patrick.net

elvis says

13. Eliminate subsidies, tariffs and so called “foreign aid”.

I'm not going to bother to comment on some of your other crack pot ideas, but I can agree with this one. Do you realieze that the United States provides millions, sometimes billions of dollars to aid to contries that are hostile agaisnt us. In 2006, we provided over $2.5 billion in AID to Isarel, at the same time we provided $1.7 billion to Egypt, didn't Egypt invade Isarel several times before? Why we playing both sides? Pick a side already.

2. Cut government spending
3. Reduce national defense spending by 1/2
4.Re-enact regulations of 1929

I’m not even sure what your referring to. Many of the stock market / banking regulations were issued AFTER the 1929 crash. Repealing those laws would be disasterous.

I am referring to the GLB act which opened the floodgates for all those Alt-A loans to be distributed.

8. Lock up all the gangbangers (KKK, Crips, Blood, Mexican Mafia) that transport dope

I strongly disagee with this point. The government has been trying to stop the drug flow for the last 40 years, and victory is no where in sight. Drugs should be leagalized, making it legal will put all the gang and mobs out of business. Tax drugs, the money generated can be a great benifit to society. Despite all the drug enforcement drugs are easily obtains on almost any drug corner, why not just move them from the corners and into the drug stores.

Good point, I just didnt want to be the one to say legalize crack cocaine.

I would like to add if we want to increase the opportunities, then we must bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States and reduce government spending. Who cares how much we are taxing when we will only spend more than we take in….we could tax 5 trillion dollars and still find a way to spend 5.1 trillion.
The bull-mooose rears its ugly head once again….Hope, Change and Progress should come in the form of social reform..
I am still waiting to see how things turn out.
1. Pull our troops from Iraq, Afghanistan

Although I never agreed with getting involved with invading Iraq, pulling out without some kind of withdraw plan could be disaterous. Terrorists have show the kind of damage they can inflict with a complacent government.

We can simply setup a DMZ around the country, shoot down anyone entering or leaving without our permission...then get back to sucking all the oil out of the ground.

Do you know the answer to the question? If it's so basic, answer it. You see, Holder knows that this is a highly nuanced question that you can't possibly answer correctly. If he mentioned Padilla, someone would point out that Padilla was no longer an enemy combatant at the time of his trial, or that his citizenship made him somehow different (hey, if the SCOTUS is a bunch of pussies too afraid to stand up to Bush on the issue, I guess it doesn't matter). If he said "never", people who criticize him for ignoring all of those people that we tried (and executed) back before the term "enemy combatant" got the bizarre and twisted interpretation that we have today. Furthermore, the Obama administration doesn't use the term "enemy combatant" anymore, because they know it's bullshit. Before Bush decided that anyone they felt like arresting could be called an "enemy combatant", that term essentially meant Prisoner of War. The people being discussed for trial now are not prisoners of war. They are not members of any nation that we're at war with. They are "unlawful enemy combatants" according to the geneva convention -- little more than organized crime, and that's why civilian trials are what they should get. It's a damn shame that we don't explain the geneva convention to people young enough that they might understand why it exists before they drop out. I really don't understand the mentality of people who are OK with breaching the conventions. It's almost like WWII never happened.

Before I listen to anyone complain about Obama / Holder and these trials, I would like to see evidence from during the Bush administration of them complaining about how Bush hasn't done anything to put these bastard in the electric chair. If you didn't complain for the years Bush did nothing to get these guys sentenced to death you can wait a few more years and see what this president gets done.

"How many children have died because of the incompetent decisions by thyis admin? " Probably about 1/10th or less of those kids that have died of the garden variety "Influenza" this year.

"Katrina pales in comparison." Are you kidding?? This post is laughable.

@elvis: "The Millionaire Next Door" is one of my all-time favorite books. It statistically debunks the myth that most American millionaires inherited their money. For those living with illusions, the vast majority of American millionaires (defined as assets - debt, not including house) are first generation business owners, and a large number are recent immigrants. There's no corruption or generational wealth involved, just a lot of elbow grease.

