Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Founder Of Reaganomics Says That “Without A Revolution, Americans Are History”
- This topic has 285 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 18, 2010 at 4:05 PM #593774August 18, 2010 at 8:26 PM #592832
Jim Jones
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.
[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]
Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.
If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.
Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.
There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.
Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.
I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]
Brian,
You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.
August 18, 2010 at 8:26 PM #592929Jim Jones
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.
[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]
Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.
If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.
Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.
There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.
Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.
I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]
Brian,
You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.
August 18, 2010 at 8:26 PM #593462Jim Jones
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.
[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]
Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.
If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.
Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.
There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.
Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.
I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]
Brian,
You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.
August 18, 2010 at 8:26 PM #593574Jim Jones
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.
[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]
Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.
If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.
Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.
There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.
Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.
I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]
Brian,
You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.
August 18, 2010 at 8:26 PM #593884Jim Jones
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=drboom]
None too soon: good riddance to Stepford, I say.
[/quote]drboom, I believe that you’ve got it right.
[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,I don’t want to question your patriotism but this argument is counter to our national objectives and in IMHO the reason why we are in fact an independent nation in the first place. Would you subject your own children and grandchildren to a lifetime of poverty and serfdom to further global utilitarianism? [/quote]
Jim, all of us on Earth are God’s children.
If we cared about long term national security, we’d live more modestly, save our money and lend it to poor nations so that they can develop. Had we done that decades ago, we’d now own the world instead of the other way around.
Poor nations lending their money to America so we can consume more is lopsided and simply not sustainable.
There is nothing wrong with living modestly in a small house or apartment.
Instead we, as a nation, are buying McMansions on shoestring budgets. We buy houses with zero down, interest only. We lease cars for $299 a month. And we buy home appliances on installment plans.
I wonder who’s really frittering our national security away.[/quote]
Brian,
You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.
August 18, 2010 at 8:36 PM #592841davelj
Participant[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.
August 18, 2010 at 8:36 PM #592938davelj
Participant[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.
August 18, 2010 at 8:36 PM #593472davelj
Participant[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.
August 18, 2010 at 8:36 PM #593584davelj
Participant[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.
August 18, 2010 at 8:36 PM #593894davelj
Participant[quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.
August 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM #592851Jim Jones
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.[/quote]
Rather than quote a policy I will post Brian’s original comment.
[quote=Brian]
Not if you look at all humans equally.
From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.
If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.
Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]
He stated that he would support economic and tax policies which would in fact lead to the decline in relative wealth and quality of living for 10 million American’s. To me this is crazy our government is in power to preserve our nations wealth, not “spread the wealth around” IMHO.
August 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM #592948Jim Jones
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.[/quote]
Rather than quote a policy I will post Brian’s original comment.
[quote=Brian]
Not if you look at all humans equally.
From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.
If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.
Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]
He stated that he would support economic and tax policies which would in fact lead to the decline in relative wealth and quality of living for 10 million American’s. To me this is crazy our government is in power to preserve our nations wealth, not “spread the wealth around” IMHO.
August 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM #593482Jim Jones
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.[/quote]
Rather than quote a policy I will post Brian’s original comment.
[quote=Brian]
Not if you look at all humans equally.
From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.
If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.
Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]
He stated that he would support economic and tax policies which would in fact lead to the decline in relative wealth and quality of living for 10 million American’s. To me this is crazy our government is in power to preserve our nations wealth, not “spread the wealth around” IMHO.
August 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM #593594Jim Jones
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Jim Jones]
Brian,You still did not take ownership of your statement. Would you support policies which may lead to your children to inherit a lower standard of living and possibly poverty based on our current standards of living? Yes or no would suffice.[/quote]
I know it’s rude, but I’m going to butt in here. Could you provide a specific example of such a policy, past or present? It’s a little ambiguous as you’ve worded the question. I don’t have kids and will not have them, but I am curious as to what policies, exactly, you’re getting at.[/quote]
Rather than quote a policy I will post Brian’s original comment.
[quote=Brian]
Not if you look at all humans equally.
From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.
If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.
Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]
He stated that he would support economic and tax policies which would in fact lead to the decline in relative wealth and quality of living for 10 million American’s. To me this is crazy our government is in power to preserve our nations wealth, not “spread the wealth around” IMHO.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.