- So sorry – you used the term transitional, which is a synonym for stop-gap.
No. YOU used the term stop-gap, Zippy. I corrected you. Drilling and refining oil is not an ad-hoc, improvised “fix” to replace something that’s missing. It’s technology that has existed for decades – and will continue to be used for decades, as we transition to more intelligent power sources, like nuclear energy.

- Endless miles of flat, featureless tundra bogs are more important than you realize, …
Not at all. Been there. Talked to the experts. They disagree with you. So does the history of the existing facilities there. You just make yourself look like an idiot every time you you pretend to know something that you don’t.

- I was trying to explain SOMEthing about contemporary technology for your benefit, …
Hardly. Chernobyl and TMI used nothing like the technology availble today.

- I like the 40 hour work week, overtime, and minimum wage laws. You obviously don’t …
Another sad straw man. Your life would be so empty without them, wouldn’t it.

- If you really believe that everyone is currently fairly compensated for their labor, …
It doesn’t matter what I believe, Zippy. When someone accepts a job, knowing the wage involved, they have agreed that the compensation is fair. QED.

- I guess you really get around.
Far more than you have, based on the pathetic little jaunts you discuss on your site, Zippy.

… the “minimum wage” has been a huge success…
Apparently you don’t Care to cite a source for that success.

- We have a basic philosophical difference here on what the role of government should be – it will not be resolved in this comment thread.
Yet you keep… on… posting. It’s a mystery.

- … commerce is anything but flourishing…
Consistent growth, record federal corporate tax revenue and trends leading to a balanced budget (interrupted by the Dems’ majority in Congress) notwithstanding.

- … law and order have been redefined to the detriment of both …
Not in the slightest.

- … peace has become war …
On the contrary, the only significant war has become peace.

- … and security against foreign threats includes an exception large enough to admit jetliners. …
You’re confused – you’re thinking about Clinton’s failures now.

@129: HJ: - An attempt to make a funny observation is degraded by the anti-spock!
I have nothing against Spock. I simply don’t pretend television “philosophy” is automatically valid.

- … whatever the exacerbating factors of this new difference in this country could possibly be, one of, if not the most-consequential factor is the tremendous separation of the classes.
Well, if that’s what you really believe, then I suggest you think long and hard about who has the most to gain by creating and perpetuating a separation of the classes. Who does all the class-baiting? Who benefits by pitting the so-called “poor” against the so-called “wealthy”? It’s not the so-called “wealthy”. And the only reason you could possibly think so is if you subscribe to David S’ idiotic, thoroughly debunked zero-sum notion that there’s a limited amount of wealth on the planet that will never change, and that one person having more means someone else having less.

That notion is utterly absurd on its face.

Did Oprah become a billionaire by taking wealth from others? By making others poor? No. She built a media empire that employs hundreds and has even given away million$ in the process. She started with nothing but a fun personality, imagination, and willingness to work her ass off. And she’s far from the only one. Did I get to a point where I can earn over a million dollars in 7 or 8 years by taking anything from anyone else? Hardly. I volunteered for military service so I could learn a trade. I worked my ass off later in school – working full time while going to school full time – and then through a series of completely shitty jobs to get to where I can now name my rate for the work I do. I wanted to earn more. Was that “greed” in your mind? If I’d continued on to where I make 2… 3… 100 million every 7 or 8 years, would that be “greed” in your mind? Where’s the dividing line? And who said YOU get to decide where it is? If I took my savings and invested it in a company so that the company could grow and hire more employees or pay better benefits, and I could earn a profit on my investment… is that “greed” in your mind? You can’t possibly be that cynical. Or that stupid.

Wealth is created, HJ, it’s not already out there sitting in some bank account, or in Ft. Knox (or wherever they keep gold these days). And humans’ ability to create wealth is infinite as long as imagination and willingness to work are in good supply. Humans have been demonstrating this throughout recorded history.

