I always thought it was ” smarter than the average bear”
“Yet when Howard Stern suggested we start recycling toilet paper, it was a way of poking fun at where to draw the line.”
We better draw the line soon or Micky is going to make a nationwide spectacle out of himself.
My wife has asthma. Recenly she has had to switch to a more earth friendly inhaler that doesnt emitt co2. They get clogged and need to be rinsed out after each use.
And they cost twice as much.
Now we have the HMOs bending over in front of the deranged environmentalists at the risk of my wifes life.
Nice
“I am deadly serious about my conservative beliefs, but I am still able to explain my beliefs in a lighthearted manner. The biggest sins of anybody trying to communicate are stridency, viciousness, and especially…being boring.”
Beautiful.
“I always thought it was ”smarter than the average bear”.
Shouldn’t that be smarter than the average tygrrrr?
Just in case you’re interested, David Karp is a gentleman I know who is influential in the Boy Scouts here in Los Angeles and is responsible for getting some life back into the Jewish programs all the way up to a national level. http://valleynews.com/User.aspx?UserID=34998
I don’t know his politics. Never asked. I just know he does a lot of good in our area. He even let a Christian like me attend his Sabbath ceremony during a campout which I appreciated.
Your description of Jewish organizations made me think of him especially because he enjoys a good laugh and has a dry wit.
One of the other methods for getting people to listen is to find the common ground. “We both want a strong defense at that’s why….” “I think we can both agree that celebrating the murder of innocent people is awful….” But humor definitely works best.
Tygrrrr, man, do I ever wish I could be there for that. Will you be answering questions? You’re doing a panel, right? I’d love to hear what you guys are up to!
I’d love to ask a just one question, just one: Can there be too many millionaires? That’s all I’d like to know. Just a simple little yes or no with a little economic premise, perhaps. That’s it. I’d love to know.
Now Micky, no caveats. It’s either yes or no and maybe why. You can’t say ‘yes but no.’ It’s cute, but it has no substance. Now, of course, my simplistic question was cute too, but given todays standards as a control, can there be too many millionaires? Well? Because if the answer is no, and that is the answer of the majority of “conservative” thinkers, then I would suggest that perhaps you were all right about our schools all along. I’m sorry, but it’s incredibly stupid.
Well if the millionaires are liberal , that would be the economic premise you asked for.
Liberals with money are twice as dangerous.
I left a recipe on your blog so you would have something to do this weekend.
In all seriousness it would be impossible for everyone to be a millionaire.
If everyone had superpowers we wouldnt need them.
But we as a people and a nation would be a lot wealthier if we did not succumb to a victim mentallity or treating America as a bad country.
I’m mean really, what would a buck be worth if everyone had millions of them ?
Then again you dont want mass poverty either.
The way it is in this country is that anyone can be a millionaire if they want.
We do have free will and a free market and more opportunity than any other country.
Let me guess, you want equal wealth redistribution , bail outs and massive corporate tax rates and you just dont like money.
Nasty stuff that money
Of course a millionaire today is not what one was a few years back. But what does that really say. A millionaire today is not the same as one 20 years ago. Many struggling members of the middle class in southern California own homes worth $500,000 to $800,00 which puts them well on their way to being millionaires. The truth is once we got to a point where the majority of people were millionaires it wouldn’t be worth much and they would be considered poor. That is one of the flaws on the “war on poverty” It can never be won, because poverty will forever be redefined. Poverty is defined relative to others of the era as opposed to an objective standard of living. There are many poor today who have a higher standard of living than many of the middle class of the ’50s. They have things like Cars, TV sets, cell phones, microwave ovens, etc which either did not exist or were cost prohibitive back then.,
Thats like asking if there can be too many or too much of anything.
Can there be too many doctors ?
Not only do I think that there cant be too many millionaires.
Because its also mathematically impossible for it to happen.
I’m almost worth a million and I dig through the trash every morning for cans.
I buy milk only when its on sale. I make my own dog food. My Nikes are a year old
Now, I’m done entertaining you.
I’m not a clown and not for hire.
You yourself know the answer to that question and I told you my answer.
Its kinda like me asking you when was the last time you beat your wife in front of a bunch of strangers
You guys don’t understand the first rule of economics – desire. If too many people get everything they want, then what more can they want? More? Insurance on more? Just sitting on more?
When you gamble do you ‘know when to hold ‘em, fold ‘em, walk away, or run?’ (Hey, gotta love Kenny Rogers!) You really have only the first option if you’re a regular shmuck who doesn’t know any better. We tend to “just hold.” It’s a fact. Rich or poor, we hold ‘em (and the richer we are, the more we can run). That’s why Reaganomics failed. Conservatives did show their “true colors.” Reagan would be a fifth (undeserved) head on Rushmore had he just controlled spending. Either way, I personally couldn’t care less.
As for clowns, my God man, I wish you’d let off the metaphors once in a while. It gets old, man.
Us guys dont understand the first rule of economics?
Its not desire, its demand. “Desire” is what you would expect to hear from a liberal.
Desire is more of a want.
Demand is a need.
We buy what we need first, not want. Unless your 10 years old.
It seems like you fall short on grasping the collateral effects and underlying issues of one mans wealth on society.
Business, production etc provides jobs. those with jobs venture to their own prospects with their earnings, you can do that in America you know.
And then theres passing the wealth down to grankids, children.
Instead of critisizing maybe you should give an example of a system you think would work better.
Kenny Rogers ?
Sorry about the clown thing. It just comes to mind alot when I converse with you.
I dont gamble.
You use it as a metaphor and then ask me to stop with the metaphors. What the …?
With all due respect, I’m not trying to be mean ,
But as far as any kind of illiteracy goes you should read what I said again.
“Not only do I think that there cant be too many millionaires.
Because its also mathematically impossible for it to happen.”
“There “cant” be too many millionaires”
As I stated it would mathematically be impossible. And that Ididnt think it would be a good idea because it would deflate the value of the dollar
Your question is simply phrased in a way to pick a fight.
Parrot and I answerd it very reasonably and logically and yet you still have to come in saying that anyone who thinks so is “economically illiterate” and a “fool”
When the truth is that none of us were as stupid as you were hoping we were.
What was the whole point behind that question ?
If that question served any purpose it seems it was to unveil a personal contempt you have for financial success.
Jersey I have to say you really are not making much sense on this one.
The first rule of economics is supply an demand which has nothing to do with the number of millionaires at all. Secondly as inflation increase over decades being a millionaire will mean less and less. The fact is the number of millionaires has and will increase exponentially over time as to render the term insignificant. Just as a 6 figure income means far less today then it did when I entered the work force full time 24 years ago. If your real question is can there be too many rich people. That answer is also no, but that is for very different reasons. Rich is really a relative term. It will constantly be redefined over time to be the top nth percentile (n seems to get redefined to suit people politically), and until/unless you find a way to make everybody level there will always be a top nth percentile. Of course that will never happen on a large scale economy due to human nature. Even in economic systems which purported to make it happen in theory (communism, socialism), when put into practice some people still managed to have more than others .
I am not sure the point you were trying to make or why you were calling people economically illiterate.
First of all guys, let’s get past the silliness. I did clarify my question in my following post: “Now, of course, my simplistic question was cute too, but given todays standards as a control, can there be too many millionaires?”
Too many rich people is a disaster for any society, just ask 18th century France. At any given time ther is only so much money in circulation. Given that money is valued buy the fiat, if too much money falls into too few hands, you will have too many people with too little money. If the value of the dollar is to be relatively stable, then by definition for every rich person there are exponentially more poor people. This is a growing problem in America today.
Tygerr is wrong: “Rich people provide jobs. They are producers.” Actually, most jobs are provded by the small business sector, not “rich people,” but rather middle-class people, a class that is and has been shrinking since the rise of conservative “ecomonics” in Washington over the past thirty years. Producers are people who actually make things, like the farmer or the furniture maker. Regular people who put their money in banks are the primary funder of small businesses, small producers. The wealthy may indirectly produce by investing in ususally very large enterprise, but that’s about it. Given that much of what the weathy invest has nothing to do with production and is often invested abroad, Tygrrr’s premise was false in almost every way.
