MOBILE
Negativity may boomerang
November 21, 2010 - Updated: December 12, 9:46 a.m.
I understand there is a lot of anger out there and that it played out during the recent election. So I thought I would try to reduce the tension by piercing some misunderstandings. A Bloomberg Poll taken shortly before the election found that voters were mad at some things that just weren’t true.
By a 2-to-1 margin, respondents said the federal government had raised their taxes in the past year. Not true. In fact, taxes were cut by about $240 billion, and the middle class largely benefited. It seems that most people don’t realize that about one-third of the congressional stimulus package included tax cuts.
Also, 60 percent of respondents said that the money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program was forever lost. Wrong. Most of the TARP money loaned to banks has been paid back with interest.
Finally, 61 percent of respondents said the economy has shrunk this year. Wrong. The economy stopped contracting in the summer of 2009. From October 2009 to October 2010 the economy grew by 3.1 percent. The stock market has gained considerably over its March 2009 low.
I doubt this will lower anybody’s blood pressure. There’s still plenty of bad news out there. But the interesting dynamic now is that the new leaders who helped paint this overly negative portrait now own it.
Short takes. I dislike all of the airport screening, but not as much as the alternative.
• Let’s face it: If we could devise a way that “other people” got the enhanced pat-down treatment at airports, we’d probably be fine with it. Most Americans didn’t squawk at Muslims being tortured, because they knew it would never happen to them. As always, the price of liberty is negotiable.
• Former President George W. Bush said he was shocked and sickened when weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq. In other words, he was stunned that U.N. inspectors were right and that exiled Iraqi Ahmed Chalabi and administrative partisans were wrong. It’s sickening, all right.
• Fearing that the Food and Drug Administration will eventually ban alcoholic caffeine drinks, some people are buying as much as they can. Hey, knock yourself out. Just don’t endanger others.
• Speaking of hoarding, remember the run on weapons and ammunition after the election of President Barack Obama? Two years later and there still hasn’t been a single new law that would justify this fear of government gun-grabbing. Want your money back? Try the National Rifle Association. It ran a series of ads in 2008 that stoked fears. But as factcheck.org noted at the time, the campaign was full of holes. The NRA responded by saying it preferred its “facts,” which included Obama’s purported desire to ban the use of firearms for home defense, ban the manufacture and ownership of handguns and ban hunting ammunition. Any of that happen in your neck of the woods?
• So after the Election Day shellacking, House Democrats re-elected Nancy Pelosi as their leader. Washington State University football coach Paul Wulff must like this line of reasoning.
• A good title for a local melodrama would be “The Prisoner of Second Avenue.” As Col. Klink noted on “Hogan’s Heroes,” there is no escape.
• Spokane firefighters are the first responders to the mayor’s plea for wage and benefit concessions to help the city dig out of a budget hole. Good job. Hope others follow suit.
Add it up. Some sobering figures from Excellent Schools Now, a coalition of Washington state interests that want to reform education:
• Half of children are not ready to succeed by the time they reach kindergarten.
• Washington state is one of only a few states where the achievement gap is growing.
• We rank 46th in the nation on the chance for college by age 19.
• To fill current shortages, the state will need 400 science teachers and 460 math teachers.
• In the class of 2008, 54 percent of students entering community or technical colleges needed remedial course work.
• Of the 36 states that vied for federal Race to the Top funds, only four finished behind Washington state.
The simple response is to indict the educational system. In fact, we all need to look in the mirror.
Associate Editor Gary Crooks can be reached at garyc@spokesman.com or (509) 459-5026.
Truth. Facts.
Two concepts totally alien to the Tea Partiers.
Something is true because they KNOW it is.
These folks worship at the shrine of ignorance, with Sarah Palin and the “bewitching” Christine O’Donnell as their high priestesses.
“One plus one is NOT two! That is a lie from the socialist elite.”
“Obama is a Kenyan Muslim. Not an American.”
Negativity. Stupidity. The very essence of the Tea Party Movement.
Thanks Gary….but do you think anyone in this burg is listening?
Gary and his liberals friends need some time alone here. Denial is a first part of the grieving process.
Reciently the idea of having two votes for extending bushes tax breaks, boehner didnt want to have a separate vote for the rich because it would be unpopular. Well duh….so much for the will of the people. He wants to cram it down everybodys throats with something that is popular.
Thanks for reminding us of the findings of the UN weapons inspectors.
