| Author |
Message |
    
Fb1
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 05:39 pm: | 
|
I'm struggling following your train of thought, Dave, and it sure seems like we have vastly different viewpoints on how to "fix" America, but I appreciate you taking the time to put your thoughts into words.
Best,
Ferris |
Fb1
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 05:46 pm: |
|
quote:This perversion of rights is killing the Western world. First, unlike real rights – to freedom of speech and freedom of religion – these new freedoms come with quite a price tag. All the free stuff is free in the sense of those offers that begin "You pay nothing now!" But you will eventually. No nation is rich enough to give you all this "free" stuff year in, year out. Spain's government debt works out to $18,000 per person, France's to $33,000, Greece's to $39,000. Thank God we're not Greece, huh? Er, in fact, according to the Senate Budget Committee, U.S. government debt is currently $44,215 per person. Going by the official Obama budget numbers, it will rise over the next 10 years to $75,000. As I say, that's per person: 75 grand in debt for every man, woman and child, not to mention every one of the ever swelling ranks of retirees and disabled Social Security recipients – or about $200,000 per household.
So maybe you're not interested in philosophical notions of liberty vs. statism...tens of millions of people are happy to "leave it up to the government to make good decisions." Maybe you're relatively relaxed about the less theoretical encroachments of Big Government – the diversion of so much American energy into "professional services," all the lawyering and bookkeeping and paperwork shuffling necessary to keep you and your economic activity in full compliance with the Bureau of Compliance. But at some point, no matter how painless the seductions of statism, you run up against the hard math: As those debt per capita numbers make plain, all this "free" stuff is doing is mortgaging your liberty and lining up a future of serfdom.
I used to think that the U.S. Constitution would prove more resilient than the less-absolutist liberties of other Western nations. But the president has calculated that, with Obamacare, the First Amendment and much else will crumble before his will. And, given trends in U.S. jurisprudence, who's to say he won't get his way? That's the point about all this "free" stuff: Ultimately, it's not about your rights, but about his.
- Mark Steyn
Source: http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/rights-341786-go vernment-free.html
|
Fb1
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 05:51 pm: |
|
quote:The Autoworkers Obama Left Behind
By Michelle Malkin · Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The White House fairy tale about the Happily Ever After Auto Bailout is missing a crucial, bloody page. While President Obama bragged about "standing by American workers" at a rowdy United Auto Workers meeting Tuesday, he failed to acknowledge how the Chicago-style deal threw tens of thousands of nonunion autoworkers under the bus.
In a campaign pep rally/sermon billed as a "policy speech," Obama nearly broke his arm patting himself on the back for placing his "bets" (read: our money) on the $85 billion federal auto industry rescue. "Three years later," he crowed, "that bet is paying off for America." Big Labor brass cheered Obama's citation of GM's "highest profits in its 100-year history" as the room filled with militant UAW chants of "union made."
"Union made" -- but who paid? Scoffing at the criticism that his bailout was a massive union payoff, Obama countered that all workers sacrificed to save the auto industry. "Retirees saw a reduction in the health care benefits they had earned," Obama told the congregation, er, crowd. "Many of you saw hours reduced," he sympathized, "or pay and wages scaled back."
Let's clear the fumes (again), shall we? The bailout pain was not distributed equally. It was redistributed politically.
Bondholders standing up for their property and contractual rights got shortchanged and demonized personally by the president. Dealers and suppliers faced closures based on political connections and lobbying clout, rather than neutral efficiency evaluations. And as I first reported in September 2010, in the rush to nationalize the auto industry and avoid contested court termination proceedings, the White House auto team schemed with Big Labor bosses to preserve UAW members' costly pension funds by shafting their nonunion counterparts.
These forgotten nonunion pensioners (who worked for the Delphi/GM auto parts company) lost all of their health and life insurance benefits. Hailing from the economically devastated Rust Belt -- northeast Ohio, Michigan and neighboring states -- the Delphi workers had devoted decades of their lives as secretaries, technicians, engineers and sales employees. Some have watched up to 70 percent of their pensions vanish. They've banded together to seek justice in court and on Capitol Hill under the banner of the Delphi Salaried Retiree Association.