There are too many rich people in America today. They are anything but productive. The middle class is the key to productivity – the vital organs of the nations body – but under conservative “governance” the Middle Class has shrunk and shrunk, and with them, naturally, so has the dollar. Conservative economics have failed. We have too many millionaires. Now that doesn’t mean they should all be rounded up and beheaded, as in 18th century France, but it does mean we need to find a way to make more Middle Class. Conservative economics are a proven failure when it comes to that. So if Tygrrrr or anyone else thinks conservatism can make a comeback with the tired Reagan rhetoric of the failed past, they’re delluded. The American people may not be the brightest polity in the world, but they’re not that stupid.
JMJ;
“First of all guys, let’s get past the silliness. ”
You started it with an undefined and as you said” simplistic ” question.
It was a loaded question.
18th century France was a monarchy and not a democracy or a republic till later in that century and is a poor comparative to our economic system here today which has been relatively stable in its methods and means for the last couple hundred of years.
Tygrr said” rich people provide jobs”. to which you replied ” most jobs are provided by the small business sector’. He never said rich people supplied most of the jobs.
JMJ;
“Actually, most jobs are provided by the small business sector, not “rich people,” but rather middle-class people, ”
You’re wrong
Small business employs half of all private sector employees.
Pay 45 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
Have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade.
Create only a little more than 50 percent of non farm private gross domestic product (GDP).
Supplied 23 percent of the total value of federal prime contracts in FY 2005.
Produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. These patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.
Are also employers of 41 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer workers).
Are 53 percent home-based and 3 percent franchises.
Made up 97 percent of all identified exporters and produced only 28.6 percent of the known export value in FY 2004.
Now you may get all excited by these numbers but there’s also the fact that most of these business cant stay afloat as well as larger firms.
Estimates for small businesses with employees indicate there were 671,800 new firms and 544,800 closures (both about 10 percent of the total) in 2005.
With out the major producers in this country such as for example Ford there would be no need for the privately owned garage, there would be no cars to work on. There would be no subcontracting to smaller businesses such as the computers that run the car or the stereos . There would be no collateral demands such as car wash’s and detail shops , car care products, mechanics etc.
Without Procter and Gamble the little stores would have nothing to sell.
Without the major building material suppliers the whole construction industry would collapse. Small privately owned contractors would disappear in a heartbeat
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
“Over the past decade, small business net job creation fluctuated between 60 and 80 percent. In the most recent year with data (2003), employer firms with fewer than 500 employees created 1,990,326 net new jobs”
That’s not a lot !
I understand what you are saying as far dollar distribution goes . but it only sounds like you want to smack down a guy who applied his education into whatever field and deserves to get paid for it.
Do you suggest a cap on earnings for certain professions ?
Do you want to socially engineer the market to point that we are all just another brick in the wall ?
You do a lot of bitching but have yet to come up with a plausible alternative.
JMJ;
“we need to find a way to make more Middle Class. ”
Stop giving them free bees and put em to work.
Like I said jersey, I’m almost worth a million. In about ten years I will be with my homes equity/appreciation and my little business.
And I am anything but rich.
Without Harley Davidson or any major auto company I would have to close.
There will be rich and there will be poor as there has always been.
Its human nature and instead of crying about the guys who make money maybe you should enter the field and see what your made of.
Not be snide but my point is that in America you have that option.,
And all your wish’s to level the playing field will not happen any other way than the market of supply and demand working it out on its own
First of all micky2 is absolutely correct when he points out that all these small businesses rely on the bigger corporations to stay in business.
The biggest fallacy of your argument is the premise. The myth that the middle class is disappearing is completely untrue. It’s like your question about millionaires. The truth is people redefine what is rich, middle class and poor to suit their own ends. A family making 100,00 or even 150,000 in Southern California or New York or San Francisco is struggling to get by. Yes these people are constantly considered rich not middle class. Especially since that income is usually generated by two earners not one. A few decades back a “middle class” family could have one wage earner and a stay at home parent. That is rarely the case anymore. I would like to know what your specific definition is of this shrinking middle class. I am willing to bet many people you would consider to be rich are living paycheck to paycheck and consider themselves anything but rich. Furthermore to be truthful about it that standard should vary from location to location around the country. Because the income it would take to be rich in Los Angeles, California is certainly not the same as it would take in Ridgecrest, CA or Phoenix, Arizona for example. Even the government came to realize this during the first Bush Administration when it implemented locality pay for civil servants, recognizing that salary has different values in different parts of the country.
I am trying to figure out where these smarter voters are around the world. As I look at the economies in European nations they seem a lot worse off than ours (even with us picking up most of the tab for their national defense) and have been trending more towards a Reagan view of Economics in recent years. I see how well the Soviet economy worked also. Japan also has not fared as well as we have economically although in my younger days it was predicted they would rule the world economically. The fact is Reagan’s economic plan did not fail. Unfortunately he did not hold the line on spending as strongly as he could have. What is interesting is despite inaccurate reporting to the contrary we have not had an economic downturn as bad as the one during the Carter administration even after the problems in early 2001 (which contrary
to your earlier post all occurred during the Clinton Administration but only came to light early in the Bush administration who actually were the ones who took legal action) and 9/11.
One other question as I am an economic illiterate…Why was a 5.2 unemployment rate in the Clinton administration fantastically low but a 4.3 unemployment rate in the Bush administration ridiculously high. I obviously don’t understand the mathematics that explain this.
Micky, after reading that, I have no idea what you are arguing with me. All I’m saying is that Voo Doo Economics are a failure. In all real numbers the Middle Class has shrunk – except their proven productivity – while the top 1% have grown in the triple digits. You just proved my point about the value of Middle Class small business, and the numbers would look a lot better if we legalized all the undocs in that sector. So what’s the problem? Tygrrr’s point about finding some perfect flat number to call “rich” is wrong again in premise. It’s not a number, as you guys pointed out, it’s a fluent assessment. I’d say the top 1% would do the trick. Roosevelt did that – and we won WWII. We didn’t punk out and borrow money from fr!&&in’ China.
The size of the top 1% will grow as the population grows, but it will still be 1%. So what are the demarks for middle class. I would truly like to see the probability density curve for family income and see what it looks like. Also how do you count. Certainly a teenager living at home working for minimum wage to get spending money would have to be factored out of you equation as to who is poor. They may not be making much but their standard of living is certainly high. Even the part time working spouse does not fit neatly into the equation. So you need to figure out how that factors in as well.
“One other question as I am an economic illiterate…Why was a 5.2 unemployment rate in the Clinton administration fantastically low but a 4.3 unemployment rate in the Bush administration ridiculously high. I obviously don’t understand the mathematics that explain this.”
What is the average job creation number per month required to maintain employment levels in the United States?
What is the average job creation number from 2001 through 2007 (we won’t even get into this year)?
What is the “unemployment rate” and how is it calculated?
Now, if you are not economically illiterate, you should easily be able to anser these just three questions in a matter of a couple minutes and a few words. Micky did it just above quite brilliantly. Oh, and add for “illegals,” it’s only fair.
Joblessness is up, poverty is up, crime is up, illegal immigration is up (a little less now, to some credit), health and education costs have skyrocketed, oil appears to be permanently rised, food and nonperishable inflation as well, so of course the dollar is layin’ like a flounder – things are not good. Now, Tygrrr is right – you can’t sound pessimistic if you run for office or pushing an agenda, but if you don’t at least point to the correct problem to be optimistic about, then you’re wasting all our time. You’re just doing nothing with fancy dressing. And the “indicators” much acclaimed by you conservatives are telling you exactly the opposite of what they indicate. Conservatism has not been kind to the American regular guy – it utterly stymies, screws, and enthralls them all at the same time (that’s why foreigners goof on us, ya’ know?). Yet, without an engaged, educated, secure Middle Class, we’ll devolve to a Third World nation in a matter of generations. And this is where conservatism has failed, this is why they lost the Hill and won’t have it back for years.
