Christopher Columbus. He left not knowing where he was going, got there not knowing where he was, left not knowing where he'd been and did it all on borrowed money.
This is true Tat, and I believe that is a part of the reason. I am only concerned at how long the "uncertainty" may last and at what point you go ahead and hire anyway. It seems like a possible slippery slope is all.
Business is definitely a slippery slope, and investing money where it is smart and where it is not is how businesses rise or fall - or fail completely. When there is uncertainty in the market and definite uncertainty in tax law that will have a huge effect on the bottom line, businesses are going to be cautious. And rightly so - consumer demand is incredibly low in most markets. Unlike our Federal Government, most businesses can't just borrow a ton of money and spend it recklessly. The Bailout was and still is the perfect example of the Federal government spending an unfathomable amount of money (that they do not have and is not theirs in the first place) in completely the wrong way.
Our Federal government (both parties, but since Obama is in charge he can take the blame this time) spends recklessly because it isn't their money and frankly, because most politicians have absolutely no f-ing clue what they are doing with regards to economics. And, of course, they have corporations or Unions to pay back for getting them elected in the first place.
Vulchor:
jpclotfelter:
I think it's great that the "Thread for the 'Liberals'" has turned into a conversation about testicles in a matter of hours.
Christopher Columbus. He left not knowing where he was going, got there not knowing where he was, left not knowing where he'd been and did it all on borrowed money.
Pretty funny, especially if you accept the popular current misconception of what a "Liberal" is. Historically, in America, the first Liberals of note were Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine, who desired and designed for posterity a nation built on egalitarian principles of opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, or class. (little known fact, their original ideal would have abolished slavery at the inception of the country) Of course, the conservatives, most notably George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John and Sam Adams had their important part as well, desiring and ensuring that meritocracy and the rights of the landed gentry were preserved. What made this country great was the compromise, imperfect though it was, that these disparate groups hammered out and handed down to us. Now, if only we can manage to continue to find the compromises. This ability was one of the things I admired most about Ronald Reagan. Although todays "Reagan republicans" have forgotten it, he was able to both stand off the Russians, and befriend (by listening to) their leader. He was against abortion, but signed it into law in California, because it was the will of the people. Where are such true leaders today? Neither party has much to offer.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Well said Amos, and just driving to work today I was thinking about the "old" liberals and conservatives---and unfortunately, those same qualities each gorup seemed to possess 250+ years ago seem to be the same ones today, just in a more modern format.
I dont think alot of people (mainly the right wing)understand or want to understand that while in some ways (ie govt groups to monitor the financial industry) the "liberals" do not perceive that as a way of advancing the govt at the expense of the people-----but instead protecting and ensuring the rights for the people from corruption, greed, monopolizing industries, and ruining a majorities way of life and thus pursuit of happiness.
I dont think alot of people (mainly the right wing)understand or want to understand that while in some ways (ie govt groups to monitor the financial industry) the "liberals" do not perceive that as a way of advancing the govt at the expense of the people-----but instead protecting and ensuring the rights for the people from corruption, greed, monopolizing industries, and ruining a majorities way of life and thus pursuit of happiness.
i understand that %100... but then again, i am not a conservative. I do agree that corruption, monopolies, fraud, etc... should be dealt with by the government, there are many things that the government does regulate in the name of protection of rights that should not be regulated because the actually violate the rights of the people they are regulating. i agree that if the company, person, or group is violating rights, then they should have the government dealing with it. if they are not violating rights they should not be "dealt with".
i am all for the government protecting the rights of people, but the left is no longer protecting the rights of everybody. they are now only protecting the rights small groups. the left seems to actively violating the rights of many businesses that are not violating the rights of anybody.
the right too has the same problem... i mean, when was the last time you heard a conservative stand up for the right of two gay men to marry?
i think both sides have a difficult time understanding what the concept of a "right" is.
I think we agree 100% Kuzi, or at least close to it. The gay marriage is a good one....I personally have NO IDEA why a man would want another man (or woman/woman for that matter) but the idea that somehow it "violates the sancitity the marriage" somehow or is something that should be outlawed absolutely baffles me. Of course, the idea of a man wanting to marry a man baffles me as well (not to be repetitive)---but why the hell should I care what they want to do? They arent coming and asking my wife and I to rewrite our vows or declare ours null and void.
I think we agree 100% Kuzi, or at least close to it. The gay marriage is a good one....I personally have NO IDEA why a man would want another man (or woman/woman for that matter) but the idea that somehow it "violates the sancitity the marriage" somehow or is something that should be outlawed absolutely baffles me. Of course, the idea of a man wanting to marry a man baffles me as well (not to be repetitive)---but why the hell should I care what they want to do? They arent coming and asking my wife and I to rewrite our vows or declare ours null and void.
I agree that marriages for ays should be allowed, even though I think It's gross (my opinion), but it does open some doors. Husband and husband, wife and wife could lead to husband, husband, and wife; husband, wife, and wife; etc... I think it potentially opens a bunch of doors that may not otherwise be opened.
