1

Read newsbusters before reading the MSM and the reasons for the national pessimism become more apparent.

http://www.newsbusters.org

2

Read newsbusters before reading the MSM and the reasons for the national pessimism become more apparent.

http://www.newsbusters.org

3

"Pessimism is highly contagious and appears to have already affected a large majority of America. How else can we explain polls that show 73% of the population believes our country is headed in the “wrong direction” while 64% of Iraqis polled say their country was headed in the right direction? Are we really worse off than Iraq?"

The last sentence of this paragraph reveals a misreading of the poll results. The question was not "are we worse off than Iraq?" We can be far better off than Iraq and still headed in the wrong direction.

I'm not sure we are, though; other polls indicate that we may soon start heading in a better direction.

4

I once learnt in economics that peoples perceptions are sometimes based on what might happen, not necessarily on what is happening.
ie. People buy more petrol because the price might go up.

While the economy, gas prices and war in Iraq are all ok according to your analysis maybe people are expecting them to worsen. (as they look far from stable)

5

For conservatives, I think the pessimism is more linked to our moral direction - an issue which you did not address (or barely touched on), Joe. The obvious deduction is that once the moral underpinnings of society are removed, a nation cannot continue to be prosperous and secure.

>>The (largely successful) attack on the institutions of marriage, the family, education, and science. Some of these attacks are intentional, some are rooted in misguided philosophies.

>>The advent of militant homosexuality and homosexual activism. The incorporation into our lexicon of bizarre terms like "transgendered" and "intersexed." Hugh Hewitt was just talking the other day about how homosexual lobbyists are embarking on a strategy to include homosexual indoctrination in school textbooks in CA. Because of the huge CA market, this will mean that all textbooks across the country will be affected.

>>Usurpation of representative rule through the courts, extremely bad court decisions, and reluctance to punish the guilty.

>>Increasing hostility towards Christianity. The effort to abolish Christian language and symbols.

>>Growth of government and ever-increasing centralized government authority.

>>Multiculturalism and all that it implies.

>>Increase in the availability and use of pornography. Obscenity laws are all but gone. Obscenity is now considered "protected speech." Courts ruled that sexually oriented sites do not even have to make an effort to insure their vistors are legal adults.

>>Many episodes of inappropriate student/teacher relationships, coupled with lax punishment by the courts.

>>Decrease in respect for life as evidenced by abortion in general (especially "partial birth" abortions), experimentation on fetal remains, and euthanasia. Episodes of euthanasia will likely increase as our population ages and financial pressures on society increase.

>>from the conservative point of view, the apparent abandonment of the principles that our representatives are supposed to be advancing on our behalf. We elect them, and then they ignore us.

There is reason for optimism in that a conservative backlash is occurring. I have not yet been able to determine if this is a mere political movement or if it is rooted in real Christian revival. Whether this backlash will be successful remains to be seen. I note that even on conservative forums such as Free Republic, there is a real antipathy towards religion among many co-called conservatives.

Because of these kinds of issues, if I am asked your rhetorical question, I must also answer "no."

I welcome your thoughts.

6

There may be many reasons for the pessimism. I've said it before and I will probably say it again--I don't know how people can get through life without facing despair: tongue dragging, suicide contemplating, how-can-anyone-bring-any-children into-this-place desperation. It's what drove me to Christ. Obviously, that's more than pessimism, but I guess if you're not terribly sensitive to the miseries of life around you, you might be tempted to pessimism rather than desperation.

That being said, there is one all-encompassing reason for the pessimism: the constant drumbeat of negative coverage for George Bush and everything he stands for. I give you only one example. As Joe shows above, this economy is gangbusters. It's certainly as good as anytime during the Clinton years. How would anyone ever know that by listening to the news? During Clinton's tenure all we heard was what a great economy we had. (Thanks to the Clintonistas we continue to hear it.) The coverage today is completely different.

That's just one example. Multiply that by the Iraq War, Katrina coverage, illegal immigration, NSA wiretapping, Bird flu, Red Wings losing--I think I'll go kill myself now.

In addition, I will admit that if someone asked me whether or not I thought the country was headed in the wrong direction, I would probably say yes. I might even say I disapprove of Pres. Bush right now. But how meaningful is that? I'm not happy with the fact that he has yet to veto any spending, but the thought that any Democrat will behave better is laughable. What's amazing is that Democrats complain about Bush's domestic policy, while domestic spending has increased. They complain about the deficits, but never met a spending increase they didn't support (except for the military).

And don't tell me about balanced budgets during the Clinton years. Which is more likely: budget restraint while a Democrat is president, or budget restraint when a Congress is Republican for the first time in 40 years?

"I'm not sure we are, though; other polls indicate that we may soon start heading in a better direction."

Yeah, like speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will lead us back in the right direction. LOL

7

Rob,

I duly note that you failed to address or disconfirm any of the statistics quoted.

Personally, I'd like to see the Democrat party take Congress and paralyze DC with a divided government. That, I think, would be the best of all outcomes. I'd get to watch Teddy Kennedy even more than I do now, and I delight in ol' Ted. He is truly the face of the Democrat left; bloat, busted capillaries and all.

8

Joe, you mean to tell us that 100,000,000 women aren't being raped and beaten every year in the United States? I can't believe you would disagree with the feminist activists! We all know that nothing is getting better, not the least of which is rape and other sexual crime. Shame on you...

9

Hey, when all the news media shows you is doom and gloom, what else can you think? Rush Limbaugh says that what most likely is happening is that any random individual is thinking THEY are ok, THEY are moving forward economically, but with all the pessimism in the media, maybe their next door neighbor is worse off, so then they feel like an anomaly.

10

It's things like this that bolster my optimism.

Joe, this is your Carter-esque "malaise" speech.

It's the late 1970's all over again, except that Walmart wants to trademark the smiley-face.

But let's deconstruct it for a minute...

• New orders for manufactured goods are at the highest level since 1992.