Time to find a new vision and stop wasting your time polishing the old one.
“Micky, after reading that, I have no idea what you are arguing with me. All I’m saying is that Voo Doo Economics are a failure. ”
No , that is absolutly not all you are saying.
And i put in the numbers and facts to prove all your assertions claims or whatever they are wrong.
It is not a failure. It is taking its course as it always has. Up and down.
Strangely enough most polls asking if people believe we are in a recession reflect about 80%
But at the same time when asking the same people if there standard of living has declined 65% say no.
This is determined to be because a lot of the negative hype is being spun on us by the media. Bad news sells
The problem is that I reflected true statistics while you rambled off what seemed to be numbers you pulled out of the sky.
One sector depends on the other. And you are allowed to participate in either sector.
It all depends on your ambition and motivation.
But of course its beggining to sound as if you want to just have mass government regulated labor with equal pay for all and do away with any kind of competition in the private sector becuse the rich guy didnt really earn his money cuz he wasnt picking lettuce.
And you should really start defining whether you are talking about millionaires or rich people. Since parrothead and I have already ditinguished the difference you keep bouncing back and forth between terms.
Along with making your point I also made my point in conjunction by saying its impossible for one to survive without the other.
But I gave numbers and reference that are fact and not opinionated guesses.
Read the numbers again and then tell me that by you saying “most” is right.
Like this for example.
“Small business employs half of all private sector employees.
Pay 45 percent of total U.S. private payroll.”
“half of the private sector” is only about 25% of the whole work force
“45 percent of total US. private payroll is only about 22.5% of the whole work force payroll !
Get it ?
JMJ;
“Time to find a new vision and stop wasting your time polishing the old one.”
The sky is falling
JMJ:
‘this is why they lost the Hill and won’t have it back for years.”
Jersey can tell the future.
Next vote is almost two years. So , I can hang on just a couple years.
Anything is better than than this congress. ( 13% approval ) whoo hoo.
I tried a few times to respond to you Micky, but the comments wouldn’t take. Let’s just say that is you think “environmentalists have anything to do with the price of food (or anything else for that matter), that the GOP will take the congress back any time soon, or that those poll numbers you cite (out of the blue) are even close to accurate, then you truly live in a conservative dream world. If anything the very stats you cite prove my point! The Middle Class and small businesses are being squeezed and GOP economics are failing them. Time for a new direction.
First of all Jersey they are “poll” numbers. They dont come out of the blue.
I realize that poll numbers are not 100% accurate but they are indicative of whats going on. There is a thing called ” margin of error”.
And please spare me your hypocrisy because you use poll numbers as frequently as anyone else.
Go to this link. there are at least ten reliable sources that say your congress sucks.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Rasmussen, Gallop, and your favorite, FOX. http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?encquery=2bc993b1a3d6a37abff51227a3f15154&invocationType=keyword_rollover&ie=UTF-8
Environmentalists are the reason us and our government are being riddles with usless applications such as ethanol which has caused any and every form of food connected to corn to go up at least 13% andas high as 25% in some products.
The environmentalist forst put forth the idea that etahnol was going to save us all. Shortly after that every pol on the hill was only too happy to use it as pork enhancer and medium for corporate lobbyist gains and attaining votes from the agricultural sector via subsidies.
Nothing I mentioned proves your point as if you got me by the cajones.
Dont flatter yourself with the obvious. It takes no genius to see that the country is in a recession.
Waa waa waa sniffle. We’re all going to crash and burn, the economy is tanking !
It does that every few years jersey. get used to it, its a fact.
But instead you are wailing to everyone that the end is near.
Fear mongering to the max bro ! Thats all your doing.
I watched Rasmussen himself state that 80% of Americans believe the econmy is receiding. he also stated that 65% of the same people said that their life at home has not changed much.
You ought to know me better by now . I never pull my sources out of the blue.
I can always back up my statements and claims with facts.
Thats why it makes me laugh when you get all snide and condescending and suggest that I use google.
Its always time for a new direction Jersey. Your motivation and sentiments are nothing new at all that I havnt heard from liberals for the last 40 years.
Now.
If you could actually come up with a decent idea as how to get over this hump. I would take you alot more seriously
“Ethanol plants [are] being built, and they’re starting to pull more corn their way,” comments agricultural economist Chad E. Hart of Iowa State University in Ames. “We’re seeing already higher projected prices than normal for the 2007 crop.”
Predicting that the growth of the ethanol industry could drive up food prices as early as next year, Hart notes that corn futures are trading at about $3 per bushel, or about 50 cents higher than usual.
With demand for corn rising, production is also likely to increase, Hart says. Higher corn prices will lure farmers to devote more acres to cultivating corn and fewer to other crops. That, he says, will encourage “an across-the-board increase in crop prices”—as well as in the price of animal feed derived from such crops.
“If corn price goes up, you’ll probably feel it more in the cost of your steak than the cost of your cornflakes,” Hart says.
Processing, packaging, and distribution costs account for more than 90 percent of the commercial price of cornflakes, bread, and other grain-based products. “Most of the cost of [products such as] bread is not in the cost of the raw materials,” Hart says.
By contrast, the cost of feed for animals and other expenses incurred on livestock farms account for about half of the commercial price of meat and eggs, and nearly a third of the cost of cheese. Therefore, Hart says, higher corn prices aren’t likely to translate into penny-for-penny increases in food costs.
In addition, Hart says, byproducts of ethanol production from corn, such as corn-gluten meal, can be used to feed livestock. That way, not all the corn used to make fuel is diverted from the food supply.
“So the price impact on livestock products will likely be relatively small in comparison to the change in corn prices,” he says.
CNN’s senior business correspondent Ali Velshi let viewers in on an underreported fact about rising commodities prices: the government mandate for ethanol production is making corn and other agricultural products more expensive-making inflation a top priority for Americans.
“Several years ago, we made some decisions about how corn is going to be used to make ethanol, which is added to our gasoline,” said Velshi on “American Morning” April 4. “A number of people think that that was meant to reduce our dependency on crude oil. What is does is it takes what is fundamentally a food source and makes it into a gasoline source. That’s caused corn to go up.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
The distortions in agricultural production are startling. Corn prices are up about 50 percent from last year, while soybean prices are projected to rise up to 30 percent in the coming year, as farmers have replaced soy with corn in their fields. The increasing cost of animal feed is raising the prices of dairy and poultry products.
The news from the rest of the world is little better. Ethanol production in the United States and other countries, combined with bad weather and rising demand for animal feed in China, has helped push global grain prices to their highest levels in at least a decade. Earlier this year, rising prices of corn imports from the United States triggered mass protests in Mexico. The chief of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has warned that rising food prices around the world have threatened social unrest in developing countries.
Elam said he expects food price inflation to rise five or six percent in 2009.
He estimates the cumulative costs to the food industry of the renewable fuel program will be about $100 billion from 2005 to 2010. The program mandates minimum ethanol production and provides tax incentives for ethanol use.
And here are my facts to back up my ecnomic premise.
They do not come out of the blue. And they completely go against the impressions that you give about what should or could be done. it shows that most of the country disagres with your suggestion that big government take control of the situation
Included in the article are at least 10 to 15 sublinks that back up my numbers.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of unaffiliated voters agree that the best thing the government can do is get out of the way. Thirty-four percent (34%) disagree.
This is consistent with another recent survey showing that 53% do not want the federal government to help homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgage. However, another The recent survey offers a different perspective– just 23% believe that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent another 1930’s style Depression. Earlier this year, the much-hyped economic stimulus package was given a lukewarm reception by voters.
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Likely Voters nationwide rate the economy as the top voting issue of Election 2008. The national telephone survey found that 19% consider the War in Iraq as the top issue, 12% name National Security, 10% say Immigration, and 9% believe Health Care is the highest priority. These results are broadly similar to the priorities expressed in January.