@CBOEtrader: Nice analogy with overeating and obesity. So many people try to argue the negation of assertions like "most wealthy people work hard". Why? Because the statement is so obviously true that it's almost impossible to attack directly. If we diagrammed Hardworking vs. Lazy, Rich vs. Poor, then we wouldn't find many people in the Rich/Lazy category (especially pre-retirement).

@tatupu 70: Hard work is a prerequisite to wealth. That doesn't mean hard work is an automatic entitlement to be wealthy---it's just the price of admission. We live in the Land of Opportunities, not the Land of Guarantees. Also, I was puzzled by your "Microsoft secretary" theory. So let me get this straight. She gets lucky by receiving Microsoft stock that eventually makes her a millionaire. And... what? Is she somehow less entitled to the profits of her good luck? Does that make her morally inferior to the heart surgeon who built his own practice? Or do we somehow become entitled to confiscate wealth from lots of people just because the occasional wealthy person got lucky? Bottom line, it's their money, not ours.

@all: I've found some of the arguments on this thread enlightening, but others are just abjectly ridiculous. The assertions that luck counts more than skill or work ethic for building wealth were particularly appalling. It's like someone read Gladwell's "Outliers: the story of success" with a cynical filter. It's true that you can find plenty of examples were hyper-rich (not just ordinary wealthy) people got lucky with either their initial conditions or their ideas. That doesn't invalidate the fact that most wealthy Americans busted their butts to attain their modest wealth, and they did it though average means available to anybody. Every Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is outnumbered 10000:1 by "small" millionaires like surgeons, chief engineers, senior partner lawyers, small business owners and others who attained wealth via education, savvy or pure hard work. I can't imagine that anyone could reasonably believe that there are more lucky millionaires than self-made millionaires, especially in the face of empirical proof.

Brand says

@all: I’ve found some of the arguments on this thread enlightening, but others are just abjectly ridiculous. The assertions that luck counts more than skill or work ethic for building wealth were particularly appalling. It’s like someone read Gladwell’s “Outliers: the story of success” with a cynical filter. It’s true that you can find plenty of examples were hyper-rich (not just ordinary wealthy) people got lucky with either their initial conditions or their ideas. That doesn’t invalidate the fact that most wealthy Americans busted their butts to attain their modest wealth, and they did it though average means available to anybody. Every Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is outnumbered 10000:1 by “small” millionaires like surgeons, chief engineers, senior partner lawyers, small business owners and others who attained wealth via education, savvy or pure hard work. I can’t imagine that anyone could reasonably believe that there are more lucky millionaires than self-made millionaires, especially in the face of empirical proof.

You forgot to mention "Tenacity" because sure you can work hard to make money or develop your ideas. But if you are not tenacious you will either fail, or lose it all shortly after success.

If you don't have Tenacity then you better hope for the Luck route.

Tenouncetrout: Agreed. I'd go one step further, and suggest that if someone lacks Tenacity, all the Luck in the world won't help them. Easy come, easy go. How many lottery winners just blow it all and end up back in their original circumstances?

"...and two to take him"

Wow staynumz you are very trusting of this administration. You should listen to Glenn Beck sometime, he asks a lot of good questions about the safety of taking a drug from this administration. I guess you are one of those liberal elites that can't stand someone like GB asking questions though.

@Brand-

My point--which I didn't do a very good job of making--was that I thought Elvis greatly simplified what it takes to be a millionaire(or successful in general terms). I got the impression that he was implying that all it takes is hard work. And if you're not successful, it's because you're just not trying. Or lazy.

I just wanted to make the point that it takes more than hard work to be successful--but I agree that it is a prerequisite.

fredMG says

Wow staynumz you are very trusting of this administration. You should listen to Glenn Beck sometime, he asks a lot of good questions about the safety of taking a drug from this administration. I guess you are one of those liberal elites that can’t stand someone like GB asking questions though.

Seriously, people are questioning the vaccine just because it was released under the Obama administration?! So what's wrong with it? What are are the side effects that are so prevalent that it's got people talking?