Which is mostly a defense component these days. Sure there's refrigerators in it, perhaps, but automobiles? SUVs have taken a licking. The "Big 3 " aint' so big anymore.

• Increases in productivity have not led to increases in wages for most Americans for quite some time. Without the corresponding wage increase (which would then mitigate the productivity numbers) the factoid is meaningless for the average American.
• Workers' average hourly earnings ... are also meaningless. Give us the median.
• The unemployment rate ... has not reflected "discouraged workers" for years. Employment rates (the percentage of the population able to work and working) is the not much different than it was in 2001.




• ...the Dow Jones industrial average climbed to 11,539.23, a new six-year high...LOL! i LOVE this factoid! If you threw out all Dow components save for Defense, Energy, and Materials, the index would be down, down down. And this is 6 years in a market that is a secular bear market by any serious market watcher's eyes. I have soooo beaten the market by betting on the deterioration of the American economy at the hands of the Republicans. Say, Joe, does this mean you've put every last dime into the Dow? When gold went up some 35% in the first part of this year alone? When the Indian market went up almost 50% in the first part of this year? Hey Joe, plunk all your money into Microsoft...
• Remember how the tax cuts were going to lead to increased deficits? In April, income tax payments pushed up government receipts to the second-highest level in history (which occurred in April 2001), proving once again that yes, indeed, the reason why Congress raised the debt ceiling to an unprecedented - I think it's 10 trillion dollars- is because Republican economics does nothing but impoverish us and our kids. And the Republicans just passed another tax increase on our kids!

Americans know their budget is being squeezed, and by record high housing and medical prices, and they know their wages have been flat. The lucky duckies like me have been able to profit from this situation well, but it's because we can make money on the downside of all this.

11

Mumon:

Joe, this is your Carter-esque "malaise" speech.

Huh? It helps if you actually read the post.

12

Joe, you are missing one big issue--housing costs. Wages (median, not mean is the best measure) have barely risen in the last 5 years, but house prices in a lot of the country have almost doubled.

13

Pessimism is highly contagious and appears to have already affected a large majority of America. How else can we explain polls that show 73% of the population believes our country is headed in the “wrong direction” while 64% of Iraqis polled say their country was headed in the right direction? Are we really worse off than Iraq?

First of all, what does whether not we are worse off than Iraq have to do with whether or not we think we are moving in the right direction? Are you going to tell us we shouldn't feel pessismistic until the US gets as bad as Iraq?

Second of all, considering how bad Iraq is at the moment how many directions can it go in other than 'the right direction'.

Year-to-date recruiting numbers are also impressive. As of April, the Army had exceeded its goal by 4 percent, with more than 37,000 recruits. The Marine Corps and Air Force exceeded their goals by 1 percent, with almost 15,000 and almost 18,000 recruits, respectively. And the Navy met its goal, recruiting almost 18,000 sailors. (HT: Power Line)

Perhaps, I seem to recall a story a year or two that announced that the Pentegon was dramatically reducing its recruiting goals...hence instead of bad press about falling short they could have positive headlines about meeting or beating goals. Last year the army seemed to be toying with the idea of lowering standards (http://www.slate.com/id/2120146/) in order to retain more troops. Not something you'd have to consider if you had more than enough volunteers.

But you have nevertheless assembled a nice array of good news. You've shown that the cause for this pessism cannot be objective metrics regarding our national economy, crime rates, health and so on. The only thing you left out is that George Bush is still President. Perhaps there is a relationship between his stunningly poor poll numbers and this mysterious national pessism. Perhaps the American people are correctly evaluating their leaders as devoid of proper leadership skills and are pessismitic because they figure no good will come of that in the long run.

Like a Stephen Colbert conservative, though, you'd rather blame the problem on some sort of mass hysteria or pandemic of mental illness.

Jeff:
For conservatives, I think the pessimism is more linked to our moral direction - an issue which you did not address (or barely touched on), Joe. The obvious deduction is that once the moral underpinnings of society are removed, a nation cannot continue to be prosperous and secure.

Ahhh yes. We must have a lot of moral underpinnings because people have been complaining about the moral underpinnings of society being removed for, say, the last ten thousand years or so. What exactly are they talking about here? Did you not get your guy elected President twice? You know, the one who would return 'truth and dignity' to the White House? Are you telling me he did as bad a job with the underpinnings as he did the New Orleans levees?

14

Personally, I'd like to see the Democrat party take Congress and paralyze DC with a divided government. That, I think, would be the best of all outcomes. I'd get to watch Teddy Kennedy even more than I do now, and I delight in ol' Ted. He is truly the face of the Democrat left; bloat, busted capillaries and all.

Ahhh yes, still living in the 80's I see. Anyway, nice to see you revel in fine Christian sentiments.

jd
During Clinton's tenure all we heard was what a great economy we had. (Thanks to the Clintonistas we continue to hear it.) The coverage today is completely different.

Not true, as someone who follows the business news in a casual manner I can tell you the jist of the coverage has been concern about whether or not the housing/debt bubble will burst, whether the economy is running too good and if that will cause inflation to pick up or cause the Fed to get trigger happy and raise rates too much (a recurring story during the Clinton years as well) and whether our deficit/trade imbalace is sustainable...roughly in that order. Besides you didn't even have Fox News for most of the Clinton years!

That's just one example. Multiply that by the Iraq War, Katrina coverage, illegal immigration, NSA wiretapping, Bird flu, Red Wings losing--I think I'll go kill myself now.

Yea, well, that pesky MSM keeps mentioning Iraq & even those annoying Katrina people won't just go away. The Bird Flu seems to be the diaster of the week and will go away once all the made-for-tv movies run their course. As for illegal immigation, you gotta admit Bush opened up that can of worms himself and a huge part of the negative coverage is coming from fellow GOPers who are bashing him. As for the wiretapping, Bush pretty much got a pass for it. As he did for his oft-repeated declarations that he sits as the Ultimate Constitutional Authority. Poor Nixon must be rolling over in his grave.