Ethanol is not a liberal or environmentalist initiative. It’s a bipartisan gimme to the farm states. Simple as that. Many liberals and environmentalists, like myself, have always been against mass ethanol subsidies and mandates. I don’t care if farmers want to coop and make share ethanol between and for themselves and their farm operations. But foisting this on the mass public was eitehr a liberal nor conservative idea – it was a product of the politics of farm states over-represented in the Senate. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply does not understand the issue.
As for the popularity of congress, it’s a good thing that it’s low. The popularity of individual representatives is actually pretty high, especially cimpared with our current failed administration. Polls also desicively show that the public is leaning toward Democrats on all levels of government. The ration of self-described Democrats to Republicans is the greatest it’s been since such numbers were collected.
Face it, the GOP failed and will now return to the political woods until they can find some new ideas. They showed their “true colors” and they turned out to be red for the books, white for racist, and blue for the color of their blood. Just that second issue – the zealous abuse of immigrants – will cost the GOP inestimably for years to come. Hispanics, once a big new voter boon for the GOP will now turn their backs on them, subjugating divisive non-issues like gays and abortion to self-interests like civil rights and labor needs.
JMJ;
“Ethanol is not a liberal or environmentalist initiative. It’s a bipartisan gimme to the farm states. Simple as that.”
Look dear master, its not “as simple as that”.
It was an iniative started in the 70s when Carter lied out of stupidity and told the whole country that we would run out of oil in less than 20 years. Bio fuels have been around for decades. Carter only usherd them with a false premise.
But they most recently hae gained a boost in popularity due to all the bull$hit the environmentakist have been feeding us about hoe great it is for the atmosphere.
That has turned out to be a bunch of crap. It is no better or worse for the atmosphere than fossil oil.
Of course the pols on both sides recently have been more than glad to jump on the bandwagon and abuse this medium as a means to use the countrys environmental concerns as a way to get votes by authorizing and voting on subsidies.
You my friend do not understand the issue AT ALL.
It goes way past and ahead of what you think. It was sold to the public by fear mongering, the sky is falling global warming BS and we are running out of oil. Had those three factors not been allowed to be put into play the public would of raised a big stink a long time ago and it never would of made it to the market the way we see it today.
JMJ;
“As for the popularity of congress, it’s a good thing that it’s low. The popularity of individual representatives is actually pretty high,”
Thats one of the most intellectually deificient and disengenuous things I’ve heard in a while.
If the individuals are so freaking hot then they should be able to work as a team.
How can it be a good thing when voters feel let down and betrayed by a bunch of useless saps ?
JMJ;
“Polls also desicively show that the public is leaning toward Democrats on all levels of government. The ration of self-described Democrats to Republicans is the greatest it’s been since such numbers were collected.”
Thats a lie. Its not on all levels. http://www.gallup.com/tag/Election%2b2008.aspx
McCain is actually a small margin ahead of Obama or Hillary.
McCain has a 1-percentage point advantage in general election preferences
April 4, 2008Democratic voters prefer Barack Obama as the party’s presidential nominee by 49% to 44% over Hillary Clinton, a slight improvement for Obama compared with recent days. John McCain has a 1-percentage point advantage over both Obama and Clinton in the latest general election trial heats.More …
And the link I provided above in #29 say differently on your belief that we are leaning towards dems on all levels.
The rest of your rant is just speculative opinionating, so what ?
And everything else is just spewed out randomly in the hope that anyone will take your word for it.
And here is the tie that Carter had towards ethanols birth into the market http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2006/10/03/news/local/doc4520b089e4a42955791351.txt
Federal support for the ethanol industry grew from seeds planted in the 1970s by President Jimmy Carter and grew to maturity in the ’80s and ’90s, with prodding from farm-state legislators.
In the throes of the late-1970s energy crisis, President Carter was willing to try just about anything to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. Ethanol was part of the mix.
In his 1980 State of the Union message, Carter said he wanted the country’s ethanol production to reach 500 million gallons, which was more almost triple the production at the time.
“I don’t think the Carter administration has ever been given enough credit for all the things we did on alternative energy, including ethanol.’said U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Iowa ? Hmm.. CORN COUNTRY ! Harkin wasnt too bright then now, was he ? he said this in the 70s
And here is a link with the most extensive and comprehensive list of ties between enviromentlists and etahnol you will find anywhere.
Its a lot of reading , but you should really indulge yourself.
“The Clinton administration’s fuel-rule rigging provoked an angry backlash from both liberal and conservative newspapers:
The New York Times: “Ethanol will not clean the air beyond what the 1990 Clean Air Act would already require; nor will it . . . raise farm income very much or significantly cut imports. What the EPA’s rule will do is take money from consumers and taxpayers and hand it over to Archer Daniels Midland.”(77)
The Washington Post: “The misuse of the environmental laws as patronage to benefit narrow economic interests is a mistake.”(78)
The Boston Herald: “The pandering to the farm lobby and big political donors could actually worsen air pollution.”(79)
The Houston Post: “Bad science, bad economics, and politics as usual.”(80)
USA Today: “Nothing is more likely to provoke a round of fat-cat-happiness than an open-ended federal rule that forces manufacturers and consumers to buy federally subsidized ethanol. It’s a pork deal any fool could love.”(81)
The Houston Chronicle: “The requirement that a car’s fuel be made from a renewable source like corn makes no more sense than to demand that its engine be made from wood.”
Micky, the whole point about ethanol is that is an insurmountably bipartisan problem. Now, you can blame it on “liberals” like “Jimmy Carter” (not all that liberal) all you like, but the political factors outweigh partisanship. Sorry to burst your little partisan bubble. This issue is only substantially opposed outside both the parties. I’ll play my mini-viola for you.
You dont get to make the whole point master, this is a discussion, not a dictatorship.
besides that, you are wrong.
I have provided undeniable evidence of that.
What it is, was, how it got here and what it will be is the point.
I am not approaching this with any partisanship. I am approaching from the realization a year ago that my grocery bill shot up overnight.
So I investigated, as you should be able to see, maybe. but with a Viola in your face it makes it hard.
Environmentalist wanted us to stop using fossil fuels, and drilling, and using coal.
Get the facts dude, there all up there.
What is going on today has little to do with the environmentalists as how now they see the draw backs of ethanol. I mentioned this above.
I am well aware of both sides of the isle using ethanol for ulterior motives in todays theatre.
That doesnt change the fact that liberal fear mongering and environmentalists are responsable for its propulsion into the market decades ago.
micky2 said,
April 4, 2008 at 8:06 am
I always thought it was ” smarter than the average bear”
“Yet when Howard Stern suggested we start recycling toilet paper, it was a way of poking fun at where to draw the line.”
We better draw the line soon or Micky is going to make a nationwide spectacle out of himself.
My wife has asthma. Recenly she has had to switch to a more earth friendly inhaler that doesnt emitt co2. They get clogged and need to be rinsed out after each use.
And they cost twice as much.
Now we have the HMOs bending over in front of the deranged environmentalists at the risk of my wifes life.
Nice
micky2 said,
April 4, 2008 at 8:08 am
I’m sorry, I meant to blame the drug company, not the HMOs
Craig said,
April 4, 2008 at 10:15 am
“We invented the internet.”
And Al Gore didn’t!
Joshua Godinez said,
April 4, 2008 at 10:50 am
“I am deadly serious about my conservative beliefs, but I am still able to explain my beliefs in a lighthearted manner. The biggest sins of anybody trying to communicate are stridency, viciousness, and especially…being boring.”
Beautiful.
“I always thought it was ”smarter than the average bear”.
Shouldn’t that be smarter than the average tygrrrr?
Just in case you’re interested, David Karp is a gentleman I know who is influential in the Boy Scouts here in Los Angeles and is responsible for getting some life back into the Jewish programs all the way up to a national level. http://valleynews.com/User.aspx?UserID=34998
I don’t know his politics. Never asked. I just know he does a lot of good in our area. He even let a Christian like me attend his Sabbath ceremony during a campout which I appreciated.
Your description of Jewish organizations made me think of him especially because he enjoys a good laugh and has a dry wit.
One of the other methods for getting people to listen is to find the common ground. “We both want a strong defense at that’s why….” “I think we can both agree that celebrating the murder of innocent people is awful….” But humor definitely works best.