You have been duped, my friend. Just like David S. You have been fooled into believing that economic greed somehow causes poverty. Nothing could be further from the truth. Economic greed – at the very worst – creates entrepreneurs, creates credit, inspires the creation of buildings and all manner of businesses and services and products, all of which create jobs… all of which create wealth. And not just for the entrepreneurs, not just for the banks loaning the money, but for everyone who gets involved.

Your problem is that you have been duped into thinking that just taking part in an enterprise means that you should have an equal share of all profits, or a larger share than what you agreed to, if the enterprise turns out to be wildly profitable for the people who dreamed it up, financed it, took the risks and worked the 100 hour weeks to make it so. Sorry to tell you that you’ve been misinformed. And that misinformation is the very heart of the fallacy of socialism.

In a just world, people get what they earn, not what someone else, looking for political power, tells them they “need”.

To clarify: A large majority (I at least want to believe) of the people who are losing their houses today could have been paid more by their (avaricious) employers resulting in a small blip in the housing market, instead of the worldwide financial devastation that we are now experiencing.

It all, Sir, boils down to greed.

regards

Oh come now. An attempt to make a funny observation is degraded by the anti-spock!

Mr. Goy, with all due respect, and with all due respect to conservatism, capitalism, free markets, and what have you, I feel that a major change is coming to this country. You may wish to call it Marxism or communism or leftism or socialism or whatever, but whatever moniker you wish to place on it, it’s coming. It may, in fact, already be here. And, whatever the exacerbating factors of this new difference in this country could possibly be, one of, if not the most-consequential factor is the tremendous separation of the classes. And that all boils down to the greed (or avariciousness, if you prefer) which has promulgated and intensified this separation. It just seems that some folks feel that they are better, entitled, smarter, or more patrician than others.

All of the peoples who have usurped their rulers were, at least, poor in reference. They all saw, on a daily basis, the rich ride by on their horses, or in their carriages, or lately, in their limousines and wondered to themselves, “Why not me?” Or, “Why him?” The answer (in this greatest of all countries) has nothing to do with race, gender, intelligence, ambitiousness, willingness to work, or, lastly, ability.

It has to do with connections. Influence. Money. It is the absolute reverse of equality. If you’re born poor monetarily, poorly educated, poorly treated, poorly respected, it is a very tough road to make it to anywhere near the top, much less to the top. No matter how hard you strive within your personal limitations, you are a very lucky individual if you make more monetarily than you need to actually just exist on. You’re very lucky if the malefactors of great wealth smile down on your homely countenance with the grace of wealth.

What I have proposed, in the above paragraphs, does not limit the upper wages that may be earned by the top echelons within our society, but enhances the compensations that are rendered to the “man in the ditch.” Wouldn’t it be better for the entire society as a whole for there to be no more poor, people who work hard and get educated as much as the education system that they are exposed to allows? What I have proposed allows for the enrichment of the hard-working and educated masses (which constitute multiple millions in this country) without seriously degrading the ability of the truly wealthy to remain so.

What I believe will end up being the case, with consideration to the present government (and future projections of a democratic majority), is that they will appropriate (steal, if you will) money from the rich to give to the poor. What I have proposed would alleviate these measures: by making those who are exorbitantly compensated compensate the others who are not a bit more appropriately. (The CEO doesn’t have to pay his sectreart a million dollars a year, but that would be NICE).

So, at this juncture, with the administration dictating wages for bankers (and starting us all on the slippery slope), don’t you believe that the businesses should have nipped this in the bud (10 years ago) and paid their workers more instead of paying their top executives the most outrageous salaries that could possibly be expected this side of VOL? If you don’t agree, then please make sure you live in a right-to-work state, ’cause the unions are going to take over!

I ask you, Goy?

General welfare means allowing commerce to flourish, providing for law and order, and ensuring peace and security against foreign threats – essentially, creating an environment where anyone, even Oprah, can flourish.

Your list includes a string of failures for the GOP… After 14 years of GOP dominance in Congress, and two terms in the White House, commerce is anything but flourishing, law and order have been redefined to the detriment of both, peace has become war, and security against foreign threats includes an exception large enough to admit jetliners.

