<p>And I suppose YOU have all the answers. I can be as blatant as I want. If one does not generalize, than all one has left is specifics. This is not a scientific forum where we need concrete and statistical data to express our opinions. We are not trying to prove or disprove postulates for G-d's sake. I just made a statement that from my perspective.....and that is all that it is...I work in an environment where there are teaching assts with no college degrees...and teachers/psychologists/administrators/social workers/guidance counselors all Masters LEvel and above...all the TA's voted for Bush and all those with graduate degrees voted for Kerry. I could take a scientific poll in my school district if you want...if that would satisfy you....and I could postulate a theory and run some statistics if that would make you happy. I am only stating my observation......need not get so frantic about it!</p>
<p>Ummm did I ever say I had all the answers. NO. From YOUR perspective, you may see "dumb" people voting for Bush. I KNOW that isn't true, as I know many professionals and business people voting for Bush, NOT Kerry. </p>
<p>Also, I felt it urgent that I disprove that draft idea since it is a moot point and is quite misleading.</p>
<p>I have to go now to commiserate with my D at Carnegie Mellon.....but it appears that everything that I say that you don't agree with is misleading. Harvard's motto is "Veritas"...the truth. All we can do is try to seek the truth.....Let's move on and try to make a better world for America.....and especially for our young people who will have to live with this mess we have created in all of our stupidity and arrogance. AMEN.</p>
<p>It is a well-known fact that the academia is liberal. That is no surprise. But sgiovinc must not know too many uneducated people ("every uneducated person that I have spoken to voted for BUSH"): 49% of those who did not complete HS voted for Bush while 50% voted for Kerry. (Source: Nat'l Exit Polls)
This whole argument can grow ridiculous...it reminds me of Al Gore's [unsubstantiated] claim that people with higher IQ's voted for him. And, for the record, Bush is no "dummy"...he got higher SAT scores (93rd percentile) than Kerry and the Kerry camp refused to release Kerry's Yale GPA throughout the campaign. I think both men are smart, though Kerry is admittedly a better speaker. Still, it is strange that some equate public speaking ability with intelligence level...Pres. Bush's "difficulties with the English language," as he put it at the convention in NYC, do not necessarily indicate a lack of intelligence...I think they're more endearing...I wouldn't be surprised if "misunderestimated" became a commonly used word, like Coolidge's "normalcy".</p>
<p>
[quote]
but it appears that everything that I say that you don't agree with is misleading.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe its because your thoughts about the draft were not based on fact? That's why they are misleading.</p>
<p>And thanks Kebree for a logical point.</p>
<p>I'm not sure Kebree made a logical point. Logical maybe by your standards. I would much prefer a President that could communicate effectively with world leaders than one who was endearing to the American public. You are speaking about the HIGHEST position in the country! I would like my mayor endearing or my school principal endearing, but my PRESIDENT? I have more respect for the position obviously. And besides, how endearing can someone be when you send innocent young men and women to foreign soil to fight a senseless war and support legislation that would prevent "gay" people from legalizing their unions? Not so endearing to me. A teddy bear is endearing not a president.</p>
<p>Nobel Economist Milton Friedman said that a budget deficit is nothing more than a tax on our children or words to that effect.</p>
<p>The President's four tax cuts have saved our family tens of thousands of dollars during the past 4 years and with more tax cuts coming in the next term we will save hundreds of thousand in the years to come. If they strike down the death tax the savings will be in the 7 figures and I can cash in our $1,000,000 Northwestern Mutual joint comprehensive whole life insurance policy which in the down market has been a good savings vehicle!!!</p>
<p>While the goobers and evangelicals celebrate their "values" victory, I say thank you to them for their financial generosity to me and mine!!!</p>
<p>How do you do those text boxes? Nice.</p>
<p>originaloog: You should go get taxguy's book. Good for you for getting $k bucks in tax cuts. But did you spend it on things that promoted the US economy or some other country's economy? Did you invest in the stock-capital markets or did you buy something tangible? IF you bought something tangilble was it an SUV, bigger house, new computer, or diamond? IF it was intangible, was it in more whole-life insurance, 529, 401k, IRA? </p>
<p>Not sure of comments. Are you in favor of the tax cuts? Your comment on whole-life insurance said in sarcastic manner or praise manner? Bragging that you will reap $100K's in future or being smug?</p>
<p>Kebree: Given Bush's SAT's and other legacy and political connections; Would Mr. Bush be a candidate to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. then and today?</p>
<p>My point is: For every one dollar we spent, towards the deficit- We as a nation got just 25/100ths in added growth. A return rate that would get any CEO canned. But it takes time for the incintives to work. Just how long should we wait and what if the projections do not come true? </p>
<p>Since we as a nation are not saving any money, Just who is financing our national debt and just what could the outcomes be?</p>
<p>originaloog, have you read The Coming Generational Storm?</p>
<p>Itistoomuch, history tells us that deficit spending will ultimately bring the USA to ruin. Our debt is largely financed by foreign interests and when they realize that their investments should be transferred off-shore, that will be the ball game. Bush 41 declared Regan's tax cut induced deficit spending as voo doo economics. That was true then and even truer today.</p>
<p>The tansfer of wealth in this country is staggering. While I don't consider myself wealthy, I suppose I am in the upper 5%. But I dispair that while the middle class is getting economically raped, they are so ignorant they don't understand that this is actually happening to them and their children. Instead they vote "values" as the Republicans have defined them, when in fact the values that the New Testament emphasize are justice and love of our fellow man. The Old Testament tells us of Jubilee where all property was to be redistributed every 50th year and according to the note in my Bible, "The Lord prohibited the accumulation of property to the detriment of the poor". And the wealthy, which Bush 43 calls his base, are promoting policies which serve only their self-interest, the rest be damned. This weekend Grover Norquist said that he expects 4 more tax cuts in the next 4 terms, this while a war is going on!</p>
