Founder Of Reaganomics Says That “Without A Revolution, Americans Are History”

[blahblahblah]

[quote=briansd1]
But I don’t have much sympathy for somebody who blames globalization because he can’t afford to buy a house in Encinitas. What’s wrong with renting an apartment in an affordable area? Or moving to where houses are cheap? This person is living a very rich lifestyle compared to most in the world.[/quote]

I agree 100%, but I don’t think that has anything to do with the loss of millions of jobs due to outsourcing/relocation? There are jerks everywhere that don’t want to work but feel entitled to a nice lifestyle. Ever met a French waiter? Just kidding, their restaurants are great.

[Jim Jones]

[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.

[Jim Jones]

[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.

[Jim Jones]

[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.

[Jim Jones]

[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.

[Jim Jones]

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Jim Jones]

[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.

[Jim Jones]

[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.

[Jim Jones]

[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.

[Jim Jones]

[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.

[Author]

Posts