By early March of 2003, the inspectors found No Evidence that any proscribed weapons programs existed. The Bush Administration ignored these reports in favor of its own bad intelligence (reports known at the time to be unverified). I remember Hans Blix stating that they were unable to verify any of the Bush Administration’s intelligence reports. He called the U.S. intelligence on WMD the worse he had ever seen.
How’s your 401k coming along, bet it didn’t grow at the same rate the stock market did. The economy grew, just not for the botton two thirds of our nation. Bush was sick when he didn’t find WMDs in Iraq, I guess the fact that he put my grandchildren in debt to a communist country to the tune of a trillion dollors and killed our troops for nothing wasn’t that important to this crimminal. Crooks can spin what he wants to but the people see what is really going on because they are living it.
Gary says,
“Spokane firefighters are the first responders to the mayor’s plea for wage and benefit concessions to help the city dig out of a budget hole. Good job. Hope others follow suit.”
Its noteworthy, when the Spokesman publishes stories about the city`s medical coverage for the employees, I have yet to read what the employee pays and the cost per employee to the taxpayers.
I`d also wager, Verner guaranteed herself fire department employees votes when she will be running to be reelected mayor. She doesn`t stand a chance though with her lack of management skills and and her reckless spending habits.
On the topic of WMDs and Bush… as blamed by the left….
Bush did the right thing, invading Iraq….
The free world and their intelligence agencies were convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussean had already gassed his own people, some 5000 Kerds….
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait as you might recall.
President Clinton, his administration and leading Democrats at the time….
All believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction…
Bill Clinton
Sandy Berger
Carl Levin
John Kerry
Nancy Pelosi
Bob Graham
Al Gore
Ted Kennedy
Robert Byrd
Jay Rockefeller
Henry Waxman
Hillary Clinton
These facts are indisputable….
See for yourself the various quotes and actions of all those I have listed above…. in one place.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wm…
History will be kind to Bush.
So, if you need someone to blame,,,, add these to your list along with Tony Blair and national leaders others.
More on WMDs and Bush….
Here are more I might have missed above… Forgive me if I have duplicated some… there are many…. I have not listed them all…. I’m running out of space.
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
More,,, including Patty Murray….but I’ve used all my space.
The ‘Dumbing Down of America’
On Health Care Reform, Those Who Believe That It Will…
Give Coverage To Illegal Immigrants:
CNN/MSNBC Viewers - 41% Fox News Viewers - 72%
Lead To A Government Takeover:
CNN/MSNBC Viewers - 39% Fox News Viewers - 79%
Pay For Abortions:
CNN/MSNBC Viewers - 40% Fox News Viewers - 69%
Stop Care To The Elderly:
CNN/MSNBC Viewers - 30% Fox News Viewers - 75%
Hmmmm, why are we getting dumber?
Prior to the election, I sort of understood the anger of the Baggers; even if I thought that much of their anger was misdirected. But then, after the election, and they made gains in House seats and other races, they were/are still very angry.
That’s what I don’t understand…when they lost seats in 2006 and 2008 they were mad as hell, and then when they won seats in 2010 they were/are still mad as hell. WHY?
I understand being a sore loser, but sore winners? WHY?
Life is worse. People are afraid of this president and afraid in general. Gregoire has the State broke. Verner is right on track for Spokane as well.. Money is scarce. Banks were bailed out and kept our money. GM bailed out and now is no better off WITH OUR money. They will have their union hands out again within 2 years. And Unemployment looks good doesn’t it? And anyone wonders why the country is angry????
If you liverals think Obama is for the little guy, well…think again, WHo’s he given YOUR/OUR money to as he and his wife spend billions of useless failed tours.
He’s acted the part of a socialist. Something that doesn’t sit well in the whole of the US…unlike with the few on this blog.
Taxes fell because the Bush ( that’s right… BUSH) and tax reductions are still in place. Nothing Obama did. Wait till January…wait if you think people are angry now! lol…sure Obama might cut some taxes to the middle class but that’s just income tax. The country has yet to pay for this crazy health plan…and a whole host of other things. Middle Amercia will lose money to the government..but some fool will say things are better because income tax minor reductions. Value added tax(VAT) anyone? Reduction in Medicare and SS anyone? It’s a big list…happy now??
Daisy says “Taxes fell because the Bush ( that’s right… BUSH) and tax reductions are still in place.”