Anyway… Sorry about your dead horse.

Peace.

DS

You are a reliable source of entertainment. Cheers!

The last eight years are best characterized by the relentless lies, media attacks, political back-biting and 24/7/365 demonization of Bush, Republicans and conservatives … If you want to look for a reason for anything you don’t like about the last eight years, start there.

Apparently you really do believe that there is a massive conspiracy to paint GWB as a bad guy. I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion. However, what I don’t like about the last eight years has everything to do with how Bush governed. Even if the media had been kissing his ass on a daily basis for eight years, I would still be staunchly opposed to his misguided policies on surveillance, privacy, torture, taxes and war, just for starters.

Your idea that drilling is a stop-gap is rich, …
Uh… that was your false claim….

So sorry – you used the term transitional, which is a synonym for stop-gap. Semantics are fun.

Your delusion of what the North Slope of Alaska looks like comes from the disgruntled Marxists you’ve been listening to, not actual life experience.

You think I would oppose drilling on the North Slope because of what it looks like? You certainly are a rare one. Endless miles of flat, featureless tundra bogs are more important than you realize, despite your foolish November visit. Also, lay off the personal attacks. You make yourself look like an idiot every time you post. You know nothing of my constitution. Thanks.

You’re talking about nuclear power technology that is numerous decades old. Try learning at least SOMEthing about contemporary technology before you write things that demonstrate how pathetically and willfully ignorant you are.

I was trying to explain SOMEthing about contemporary technology for your benefit, but you are so self-aggrandizing you failed to notice. Your loss, not mine. Nuclear power still relies on highly radioactive elements that are hazardous to humans and other living things. Not a long-term solution.

Economic justice means being able to make a living wage for a fair day’s labor.
Nope. The whole notion of “living wage” is completely subjective, and relies on the State to determine the standards. … But as we’ve seen with CRA, and the 1.5 million lost jobs caused by precipitous minimum wage hikes, the State has no business whatsoever determining standards for anything.

Apparently you don’t Care to cite a source for that job loss? As far as the state setting some standards, I’m okay with that. I like the 40 hour work week, overtime, and minimum wage laws. You obviously don’t – but these are laws promoting the general welfare, and they have increased the health and prosperity of our nation. It’s likely we will never agree on this point because your ideology does not allow it.

Social justice would demand that people are compensated fairly for their labor, …
Then we already have it. You earn the wage you agree to earn. Nobody’s responsible for guaranteeing you don’t live in poverty, Zippy. You need to do that yourself. Just like Oprah did.

If you really believe that everyone is currently fairly compensated for their labor, there is no reason to continue discussing this issue with you. Your intuitive ethics obviously prevent you from thinking clearly about the reasons for our nation’s economic difficulties.

You like to act as if socialism is a bad thing, but the Republic was formed in part to secure the general Welfare of the People.
No, I have observed that socialism is a bad thing, by virtue of having seen it fail, or watching it fail, everywhere it’s ever been tried.

I guess you really get around. Funny that the scandinavians seem happy with their democratic socialism. Maybe you should let them know that it is a failure.

Contrary to the fantasy you share with BHO, the Constitution guarantees individual freedom, but it does not require the government to ensure ANY outcome for any particular individual, nor should it. General welfare means allowing commerce to flourish, providing for law and order, and ensuring peace and security against foreign threats – essentially, creating an environment where anyone, even Oprah, can flourish. It does NOT mean providing YOU with a “living wage”.

I don’t expect the Constitution to guarantee outcomes, but I do think your idea of “an environment where anyone…can flourish” is much different from mine. You may not think this environment involves a “living wage”, but the “minimum wage” has been a huge success – I just think it would be better for our country and economy if that wage were high enough to meet the basic needs of a person. You are obviously not concerned that the minimum wage is so low that full-time laborers can still be below the poverty line, or that the poverty line is actually about 1/3 of the true minimum cost of living.

