Election 2010 Ballot Measures

[thekfc]

Re:

>>Personally, I will NEVER vote to legalize marijuana and all you stinking dopers out there that don’t like it can kiss my ass!   

Ray<<


Uh--Ray--does that mean that you didn't inhale either?

No, he just exhale 

[fathertime]

Except that that's probably the worst thing for the economy. 

I agree that having division like this is going to be terrible for the economy, but if the dems continued on their path that would have been worse.  I really don't see a way out of this mess because I don't think the senate or congress is going to work with each other.  Maybe we need another major nation/world crisis or something to make them work together. 

As a country we gotta start making more stuff that is valuable to other countries. We can't keep selling pizza's to each other and acting that is so great for the economy.    I'm convinced that intellectual property is going to continue on the downtrend, because it is just going to get reproduced by desperate people.  Financially speaking our nation needs to downsize and stop squandering our money on useless crap that winds up in the trashcan 6 months later.  Currently I don't think we have the discipline to take this step. 

Fathertime! 

[Researcher]

Except that that's probably the worst thing for the economy. Oh boy, a bunch of retarded politicians backed by special interest groups taking money from successful people and giving it to pet projects (which are typically subsidizing an industries that can't make a profit in the free market).

We're socialists under both reps and dems and have been for some time. This idea that one is different from the other from a big government/big spending perspective is so bogus...it's jsut their pet projects are different.

   Our government has been like this for as long as I can remember and yet we are the biggest economy in the world.Something about it works better than any other government in the world.Putting a leash on these liberal Dems is the best thing that can be done for now, even if it means gridlock.


  Researcher

[piglett]

Maybe we need another major nation/world crisis or something to make them work together. 
Fathertime! 

Hey FT be carefull what you wish for keep an eye on Nov. 8TH -Nov. 11TH I sure hope nothing happens but some of my sources tell me that there COULD be a Major event during that time.


your porkness
piglett

[jm21-2]

   Our government has been like this for as long as I can remember and yet we are the biggest economy in the world.Something about it works better than any other government in the world.Putting a leash on these liberal Dems is the best thing that can be done for now, even if it means gridlock.


  Researcher

Might have something to do with the fact that after WW2 we were largely untouched while the rest of the industrialized world was in a shambles. Europe recovered fairly quickly but now is down again due to even heavier socialism than us. We've been riding on our laurels and in the next few decades we're going to pay unless we have major reform. Our chances of major reform are about 0. Neither party is willing to make any sort of major cuts to the Military, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, which is basically our entire budget. So, while the going is still relatively good might as well save up some money and then move once the economy really starts to tank.

Look at what kind of laws rapidly developing countries have: limited government, low and usually fairly flat taxes, and far less business regulation. This isn't rocket science. It's way America was for most of its life.

Gridlock is good but it's too late for that. The whole idea of our government was to make it so it would do as little as possible by encouraging gridlocks and checks and balances as much as possible. The less it does, the more the country prospers economically for the most part. Lots of compromise legislation and working together by politicians is the absolute worst thing for a country...you want them constantly fighting so they can't do anything. Unfortunately they already have done too much and no one is going to support the massive cuts needed. Try proposing means-tested social security and medicare, cutting medicaid by 50+%, cutting the military by 50+%, and so on. There's absolutely no support for it. People love their entitlements and Americans are too paranoid to cut the military.

I just get a kick out of Republicans touting themselves as fiscally responsible when they have Reagan and Bush 2 on the record. reps on the whole are probably bigger spenders than dems and their projects are just as stupid if not more so.

[Researcher]

Might have something to do with the fact that after WW2 we were largely untouched while the rest of the industrialized world was in a shambles. Europe recovered fairly quickly but now is down again due to even heavier socialism than us. We've been riding on our laurels and in the next few decades we're going to pay unless we have major reform. Our chances of major reform are about 0. Neither party is willing to make any sort of major cuts to the Military, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, which is basically our entire budget. So, while the going is still relatively good might as well save up some money and then move once the economy really starts to tank.

