A Joke And What It Reveals

[crocat]

During Clinton's tenure, the economy was good in many areas.  That said it was earth shatteringly bad in others.   If you all recall back then we all debated about that very thing.  Manufacturing in the height of Clinton's term was at a 6 year low.  Many in here said that the 'economy' was changing that people in manufacturing should 'retrain' themselves.  I argued that if manufacturing failed that the rest of the economy was not far behind.   Here we are.

Another thing to remember, many Presidents inherit the economic path from the prior President.   Look how long it took Reagan to pull out of Carters mess. 

[Michael Tee]

<<A good business climate also means that tax revenues are generally higher than in a bad business climate.>>

Thanks, Ami.  I think I get it now.  Sorta like, when the head of the household is gainfully employed and bringing home a healthy paycheque every week, the family's disposable income is generally higher than when the guy's been standing in the unemployment lines waiting for his pogey for the last six months.

So maybe I should ask cro what she thinks of a head of a very large family who, when he's been unemployed for most of the past six years, maxes out all his credit cards buying more guns and ammo for his weapons collection, more Hummers for his car collection, more premium gas for the Hummers and various ludicrous, pointless, useless contraptions and extravagances, and paying for an army of hired thugs to burn down his neighbours' houses, while he saves on medical bills by not taking his wife and kids to the doctor and allows their health to deteriorate all to shit?

OTOH, why bother?  She's probably too focused on worrying about what debts will be run up for her by an incoming "tax and spend asshole Democratic" government to concern herself with silly hypothetical speculations spun out of thin air and having no connection at all to her own life.

Mashiggeneh velt.

[Plane]

I really don't know what that means.  And even if I did know what it meant, how could the "business climate" affect the national debt?  The business "climate" is good or bad for businessmen, the national debt is a measure of the prudence or imprudence of the government of the day.

A good business climate also means that tax revenues are generally higher than in a bad business climate.

Yes , business is the feild on which the value of the money is grown , the harvesters include the businesses , the people , and the government .

[crocat]

<<A good business climate also means that tax revenues are generally higher than in a bad business climate.>>

Thanks, Ami.  I think I get it now.  Sorta like, when the head of the household is gainfully employed and bringing home a healthy paycheque every week, the family's disposable income is generally higher than when the guy's been standing in the unemployment lines waiting for his pogey for the last six months.

So maybe I should ask cro what she thinks of a head of a very large family who, when he's been unemployed for most of the past six years, maxes out all his credit cards buying more guns and ammo for his weapons collection, more Hummers for his car collection, more premium gas for the Hummers and various ludicrous, pointless, useless contraptions and extravagances, and paying for an army of hired thugs to burn down his neighbours' houses, while he saves on medical bills by not taking his wife and kids to the doctor and allows their health to deteriorate all to shit?

OTOH, why bother?  She's probably too focused on worrying about what debts will be run up for her by an incoming "tax and spend asshole Democratic" government to concern herself with silly hypothetical speculations spun out of thin air and having no connection at all to her own life.

Mashiggeneh velt.

This is about the 3rd post that I have read today with you disparaging me in regards to my opinion, Michael.   I might add that I have been more than cautious in my responses not to alienate nor personally disparge you in my responses.   So suffice it to say... fuck you.  I am not worried about one fucking thing because I make sure that I do the best of my ability to look after my future and that I do the best of my ability to give money to places that really need it.   I don't need a fuckin mother government to tell me how to spend my money.   While we are at it, Michael..... why is it that you need to come in here and disparage the United States?   Why not just have a fucking lovefest with  Canada

[Michael Tee]

<<This is about the 3rd post that I have read today with you disparaging me in regards to my opinion, Michael.   I might add that I have been more than cautious in my responses not to alienate nor personally disparge you in my responses.   So suffice it to say... fuck you.  >>

  ? ? ?  Sorry, cro.  Next time, I'll agree with every word you say.  I was polite, if sarcastic.  I meant no offense, but IMHO your views are 180 degrees WRONG, and there is no way to say so that will meet with your approval.  (Well, there is, but it's stilted, formal and kind of old-fashioned.  Sometimes it suits what I have to say and sometimes not.)  At least the sarcasm was funny, I thought.  If it bothers you that much, I'll try to tone it down.