I also liked the Millionaire Next Door. Other good reading include: The Richest Man in Babylon, Think and Grow Rich. The Power of Positive Thinking. Tough Times Never Last but Tough People Do, and the book with the longest title I've ever seen: All You Can Do Is All You Can Do But All You Can Do Is Enough.

I believe individual prosperity is within the grasp of most individuals. It starts with a "can do" attitude. Its a mind-set that says 'no one can stop me.' It means stretching yourself. It means pushing yourself. It means outworking other people. It means doing more than your job requires. It means telling that little voice we all have in the back of our minds "SHUT UP - I'm not listening to you anymore." It means making a committment to yourself that failure is not an option. Your new "fight sone" is going to be that popular song a couple of years ago "I get knocked down, but I get up again, you're never going to keep me down." Stay away from negative people and small thinkers. Think big. "Big plans stur the souls of men." Always be positive. When someone asks "How's it going?"...smile and say "UNBELIEVABLE" !!! (that covers it both ways), and notice the reaction you get. Others will be positively affected by your new enthusiasm.

Some young people identify successful people and pattern themselves after the successful person. Dress for success, look the part, fake it till you make it. Night school, tech school, self study, digging, scratching, doing whatever it takes. No one can stop someone who is DETERMINED to succeed. As I've said in the past "who is it up to?"

Darn - I'M GOOD....I just might start Honest Abe's School of Success !!

What the hell?! The virus grows slower under a democrat than a republican administration?!!! What the fuck?! This is the most insane blog entry I've seen in a while. Especially considering that the vaccine was contracted through private companies, which is what Republicans would have wanted anyway.

It's a conspiracy! I knew it! I just realized that Obama is responsible for the housing crash, TARP, the H1N1 flu vaccine not being available, and he's the reason the timer on my oven doesn't work. Heckuva Brownie job, Obama!

If you want prosperity do this:

Teens
1. Graduate Highschool, participate in athletics and scholastic activities...enjoy the last few moments you have with being pampered by your parents.

20's
2. Attend College, Trade School, Apprenticeship or even get a job to build up expertise in a skillset that has a large potential for future profits
3. Save 25% of your earnings during this period
4. Do not get involved with credit card debt, buy with cash
5. Do not get involved with financing a new car, buy at an auction

30's
6. Take your skillsets learned during your 30's and apply them to an entreprenurial effort, c-level position....increase your earning power.
7. Start a family, buy your first home
8. Invest in rental income in areas where you will gain a profit
9. Continue to save 25% of your income
10. Continue to drive the car that you bought at the auction, or go pay cash for another.

40's onward
11. Save, Save, Save
12. Raise your kids
13. Grow your business, earning power and family.
14. If you have equity in your house, and/or see that housing is at the peak of its next bubble......sell, sell, sell.

staynumz says

Nomograph says

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried, convicted, and executed with near 100% certainty. New York City is the most appropriate place for justice to be served. It’s perfectly simple. Other than “Holder is a loser” or other AM talk radio arguments, why shouldn’t a trial and execution take place? New Yorkers don’t seem afraid of it, so why is the AM crowd so scared? The answer is simple: the Obama administration is finishing up more of Bush’s loose ends, and folks like staynumz are having a hard time with that. They want him to fail. Stay numb my friend, stay numb.

Haha…more scared of AM rhetoric. So predictable. I wouldnt call him a loser, I would call him stupid. he obviously was not prepared for basic questions that might be asked. Graham: Where would you try bin laden if captured tomorrow. Holder: (stutter, stutter…..uhm, we would follow protocal. LOL Dummy, protocal is guantanamo. You are changing protocal. WHERE WILL YOU TRY HIM? Yeah, tough question.

It seems you will do whatever it takes to discredit, insult and bombard the Obama administration with your rhetoric. This is very similar to the rhetoric surrounding Bush when he was in office and I am wondering when will it cease?....its not productive.

staynumz says

Wrong. He is still classified as an enemy combatant. And if military tribunals are not a good option, why is owebama still having them as we speak? Why do you think the hairy guy should be tried here and not all enemy combatants that are picked up around the world?

