Declare Your Independence!

"They want to be everything to the people. Though they operate under good intentions, everything that they touch has began to fall apart. Under the guise of being the savior, Obama has appealed to the people who are desperate for change and because of that desperation, have followed blindly, like sheep."

Well said Kim. That hits tne nail on the head. It is not oppression or totalitarianism. This is not a repeat of Pol Pot, Nikolas Caecescu, or Joseph Stalin. Certain individuals always want to draw the similarities. They seem to think that we were locked down in our houses, lose ability to vote, have no freedom of press (talk radio, internet, etc.)The motives are different. That is not to say that good intentions always equal good results.

I see your point but I will stand behind public school 100%. As you can see from what I have wrote previously I agree with you on the ideas that you state in the next to last paragraph.I would stand behind society going back to basics. In the end that is all that we have. Gadgets, season tickets, and luxuries can be done without.The actions of the majority are more relevant than the wasteful, overspending ways of a few politicians. That is not to condone them but I feel that everyday citizens need to take care of themselves. Being a peanut gallery to celebrities and politicians is not what we need. In short, these ideas would be grand if ever put into practice.

Twil, you see but yet you are blind. "Certain individuals always want to draw the similarities. They seem to think that we were locked down in our houses, lose ability to vote, have no freedom of press (talk radio, internet, etc.)"

Though we may not be locked down in our houses yet, they are trying to take away freedom of speech. The "fairness act" that will force radio staions to have a "balanced" line up is EXACTLY that. Betcha NPR won't carry Hannity or O'Reilly. The systematic approach they have taken to not deny guns but limiting the access to ammunition and powder are ways of denying you your 2nd amendment rights. Without ammo all you got is a big stick.

Twil, please don't stand behind the public schools. I just spent a week with my 20yo college student daughter. The views she has been getting from her Professors is far from right, in every sense of the word. Luckily she has a great head on her shoulders and her BS meter is fully functioning. She loves to tie up "educated" people in their one words and beat them with it.

The names that I listed above made no qualms about taking away rights. There was nothing subtle, sly, or balanced about these individuals. Civil rights came to a complete and utter halt. That has not happened so the similarities are nonexistent. There was nothing ambiguous nor behind-the-scenes about those totalitarian dictators. The iron fist was absolute and unmistakeable. All members of soceity (rich, poor, farmers, bankers, etc.) were subject to this. Our current administration, albeit misguided, is not one of oppression, hate, or violence.

I wont get into it about guns because to be honest I dont care. I know many avid gun types and they follow the stereotype so I will leave it at that.

Public schools are like firemen, EMT's, police, currency. These are goods that people's marginal willingness to pay is never equal to what they demand of that service. For the majority that cannot afford private school but are still good productive citizens, what are you going to tell them. Human civilization has repeatedly proven this correct. I am marrying a teacher so I will always be a bit biased.

Back to the point, this administration has good intentions but I feel that they are trying to play hero. They need to take their lumps and let society learn on their own. This is sort of natural selection. Government should not be meddling in the process of society being forced to make better choices.

First let me state as LOUDLY as is posible when typing a message, I HAVE ENORMOUS RESPECT AND EMPATHY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS! Twil, Please give your teacher fiance a big hug from me. Schools and the precious people who work within them are short changed more than any other govt. system. Because of the agenda of others, teachers and children suffer. Teachers place themselves at the head of the class with high hopes of reaching at least a few though their hands are bound by the idiots who seem to think that they can run things better. Despite having to deal with textbooks that are tampering with our true history and trying to be sensitive to others by omitting facts, most teachers do a **** fine job. You are absolutely right when you say that the people demand more from schools, firemen and police though they are the first to get cuts. I am amazed that many stick with it though their time and efforts are never rewarded to the degree that is deserved. God bless all of you! (time: 7:26am)

"Because of the agenda of others, teachers and children suffer. Teachers place themselves at the head of the class with high hopes of reaching at least a few though their hands are bound by the idiots who seem to think that they can run things better."

Well said again Kim. My fiance complains about this precise idea. She loves her job but has issues with administration and the higher ups. I have come in contact with many teachers by way of her and I find them to amazing people. The superintendent of the Nampa School District makes $150000 a year!! That is absurd in my opinion.