<<While we are at it, Michael..... why is it that you need to come in here and disparage the United States?   Why not just have a fucking lovefest with  Canada>>

I've criticized Canada too.  We're not a perfect country and I never said we were.  A lot of my disparagement of "the United States" is disparagement of the current gang of right-wing fascist criminals that have taken over the reins of government by lying, cheating and stealing, with the active compliance of a lot of right-wing partisans, of which there is no shortage in this group.  I go overboard sometimes and seem to slam the whole fucking country.  I know that ain't right and nobody is stopping you from calling me out on it.  I actually appreciate being told when I'm being a jerk and letting my disgust at the "conservatives" (crypto-fascists is more like it) spill over onto the entire country.

Anyway if you have a specific beef with any specific thing I said about the U.S., that's one thing, but to come out with a non-specific complaint that I "disparaged the Unites States" with no specifics?  Fuck that, why should I backtrack through a hundred posts trying to figure out which one pissed you off?  Call me out at the time or let it go.

P.S. -  I made what I thought were some pretty good points in the last post I made, which were directed to you if not actually addressed to you.  I was looking forward to seeing what you had to say in direct response to them, but instead all I got was this fucking tirade.  I apologize for the sarcasm and I'll try to tone it down.  How's that?

[crocat]

??  ? ? ?  Sorry, cro.  Next time, I'll agree with every word you say.  I was polite, if sarcastic.  I meant no offense, but IMHO your views are 180 degrees WRONG, and there is no way to say so that will meet with your approval.  (Well, there is, but it's stilted, formal and kind of old-fashioned.  Sometimes it suits what I have to say and sometimes not.)  At least the sarcasm was funny, I thought.  If it bothers you that much, I'll try to tone it down.

I happen back on a few posts today at work and lo and behold... there you were answering someone else's  post and then using me as some blind imbecile.   You don't have to tone it down, Michael.  But if you have something to say to me or about me... make sure it is in response to my post.  I don't give a shit if you think my posts or views are 180 degrees WRONG unlike you I don't need some one to 'yes' me.  You take yourself way to seriously if you think for one minute you upset me.  Today, however, when I read your ass sucking post to AMI and that started on your diatribe about cro this and cro that... it did piss me off but also made me understand one thing... my comments worry you.  as Martha would say, and that's a good thing.

[Michael Tee]

<<I happen back on a few posts today at work and lo and behold... there you were answering someone else's  post and then using me as some blind imbecile.   You don't have to tone it down, Michael.  But if you have something to say to me or about me... make sure it is in response to my post.  >>

It was easier to kill two birds with one post.  These aren't private one-on-one communications here in this thread, everything's publicly posted and there was very little chance of what I said sneaking past you.  I didn't expect it to go past you.  You got your knickers in a twist all about nothing.  When I dealt with Ami's point, there was also something relevant to that that furthered a conversation you and I had been having.  It was pretty obvious to me that you, Ami, plane and I were all reading the same posts in the thread and jumping in as and where we each saw fit.

You had been making some asinine point about your fears of being impoverished past the point of no recovery by "asshole tax and spend Democrats" or some equally ludicrous phrase.

I had tried to point out how nonsensical your concerns were in the face of the absolutely appalling mismanagement of the Treasury by eight years of Republican borrowing and spending that had increased the public debt by over twice as much as the Democrats had done in their two terms.

plane tried to defend the Republican record, making the usual pathetic excuses for them, in this case that the business climate had turned sour during the Republicans' two Presidential terms.

I told plane that there was no way to link the business decline to the poor financial housekeeping of the Republicans charged with stewardship of the public purse, the private sector being privately owned, the government not being amongst the owners.

Ami then attempted to buttress plane's argument by pointing out that there was a link from the private sector misfortunes to the huge increase in the public debt under the Republicans  - - that when business is down, government revenues are also down.  This brought us to the point where I committed the unspeakably horrendous crime of answering Ami and dealing with your argument in the same post.  Oy.  Never again, cro, never again.