15

Hey, those gas numbers...they only go to 2004. Plug in the current price of gas and those numbers really are "record high"

16

Hmmm...maybe people think this country is headed in the wrong direction because of:

- the unwinnable quagmire we're in in Iraq with no coherent plan to get our troops home as more die each day for no reason

- the NSA tapping our phone calls and compiling a list of EVERY CALL MADE IN AMERICA, against our Constitutional right to privacy

- our president and his signing statements that allow him to ignore more laws than the last 10 president combined.

- the fact that we're more hated around the world than ever before.

- the fact that almost 5 years after 9/11, our ports still aren't secure.

- our government's pathetic response to emergencies like Katrina due to incompetant cronyism.

I could go on and on...

17

You don't suppose our use of torture, our having lied ourselves into a war, the total screwup post-Katrina, the warrantless illegal wiretapping, the illegal compilation by the NSA of records on every phone call made through three of the largest telcos, the massive theft of funds in Iraq, and the metastasizing Cunningham/MZM and Abramoff scandals have anything to do with it, do you?

18

'the sum will come out tomorrow, it is only a day away!'

19

Boonton,

...people have been complaining about the moral underpinnings of society being removed for, say, the last ten thousand years or so.

I do not even know how to respond to that. What are you trying to say here? That civilizations rise and fall, people die, injustices happen, therefore so what - life goes on? A lot of horrible things have happened in that 10,000 years (or 5,000 years, in deference to young earthers). Are you a fatalist? Is it not incumbent on us to strive for freedom and justice?

20

Is it not incumbent on us to strive for freedom and justice?

Hilarious coming from a Bush supporter, seeing as he's given this country less freedon and brought no one (in his administration or out — Hello Osama!) to justice.

21

Rob The last sentence of this paragraph reveals a misreading of the poll results. The question was not "are we worse off than Iraq?" We can be far better off than Iraq and still headed in the wrong direction.

That’s a valid point. I reworded that sentence to better convey what I intended.

Rhys While the economy, gas prices and war in Iraq are all ok according to your analysis maybe people are expecting them to worsen. (as they look far from stable).

But what are their expectations based on? I agree with you that “peoples perceptions are sometimes based on what might happen” and will add that what they perceive will likely become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people become pessimistic about the economy than it will start heading for a downturn.

Jeff For conservatives, I think the pessimism is more linked to our moral direction - an issue which you did not address (or barely touched on), Joe.

I did want to address the moral aspects but the post was already too lengthy. The problem is that (despite Bill Bennet’s valid effort) we don’t have an objective list of indicators to determine what moral direction we are heading. We live in a fallen world and until the Lord returns we will always have to deal with the effects of sin.

But that shouldn’t, in my opinion, require that conservative Christians be perpetual pessimists (“Sure the world’s on a path of moral decline. The world is always going to hell…”). While we still have a laundry list of issues to deal with, we should be grateful and realistic about the progress that has been made.

Mumom Joe, this is your Carter-esque "malaise" speech.

Um, no, that’s the wrong analogy. Carter’s malaise speech was about how bad things were. This is my “morning in America” speech.

Which is mostly a defense component these days. Sure there's refrigerators in it, perhaps, but automobiles? SUVs have taken a licking. The "Big 3 " aint' so big anymore.

And your point is…? We aren’t living in the 1950s anymore.

Increases in productivity have not led to increases in wages for most Americans for quite some time. Without the corresponding wage increase (which would then mitigate the productivity numbers) the factoid is meaningless for the average American.

Perhaps you missed the part where I noted that wages have “increased at a 5.7 percent annual rate.”

Workers' average hourly earnings ... are also meaningless. Give us the median.

Why? So you can say that those are also meaningless? I’ll admit that since wages don’t include health and retirement benefits, wage stats underreport increases in our standard of living. But an increase in earnings is hardly “meaningless.”

The unemployment rate ... has not reflected "discouraged workers" for years.

Discouraged workers? You mean people who are so discouraged about finding a job that they simply stopped looking for one? Do you really think there is really a large number of people in our country who can afford to sit around on their duff because they are “discouraged?” Please. Can you really believe this nonsense you spout?

Employment rates (the percentage of the population able to work and working) is the not much different than it was in 2001.

So you’re saying that unemployment hasn’t been a problem for the past five years?

i LOVE this factoid! If you threw out all Dow components save for Defense, Energy, and Materials, the index would be down, down down.

Um, okay, why in the world would we want to “throw out” those components? Do you even realize how hard you are having to dig to come up with reasons for being pessimistic? It’s getting to the point of inanity.

And this is 6 years in a market that is a secular bear market by any serious market watcher's eyes.

Oh, yes, the rise in stock prices just makes it appear to be a bull market. Sure. Do you even know what a “bear market” is? It’s a prolonged period in which investment prices fall.

….proving once again that yes, indeed, the reason why Congress raised the debt ceiling to an unprecedented - I think it's 10 trillion dollars- is because Republican economics does nothing but impoverish us and our kids.

You’ve lost me. Are you know saying that increasing the Treasury’s coffers is impoverishing our kids? I thought you were against tax cuts.

SamChevre Joe, you are missing one big issue--housing costs. Wages (median, not mean is the best measure) have barely risen in the last 5 years, but house prices in a lot of the country have almost doubled.

But don't Americans own these houses? If the price doubles, isn’t that a boon to the homeowner/seller? I’ll admit that housing prices are high. But take a guess at the reaction people will have when housing prices start falling. Will that indicator be viewed as a positive or negative sign of the direction of the economy?

Boonton You've shown that the cause for this pessism cannot be objective metrics regarding our national economy, crime rates, health and so on. The only thing you left out is that George Bush is still President.

I wanted to highlight this part for what comes next…

Like a Stephen Colbert conservative, though, you'd rather blame the problem on some sort of mass hysteria or pandemic of mental illness.

Let’s look at the way Wikipedia defines “reality-based community”:

“a term…used to suggest the blogger's opinions are based more on observation than faith, assumption, or ideology and that others who disagree are unrealistic.”