We have a basic philosophical difference here on what the role of government should be – it will not be resolved in this comment thread.

Peace.

DS

Given the last eight years …
The last eight years are best characterized by the relentless lies, media attacks, political back-biting and 24/7/365 demonization of Bush, Republicans and conservatives by sore losers in Congress and their lapdogs in the entrenched media following Al Gore’s pathetic failure to carry his own home state in 2000. If you want to look for a reason for anything you don’t like about the last eight years, start there.

- the CIC we now have is ten times the man his opponent from the GOP pretended to be.
Again, your delusional opinion, based on facts not in evidence. BHO was coddled by doting white grandparents from the time he was born. He was subsequently handed everything he has and nurtured into a radical marxist-socialist activist by fanatics who subscribe to the same failed ideology as you. He’s a pathological narcissist and a liar, just like Slick Willy was, and for mostly the same reasons.

- You need to think through …
Already done long before you were even exposed to this topic, Zippy. Which is the reason for the utter lack of substance in your response.

- Your idea that drilling is a stop-gap is rich, …
Uh… that was your false claim, Zippy. Try to keep up with your own B.S., m’kay?

- … to defile a national treasure, …
I have been there, Zippy. Have you? Your delusion of what the North Slope of Alaska looks like comes from the disgruntled Marxists you’ve been listening to, not actual life experience. Take a trip up there sometime. Don’t go in November, like I did, because it’ll be way too cold for your whiny constitution. Try “summer”. You’ll get at least some idea of what endless miles of flat, featureless tundra bogs look like. If that’s your notion of a “national treasure” then it’s no wonder you want to turn America into a Third World socialist backwater.

- Three Mile Island and Chernobyl …
I know you can’t possibly be that stupid, Zippy. You’re talking about nuclear power technology that is numerous decades old. Try learning at least SOMEthing about contemporary technology before you write things that demonstrate how pathetically and willfully ignorant you are.

- Economic justice means being able to make a living wage for a fair day’s labor.
Nope. The whole notion of “living wage” is completely subjective, and relies on the State to determine the standards. I know you prefer this arrangement because you’re incapable of thinking for yourself, and like it when others do it for you. But as we’ve seen with CRA, and the 1.5 million lost jobs caused by precipitous minimum wage hikes, the State has no business whatsoever determining standards for anything.

- Social justice would demand that people are compensated fairly for their labor, …
Then we already have it. You earn the wage you agree to earn. Nobody’s responsible for guaranteeing you don’t live in poverty, Zippy. You need to do that yourself. Just like Oprah did.

- You like to act as if socialism is a bad thing, but the Republic was formed in part to secure the general Welfare of the People.
No, I have observed that socialism is a bad thing, by virtue of having seen it fail, or watching it fail, everywhere it’s ever been tried. The reason it fails – something you won’t recognize until you’ve actually lived a real life for a while – is that it completely ignores fundamental human nature and the manner in which societies evolve, demonstrated repeatedly throughout human history about which you’re so completely ignorant. And you’ve obviously never studied anything at all about the formation of the Republic. If you do a little research on the prevailing definition of “welfare” in late 18th century America, you won’t find anything about wealth redistribution or any other failed socialist ideology.

Contrary to the fantasy you share with BHO, the Constitution guarantees individual freedom, but it does not require the government to ensure ANY outcome for any particular individual, nor should it. General welfare means allowing commerce to flourish, providing for law and order, and ensuring peace and security against foreign threats – essentially, creating an environment where anyone, even Oprah, can flourish. It does NOT mean providing YOU with a “living wage”.

@124. Honest Jon: Spock said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

HJ, there is considerable value in the ability to discern fact from fantasy.

Spock is a fictional character from a television series. The person whose philosophy was behind those words was closet Communist Gene Roddenberry, whose Federation was the closest thing to an all-powerful State, governing a virtually classless society, as any portrayed in science fiction. A close second would be The Alliance, from the mind of Joss Whedon – another leftist whose characters’ sensibilities give him the outlet needed to assuage the cognitive dissonance of his beliefs.

