Obama '08?

@roger,

roger wrote:

Hey okie, read this. This is what YOU WROTE

okie wrote:

I have a theory that America is basically much more conservative than it votes, but the emotion of a broad based cult figure such as Obama can hoodwink millions of voters again and again, by speaking in broad generalities, using demagoguery, and appealing to emotion. If the details of policies were closely examined, and compared to how individual citizens lived their lives, such politicians would not win.

It is an interesting idea. Maybe right; maybe wrong, but interesting.

Okay, what is your opinion? Everything is maybe right or maybe wrong, it doesn't take an intellectual giant to say that, but an honest post should say a little more than that.

Quote:

Some would take that as a compliment. You take it as confusing. I apologize for being over your head, at times.

I don't think I was the only one confused. You can do better by explaining your opinion rather than posting a cute comment, as you have done again.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Agreed, but one problem, which I pointed out. If they pay you with greatly devalued dollars, due to inflationary conditions brought on by the government printing huge sums of money out of thin air just to stay afloat and pay out all the entitlements promised, how is that much different than a private investment losing its value?

Inflation puts everyone in the same boat. Private investment tanking makes YOU poor.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Difference in philosophies. More government drags everyone down, private enterprise raises all boats, but not all to the same degree. I think history has shown the latter has been far more successful. If you want a good comparison, take the two paths to the logical extremes, look at North Korea and South Korea, the North's GDP is virtually nothing compared to the South, and we also know the starvation that the North has suffered.

I guess if alot of poison is fatal, your liberal argument is that a little poison is still okay. Perhaps we can still live with it, just to be policitally correct. Yes, social security has been a help to many people, kind of like a crutch, and once you become accustomed to a crutch, you can't live without it, but at least do not try to put everyone in a wheel chair, figuratively speaking, because at that point nobody will be capable of doing any work, and who pays for all the wheel chairs? Eventually everyone suffers. And I think our time is coming here in this country, as the entitlements become more and more burdensome. There is truly no free lunch, cyclops.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Another case of okie's ignorance about economics; he doesn't understand macro-economics, and the effect of the circulation of money.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
might just put all Reps in concentration camps.

Thats what many on the loony left have advocated already.

Just put every member of the House and Senate into one big concentration camp - we citizens would do just fine without them.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Oh, just in case I failed to mention it, H2O is also on my Ignore list.

1 Reply

Considering the unbelievable damage done by the Reps, I would put them all in concentration camps. Unfortunately, I lack that power. Btw, I might exclude the really hot female Reps.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Would you also be in favor of the death camps for repubs?
Should we execute them all because you dont like their politics?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Food for thought, mysteryman. Food for thought.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Then explain why you follow my every post and reply with pithy comments?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Another case of okie's ignorance about economics; he doesn't understand macro-economics, and the effect of the circulation of money.

Are you sure it's not you who have gotten it wrong ? High tax/high entitlement economies are well known to be relatively slow to adapt to changing economic and market conditions, and to have lower average growth rates than more competitive ones. There are, of course, bad side effects associated with both alternatives here. However, if you can stand the oscillations, freer market economies with more flexible labor markets generally do much better in the long run.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

However, if you can stand the oscillations, freer market economies with more flexible labor markets generally do much better in the long run.

I'm thinking free trade and less restrictive immigration policies are, in the long run, beneficial for a healthy economy.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Difference in philosophies. More government drags everyone down, private enterprise raises all boats, but not all to the same degree. I think history has shown the latter has been far more successful. If you want a good comparison, take the two paths to the logical extremes, look at North Korea and South Korea, the North's GDP is virtually nothing compared to the South, and we also know the starvation that the North has suffered.

I guess if alot of poison is fatal, your liberal argument is that a little poison is still okay.

That's weird. You seem to be saying here that government or government involvement is a poison, and also that not even "a little poison" or a little bit of government involvement in the market is acceptable.

Do you seriously believe that?