"Yes, our grade school teachers DO have it tough, and I don't think they are knowingly lying to our kids."

My fiance does not lie. She teaches math which if you have not figured it out is exactly the same as it was in 1600. No new discoveries and no opinions. 2+2 has always equaled 4 no matter the era or political background. Their hands are tied so dont be indicting the profession. They dont make the rules they simply follow the mandate and deal with criticisms such as yours which are 100% unwarranted.

As for guns, I feel that a few bad apples have stained the good name of most. My brother is one of them. Most have no intentions to commit malice but the few who do have provoked paranoia. I will let others fight that battle (such as yourself).

College, my area of study economics is one that gets very mathematical and so opinions matter not. The profession has always been that way so dont get on your high horse and say that we have regressed. John Maynard Keynes, the man who thought up most of Reagan's economics was a mathematician at heart. Oh... and get this he lived in the 1930's or the good ol' days.

Every generation has pro's and con's. I do think that my generation has to work on being accountable. If you are wrong, well then you are wrong and lets move on. Things change and always will. One can resist or not, it matters not.

Congress. I would hope that they are educated. No offense to average Farmer Joe but he most likely knows nothing of the larger picture. He could tell you how to fix problems in his world but in all likelihood does not how to fix problems for the larger population that is not farmers, ranchers, etc.

Splintering a once-mighty nation has not worked yet. I dont buy into that we need govt money to survive. The greater good of all (not just you or me) is better served by having duty-free access to all goods that the 50 states can offer. If we splinter, there are going to be barriers. Any knowledge of economics tells one that barriers (price or otherwise) will decrease demand. What are you going to tell the cattlemen in Texas when the market for their goods shrinks up? Hmmm... so they go back to subsistence living and forego most basic services so that their pride is beefed up. I dont foresee them forsaking their welfare in the name of pride.

Back to the topic, Americans feeling that the government is the parachute for all their troubles is the major element that I think needs changed. If politicians know that the demand for their economic policies is high, they are going to do their best to capitalize on this. Citizens need to rely on themselves. That may lead to a lower standard of living but at least they will be able to hold their head up high. They will know that they are where they are in life because of their own efforts. Sounds rather simple and fundamental. Socializing everything, in my opinion, leads to lack of motivation. I may be wrong but I would rather know that I earned all that I have and did not society/govt. to prop me up.

I agree with Bazooka, educated doesn't always mean smart. Common sense usually beats out book learin'. We saw this first hand in hiring police officers. We had guys come in with 4 years of college that couldn't hold the pistol with the right end. Most thought they could talk their way out of most situations. As Bazooka can tell you, somtimes it's time to shut up and knock someone on their rear-end.

As for the Joe Farmer comment, if you took economic classes in school you would know that farmers and ranchers probably have a better handle on what's going on in the world than ANY politcian. They are DIRECTLY affected by WORLD markets. The cost of seed, fertilizer, fuel, vehicle repair, you name it and the farmer has his hand on the pulse of it. They are usually better weathermen than anyone on the TV. The have to be prophets to try and predict the weather and the markets. Make no mistake, what Achmed is doing in the middle eastern desert affects every farmer and rancher as if it was happening next door.

As for the people who think the Government owes them anything. Get a JOB! Spreading the wealth has never been part of our cosntitution. The constitution says all men were created equal. NOWHERE does it say it's their responsibility to make them that way. In nature those who work hard, the healhy and intelligent thrive. The lame, weak and lazy as usually food for the better predator or succumb to nature. In the United States we give the lame, weak and lazy welfare and free healthcare. What a wonderful world we live in.

"As for the Joe Farmer comment, if you took economic classes in school you would know that farmers and ranchers probably have a better handle on what's going on in the world than ANY politcian. They are DIRECTLY affected by WORLD markets."

You are correct in those assumptions. My comments come down to the fact that Joe Farmer knows his world and his world only. He/She is busy. Farming is hard work. If one is going to manage the economy, one needs to think of all people and all sectors not just farming. Farming is only one of many sectors that affect EVERYBODY everyday. Neglecting the others is the same as neglecting all. There would be barriers otherwise known as tariffs or duties. Common Sense and history tell us that people will choose the lower priced alternative. The issue or action would be a lot more complex than you give it credit for. Again the welfare of all not just your types.

