Nevada primaries

[AtomicLabMonkey]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080120/pl_bloomberg/a2fb8_6jp8y8

Clinton & Romney? Really? WTF is wrong with you people?

If they end up as our two choices in the general election I'll have lost all remaining faith in this country.

[Nick Koan]

Actually, we don't have primaries, we now have caucuses.

And personally, I didn't go because I don't want to waste a whole day holding my dick like an idiot in the corner of some middle school arguing over bullshit. I just want to vote and leave and not waste a whole Saturday crammed past the legal fire limit in a noisy cafeteria where you can't hear or discuss shit anyway.

But yeah, my two least favorite candidates from each party. Go Nevada!

[Dean]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080120/pl_bloomberg/a2fb8_6jp8y8

Clinton & Romney? Really? WTF is wrong with you people?

If they end up as our two choices in the general election I'll have lost all remaining faith in this country.

As an equities investor and tax payer, I think Romney is a good choice and Clinton is likely the worst.

Somebody who has successfully run a large business vs. being a lawyer or academic sure appeals to me.

[sperry]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080120/pl_bloomberg/a2fb8_6jp8y8

Clinton & Romney? Really? WTF is wrong with you people?

If they end up as our two choices in the general election I'll have lost all remaining faith in this country.
Actually, as far as seats in the primaries, Obama beat Hillary by one even if she had more raw votes. Silly electoral college-esque process!

Right now, as far as the complete field goes, I'm leaning towards Ron Paul and Obama. Too bad Ron Paul has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the GOP nod.

[knucklesplitter]

On the Repugnican side I'd have to pick Ron Paul too. Of course that is like saying, "Out of these various turds I'll take the one with the peanuts in it instead of the one with the corn."

On the Republicrat side Clinton would be my *last* choice, followed by Obama, then Edwards - basically in reverse order of how well they're doing in polls. Kucinich is the only true Democrat running. Any of them will be better than what we have, and I wouldn't vote for any Rethugnican even for Dog Catcher if you held a gun to my head.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

As an equities investor and tax payer, I think Romney is a good choice and Clinton is likely the worst.

Somebody who has successfully run a large business vs. being a lawyer or academic sure appeals to me.

Do you like greasy used car salesmen? Because that's what both of them are. Shapeshifting, weasel-faced doublespeakers who will say and do absolutely anything to get elected. If you care at all about honesty and transparency in your government, you do not want either of them to be president. It's that simple.

[Dean]

Do you like greasy used car salesmen? Because that's what both of them are. Shapeshifting, weasel-faced doublespeakers who will say and do absolutely anything to get elected. If you care at all about honesty and transparency in your government, you do not want either of them to be president. It's that simple.Honesty and transparency from a politician??? What planet are you from?

I'm a libertarian at heart and thus believe most anyone who wants to be elected is lying if their lips are moving.

I am voting based on who I think will keep the most money in my pocket and do the least to further F up this great nation.

I have no great expectations that any significant reforms will take place no matter who is elected. I am pretty sure if a democrat is elected and they retain control of congress, my taxes are going up with no benefit to me.

If a republican wins, I am pretty sure the court nominations will continue to move right which scares the crap out of me as I believe strongly in personal freedoms and separation of church and state.

My best hope is for the most liberal Republican president who will veto anything and a 2 very closely balanced but split houses of congress that can't get anything done.

[Nick Koan]

I think you need to change that to "If a Republican or a Democrat gets into office, my taxes are going up with no benefit to me"

Both parties are big government now.

[Dean]

I think you need to change that to "If a Republican or a Democrat gets into office, my taxes are going up with no benefit to me"

Both parties are big government now.Democrats are still much more of a tax and spend party than the republicans. Nobody is going to make the Busch cuts permanent, so yes, they are going up no matter what.

Gridlock between the executive and legislative branch is often the best for the taxpayer.

[sperry]

Democrats are still much more of a tax and spend party than the republicans. Nobody is going to make the Busch cuts permanent, so yes, they are going up no matter what.

Gridlock between the executive and legislative branch is often the best for the taxpayer.
Sure it is. :rolleyes:

Let's keep the status quo! Because $9 Trillion dollars of debt that increases at $500B/year is sooo much better than taking steps to save our country from economic ruin.

You know what's best for the taxpayer? A gov't that spends our money wisely on well designed, efficient programs. i.e. Social Security needs to die, Medicare/Medicade needs to die, defense spending needs to be reduced, and taxes need to be raised.

IMO, we should be able to raise tax revenue w/o touching the middle and lower class income families... all we need to do is close all the loopholes that keep the super-rich from paying their part. Frankly, if you've got $1B in net worth, you can afford to do anything and buy anything, you and several generations of your kids are set for life... and the same is true for someone w/ $2B net worth... that extra $1B makes virtually no difference on the quality of life for the rich bastard that has it, but it would make such a massive difference to the lower 1% if it were spend to help them.

Personally, I'd be willing to pay more taxes if they were being spent wisely and were being used to put our economy back in the green. So really, hoping for deadlock is not "the best for the taxpayer"... having a unified gov't that's willing to buck the status quo and make real and useful changes is what's really best. Will any of the candidates up for election pull this off? Probably not, but at least the democrats are more realistic about the state of the economy.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Honesty and transparency from a politician??? What planet are you from?

I'm a libertarian at heart and thus believe most anyone who wants to be elected is lying if their lips are moving.

I am voting based on who I think will keep the most money in my pocket and do the least to further F up this great nation.

You've got to be kidding me.

Yes, a politician is a politician, and to some extent all of them will go around kissing babies, shaking hands and trying to please everyone. That's normal, and it's what the American people have forced them to do to get elected - because if they don't, nobody votes for them. But there are different levels of sliminess, and Romney/Clinton are right at the top.

Obama made some comments this week about how Republicans have led the country & government in terms of new ideas since Reagan took office (which is pretty much true). Not that he thought it was ideal, or that he necessarily agreed with Republicans, he was just giving some analysis. No sooner had the words left his mouth than Clinton was attacking him for being a Reagan-lover - and Clinton made the exact same kind of remarks just a few years ago. Fucking. Shady.

Your requirement of "do the least to further F up this great nation" should also include things like not further expanding the power of the executive branch over the others, not wiretapping American citizens without warrants, & not invading & occupying foreign nations with no real justification (to name just a few), as well as what your current tax percentage is.

[Dean]

I did not attempt to give my whole wish list. There isn't an electable candidate that meets more than about 30% of them, and in many cases at least 30% of what they claim to want/believe is completely contrary to my wishes, so as I said, the best thing is for the executive and legislative branches to be in as much of a stalemate as possible.

I am mildly hoping that Romney is the most likely to run the country like a business rather than a personal agenda machine.

If it has to be a Democrat, Obama will be so busy tilting at establishment windmills hopefully he won't be too much of a danger. Better yet would be if he surrounds himself with smart people outside of the establishment who can help him do some good, but I am not holding my breath.

Austin, you have failed to offer an electable alternative, much less a rational for them. Perhaps you should do so rather than continuing to e-thug us.