Wow, that really gave the economy a boost. Maybe we should try something different and quit borrowing money so millionaires like Daisy can get a tax cut. They sure haven’t done anything to boost the economy. How long are we going to fall for that, “Oh we have to give millionaires and billionaires tax cuts so they’ll give us jobs” line?
How long are we going to fall for that? Apparently, JBlim, forever.
Look, Trickle Down works. Just not the way that the little people were told it would work. It works for the wealthy and their corporate masters; the only ones it’s supposed to “work” for.
Bush Tax Cuts resulted in soaring tax revenues and an expanding economy….
according to the Wall Street Journal.
“Democrats like to claim the 1990s were a golden age while the Bush years have been disastrous. But as the nearby chart shows, Mr. Bush inherited a recession. The dot-com bubble had burst in 2000, and the economy was sinking even before the shock of 9/11, the corporate scandals and Sarbanes-Oxley.
Mr. Bush’s original tax-cut proposal was designed in part as insurance against such a downturn.”
However, to win over Senate Democrats, Mr. Bush both phased in the tax rate reductions and settled for politically popular but economically feckless tax rebate checks.
Those checks provided a short-term lift to consumer spending but no real boost to risk-taking or business investment, which was still recovering from the tech implosion. By late 2002, the economy was struggling again — which is when Mr. Bush proposed his second round of tax cuts.
This time the tax rate reductions were immediate, and they included cuts in capital gains and dividends designed to spur business incentives. As the tax cuts became law in late May 2003, the recovery began in earnest. Growth averaged nearly 4% over the next three years, the jobless rate fell from 6.3% in June 2003 to 4.4% in October 2006, and real wages began to grow despite rising food and energy prices. The 2003 tax cut was the high point of Bush economic policy.
Mr. Bush’s spending record is less admirable…. Nonetheless, the budget deficit did fall mid-decade, as tax revenues soared with the expansion. In fiscal 2007, the deficit hit $161 billion, or an economically trivial 1.2% of GDP.
That seems like a distant memory after the bailout blowout of the last few months, but the point is that the Bush tax cuts aren’t responsible for the deficits. Before the recession hit, federal tax revenues had climbed above their postwar average of 18.3% of GDP.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123215327787492291.html
Still, all of you on the liberal left keep trying to re-write history.
Daisy pays very well to thousands of workers. Education packages too. Health? yes.
People who employ others will be hurt. Guess what happens then? This is why unemployment is so high.
Many industries simply cant afford the union rates and benefits. SO? layoffs occur. It’s easy…not an easy choice but easy to figure out. it’s not an easy choice but it’s what Obama hath wrought. With punishing taxes, people must protect themselves and their companies.
Daisy worries plenty every night. That peacock who simply is incompetent to manage travels too much. It’s his last term. Guaranteed.
He is simply killing everyone as he wants the US broke so he can rebuild it in his brand of socialism wherein you depend on his government for everything. No wonder the Tea Party people are in the streets. You should join them. I am. It’s the only logical thing to do if you want your contry back. This isealogue won’t give his control up easy. So..they march…these are Americans who march for something…it’s not fun. Patriots…some goofy …but they are Patriots.
Daisy…. looks like a “double-team”…. good timing.
hakens says: “Still, all of you on the liberal left keep trying to re-write history.”
Speaking of that:
The Fox “News” sister publication , the WSJ, starts off with a whiny “inherited recession” excuse (an excuse they don’t allow Obama) for Bush’s poor performance as president.
Here’s the actual history:
S&P 500 return under Bush: -0.12%
S&P 500 return under Clinton: +15.18%
S&P 500 return Obama to date:+44.21%
http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/02/11/looking-at-the-clinton-and-bush-presidencies-and-the-stock-market/
https://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXSP:.INX
Negative 0.12% after 8 years? That doesn’t look so hot to me. If business was so great, it sure wasn’t reflected in stock prices. The stock market is the collective wisdom of all investors who put their money where their mouth is.
I can’t believe it but you guys finally did it. You have convinced me that taxing people at high rates is great for the economy. We should raise taxes to ninety percent on everyone. Imagine what the S & P will do then. I don’t think we have numbers to count that hight. Wow this is going to be so nice to have a booming economy and I can’t believe this was the answer all along.