Look at what kind of laws rapidly developing countries have: limited government, low and usually fairly flat taxes, and far less business regulation. This isn't rocket science. It's way America was for most of its life.

Gridlock is good but it's too late for that. The whole idea of our government was to make it so it would do as little as possible by encouraging gridlocks and checks and balances as much as possible. The less it does, the more the country prospers economically for the most part. Lots of compromise legislation and working together by politicians is the absolute worst thing for a country...you want them constantly fighting so they can't do anything. Unfortunately they already have done too much and no one is going to support the massive cuts needed. Try proposing means-tested social security and medicare, cutting medicaid by 50+%, cutting the military by 50+%, and so on. There's absolutely no support for it. People love their entitlements and Americans are too paranoid to cut the military.

I just get a kick out of Republicans touting themselves as fiscally responsible when they have Reagan and Bush 2 on the record. reps on the whole are probably bigger spenders than dems and their projects are just as stupid if not more so.

  WW2? Try The Civil War.There hasn't been another war on US soil since but in many places around the world there has been alot of unrest.I agree with you about it being too late for gridlock to help.There has been some pretty crappy legislation passed lately that needs to be repealed.

   I don't know if I would save dollars.Gold or a different currency would be better.

   I have to say one thing about the Republicans: At least they act like they are interested in saving the economy, but that's about all that can be said for them!

   Researcher

[jm21-2]

We certainly received a great deal of benefit from staying out of foreign entanglements in the past.

Yes, there has been some crappy legislation recently, but such is the nature of most legislation. The recent legislation doesn't hold a candle to Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid as far as cost or problematic nature though.

Gold is inflating due to fear mongering as it always does. The fear bubble will burst though just as the housing bubble did. 2 years ago it was probably a good investment (as were AR-15s) but I don't think I'd buy it now.

[piglett]

The fear bubble will burst though just as the housing bubble did. 2 years ago it was probably a good investment (as were AR-15s) but I don't think I'd buy it now.

Ok what do you think is a good investment rite now?
i like land it's cheep in some areas on the country & (they don't make it anymore)

pig

[jm21-2]

If I could predict what investments were going to be the next hot thing I wouldn't be working, haha.

I've had a couple clients whose retirement plans were heavily invested in the Asian markets and they kept going up even when the stock market here crashed. That seems to work alright. Some had some pretty massive growth.

I think in some areas we may see house prices go down again...they got propped up a bit by the new home buyer credit, but I bet in some areas there will be some more decline. Maybe not a big drop but sort of like Taiwan where there's been a slow decrease in value for many years.

I read an article a bit ago saying that the area I live in is rated as the metro area with the best chance of a housing market recovery in the US (mainly due to tons of federal/military employment in the area). We'll see what happens.

[fathertime]

Ok what do you think is a good investment rite now?
i like land it's cheep in some areas on the country & (they don't make it anymore)

pig

Hey piggglet,

I think one of the best investments you could make would be to invest in your own skills.  If you are a trucker pay the money and take the time to get every endorsement that you can get.  Although some markets are likely going up and others down, I don't have faith and wouldn't want to 'invest' in something I don't have any say in. 

Fathertime!

[Researcher]

      I hear that silver would probably be a good investment but I have to admit that I have done OK in the stock market.By OK I mean by pulling out of it and buying back in I made up the losses I took when it crashed.I bought back in when I heard the talk about QE2 and I benefitted from the rally after it was announced.I've heard that QE2 will cause a run up in stocks until the next crisis(or the one it causes) makes the market crash.Wait and see I guess.

    Researcher

[robert angel]

Re:

>>We certainly received a great deal of benefit from staying out of foreign entanglements in the past.<<

Haven't the majority of our more severe economic times been pretty closely related into us getting involved in major international conflicts involving the use of our military--namely wars?

[Researcher]

  Wars? I remember when they were called "Police Actions".The US has helped make the world a more peaceful place now our economy is starting to slide mainly because of globilization.Looks like we shot ourselves in the foot by sticking our noses in other countries' business.