So according to Boonton we should ignore the “objective metrics” and base our pessimism on a hatred of George Bush. It’s good to see that he has dropped any pretense to being part of the “reality based community.”

22

copyboy,

Keep trying. One day you may be elevated to copyman!

23

...brought no one (in his administration or out — Hello Osama!) to justice.

Did you forget Saddam Hussein? Of course you did, because such an example would have disproved your absurd assertion.

24

Jeff Blogworthy:

I did read all of Carter's post, and with a mixture of glee and schadenfreude to boot.

Joe has obviously cherry picked numbers... and no amount of propaganda will change what's in the typical American's wallet.

25

Jeff - just like a typical Republican. Attack the messenger when you've got zero response to the message.

Joe, seeing as there hasn't even been a verdict in the Saddam trial, let alone a sentence, I wouldn't be so quick to count those chickens before they hatch.

And as for my "absurd assertion" that we're less free? Read the Patriot Act and get back to me. Unless you'd rather argue that 5 years later, Osama Bin Laden actually HAS been brought to justice?

That's what I thought.

26

I do not even know how to respond to that. What are you trying to say here? That civilizations rise and fall, people die, injustices happen, therefore so what - life goes on? A lot of horrible things have happened in that 10,000 years (or 5,000 years, in deference to young earthers). Are you a fatalist? Is it not incumbent on us to strive for freedom and justice?

I'm asking when you say something like conservatives are upset that society is losing its moral underpinnings are you just filling the space up with some meaningless text or are you actually articulating an idea. Is our society less morally 'underpinned' today than it was in, say, 1997? Are people who make this argument actually looking and responding to the real world or is this just the unending lament of old men that young people today are going to hell in a henbasket.

Joe:
So according to Boonton we should ignore the “objective metrics” and base our pessimism on a hatred of George Bush. It’s good to see that he has dropped any pretense to being part of the “reality based community.”

Notice the loaded language, 'hatred of George Bush'. What was it that I speculated the public might have concluded?

Perhaps the American people are correctly evaluating their leaders as devoid of proper leadership skills and are pessismitic because they figure no good will come of that in the long run.

Can Joe explain to me how the fact that, say, less than 100 people have died of bird flu is an objective metric that tells us that George Bush has good leadership skills. Let's imagine Joe in a performance review at work.

Boss: Since you took over sales, we've lost three of our best salesmen and we have missed our sales goal for six months straight.

Joe: Objectively, however, the water coolers are always filled with fresh water. The mail room has been losing less inter-office mail than ever before and IT has completed their email server upgrade three days ahead of schedule. So your negative review of me must be based on some sort of strange mental illness.

27

copyboy,

Attack the messenger when you've got zero response to the message.

You have no "message." You only make gratuitous assertions and advance baseless innuendo. You do not argue your conclusions, you expect people to infer them. That is not good enough. Come back when you have something to say.

28

Justin Hey, those gas numbers...they only go to 2004. Plug in the current price of gas and those numbers really are "record high"

The record high price was set in 1981 at an inflation-adjusted price of $3.12 per gallon. The only place in the country where prices are that high is in San Francisco ($3.34). The national average is $2.90. California is almost always 30 to 40 cents above the national average because of their stringent state regulations.

29

Jeff, I'll repeat myself:

Hmmm...maybe people think this country is headed in the wrong direction because of:

- the unwinnable quagmire we're in in Iraq with no coherent plan to get our troops home as more die each day for no reason

- the NSA tapping our phone calls and compiling a list of EVERY CALL MADE IN AMERICA, against our Constitutional right to privacy

- our president and his signing statements that allow him to ignore more laws than the last 10 president combined.

- the fact that we're more hated around the world than ever before.

- the fact that almost 5 years after 9/11, our ports still aren't secure.

- our government's pathetic response to emergencies like Katrina due to incompetant cronyism.

Care you DIRECTLY debate any of those facts? Somehow I doubt it.

30

Joe Carter:

LOL! SLV is at 149+ today, DBC is up over 7% since I bought it a few months ago, IIF is going gangbusters, and...oh, yeah... it's "morning in America."

So you’re saying that unemployment hasn’t been a problem for the past five years?

I should have said employment levels- the absolute number of people working, which hasn't kept pace with the growth in the workforce.

It really is that bad.

I’ll admit that since wages don’t include health and retirement benefits, wage stats underreport increases in our standard of living. But an increase in earnings is hardly “meaningless.”

The median reflects precisely that; it doesn't include wages from CEOs or hedge fund managers, which skew the "average." C'mon, you're a smart guy you can admit that...

Regarding your "5.7%" number, it's therefore of interest as to whether it's a quantile (median, 75% percentile, etc.) or an average number. Your reference is silent on that issue.

Um, okay, why in the world would we want to “throw out” those components? Do you even realize how hard you are having to dig to come up with reasons for being pessimistic? It’s getting to the point of inanity.

OK, maybe this is where I humbly admit that maybe I know something you don't. If you throw out those other components (which are directly due to hitting people in the pocketbook, either at the gas pumps or in delayed tax increases or in devaluation of the dollar) you're left with the economic components that would, if they were growing, have a real multiplier effect on the economy, if they were growing, which they aren't.

On the other hand, if you take only the components of defense, materials, and energy, and throw the rest out, you're beating the Dow like a gong. I will admit some gratitude to the SECs of the Clinton and Bush regimes for allowing ETFs to proliferate...

Unfortunately most Americans in their 401(k)'s don't have the option of filtering out the dog sectors of the economy...if they could put enough in those accounts in the first place.

But finally, those sectors are big because core inflation is coming back, and the only response our folks in Washington have is to raise interest rates.

Going long on DIA Joe? Really?

Are you know saying that increasing the Treasury’s coffers is impoverishing our kids? I thought you were against tax cuts.

Tax receipts may have increased, but debt levels are astronomic. I'd say the Repubs are bad stewards of our resources.

31

"The effort to abolish Christian language and symbols."