Yes Chris tax and more tax! That’s how one gets an economy moving! When all the money is possessed by the Obama government, then there will only be sustenance. Yes…then we can have the government take care of everybody because they’ll have the money to do it! Yessssssssssss! And then the liberals will vote for them again because they have everything they want without working for it. They deserve it don’t they!! I think so too! Just tax! That’s the answer!
In general, revenue has to equal expenditures somewhere along the line, except in Republican fantasy land. If tax cuts are so great, why not eliminate taxes altogether?
If tax cuts are the engine of growth, why after 10 years of tax cuts isn’t the economy going gang busters? Instead of just being a big bust? Why did we have the Bush Depression if trickle down on me economics is so wonderful?
As opposed to the liberal fantasy JBlim. If tax hikes are so great, why not raise tax rates to 100%. Misjustice how about we get together and stimulate the GDP government style by $40. I will give you $20 and you give me $20. Just imagine the stimulus to our economy if we all did that.
Massive, out of control, immoral, big government spending.
Now, the Fed is monetizing $600 Billion of our debt, added to the rest, will insure inflation/hyper-inflation. Not IF, but WHEN.
…is the answer to Misjudgment’s question.
It’s really not complicated, only fence post stupid.
For more on such stupidity,,, study FDR and the “Great Depression.”
Quote:
Title: “UCLA Economists: Government Intervention Prolonged Great Depression”
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
In 2004, economists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), studied the policies of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and determined his policies prolonged the Depression by seven years. End Quote
http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2008/UCLA_Economists_Government_Intervention_Prolonged_Great_Depression.html
Add this to the UCLA assessment of FDR’s failed, hyper-left policies during the Great Depression:
“We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. After eight years we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot.”
Treasury Secretary To Franklin Roosevelt
Henry Morgenthau, May, 1939
Obama’s hyper-left policies are virtually identical to FDRs.
As for the left’s posts on “Trickle Down” Supply Side economics….
Supply Side Economics
“According to the IRS, The share of income taxes paid by the top 10% of tax earners climbed to 57% in 1988 from 48% in 1981. The top 1% saw their share of the tax bill rise to 28% in 1988 from 18% in 1981.
“As it turns out, supply-side economics also helped the middle class and the poor. According to the Federal Reserve Bank, while people earning more than $50,000 saw a gain in net wealth of 6.6%, people earning $30,000-$50,000 realized an increase in net wealth of 27.7%. Families with incomes in the $20,000 range gained 28.9% and those earning $19,999 and under had a gain in net wealth of 21.1%.”
http://net.valenciacc.edu/forum/v02.i01/v02.i01.03.jchambless.htm
Here’s more relating to Misjudgment’s question:
This time President John Kennedy.
Quote:
Faced with the reality that the economy would not be able to sustain the tax revenues necessary to fund these endeavors, John F. Kennedy stood before the Economic Club in New York in December of 1962 and said, “It is increasingly clear that…an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”
The following year, President Kennedy was successful in producing legislation that would lower the top income tax rate from a staggering 91% to 70%.
From 1963 to 1966 total federal tax revenues increased by 16%. Tax collections from those individuals earning more than $50,000 per year shot up by 57%, while revenue from people who made less than $50,000 increased by 11%. During that same time period, the U.S. unemployment rate fell from 5.5% to 3.6%.
http://net.valenciacc.edu/forum/v02.i01/v02.i01.03.jchambless.htm
Facts are stubborn things.
Ronald Reagan
Oh…. I can’t let this slip by…
My posts above make me a “radical, extremest”, “right wing” fanatic. Which is an “oxymoron” with Conservative.
…according to the hyper-left, the likes of Arch Druid, Misjudgment, JBlim, et; al;
Fact is, I’m your average, everyday, American Conservative.
Here’s more for you on the hyper-left… that supports Obama…. and BASH Republicans for their support of Wall Street.
“How Obama and Wall Street are helping each other in an unholy alliance against taxpayers”
Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street
by Charles Gasparino
“….according to award-winning financial journalist Charles Gasparino, Obama…. Wall Street spared almost no expense to elect Barack Obama — and it got what it paid for: It has benefited disproportionately, even extraordinarily, from that support in the two years since Obama became president.
Moreover, this cozy relationship continues today — and as Gasparino demonstrates in Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street, it’s thriving more than ever before.”
http://www.nrbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=C7650#continue
Facts are stubborn things.
Ronald Reagan
The Sounds of Silence: Simon and Garfunkel
Descriptive of the Liberal Left when confronted with facts….
