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

[davelj]

[quote=Jim Jones]

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.[/quote]

OK, I’m just trying to figure out what specifically those policies would be. I do not think our government is in power “to preserve our nation’s wealth.” I’m pretty sure it’s in power principally to preserve our purported freedoms (obviously it’s debatable as to how well it’s doing in that regard), with all the various and sundry things that implies, which theoretically should serve to preserve our nation’s wealth. Although I think much of the rest of the world would agree with you that it’s clear that Americans want to preserve their wealth – everyone else be damned – and not “spread it around.” Which, as you’re surely aware, is one of the big problems that the Rest of the World has with the U.S. Me… I don’t have kids so I have the luxury of not really worrying about it. I could really give a shit how it all turns out, although I do have a soft spot for the underdog, so I would like to see folks in the emerging countries continue to dig their way out of poverty… even if that means some pain here in the U.S. I love living in the U.S. but let’s face it – we’re a pretty soft, spoiled, provincial, money-grubbing bunch. We probably deserve the pain that’s coming.

[GH]

By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. Unfortunately, it is unlawful here in America to hire someone for $2 a day, so you may have to do without altogether until your government gets its head out of its rear and eliminates the minimum wage. We also need to get rid of the ridiculous notion of OSHA and unemployment benefits, which are not available in cheap labor countries and make America uncompetitive in the global markets. I am sure if most of you took on 200 – 300 part time jobs you could make your mortgages. I mean come on folks, you cannot support the new global economy “sort of”, you need to be ALL IN!

[GH]

By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. Unfortunately, it is unlawful here in America to hire someone for $2 a day, so you may have to do without altogether until your government gets its head out of its rear and eliminates the minimum wage. We also need to get rid of the ridiculous notion of OSHA and unemployment benefits, which are not available in cheap labor countries and make America uncompetitive in the global markets. I am sure if most of you took on 200 – 300 part time jobs you could make your mortgages. I mean come on folks, you cannot support the new global economy “sort of”, you need to be ALL IN!

[GH]

By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. Unfortunately, it is unlawful here in America to hire someone for $2 a day, so you may have to do without altogether until your government gets its head out of its rear and eliminates the minimum wage. We also need to get rid of the ridiculous notion of OSHA and unemployment benefits, which are not available in cheap labor countries and make America uncompetitive in the global markets. I am sure if most of you took on 200 – 300 part time jobs you could make your mortgages. I mean come on folks, you cannot support the new global economy “sort of”, you need to be ALL IN!

[GH]

By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. Unfortunately, it is unlawful here in America to hire someone for $2 a day, so you may have to do without altogether until your government gets its head out of its rear and eliminates the minimum wage. We also need to get rid of the ridiculous notion of OSHA and unemployment benefits, which are not available in cheap labor countries and make America uncompetitive in the global markets. I am sure if most of you took on 200 – 300 part time jobs you could make your mortgages. I mean come on folks, you cannot support the new global economy “sort of”, you need to be ALL IN!

[GH]

By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. Unfortunately, it is unlawful here in America to hire someone for $2 a day, so you may have to do without altogether until your government gets its head out of its rear and eliminates the minimum wage. We also need to get rid of the ridiculous notion of OSHA and unemployment benefits, which are not available in cheap labor countries and make America uncompetitive in the global markets. I am sure if most of you took on 200 – 300 part time jobs you could make your mortgages. I mean come on folks, you cannot support the new global economy “sort of”, you need to be ALL IN!

[davelj]

[quote=GH]By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. [/quote]

I find the word “deserve” so quaint. Much like “fair.” I thought only children actually used these words.

[davelj]

[quote=GH]By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. [/quote]

I find the word “deserve” so quaint. Much like “fair.” I thought only children actually used these words.

[davelj]

[quote=GH]By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. [/quote]

I find the word “deserve” so quaint. Much like “fair.” I thought only children actually used these words.

[davelj]

[quote=GH]By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. [/quote]

I find the word “deserve” so quaint. Much like “fair.” I thought only children actually used these words.

[davelj]

[quote=GH]By the majority of responses I see on this blog, there is not a person present who by globalization standards deserves more than a couple of dollars a day. [/quote]

I find the word “deserve” so quaint. Much like “fair.” I thought only children actually used these words.

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Brian supports these policies because he doesn’t have kids, and apparently doesn’t want any.

It’s interesting to note the different perspectives from those without children vs. those who have/want children. Those without are perfectly content to throw the rest of us under the bus…just as long as they don’t have to give up any of their goodies, I’m guessing. They probably figure they’ll be dead before things get really ugly here, so who cares? Right?

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Brian supports these policies because he doesn’t have kids, and apparently doesn’t want any.

It’s interesting to note the different perspectives from those without children vs. those who have/want children. Those without are perfectly content to throw the rest of us under the bus…just as long as they don’t have to give up any of their goodies, I’m guessing. They probably figure they’ll be dead before things get really ugly here, so who cares? Right?

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Brian supports these policies because he doesn’t have kids, and apparently doesn’t want any.

It’s interesting to note the different perspectives from those without children vs. those who have/want children. Those without are perfectly content to throw the rest of us under the bus…just as long as they don’t have to give up any of their goodies, I’m guessing. They probably figure they’ll be dead before things get really ugly here, so who cares? Right?

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Brian supports these policies because he doesn’t have kids, and apparently doesn’t want any.

It’s interesting to note the different perspectives from those without children vs. those who have/want children. Those without are perfectly content to throw the rest of us under the bus…just as long as they don’t have to give up any of their goodies, I’m guessing. They probably figure they’ll be dead before things get really ugly here, so who cares? Right?

[Author]

Posts