Jeff, maybe you would be less pessimistic if you only worried about things that are actually happening. You would seem less disingenous if you said "remove Christian displays on government property." No one is entering your home or church and repressing your practice of your faith. No one is pulling the plug on Franklin Graham or Pat Robertson. Again, the transgressors are portrayed as victims.

32

"Rush Limbaugh says that what most likely is happening is that any random individual is thinking THEY are ok, THEY are moving forward economically, but with all the pessimism in the media, maybe their next door neighbor is worse off, so then they feel like an anomaly."

If Rush says so then it must be true... No wonder these people support The Decider. Not only are dumb and gullible, they are also mentally disturbed.

33

The right wing so often has logic and reading comprehension problems.

"How else can we explain polls that show 73% of the population believes our country is headed in the “wrong direction” while 64% of Iraqis polled say their country was headed in the right direction? Are we really worse off than Iraq? "

Iran is a country moving away from a brutal dictator, towards a *chance* at democracy, though things are not looking so good at the moment because the administration has scred it up.

The US is a country moving from being the light of the world in freedom and principles to the worst president ever, with spending like a drunk navy (not just a sailor), with lying and corruption and evil (e.g., torture) and more.

The polls compare the countries' directions, not which is better for quality of life.

Going from -30 to -20 is a better trend than going from 50 to 20, even though 20 is great than -20.

34

Rob,

The ChrisTaliban in this country wants to impose its medieval views on everyone else.

They love to pose as victims, and they constantly whine about the "war on Christianity".

Yet, no one forces their women to have abortions; no one forces them to marry gays, or to have relationships with gays, or to become gay; no one prevents them from entering their places of worship; no one persecutes them for being Christians; no one prevents them from spewing their vitriolic hatred of anyone who is not like them...

Maybe we should ship their pious asses over to Iraq to give them a look ate REAL war. As for religious persecution, I suggest we show them a taste of it by sending them off to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where being a Christian is literally dangerous to your health.

Maybe they'll stop whining...

35

Amazingly enough, Christians got their own little gov't office under Bush...the "Office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives"...translated that should be "Office to Hand Out Federal Pork Dollars to Conservative Christians and Pretend its about Local Communities"...

So again what is Jeff talking about or is he just talking the usual "everything was better 30 years ago" line?

As a side note, when people complain about things like "The effort to abolish Christian language and symbols" do they realize how much they are starting to sound like the victimization cults that the left engaged in during the late 70's and 80's? The bigger story IMO is the intellectual bankruptcy of the right that has been taking place in the last ten years or so. Part of this story is the rather pathological obsession with turning over every stone to find ways to paint themselves as victims.

36

Maybe we should ship their pious asses over to Iraq to give them a look ate REAL war. As for religious persecution, I suggest we show them a taste of it by sending them off to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where being a Christian is literally dangerous to your health.

Would you recommend this proscription for whiners on both sides of the aisle, both left and right?

37

Maybe we should ship their pious asses over to Iraq to give them a look ate REAL war. As for religious persecution, I suggest we show them a taste of it by sending them off to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where being a Christian is literally dangerous to your health.

Speaking of a real war on Christians how is our little pet country Afghanistan doing? Last I heard they had some guy sitting in jail because he was a Muslim who converted to Christianity. Whatever happened to him? Is he going to be the first person to be executed by the Afghan gov't since we oversaw its 'reconstruction'?

38

Speaking of a real war on Christians how is our little pet country Afghanistan doing? Last I heard they had some guy sitting in jail because he was a Muslim who converted to Christianity. Whatever happened to him? Is he going to be the first person to be executed by the Afghan gov't since we oversaw its 'reconstruction'?

Do you think his execution is more or less likely now that the Taliban is no longer in control?

39

I agree with Joe back on March 21st when he wrote:

Did American troops give their lives removing the repressive Taliban government only for us to replace it with Taliban-lite? Will we once again remain silent as a government we helped to install executes a man for his religious beliefs?

He also noted:
The deafening silence continued months later when President Bush and the U.N. were praising the adoption of the new constitution. Even astute political pundits like Ed Morrissey failed to recognize the threat, repeating the claim that “there will be no mullahs passing supreme judgment on government and no Shari'a.” Rahman would beg to differ
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001856.html

So when you ask:
Do you think his execution is more or less likely now that the Taliban is no longer in control?

I guess you can say you think it merits optimism that American troops gave their lives to marginally decrease the odds that a man is executed for his religious beliefs.

40

"Whatever happened to him?"

Released. I think he is in Italy.

41

BTW, in case you were wondering for real http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_%28convert%29 says that he was released at the end of March after the prosecutor was ordered to investigate 'holes' in his case. In the meantime he was moved to Italy where the Italian government gave him aslyum.

Religious freedom is still not guaranteed in Afghanistan.

42

Since this blog is called "Evangelical Outpost," I'm going to assume that many here voted for Bush in 2000 on the abortion issue. So, I'm just going to point out that abortion rates have been on the rise for 5 years now after 8 straight declining years under Clinton to the point where they were at a 25-year low in 2000. The reason abortion rates have been rising under Bush is that poverty has been increasing every year under Bush. Abortion rates follow poverty rates.

43

I guess you can say you think it merits optimism that American troops gave their lives to marginally decrease the odds that a man is executed for his religious beliefs.

I believe the primary mission of the American troops was to remove a government that threatened the security of the US; the secondary mission would have been to begin to implement reforms in Afghan society.

Quite obviously, the second won't be implemented on the left-wing 'if it's not done tomorrow it must be a failure' scale of success.

44

"The effort to abolish Christian language and symbols"

Can you cite even one example of this effort which is not related to public displays of christian symbols on public property? In my town, there is a huge white cross displayed up on the side of a mountain. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics and athiests may be uncomfortable with this display, but there is nothing anyone can do about it because it's on private property. That's just fine. It's a free country. But in my town, if someone seriously said christian symbols were under attack, almost anyone would just laugh.