    Researcher

[jm21-2]

Re:

>>We certainly received a great deal of benefit from staying out of foreign entanglements in the past.<<

Haven't the majority of our more severe economic times been pretty closely related into us getting involved in major international conflicts involving the use of our military--namely wars?

Yes, getting involved in wars and other countries' business has caused economic hardship. I was talking about far in the past (18th and 19th century) when the US focused on dealing with its own problems.

We could save a huge amount of money if we pulled all our troops back to the US and the rest of the world would probably like us better for it. Besides, international trade produces a lot more peace than troops ever could.

[Researcher]

We could save a huge amount of money if we pulled all our troops back to the US and the rest of the world would probably like us better for it. Besides, international trade produces a lot more peace than troops ever could.

  So true now that many countries have gotten on the capitalist bandwagon.

   Researcher

[robert angel]

George Washington wasn't the first proponent of USA "Isolationism" and neither was Woodrow Wilson or British P.M. Chamberlain, pre WWII.

The USA has long meddled in other nation's military, political leadership, religious, cultural and most certainly business affairs.

I can't see that as a whole changing anytime soon, as we'll likely always consider ourselves as the world's protector of democracy and a lot of extraneous baggage tends to come naturally with that.

By moving (somewhat) from pure militaristic to 'winning hearts and minds' in Vietnam, it certainly didn't work there anymore than it did when George Bush Senior, as CIA director, making sure Bathist Muslim's (the minority religious group)  strong arm street thug, Saddam Hussein, ascended into ruling Iraq w/ an iron hand. Similar w/ the Shah of Iran, Manual Noriega and a host of other despicable despots who for at least a while, played to our puppet strings.

The international nature of today's global economics and China's overwhelming (at this time) power, make any changes that will win the hearts and minds of people from 1st, 2nd and 3rd world nation's hearts and minds, rather unlikely.

People will always hate us as long as we're preeminent in world affairs and a multi media presence globally. We're a brash, bold presence and we have a lot of nationalistic pride and zeal (albeit wounded a bit in the last decade or so) and that makes us a natural target. That said, no other nation to my knowledge, contributes a larger percentage of their GNP to helping the down trodden, those hit by disasters and disease, etc. But most people don't see that and we don't trumpet our acts of kindness like some other nations do--we just 'do it'.

Still, it's worth a try to change our positions and improve our postion globally in terms of economics and image, but we have to change laws and policies as well, and in some cases, better yet, abandon laws and policies that got us into this mess to start with.

Isolationism is just not practical, but economic protectionism against global market forces is possible, even  in what's supposed to theoretically be a laissez-faire (what a quaint anachronistic term) capitalistic economic system

I am NOT saying we should try and use and manipulate despots to lead other nations to better our own needs--that's clearly not working anymore--at least not in the long term.  I'll say something unpopular here, but I'd venture to predict that in 10, 15, maybe 20 years, Iraq, Afghanistan and other hotbeds in the Middle East, will have reverted to their customary forms of government, although we may continue to be protected to a degree similar to what we have now from terroristic attacks. No, they won't stop, but we'll stay vigilant.

But it's going to take some major restructuring of trade and tariff laws, as well as monetary policy law enforcement (if there's actually such a thing) before our economic situation and reputation changes anytime soon.

We need to fix things more at home first, before trying to fix things abroad, and further weakening our dollar by buying our own bonds and all but inviting inflation and foolish borrowing of money is not the answer.

By the time you add up this and Obama's last 'stimulus plan'--we're talking a trillion and half dollars plus--almost all going to financial businesses and back into govt hands, in sort of a perverse merry go round. Has the average American's life improved much if any? Has his or her pay i, benefits or job security improved? I think not.

Meanwhile, the Wall St. Journal, predicts that the average high level  investment business honcho will get a 5% increase in their bonus this year. How sweet.