I dont own a gun and dont really care. Again, I let others debate this issue. They have more passion and ultimately better information so let them battle it out while I take up other battles.

Splintering up Yugoslavia has not made them better in any way. That situation is quite different but in all regards (except pride) their welfare has declined.

Higher learning is not a complete waste. Universities were the key to getting people to realize that the Catholic Church was corrupt. The contributions made by scholars/academics are too numerous to detail here. Yes, some students/professors are all brains and no brawn. They cant change oil let alone turn a wrench which is comical. I wonder how they get by in life.

Our founding fathers largely believed that Blacks were inferior. Simply stated, they were flawed as well. They were no better nor worse. Just because they were salt-of-the-earth types makes them none the better. Increasing populations and inevitable improvements in medicine and technology changed society. If one reads the Federalist Papers you will find that they foresaw these changes.

Finally, necessity is the mother of invention. If someone needs to be violent they will. When there is no need to expend one's energy on these ventures, why undertake it? If society was to collapse and we were to be engaged in full scale civil war, I am sure that people would adapt and make the best of it. Saying that we are all inferior because we choose not to worship Rambo and go shooting target practice is ignorant.

If book smart is inferior to common sense than tell me how you would build a suspension bridge with no knowledge of mathematics or science. Now I know you two will play stupid and say we dont need bridges but you have driven/rode/walked over one before. Everything has their place.

History does have subjectivity built into it so I do see your point on that. I have to take 7 history courses to graduate. The first two have been pretty mundane but I am sure that further up the opinions will factor in.

Technology is good but some take it too far. I just watched a friend's house for a week and they had more remotes than i could count. Every light, fan, radio, fish tank, etc. was operated by a remote. It was confusing and it made me wonder how lazy they actually were to need all that.

I have issues with most people home schooling their kids. Most parents do not know how to teach. Second, one of the benefits that school (public or private) offers is the socializing. Sheltering the kids from society and its mix of characters is short-sighted. Unless you live in Nunavut one is going to have to work with people and be able to navigate the maze of society.

College educations are almost necessary today. Some majors are impractical and do not help the person except pique their curiosity. Engineering, accounting, economics, auto tech are examples of the practical ones that can help the person. English, Literature, Spanish, Art are interesting (I guess) but do not help society. Knowing the finer points of Tolstoy and Shakespeare is largely useless information in my opinion.

To rehash something. Technology is not needed to live. I did not touch a computer for seven years and lived a fine life. Even with no knowledge of them, I was hired by Apple to help people on the phone. In my three years, I was able to acquire extensive knowledge. Now that I dont work for them, I rarely use it. Point being that technology is a crutch for some. They lack the skills to do basic tasks manually. Today's young people, from my viewpoint, are ill equipped to take care of themselves. You cant always call Dad over to fix your water heater. Second, you may not have the money to hire Mr. Fix-it so time to step up to the plate.

Addressing home-schooling: Idaho Virtual Academy is a public-school funded K-12 online school. Each child is assigned a certified teacher and the child learns at their own pace. It is designed to give a sound education in an environment the parent can control. It is completely free and all materials are provided. The parents can monitor the curriculum and give the guidance that may be missing such as morals, religious teaching and more accurate history. It is the best balance that a parent could ask for. And home-schooled children have statistically scored much higher on all standardized testing than those kids who attend public schools and slightly higher or even with those who attend private school. You just can't argue with that. As far as socializing, the parents have more say over who their kids socialize with. Most homeschoolers will work with other homeschoolers and can also take a class or two in the public school. The kids focus on their studies and get it done quicker and have more time for play while the public school kids are still in class. I am very much in favor of this choice for educating children. I pray that nothing happens to take that away, however, there has been a threat from those liberals because it keeps those kids from being indoctrinated with their crap!(time:6:30am)

Every situation is different. I grew up around 3 kids that were homeschooled and preached to. None of those 3 are productive citizens. Once they rebelled and moved out, they went down the path of addiction, welfare, having way too many kids, and dead-end jobs. Now do they color the whole group? No, they just represent what happens when the parent is not a teacher and shelters their kids too much. Exposure to the unseemly characters of public schools taught me how to deal with them. Also, it taught me to know that they are not evil, ignorant, or inferior. They are just human like the rest of us.