[Dean]

Personally, I'd be willing to pay more taxes if they were being spent wisely and were being used to put our economy back in the green. So really, hoping for deadlock is not "the best for the taxpayer"... having a unified gov't that's willing to buck the status quo and make real and useful changes is what's really best. Will any of the candidates up for election pull this off? Probably not, but at least the democrats are more realistic about the state of the economy.Why are you willing to pay more taxes? Why not stop spending billions on farm subsidies and countless other ridiculous and inefficient government programs?

Why do yo believe the democrats have a clue about the economy??? Hillary wants to raise your taxes and spend more money which doesn't help.

Obama might be able to do something positive, and I would like to give him a chance if Romney isn't the Republican choice.

I am all for good minimalistic government that supports all personal freedoms, free markets, capitalism, peace and stays the hell out of the lives of it's citizens and those of the rest of the world while defending this country from all aggressors. I also believe in reality

Show me the way, please... :rolleyes:

[Nick Koan]

I think thats the point. A sound financial plan or the country doesn't automatically mean the taxpayer pays less.

If you want to believe LaRouche and all the other doomsayers, it sounds like a drastic plan might be what we need to get back on track. If that's the case, for the good of the country, yes I'd be willing to pay more taxes too. But, this all goes with the assumption that the theory is sound and not just another fleecing.

[ScottyS]

Face it, until we get a MAJOR shakeup in Congress the slide downhill will remain the same. I.E. fire everyone that is tied to politics or the legislative industry.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Your pissing in the wind if you think any of these people can solve the problems of this country. Man has tried every type of government possible including communism, capitalism, anarchy, socialism, aristocracy, dictatorship, democracy, etc. All of which have failed. Sure there have been great advances in science and communication but people still die of hunger even in the country we live in. Everyone is imperfect and until that changes, there will always be problems.

"If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” -Matthew 15:14

[MikeK]

You're pissing in the wind if you think any of these people can solve the problems of this country. Man has tried every type of government possible including communism, capitalism, anarchy, socialism, aristocracy, dictatorship, democracy, etc. All of which have failed.

So how come other countries can get it right?

[100_Percent_Juice]

What do you mean by "can get it right"?

[MikeK]

What do you mean by "can get it right"?

Where do I start? How about just the national debt. In 2001 every cent of personal income tax did not cover the interest payment on america's debt. Since then how much extra debt has been added?

[100_Percent_Juice]

Where do I start? How about just the national debt. In 2001 every cent of personal income tax did not cover the interest payment on america's debt. Since then how much extra debt has been added?


I don't understand. I said that every form of government fails at solving mans problems. Then you say that some countries get it right. Then I say "what do you mean". Then you talk about the horrible national debt of this country as if I am debating that.:~:

[sperry]

I don't understand. I said that every form of government fails at solving mans problems. Then you say that some countries get it right. Then I say "what do you mean". Then you talk about the horrible national debt of this country as if I am debating that.:~:
I think his point was that most countries don't have anywhere near the same scale of national debt as the US has. So, they're "doing it right" with regards to debt management.

Why are you willing to pay more taxes? Why not stop spending billions on farm subsidies and countless other ridiculous and inefficient government programs?

Why do yo believe the democrats have a clue about the economy??? Hillary wants to raise your taxes and spend more money which doesn't help.

I said I'd be willing to pay more taxes if they were getting spent on fixing the economy. You might want to bother reading the whole sentence before replying: "I'd be willing to pay more taxes if they were being spent wisely and were being used to put our economy back in the green." i.e. a bump in my taxes that goes directly towards correcting the deficit would be fine if it were part of a well designed plan. I don't know anyone that's for tax increases in order to just throw away money.

And the Democrats are certainly more realistic about the world... they're not the ones in la-la land pretending that we can still win in Iraq, that the economy is strong, and that the environment isn't threatened. At least the democrats aren't touting tax breaks as a means to fix the economy. No matter how much spin you want to put on history, tax breaks and trickle down economics have *never* solved economic crisis. The last time we had a massive economic disaster, it took FDR's new deal, which was basically socialism.

Free market economies are great right up until monopolies start to take over. Then it takes a dash of socialism to set things back on a productive track. Same goes with government... and since the lobbyists and special interest groups have basically taken over both parties, we're basically living under a monopolized government. We need some smart people to come in and clean things up and make some potentially unpopular changes... Is there anyone like that in the race for '08? Probably not... but I'm certain none of the "more of the same" Republicans are going to do it, so I'm leaning Democrat... and since Hillary strikes me as a selfish twunt, and Edwards is a Mr. McSmiley say-anything-to-get-elected doofus, Obama's up front for me. It's a shame Ron Paul is never going to get his party's support, but then again with all his Libertarianism, he'd never be able to get anything done if he were President anyway.

So IMO, Obama + a Democrat Congress is our best hope at getting some changes made to help the country.

[100_Percent_Juice]

This is talked about every election year. The money problems of the US are not new. Here is a good article from 1973...


Record of United States

Since the United States has been ‘leading the inflation procession,’ it is of interest to see what has happened to her spending habits.

In the last forty-three years the United States government’s domestic budget has had a deficit for thirty-six of those years! Yes, 84 percent of the time it spent more than it made.

As a result, the government’s debt reached over 427 billion dollars ($427,000,000,000) in fiscal 1972. That is the highest debt in history, and it is going up all the time. Nobody seriously expects it to be paid back. Why, just the interest payments alone on that debt come to more than twenty-three billion dollars each year now!

That kind of deficit spending over a long period of time had to have a bad result. It did—constant inflation.

Why so Many Deficits?

As we have seen, deficits lead to inflation. And deficits come about when a government spends more than it makes. But why such constant spending by so many governments in our time?

One of the main reasons is WAR. Of all the items in the budgets of most governments, the largest is often military spending. In the United States, military spending costs about seventy-five to eighty billion dollars each year!

But war destroys; it does not build wealth. Even in peacetime, war equipment produces nothing of real value. Instead, it soon becomes obsolete and must be replaced, usually by even more expensive equipment. True, such spending does create jobs. But it also creates huge debts, so no real wealth has been contributed to the nation.

Instead, it is more like a blood-sucking parasite draining away strength that could be far better used for other purposes. For instance, think of the benefits that could result if the seventy-five to eighty billion dollars that the United States spends on its military were devoted to peaceful pursuits. The same could be said of the Soviet Union or any other country. It would create just as many jobs, but think of how many cities could be rebuilt, how many new homes constructed. Think of the improvement that could be made in health care, transportation, parks and recreation areas, in reducing poverty and pollution.

An Example

To understand better what war and huge military expenditures do to an economy, let us imagine two families living next door to each other. Each has a nice home and property, and just enough income to pay their bills.

Now assume that they begin to distrust each other, so that one family buys a gun for protection. The other does the same. This begins a cycle of buying bigger, more costly weapons. But since they cannot afford them, they begin borrowing money.

Finally, they actually “war” against each other, destroying each other’s property. Has that destruction improved their living standard? Hardly.