Geeze-and I HATE writing anything about politics here, because it seems to bring out the narrow minded, nasty dog mentality out of all of us!--

[Ray]

We could save a huge amount of money if we pulled all our troops back to the US and the rest of the world would probably like us better for it. Besides, international trade produces a lot more peace than troops ever could.
 

No, our enemies would still hate us but would lose all respect for us.

And our friends would stop liking us and lose all respect for us.

And any money saved would only be spent by the current administration to appease the unions and make the whining non-producers and illegal aliens Undocumented Democrats happy with more free stuff.

And are you saying that if we traded with Germany, Hitler would have been peaceful? And if we traded with Japan, they would not have attacked us? And if we only traded with Bin Laden, he too would have liked us instead of attacking us? LOL!

Ray

[jm21-2]

And are you saying that if we traded with Germany, Hitler would have been peaceful? And if we traded with Japan, they would not have attacked us? And if we only traded with Bin Laden, he too would have liked us instead of attacking us? LOL!

Ray

Well, a trashed economy and overbearing debt from WWI was certainly part of hitler's rise to power, and us refusing to trade with Japan was ultimately what sparked our war with them. So yes, trade does matter. Historically strong trade relations are the biggest deterrent to invasion and you don't see nearly as many crazy despots coming from prosperous countries.

Who knows what would have happened if we had stayed out of the middle east, not meddled in their affairs, and just be content to buy their oil and sell them products they needed?

Our overseas bases cost a fortune and are less and less necessary in an age of ICBMs and B-2 bombers. The USSR is gone and we have strong relations with all the biggest economies in the world. I don't really see the need for power projection any more. Maybe some troops to keep North Korea under pressure but that's about all that is necessary.

[piglett]

Hey piggglet,

I think one of the best investments you could make would be to invest in your own skills.  If you are a trucker pay the money and take the time to get every endorsement that you can get.  Although some markets are likely going up and others down, I don't have faith and wouldn't want to 'invest' in something I don't have any say in. 
Fathertime!

I already have a double/tripple & tanker endorsment on my CDL
i used to have hazmat but never used it so when the feds came out with the background check BS that takes 3 months & costs something around $150 i gave that one up.

the problem with driving long haul is that in time you are in really bad phisical shape.
you just don't get the exersise that you need to stay in shape.
i used to park in the very last row in the truck stop parking lots just so i could do a little extra walking.

I may look into getting a rollback once the wife arrives.
i don't see China loosing any interest in buying up our scrap metal in the near future.
i sometimes haul cars for people to the scrap yard now with a pickup & a car trailer that i have.
with a rollback equiped with a wheel lift i could haul 2 at a time & still use about that same amount of fuel. 

  here's one that would get the job done, i could use a little TLC but it is priced rite.
 http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/INTERNATIONAL-TOW-TRUCK-21FT-STEEL-JERRDAN-ROLLBACK-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem3f04a76883QQitemZ270661019779QQptZCommercialQ5fTrucks


pig

[piglett]

We could save a huge amount of money if we pulled all our troops back to the US and the rest of the world would probably like us better for it. Besides, international trade produces a lot more peace than troops ever could.

I wouldn't take 6 months before China invaded most of the SE Asian countries.


pig

[jm21-2]

I wouldn't take 6 months before China invaded most of the SE Asian countries.


pig

China has a history of being content within its own borders. I can't see them invading anyone. The most likely option would be Taiwan, but there are at least a million Taiwanese living in China and there are a ton of business ties. If China ever invaded them they'd probably surrender for a deal similar to HK anyways.

The rest of the countries China will just starve or impoverish by damming up rivers upstream and thus cutting off their water supply or something along those lines....inflate their currency to out-compete their neighbors, etc...

[robert angel]

If we weren't at war, our economy would be in even worse shape than it is. No. I am not saying that our men and women dying or the killing of other nation's people---including many civilians in collateral damage, makes it remotely worthwhile, but it's a sad fact.

If half our military forces no longer had armed forces work and were competing in the private sector once again, and businesses with defense contracts withered, it'd make a bad domestic economic situation even worse.

