OK--So I don't geddit!

voodoo economics, its all done with smoke and mirrors.

Hey, dys. You were supposed to paraphrase that editorial. Being a cowboy, you're should know about Trojan horses.

I rarely post in the political category, and when I do, I get a reference to The Serpent and the Rainbow and Virgil.

the only trojans i know about never mind

bty letty, Les Paul turns 88 today

It is indeed a stylish and hip commentator here, rambling about a few different hooks and strategies, all over the map.

I don't know which part(s) caught your attention, and I'm probably the wrong guy to say anything anyways.

The only part I really got was that when Treasury Secretary O'Neill was hired he had to sell his Alcoa stock to avoid conflicts of interest with his job. As the stock then plunged, the move saved him $30M by getting him out of a bad investment. He should be grateful even though he was fired.

The rest of it makes me think the government sets economic policy based on political tactics, rather than economic facts and social benefit. Way too much politics when they should be working.

and Mary Ford?:

Lyrics: Somewhere there's music
how faint the tune!
Somewhere there's heaven
how high the moon!
There is no moon above when love is far away
too

Till it comes true that you love me as I love you.

Somewhere there's music
it's where you are

Somewhere there's heaven
how near
how far!
The brightest night would shine if you would come to me soon

Until you will
how still my heart
How high the moon.

Us Floridians can't 'ford no gas, cause prices are as high as the moon.
Now that's the best I can do to tie this in to that editorial.

Incidentally, dys. Who's Les Paul? (never liked him)

Thanks, Code. All of it got my attention, I just didn't understand what was being said. Why should a weak dollar be a good thing? Sheeeze. Let's go back to the gold standard.

From what I understand, a weak dollar is great for people that import things from other countries. For example...

A strong dollar versus Canadian money
$1 us = $1.75cdn

Exports $10us worth of merchandise and Canadians spend $17.50cdn on it. Bad for Canada, good for US exporter. making money.

A weak dollar versus Canadian money
$1us = $1.25cdn

Exports $10us worth of merchandise and Canadians spend $12.50cdn on it. Good for Canada, bad for US exporter. Losing money.

Does that make sense?

my ex took all the gold-----------

Yes, McGentrix. Makes sense to me. Course that could be dangerous. :wink:

Ah, dys. Don't you know that all the gold that has ever been mined is still around some place?

Hey Letty, the Sunday New York Times Magazine was devoted to finances. Here is one even I could understand, with a link and an excerpt. I highlighted the paragraph that really struck me.

As an Independent who usually votes Democratic, I get fed up with all the entitlement programs and the fighting over who get the larger share of the pie. Most are good programs, but each clique wants to win, even at the expense of all the others. As CodeBorg said, it's all about politics.

The article was written by a Republican, William G, Peterson, who tears the Republican Party apart for their irresponsible fiscal policies. He doesn't spare the Democrats, nor should he. It's well worth reading the entire article.

http://www.nytimes.com2003/06/06/magazine/08WWWLN.html

What exactly gave rise to this bipartisan flight from integrity and responsibility -- and when? My own theory, for what it's worth, is that it got started during the ''Me Decade,'' the 1970's, when a socially fragmenting America began to gravitate around a myriad of interest groups, each more fixated on pursuing and financing, through massive political campaign contributions, its own agenda than on safeguarding the common good of the nation. Political parties, rather than helping to transcend these fissures and bind the country together, instead began to cater to them and ultimately sold themselves out.

I'm not sure what it will take to make our two-party system healthy again. I hope that in the search for a durable majority, Republicans will sooner or later realize that it won't happen without coming to terms with deficits and debts, and Democrats will likewise realize it won't happen for them without coming to terms with entitlements.

Hey Dys, There's gold in them thar hills.

Ah, Diane. My delightful friend. The link didn't work but I am thinking tonight of a song Sheeze..can't help it...what better way to spend a day. Just spend one with River Phoenix.

oops..spent...look for me in the music category...

Letty, I;'ll see you in music.

Sorry for the duplicate paragraphs in the post. CodeBorg was kind enough to let me know.

I did try the link and checked to make sure I copied it correctly, but for some reason, it doesn't work. Perhaps it is because the article is a day old.

Here are a couple more paragraphs from the article. If anyone is interested in reading it, the title is: Deficits and Dysfunction, written by Peter Peterson in Sunday's Magazine section 06/08/03.
===========================================

The numbers are simply breathtaking. When President George W. Bush entered office, the 10-year budget balance was officially projected to be a surplus of $5.6 trillion -- a vast boon to future generations that Republican leaders ''firmly promised'' would be committed to their benefit by, for example, prefinancing the future cost of Social Security. Those promises were quickly forgotten. A large tax cut and continued spending growth, combined with a recession, the shock of 9/11 and the bursting of the stock-market bubble, pulled that surplus down to a mere $1 trillion by the end of 2002. Unfazed by this turnaround, the Bush administration proposed a second tax-cut package in 2003 in the face of huge new fiscal demands, including a war in Iraq and an urgent ''homeland security'' agenda. By midyear, prudent forecasters pegged the 10-year fiscal projection at a deficit of well over $4 trillion.

So there you have it: in just two years there was a $10 trillion swing in the deficit outlook. Coming into power, the Republican leaders faced a choice between tax cuts and providing genuine financing for the future of Social Security. (What a landmark reform this would have been!) They chose tax cuts. After 9/11, they faced a choice between tax cuts and getting serious about the extensive measures needed to protect this nation against further terrorist attacks. They chose tax cuts. After war broke out in the Mideast, they faced a choice between tax cuts and galvanizing the nation behind a policy of future-oriented burden sharing. Again and again, they chose tax cuts.

Diane, As usual, you are very articulate and informative, so much clearer than the article. One of the reasons that I posted this editorial was to demonstrate how some writers just don't say anything, although they say it quite well. Like a good dancer, a good writer should be easy to follow. I have followed GWB and his odd economic policy, and I don't "geddit" either.

I jumped to the music category last night, because a dear friend of ours, who is quite ill, played "Deep Night" on his guitar so beautifully that it just leapt into my mind. Then I recalled River Phoenix because the song was a background to his movie, My Own Little Idaho. That young man should never have died. I realize celebrities live on a different planet, but they are still people. What has this to do with the thread? Absolutely nothing.