I answered Ami by politely thanking him for the information he had offered - - the sarcasm was subtle, and obviously flew right over your head.  The polite thanks, not usually offered in this thread, were  earned by Ami's having produced a fact which is not really relevant to the subject (since it doesn't in any way excuse the Republicans' mismanagement of the public purse) and which was probably known anyway to all of the participants in the discussion.  I then proceeded to my next point, which was a detailed explanation of WHY the fact he had brought out did not excuse the Republican mismanagement, and at that point figured, since the actual details of their mismanagement had now been specified in detail, I would indirectly ask if you still felt that it was the "asshole tax and spend Democrats" who constituted the greater threat to your fiscal well-being.  BIG mistake.  Obviously.


<<I don't give a shit if you think my posts or views are 180 degrees WRONG unlike you I don't need some one to 'yes' me.  You take yourself way to seriously if you think for one minute you upset me.  >>

And in the very next sentence I will be told just how, and why I HAVE in fact upset  you.  Go figure.

<<Today, however, when I read your ass sucking post to AMI . . . >>

Missed the sarcasm completely.  Oh, well, no surprises there.  Can't win 'em all.

<< . . . and that started on your diatribe about cro this and cro that... it did piss me off but also made me understand one thing... my comments worry you . . . >>

Well I'm not gonna pretend they don't.  I respect you and I take care NOT to offend you.  It does bother me to think that you are pissed off at me.  There aren't too many posters in this group that I would say that about.  But I think you're pissed off for no reason at all.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.

==================================================
Government is a necessity. It is ridiculous to say that all government is nothing but coercion.

Government CAN be a solution to many societal problems. It is never a solution to anything when it is in the hands of fools who think that it is the problem.

[Michael Tee]

<<It [government] is never a solution to anything when it is in the hands of fools who think that it is the problem.>>

Hear, hear !!

[Plane]

<<It [government] is never a solution to anything when it is in the hands of fools who think that it is the problem.>>

Hear, hear !!

It also doesn't solve everything when in the hands of fools who think it can.

There are only a few things that government can do better than privite effort , why use the government as the first choice?

[richpo64]

BO wrote:
>>Government CAN be a solution to many societal problems.<<

Reminds me of a movie.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4rBDUJTnNU[/youtube]

[Xavier_Onassis]

Another thing to remember, many Presidents inherit the economic path from the prior President.   Look how long it took Reagan to pull out of Carters mess.

======================
Ratwing rot.

Reagan did little but borrow, borrow, squander and spend.

Carter's zero-based budgeting was the one thibg that enabled him to do this.

[Plane]

Another thing to remember, many Presidents inherit the economic path from the prior President.   Look how long it took Reagan to pull out of Carters mess.

======================
Ratwing rot.

Reagan did little but borrow, borrow, squander and spend.

Carter's zero-based budgeting was the one thibg that enabled him to do this.

I was a member of Carters Navy and Reagans , Carters Navy really was Hollow.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I was a member of Carters Navy and Reagans , Carters Navy really was Hollow.

And yet, no one attempted a naval invasion of the US in all the Carter years, did they?
We needed no navy at all, not evben a hollow one. And at least Carter's navy was cheap.

You could think of it as costume jewelry.
No jewelry is especially useful, but if you are going to piss away money on decorations, at least choose cheap ones.

Reagan saved us from ... what was that again? Something in Beirut, no, that ended in disaster.


Ah, yes, Reagan defended us from GRENADA. We can be thankful for that. Had it not been for Raygun, we'd all be speaking patois and eating far too many nutmegs.

[Plane]

I was a member of Carters Navy and Reagan's , Carters Navy really was Hollow.

And yet, no one attempted a naval invasion of the US in all the Carter years, did they?
We needed no navy at all, not even a hollow one. And at least Carter's navy was cheap.

You could think of it as costume jewelry.
No jewelry is especially useful, but if you are going to piss away money on decorations, at least choose cheap ones.

Reagan saved us from ... what was that again? Something in Beirut, no, that ended in disaster.


Ah, yes, Reagan defended us from GRENADA. We can be thankful for that. Had it not been for Raygun, we'd all be speaking patois and eating far too many nutmegs.

I saw the Soviet Fleet at sea in those years, their ships were newer and bristling with missiles , a fight with them would have been very sharp. They were building for some reason I wonder what it could have been?

Why was the Soviet Union building a lot in the Late Seventys and early eightys?