“And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no [liberal] dared
Disturb the sound of silence
More Simon and Garfunkel
“Fools”, said I, “You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you”
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed
In the wells of silence
Él sostiene consigo mismo.
Él culo que habla.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEW-z7fsYD4
More “sweet fruit” of Negativity for you….
Quote:
Democrats are already worrying that 2012 may prove to be a tougher environment for the party - and one that could spark major turnover.
See, Senate Democrats have a lot to lose come 2012, because of the 33 seats in play next election, 23 are currently held by Democrats - or the Independents who caucus with them.
Republicans are only tasked with defending 10 seats, and GOP leaders feel confident they’ll actually net at least four additional seats and win back control of the Senate.
Some analysts, who have already begun digging in to the 2012 races, give Republicans the advantage. Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics says, “There are 13 Democrats who are vulnerable to very vulnerable, while there are just six Republicans who are vulnerable to very vulnerable.” [Note: Sabato called the Democrat Carnage]
McCaskill is likely to be among the GOP’s top targets, which will probably also include: Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.).
And McCaskill acknowledges that Democrats have an uphill battle, “The voters obviously spoke very loudly a few weeks ago, and I heard them.” Other Democrats facing re-election, like Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) are publicly floating the idea of retiring altogether. END QUOTE
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/22/senate-democrats-view-2012-trepidation
Chris Bowman:
Yes, but tax cuts are the raison d’etre of Republicanism. But the same is not true for tax hikes and the Democratic party. So your agumentum ad absurdum doesn’t really apply to the Democrats.
hawken says:
“Obama’s hyper-left policies are virtually identical to FDRs…”
So you are ignorant about history too. Turn off your TV, hawken, it’s making you sound [not smart.]
JBlim…. did you even read my posts above?
UCLA Economists?…. FDR’s own Secretary of the Treasury?
Facts are stubborn things.
Ronald Reagan
JBlim…. My oversight….
Did you read the John Kennedy view of tax cuts as well?
I know that all of this is probably distressing for you…. But, really, you should become familiar with history before you embarrass yourself with your posts. Really.
The difference between me and you, hawken, is that I get your point of view, but you don’t understand my point of view. I understand yours very well and I reject it. You are a Fox News stooge.
JBlim….. Fox News has nothing to do with my point of view…. My point of view dates back before Reagan….. Long before Fox News.
I totally understand your point of view…. far, failed, liberal left… dating back to FDR. I get it.
My point of view is based upon history and common sense.
Yours is based upon the fantasy of Utopia.
Thanks for proving my point, hawken. You just don’t get it.
JBlim…
Political illiteracy is alive and well…Hawken thinks the Enlightenment is a “liberal term”. I”m not making this up.
Jblim:
The 1970’s / 1980’s Screen Writers Association is calling, and they want their tagline retort back…apparently you are only supposed to use ‘you just don’t get it’ when a woman is speaking to a man about feminist issues…
Scoutster wrote:
Political illiteracy is alive and well…Hawken thinks the Enlightenment is a “liberal term”. I”m not making this up.
What is ‘ the Enlightenment’ ?
This iidom is unfamiliar to me;
Is this a real term or were you loopy when you posted…
Yes, Matty, there is such a thing as The Enlightenment…it is a MAJOR tenet of Western Philosophy.
“The Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, was a time when man began to use his reason to discover the world, casting off the superstition and fear of the medieval world. The effort to discover the natural laws which governed the universe led to scientific, political and social advances. Enlightenment thinkers examined the rational basis of all beliefs and in the process rejected the authority of church and state.”
http://www.historywiz.com/enlightenment.htm
Matt…
The Enlightenment is why we have a US of A.
Just type it in Google or Yahoo and watch what happens!
But watch out, you might find some of them “ferriners” like Kant, Rousseau, and Voltaire mixed in with Thomas Paine (why doesn’t the right ever quote from his “Age of Reason”?), Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Our economic system, using the works of Adam Smith as a blueprint, is clearly a product of the Enlightenment.
We would do well to look at some of these dead guys with their emphasis on rationality and pragmatism. They were radicals. One of my favorites is Edmund Burke, who both conservatives and liberals can own, although modern incarnations of both of these philosophies have been horribly corrupted since Burke’s day. Such is the way of instituting philosophy.