Through two costly years of litigation and investigation, the Delphi workers have exposed how the stacked White House Auto Task Force schemed with union bosses to "cherry pick" (one Obama official's own words) which financial obligations the new Government Motors company would assume and which they would abandon based on their political expedience. Obama's own former auto czar Steve Rattner admitted in his recent memoir that "attacking the union's sacred cow" could "jeopardize" the auto bailout deal.
Ohio Republican Rep. Michael Turner last month called attention to the glaring conflicts of interest that entangled Obama moneyman Tim Geithner's multiple meddling roles in screwing over the Delphi workers. Geithner served simultaneously as co-chair of the Auto Task Force, board member of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the federal agency overseeing pension payments to bankrupt companies) and Treasury Secretary. The General Accounting Office raised eyebrows at Geithner's "multiple roles" in the deal-making.
Thanks to a separate Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, we already know that Geithner's department and General Motors closely coordinated their PR strategy and collaborated on making fraudulent claims about GM repaying all of its government loans. The cash-strapped Delphi retirees are suing the transparency-ducking PBGC in federal court to unearth documents that may yield key details of the improper Obama administration influence over Delphi's bankruptcy organization.
As ebullient UAW officials hooted and hollered on Tuesday, Obama smugly attacked Republicans for "anti-worker policies" and their "same old you're-on-your-own philosophy." The Delphi workers know better: One union's government-subsidized, government-manipulated "success story" is the rest of the workforce's nightmare.
Source: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/michelle-malkin/2012 /02/29/the-autoworkers-obama-left-behind/
|
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 06:10 pm: |
|
The last time we go into a hole this big, debt as a percentage of GDP, was right after WWII. That horrible, crippling debt led to one of, if the greatest, period of economic growth in American history.
Do you know why that occurred? Because most of the developed world was decimated. The U.S. came out of WW2 a superpower and on top of the economic heap despite racking up huge debt. Those same conditions don't exist today. The opportunity to manufacture or grow our way out of our debts just isn't there. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 06:28 pm: |
|
Funny as hell describing the GM bailout that was supposed to keep them out of bankruptcy a success story. Even without the Delphi details. Remember: GM did infant go bankrupt soon after the bailout anyway.
NK gave up their nuke program? REALLY! When did that happen?
The economy? Sure GDP is growing. Slightly. Unfortunately the GDP growth is outpaced by the population growth. Net loss for the individual. Add the astounding debt and the individual has been crushed.
I'll give him his credit on OBL. He made no real changes that prevented that from happening.
Is that really his list of accomplishments? His list of failures on "green" energy alone is incredible. To look at his energy policy as a whole is even more devastating. Now he is moving on to algae. I know enough to call that one a failure already. I'll get into it if asked.
Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Gitmo?
Transparency?
Race relations?
Unemployment?
Real estate market?
Relations with our allies?
Relations with non/allies?
All of these are areas of huge failures to this point. No doubt that list can be added to, but that's some of the big ones. |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 07:20 pm: |
|
North Korea...
http://wbal.com/article/ap?articleurl=http%3a%2f%2 fhosted.ap.org%2fdynamic%2fstories%2fU%2fUS_US_NK_ NUCLEAR%3fSITE%3dWBAL%26SECTION%3dHOME%26TEMPLATE% 3dDEFAULT |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 07:29 pm: |
|
So NK "says" they will stop their nuke program. This is a broken record that's been played many times. I think it just a bit early to call this one a victory yet. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 08:17 pm: |
|
Who remembers the "misery index" from the Carter era?
FAIL?
Isn't the misery supposed to go down after the recession ends? |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 08:26 pm: |
|
I still feel the misery he left on the country Miserable bastard hateful bastard
Bigoted as well Billie got the Blame but Jimmie is the bad one |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 08:46 pm: |
|
Dave Chrysler was Stolen What about the GM dealers that had Very successful multigenerational dealers just closed in violation of contract law because they we not democratic The Head of GM fired because Big O wanted it done.