Jersey McJones said,
April 4, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Tygrrrr, man, do I ever wish I could be there for that. Will you be answering questions? You’re doing a panel, right? I’d love to hear what you guys are up to!
I’d love to ask a just one question, just one: Can there be too many millionaires? That’s all I’d like to know. Just a simple little yes or no with a little economic premise, perhaps. That’s it. I’d love to know.
JMJ
micky2 said,
April 4, 2008 at 4:33 pm
JMJ;
“Can there be too many millionaires? ”
No.
Unless they’re liberals
Jersey McJones said,
April 4, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Now Micky, no caveats. It’s either yes or no and maybe why. You can’t say ‘yes but no.’ It’s cute, but it has no substance. Now, of course, my simplistic question was cute too, but given todays standards as a control, can there be too many millionaires? Well? Because if the answer is no, and that is the answer of the majority of “conservative” thinkers, then I would suggest that perhaps you were all right about our schools all along. I’m sorry, but it’s incredibly stupid.
JMJ
micky2 said,
April 4, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Well if the millionaires are liberal , that would be the economic premise you asked for.
Liberals with money are twice as dangerous.
I left a recipe on your blog so you would have something to do this weekend.
In all seriousness it would be impossible for everyone to be a millionaire.
If everyone had superpowers we wouldnt need them.
But we as a people and a nation would be a lot wealthier if we did not succumb to a victim mentallity or treating America as a bad country.
I’m mean really, what would a buck be worth if everyone had millions of them ?
Then again you dont want mass poverty either.
The way it is in this country is that anyone can be a millionaire if they want.
We do have free will and a free market and more opportunity than any other country.
Let me guess, you want equal wealth redistribution , bail outs and massive corporate tax rates and you just dont like money.
Nasty stuff that money
parrothead said,
April 4, 2008 at 6:09 pm
No there can’t be too many millionaires..
Of course a millionaire today is not what one was a few years back. But what does that really say. A millionaire today is not the same as one 20 years ago. Many struggling members of the middle class in southern California own homes worth $500,000 to $800,00 which puts them well on their way to being millionaires. The truth is once we got to a point where the majority of people were millionaires it wouldn’t be worth much and they would be considered poor. That is one of the flaws on the “war on poverty” It can never be won, because poverty will forever be redefined. Poverty is defined relative to others of the era as opposed to an objective standard of living. There are many poor today who have a higher standard of living than many of the middle class of the ’50s. They have things like Cars, TV sets, cell phones, microwave ovens, etc which either did not exist or were cost prohibitive back then.,
Jersey McJones said,
April 4, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Micky, I get it, “if the millionaires are liberal,” and they’re “twice as dangerous,”… bla bla bla… “victim mentallity,… bad country.” Blah.
I’m only asking one simple question: Can there be too many millionaires?
JMJ
micky2 said,
April 4, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Thats like asking if there can be too many or too much of anything.
Can there be too many doctors ?
Not only do I think that there cant be too many millionaires.
Because its also mathematically impossible for it to happen.
I’m almost worth a million and I dig through the trash every morning for cans.
I buy milk only when its on sale. I make my own dog food. My Nikes are a year old
Now, I’m done entertaining you.
I’m not a clown and not for hire.
You yourself know the answer to that question and I told you my answer.
Its kinda like me asking you when was the last time you beat your wife in front of a bunch of strangers
Jersey McJones said,
April 4, 2008 at 7:15 pm
You guys don’t understand the first rule of economics – desire. If too many people get everything they want, then what more can they want? More? Insurance on more? Just sitting on more?
When you gamble do you ‘know when to hold ‘em, fold ‘em, walk away, or run?’ (Hey, gotta love Kenny Rogers!) You really have only the first option if you’re a regular shmuck who doesn’t know any better. We tend to “just hold.” It’s a fact. Rich or poor, we hold ‘em (and the richer we are, the more we can run). That’s why Reaganomics failed. Conservatives did show their “true colors.” Reagan would be a fifth (undeserved) head on Rushmore had he just controlled spending. Either way, I personally couldn’t care less.
As for clowns, my God man, I wish you’d let off the metaphors once in a while. It gets old, man.
JMJ
micky2 said,
April 4, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Us guys dont understand the first rule of economics?
Its not desire, its demand. “Desire” is what you would expect to hear from a liberal.
Desire is more of a want.
Demand is a need.
We buy what we need first, not want. Unless your 10 years old.
It seems like you fall short on grasping the collateral effects and underlying issues of one mans wealth on society.
Business, production etc provides jobs. those with jobs venture to their own prospects with their earnings, you can do that in America you know.
And then theres passing the wealth down to grankids, children.
Instead of critisizing maybe you should give an example of a system you think would work better.
Kenny Rogers ?
Sorry about the clown thing. It just comes to mind alot when I converse with you.
I dont gamble.
You use it as a metaphor and then ask me to stop with the metaphors. What the …?
Jersey McJones said,
April 5, 2008 at 6:28 am
Anyone who thinks there can not be to many millionaires is economically illiterate. A fool.
JMJ
micky2 said,
April 5, 2008 at 8:06 am
With all due respect, I’m not trying to be mean ,
But as far as any kind of illiteracy goes you should read what I said again.
“Not only do I think that there cant be too many millionaires.
Because its also mathematically impossible for it to happen.”
“There “cant” be too many millionaires”
As I stated it would mathematically be impossible. And that Ididnt think it would be a good idea because it would deflate the value of the dollar
Your question is simply phrased in a way to pick a fight.
Parrot and I answerd it very reasonably and logically and yet you still have to come in saying that anyone who thinks so is “economically illiterate” and a “fool”
When the truth is that none of us were as stupid as you were hoping we were.
What was the whole point behind that question ?
If that question served any purpose it seems it was to unveil a personal contempt you have for financial success.
parrothead said,
April 5, 2008 at 8:57 am
Jersey I have to say you really are not making much sense on this one.
The first rule of economics is supply an demand which has nothing to do with the number of millionaires at all. Secondly as inflation increase over decades being a millionaire will mean less and less. The fact is the number of millionaires has and will increase exponentially over time as to render the term insignificant. Just as a 6 figure income means far less today then it did when I entered the work force full time 24 years ago. If your real question is can there be too many rich people. That answer is also no, but that is for very different reasons. Rich is really a relative term. It will constantly be redefined over time to be the top nth percentile (n seems to get redefined to suit people politically), and until/unless you find a way to make everybody level there will always be a top nth percentile. Of course that will never happen on a large scale economy due to human nature. Even in economic systems which purported to make it happen in theory (communism, socialism), when put into practice some people still managed to have more than others .
I am not sure the point you were trying to make or why you were calling people economically illiterate.
Jersey McJones said,
April 5, 2008 at 1:57 pm
First of all guys, let’s get past the silliness. I did clarify my question in my following post: “Now, of course, my simplistic question was cute too, but given todays standards as a control, can there be too many millionaires?”
Too many rich people is a disaster for any society, just ask 18th century France. At any given time ther is only so much money in circulation. Given that money is valued buy the fiat, if too much money falls into too few hands, you will have too many people with too little money. If the value of the dollar is to be relatively stable, then by definition for every rich person there are exponentially more poor people. This is a growing problem in America today.
Tygerr is wrong: “Rich people provide jobs. They are producers.” Actually, most jobs are provded by the small business sector, not “rich people,” but rather middle-class people, a class that is and has been shrinking since the rise of conservative “ecomonics” in Washington over the past thirty years. Producers are people who actually make things, like the farmer or the furniture maker. Regular people who put their money in banks are the primary funder of small businesses, small producers. The wealthy may indirectly produce by investing in ususally very large enterprise, but that’s about it. Given that much of what the weathy invest has nothing to do with production and is often invested abroad, Tygrrr’s premise was false in almost every way.