Then, after that “war,” they have to rebuild. But, still suspicious of each other, they keep up their purchases of ever more costly weapons. In order to do all that, and to live from day to day, they borrow more and more money, falling farther and farther behind in their debt repayments.

Now, then, has the standard of living of these families really improved? Not actually, for no real wealth has been added. In fact, their standard of living is affected adversely when they buy weapons and rebuild “war” damage, since they have to take money away from other purchases. Also, it may appear as though they are improving when they borrow heavily to buy all the things they want. But when the bill collectors eventually demand payment, their real condition will be exposed.

Same with Nations

On a much larger scale, this has happened to the nations of the world in our lifetime. They have bled themselves to support the god of war.

By their constant warfare, they have destroyed vast amounts of property and wealth. Additional vast amounts of wealth have been used to support ever more costly weapons and armies, even in peacetime.

In order to pay for all that, and to pay for other things that they want to do, most nations have spent more money than they made. Hence, inflation. As an observer wrote in the New York Times:

“The root causes of inflation, above all others, are big military spending and failure to pay for it with adequate tax revenues. . . .

“A substantial part of this vast treasure of dollars and supplies is lost to our domestic economy, thus stoking the fires of inflation while denying funds to meet critical human needs at home.”

In addition to governments spending more than they make, in recent times vast numbers of people have done the same. They have gone on a huge “binge” of borrowing money to get what they want. And certainly, for a while, such borrowing and spending will enable them to live better. But there is always a day of reckoning with the bill collector.

Also, this borrowing from lending institutions, such as banks, “creates” more paper money. Owing to the nature of banking, for every dollar in bank deposits, a bank can make loans of many times that amount. And since most money transactions are made in checks rather than in cash, huge amounts of paper money are in this way “created” in checking accounts.

However, all this excess spending adds a flood of paper money chasing the available goods. That, plus excess government spending, puts more fuel on the fires of inflation.

Just how far has this splurge of excess spending proceeded in the United States? The total government and private debt in the country is now over two trillion dollars ($2,000,000,000,000)! That is far more than the yearly income of the entire nation! And this debt is skyrocketing higher each year.

Spending Overseas

But there is more. Another factor makes the situation even more unstable—overseas spending.

On the international scene the United States has consistently spent more money in other countries than it has made. As a result, it has piled up tens of billions of dollars in debts overseas.

Business Week described it in this way: “Too many dollars have been created, and there is a huge, undigested balance hanging over world markets.” Some estimates of this “undigested balance” range as high as 100 billion dollars.

Why has the United States piled up such vast debts overseas? The Economic Education Bulletin of May 1972 answers:

“First, for many years the U.S. government has disbursed [spent] abroad more U.S. currency and credits than It has received from abroad. Through its vast and overly generous foreign aid program and through large military expenditures in other countries, it has placed these claims against it in the hands of foreign governments, central banks, and individuals. . . .

“Second, the United States has indulged in marked and prolonged inflating . . . for more than three decades. This development . . . has resulted in such a marked increase in prices [for U.S. products] that many U.S. processors no longer could compete in world markets.”

Of course, there are times when such overseas spending comes nearly into balance with income. But the overall trend for the United States over the past few decades in its foreign spending has been similar to the trend within its borders. It has consistently spent more money than it has made.

As a result of all this domestic and foreign excess spending, huge debts have piled up, both within the country, and outside it. How are these debts to be paid? One hope was that someday the trend would reverse, that income would constantly become greater than spending. That would gradually reduce the debt. But this has not happened; in fact, the reverse has. Hence, just how were these debts to be paid off?

At one time the answer was—GOLD.

Gold—the Role It Has Played

For thousands of years, when people purchased goods they had to have something of equal value to pay for them. For much of that time they paid for goods by trading other goods.

Later, one commodity was found to be more valuable, more desired than the others—gold. Gold had unique properties. It could be kept indefinitely without deteriorating. It could be made into beautiful jewelry, coins or other items.

Hence, gold eventually became the best “money,” always acceptable. When paper currency came into being, it was often backed by this real money—gold. As long as the paper could be turned in for gold, people trusted the paper money.

The United States was at one time on the ‘gold standard.’ Its people could turn in their paper money any time and get gold. But since the paper money was much easier to do business with, people preferred to use that. They felt confident using it, since it was “as good as gold.”

Then the Great Depression began in 1929. The United States government started to build up huge deficits, spending more than it was making. So, in 1933, the government ruled that its citizens could no longer get gold for their paper currency. Also, all Americans were ordered to surrender gold coins and gold bullion (bars or ingots) in return for paper money. The government thus protected its gold stock from being wiped out by people who were afraid of their paper money and wanted gold.

Yet, the law did require the government to have one dollar in actual gold for every four dollars of paper currency it had in domestic circulation. This acted as a restraint, preventing the government from printing more paper currency than could be backed by 25 percent gold.

Last Restraint Removed

But in 1968 that, too, changed. The government passed a law getting rid of the 25-percent-gold requirement as a backing for its currency. One result of this was noted by the American Institute for Economic Research. It said:

“Removal of the gold reserve requirement for Federal Reserve notes early in 1968 removed the last vestige of restraint on further inflating and severed the remaining link between U.S. currency and gold.

“Since then the exchange value of the dollar has been controlled by the fiat [decrees] of U.S. money managers no longer subject to the discipline of gold.”

With this restraint gone, it was observed that the government “continued to succumb to the continual political pressure for more and more inflating.”

In addition, all the silver was taken out of coins. Hence, the entire money system in the United States was divorced from backing by anything of real value.

What all of this meant was that the government’s currency had to be accepted on trust. But the Economic Education Bulletin noted:

“The present money-credit system of the United States is founded on a broken promise.

“We refer to the promise once found on the Federal Reserve Notes that now have been withdrawn from circulation, the promise to ‘pay to the bearer on demand x dollars,’ a ‘dollar’ being defined by law as one thirty-fifth of an ounce of pure gold.

“A broken promise is not a suitable foundation for a durable money-credit system.”

Where the paper money had once pledged on its face that the United States “will pay to the bearer on demand” the dollar value in real money (gold or silver), now it says: “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” The paper certificate that had for centuries only represented the real money (gold, or even silver) was now declared to be money. But which would people trust in a crisis—a piece of paper, or gold?

Foreigners also Told “NO”

While Americans could no longer get gold for their dollars, foreigners could. Gold was still the required money for payment of debts between governments in their international dealings. That was the arrangement that the Western nations had agreed to long ago.

But with constant inflation in the United States, foreigners became more distrustful of their U.S. dollars. So, many began turning them in for gold. Steadily, gold drained out of the U.S. Treasury. Here is what happened (in billions of dollars, round numbers):

Year U.S. Gold Stock

1950 $22,820,000,000

1960 17,804,000,000

1970 11,072,000,000

By 1971 the gold situation had deteriorated badly. Foreigners then held over fifty-five billion paper dollars, but the United States held gold valued at only about ten billion dollars. And the foreign dollar holders were showing signs of panic, of making a “run” on the little gold left in the U.S. Treasury.