".Get back to the basics of life. We know within our very souls that given the responsibility to make our own decisions, we will thrive. We must stop relying on others to solve our problems."

Again well said. Much of the politician agenda is focused on pleasing the public that thinks that they need these luxuries. Getting down to basics will make things less confusing and take job security away from lobbyists and spinsters. As long as the basic needs of life are met, the rest are just details. Politicians "should" focus on making sure those needs are met and leaving it to society to furnish the rest for themselves.

It would be nice if they would follow this creed. They being politicians of course. Public servants are crying about cuts and job losses but in reality there are too many of them in the first place. Americans saving more could have huge impacts if the trend continues. By saving and not spending, alot of the economic goals touted by Dems and Reps. have no realistic way of coming into fruition. It comes down to politicians wanting quick rewards and therefore quicker to being touted as a hero. Politicians could not have predicted that Americans would choose not to spend.

Overall, I hope that this trend continues. It will force politicians to take a more long-term mindset. I would hope that it also takes the emphasis away from short term, quick-rewards thoughts like another stimulus.

Some of this comes down to the timing of it. Yes, changes made in Washington make a big difference but they take time to filter down to the average person. In most cases that is. In the meantime, people see Bill O'Reilly and his venomous, biased, and purely subjective opinion on everything. The man is as biased as journalism could ever be. How is the average person going to decode the garbage that comes from the media's mouth and know how to react to that.

Stimulus for instance. Yes, I think it is needed but in a contracted fashion. The average person could or could not be affected by it. If they are, it still takes 6 months to 1 year if not more. In the meantime, these packages get modified and dirty hands take a cut along the way. A normal citizen does not have the time and possibly the expertise to dig through legislation and find the definitive answer. The definitive answer that will say whether or not they should have a vested interest in this or not. The average person also cannot enact change on their own. They have to form an activist group or join one and then spend the time and money to push these ideas to those who are important.

I wont belabor this but if the complaints that all of us have addressed are going to be taken seriously there has to tangible evidence that the average American should care. Spitting off biased rhetoric is not the way. I have worked for a non-profit with political ties and people are not swayed when you appeal to them on an emotional level. To persuade someone or get them to open their mind, one has to show tangible, objective evidence that will stand the test of time. It has to show them that their life will change for the worse (Hint, not in the years to come). Second, one has to show that they can make a difference and not just be one of 40 people that dont stand a chance.

If we are going to vote crooked politicians out, we have to show that their decisions ALONE were the determining factor. Not the economy, human nature, other integral groups or parts. Playing the blame game is something one should have grown out of at age 14 or even before.....

My point is credibility. O'Reilly is just a shining example of someone who is so biased and tainted that one can not glean useful info from him. I dont really care what he has to say. I just feel that an average person would not be able to see through the propaganda and be able to make a better decision. For the population that does not read the newspaper, watch TV, criticize politicians, write editorials, etc. they need black and white, non-biased, objective info so they can truly understand the issues. O'Reilly has an aversion to giving correct, unbiased info.

Talk Radio is fine. I have no issue with Limbaugh, Hannity, and so on. I think that the average person needs a balanced source of info. What we are wanting in the end is to motivate them to care and demand better governmnent. Is that correct?

If that is what we want, then we have to give them the facts and show that the issues will affect them in the near future. We have to show why they should give a hoot. Emotional, biased opinions do not lend themselves to credibility from the outsider. Even if they fashion themselves as a Republican or conservative, I know plenty who are taken aback by these radical types. Alienating prospective participants is real effective (j/k).

Overall, I understand why some people are apathetic about politics and the economy. It is hard to get a true answer. It is difficult to ascertain how it is really going to affect them. People think about now and not three years down the road.

What I watched of FOX the other day made my statements appear valid. There was a liberal in one of the four seats. The host and the three others did not have a clue on how to be objective. She was not the brightest nor the most prepared. They ganged up on her and did not let her have a word in edgewise. It is only one show after all. I guess what I thumb my nose is these confusing opinions with solid information. Opinions have emotion in them and are not always rational. An average person with little knowledge is not going to watch Bill O'Reilly and be able to judge whether it is simple opinion or formulative info that can be used. His like or dislike of something means nothing. Lack of facts and explanations make him not all that different from these extremist Muslim clerics.

