How many of you are over 30

[Dr Grump]

41

 

[CSM]

No you're not, I'm 58.

Yep...same as you .... 58

 

[midcan5]

We have a left-leaning government right now, and if Obama is elected it will only go further that way.

We most certainly had one during the Great Depression. It was needed at the time as the solution to a problem. Problem is, it should have been discarded when we returned to prosperity. The programs left over from the "New Deal" are nothing but corrupt, bureaucratic shells of what they were intended to be.

And from the depression until Reagan we had what historians call the Golden age, a time of prosperity and moderate growth that raised the boats of all people in America and Europe. Europe continues that rise while we sank into social darwinist trickle down.

 

[Diuretic]

....
I honestly thought of retiring in Australia but I couldn't stand y'all's socialist crap and when you took away people's guns, it was over. I rather liked Townseville though.

Guns haven't been taken away. As much as I'd like it we're not socialists. And there's somewhere you'd like for sure. Up there in Queensland is a bit too humid for me but if you like that type of climate then Cairns or further north would suit you. Or if you'd like a more temperate climate there are other places.

 

[Diuretic]

He's probably close, if not older. A retired Command Sergeant Major? Vietnam vet? If he caught the tail end (last year) of the Vietnam War and spent 30 years in, he'd be 56 at a minimum.

Okay, I can do "duelling walking-frames"

 

[Diuretic]

Yep...same as you .... 58

Okay...in that case.... hit me Frank..."it was a very good year..."

 

[CSM]

Okay...in that case.... hit me Frank..."it was a very good year..."

Indeed it was!

 

[editec]

I have grown more, not less, liberal with age.

I have seen enough good hard working people not making it, and enough empty headed nitwits soaring to heights well beyond their abilities (but not their social standing) to know that we need governments to keep a lid on things.

I believe in viable just government for much the same reason some of you believe in guns.

Out of a sense of enlightened self interest.

 

[CSM]

I have grown more, not less, liberal with age.

I have seen enough good hard working people not making it, and enough empty headed nitwits soaring to heights well beyond their abilities (but not their social standing) to know that we need governments to keep a lid on things.

I believe in viable just government for much the same reason some of you believe in guns.

Out of a sense of enlightened self interest.

Interesting. I am took an dfferent path I guess.

I have seen hard working people destroyed by idealist telling them they MUST pay for others who did not work as hard. I have seen lazy, selfish folks hold their hands out and receive money, food, and luxuries they not only did not earn but fully demanded because they simply wanted it. I have seen many liberal idealists shake their finger and talk about "morality" and "fairness" while reaping the benefits of someone else's labor, creativity and productivity.

I do not believe any longer that the American people deserve a damned thing.

 

[Paulie]

And from the depression until Reagan we had what historians call the Golden age, a time of prosperity and moderate growth that raised the boats of all people in America and Europe. Europe continues that rise while we sank into social darwinist trickle down.

That was false growth, as our currency became worthless paper allowed to be printed at will to hand out to everyone and fight more wars. Inflation has created a false sense of growth by making money readily available.

You can see by the last 10 years how great that growth really has been for us. 3 business cycles in 10 years, and this current one is shaping up to be a doosie.

28, btw.

 

[AllieBaba]

"False growth".
That's a new one. So now when you prove economic growth, the libs can pooh-pooh it by saying it isn't real. Sort of like them pooh-poohing the economic growth and complete lack of a recession today by saying, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, it's just not true.

 

[Paulie]

"False growth".
That's a new one. So now when you prove economic growth, the libs can pooh-pooh it by saying it isn't real. Sort of like them pooh-poohing the economic growth and complete lack of a recession today by saying, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, it's just not true.

Depends on what you define as real economic growth. Jacking with interest rates, and injecting money into the system creates a perceived effect of "growth", while in the end it really only destroys the currency. Historical precedence proves that. You have absolutely nothing to go on historically that could make the case for the Dollar being indestructible, therefore I say what we have experienced is false growth, or PERCEIVED growth because money is readily available. I'm paying almost $4 for a loaf of bread where I live, and $5 for a gallon of milk. None of this is "growth". It's parallel to Rome, circa 500 AD.

Btw, are you RGS' wife? You both have an uncanny ability to turn ANY topic around and make it all about liberals.

"complete lack of recession". That's priceless. Maybe '"officially", because the Fed papered their way out of it. For the time being, anyway.

 

[Jeepers]

Pushin forty...

 

[Tech_Esq]

"False growth".
That's a new one. So now when you prove economic growth, the libs can pooh-pooh it by saying it isn't real. Sort of like them pooh-poohing the economic growth and complete lack of a recession today by saying, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, it's just not true.