In August of 1971, the United States took drastic action. It closed the ‘gold window,’ suspending gold payments for its debts overseas. The promise it had made to redeem paper dollars for gold in overseas transactions was repudiated. Other nations were shocked.

What did it mean? Some observers pointed out that for all practical purposes it meant that the United States had declared bankruptcy in its international dealings. This is another reason why the world’s money markets have become more unstable in the last few years. It is also why the price of gold on the European “free” markets has jumped from $35 an ounce to over $100 an ounce at one time.

[Nick Koan]

Oh, well if its always been a problem, I guess there is no need to worry about it.

[100_Percent_Juice]

^I didn't know that worry ever made a difference with anything.

[knucklesplitter]

I am mildly hoping that Romney is the most likely to run the country like a business rather than a personal agenda machine.

Yes, and monkeys might fly out your butt.

:P ;)

[knucklesplitter]

Better yet would be if [Obama] surrounds himself with smart people outside of the establishment who can help him do some good, but I am not holding my breath.
I like this possibility too... but see Wayne & Garth's response above.

Bush surrounded himself with synchophants and loyalty to him and party was much more important than policy and competence. There is lots to dislike about Bill Clinton before him, but he had pretty good people working for him, and they all took real national policy seriously. I don't advocate for his wife as President, but this is what we need most out of the next presidency. If somebody who can lead/inspire/bring together like Obama (debatable - I know) would do this it would be a huge improvement.

[MikeK]

I don't understand. I said that every form of government fails at solving mans problems. Then you say that some countries get it right. Then I say "what do you mean". Then you talk about the horrible national debt of this country as if I am debating that.:~:

Sorry, I was in a rush before I had to go to a meeting. Scott was right, I was just pointing out one area where other countries have not dug themselves into such a hole. If you look at any other aspect of modern society, like healthcare, public education, energy use, etc, etc, there are examples around the globe of countries who are doing a better job at the moment. It can be done, but the decisions to make it happen are generally not popular in the short term, so the very nature of the political system here makes it hard to see any real long term progress on addressing problems.

[MPREZIV]

Sorry, I was in a rush before I had to go to a meeting. Scott was right, I was just pointing out one area where other countries have not dug themselves into such a hole. If you look at any other aspect of modern society, like healthcare, public education, energy use, etc, etc, there are examples around the globe of countries who are doing a better job at the moment. It can be done, but the decisions to make it happen are generally not popular in the short term, so the very nature of the political system here makes it hard to see any real long term progress on addressing problems.

Troof. Americans seem to be afraid to "bite the bullet" for the greater good, so to speak. Everybody's so worried about short term circumstances, and they lose sight of the long term, positive effects of some changes.

I personally try to put things in terms I can relate to: There's another tech here at Nissan, an old Japanese guy, who's a REALLY awesome dude. His wife has some *serious* health problems. They typically have trouble affording the care she needs, which is frequently needed, to say the least.

I stop and think to myself: "if there were some kind of healthcare reform, that caused me to shell out a bit more from my paycheck, in order to help me AND people like this who I care about, that's something I can definitely live with in order to make things better for ALL of us in the long run."

Just my $0.02 I'm not big on politics by any means, but I've got my opinions... :D

[Kevin M]

Yep. Taxation is neither inhernetly good nor bad. Personally, I only care about the need for what's being spent for, and how efficiently it's being spent on. And if some of my tax dollars are spent on programs that have no direct benefit for me- so what? Programs that DO benefit me do not benefit everybody else. That's how democracy works- sometimes you get what you want, and sometimes you have to let other people get what they want too.

[100_Percent_Juice]

The only way to solve economic problems is to stop funding war. Thats where all the money is going and they all know it. The problem with stopping the war effort is that for it to work, every country in the world would have to do the same. Sure there are other things that will "help" but even watching the show Future Weapons you have to say "damn I wonder how much that cost to develop?".

[Kevin M]

The only way to solve economic problems is to stop funding war. Thats where all the money is going and they all know it. The problem with stopping the war effort is that for it to work, every country in the world would have to do the same. Sure there are other things that will "help" but even watching the show Future Weapons you have to say "damn I wonder how much that cost to develop?".

Our economic problems are not directly related to war spending. More accurately, what we're spending on the war isn't what is putting us over budget. I'm not saying the ridiculous expenditures on the war are justified, or even kinda sorta acceptable. I'm just saying our economy isn't faltering because of them directly.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Austin, you have failed to offer an electable alternative, much less a rational for them. Perhaps you should do so rather than continuing to e-thug us.

There's a whole slate of candidates to vote for besides Romney & Clinton, I was just pointing out that in my opinion they are the worst two of the whole lot. I'd vote for Obama tomorrow if someone would let me - unfortunately they won't since our state primaries aren't until May and I don't currently belong to a party.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Our economic problems are not directly related to war spending. More accurately, what we're spending on the war isn't what is putting us over budget. I'm not saying the ridiculous expenditures on the war are justified, or even kinda sorta acceptable. I'm just saying our economy isn't faltering because of them directly.

What would you say the direct effect on our economy is?

[Kevin M]

What would you say the direct effect on our economy is?

The government is buying goods and services for the war. People (mostly Americans) are getting paid for them. So the net effect is basically that some people are getting money at some rate of efficiency that would otherwise be spent on some other stuff/services with some other people. Net effect: not much. Effect on individuals: purley a matter of perspective. Now, ask me if I think the money spent on the war is a waste and should be used elsewhere and you'll get a different flavored answer. But I don't blame war spending for the issues our economy is having. You can thank overall piss-poor management by this Administration for that.

[sperry]

The government is buying goods and services for the war. People (mostly Americans) are getting paid for them. So the net effect is basically that some people are getting money at some rate of efficiency that would otherwise be spent on some other stuff/services with some other people. Net effect: not much. Effect on individuals: purley a matter of perspective. Now, ask me if I think the money spent on the war is a waste and should be used elsewhere and you'll get a different flavored answer. But I don't blame war spending for the issues our economy is having. You can thank overall piss-poor management by this Administration for that.
The real problem with war spending is that we're spending $100B/year that we don't have. So really, we're borrowing from ourselves and the economy is suffering because someday we'll either have to spend the money to cover the debt (which *will* hurt the economy since we're paying out of the public's pockets in exchange for nothing) or we'll have to print more money to cover the debt (which will *kill* the economy due to inflation).

So while some people are earning their livelihood due to military spending, the benefit that gives to the economy overall is probably far outweighed by the fact that that money their earning is borrowed. If we were running a budget surplus, spending that money on a war would be a different story (though, IMO any surplus would be much better spent on paying back the $9T we owe ourselves, like we were doing under the Clinton administration...)

Here's a fun chart:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

With the exception of Regan and the Bush's, all of our administrations reduced the national debt. That massive debt starting in 1950 was from WWII. Does anyone remember the recession in the early 90's? Anyone think perhaps that might have been related to the tax cuts and high spending of the 1980's? Does anyone feel like we're being setup for another recession by the current tax cuts and high spending?