Now not all commentators are as biased as him. Even some that I vehemently disagree with, do their job just fine and set a good example. The point is that it is possible to be objective/rational and still get your point across. Glenn Beck does this most of the time. One does not see him injecting his irrational emotions into everything he says.

Ron Paul will never have a chance. I dont dislike him but he is a niche candidate. Good ideas are fine but to be elected one has to have widespread appeal. I am not bagging on what he says but running for president again would be a waste of his time. If he wants to change things, he should seek other avenues. He's a smart guy and throwing all of your chips into the election pot is like betting your house on Utah State winning a national championship in football.

WOW Twil, after reading your first paragraph I didn't kow if you were talking about O'Reilly or the View. And for the record Beck does insert emotional tirades into his show although alot of it is for dramatic purposes. O'Reilly is a jounalist and tends to investigate thnigs before he opens his mouth. That's one up on our beloved messiah when he calls cops stupid. Obama even admitted to not having all the facts before he spoke.

Twil,

You have inferred that it was Bill O'Reilly that you were watching. Are you sure? I'm an average person with a little bit of knowledge , not as much as some, but I make do. I have been watching O'Reilly for a number of years (minus 2..ish). Rarely does he invite more than one guest on at a time to enter the 'No Spin Zone'. Are you sure that you were not watching Sean Hannity instead? He regularly has a panel of three individuals in what he calls his Great American Panel. segment of his show. Or all Irish guys the same to tou?

So please let us know if you were inadvertently incorrect again.

Personally, I've grown tired of Hannity. I have thought for a while now that he doesn't have an original idea in his head. If I am in my vehicle, at 3 p.m. I push my pre-select button that brings up Glen Beck. IMO, he is a breath of fresh air and has a new different way of looking at topics of our day.

I will agree with you though that Ron Paul will never have a chance. At least as long as he is Congressman Paul. Now should he be elected to the office of Senator or Governor of the Great State of Tejas......who knows? His inherent problem is that although he has vast nationwide support for his ideas, that vast nationwide support can not legally vote in the state of Tejas elections. Unless of course ACORN supported him.

BTW Twil, I'm glad that you have finally admitted that your grandfather was not a General officer during WWII as you originally claimed. Even Colonel is a stretch IMO. However, now you are saying that the man that you have spoken of was born in 1914. Wouldn't that make him 95 ish vise the age of 83 that you originally stated? (2009 - 1914 = 95 ish depending on the month of birth.)

Oh.....and .....bazookaaman,,,,,,,,no,,,,,,,,not .......everyone.........does it.

No....not everyone ......lies .....to their....... children.....and ....grandchildren.

And there is no evidence here that Twil's granddad lied or embellished any facts about his military record. All we have here is Twil's claim / recollection of stories relayed to him. Kind of like the old school game of 'Gossip' where someone whispers a secret in one students ear and they whisper the secret into the next students ear, and so ....on....and.....so ...on..,... The end result is that the original message is seldom translated accurately in the end.

Twil, Batman & Robin are apparently sitting this issue out. I never said that you fabricated some things. I have clearly stated that you were wrong in your recollection of historical facts.

Oh come on Bazooka...the umm "ladies" of the view invite them on all the time..then run them through a meat grinder. Even if they don't have a live body they trash everything conservative under the sun. Now WHOOPIE thinks we faked all the moon landings. What a round table full of idiots.

I deliberately wrote "Host" and left out a specific name. O'Reilly was left to the end of the paragraph (which should have been another) to emphasize something else. Bad grammar but somebody usually picks it up.

I really dont know who it was. The man had black hair with a few specks of gray. Kind of looked like Jay Leno in his younger years.

My grandfather does not speak of his military life. I gleaned what i know from reading plaques and such on the wall and from my grandmother. He is a humble and honorable man that does not need to brag nor belittle anyone. His character is what I find so admirable.