I am dismayed that you can say so little while writing so much.

Damage to our Republic has been almost universally contributed by leftist ideologues destroying and/or pushing our nation away from the principles on which that Republic was founded.

Given the last eight years under Bush, why should I believe this? It’s just your opinion, based on nothing.

To paraphrase your own hyperbole:

you’d already be aware of if you’d actually studied the issue instead of spending your time trolling comment threads with adolescent jabs and [rightist] nonsense based on nothing but meth-and-O’kool-aid rhetoric.

if they choose to retire

Won’t be much of a choice for folks who got the short straw in life – they’ll work until they die, just like the good old days. Or starve to death. Nice plan.

Personally, I don’t want to lose the experience and intelligence of my representatives just to spite the few criminals that get into office.
it’s pretty obvious THAT statement is a flat out lie.

I happen to think Oregon has a superb congressional delegation that should do well for our state, and that the CIC we now have is ten times the man his opponent from the GOP pretended to be.

Handing the comprehensive insurance mechanism over to the government … will make the process … about 100 times more expensive

Can you say “hyperbole”? I knew you could. Did you even pay attention to the nonsense you were typing, or is that part of your “intuitive” mind? You need to think through your talking points more critically.

You really haven’t given this topic any thought or study at all, have you.

Oh, just a little more than your average straw man. Your idea that drilling is a stop-gap is rich, as the proven reserves available in your North Slope fantasy would not even meet the needs of Alaska, and would take a decade of more to come online – valuable time and resources wasted to defile a national treasure, rather than move our economy toward sustainable energy. Always trying to prevent the future from being an inconvenience.

Nuclear power is dangerous …
You can not possibly be that stupid

I see – Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were no big deal, and a little domestic nuclear terrorism doesn’t really bother you. Good to know. You reveal your complete ignorance of energy solutions when you foolishly declare ” leftists … pipe dream technologies aren’t capable of providing even a fraction of the current energy needs”. Take away the “pipe dream” and replace it with something that isn’t a strawman. Solar, wind, geothermal and hydro are already here – ditching coal and nuclear is not so hard when you stick with proven technology. Have you been asleep since 1959?

Economic justice is earning what you have and not expecting to have it “redistributed” to you from someone else’s bank account, courtesy of the government. When you can adequately define “social justice” in any way that acknowledges that fact, and which is not functionally equivalent to socialism, give us a ring,

Economic justice means being able to make a living wage for a fair day’s labor. I don’t think much redistribution would be needed if people were paid the true value of their labor. Social justice would demand that people are compensated fairly for their labor, and that those who cannot labor through no fault of their own have a last line of defense against poverty and hopelessness.

You like to act as if socialism is a bad thing, but the Republic was formed in part to secure the general Welfare of the People. Think about that.

Peace.

DS

PS – You forgot to leave your number.

“Nuclear power is dangerous …more fancy weapons systems”

But the argument has now devolved to where its not only off point, but also complete and total digression from the original question.

You two guys are beginning to be like two reverse mirror images of Dr. Spock. GOY has become the absolute Spock with no heart-All facts without a damn in the world for humanity; David S. being the exact opposite: the absolute Spock concerning humanity, but with no basis in factual information, only in emotion.

Spock said, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

regards

- There is no reason to believe this would help the economy.
Do you really want to put yourself into the position of having to prove a negative, Zippy? No reason?? Anywhere?? This sounds like more of your leftist opinion to me. You ignore the volumes of debate and support that exists on this issue, which – like Haidt’s comprehensive research – I’m sure you’ve never bothered to study. And it’s not intended simply to “help the economy”. It’s intended to ensure that everyone contributes to society based on what they consume and the burden they impose, not based on how hard they work or how productive they are.

- Again, no reason to believe this would help.
Only if you ignore their effects, for instance, in ’97, of which I’m sure you’re blissfully unaware. What do you think led to the “economic boom” Clinton takes credit for? Pixie dust?