[Dean]

The government is buying goods and services for the war. People (mostly Americans) are getting paid for them. So the net effect is basically that some people are getting money at some rate of efficiency that would otherwise be spent on some other stuff/services with some other people. Net effect: not much. Effect on individuals: purley a matter of perspective. Now, ask me if I think the money spent on the war is a waste and should be used elsewhere and you'll get a different flavored answer. But I don't blame war spending for the issues our economy is having. You can thank overall piss-poor management by this Administration for that.I don't like war, but...

The total military spending for all current engagements and other areas is less than 5% of GDP.

The U.S. is the largest manufacturer and exporter of military hardware and that industrial complex employs a boat load of people, and represents a significant amount of our exports contributing to GDP, but I can't find any useful numbers.

A significant amount of innovation that eventually reaches the consumer in some manner is funded by military and related research, and it is not just better guns. Communications, water filtration, composite materials, better engines, medicine,

So, is war bad, yes, but is it taking us into a recession, nope...

[knucklesplitter]

With the exception of Regan and the Bush's, all of our administrations reduced the national debt. That massive debt starting in 1950 was from WWII. Does anyone remember the recession in the early 90's? Anyone think perhaps that might have been related to the tax cuts and high spending of the 1980's? Does anyone feel like we're being setup for another recession by the current tax cuts and high spending?
In all fairness (albeit perhaps undeserved) it was a hell of a lot easier for Ike and Kennedy because the US was booming and growing like crazy post WW2.

[sperry]

I don't like war, but...

The total military spending for all current engagements and other areas is less than 5% of GDP.

The U.S. is the largest manufacturer and exporter of military hardware and that industrial complex employs a boat load of people, and represents a significant amount of our exports contributing to GDP, but I can't find any useful numbers.

A significant amount of innovation that eventually reaches the consumer in some manner is funded by military and related research, and it is not just better guns. Communications, water filtration, composite materials, better engines, medicine,

So, is war bad, yes, but is it taking us into a recession, nope...
It's funny how you can use numbers to make up anything.

5% of GDP is kind of a crap number in this conversation. GDP is basically an indication of the size of the economy... so sure, when compared to the size of the economy we're not spending that much on our military.

Buuuuuut.... the military is entirely funded by the discretionary fund, which is our tax dollars... $717 BILLION of our tax dollars... 67% of the discretionary fund. That means two thirds of every tax dollar that's not going to social security coming out of your pocket goes to the military. Who cares what percentage that is of the GDP... especially when you consider we have a trade deficit in this nation... which means that the Net Domestic Product of the nation is negative.

I'm not saying military spending is causing a recession, but massive reduction of military spending could put a bunch of money back into our pockets which does help the economy. 'Course, I've never been a fan of cutting military spending, not without guarantees for troop safety and national security. i.e. I wouldn't cut the military's budget without first getting out of the middle east and repairing our image in the world. My point is just that military spending is downright MASSIVE when compared to the rest of the gov't budget.

[Kevin M]

The real problem with war spending is that we're spending $100B/year that we don't have. So really, we're borrowing from ourselves and the economy is suffering because someday we'll either have to spend the money to cover the debt (which *will* hurt the economy since we're paying out of the public's pockets in exchange for nothing) or we'll have to print more money to cover the debt (which will *kill* the economy due to inflation).

So while some people are earning their livelihood due to military spending, the benefit that gives to the economy overall is probably far outweighed by the fact that that money their earning is borrowed. If we were running a budget surplus, spending that money on a war would be a different story (though, IMO any surplus would be much better spent on paying back the $9T we owe ourselves, like we were doing under the Clinton administration...)

Here's a fun chart:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

With the exception of Regan and the Bush's, all of our administrations reduced the national debt. That massive debt starting in 1950 was from WWII. Does anyone remember the recession in the early 90's? Anyone think perhaps that might have been related to the tax cuts and high spending of the 1980's? Does anyone feel like we're being setup for another recession by the current tax cuts and high spending?

I agree that severe deficit spending is bad, but that's a result of conservative fiscal policy- cut taxes, and never mind what we're spending. If they'd had the foresight to tell the American people that war is expensive nowadays and we need to pay for it, this discussion would be different. But, as I said before, the money we're spending on the war isn't what's hurting our economy, is the "bill me later" option that's doing damage.

[Kevin M]

I'm not saying military spending is causing a recession, but massive reduction of military spending could put a bunch of money back into our pockets which does help the economy. 'Course, I've never been a fan of cutting military spending, not without guarantees for troop safety and national security. i.e. I wouldn't cut the military's budget without first getting out of the middle east and repairing our image in the world. My point is just that military spending is downright MASSIVE when compared to the rest of the gov't budget.

The reduction in military spending will have a negative effect on "our pockets." Why? Because we're using magical money that nobody is actually paying in taxes to fund it, whereas the spending by the government goes to people and businesses who are just as much part of the economy as you and I. (Let's not go down the path of just exactly who is getting exactly how much of that pie.) That said, is our military budget too big? Yes and no. It's bigger than it needs to be because it's not generally spent very well. On the other hand, military spending isn't an economic decision. If the military is out fighting for something we should be fighting for, then it costs what it costs. But if we're not the good guys in white hats, then none of it is justified. Our economic issues are not simple enough to be distilled down to one or three simple things, but the massive deficit spending under the last 3 Republican presidents has been a bigger cause than anything else. I don't understand how anybody thinks that conservatives are automatically the wiser fiscal policymakesrs when for almost 3 decades, they're the ones doing the most damage by not taxing appropriately for what they think we should spend.

[100_Percent_Juice]

I think the thing that bugs me the most is the way this election process works. Its been said in this thread that basically "we need to pick the guy who will F the country, the least.". What kind of a system is that?

[Kevin M]

I think the thing that bugs me the most is the way this election process works. Its been said in this thread that basically "we need to pick the guy who will F the country, the least.". What kind of a system is that?

The scary thing is, none of the great leaders of that last century could possibly get elected here today.

[knucklesplitter]

The scary thing is, none of the great leaders of that last century could possibly get elected here today.You don't think Eisenhower could get elected? He was the last true Republican president and one I could vote for. Maybe he's not considered "great" as a president.

Anyway... I know what you mean.

[Kevin M]

You don't think Eisenhower could get elected? He was the last true Republican president and one I could vote for. Maybe he's not considered "great" as a president.

Anyway... I know what you mean.

No, I don't. He got elected because he won a war. Won't fly these days. He was also not a politician. Again, not gonna happen any time soon.

Mostly I was referring to guys like Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt and Kennedy.

[sperry]

You don't think Eisenhower could get elected? He was the last true Republican president and one I could vote for. Maybe he's not considered "great" as a president.

Anyway... I know what you mean.
Rudy Giuliani is the modern day equivalent of Eisenhower. He was the guy on the ground during 9/11, just like Ike was the guy on the ground for WW2. Giuliani's not going to be president... simply 'cause 9/11 got turned into the war in Iraq. Had things been handled properly, and bin Laden captured... maybe he'd have had a chance.