I dont criticize anyone for having an opinion but for the purpose of obtaining sound, untainted, unbiased info some avenues offer little to no help. If we are to get people on board and off the couch, they have to be able to discern personal feelings from hard facts that have no political persuasion. Political party affiliation should mean nothing in the end. The needs of society are the same as they always will be. Overall, I empathize with those dont know what to think about the issues. Everybody is the know-it-all and everybody has the answers. Well apparently not. Issues are complex and biased commentators are just mouthpieces in the long run.

Actually Bazooka I could STILL make a case for a gunny sack or 4 and 200 pounds of rocks...

The View is simply entertainment just like Jerry Springer. I would hope that those who watch it do not take it seriously. They may be off their rocker but then one could say that about most of the people that claim to know something.

"To solve problems created by government's role in our schools or health care, Congress now proposes a complete federal takeover of these systems"

Back to the point. The more complicated one makes something, the harder it is to fix. The more layers that are added to a story, the more difficult it is to decode. I would think this to be fundamental or daresay, common sense. Govt. takeover of their past mistakes seems like that would make the situation even more inefficient.

One of the motivations behind these controversial ideas that we debate here is that of access. Liberals or democrats feel that not everyone has access to social services, economic activities, or consumer purchases. That may be so. The point is that what someone wants, they should have to make the necessary sacrifices and adjustments for that.

Capitalism at its purest form, does not guarantee access but rather gives one the opportunity to pursue it. Socialism assumes that everyone wants these and so grants everybody the items listed above. The fundamental issue that economists and other intelligent people have struck with this is that not everyone wants or needs these. Having society (especially productive and healthy members) finance the activities of the non-productive or underproductive usually means that less money is pumped into Wall Street and they lose motivation to keep working so hard. I will end this tirade but driving up the debt and financing the not-so-productive will over the long run result in the young productive people of the future feeling like they are serving an indentured servitude.

I have been a bit busy lately so could you provide a link or a source to this "last days of life" item.

I would hope that they demand to view the bill(s). I feel that this issue is being colored with too much emotion and needs some objectivity.

I would also hope that leftwing or liberals or whatever you want to title them as would take more time to digest the finer points. It seems a bit rushed. I know that in politics, things take forever. Everybody has an opinion and everybody hs the answer. Indecision or delay can kill a bill that might benefit everyone. By the time that a bill gets out of committee and goes through the motions, it is rarely the same as it was in the beginning. In this case, this overly complex issue needs some dissection and careful analysis. Steamrolling this is not a sign of strong leadership or being decisive. It tells me that one fears criticism and wants it to sped through to avoid the critical eye.

On a side note, Hitler despised Democratic processes like these because he thought these overpaid, lazy, arrogant, aristocratic types that we call Legislators were exercising undue control over the peasants. He once himself was a peasant and felt that the upper crust had wronged him and his fellow average Germans. He desired a return to the Middle Ages where only one person made important decisions. He felt that modern (1920's Germany) times and democracy were leaving the peasants at the end of the whipping stick powerless to affect change. The flaw being that Hitler was notoriously lazy and hated to work manual labor jobs. He went to the Army to get off the street and not for civic pride. He blamed everyone else for his mostly poor life before entering politics. Why I bring this up? I can see why some would think this is occurring today? The other circumstances are not even remotely close. Yet I do feel that Americans need to take power away from the Legislators and empower themselves. I dont think that we will ever see a perfect democracy but we can sure try. The extreme cases of Nazi Germany and Caecescu in Romania will never be equaled here but we can learn from it. People are not as motivated to produce if they feel that they are powerless to affect their lives. Piling on taxes and making life complicated tell the average American that they need to work even harder to make the same living. I know life is hard but if its not needed why make it harder by adding more taxes and instituting more rules.

You make a fine point Twil, But remember, our congressmen and women are NOT supposed to be the upper crust. They are supposed to be our peers representing us in Washington. Now if you believe that I have some great views of the ocean for sale up on N. 10th with a great bridge to somewhere thrown in for free.

I am not sure what to make of the last sentence MHB.

You are correct or at least I feel that you are about them not being the upper crust.