I bet we wouldn't all be calling these economic numbers a recession if we were 2 years into an Obama Presidency. Then it would be "0% growth isn't negative! Quit trying to jawbone down the economy naysayer!" Watch and see.

 

[AllieBaba]

Except Obama won't win the election.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Granted. But yer still a whippersnapper




I'm sorry, you have a Left leaning government now? You can't mean the Dems, they're fairly right wing and as for BushCheney no more needs to be said.

During the Great Depression you had a government that looked to solutions and not slogans. They used Keynsian economics but they weren't Left. Programmes in place then surely should have been kept in place so that the next time they were needed it wouldn't be necessary to crank them up with the lead time it would take to make them effective.

What you are missing there is that the basis of the government is consent of the governed. A Social Contract. If we had kept all of the "New Deal" in place, in some measure LBJ built on it anyway, and assuming we actually paid for it, our taxes would be so high that people would be opting out of economy and the country.

The real question is, to what end? What is it that we are trying to do by providing an ever growing list of entitlements? Are we trying to get to a place where we have equal outcomes for everybody? Is nirvana really where the talented work hard so others don't need to? Maniac mediocrity? Is that what it's all about?

If so, I understand why Marx said that it could never work unless all the countries do it. Anyone worth a damn would leave and go get paid. Probably why they had to shoot people to keep them in the socialist paradises of the Eastern Block and Soviet Union. The workers paradise was so bad that they would rather risk death than stay. That should tell you something about whether advocating for more socialism is good or bad.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'm happy to accept the totalitarianism/authoritarianism realisation can occur from either end of the spectrum. For me it's an evil and that's it.

What we all want and need is good government and that requires us citizens to be critical thinkers and not fawning hacks.

I had a fairly useful PoliSci prof explain that the left and right should be viewed as a circle rather than a straight line continuum. Picture Fascism and Communism as just to the right and left of 12 o'clock, respectively. This presents a much more serviceable explanation of what a citizenry feels. As you pass 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock repression is increasing and by the time you are closing in on 12 you are in a police state of some type. The point is, to the average person, it doesn't really matter whether you are oppressed from the left or the right. You're still fucked.

 

[Diuretic]

What you are missing there is that the basis of the government is consent of the governed. A Social Contract. If we had kept all of the "New Deal" in place, in some measure LBJ built on it anyway, and assuming we actually paid for it, our taxes would be so high that people would be opting out of economy and the country.

The real question is, to what end? What is it that we are trying to do by providing an ever growing list of entitlements? Are we trying to get to a place where we have equal outcomes for everybody? Is nirvana really where the talented work hard so others don't need to? Maniac mediocrity? Is that what it's all about?

If so, I understand why Marx said that it could never work unless all the countries do it. Anyone worth a damn would leave and go get paid. Probably why they had to shoot people to keep them in the socialist paradises of the Eastern Block and Soviet Union. The workers paradise was so bad that they would rather risk death than stay. That should tell you something about whether advocating for more socialism is good or bad.

The dictators of the Soviet Bloc will always be raised as spectres against socialism. But socialism is what saved the UK in the wake of WWII.

 

[Diuretic]

I had a fairly useful PoliSci prof explain that the left and right should be viewed as a circle rather than a straight line continuum. Picture Fascism and Communism as just to the right and left of 12 o'clock, respectively. This presents a much more serviceable explanation of what a citizenry feels. As you pass 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock repression is increasing and by the time you are closing in on 12 you are in a police state of some type. The point is, to the average person, it doesn't really matter whether you are oppressed from the left or the right. You're still fucked.

That's a good way of putting it. And it's important for us to realise it can come at us from both the left and the right.

 

[WhoisJohnGault]

I get the impression from this board, that most of it's users are very liberal and young. I am betting most of you did not live through any of the cold war, and have little understanding of what Far Left government has always lead to.

Please let me know how old you are so I can get a handle on this.

I was beginninng to think the same thing. I have changed since my twenties, but by age 30 I was smart enough to see the light. I have never thought that age is a detriment to ability for I have known so many vital and mentally brilliant elderly but the majority of posters on this board seem to think age is sure sign of dementia. One would think that in this day and age that the young would be better informed of such things. There is a saying and we all know that sayings, or cliches are only such because they are correct; "Age is wasted on the young". meaning of course that the young are too ignorant to do much with their youth, they do not appreciate it until it is gone and they do not value life's lessons which have been learned by the elderly. I have heard people often say, I'd love to be twenty again, if only I could know what I know now.

You are right about most posters here have not learned from our recent history in this country; either they are too young to have realized it, or have not been taught it by either their parents or their teachers. Evidentally they have not had the desire to learn on their own instilled in them as well.