If someone is picked up on non-US soil, attacking our military specifically, then I don't have a major issue with them being tried in a tribunal, at least in regions where there is no stable local government. The US civil system has no authority over crimes committed outside of our borders. Even the conventions are somewhat vague on this, since these paramilitary organizations weren't much of an issue back then. It was either "you're a member of an enemy army" or "you're a criminal". For someone who is accused of attacking civilians, or civilian infrastructure, it's a civil matter. Very simple. Please give one argument for why KSM shouldn't be tried in a civilian court. Did he attack our military? Is he a member of the military of a country that we're at war with? It seems to me that he planned an attack on our civilian infrastructure. Do you think Timmy McVeigh should have gotten a military tribunal? How about Jeffrey Dahmer? Where do you even draw the line? Why are you so in favor of giving so much power to the military anyway? Isn't that the sort of big government crap you people are usually against (well, that and railing about the "unconstitutionality" of taxes or health care or something, ignoring things that are actually in the constitution like habeas corpus).

I really don't understand this assumption that tax rates have anything to do with prosperity. The world is full of countries with wildly varying tax rates, and there is little to no correlation with economic prosperity.

You'd pay about the same amount in taxes in Switzerland as you would in Bosnia (both much, much lower than the US).

Most of sub-saharan africa has little to no taxes (the government, or local warlods, just confiscates everything else)

Please cite some actual arguments for how lower (or higher) taxes would make much of a difference at all. History shows us that it does not.

If tax rates are too high, people simply don't pay them, and prices / wages tend to be offset to cover the difference anyway.

If tax rates are too low to cover expenses, governments just borrow (there are very few "prosperous" countries that don't have an enormous debt).

Factors that actually affect prosperity are:

1. Governmental stability. Bitch about our government all you want, but would you prefer a dictatorship or a bunch of warlords?

2. Infrastructure. You need good power grids, clean water, and adequate roads to support business development.

3. Security. If your country is constantly at war and being invaded, it's difficult to prosper (and this usually affects both 1 and 2).

Find a country that has all three of those things and you will find a prosperous nation. Find a country that is severely lacking in any of them and you'll find a country that is not that prosperous.

Hmmm. I don't know. There is another group out there taking another tact, arguing that the vaccination was produced too quickly. Shoved out the door without proper testing. I brought my daughter to a clinic just yesterday. In and out, no waiting at all. Personally, I think the hype is way of line with the reality. Bird-flu, SARS, Swine, et cetera, et cetera.

I don't know reniam, I work in a major metro hospital, I don't recall seeing so many kiddos die from the regualr flu as I've seen with H1N1. And the number of admissions are tapering off, is it just a coincidence that the vaccine is now available and has been for over a month. Maybe people are fnally being more cautious, staying home when ill, washing hands, etc. Watch a normally child or young adult die of H1N1 and tell me it's hype...

Actually, the original premise put forth by elvis is that we need a much smaller government, which in turn would require less taxes. I'm a little skeptical about his number that the government consumes 45% of GDP---if that corresponds to the $1.2T/year stat, then I'm surprised that our economy is so small.

But to elvis' point, if you take Kevin's #1-3 (stability, infrastructure, security), then our government has taken on a rather huge array of supplemental duties. I wouldn't mind if we got our federal government back towards defense, justice and basic Constitutional functions.

Brand says

Actually, the original premise put forth by elvis is that we need a much smaller government, which in turn would require less taxes. I’m a little skeptical about his number that the government consumes 45% of GDP—if that corresponds to the $1.2T/year stat, then I’m surprised that our economy is so small.
But to elvis’ point, if you take Kevin’s #1-3 (stability, infrastructure, security), then our government has taken on a rather huge array of supplemental duties. I wouldn’t mind if we got our federal government back towards defense, justice and basic Constitutional functions.

I would love it!

Brand says

I wouldn’t mind if we got our federal government back towards defense, justice and basic Constitutional functions.

and free Jameson shots for every one!!!!