[knucklesplitter]

Rudy Giuliani is the modern day equivalent of Eisenhower. He was the guy on the ground during 9/11, just like Ike was the guy on the ground for WW2. Giuliani's not going to be president... simply 'cause 9/11 got turned into the war in Iraq. Had things been handled properly, and bin Laden captured... maybe he'd have had a chance.
My gawd... Giuliani is no way no how an Ike. Ike commanded effectly and successfully the allied forces in Europe in WW2, and also the NATO commander after that. Giuliani didn't do crap on 9/11. What he did do was before 9/11 he put his command post in the most obvious target in NYC - the World Trade Center despite warnings and one previous attack attempt on the towers. Rudy can't get elected because he has a proven record of mistresses including using taxpayer money for booty calls and trips with her to the Hamptons, one of his top appointees has ties to the mob and is indicted, he is pro-choice, he was in the past sympathetic to immigrants, etc. etc. and he's an asshole. Also he hates ferrets:http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2007/02/26/audio-rudy-giulianis-ferret-fr/

Did I mention he's a cross dresser?;)
http://oliverwillis.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/giulianiindrag.jpg

If Giuliani is our modern-day Ike then we really really ARE in f-ing trouble...

[Kevin M]

My gawd... Giuliani is no way no how an Ike. Ike commanded effectly and successfully the allied forces in Europe in WW2, and also the NATO commander after that. Giuliani didn't do crap on 9/11. What he did do was before 9/11 he put his command post in the most obvious target in NYC - the World Trade Center despite warnings and one previous attack attempt on the towers. Rudy can't get elected because he has a proven record of mistresses including using taxpayer money for booty calls and trips with her to the Hamptons, one of his top appointees has ties to the mob and is indicted, he is pro-choice, he was in the past sympathetic to immigrants, etc. etc. and he's an asshole. Also he hates ferrets:http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2007/02/26/audio-rudy-giulianis-ferret-fr/

Did I mention he's a cross dresser?;)
http://oliverwillis.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/giulianiindrag.jpg

If Giuliani is our modern-day Ike then we really really ARE in f-ing trouble...

Positives about Giuliani: he doesn't follow strict party lines (i.e. pro-choice, not a jerk about immigrants)

Negatives: He's a dick, and strikes me as a guy who wants the power of elected office more than he wants to be in a position to affect what he sees as positive change.

[knucklesplitter]

Positives about Giuliani: he doesn't follow strict party lines (i.e. pro-choice, not a jerk about immigrants)

Negatives: He's a dick, and strikes me as a guy who wants the power of elected office more than he wants to be in a position to affect what he sees as positive change.

Yeah, and his positives make him unelectable to be the Republican candidate. He's now 1 for 6 against Ron Paul in primaries.

[Kevin M]

Yeah, and his positives make him unelectable to be the Republican candidate. He's now 1 for 6 against Ron Paul in primaries.

That's my big beef with the system. It's not the 2 party system that doesn't work, it's the way each party operates. They're both blind to the fact that half of the country disagrees completely with the party agenda, and any candidate who doesn't have policy differences witht he party he's in can't get any cooperation fromt he other half.

[sperry]

Matt I think you nailed it... Rudy *is* today's Ike... he's the guy running on a platform of popularity due to being in charge during a terrible event. We are, in fact, screwed.

Just like Rudy is no Ike, 9/11 & Iraq is no WWII, and Americans in general are self-congratulatory, arrogant, entitled, a-holes rather than humbled, hardworking people that know you have to earn what you have in life. There's something about having to grow up in the Depression only to have to fight true evil for freedom in the world that makes you into a generation that really can be considered the "greatest". I fear that our arrogance since then will mean our children are going to have to follow in our grandparent's footsteps.

[100_Percent_Juice]

I fear that our arrogance since then will mean our children are going to have to follow in our grandparent's footsteps.

I fear that with the way children are being raised today is going to screw everyone even more. Then combine that with times like our grandparent's had to struggle through. Thats scary.

[knucklesplitter]

I fear that our arrogance since then will mean our children are going to have to follow in our grandparent's footsteps. I see what you mean... kinda.

One thing though - for me it was my parents who grew up in the depression and fought in WW2. ;) One of my grandfathers was born in 1876, so he was even too old for WW1.:eek:

[sperry]

I fear that with the way children are being raised today is going to screw everyone even more. Then combine that with times like our grandparent's had to struggle through. Thats scary.
Well, the nation was full of oblivious arrogant pricks in the "roaring 20's". It's partly why we got into the Depression.

This sound at all familiar?

In the 1920s, in the U.S. the widespread use of purchases of businesses and factories on credit and the use of home mortgages and credit purchases of automobiles, furniture and even some stocks boosted spending but created consumer and commercial debt. People and businesses who were deeply in debt when a price deflation occurred or demand for their product decreased were often in serious trouble—even if they kept their jobs, they risked default. Many drastically cut current spending to keep up time payments, thus lowering demand for new products. Businesses began to fail as construction work and factory orders plunged.

Just change 1920's to 2000-2005. But it was those prick's kids that ended up going off to fight in WWII, and later became the hard-working folks that turned the US into a super-power in the 1950 and beyond. And it was their success that we've been riding on since then... now as a nation we've got the same sort of sense of entitlement the folks of the 20's had.

It's a shame history repeats itself.

[100_Percent_Juice]

repeats itself.

[sperry]

I see what you mean... kinda.

One thing though - for me it was my parents who grew up in the depression and fought in WW2. ;) One of my grandfathers was born in 1876, so he was even too old for WW1.:eek:
Well, you and me may be different generations... I think I'm more Gen Y, you're more Gen X, no? You're certainly not a baby-boomer... which is generally the generation before Gen X. Sounds like you're on the cusp?

My Grandparents were born in the 1910-1920 range. My Dad was born in '45, the leading edge of the baby boomers. I was born in '77. It sounds like our families are just half a generation out of step with each other.

[Kevin M]

Matt I think you nailed it... Rudy *is* today's Ike... he's the guy running on a platform of popularity due to being in charge during a terrible event. We are, in fact, screwed.

Just like Rudy is no Ike, 9/11 & Iraq is no WWII, and Americans in general are self-congratulatory, arrogant, entitled, a-holes rather than humbled, hardworking people that know you have to earn what you have in life. There's something about having to grow up in the Depression only to have to fight true evil for freedom in the world that makes you into a generation that really can be considered the "greatest". I fear that our arrogance since then will mean our children are going to have to follow in our grandparent's footsteps.

Don't worry. Our current world image and foreign policy will soon turn the whole world against us, we'll get knocked on our asses, and maybe eat a little humble pie. So in 80 or 100 years, we'll be right back on top!

[knucklesplitter]

Well, you and me may be different generations... I think I'm more Gen Y, you're more Gen X, no? You're certainly not a baby-boomer... which is generally the generation before Gen X. Sounds like you're on the cusp?

My Grandparents were born in the 1910-1920 range. My Dad was born in '45, the leading edge of the baby boomers. I was born in '77. It sounds like our families are just half a generation out of step with each other.I think I am one of the older of Gen. X - only missing "baby boomer" by a few years. My family just has a weird age spread. I'm 41. My father was already a grandfather at 43 when I was born in 1966, and his father was 46 when he was born in 1922 (and he was not the last), and so his father was born in 1876. I heard plenty of stories from Dad about going to bed hungry and not having shoes during the Depression, so when he joined the Army around 1940 he was thrilled to have good shoes and "great chow" 3 times a day. On my mom's side she was lucky since her father owned a produce wholesaling business and had plenty of food. But he had had to quit school at age 9 and go to work when his father died unexpectedly.