Personally, I'd put machine-gun nests all along the border, but it might be more prudent to just enforce existing laws instead..
Im prefectly ok with the gun nests as well-----maybe even more than enforcing current laws which obviously dont work.......As far as the gay marrriage, I dont think that opens a door because it is still between 2 human beings. I think if it was between 3 people, or humans and animals (dont laugh Ive heard it mentioned) there would be much more of an outrage or concern than the gay marriage things is to many of the public. If only for the tax and health insurance implications.
I believe most oposition to gay marriage is due to most people vew marriage as a promise to god not to the government, and homosexuality is a no no in MOST sectors of christianity (like it or not america is a christian society built on christian morals). Just my opinion.
I believe most oposition to gay marriage is due to most people vew marriage as a promise to god not to the government, and homosexuality is a no no in MOST sectors of christianity (like it or not america is a christian society built on christian morals). Just my opinion.
Which is why I think most people are in favor of civil unions..... Personally, I don't think gay people know how good they have it. But hell, if they want to enter into a contract with another person who can potentially take half of all your $hit if you don't "love them like you used to"..... then have at it, I say. They deserve to be just as miserable as the rest of us! LOL!
Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
I think we agree 100% Kuzi, or at least close to it. The gay marriage is a good one....I personally have NO IDEA why a man would want another man (or woman/woman for that matter) but the idea that somehow it "violates the sancitity the marriage" somehow or is something that should be outlawed absolutely baffles me. Of course, the idea of a man wanting to marry a man baffles me as well (not to be repetitive)---but why the hell should I care what they want to do? They arent coming and asking my wife and I to rewrite our vows or declare ours null and void.
epic we agree 100% on something
see... im not THAT evil. HA!
these are frustrating times.
Kuzi! Thanks for coming back, wouldn't be the same without you.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
So....Elena was confirmed for the court today, no big suprise there I do not think. I do find at least one thing funny in the mess though (other than the poor woman's handsome looks) and that is our old buddy Rep. Scott Brown. You all know...the Republican fellow who won Dead Kennedy's seat after his passing. He was a last minute "NO" vote for her, saying "I believe nominees to the Supreme Court nominees should have previously served on the bench. Lacking that, I look for many years of practical courtroom experience to compensate for the absence of prior judicial experience. In Elena Kagan's case, she is missing both." Which seems OK, considering he is a right winger and he is sticking to his gun. This would be true....BUUUUT
This is the same Scott Brown who in June praised her ito the hilt in several speeches in June and elected to be the one to personally introduce her at the confirmation hearings. He also said he believed her when she stated she was pro-military despite her (right wing stated) questionable decisions as Dean.--------All I can say is damn the democrats for always worring about partisan poltics instead of voting as they should. Its too bad they cannot be more honest and open, and are always such "flip-floppers". Only thinking of how they can get votes and win their re-election, damn those democrats I say
Comments
Christopher Columbus. He left not knowing where he was going, got there not knowing where he was, left not knowing where he'd been and did it all on borrowed money.
here is an article in the WSJ I was reading earlier today that really hammers some of my points home: Government is borrowing, Corporations are saving
Our Federal government (both parties, but since Obama is in charge he can take the blame this time) spends recklessly because it isn't their money and frankly, because most politicians have absolutely no f-ing clue what they are doing with regards to economics. And, of course, they have corporations or Unions to pay back for getting them elected in the first place. ROFL. so funny.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I dont think alot of people (mainly the right wing)understand or want to understand that while in some ways (ie govt groups to monitor the financial industry) the "liberals" do not perceive that as a way of advancing the govt at the expense of the people-----but instead protecting and ensuring the rights for the people from corruption, greed, monopolizing industries, and ruining a majorities way of life and thus pursuit of happiness.
i agree that if the company, person, or group is violating rights, then they should have the government dealing with it. if they are not violating rights they should not be "dealt with".
i am all for the government protecting the rights of people, but the left is no longer protecting the rights of everybody. they are now only protecting the rights small groups. the left seems to actively violating the rights of many businesses that are not violating the rights of anybody.
the right too has the same problem... i mean, when was the last time you heard a conservative stand up for the right of two gay men to marry?
i think both sides have a difficult time understanding what the concept of a "right" is.
we agree 100% on something
see... im not THAT evil. HA!
these are frustrating times.
Personally, I'd put machine-gun nests all along the border, but it might be more prudent to just enforce existing laws instead..
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
This is the same Scott Brown who in June praised her ito the hilt in several speeches in June and elected to be the one to personally introduce her at the confirmation hearings. He also said he believed her when she stated she was pro-military despite her (right wing stated) questionable decisions as Dean.--------All I can say is damn the democrats for always worring about partisan poltics instead of voting as they should. Its too bad they cannot be more honest and open, and are always such "flip-floppers". Only thinking of how they can get votes and win their re-election, damn those democrats I say