The only reason Big O isnt being impeached Is Holder he is a evil criminal They are both a responsible for Fast and Furious As for respect its earned never given The office of the president its a Job He is an Employee nothing more he has no more inherent rights than you do.Presidents serve at the will of the people the divine right of kings is long gone. Dont pull the case law BS Dave you just want your freebies. Only Slaves get cradle to grave health care my health care insurance Etc in none of my employers or Gov business. Sign up for slavery if you wish but go some where else to do it. I m tired of paying for ENtitlements. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 09:06 pm: |
|
He has been successful at one thing...
 |
Fb1
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 09:35 pm: |
|
quote:"With the average price of a gallon of gasoline rising 40 cents just last week, President Obama attacked Republicans [Thursday], trying to distract voters from his own failed energy policy. 'The American people aren't stupid,' Obama said. 'You know there are no quick fixes to this problem.' ... Obama has been in office for three years now. There is plenty the federal government can do to lower gas prices in three years. Problem is, everything Obama has done on energy has been designed to increase Americans' pain at the pump. ... Yes, oil and gas production is up in the United States. But this is happening in spite of Obama, not because of him. It is being driven entirely by increased production on state and private lands, areas where Obama has little power to shut down production. The reality is that Obama's goal has always been higher gas prices. His Energy Secretary Steven Chu famously told The Wall Street Journal in 2008, 'Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.' And when Obama was asked by CNBC's John Harwood that same year if high gas prices actually 'helped' the United States, Obama said, 'I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.' Americans aren't stupid. They remember Obama's words. They know that the only real regret Obama has about high gas prices is that he may get blamed for them at the ballot box."
-- Washington Examiner's Conn Carroll, Monday, February 27, 2012
Source: http://patriotpost.us/edition/2012/02/27/brief/#po st-comment
|
Moxnix
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 10:20 pm: |
|
I was out at the state capital today to join others testifying in committee regarding a bill that would cost nothing and be good for Missouri. I stuck around long enough to learn that it passed out of committee and would be put before the legislature for a vote.
Wandering the halls of power, I found no smoke filled back rooms filled with cigar chomping deal cutters. When I asked where they were, I was directed to the 3rd floor where the lobbyists wallow.
In the capital rotunda were the standard old building carvings in marble: 1. Property is the fruit of labor. 2. Ideas control the world." And a few more, some with biblical reference. (Oh, the humanity!)
1 & 2 above represent a modern day dichotomy. Work and you can have something, vs. Ideologs who think and don't produce are in charge. When Missouri chose Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto (""The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law") as it's motto, there was no welfare state. It meant something more like, the best for the people, etc.).
I see our current POTUS as having a "poverty mentality." Which is too bad. America is coming up on an opportunity to rebuild our economy (for those who want to get out of bed in the morning and exchange their labor for the fruits of it. The only thing that will stop it from happening is POTUS blocks the foundations for an economic recovery.
The wage gap between American and Asian/Indian workers is shrinking. It isn’t that much cheaper to move manufacturing to, say, China anymore. As wages have gone gonzo in China, its wage edge melts away. US manufacturing wages were 22 times that of China’s in 2005. Today, that wage gap is under 10 times and likely will be under five by 2015.
Transportation costs figure into this too and cut further into China’s advantage. As the price of oil has stayed north of $100 a barrel, the cost to ship anything is high. As author Jeff Rubin says, “With every dollar increase in the price of the bunker fuel that powers the containerships that ply the Pacific, China’s wage advantage becomes less and less important.”
So those are two reasons for the manufacturing revival in the US. There are two more compelling reasons that have to do with what’s in the ground.
In a world where fresh water is scarce, such as in China and India, the US remains water-rich by comparison. Around the world, “Many regions are already approaching ‘peak water,’ a condition under which usage rates surpass the natural rate of replenishment." Importantly for the manufacturing sector, the US is home to the largest reserves of water on the planet.”
People in the US tend to ignore this lucky circumstance. Manufacturers don’t. They use lots of water to make everything from jet engines to minivans.