45

So, I'm just going to point out that abortion rates have been on the rise for 5 years now after 8 straight declining years under Clinton to the point where they were at a 25-year low in 2000. The reason abortion rates have been rising under Bush is that poverty has been increasing every year under Bush. Abortion rates follow poverty rates.

Any actual evidence for this?

46

Geez you folks are really getting off topic; the topic was: "The Economy, and Why Your Increasingly Untenable Economic Position Doesn't Matter- Everything's Rosy."

47

I've read that teachers who work in schools which teach girls have been beheaded by the Taliban in Afganistan. In Iraq, just 2 weeks ago, girls had to watch as Shiites executed two of their teachers right in front of them. I'm sorry, but anyone who is optimistic in the face of this is deranged.

48

if people would stop watching 7th Heaven they're realize what's going on with our Nation...

49

BludDog49 So, I'm just going to point out that abortion rates have been on the rise for 5 years now after 8 straight declining years under Clinton to the point where they were at a 25-year low in 2000.

I’m afraid your mistaken on this point. Even Planned Parenthood’s think tank, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, says that abortion has declined under Bush. As FactCheck.org notes:

Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.

This claim is false. It's based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased. Update, May 26: The author of the original claim now concedes that the Guttmacher study is "significantly better" than his own.

But the claim is untrue. In fact, according to the respected Alan Guttmacher Institute, a 20-year decline in abortion rates continued after Bush took office, as shown in this graph…

Abortion rates follow poverty rates.

If this is true, then why are abortion rates going down while poverty rates are remaining stable?

50

jhudson, the abortion statistics are the government's. The assertion that abortion rates follow poverty rates is pretty much accepted by everyone who studies historical trends.

51

Incidentally, Joe, excellent timing for this post.

The market realized that it's either the Fed raising rates or the dollar going in the toilet, and so the Dow is down by about 138 points so far today.

Ah, the "Bush Boom." Ka-boom!

52

If this is true, then why are abortion rates going down while poverty rates are remaining stable?

Exactly; and you would expect abortion rates to coincide with the poorest part of the country - which they quite obviously don't.

53

Joe, I don't think Planned Parenthood agrees with your statement, so I question the Guttmacher Institute's conclusions. And, according to our own government statistics, the poverty rate has been increasing every year since 2001, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that "poverty rates are stable." In addition, the Guttmacher study was concluded in 2002, so how could anyone draw a conclusion about the last five years based on that study?

54

jhudson, the abortion statistics are the government's. The assertion that abortion rates follow poverty rates is pretty much accepted by everyone who studies historical trends.

Again, an assertion is not evidence. Even if it is an assertion by the amorphous those 'who studies historical trends'.

55

The market realized that it's either the Fed raising rates or the dollar going in the toilet, and so the Dow is down by about 138 points so far today.

So, if it goes up again next week will you announce the Bush economy a success?

Oh, wait, I forgot, people who hate Bush only utilize short-term trends on the market to bash him.

56

Any actual evidence for this?

This reminds me, self-appointed nag Bill Bennent came out with the "Index of Leading Cultural Indicators" in the early 90's. The idea was to be an index to show how good or bad we were morally so we wouldn't pay too much attention to the booming economy during the Clinton years. It was made up of things like illegitimate birth rates, abortion rates, crime stats and so on.

After a few years he stopped holding press conferences on it because his metric kept moving in a positive direction under cutting his goal of arguing that America was selling its soul out during the Clinton years.

Regarding abortion I suggest taking a peek at http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/rptdabinc.html. Glen Stassen published opinion pieces claiming a rise in the abortion rate since 2000 but his analysis seems to have been faulty. It is true that since the 90's there seems to have been a continued decrease in the abortion rate in the US.

57

In my town, there is a huge white cross displayed up on the side of a mountain. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics and athiests may be uncomfortable with this display, but there is nothing anyone can do about it because it's on private property.

Don't be so sure Christianity on private property is not under attack. Let me ask you this. If you had a 900 acre farm and occasionally had a bunch of friends over to roast a pig and drink some beer, do you think that's any of the government's business? Let's change it...now you and your friends are meeting to worship your God....

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50145

58

Exactly; and you would expect abortion rates to coincide with the poorest part of the country - which they quite obviously don't.

Not necessarily. Suppose the abortion rate does track the poverty rate but also different areas have different 'tastes' for abortion. For example, abortion could be very rare in Alabama and very common in New York. In both states abortion could track the povery rate so if poverty goes up in Alabama so does abortion BUT Alabama will still remain less abortion prone than New York. Likewise poverty might fall in New York lowering its abortion rate but still leaving it well above Alabama. In both cases looking at the geographic dispersion of abortion would not show a relationship between poverty and abortion yet decreasing poverty in this hypothetical would be the best way to decrease abortion in either New York or Alabama.

I think there probably is a positive relationship between poverty and abortion but I know enough statistics to know that real life regression analysis rarely produces crystal clear pictures.

59

Don't be so sure Christianity on private property is not under attack. Let me ask you this. If you had a 900 acre farm and occasionally had a bunch of friends over to roast a pig and drink some beer, do you think that's any of the government's business? Let's change it...now you and your friends are meeting to worship your God....

WOW!!!! Out of the millions of square miles in the US and hundreds...thousands of local gov'ts there is actually a case where there is a zoning dispute that involves...gasp!!!!...a Church!!!! Clearly the only reasonable explanation is a WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!

60

Not necessarily. Suppose the abortion rate does track the poverty rate but also different areas have different 'tastes' for abortion. For example, abortion could be very rare in Alabama and very common in New York. In both states abortion could track the povery rate so if poverty goes up in Alabama so does abortion BUT Alabama will still remain less abortion prone than New York. Likewise poverty might fall in New York lowering its abortion rate but still leaving it well above Alabama. In both cases looking at the geographic dispersion of abortion would not show a relationship between poverty and abortion yet decreasing poverty in this hypothetical would be the best way to decrease abortion in either New York or Alabama.

I think there probably is a positive relationship between poverty and abortion but I know enough statistics to know that real life regression analysis rarely produces crystal clear pictures.