<p>Well we reap what we sow! And this is what the ignorant goobers in the red states voted for so I am reluctantly more that willing to let them be taught a lesson. Me and mine will continue to prosper and they will continue to fall further behind until they finally realize that they have been duped by jingoistic religiosity. I will welcome them back like the prodigal son by continuing to vote for their economic and social self-interests rather than my own. But they are the ones who have chosen to wallow with the swine at present and they are the ones who must understand the errors of their ways.</p>
<p>On a more pertinent note, we live frugally and essentially all of our assets, with the exception of our house, are in investments. We drive Hyundai's for heavens sake. I am systematically readjusting the investment portfolio toward foreign inveatment to the point where about 30% is invested in Europe and Asia. I hope to have that %age up to about 60% by 2008.</p>
<p>emsibdn, no I have not read "The Coming Generational Storm" but I can infer what it is all about. I am approaching 60 and for those under 30 I say, until you begin to understand what is happening and vote accordingly, you will be inheriting a country which will be a mere shadow of what it is today. At present we are projecting Empire throughout the world and empires ultimately collape of their own accord. The war in Iraq may ultimately cost us nearly a trillion dollars, we are almost 25% there already. The Bush tax cuts will cost us trillions during the next 4-6 years! These costs will have draconian impacts on every citizen, particulary the lower and middle classes. And realize that no other western nation has chosen to take this path toward self-distruction. No other nation is empire building and no other country is swimming in ever increasing debt as far as the eye can see.</p>
<p>I predict that our country will not ultimately survive four more years of this insanity!</p>
<p>Awesome post originaloog. Ndbisme likes.</p>
<p>Originalood: Loved you post! You expressed very articulately what I have believed for many years! Thanks alot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
[H]istory tells us that deficit spending will ultimately bring the USA to ruin.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It does? I don't recall the United States EVER being in "ruin". You may bring up the Great Depression, but even that was a worldwide problem. What time in history are you speaking of?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And this is what the ignorant goobers in the red states voted for so I am reluctantly more that willing to let them be taught a lesson.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because you don't share the same views as the Republicans they are somehow ignorant? YOU, my friend, are the ignorant one.</p>
<p>Damn, I like those quotation boxes. How do you guys do it?</p>
<p>Just goes to show you that not everyone learns their macro economics, either in college or from their father's (bush 41.) knee.</p>
<p>I find our Iraqi War kinda fun. The fundementalist Muslins have more in common with the US's people who believe in the Moral Mandate than with those who may have voted for Anyone But Bush.</p>
<p>Not everyone learns their micro economics either. As for "civics" and family budgeting...</p>
<p>UC-Benz, History? You had better reread your ancient and European History my friend. Though Hollywood would like us to believe that the decline of the Roman Empire was a result of the social decline in Rome because it is a sexy story, the actual reason was the cost of maintaining empire. The final decline was signaled by the emperor Commodus in the 2nd century ACE. Through his extravagence he exhausted the treasury and as a result was unable to maintain the governence of the empire. Alexander Serverus endeavored to restore the financial condition of the empire by reducing the mounting costs of the bureaucracy and the military. The military twarted his measures because they had been accustomed to a life of privilege. He was murdered by the military in 235ACE and there followed a period of military anarchy. This marked the death knell for the Roman Empire. In 285ACE Diocletian divided the empire and the rest is, as they say, history.</p>
<p>How about France? I was afraid you would never ask. The immediate problem which faced Louis XV and XVI was that the French state was unable to achieve financial stability. Only once in the 18th century was the state budget in balance. It made up for its deficits by borrowing. Sound familiar? The strength of the aristocracy rested on its large scale ownership of land and exemption from the most burdensome taxes, the taille and the gabelle. Sound familiar? Louis XVI attempted to restore fiscal order by appointing in succession Turgot, Necker, Alexandre de Calonne, and Lomenie de Brienne as ministers of finance. All failed and the stage was set for the Revolutionary Era.</p>
<p>Which brings us to Germany and we all know what happened there! Well evidently you don't UC-Benz! After its defeat in WWI Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles and we all know(well maybe UC-Benz doesn't) that it required Germany to cede all colonies, some border territories and demilitarize. However the most onerous conditions were the reparations that Germany was forced to pay the Allies. In 1921 the German reparations were $30 billion and a balancing of the budget seemed both impossible and undesirable in the eyes of the owners of German heavy industry. Inflation resulted. When Germany defaulted on reparation payment to France in 1923, France retaliated with military occupation of the Ruhr district. Germany responded with passive resistance that necessitated paying large indemnities to both the industrialistas and their workers by printing more money. Hyperinflation resulted, devaluating the mark from 14,000 to 4.2 TRILLION marks to the dollar. Again, the rest of the story is history.</p>
<p>So what is the USA struggling with today. The cost of empire(third century Rome-Iraq, Afganiistan and more that 700 military bases scattered around the world), internal fiscal irresponsibility(the futile attempts of Louis XVI to impose fiscal sanity with actions aimed at the church and aristocracy-Bush's tax cuts overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy), and international financial pressure(German reparations-foreign financing of our deficit). I don't like the outlook and our idiot President, who admits that he doesnt read anything but his precious Bible, doesn't have the faintest clue to the lessons which history can teach us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>Yep, those who don't understand the issues facing our great country are ignorant goobers and by your post UC-Benz I guess you deserve a seat with them. Do you also believe that WMD's were found in Iraq like 75% of the people voting for Bush?</p>