Brand says

Actually, the original premise put forth by elvis is that we need a much smaller government, which in turn would require less taxes. I’m a little skeptical about his number that the government consumes 45% of GDP—if that corresponds to the $1.2T/year stat, then I’m surprised that our economy is so small.
But to elvis’ point, if you take Kevin’s #1-3 (stability, infrastructure, security), then our government has taken on a rather huge array of supplemental duties. I wouldn’t mind if we got our federal government back towards defense, justice and basic Constitutional functions.

Having those three things is what puts you in the league of 'places where you would actually want to live if you had a choice'.

Once you get to that, though, it all becomes a matter of the kind of lifestyle you prefer living and what you want to prioritize.

I'd point out here that there really isn't that much of a quality of life difference based on the size of government or the tax base.

Really, take a look at countries that meet my three criteria for prosperity, and then look at the size of government. In all cases it's fairly large (on order of 10-15% of GDP -- about the same as the US despite that bullshit 45% figure that was tossed around previously). It's really just a matter of how we choose to spend it. Do you really think there's all that much of a difference amongst wealthy countries in terms of quality of life? Go visit sometime and you probably won't.

Personally, I'd be OK with the size of our government (in terms of overall spending) if we spent about a third as much on defense and about twice as much on education, and ultimately have a stable tax / spending structure that allows us to take on debt in times of crisis but pay it back during times of prosperity (taking on debt when the economy is strong makes no sense whatsoever).

I don't necessarily believe that we need the government to run health care, but I also don't think it matters much if we do. I do know that our current system is just plain broken, though, and any of the systems in use by other wealthy countries would be better for us.

I also think we should kill off antiquated subsidies for agriculture and businesses of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Ultimately, I don't really mind if I pay higher taxes as long as it means better quality of life. Yes, I will gladly pay good money if it means good education for everyone, or better power grids, or cleaner water, or healthier air, or whatever. I'm not a big fan of paying $1m per soldier to fight an unwinnable war or to shell out cash to farmers in order to keep food prices artificially high.

@elvis--

McAfee won't even let me go to mwhodges site-it says to go there with extreme caution. He must be a real pillar of the economic community.... I'd take what he says with many grains of salt.

Kevin, I tend to agree with your point that quality of life is pretty similar in stable countries with good infrastructure and adequate resources. From this and the "young people" thread, I personally don't think the U.S. could collapse into anarchy. I think we're headed towards the same fate as Europe. The state is paying for more, but the price will be diminished social mobility (I've seen that firsthand in Germany), and much lower growth. By definition, the government is a consumer, not a producer.

That said, sometimes I wonder if we're on the Roman road of fighting endless wars, which can eventually bankrupt a country. Look how destabilizing Germany became when they were bankrupt far beyond their ability to support the debt.

elvis says

It seems like kind of a simple choice to me. I’d take the ‘correction and healing’ choice over the ‘collapse’ choice any day. I choose Freedom and Liberty.

sounds like a false choice to me.

@Elvis-
Or it could be that the politicians know more than you and are actually making the correct choices as we speak. Judging from your earlier posts, I'm fairly certain that this is the case. The only thing you are right about is "too much war"....
You talk a lot about having a "sound currency". Any idea what effect that would have for companies who export? Or for companies considering building a new plant (in the states vs. overseas)? For jobs in the US? Think about it...

Plunging America into massive debt and crushing interest payments is not making wise choic es. Just wait till interest rates start going UP, what then - print more money? Maybe you haven't noticed America has painted herself into an economic corner.

Yes, going back to sound money would be painful, so is detox - but its the right thing to do. Continuing to building our financial house of cards higher and higher, knowing the house is built on unstable soil is downright stupid. Do you know why? (Hint: it's GOING to collapse). And the higher the house of cards is allowed to grow, the worse its going to be when it all falls down.

Tatupu70, are you a politician...or just ill informed about whats happening around you? By your comments I can't tell the difference.

tatupu70 says

@Elvis-

Or it could be that the politicians know more than you and are actually making the correct choices as we speak. Judging from your earlier posts, I’m fairly certain that this is the case.