To expand on the first paragraph a bit. In politics, indecision or finetuning can be seen as second-guessing or lacking confidence in one's decision. I acknowledge this but certain individuals need to man up and know that some decisions cant be made on a dime. If given the proper time and expertise, this could take years. Some will cry foul and get on TV and demand action. But if one can get it right the first time then we dont waste time, money, and resources adjusting or examining past legislation. This issue is complex and not one to brush over. I know that all that read this know this as well but sometimes shining some light helps.

finally, you two and Kim make some points as well at times, I just dont always give them credit.

Sorry Twil it was late. I meant to say that if you actually think our congress people believe they aren't the upper crust. Sorry for any confusion.

I am not sure if there is any way to seen in a positive light now. If they agree with the current admin. then they are hiking up taxes and being sheep. If they oppose some will say that they are foregoing jobs, economic growth, and other benefits all in the name of stubborn pride. I would say that more need to be stubborn because anything that changes too rapidly is going to be flawed. Time needs to be taken to ensure that things get done right the first time.

the numbers have been improving but those are a temporary band-aid on an issue that is going to endure. Society's expectations of its standard of living and what it expects from government need to be toned down. That is the only real way that change will occur.

Society endorsed the idea of a stimulus. This approval is shown by Americans strong reaction to prior efforts. Prior efforts by Bush were popular and so set the expectations for politicians that they can undertake these actions to appease the public. What the public does not see is that these short term loans will eventually need to be paid back. That is most likely to come in the form of increased taxes, lower market value for American goods, poor exchange rate, and eventual major downsizing of Federal activities. I support that last item but for those who are employed because of this, I dont blame their reluctance.

Plenty of polls were taken to show that people of all races, regions, and political affiliation supported govt. intervention. Knowing that people have supported past cash injections on the part of the government, they felt that it was an acceptable path. When jobs are lost, do people shut up and move on. No, they complain about this loss of livelihood. What do they want? They want a return to past conditions. Well past conditions cant happen. Market conditions and personal preferences dont allow for this.

Government has the ability to affect this situation because it affects everyone in some way. It, on the surface, undertakes action without being motivated by profit. It is supposed to indiscriminate but that has not always been the case. So people demand action by someone outside of the decision to be laid off.This outside party is the government in this situation. The layoff was not due to malice or conspiracy. It is due to the bottom line and decisions by those who care about it. So the government distorts the market by injecting cash, taking over the company, or whatever action one wants to insert in the sentence. Distorting the picture does not return one to the heyday of the past. Let corporate America fall on its sword. Making Joe and Sally at GM happy by restoring their jobs at the expense of the masses is not sound economics. The masses will end up paying a higher price than what those jobs are worth.

"it is supposed to be indiscriminate" is what i meant to say. Good thing I am not the editor for some newspaper or magazine.

McCain would have been faced with the decision to artificially restore jobs or let people flounder. If one distorts the market, that creates false expectations. Letting the jobs wash away, tells people that they have to pick themselves up and figure something else out. GM and its antiquated ways are a thing of the past. People need to be forced to change and adjust to the times.

The point of my previous post is that no matter who had been elected, they would have faced a daunting task. I realize that we think that we have all the answers, fixing the economy is an enormous task. Competing interests and different perceptions on what the problem really is will make this ever more complex. I dont agree with the current approach but I cant completely discredit it because there are an infinite number of possible actions and an equally large number of results.

Some would say that the worst thing that one can do is nothing. There is some credence to that. In the case of the current leaders, inaction might be best considering that their past decisions have yielded no solid answers. Only act if you know all the answers or close to all. Steamrolling through the exceedingly complex topics is worse than doing nothing. Doing nothing would not give the public false expectations.

I am glad to see that we can agree on something. I find that young people feel that the proverbial well will never run dry. No sense of urgency. They grew up having a rather high standard of living and think that its the status quo. I feel that our recent prosperity is not going to last forever. For every up there is a down. Trying to borrow to maintain the up in the face of a down is fine if there is solid evidence that the up will come soon. The problem is that there is no evidence to show that. Forecasts by impartial economists and business people show a somewhat bleak picture. People dont like to hear this or read this so they look the other way. Well their ignorance will catch up to them.

I have had times of poverty in my life. I lived in a trailer for 11 of my first 19 years. I dont need a 52-inch TV, season tickets to BSU, a decked-out Hummer, and a condo in Sun Valley to be happy.