- Yes, I suppose another world war…
Only a foreign policy know-nothing like you, Zippy, would assume that seizing assets would lead to a war – let alone a world war. What would Saudi attack us with, camel turds? Oh wait – you’re probably dumb enough to believe the seizure would lead to escalation of the conflict. You probably also believe the islamist terrorists are “winning” in Iraq.

- Your line about unions destroying companies is the same old BS with no basis in fact.
On the contrary, we know that one of the worst effects of FDR’s New Deal policy involved unions destroying company productivity and thereby prolonging the Depression for almost a decade. So yeah, there is basis in fact. It’s documented through scholarly research you’d already be aware of if you’d actually studied the issue instead of spending your time trolling comment threads with adolescent jabs and leftist nonsense based on nothing but meth-and-O’kool-aid rhetoric.

- I like how you completely ignore the social consequences of impoverishing the elderly and disabled.
Wow – begging the question AND irrelevant thesis all in one pass. Kudos. Phasing out SS will enrich people, Zippy, since they’ll be keeping more of their own money and using it for their own retirement – if they choose to retire. The entity this will impoverish is the government. I know that might smart a bit for someone like you whose god is the State, but that’s just the price of real progress.

- Personally, I don’t want to lose the experience and intelligence of my representatives just to spite the few criminals that get into office.
LOL!!! You just elected an utterly inexperienced empty suit to act as CiC of the most dangerous military force in human history and run the federal government of the only superpower on the face of the earth, so it’s pretty obvious THAT statement is a flat out lie.

- The best way to fix the health insurance scam is to eliminate it.
That’s precisely what I just wrote, Zippy.

- So long as health care is provided by for-profit companies, costs and quality will be compromised.
Wrong. Dead wrong. So long as health care costs are controlled by commercial entities with no accountability and which benefit, through enormous conflicts of interest, when costs increase – that would be comprehensive health insurance companies – costs and quality will be compromised. That’s the situation we have now.

You’re a couple of decades too young to remember it, but people used to actually pay providers directly for commodity health care – care that was, even back then, among the highest quality in the world. And they didn’t go broke in the process because the laws of commodity economics kept the costs down. Catastrophic policies prevented them from going broke on the non-commodity products and services required.

The point at which comprehensive insurance was introduced is exactly the point at which health care costs began to skyrocket at rates much higher than inflation. Interestingly, it was also the point at which all manner of pharmaceutical prescriptions began to skyrocket – culminating in what we have now: preventative drugs for nominally healthy individuals and $300-per-month, prescription-only “sleep aids” marketed directly to consumers who care about nothing but their co-pay. Guess who pays the rest, Zippy.

Handing the comprehensive insurance mechanism over to the government will definitely result in Change™. It will make the process about 10 times less efficient and about 100 times more expensive because the government will have a monopoly on comprehensive health care insurance (at least now there are ostensibly competing insurance companies).

To keep costs down, the government may attempt to use the same socialist hokum they’ve invented in the form of so-called “salary caps”. That is, telling people how much they can charge for a given product and how much they can earn when providing a given service. This of course will drive the best and brightest in medicine out of that field and into other endeavors where they can make a better living, at which point we’ll have the worst, most expensive health care on the planet.

But more likely they’ll see fit – as the guarantor of your health – to begin legislating and regulating any and all aspects of your personal behavior and lifestyle that might burden the health care system, barring you from receiving care if you don’t comply. I’m quite sure that’s what you want, because you’ve demonstrated that you can’t think for yourself, but the rest of us aren’t interested. Don’t think it’s plausible? Check out trans-fat legislation. Check out smoking laws for bars (where smokers used to hang out). Check out fast-food zoning ordinances. Check out how the Japanese are fining people based on the government’s definition of a “normal” waistline. Only the beginning, Zippy.

You really haven’t given this topic any thought or study at all, have you.