I am sure if abortion is widely available and touted as a solution for those who think they can't handle having a child, then yes, one would expect some correlation.

But no such correlation, as you have noted, is obviously apparent.

There are many factors which might effect a rise in abortion rates, among them, the general promotion of abortion as a moral option when dealing with a pregnancy; also the pessimism that Joe speaks of could play a factor. Either way, there has been no significant trend toward more abortions while Bush has been in office.

61

jhudson:

So, if it goes up again next week will you announce the Bush economy a success?

Oh, wait, I forgot, people who hate Bush only utilize short-term trends on the market to bash him.

Dude, this isn't a one week or one day thing. Moreover, it's not a Bush-bashing thing.

Deficits are at unprecedented levels. But for the peg of the yuan to the dollar and massive intervention by Japan's central bank, the dollar would have already crashed and burned...and it's already quite a bit down with respect to the won (quick- what country?) the zloty, and a few other currencies.

You have to realize something: the whole world plays a global market these days. China and India are not running to buy gold, nor are countries such as Russia diversifying out of dollar reserves in favor of the Euro because they don't like Bush.

OK, maybe Chavez doesn't like Bush, but he's got good reason to not like him. But the rest of the world is only looking at risk and reward. And sure Bush brought risk to the US. But it's nothing personal. It's just business.

Too bad for the true believers in Bush, Tokyo, Bombay, Shanghai, London, Frankfurt, and other centers of finance in the world don't rely on what Powerline says or Rush Limbaugh.

They could care less.

And so could I, except to say, I'm glad the market for shorting Bush still isn't tapped.

62

And so could I, except to say, I'm glad the market for shorting Bush still isn't tapped.

So today's particular point-drop to which you tied your Bush bash is, as I pointed out, irrelevent?

63

Also the problem with poverty is that coming up with policies to reduce it is anything but easy. If it was then we should be cutting poverty regardless of its impact on abortion rates.

The best policy in light of our ignorance is long run economic growth and there's good reason for pessimism here. The Bush administration has been all about the short term fix. We just might have landed in a sweet spot where a global savings glut has made it easy for us to run huge deficits for a long time and get away with it. If so then our good economy would be caused by dumb (emphasis on dumb) luck.

64

Fair point jhudson, even moreso a move of 138 points in the Dow is hardly very important in itself unless you're a day trader or someone taking a big bet on the Dow's short term volitility.

65

The best policy in light of our ignorance is long run economic growth and there's good reason for pessimism here. The Bush administration has been all about the short term fix. We just might have landed in a sweet spot where a global savings glut has made it easy for us to run huge deficits for a long time and get away with it. If so then our good economy would be caused by dumb (emphasis on dumb) luck.

Well, I would attribute that less to a particular administration than to our materialistic culture which is very much about a "short term fix"; which would include, presumably, aborting one's unwanted children.

66

jdhudson:

I was only citing facts, and as Steve Colbert pointed out, maybe that was unfair, because facts do have a liberal bias.

Yeah dude. All those traders in London and Frankfurt and Tokyo are just bashing Bush... LOL!

Incidentally, it turns out the the "reenlistments are up" talking point is already shot.

The Army Reserve, taxed by recruiting shortfalls and war-zone duty, has adopted a policy barring officers from leaving the service if their field is undermanned or they have not been deployed to Iraq, to Afghanistan or for homeland defense missions.

The reserve has used the unpublicized policy, first adopted in 2004 and strengthened in a May 2005 memo signed by Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, its commander, to disapprove the resignations of at least 400 reserve officers, according to Army figures.

Well that about does it for the propaganda believers...

67

Well, I would attribute that less to a particular administration than to our materialistic culture ...

No this 'short term fix' economics is particular to this administration. So is the general level of cronyism and sheer incompetence.

68

Incidentally, it turns out the the "reenlistments are up" talking point is already shot.

I believe that Joe said:

"Year-to-date recruiting numbers are also impressive. As of April, the Army had exceeded its goal by 4 percent, with more than 37,000 recruits. The Marine Corps and Air Force exceeded their goals by 1 percent, with almost 15,000 and almost 18,000 recruits, respectively. And the Navy met its goal, recruiting almost 18,000 sailors."

The article you cited said:

Meanwhile, the Army Reserve is falling short of recruits, making only 84 percent of its recruiting goal in fiscal 2005, and 95 percent so far this fiscal year.

I don't believe this 'shoots down' Joe's statement.

69

No this 'short term fix' economics is particular to this administration. So is the general level of cronyism and sheer incompetence

Well, no, their was no great preparation during the prvious administration, when times were easier economically, for the inevitable downturns.

And that is part of my point; we are a short term fix culture. We want the government to 'fix poverty' and 'protect the borders' and 'maintain a balanced budget' and 'reduce the trade deficit' while we individually buy things produced cheaply elsewhere from known enemies of the US, enriching those who would do us harm, while impoverishing ourselves and our neighbors; the government in many ways is really just a reflection of our own individual choices and desires.

70

"Don't be so sure Christianity on private property is not under attack. Let me ask you this. If you had a 900 acre farm and occasionally had a bunch of friends over to roast a pig and drink some beer, do you think that's any of the government's business? Let's change it...now you and your friends are meeting to worship your God...."

This is a zoning issue, not an attack on Christianity. Does anyone seriously think this wouldn't have been pursued if it had been any OTHER religion. I'll bet anyone that the officials pursuing this dispute are mostly, if not all, Christians themselves.

Got any others?

71

Boonton:

Your ignorance concerning the bias of the mainstream media can only be intentional. I note you didn't even bother to quote some statistics from some left-wing website to support your contention that the coverage of Bush's economy has been much more relentlessly negative than the coverage during the Clinton years. But then I shouldn't expect a serious answer from "someone who follows the news in a casual manner". Do you have any idea how ridiculous you appear?

72

jhudson:

Don't encourage Mumon to share his thoughts. They are best kept to himself.