Y

Are you kidding me? I can't think of a single thing the "politicians" have done right in the past 10 years. They certainly effed up the economy and haven't done a thing to solve the growing problem with deficit spending.

staynumz says

And these are the same private companies that will handle our health care under the dems. Confidence inspiring?

Now I'm really laughing. You're blaming a private company's problems on Obama? You really need to watch it--the hypocrisy is becoming very obvious. Government intervention is bad, but letting private companies work is also bad. Hmmm.....

staynumz says

Not quite as insane as blaming boosh for katrina. And these are the same private companies that will handle our health care under the dems. Confidence inspiring?

We don't blame Bush for Katrina; he is to blame for appointing an incompetent to head FEMA, ignore the problems that occurred as a result of the poor response, and for congratulating the people responsible for the poor response while people were hungry, homeless, in horrible squalor in the convention center, and barely surviving. He is to blame for using the incident as a PR ploy rather than responding with the the people and supplies necessary to help during a horrible time in our lives. Your train of thought, if there is one, is hard to follow and you make no real sense. You should continue to do everything you can to stay numb - but share with us what you use to do so; if only we could follow suit we might be able to translate your posts into something understandable.

I really can't see how you can blame how "The administration" for swine flu shot shortages. I believe they attempted to give the companies that manufacture it as much time as possible. The problem with any kind of drug is it needs to be properly tested before being approved for distrubution. If someone you know is dying from a condition (weather it's a desease, virus, cancer, whatever) and they were developing a drug to cure it. You can bet you would be demanding they release it to your love one yesterday. Demanding every day what's the frigging hold up, why can you morons give us the drug already. If they were to bow to your pressure and just send you the drug and A. It doesn't work as promised, people could lose valueable time trying a fruitless treatment when there limited time could be spent trying something else, Or B. The drug give sides effect, perhaps even lethal ones. You would be the first one in line demanding the head of the A hole that shipped a drug without proper testing. You would want to sue them for every penny. Despite all the advances in computers, telecommunications, and other technology, the medical field of drug development hasn't advanced since the 1940's. It's the same method of give the drug to one group and give a fake drug to the other and compare the results after months of testing. We are too MTV, McDonald's instant gratification society. We want it NOW. Drug development doesn't work that way. Even when a drug does work, anything not synthedic takes time to cultivate it. If you can't mix chemicals A and B together to make the drug, throwing billions of dollars at a problem isn't going to make a culture develop any faster or a plant that your trying to havest an extract from grow any faster. Yes, the shortages suck, but it's not anything the Obama Administration did wrong, it's the nature of the beast.

@ staynumz No--the point is that making vaccines isn't an exact science. And from what I've read, this particular strain grew slowly. So, there really isn't any blame to go around...

Don't we still make Gatorade and instant Lipton chicken noodle soup? People don't die because they get the Flu, they die because they don't stay home and keep hydrated, and nutrition levels up. Instead they going out to Movie week end openings and fly across country and even the globe. They die because they failed to take care of them selves and the flu. And then whey they are to sick to gallivant about, They go home and try to sleep and starve their body of electrolytes, vitamin C and fresh fruits and a poultry stock soup. Not even as much as a Motrin to keep their fever down. Then whey it gets so high it's critical it's usually to late to call the ambulance or rush down to the emergency room.

staynumz says

I am blaming owebama for the way he handled the response to the swine flu vaccine.

Nomograph says

Don’t you *ever* get tired of being wrong? Don’t you *ever* question what you hear on AM talk radio?

I bow to thee, dear Nomo.

2nd class, right you are. Many posters don't understand deficit spending. Think of it as spending money you haven't earned yet. This is not a very good idea.

Posters could learn more by reading "Web of Debt", "Empire of Debt" or anything by Ron Paul. Happy Thanksgiving.

2ndClassCitizen says

Are you kidding me? I can’t think of a single thing the “politicians” have done right in the past 10 years. They certainly effed up the economy and haven’t done a thing to solve the growing problem with deficit spending

No arguing that we had 8 years of one of the crappiest Presidents ever. So, I would agree that we had 8 years of bad decisions. But if you'll remember the 8 years before Bush, there was a balanced budget. So, it's not really that long ago...