So... despite all our bitching, we really do have it made. As far "kids these days" go - I remember them saying all that about my brothers' generation, my generation, and your generation. I have a little more faith in my kids' generation. FWIW they and their friends seem to be a lot smarter than I was at there age, they have a better attitude, and they seem to stay out of troube better than I (and my brothers all) did. A little spoiled maybe, yes. That's a sign if prosperous times, but maybe that is coming to an end.

In my family every generation since the 1800's has been more prosperous and more successful than the one before. I'm not so sure that is going to continue.

[100_Percent_Juice]

As far "kids these days" go - I remember them saying all that about my brothers' generation, my generation, and your generation. I have a little more faith in my kids' generation. FWIW they and their friends seem to be a lot smarter than I was at there age, they have a better attitude, and they seem to stay out of troube better than I (and my brothers all) did. A little spoiled maybe, yes. That's a sign if prosperous times, but maybe that is coming to an end.

I agree with most of what you said, but there is a flip side as well. Its been said about every generation because it gets worse every generation. There are more murders and acts of senseless violence done by kids today then there ever has been. Kids use to fight with fists now they fight with guns. Regardless of how kids are educated, there is a serious lack of conscience and morality. Of course that is mostly dependent on how they have been raised.

[knucklesplitter]

I agree with most of what you said, but there is a flip side as well. Its been said about every generation because it gets worse every generation. There are more murders and acts of senseless violence done by kids today then there ever has been. Kids use to fight with fists now they fight with guns. Regardless of how kids are educated, there is a serious lack of conscience and morality. Of course that is mostly dependent on how they have been raised.I think your perception of crime in the US is skewed, perhaps by the likes of CNN and FauxNews. The violent crime rate has been falling since the early 90's and is as low as it was when I was a kid in the early 70's. The homicide rate is the lowest it's been in since the 60's. Overall it's the safest it has been in 30 years. Even in the US you are statistically much more likely (almost 2X) to die from suicide than homicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg

Not sure what my point is, other than the kids are not as violent as the media portrays.

[Dean]

Kids need to stop sitting on the couch playing 1st person shooters and get out and start killing people for real like they did when I was a kid... :)

[knucklesplitter]

Kids need to stop sitting on the couch playing 1st person shooters and get out and start killing people for real like they did when I was a kid... :)Yeah... kids these days... <shakes head>

In 1936 in NYC when the "greatest generation" was coming of age there were 510 murders. Last year there were 494, and the population is a lot higher there now. Of course a lot of it has to do with police presence, but still...

[Nick Koan]

Kids need to stop sitting on the couch playing 1st person shooters

Seriously. Playing first person shooters on a console is always inferior to playing first person shooters on a proper PC.

[tysonK]

I'm beginning to like FPS on console but's that a different thread. I also have reasons I think it is better.

[knucklesplitter]

Every thread here seems to drift toward video games. Let's keep this on off-topic... ;)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ortsanm.gif

[100_Percent_Juice]

I think your perception of crime in the US is skewed, perhaps by the likes of CNN and FauxNews. The violent crime rate has been falling since the early 90's and is as low as it was when I was a kid in the early 70's. The homicide rate is the lowest it's been in since the 60's. Overall it's the safest it has been in 30 years. Even in the US you are statistically much more likely (almost 2X) to die from suicide than homicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg

Not sure what my point is, other than the kids are not as violent as the media portrays.

When I said violent crimes I was talking about more then just homicide. Here is a comparison of the number of violent crimes in 1960 and 2006.
................1960.......2006
Murder:......9,110 - 17,034
Rape:........17,190 - 92,455
Robbery:..107,840 - 447,403
Assault:...154,320 - 862,947
TOTAL:....288,460 - 1,417,745

I wouldn't say thats safe.
EDIT:

If you break that down into per 100,000 citizens like I should have done, it looks like this.
.............1960....2006
murder:...5.1......5.7
Rape:......9.6......30.9
Robbery:..60.1....149.4
Assault:...86.1....287.5

2nd Edit. Like Matt said. There was a huge influx of crime in the 90s and its gone down, but its still high and seems to be climbing back up.

[Kevin M]

When I said violent crimes I was talking about more then just homicide. Here is a comparison of the number of violent crimes in 1960 and 2006.
................1960.......2006
Murder:......9,110 - 17,034
Rape:........17,190 - 92,455
Robbery:..107,840 - 447,403
Assault:...154,320 - 862,947
TOTAL:....288,460 - 1,417,745

I wouldn't say thats safe.

Divide those numbers by urban population and they aren't nearly so skewed.

[ScottyS]

I would think that the following factors associated with a downturn in the economy/general credit crunch would have a significant impact on crime:

1) Higher rates of alcohol/drug use
2) More transition from middle class to lower class (lower relative standards of living)
3) Political/ethnic/age polarization
4) Decreased standards/control at schools (is this possible?)
5) Increased socialism/welfare spending

[knucklesplitter]

When I said violent crimes I was talking about more then just homicide. ...I wouldn't say thats safe.

The graph I linked to before (shown now below) is "violent crime". I said the safest in 30 years, and it is. There was a rise in crime throughout the 60's.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/06/US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg/800px-US_Violent_Crime_Rate.jpg

It's true that at best it has leveled out and at worst it is starting to increase again (not shown on graph yet). Too early to tell statistically. Certainly a hurting economy will not help things.

[sperry]

It's simple, crime follows poverty around like a lap dog. The more people that can't make ends meet, the more people there are that lash out against there neighbors. It's not just human nature, it's the basic law of the jungle.

I'm willing to bet that the chart above correlates nicely with the percentage of people living below the poverty line. As the rich get richer, the money comes from the poor... and the poor start fighting over what's left.

I'm not a socialist, I think that most people can do just fine on their own w/o a government making decisions for them. But I'm realistic enough to realize that many people are born into a cycle of poverty and lack of education that makes it impossible for them to get out of the trappings of an open economy. I've got no problem taking from the top 1% and giving to the bottom 10%.

Edit: here's a poverty graph over the same years as the crime graph above.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povertyrate.jpg

The correlation is pretty clear (assuming you ignore the vast improvement in poverty due to the ending of segregation), though it's kinda interesting that crime seems to precede the poverty curve by a year or two. Perhaps it's the crime that causes poverty? Or just perhaps the crime is a symptom of the problem that shows up before people are driven below the poverty threshold?

[ScottyS]

0.75% anyone? What, is the U.S. dollar not as influential as it once was? *tongue in cheek*

[Kevin M]

0.75% anyone? What, is the U.S. dollar not as influential as it once was? *tongue in cheek*

Not following you. 0.75% of what? :confused:

[Nick Koan]

Not following you. 0.75% of what? :confused:

I think he's referring to the fed dropping the overnight loan rate yesterday by 3/4%

[Kevin M]

I think he's referring to the fed dropping the overnight loan rate yesterday by 3/4%

Ah, I hadn't paid attention to that yet. Thanks.