While Congress estimates both wars to be costing about two trillion dollars, some estimates are as high as six trillion. But in a strange way, war costs, while traditionally astronomical to look at on paper and sometimes calling for (as in WWII) for sacrifices in everyday 'conveniences', they have by and largely been absorbed in mysterious ways, while domestic production of goods and services to support the war/s efforts have traditionally been beneficial to the economy.

They print as much damn money as they please during wartime and since George Bush 2, the govt hasn't even told us any longer JUST HOW MUCH money they're printing out anymore. To many, govt. spending and national debt. are not real or of significant consequence. Meanwhile, Americans families and individuals are saving less and less while the govt. meekly bemoans the fact, all the while they are encouraging people to go out and buy more 'stuff' to help the economy--to get more 'stuff' with less real income.

(Wikipedia): >>>Indirect and delayed costs
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]

Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[11] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[11]

The extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring.[12][13]

 
The Long-term health care costs
A recent study indicated that the long term health care costs for wounded Iraq war veterans could range from $350 billion to $700 billion.<<

Meanwhile, the wall street/corporate bailouts and the latest round of upcoming economic stimulus spending will push that steam roller of questionable spending over the one and a half trillion dollar mark.

I wonder what five or so trillion dollars divied up between all American families with one or more children would add up to? I am pretty sure it'd amount to better than $50,000 per family and that a lot of those people would be out there, buying a whole lot of stuff, and as is the typical 'habit' in the USA, not saving much of it....

[fathertime]

If we weren't at war, our economy would be in even worse shape than it is. No. I am not saying that our men and women dying or the killing of other nation's people---including many civilians in collateral damage, makes it remotely worthwhile, but it's a sad fact.

Hey Robert A! 

Without getting into the issue of whether the war is good/bad, I don’t agree that without the war the economy would be even worse.  If we did not have to be in a war, our men, supplies, and focus would be used elsewhere and presumably more productively.    Strictly from a financial perspective I don’t see how having a war is a productive use of resources.  We (The American Taxpayers) are supplying a large force of men and women overseas, this does not contribute to our economy in any productive way.  We are not selling or creating anything to other nations by being at war, but this force is consuming a lot of our devalued dollars, some of which is going to directly to Afghanistan and Iraq citizens who are providing ‘information’ and other things.

  I understand that an argument can be made that the war is necessary, but I don’t believe it is good for our economy.  Can you summarize your thoughts on my post so I can argue with you?

Fathertime!

[jm21-2]

Roibert,

Don't mean to sound offensive, but you make the common mistake of thinking the economy is like a pie: there are only so many pieces and if one person takes a piece there is less for everyone else. But the economy is something that continually grows. As people contribute to it the wealth grows and everyone is better off. The pie gets bigger and bigger with more and more pieces.

What you have with government jobs is a forcible transfer (generally from successful people) to someone else (government workers). There is no wealth produced. That is why government jobs typically don't grow the economy. Further, it eliminates freedom of choice (capitalism), instead having decisions made by a central government, which is much less effective.

Employing a huge number of people (at good wages too) in an enormous army is bad or the economy. You're stealing money from productive people and diverting it to use in unproductive or  destructive labor.

Some sort of military is necessary for defense, but we aare a country with thousands of nuclear ICBMs. We could destroy most of the world with not much more than a push of a button. Who is going to invade us? It's like how in the cold war we kept producing nukes to the point where we could destroy every hamlet in Russia 8-10 times over. What a complete waste of resources. And what brought Russia down? Oh, capitalism and free market ideas.

[Researcher]

And what brought Russia down? Oh, capitalism and free market ideas.

 Actually what brought Russia down was  years of Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development, economic growth was at a standstill.They stepped it up in the 80's to keep up with the US.How do you like that, we outspent the Commies! We should tell our government that its OK to stop spending so much on defense now, The Cold War is over.

   We really need to focus on globalization and how we can transition to be a part of it.


  Researcher