You were bullied as a child, weren't you?

this dumbfounds me as well. the conservatives have the public well and truly convinced that they are better economic managers.

It's because the word conservative equates to less taxes for public programs in the general American mind, which somehow equates to better economy.

You were bullied as a child, weren't you? - GV

*and even worse in the military. - buffalohed

this dumbfounds me as well. the conservatives have the public well and truly convinced that they are better economic managers.

Really? I thought that was kind of implied in another part of my post.

Since we're working on making huge understatements/generalizations about the role of government and business, I will say that whenever a politician - Republican or Democrat - enacts a law or program based on the desire of their constituents, it's a dirty word - "populism." But when millions flock to McDonalds to get fat while watching their corporate media talk about Paris Hilton, it's "the invisible hand of the market." For every crap law on the books that's screwing over the consumer or costing tax-payers money, there's a business that's also screwing the consumer (goods from China, anyone?), the tax-payer (This book has recently caught my attention), or the average worker because of sterile and or non-existent rule. Thank God for people like Ralph Nader. One could very EASILY attribute the decline in American intellectual culture to a citizenry that identifies with consumerism; and then what do we have? An inactive population that doesn't vote or enacts the laws that we deserve accordingly, and laws that could probably continue to preserve a productive and competitive economy as well as one that promotes the public good. The rest of the western world is way ahead of us in environmental protection, health care costs, job security; people work a little less, are generally happier, live longer, and actually vote en masse. And Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain - these are all countries that trade with us and foster very competitive working environments.

I'd be wiling to go toe-to-toe here but I'm sick of talking about the subject (as I am with "black America"), and I believe you're wrong. I think we've seen a slow and BITTER downward spiral in preserving our middle-class tradition since Reagan (who surrounded himself with PR buffoons), and one of the reasons our government spends money so poorly is because business now dominates our public. Aside from that I've always been more than willing to make concessions on behalf of your argument. I eat at McDonald's sometimes too.

I haven't heard of "Sarbanes-Oxley," but you also shrugged off Enron and suggested corporations become our overlords. I think I'll read about it in my free time though, thanks.

As much as I hate budget deficits, I don't think correlation equals causation here. The Reagan and Bush eras had their share of economic good times.

So, how about you go move to Canada, France, Germany, or Great Britain?

Seriously, though, does the word "propaganda" mean nothing to you? I think you actually believe that people hold hands and dance around a rainbow in those progressive European countries.

My company just did a little worldwide idea/brainstorm session, and it became very obvious that the biggest issue for people in France was compensation. Nobody else really complained about the compensation, but lots and lots of French people did. But heck, why pay them more, when they have such ridiculous government-mandated vacations, hours, etc.? Sorry, but I don't see how anyone who claims to respect freedom of choice at all would dare say the government should be able to mandate the terms employers and employees can agree to.

I would suggest you read John Stossel's book, "Give Me a Break." He was, like Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate, but he, unlike Nader, eventually grew a brain and started realizing that the government regulations were a bigger problem than the problems they were designed to prevent.

So you've resorted to "love it or leave it." That's intelligent.



Propaganda? Who's propagating here? One Michael Moore film? You're taking me for a fool. This is rubbish. You've gone off the deep end.



And what does this mean. Jackshit, with the exception of increasing your xenophobia.



Thanks, but no. I'd rather watch Penn and Teller.

OK, we got the snarky response. Do you have a worthwhile one ready, or do you need more time?

Thanks, but no. I'd rather watch Penn and Teller.

i don't know whether this is an insult or a compliment...

ben bernanke is my biggest concern about this economy. there are many, many things wrong with current economic policy. fortunately, our economy is robust enough to be able to withstand the thousands of paper cuts that DC seems willing to administer. monetary policy is not such an arena. bernanke is mistakenly convinced that we can inflate our way out of this mess. such policies only delay the inevitable market correction. in so doing, he's making sure that future corrections are that much more extreme and protracted.

part of the reason our economy is so robust is because the downsides of monopolies and market power are at least partially ameliorated by competition (or the threat thereof). the government's legal monopoly on currency has no such buffer. printing money out of thin air has consequences.

I can't believe people who say they care about the economy are seriously advocating voting for McCain. The last 3 Republican presidents have given us the 3 worst deficits in the history of the galaxy. And people seriously want to try this a 4th time?

Sometimes GV's posts are the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling LLALALALALALALALALALA.

Luckily, they are sometimes quite profound, albeit a little kooky.

Not just that, but at least McCain is pretending that he's going to be fiscally responsible. Obama and Clinton haven't so much as attempted to put up a facade.

Not really, he's been pretty upfront about the fact that he's going to continue to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on the occupation of Iraq, even trillions if it comes to that.

Considering that fact that he's a war-monger who things the solution to every problem is a hugely expensive war or military campaign, you can safely pencil in hundreds of billions more that would go towards occupying whatever country (or countries) he invades if he's President.

I honestly can't imagine a more fiscally irresponsible president.



You really value being lied to over honesty?

He's been honest about the war. I agree that spending all that money on wars is totally stupid, but the massive entitlement programs certain democrats are throwing around cost alot too, and they're permanent.

And no, I don't value being lied to over honesty. I value fiscal responsibility over massive government bureaucracy.

Absolutely nothing is 'permanent'. Anything can be overturned with the right number of votes.

And a 100 year war sure sounds more 'permanent' to me than any fiscal proposal involving taxes or social programs.

Who said it's a 100 year war? At any rate, any war is easier to get off the budget than a social program that millions of people grow to rely upon.

To be fair to McCain, I think this statement got misconstrued from "100-year military presence" to "100-year active warfare". And to be honest, I would not mind a long-term presence in Northern Iraq to deter any conflict from Turkey, Iran, or whoever controls Iraq between the Kurdish populace.

But now we're getting way off topic...