2 Replies

@old europe,

okie believes in extremes; he's either with or or again it. LOL He still expects Obama to fix everything in five months - the worst world recession since the great depression. okie has all the answers; just ask him.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Another case of okie's ignorance about economics; he doesn't understand macro-economics, and the effect of the circulation of money.

Why do you take on such meaningless statements George? It's as if you grant them a modicum of sense. They are sense free.

I hope it isn't because you say such things yourself and thus have to grant others the right to do so. Ducks quacking make more sense.

One might spend a whole evening socialising with c.i. and remain in neutral throughout.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
However, if you can stand the oscillations, freer market economies with more flexible labor markets generally do much better in the long run.
I'm thinking free trade and less restrictive immigration policies are, in the long run, beneficial for a healthy economy.

Couldn't agree more. Immigrants have been the fuel of the American social and economic engines for a long time.

The ability of a country to effectively attract and assimilate immigrants is highly dependent of the openness and flexibility of their labor markets. Highly structured and regulated labor markets and extensive social safety nets are effective barriers to the peaceful assimilation of immigrants.

It is merely ironic that an American labor movement that was largely created by a generation of upwardly mobile immigrants should have devolved into the anti immigration economic parasite that it has become.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

The irony of it all!

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Difference in philosophies. More government drags everyone down, private enterprise raises all boats, but not all to the same degree. I think history has shown the latter has been far more successful. If you want a good comparison, take the two paths to the logical extremes, look at North Korea and South Korea, the North's GDP is virtually nothing compared to the South, and we also know the starvation that the North has suffered.

I guess if alot of poison is fatal, your liberal argument is that a little poison is still okay.

That's weird. You seem to be saying here that government or government involvement is a poison, and also that not even "a little poison" or a little bit of government involvement in the market is acceptable.

Do you seriously believe that?

Nothing weird about it. I view government as a necessary burden upon the economy, given the fact that mankind is imperfect. If mankind was perfect and totally moral, there would be little to no need for any government whatsoever. But any burden is a drag on things, and more than the necessary minimum only serves to drag things down. I suppose poison is a strong word, but it fits. Perhaps "medicine" would be a better word, and too much government is like being over-medicated to the point of rendering the body almost unable to function or be productive.

Obama's stimulus bill is primarily a "grow government" bill, exactly the opposite of what is needed to grow the economy in a healthy way. Private sector jobs are disappearing, while government jobs and wages are increasing. All this does is burden the sector that produces goods and services with having to pay for more activity that produces very little meaningful goods and services, or at least is very inefficient in doing it.

Certain basic principles apply, and one of them is government is a very inefficient engine to creating wealth. Obama believes it is, and he is just basically wrong. When you have the most basic principle wrong, your policies are going to be wrong. If your car isn't running, and the diagnosis is wrong, plus the remedy is wrong, your car is not going to get fixed right or soon.

It doesn't take a Harvard economist to figure some of this out. A country bumpkin that can balance his checkbook has more sense than the current government that can't.

1 Reply

@okie,

Okie--Old Europe( his name is revealing, is it not) suffers under the delusion that if some government is good, then more is better.

He does not know of the school of thought that believes that the best government is the government that governs least.

He is not aware that the governments which have been the most intrusive in the areas of finance, industry, education and labor are the government which have been run by the most horrible dictators---Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

Old Europe, okie, is, I would guess, a secularist. I am sure that he believes that man can create paradise on earth if only we put enough laws on the books.

He has not, I am sure, ever read Solzhenitzen' writings about the Gulag!

1 Reply

@genoves,

genoves wrote:

He has not, I am sure, ever read Solzhenitzen' writings about the Gulag!

Oh, what a faux-pas! <claps hands like a gay seal, delighted with self>

What an egregious breach of recreational-online-political-dialogue decorum! He must come from new money! He probably doesn't even know how to indirectly criticize one A2Ker by addressing his post to another!

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know