In addition to water, the US has plenty of cheap natural gas. This is bringing back firms that use natural gas to make things. A Reynders, McVeigh Capital Management report notes how Nucor began building a $750-million plant in Louisiana. It plans to superheat natural gas and mix it with scrap iron and iron ore pellets to make steel. If you burn natural gas, you want to be in the US.
Even the automakers are coming back. GM will invest $2.5 billion in US factories. Until recently, that money was going to Mexico. Ford signed a new contract that calls for $16 billion in US investments and 12,000 new jobs by 2015. The foreign automakers are coming too. Mercedes plans to spend $2.4 billion by 2014 to expand an Alabama plant that will add 1,400 jobs. You get the idea.
I like this whole story because it will surprise a lot of people and, hence, has some value as a contrarian observation. In case anyone didn't notice, I'm a contrarian.
Our liberal friends will devote their own mental energy toward high minded discourse regarding why America should not take advantage of our advantages. They are "in the way."
I see where some folk in Portland are warming up for a forthcoming movement or sum such occupation. Tossing rocks through bank and corporation windows. Are these "conservatives" doing this?
I preach on BadWeb threads where our liberal friends bash, insult, or otherwise degrade Christianity or practitioners thereof. It's called "defending the faith" and does not include violence. |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 10:52 pm: |
|
Mox we know how they will end Its just they are soo annoying while we're waiting |
Moxnix
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - 11:31 pm: |
|
The Fed's policy is cheap money, inflation, yadda, yadday. Low interest rates are screwing us.
Meanwhile, the labor participation rate is plummeting for the youngest members of the workforce. Less than 35% of all 16- to 19- year olds are working today, compared to more than 50% one decade ago. So just maybe, Bernanke’s super-low interest rates are doing more harm than good — both for the would-be retired old folks and the would-be-employed young folks.
More older people are working because they have to in light of lousy-to-nonexistent returns on CDs and bonds. If CDs were returning 5%, a lot more of them would be staying home.
Obama and the libs couldn't care less. The Chinese call this ideology of giving away the store "breaking your own rice bowl." If they want to drive their own bus over the cliff, I wish they'd hurry up. The rest of us can take the opportunities that will follow. |
Danger_dave
| | Posted on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 12:59 am: |
|
'misery index'.
Another name for badweb. |
Moxnix
| | Posted on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 01:22 am: |
|
I'm an incorrigible optimist who likes to explain why our economy sucks whenever I'm not pointing out what scallawags our leaders are. Well, I'm incorrigible, anyway. |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 01:26 am: |
|
Those that 'like' the Health Care bill
1) Haven't read it in it's enterity
2) Do not understand mitigated risks and weighed acturials that are REQUIRED by insurance
3) Are paid off with a contract supporting the bill ie HP, IBM, MicroSoft, Google, etc (and several of them have already taken the money - done the feasability on it - and BAILED out of the market)
4) Do not understand reticent Communist History
5) Blinded by the Cult of Personality
and as of yet....
NOT one has been able to point to the bill with DIRECT Quotes, Support, Research or Historical Precedence to the viability, stength, quality nor improvements to be 'delivered' by the bill.
The bill is here
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf
You want to talk about how great the bill is, bring it.
I have spent 10 years in the industry, with an additional last 3 years getting my Masters in Health Care Administration; and working as a consultant against, around and through this piece of legislation.
It is a bad bill - it is the death knell of America. There is no clearer shot across the bow of everything America was - than that bill.
(Luckily they were dumb enough to put it in writing - so they laid the blue prints out on the floor to be seen) This bill stays in affect - America is over and done
Revolution by 2017 - Just as they want.
(and before any trouts out the tired youtube video from Kaiser - the nine minute cartoon about the bill - there are 13 CRITICAL errors, ommissions or misdirects in the first two minutes)
PS they of course were paid by the bill, so of course they are Rosy Glad Hand all About it |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 10:00 am: |
|
Brian,
I've misplace the links to your reports on the health care bill. Please repost. It would be SOOOO valuable to have a nice concise summary of the major trouble spots with the bill. You've offered a lot of that in bits and pieces here on BadWeB, maybe even summarized the deleterious effects, but a cross-referenced summary pointing to the actual language of the bill and its effect would be a wonderful resource to have. I'd pay for it.
 |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Dave G.,
My friend, it is entirely beneath your fine character to so vaguely and without supporting evidence impugn the beliefs and motives of others. Take up the challenge and pick one specific issue, one detail, and let's debate it respectfully. What is the most outrageous objection you see to an Obama policy? You choose. We may agree. Then let FB choose one and see if you can defend the policy.