… you would like to throw the disabled onto the streets to buy more fancy weapons systems?
Straw man. Not what I wrote. You’ve obviously not had any first hand experience regarding what social security benefits attorneys are able to get classified as “disabled” these days. More fail for you.

- Drilling and refining oil is a stop-gap, …
Wrong. Dead wrong. It’s transitional, and in a way that makes us less dependent on foreign supply, helps keep the price down generally, and doesn’t force economy-crushing Change™ while we move to better energy sources.

- Nuclear power is dangerous …
You can not possibly be that stupid, Zippy. Apparently you’re pretty ignorant on this topic and haven’t heard of Hyperion. Currently available nuclear technology could provide a nationwide energy grid that would eliminate our dependence on oil and coal within a decade or two. Luddite leftists like you who’ve allowed themselves to be brainwashed into considering only some nebulous notion of “sustainability” don’t seem to realize that their pipe dream technologies aren’t capable of providing even a fraction of the current energy needs (or that people like Boone Pickens are only interested in enriching themselves). It’s clear your solution to that is to drag us back down to Third World status, so we’ll all “consume less”, but that’s simply not going to happen unless your “experienced representatives” destroy our economy completely – which they seem to be well on the way to doing.

- All you seem to want is to reverse any efforts toward social justice…
Economic justice is earning what you have and not expecting to have it “redistributed” to you from someone else’s bank account, courtesy of the government. When you can adequately define “social justice” in any way that acknowledges that fact, and which is not functionally equivalent to socialism, give us a ring, Zippy.

I hope you won’t ignore the damage done to our Republic by the GOP in your zeal.

Of themselves, these rates did not create a “catastrophic bubble” any more than they have in the past.

Of course not. Only in some parallel universe would interest rates have an impact on credit markets. Keeping the fed rate low for years was a sure way to create a housing bubble, regardless of any other activity you may critique in the housing market. The impact of CRA vanishes to zero when put into the context of Greenspan’s Fed.

- Eliminate payroll taxes and implement a flat tax.

There is no reason to believe this would help the economy.

Cut capital gains tax rates to jump-start the economy and keep it strong.

Again, no reason to believe this would help. Tax cuts usually end up being counter-productive.

Instead of seizing Americans’ money for wealth redistribution schemes, seize assets of arab countries known to be actively supporting terrorism, like Saudi Arabia.

Yes, I suppose another world war would provide an economic stimulus. This is more of the same thing that got us where we are.

Your line about unions destroying companies is the same old BS with no basis in fact.

Phase out the ponzi scheme Social Security scam

I like how you completely ignore the social consequences of impoverishing the elderly and disabled. Just remember, the GOP only has one reliable voting bloc, and they are all collecting on this “ponzi” scheme. Maybe instead of fixing the government, we should just disband it, and save all our tax money.

Term limits would only speed up the revolving door, and prevent actual public servants from doing their best to represent their constituents. Personally, I don’t want to lose the experience and intelligence of my representatives just to spite the few criminals that get into office.

The best way to fix the health insurance scam is to eliminate it. Make the system single-payer. So long as health care is provided by for-profit companies, costs and quality will be compromised.

Our Armed Forces are the largest and most modern in history, yet you would like to throw the disabled onto the streets to buy more fancy weapons systems? In order to provoke even more hatred of the US among islamic countries? Do you not understand that this is a sure way to spark a thousand year jihad? Our economy suffered much more damage from pursuing an illegal war than 9/11 ever caused. Our response to 9/11 has created a golden age for islamic terrorists – the best recruiting tool we could have offered.

Your energy policy suggestion is pointless. Drilling and refining oil is a stop-gap, and not necessary. Nuclear power is dangerous and produces toxic waste. I don’t want to be like France. Why not clean power? Do you have a pollution fetish, or an allergy to sustainability?

All you seem to want is to reverse any efforts toward social justice in order to allow the rich to get richer at the expense of the rest of the world. Pardon me, but I don’t think that this is the best way forward. It’s as if you slept through the past three decades.

Peace.

DS