Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:49:48 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>tlmfru wrote: 
>
>I don't think it's 98%. A study by some worthy group in recent years put th
e
>number of liberals in newsrooms at 87%.
>
> Peculiar, but true. The Fox cable network has seven of the top ten cable
>network news and opinion shows.
>
>Many people don't get a chance. There are less than a dozen cities in the
>U.S. with more than one (major) daily newspaper.
>
>Murdoch was brilliant. He concluded that the American news outlest were lef
t
>of center but 40% of the country was conservative. If he could start a
>network that was right of center, or even in the middle, he could get that
>40% and leave the others to divvy up the remaining 60%.
>
>He was right.
>

Yeah so far right, he's nearly off the edge.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids 
to
copulate me."
--  ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:09:23 -0400, SkippyPB
> <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
> 

"It didn't happen?" Twenty-four consecutive quarters of growth? Bah.

>
> A deficit budget is a tax.   That tax is much greater than the tax
> cuts, meaning the nation had a tax increase.

A budget deficit is NOT a tax until the money is collected. At best, it is a
"future" tax. However, it could be paid for in cheaper dollars - due to
inflation - and not as great as it seems. Further, if the tax cut yields
greater wealth than the deficit, it can be thought of more as  a profitable
investment, than a tax.

Suppose the government delays taking $1 from me for five years. In that
time, the $1 multiplies into $10 due to increased wealth. It seems to me the
economy is $9 wealthier than had the delay not taken place.

The difference in thinking is this: Some believe the amount of wealth is
fixed and just needs to be better distributed. Others, like me, hold that
wealth can be created. The government doesn't create wealth; it just moves
money around (in some cases the government actually destroys wealth).


>
> And spending money overseas does not help the domestic economy.

I just can't believe what I'm reading. This is madness.

If my company buys raw materials from overseas for $1 and turn it into
something that we then sell overseas for $5, that seems to be a net of
$4.00. That is, $4 of wealth has been created.

Let's take an extreme example: Bauxite.

There isn't much easily available Bauxite in the U.S. In the interests of
"helping the domestic economy," we could demand that only domestic Bauxite
be used in the manufacture of Aluminum. But then a beer can would be more
valuable than the equivalent weight of gold!

Does anyone seriously want to plop down a $500 deposit on a six-pack of suds
in pursuit of "helping the domestic economy"?

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:14:49 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
 
>
>A budget deficit is NOT a tax until the money is collected. At best, it is 
a
>"future" tax. However, it could be paid for in cheaper dollars - due to
>inflation - and not as great as it seems. Further, if the tax cut yields
>greater wealth than the deficit, it can be thought of more as  a profitable
>investment, than a tax.

Inflation is a tax.   I used to be able to buy more than I can after
the feds took that money.

The economy isn't helped by paying interest to China and to Saudi
Arabia.

The Republicans were absolutely right when they preached that we
shouldn't tax the future to pay for the present.

>Suppose the government delays taking $1 from me for five years. In that
>time, the $1 multiplies into $10 due to increased wealth. It seems to me th
e
>economy is $9 wealthier than had the delay not taken place.

The Government is not good at investing my money.   The Republicans
have been preaching that for decades, and they were right.

>The difference in thinking is this: Some believe the amount of wealth is
>fixed and just needs to be better distributed. Others, like me, hold that
>wealth can be created. The government doesn't create wealth; it just moves
>money around (in some cases the government actually destroys wealth).

If we invested our money now instead of having the government spend
it, our future would be much brighter.
 
>
>I just can't believe what I'm reading. This is madness.
>
>If my company buys raw materials from overseas for $1 and turn it into
>something that we then sell overseas for $5, that seems to be a net of
>$4.00. That is, $4 of wealth has been created.

Point taken - Let me re-phrase:   "Money spent on trying to convert
Iraqis to Democracy does not help the domestic economy nearly as much
as if the people had spent that money on consumer items".

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> Point taken - Let me re-phrase:   "Money spent on trying to convert
> Iraqis to Democracy does not help the domestic economy nearly as much
> as if the people had spent that money on consumer items".

On the other hand, how much wealth was destroyed on 9/11? There is
no way to know for sure how valuable dealing with terrorism will be,
but one thing is clear: not dealing with it will be an unmitigated disaster.

Working to build a successful democracy in Iraq seems a better use of
wealth than simply bombing the terrorists and potential terrorists out of
existence, no?
--
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:09:56 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
 
>
>On the other hand, how much wealth was destroyed on 9/11? There is
>no way to know for sure how valuable dealing with terrorism will be,
>but one thing is clear: not dealing with it will be an unmitigated disaster.[/color
]

The big assumption is that what we're doing is making things safer.
Some people say it is working, others say it is making things worse.

At any rate, it is a huge cost to our economy - whether or not it is
worthwhile.