There are too many rich people in America today. They are anything but productive. The middle class is the key to productivity – the vital organs of the nations body – but under conservative “governance” the Middle Class has shrunk and shrunk, and with them, naturally, so has the dollar. Conservative economics have failed. We have too many millionaires. Now that doesn’t mean they should all be rounded up and beheaded, as in 18th century France, but it does mean we need to find a way to make more Middle Class. Conservative economics are a proven failure when it comes to that. So if Tygrrrr or anyone else thinks conservatism can make a comeback with the tired Reagan rhetoric of the failed past, they’re delluded. The American people may not be the brightest polity in the world, but they’re not that stupid.
JMJ
micky2 said,
April 5, 2008 at 3:48 pm
JMJ;
“First of all guys, let’s get past the silliness. ”
You started it with an undefined and as you said” simplistic ” question.
It was a loaded question.
18th century France was a monarchy and not a democracy or a republic till later in that century and is a poor comparative to our economic system here today which has been relatively stable in its methods and means for the last couple hundred of years.
Tygrr said” rich people provide jobs”. to which you replied ” most jobs are provided by the small business sector’. He never said rich people supplied most of the jobs.
JMJ;
“Actually, most jobs are provided by the small business sector, not “rich people,” but rather middle-class people, ”
You’re wrong
Small business employs half of all private sector employees.
Pay 45 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
Have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade.
Create only a little more than 50 percent of non farm private gross domestic product (GDP).
Supplied 23 percent of the total value of federal prime contracts in FY 2005.
Produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. These patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.
Are also employers of 41 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer workers).
Are 53 percent home-based and 3 percent franchises.
Made up 97 percent of all identified exporters and produced only 28.6 percent of the known export value in FY 2004.
Now you may get all excited by these numbers but there’s also the fact that most of these business cant stay afloat as well as larger firms.
Estimates for small businesses with employees indicate there were 671,800 new firms and 544,800 closures (both about 10 percent of the total) in 2005.
With out the major producers in this country such as for example Ford there would be no need for the privately owned garage, there would be no cars to work on. There would be no subcontracting to smaller businesses such as the computers that run the car or the stereos . There would be no collateral demands such as car wash’s and detail shops , car care products, mechanics etc.
Without Procter and Gamble the little stores would have nothing to sell.
Without the major building material suppliers the whole construction industry would collapse. Small privately owned contractors would disappear in a heartbeat
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
“Over the past decade, small business net job creation fluctuated between 60 and 80 percent. In the most recent year with data (2003), employer firms with fewer than 500 employees created 1,990,326 net new jobs”
That’s not a lot !
I understand what you are saying as far dollar distribution goes . but it only sounds like you want to smack down a guy who applied his education into whatever field and deserves to get paid for it.
Do you suggest a cap on earnings for certain professions ?
Do you want to socially engineer the market to point that we are all just another brick in the wall ?
You do a lot of bitching but have yet to come up with a plausible alternative.
JMJ;
“we need to find a way to make more Middle Class. ”
Stop giving them free bees and put em to work.
Like I said jersey, I’m almost worth a million. In about ten years I will be with my homes equity/appreciation and my little business.
And I am anything but rich.
Without Harley Davidson or any major auto company I would have to close.
There will be rich and there will be poor as there has always been.
Its human nature and instead of crying about the guys who make money maybe you should enter the field and see what your made of.
Not be snide but my point is that in America you have that option.,
And all your wish’s to level the playing field will not happen any other way than the market of supply and demand working it out on its own
parrothead said,
April 5, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Jersey,
First of all micky2 is absolutely correct when he points out that all these small businesses rely on the bigger corporations to stay in business.
The biggest fallacy of your argument is the premise. The myth that the middle class is disappearing is completely untrue. It’s like your question about millionaires. The truth is people redefine what is rich, middle class and poor to suit their own ends. A family making 100,00 or even 150,000 in Southern California or New York or San Francisco is struggling to get by. Yes these people are constantly considered rich not middle class. Especially since that income is usually generated by two earners not one. A few decades back a “middle class” family could have one wage earner and a stay at home parent. That is rarely the case anymore. I would like to know what your specific definition is of this shrinking middle class. I am willing to bet many people you would consider to be rich are living paycheck to paycheck and consider themselves anything but rich. Furthermore to be truthful about it that standard should vary from location to location around the country. Because the income it would take to be rich in Los Angeles, California is certainly not the same as it would take in Ridgecrest, CA or Phoenix, Arizona for example. Even the government came to realize this during the first Bush Administration when it implemented locality pay for civil servants, recognizing that salary has different values in different parts of the country.
I am trying to figure out where these smarter voters are around the world. As I look at the economies in European nations they seem a lot worse off than ours (even with us picking up most of the tab for their national defense) and have been trending more towards a Reagan view of Economics in recent years. I see how well the Soviet economy worked also. Japan also has not fared as well as we have economically although in my younger days it was predicted they would rule the world economically. The fact is Reagan’s economic plan did not fail. Unfortunately he did not hold the line on spending as strongly as he could have. What is interesting is despite inaccurate reporting to the contrary we have not had an economic downturn as bad as the one during the Carter administration even after the problems in early 2001 (which contrary
to your earlier post all occurred during the Clinton Administration but only came to light early in the Bush administration who actually were the ones who took legal action) and 9/11.
parrothead said,
April 5, 2008 at 4:42 pm
One other question as I am an economic illiterate…Why was a 5.2 unemployment rate in the Clinton administration fantastically low but a 4.3 unemployment rate in the Bush administration ridiculously high. I obviously don’t understand the mathematics that explain this.
Jersey McJones said,
April 5, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Micky, after reading that, I have no idea what you are arguing with me. All I’m saying is that Voo Doo Economics are a failure. In all real numbers the Middle Class has shrunk – except their proven productivity – while the top 1% have grown in the triple digits. You just proved my point about the value of Middle Class small business, and the numbers would look a lot better if we legalized all the undocs in that sector. So what’s the problem? Tygrrr’s point about finding some perfect flat number to call “rich” is wrong again in premise. It’s not a number, as you guys pointed out, it’s a fluent assessment. I’d say the top 1% would do the trick. Roosevelt did that – and we won WWII. We didn’t punk out and borrow money from fr!&&in’ China.
JMJ
parrothead said,
April 5, 2008 at 4:56 pm
The size of the top 1% will grow as the population grows, but it will still be 1%. So what are the demarks for middle class. I would truly like to see the probability density curve for family income and see what it looks like. Also how do you count. Certainly a teenager living at home working for minimum wage to get spending money would have to be factored out of you equation as to who is poor. They may not be making much but their standard of living is certainly high. Even the part time working spouse does not fit neatly into the equation. So you need to figure out how that factors in as well.
Jersey McJones said,
April 5, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Parrothead,
“One other question as I am an economic illiterate…Why was a 5.2 unemployment rate in the Clinton administration fantastically low but a 4.3 unemployment rate in the Bush administration ridiculously high. I obviously don’t understand the mathematics that explain this.”
What is the average job creation number per month required to maintain employment levels in the United States?
What is the average job creation number from 2001 through 2007 (we won’t even get into this year)?
What is the “unemployment rate” and how is it calculated?
Now, if you are not economically illiterate, you should easily be able to anser these just three questions in a matter of a couple minutes and a few words. Micky did it just above quite brilliantly. Oh, and add for “illegals,” it’s only fair.
Joblessness is up, poverty is up, crime is up, illegal immigration is up (a little less now, to some credit), health and education costs have skyrocketed, oil appears to be permanently rised, food and nonperishable inflation as well, so of course the dollar is layin’ like a flounder – things are not good. Now, Tygrrr is right – you can’t sound pessimistic if you run for office or pushing an agenda, but if you don’t at least point to the correct problem to be optimistic about, then you’re wasting all our time. You’re just doing nothing with fancy dressing. And the “indicators” much acclaimed by you conservatives are telling you exactly the opposite of what they indicate. Conservatism has not been kind to the American regular guy – it utterly stymies, screws, and enthralls them all at the same time (that’s why foreigners goof on us, ya’ know?). Yet, without an engaged, educated, secure Middle Class, we’ll devolve to a Third World nation in a matter of generations. And this is where conservatism has failed, this is why they lost the Hill and won’t have it back for years.