“Enlighten”
to furnish knowledge to : instruct <enlightened us=”” about=”” the=”“ problem=”“>
Websters Dictionary Online
Scoutster : try it once in a while. It’s packed with knowledge
Wow, the wretched Reich rears its ugly head to quote from a dictionary! LMFAO!
The entire concept of “THE Enlightenment” reduced to an online dictionary quote. Guess colleges can stop teaching their Philosophy classes and just direct students to an online dictionary. No need to study Kant or Voltaire…if you are a rightie! They don’t need no stinkin’ enlightenment!
Maybe that is why the wretched Reich’s “logic” fails?
Definition of REICH
Steve 1936– Stephen Michael Reich Am. composer
Websters again
The Dunning–Kruger effect is alive an well on the SR blogs, thanks sqawky!
; )
Hawken…
I’m reluctant to believe you are really this ignorant. But it certainly does explain a few things.
Reading tip for you (no pictures, but the prose is elegant): Robert Helibroner’s (sp?) The Worldly Philosophers. Classic college text, but fun for the whole family.
Also, Will and Ariel Durant’s The Age of Reason.
misj…
I guess the great philosophers of the day today are Rove, Murdock, Woo and Cheney. And maybe Pat Robertson, too, just so we don’t go off into the real world too much.
LMFAO, too.
I completely understand the “Age of Enlightenment.”
You completely understand the word as I used it…
I’m sure people see through your juvenile attempt to misrepresent what I said….. Again…. But, it’s all you’ve got in light of all the facts I have posted in this string.
Ohh, and Glenn Beck; aka, Le bebe homme pleurant (crying man-baby) a post modern tragicomic clown.
; )
These juvenile exchanges are boring me to tears on this string… See ya…
Hawken,
You’ve posted 21 out of 53 comments so far. Maybe the exchanges are boring because you’re exchanging with yourself. So I must come to the conclusion that you’re boring. And anyone can see now why you’re so boring, because you say the same thing over and over and over. You really should stop posting cause everyone already knows what you’re going to say. 8 comments in a row? Palease. Talk about juvenile!!!
…MJ you made my day…week and next month…I had never heard of the Dunning–Kruger effect…and boy did you nail it big time especially on this thread…I just knew that there was a definitive syndrome…psychosis…or effect that pertained to……………………………………. :) !!!
Your next Cappuccino (or what ever you prefer) is on me!…
The Dunning–Kruger effect combined with SGTA, a tragic combination with predictable consequences!
Shucks, Mr. Natch, twernt nothin’!
; )
decturkey; that is why I stated, “Él sostiene consigo mismo.” Why Spanish, you may ask? Well because the Dr. (like the Shrub) is fluent in Spanish; according his post on a prior thread, anyways.
Like I said: “I doubt this will lower anybody’s blood pressure.”
<<if tax=”” hikes=”” are=”” so=”” great,=”” why=”” not=”” raise=”” tax=”” rates=”” to=”“ 100%.=”“>>
Conversely, why not 1 percent to bring in enough to solve the debt and deficit?
Laffer Curve says there is a point on the curve where there are diminishing returns. It doesn’t say where that is.
Obviously, it’s not 1 or 100 percent. I’m wondering why it must be historically low to bring about growth now. Didn’t need to be that low leading up to the last surplus.
Even after the JFK cuts, the top rate was 71 percent. And the economy grew. It’s half that now.
Hawken..
Sorry your feelings got hurt.
Misj…
I, too, had never heard of this theory. Thank you. Lots of applications.
An analysis I read indicated that the Bush-era tax cuts were responsible for about 7% of the economic growth during those years. The other 93% came mainly from population growth and artificially low interest rates (and the borrowing that followed; we see where that led).
The tax cuts did not increase federal revenue. Had the tax cuts never been enacted (especially the second tax cut), tax revenues would have been much higher, and there would have not been almost $6 trillion in deficit spending during the Bush administration.
mis j thanks for the “Dunning-Kruger” stuff.. therein lies the problem on these blogs…..best j
“misjustice on November 23 at 7:49 a.m.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is alive an well on the SR blogs, thanks sqawky!
; )”
Precisely. I think that is what is also responsible for their utter lack of cognitive dissonance while spewing absurdities.
The question that I have is simple, the tax cuts allow them to keep more of their money. Then how are greater revenues taken in as a result if those benefited by the tax cuts are allowed to keep more of their money?
Which is why Hawken has such a problem on the credibility issue.