[knucklesplitter]

Scott, there is no doubt that poverty and crime are related. I just wonder then why during the 60's did crime rise while poverty plummeted.

Experts attribute the huge increase in crime around 1990 to be caused by the crack epidemic. The recession in 1991 didn't help either I'm sure.

[sperry]

Scott, there is no doubt that poverty and crime are related. I just wonder then why during the 60's did crime rise while poverty plummeted.

Experts attribute the huge increase in crime around 1990 to be caused by the crack epidemic. The recession in 1991 didn't help either I'm sure.
I think in the 60's it wasn't that crime and poverty weren't related as they are today, it's just that there were so many people that got out of poverty when segregation ended and the civil rights movement took effect that the poverty rate plummeted.

Poverty created by inequality didn't correlate to crime... we just had a ton of people living in a "lower cast" that skews the chart. I'll bet that within the lower cast, the poorest of the poor were more apt to commit crime than the richest of the poor.

It's human nature... when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose... i.e. the primary reason why people keep to the moral high road is because they're afraid of the consequences, not because they just listen to their moral compass. IMO, that's the primary reason religions were invented in the first place... to get people to believe that if they don't do what their told, they're going to hell. "Listen to your father, or Zeus is gonna throw a lightning bolt right up your ass!"

[knucklesplitter]

I think in the 60's it wasn't that crime and poverty weren't related as they are today, it's just that there were so many people that got out of poverty when segregation ended and the civil rights movement took effect that the poverty rate plummeted.

Poverty created by inequality didn't correlate to crime... we just had a ton of people living in a "lower cast" that skews the chart. I'll bet that within the lower cast, the poorest of the poor were more apt to commit crime than the richest of the poor. I'm not understanding this cause/effect here.

[sperry]

I'm not understanding this cause/effect here.
There is no cause/effect, or if there is, it's obscured by a different event.

Basically, the huge drop in poverty in the 1960's didn't correlate to the crime rate of the same decade because the drop was due to the civil rights movement. The inequality of segregation not only pushed people into poverty, it also suppressed violent crime... after all who would commit even a non-violent crime if you knew you'd be hung for it (or some trumped up charges) because you were black? So even though poverty was high, crime was not.

I guess I'm just saying that my theory probably doesn't apply pre-1970 unless you factor in relative poverty within the white and black casts during the years of segregation.

Then again, I could be totally way off base. I haven't studied the civil rights movement since high school.

[knucklesplitter]

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." or so sang Janis Joplin in 1969.

Johnson did declare "War on Poverty" in 1964 (I think that's when).

Exercising my inner knee-jerk right-wingnut - he (it?) would say that all the rock-n-roll,drugs and free love in the 60's is what did it. That and... <gasp>...dancing. Sheesh... kids those days!

[sperry]

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." or so sang Janis Joplin in 1969.

Johnson did declare "War on Poverty" in 1964 (I think that's when).

Exercising my inner knee-jerk right-wingnut - he (it?) would say that all the rock-n-roll,drugs and free love in the 60's is what did it. That and... <gasp>...dancing. Sheesh... kids those days!
There will be no dancing!

http://www.impawards.com/1984/posters/footloose.jpg

[Kevin M]

There will be no dancing!

http://www.impawards.com/1984/posters/footloose.jpg

Hosting owned.


I think Scott's on the right track. The blip where crime was higher than poverty was a symptom of growing pains as both sides of the Civil Rights movement adjusted to the new era. Also, statistics during the civil rights movement may be skewed, because crimes were often trumped against activists and sympathizers by Jim Crow advocates in law enforcement.

[sperry]

Hosting owned.


I think Scott's on the right track. The blip where crime was higher than poverty was a symptom of growing pains as both sides of the Civil Rights movement adjusted to the new era. Also, statistics during the civil rights movement may be skewed, because crimes were often trumped against activists and sympathizers by Jim Crow advocates in law enforcement.
I think you got that backwards. Crime was much lower than poverty pre-civil rights movement.

[Kevin M]

Carp. Well, it was a good theory if I had read the data right. :lol:

[100_Percent_Juice]

it also suppressed violent crime... after all who would commit even a non-violent crime if you knew you'd be hung for it (or some trumped up charges) because you were black?


So your saying that the majority of crime was committed by blacks. Then because they were scared of being hung, less crime was committed?

[sperry]

So your saying that the majority of crime was committed by blacks. Then because they were scared of being hung, less crime was committed?
No, I'm saying that the majority of people living below the poverty line were doing so because of segregation, which in turn was also suppressing the ratio of crime to number of people living under the poverty line.

i.e. Normally, lots of people living in poverty means lots of crime, but because many of the people living in poverty were doing so because they were living under segregation, crime was not as high as you would expect.

[100_Percent_Juice]

I was just joking.

[tysonK]

This is no joking matter.

Can't you see how long these posts are?

[Dean]

I was just thinking about this and think Obama should announce a strong independent or even left wing republican with a strong finance and/or international background as a VP running mate NOW!

Steve Forbes comes to mind. Colin Powell would be good as well, but doubt either is interested unfortunately.

I think this might impress the skeptics and not alienate too many of the faithful... Talk about a CHANGE!!! Oprah would probably love Powell too. :)

[sperry]

I was just thinking about this and think Obama should announce a strong independent or even left wing republican with a strong finance and/or international background as a VP running mate NOW!

Steve Forbes comes to mind. Colin Powell would be good as well, but doubt either is interested unfortunately.

I think this might impress the skeptics and not alienate too many of the faithful... Talk about a CHANGE!!! Oprah would probably love Powell too. :)
I think they're waiting on picking running mates because we might end up seeing an Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama card depending on how things shake out.

That is assuming they can bury the hatchet after what's turned into a fierce primary campaign.

[Kevin M]

I think they're waiting on picking running mates because we might end up seeing an Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama card depending on how things shake out.

That is assuming they can bury the hatchet after what's turned into a fierce primary campaign.

I can't see either one accepting a VP slot. They'd rather challenge for the next nomination, assuming that the Dem loses (and I would bet that each would assume the other would lose).

[sperry]

I can't see either one accepting a VP slot. They'd rather challenge for the next nomination, assuming that the Dem loses (and I would bet that each would assume the other would lose).
I think they need each other just for safety reasons... who would kill a black man, if they knew a woman would take over as president?

...same reason Bush took Cheney on as VP, insurance.

[Kevin M]

I think they need each other just for safety reasons... who would kill a black man, if they knew a woman would take over as president?

...same reason Bush took Cheney on as VP, insurance.

I thought it was Cheney who picked Bush because he figured W would fall down some stairs or something.

[Nick Koan]

I thought it was Cheney who picked Bush because he figured W would fall down some stairs or something.

Why do you think Cheney kept feeding Bush pretzels?

[Dean]

Bush just wasn't quite dumb enough to go "hunting" with him... DAMN...