I will only say that I disagree with pretty much all the right wing apocalyptic doom-saying on this board (as well as the conservative Christian viewpoint).
Given such vague labels and rhetoric, I don't know if I agree or disagree with you. I certainly don't hold that loss of liberty equates to an apocalypse. I'd just say that loss of liberty over time violates the intentions of America's founders as set forth by Constitution they created. Life will go on, just with ever more intrusions by the federal govt. Now, some may not characterize the increased role of the federal govt as "intrusive", but surely all honest folks can agree that the power and scope of the federal govt is increasing. Yes? So at what point ought we stop it? How?
I do not have the time or inclination to argue about them all
So accurate. But how about you choose just three?
even though I am often deeply troubled and offended by the lack of respect shown to the President and the Office of President.
Interesting you mention that, because I've recently been contemplating that very issue. I'm not real keen on the "President Zero" thread title, even though I tend to agree with much of the content opposing Obama's policies and behavior the last three years. I think with Tom's permission, I'll change the title to "President O."
I'm admittedly biased as are you. That said, I can point to multiple irrefutable instances of dishonesty by Barrack Obama. You like to call President Bush a "liar." You point to the WMD in Iraq issue. Pretending that Bush lied about WMDs is a position very easily refuted as it has been investigated and found to be a despicable calumny many times over. A lie is a willful intentional deception. You are doing yourself a huge disservice carrying the water of Bush-deranged partisan liars and propagandists. You are better than that. But like FB notes, any allusion to Bush is just a diversion of the issues today and the very real policies and behavior of the Obama administration.
Dave, how would you have felt if the shoe were on the other foot, and Republicans, avoiding entirely any scrutiny by the opposition or the public, corruptly rammed through on a PURELY partisan basis thousands of pages of sweeping new social legislation that would eventually eliminate ALL federal domestic aid, charity, and entitlement programs including social security? How would you feel if the president who signed that legislation had promised unprecedented transparency and bipartisanship? What if the legislation also mandated that every American must own and pay to be trained in the proficient use of firearms?
I'll stick to motorbikes; they get me in enough trouble I don't need to argue politics or religion.
Arguing on its own is worthless unless it challenges what we know or believe. Someone recently posted a youtube video of Obama supporters answering questions. They level of bias and outright ignorance exposed was alarming. Yet some of them seemed genuinely interested in learning the facts. I sure am!
So FB I will not explain, it would be a waste of bandwidth.
How so? What if facts were brought to your attention, actual verifiable facts, that challenge your point of view? How would that be a waste of bandwidth? Just more opinion and rhetoric, I agree, offers little value other than to understand where someone's opinion lies.
I'll vote for my guy and you vote for yours.
Aren't you eager to be as informed as possible in order to make the best possible decision? What issue(s) are most important to you Dave?
As I posted before, you and I likely agree on a HOST of issues. No? It's funny because my own mother, one of the most conservative, hard-nosed folks I know, is stuck on supporting Democrats. When we discuss issues, she is virtually in lockstep with me. She just believes that the Democrats are the ones to support. Like you however, she refuses to engage in substantive irenic discussion of the facts that trouble her own personal biases. She has white hair too.
I'll support the winner; I may complain about policies and actions and will let them know that BUT I will not preach the end of America as we know
What if that is exactly what is happening, what if Obama is intending to do exactly as he intends to "fundamentally change the United States of America"??? He said that! What do you think he means? He doesn't like our constitution with it's negative rights. What do you think he means Dave???
Are you somehow convinced that what has happened time and time again through history cannot happen in America? Why? Do you put any faith in divine providence? Jefferson certainly did, and his concerns were substantiated and proved true to the tune of up to 700,000 dead and dozens and dozens of American cities laid to waste. Jefferson's concerns were more well-founded than he likely imagined.
quote:And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever..."
