take a new approach to resolving our problems with each other?

Posted by fairness on March 27, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again Michael, you have some valid points. However, one big thing about the wealthy spending the money to help those down the chain, doesn't mean he is spending that money in the US. How much of that money goes outside of the US. So he/she may be creating work and jobs, but not necessarily at home. This is the same as hiring illegal aliens. A lot of that money goes back to their home countries rather than being spent here.

As for cities competing for business. There is also truth to that. In the case of my home town, if the town was prosperous, why did they think they needed to attract a company like Wal-Mart? Could it be that someone who had connections could make a lot of money by bringing in that business rather than actually needing the business? It is easy to see things in small towns that get lost in large metropolitan areas. In some situations, like in a city like Denver, they can afford to "seed" the business climate by bringing in a large company, and hopefully help the overall economic health of the area. But those same tenets don't necessarily hold true everywhere.

Posted by bropous on March 27, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Additional parading of "belief" as "truth" by the Algore Chicken Little Hoax Suckers.

Still would like to know what the "average global temperature" is supposed to be...and why other planets have seen similar incremental temperature increases.

The planet cycles, and nothing mankind can do to affect that, positively or negatively.

Posted by bropous on March 27, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Alive, when has any war ever made mankind any wiser?"

Most wars have.

Posted by NotChasB on March 27, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spencer
It is better to misspell things by accident than to be a total deliberate dumb jackass like you all the time. Wouldn't you agree Mr.One Liners.

Hows my spelling now?

Posted by greenleaf on March 27, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NotChasB,

I've noticed in the last week or so that you have been communicating pretty effectively. We're all guilty of a few misspellings every now and then! Good job!

Posted by Old_Grouch on March 27, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Michael,

If anyone sounds as if he were living in a "perfect world", you certainly do.

Exon has some $3 billion profits in a what? . . . quarter? . . . month? . . . whatever. And boy, oh boy! How all that will "trickle down", penney by penney, to the working man below. Who, of course, should be grateful for the opportunity to partake of the wonderful economic largesse he's being granted.

Reminds me of an old story, found even in a few history books dealing with the era, about the late John D. Rockafeller. Seems as if John D. went into one of the working man's saloons that abounded in New York City back in his day, and ordered a beer. He then turned to the house and loudly proclaimed: "When John D. Rockafeller drinks, everybody drinks." And, the bartender got busy delivering a round to the rest of those in the taproom at the time. When everyone had been served, Rockafeller took a nice, new, shiny dime - more or less his trademark of beneficence and grand charity - placed it upon the counter, raised his mug, and said: "When John D. Rockafeller pays, everybody pays." Whereupon he drained off his beer and walked out.

I wondered where you acquired your faith in the idea of pissdown economics. Thanks for letting us know. It must be wonderful sitting up there in the Board Room atmosphere, with an Economics Degree, and not having to really pay any attention to those who have actually worked for a living, or have to work for a living today. And, I know it sure beats standing on a street corner, selling newspapers; and/or bussing dishes, mopping floors, and cleaning up pots and pans and such like to make a living in the years of the Republican Great Depression; all to hell and back.

Sorry, Michael, I'm just not all that blind, deaf, dumb, and stupid enough to ever be grateful for being told what a great amount of gratitude, and awed wonder and obesience, I should feel towards the idea of pissdown - anything.