Time to find a new vision and stop wasting your time polishing the old one.
JMJ
micky2 said,
April 5, 2008 at 5:26 pm
jmj:
“Micky, after reading that, I have no idea what you are arguing with me. All I’m saying is that Voo Doo Economics are a failure. ”
No , that is absolutly not all you are saying.
And i put in the numbers and facts to prove all your assertions claims or whatever they are wrong.
It is not a failure. It is taking its course as it always has. Up and down.
Strangely enough most polls asking if people believe we are in a recession reflect about 80%
But at the same time when asking the same people if there standard of living has declined 65% say no.
This is determined to be because a lot of the negative hype is being spun on us by the media. Bad news sells
The problem is that I reflected true statistics while you rambled off what seemed to be numbers you pulled out of the sky.
One sector depends on the other. And you are allowed to participate in either sector.
It all depends on your ambition and motivation.
But of course its beggining to sound as if you want to just have mass government regulated labor with equal pay for all and do away with any kind of competition in the private sector becuse the rich guy didnt really earn his money cuz he wasnt picking lettuce.
And you should really start defining whether you are talking about millionaires or rich people. Since parrothead and I have already ditinguished the difference you keep bouncing back and forth between terms.
Along with making your point I also made my point in conjunction by saying its impossible for one to survive without the other.
But I gave numbers and reference that are fact and not opinionated guesses.
Read the numbers again and then tell me that by you saying “most” is right.
Like this for example.
“Small business employs half of all private sector employees.
Pay 45 percent of total U.S. private payroll.”
“half of the private sector” is only about 25% of the whole work force
“45 percent of total US. private payroll is only about 22.5% of the whole work force payroll !
Get it ?
micky2 said,
April 5, 2008 at 5:51 pm
JMJ;
“Time to find a new vision and stop wasting your time polishing the old one.”
The sky is falling
JMJ:
‘this is why they lost the Hill and won’t have it back for years.”
Jersey can tell the future.
Next vote is almost two years. So , I can hang on just a couple years.
Anything is better than than this congress. ( 13% approval ) whoo hoo.
And you can thank environmentalists for your food cost today.
And my wifes crappy new inhalers that are twice as expensive
http://www.greendaily.com/2008/04/01/eco-friendly-inhalers-will-cost-more-green/
Jersey McJones said,
April 6, 2008 at 9:54 am
I tried a few times to respond to you Micky, but the comments wouldn’t take. Let’s just say that is you think “environmentalists have anything to do with the price of food (or anything else for that matter), that the GOP will take the congress back any time soon, or that those poll numbers you cite (out of the blue) are even close to accurate, then you truly live in a conservative dream world. If anything the very stats you cite prove my point! The Middle Class and small businesses are being squeezed and GOP economics are failing them. Time for a new direction.
JMJ
micky2 said,
April 6, 2008 at 10:47 am
First of all Jersey they are “poll” numbers. They dont come out of the blue.
I realize that poll numbers are not 100% accurate but they are indicative of whats going on. There is a thing called ” margin of error”.
And please spare me your hypocrisy because you use poll numbers as frequently as anyone else.
Go to this link. there are at least ten reliable sources that say your congress sucks.
ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Rasmussen, Gallop, and your favorite, FOX.
http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?encquery=2bc993b1a3d6a37abff51227a3f15154&invocationType=keyword_rollover&ie=UTF-8
Environmentalists are the reason us and our government are being riddles with usless applications such as ethanol which has caused any and every form of food connected to corn to go up at least 13% andas high as 25% in some products.
The environmentalist forst put forth the idea that etahnol was going to save us all. Shortly after that every pol on the hill was only too happy to use it as pork enhancer and medium for corporate lobbyist gains and attaining votes from the agricultural sector via subsidies.
Nothing I mentioned proves your point as if you got me by the cajones.
Dont flatter yourself with the obvious. It takes no genius to see that the country is in a recession.
Waa waa waa sniffle. We’re all going to crash and burn, the economy is tanking !
It does that every few years jersey. get used to it, its a fact.
But instead you are wailing to everyone that the end is near.
Fear mongering to the max bro ! Thats all your doing.
I watched Rasmussen himself state that 80% of Americans believe the econmy is receiding. he also stated that 65% of the same people said that their life at home has not changed much.
You ought to know me better by now . I never pull my sources out of the blue.
I can always back up my statements and claims with facts.
Thats why it makes me laugh when you get all snide and condescending and suggest that I use google.
Its always time for a new direction Jersey. Your motivation and sentiments are nothing new at all that I havnt heard from liberals for the last 40 years.
Now.
If you could actually come up with a decent idea as how to get over this hump. I would take you alot more seriously
micky2 said,
April 6, 2008 at 11:18 am
Here ya go Jersey. I never pull anything out of the blue, nor do I live in some kumbaya uphoria fantasy world of hope and fear.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060722/food.asp
Combustion vs. consumption
“Ethanol plants [are] being built, and they’re starting to pull more corn their way,” comments agricultural economist Chad E. Hart of Iowa State University in Ames. “We’re seeing already higher projected prices than normal for the 2007 crop.”
Predicting that the growth of the ethanol industry could drive up food prices as early as next year, Hart notes that corn futures are trading at about $3 per bushel, or about 50 cents higher than usual.
With demand for corn rising, production is also likely to increase, Hart says. Higher corn prices will lure farmers to devote more acres to cultivating corn and fewer to other crops. That, he says, will encourage “an across-the-board increase in crop prices”—as well as in the price of animal feed derived from such crops.
“If corn price goes up, you’ll probably feel it more in the cost of your steak than the cost of your cornflakes,” Hart says.
Processing, packaging, and distribution costs account for more than 90 percent of the commercial price of cornflakes, bread, and other grain-based products. “Most of the cost of [products such as] bread is not in the cost of the raw materials,” Hart says.
By contrast, the cost of feed for animals and other expenses incurred on livestock farms account for about half of the commercial price of meat and eggs, and nearly a third of the cost of cheese. Therefore, Hart says, higher corn prices aren’t likely to translate into penny-for-penny increases in food costs.
In addition, Hart says, byproducts of ethanol production from corn, such as corn-gluten meal, can be used to feed livestock. That way, not all the corn used to make fuel is diverted from the food supply.
“So the price impact on livestock products will likely be relatively small in comparison to the change in corn prices,” he says.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-detrick/2008/04/04/cnn-reporter-links-rising-food-costs-ethanol
You’re going to need a few extra bucks to pay for those corn flakes every morning.
CNN’s senior business correspondent Ali Velshi let viewers in on an underreported fact about rising commodities prices: the government mandate for ethanol production is making corn and other agricultural products more expensive-making inflation a top priority for Americans.
“Several years ago, we made some decisions about how corn is going to be used to make ethanol, which is added to our gasoline,” said Velshi on “American Morning” April 4. “A number of people think that that was meant to reduce our dependency on crude oil. What is does is it takes what is fundamentally a food source and makes it into a gasoline source. That’s caused corn to go up.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/opinion/19wed1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
The distortions in agricultural production are startling. Corn prices are up about 50 percent from last year, while soybean prices are projected to rise up to 30 percent in the coming year, as farmers have replaced soy with corn in their fields. The increasing cost of animal feed is raising the prices of dairy and poultry products.
The news from the rest of the world is little better. Ethanol production in the United States and other countries, combined with bad weather and rising demand for animal feed in China, has helped push global grain prices to their highest levels in at least a decade. Earlier this year, rising prices of corn imports from the United States triggered mass protests in Mexico. The chief of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has warned that rising food prices around the world have threatened social unrest in developing countries.
http://www.theindependent.com/stories/03162008/new_foodfuel16.shtml
A recent analysis by economist Tom Elam, Ph.D., president of Farm Econ. for the American Meat Institute, found that U.S. ethanol policy is continuing to drive meat and poultry prices higher.
Elam said he expects food price inflation to rise five or six percent in 2009.