Dave, over 40,000,000 abortions in America since our Supreme Court was woefully misled in deciding for a "woman's right to abortion (privacy)" over an unborn baby's right to life.
If G-d is just and as the Bible teaches holds nations accountable for their sins, then we are in for a terrible reckoning that ought to make the civil war look like a small scrape.
or hint at violent revolution.
You mean like Thomas Jefferson hinted at?
quote:God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
I will follow the one thing that has kept the USA together and that is our willingness to follow the Rule of Law even if I disagree with it.
The difference seems to be that some are willing to support ever greater erosions of liberty and ever greater concentration of power to the federal govt.
At what point Dave would that trend cause you distress? For instnace, at what point does redistribution of wealth by the federal govt become theft? Certainly at some point, so we agree on that. We merely differ on where the line is drawn. Some abhor the idea of the federal govt operating ANY charitable organizations. Others want the fed govt to handle the majority of such efforts.
We now have mandatory naked body scanning as a prerequisite to travel. We both likely agree that unlimited intrusions of our person by the fed govt are unconstitutional. Where that line is crossed is where we likely disagree.
We both agree that killing babies for the sake of convenience is not just wrong, but abhorrent. We may disagree on where the line is drawn that constitutes "convenience" and we may not agree on when a human life gains its unalienable right to life, but we agree in principle, yes?
We certainly agree that the govt must not be allowed to coerce people into violating their sincerely held religious convictions. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." My personal free exercise of religion and that of many others absolutely forbids supporting in any way the premeditated murder of human beings; murder being the intentional premeditated killing of non-combatants or those not-guilty of capital crime under the law.
We probably agree that intentionally handing over thousands of firearms to Mexican drug cartels and allowing them to be taken to Mexico is a REALLY bad, even criminal act. No?
We probably agree that allowing the federal govt to take control of or to fund dubious corporations is a REALLY bad idea.
We probably agree that large scale, long term govt subsidizing only causes prices to increase artificially. Please see this excellent explanation of that issue.
So Dave, what exactly do you mean when you offer incredibly vague sweeping opposition to "pretty much all the right wing apocalyptic doom-saying on this board (as well as the conservative Christian viewpoint)"
I really have no idea. Are you for the rule of law, or just when it conforms to your own personal ideologies?
I think drugs should be legal and taxed. Alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine use is legal, so there is no standing whatsoever in my view to deny legal adult use of other drugs that I can see.
Does that put me into the collection of millions of Americans that you label as "conservative Christian"?
I bet we both agree that socialism is contrary to the American constitution and a bad idea. Yes?
(Message edited by blake on March 02, 2012) |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 04:49 pm: |
|
An old friend's of mine first Economics Thesis ( University of Rochester ) was rejected, and he substituted one nearly identical, but with oil instead of Merry-g-wanna. ( he did the research in parallel and it was almost a matter of plugging in numbers and a few cut and pastes, in the conclusions area, mostly. Took us 2 nights, late with a Mac and Word Perfect. About 12 hours, proofreading alternatively as we went. With pizza. Rochester style. And Canadian Beer. The good kind. From Canada, purchased on another's trip to the Ballet. )
He set out to prove the economic results of legalizing and taxing just that one recreational drug. Treated it just like Tobacco. This was back during Regan. The conclusion was that a near identical control & taxation system would generate enough tax income to eliminate the national debt in 5 years. Not deficit, total debt.
Today, the debt is more than twice what it was then, much blame to go to the last prez who never vetoed a spending bill IIRC.
In year 6 we would have had a surplus. His assumption was that Congress would spend on the curve they had been, and that those surpluses would not exist in year 7, as Congress would, upon having a debt free slate, go on a spending spree, and/or cut income taxes and depend on the new income stream. ( that last was not in the thesis, but the appendix )
Much like Ireland did a short while ago. Crank up govt. spending on social programs and cut taxes to make people happy. That caught up to them hard. ( like it is here ) |
|