>Working to build a successful democracy in Iraq seems a better use of
>wealth than simply bombing the terrorists and potential terrorists out of
>existence, no?

Or bombing the people out of existence and giving the terrorists
reason to rank us above their neighbors as enemies.

But talking business - let's determine our goals and evaluate how we
will know when we have accomplished our goals.   Determine what we are
willing to pay, and develop a plan where we can measure our progress
against our objectives.    You know, the things we should do when we
have any important project.

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:56:02 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>The big assumption is that what we're doing is making things safer.
>Some people say it is working, others say it is making things worse.

This appears to be a difference in faith, not in anything measurable.
If the President is good, then what he does is good.   If he's bad,
then what he does is bad.

Treat it like a business with measurable objectives.

Even though we can argue about coding styles - at least we can
determine whether a program actually works.

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote: 
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> IMPOSING Democracy on anyone is simply...undemocratic.
>
> Some countries may not work well under Democracy. It is not a perfect form
 of Government, simply better than the alternatives. For
> Democracy to work you need responsible, thinking citizens who can separate
 Church and State.
>
> If a country is living in the Middle Ages, riddled with superstition and f
anatical religious zeal, it may well be simply UNABLE to
> adopt a workable democracy. Religious states are not Democracies; they are
 subject to the dictates of God, as perceived by the
> population at large. The more extreme that perception, the less room for D
emocracy. The God of most major religions is not known
> for being democratic; one reason people adopt religion in the first place 
is because they want leadership.
>
> You don't think for one minute that, if everyone in the USA (or even the v
ast majority) held the beliefs you do, it would be a
> Democracy, do you? :-)
>
> (Me, and people like me would be first against the wall...hardly a democra
tic process...)
>
> The answer is education, not coercion.
>
> And some respect for the rights of others to be what they want to be (prov
ided they do no harm) would not be out of place, either.
>
> But, until then, "simply bombing the terrorists" may be a good course of a
ction... (provided you can definitively identify "the
> terrorists" of course...)

I'm not saying it would be easy. It may not even be possible. Look at
how much trouble Russia is having, and they chose democracy themselves.
But world terrorism presents a desperate situation, requiring desperate
measures. This is not a school picnic here. Many people in civilized
countries are spoiled into thinking that every problem can be solved
neatly. Some problems do not have solutions, and others have only messy,
expensive and difficult solutions ones. This is not a problem that will
just go away if we just ignore it.

As you say, I'm all for killing the terrorists, when they can be found.
But part of the "education" process is to provide a social environment
in which that can take place. As Bush pointed out, democracies are not
prone to starting wars with innocent neighbors. I do not think it is
the population of Iraq that is so opposed to democracy; the problem is
being imported from other countries, like Iran.
--
Judson McClendon       judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:34:18 -0000, tim <TimJ@internet.com> wrote:
 
>
>Directly, a hundred billion dollars or so.
>
>By far the greatest cost has been due to the response to 9/11:
>
>* The cost of the massive and inefficient Department of Homeland Security,
>all the "security theater" at airports etc.
>
>* The loss of civil liberties, and other restrictions, resulting from the
>legislation and actions taken in the wake of 9/11.

Also we bribed the victims' relatives by paying huge amounts to the
rich ones.   And we are now spending a fortune on airport security -
and slowing down travel for those who aren't rich enough to buy the
cards that let them bypass it.   We reorganized a great deal of
bureaucracy at great cost (FEMA wasn't considered adequate to handle
disasters, so it got replaced in time for Katrina).

And, I don't know if this should be considered a cost by itself - but
the terrorists were rewarded by getting the response they wanted.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:14:24 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>IMPOSING Democracy on anyone is simply...undemocratic.

Agreed.   But Democracy should not be an end in itself - it should be
a tool to achieve better life for the people with fewer risks that the
State will do harm to the people.    As such it has a better track
record than many other forms of government, at least when it is
limited by a powerful constitution.

But it can be corrupted.

>Some countries may not work well under Democracy. It is not a perfect form
>of Government, simply better than the alternatives. For Democracy to work
>you need responsible, thinking citizens who can separate Church and State.

I'm interested in the new China.   It has built up a non-hereditary
class of rulers that get support from the previous generation's
rulers.   I suspect it can't keep this up without getting another Mao,
but it might.    Trouble is with governments, we can't roll back time
to test how different the people would be with democracy or with
traditional despots.

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:09:24 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>As you say, I'm all for killing the terrorists, when they can be found.
>But part of the "education" process is to provide a social environment
>in which that can take place. As Bush pointed out, democracies are not
>prone to starting wars with innocent neighbors. I do not think it is
>the population of Iraq that is so opposed to democracy; the problem is
>being imported from other countries, like Iran.

When democracies (and other states) start wars, they define the enemy
as guilty.   And every state is guilty of stuff.    If we don't find
weapons of mass destruction, we change our excuse.