He estimates the cumulative costs to the food industry of the renewable fuel program will be about $100 billion from 2005 to 2010. The program mandates minimum ethanol production and provides tax incentives for ethanol use.
micky2 said,
April 6, 2008 at 11:35 am
And here are my facts to back up my ecnomic premise.
They do not come out of the blue. And they completely go against the impressions that you give about what should or could be done. it shows that most of the country disagres with your suggestion that big government take control of the situation
Included in the article are at least 10 to 15 sublinks that back up my numbers.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/48_say_best_thing_government_can_do_for_economy_is_get_out_of_the_way
Forty-nine percent (49%) of unaffiliated voters agree that the best thing the government can do is get out of the way. Thirty-four percent (34%) disagree.
This is consistent with another recent survey showing that 53% do not want the federal government to help homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgage. However, another The recent survey offers a different perspective– just 23% believe that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent another 1930’s style Depression. Earlier this year, the much-hyped economic stimulus package was given a lukewarm reception by voters.
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Likely Voters nationwide rate the economy as the top voting issue of Election 2008. The national telephone survey found that 19% consider the War in Iraq as the top issue, 12% name National Security, 10% say Immigration, and 9% believe Health Care is the highest priority. These results are broadly similar to the priorities expressed in January.
Jersey McJones said,
April 6, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Ethanol is not a liberal or environmentalist initiative. It’s a bipartisan gimme to the farm states. Simple as that. Many liberals and environmentalists, like myself, have always been against mass ethanol subsidies and mandates. I don’t care if farmers want to coop and make share ethanol between and for themselves and their farm operations. But foisting this on the mass public was eitehr a liberal nor conservative idea – it was a product of the politics of farm states over-represented in the Senate. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply does not understand the issue.
As for the popularity of congress, it’s a good thing that it’s low. The popularity of individual representatives is actually pretty high, especially cimpared with our current failed administration. Polls also desicively show that the public is leaning toward Democrats on all levels of government. The ration of self-described Democrats to Republicans is the greatest it’s been since such numbers were collected.
Face it, the GOP failed and will now return to the political woods until they can find some new ideas. They showed their “true colors” and they turned out to be red for the books, white for racist, and blue for the color of their blood. Just that second issue – the zealous abuse of immigrants – will cost the GOP inestimably for years to come. Hispanics, once a big new voter boon for the GOP will now turn their backs on them, subjugating divisive non-issues like gays and abortion to self-interests like civil rights and labor needs.
JMJ
micky2 said,
April 6, 2008 at 1:36 pm
JMJ;
“Ethanol is not a liberal or environmentalist initiative. It’s a bipartisan gimme to the farm states. Simple as that.”
Look dear master, its not “as simple as that”.
It was an iniative started in the 70s when Carter lied out of stupidity and told the whole country that we would run out of oil in less than 20 years. Bio fuels have been around for decades. Carter only usherd them with a false premise.
But they most recently hae gained a boost in popularity due to all the bull$hit the environmentakist have been feeding us about hoe great it is for the atmosphere.
That has turned out to be a bunch of crap. It is no better or worse for the atmosphere than fossil oil.
Of course the pols on both sides recently have been more than glad to jump on the bandwagon and abuse this medium as a means to use the countrys environmental concerns as a way to get votes by authorizing and voting on subsidies.
You my friend do not understand the issue AT ALL.
It goes way past and ahead of what you think. It was sold to the public by fear mongering, the sky is falling global warming BS and we are running out of oil. Had those three factors not been allowed to be put into play the public would of raised a big stink a long time ago and it never would of made it to the market the way we see it today.
JMJ;
“As for the popularity of congress, it’s a good thing that it’s low. The popularity of individual representatives is actually pretty high,”
Thats one of the most intellectually deificient and disengenuous things I’ve heard in a while.
If the individuals are so freaking hot then they should be able to work as a team.
How can it be a good thing when voters feel let down and betrayed by a bunch of useless saps ?
JMJ;
“Polls also desicively show that the public is leaning toward Democrats on all levels of government. The ration of self-described Democrats to Republicans is the greatest it’s been since such numbers were collected.”
Thats a lie. Its not on all levels.
http://www.gallup.com/tag/Election%2b2008.aspx
McCain is actually a small margin ahead of Obama or Hillary.
McCain has a 1-percentage point advantage in general election preferences
April 4, 2008Democratic voters prefer Barack Obama as the party’s presidential nominee by 49% to 44% over Hillary Clinton, a slight improvement for Obama compared with recent days. John McCain has a 1-percentage point advantage over both Obama and Clinton in the latest general election trial heats.More …
And the link I provided above in #29 say differently on your belief that we are leaning towards dems on all levels.
The rest of your rant is just speculative opinionating, so what ?
And everything else is just spewed out randomly in the hope that anyone will take your word for it.
micky2 said,
April 6, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Below is a link that will direct you to over 200 environmentalist groups tied to ethanol.
http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?query=ethanol+and+environmentalist&invocationType=spelling
———————————————————————————————————————
And here is the tie that Carter had towards ethanols birth into the market
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2006/10/03/news/local/doc4520b089e4a42955791351.txt
Federal support for the ethanol industry grew from seeds planted in the 1970s by President Jimmy Carter and grew to maturity in the ’80s and ’90s, with prodding from farm-state legislators.
In the throes of the late-1970s energy crisis, President Carter was willing to try just about anything to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. Ethanol was part of the mix.
In his 1980 State of the Union message, Carter said he wanted the country’s ethanol production to reach 500 million gallons, which was more almost triple the production at the time.
“I don’t think the Carter administration has ever been given enough credit for all the things we did on alternative energy, including ethanol.’said U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Iowa ? Hmm.. CORN COUNTRY ! Harkin wasnt too bright then now, was he ? he said this in the 70s
And here is a link with the most extensive and comprehensive list of ties between enviromentlists and etahnol you will find anywhere.
Its a lot of reading , but you should really indulge yourself.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
“The Clinton administration’s fuel-rule rigging provoked an angry backlash from both liberal and conservative newspapers:
The New York Times: “Ethanol will not clean the air beyond what the 1990 Clean Air Act would already require; nor will it . . . raise farm income very much or significantly cut imports. What the EPA’s rule will do is take money from consumers and taxpayers and hand it over to Archer Daniels Midland.”(77)
The Washington Post: “The misuse of the environmental laws as patronage to benefit narrow economic interests is a mistake.”(78)
The Boston Herald: “The pandering to the farm lobby and big political donors could actually worsen air pollution.”(79)
The Houston Post: “Bad science, bad economics, and politics as usual.”(80)
USA Today: “Nothing is more likely to provoke a round of fat-cat-happiness than an open-ended federal rule that forces manufacturers and consumers to buy federally subsidized ethanol. It’s a pork deal any fool could love.”(81)
The Houston Chronicle: “The requirement that a car’s fuel be made from a renewable source like corn makes no more sense than to demand that its engine be made from wood.”
Jersey McJones said,
April 7, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Micky, the whole point about ethanol is that is an insurmountably bipartisan problem. Now, you can blame it on “liberals” like “Jimmy Carter” (not all that liberal) all you like, but the political factors outweigh partisanship. Sorry to burst your little partisan bubble. This issue is only substantially opposed outside both the parties. I’ll play my mini-viola for you.
JMJ
micky2 said,
April 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm
You dont get to make the whole point master, this is a discussion, not a dictatorship.
besides that, you are wrong.
I have provided undeniable evidence of that.
What it is, was, how it got here and what it will be is the point.
I am not approaching this with any partisanship. I am approaching from the realization a year ago that my grocery bill shot up overnight.
So I investigated, as you should be able to see, maybe. but with a Viola in your face it makes it hard.
Environmentalist wanted us to stop using fossil fuels, and drilling, and using coal.
Get the facts dude, there all up there.
What is going on today has little to do with the environmentalists as how now they see the draw backs of ethanol. I mentioned this above.
I am well aware of both sides of the isle using ethanol for ulterior motives in todays theatre.
That doesnt change the fact that liberal fear mongering and environmentalists are responsable for its propulsion into the market decades ago.