73

I note you didn't even bother to quote some statistics from some left-wing website to support your contention that the coverage of Bush's economy has been much more relentlessly negative than the coverage during the Clinton years.

I know, facts have a liberal bias, and...see Steve Colbert...

But the facts are the facts, and even though there were economic problems during the Clinton years (most memorably to me, that the S&P 500 was reported as overvalued way back in '96, on PBS's "liberal" Frontline program)and interest rates were too high for much of those years, the facts remain the facts.

Like how CNBC and other market programs always, always encouraged "buys" and never "sells." (Liberal? Nah. It has to do with volume and commissions, and viewers.)

Then there are other facts...like how during the 1990s Alan Greenspan was caught lying to Congress.

You want to shoot the messenger or blame the media that's "biased."

Look, Stephen Roach isn't a "liberal," he's just trying to make money.

He says the dollar's declining, and explains why it didn't last year, but did the year before. Being prudent is in these days.

You (and Joe Carter) seem kind of peeved because Americans have awakened and smelled the coffee: the economy stinks (which is the natural result of a war, whether you buy one on credit or pay as you go).

The media, in case you haven't noticed, is a capitalist enterprise. It's got a capitalist bias in that it's reason for existence is to make money for its owners.

It's not a "liberal media" thing- why don't you folks for once in your lives actually take responsibility for something, instead of being irresponsible, good for nothing shills for welfare queens like Halliburton?

Not that it matters- as I said, the whole world looks at the numbers and capital flows, and the whole US media could report that poop was gold, but savvy investors would and will still know better.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no "Bush Boom." The conservatives have had, continue to have, and will continue to have one overarching goal until they're kicked out of office: impoverishing everyone but their richest cronies.

74

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no "Bush Boom." The conservatives have had, continue to have, and will continue to have one overarching goal until they're kicked out of office: impoverishing everyone but their richest cronies.

I know I shouldn't encourage this sort of thought process, but I have to admit I am fascinated by this in a trainwreck sort of way; I can see why someone might be motivated to make someone rich, but why, pray tell, would they desire to 'impoverish everyone' else?

75

jhudson:

You shouldn't encourage him, but the trainwreck that is a Mumon post is instructive.

76

"I know I shouldn't encourage this sort of thought process, but I have to admit I am fascinated by this in a trainwreck sort of way; I can see why someone might be motivated to make someone rich, but why, pray tell, would they desire to 'impoverish everyone' else?"

just a guess..but impoverishing everyone else is a side effect of a small group becoming extremely rich

77

just a guess..but impoverishing everyone else is a side effect of a small group becoming extremely rich

Well, no; 'really rich' people tend to live in places where there are enough people making enough money to spend it and make them 'really rich' (I know we are dealing with highly subjective terms here, but what the hey).

Bill Gates doesn't get to be uber-rich if everyone else is too poor to buy his computers.

78

jhudson:

I can see why someone might be motivated to make someone rich, but why, pray tell, would they desire to 'impoverish everyone' else?

I would think this would be obvious, but there are those that see the course of business as a zero sum game, or at least a game where someone inevitably "wins" at the expense of someone else.

Another answer I would think would be obvious was given by Nietzsche: money to a large extent is power, and there are some individuals who seek to acquire power, and money as well, for its own sake, and regardless of the consequences. To such people the rest of us merely stand in the way of their goal: more. Or to answer your question another way: because they can.

To put it yet another way, greed and compassion are both boundless, but some folks only see part of that.

They haven't figured out that to a certain extent the survival of people on the earth depends on grasping the Prisoner's Dilemma.

79

'really rich' people tend to live in places where there are enough people making enough money to spend it and make them 'really rich'

What does that have to do with what I was talking about? Very rich people generally rely on global markets to achieve their wealth, I dont think where they live has anything to do with it..

And Bill Gates doesnt get uber rich if he doesnt have good margins on what he sells..
ALL companies will look to decrease costs. One method is paying people ridicously low wages.

80

I would think this would be obvious, but there are those that see the course of business as a zero sum game, or at least a game where someone inevitably "wins" at the expense of someone else.

Another answer I would think would be obvious was given by Nietzsche: money to a large extent is power, and there are some individuals who seek to acquire power, and money as well, for its own sake, and regardless of the consequences. To such people the rest of us merely stand in the way of their goal: more. Or to answer your question another way: because they can.

To put it yet another way, greed and compassion are both boundless, but some folks only see part of that.

They haven't figured out that to a certain extent the survival of people on the earth depends on grasping the Prisoner's Dilemma.

But you still really haven't addresses the primary concern here. You contended that 'conservatives' have an over-arching goal; to enrich themselves and impoverish everyone else.

Considering that the term 'conservative' covers a wide swath of our population, including both the poor, middle-class and rich, and that some of the rich are decidedly not conservative (for example, Bill Gates supports a number of non-conservative causes,as do Rupert Murdoch and George Soros) and considering further that a number of conservatives have little interest in economic gain, but instead are primarily motivated by social and moral concerns, it would seem your statement would be so overly broad as to be useless for reasonable dialogue.

Care to revise?

81

What does that have to do with what I was talking about? Very rich people generally rely on global markets to achieve their wealth, I dont think where they live has anything to do with it..

Well, no, very rich people rely on someone somewhere having money. If everyone everywhere is poor, with the exception of course of a few wealthy elites, then the rich don't stay rich long.

And Bill Gates doesnt get uber rich if he doesnt have good margins on what he sells..
ALL companies will look to decrease costs. One method is paying people ridicously low wages.

Actually, I understand Microsoft employees get paid fairly well.

82

What does that have to do with what I was talking about? Very rich people generally rely on global markets to achieve their wealth, I dont think where they live has anything to do with it..

Well, no, very rich people rely on someone somewhere having money. If everyone everywhere is poor, with the exception of course of a few wealthy elites, then the rich don't stay rich long.

And Bill Gates doesnt get uber rich if he doesnt have good margins on what he sells..
ALL companies will look to decrease costs. One method is paying people ridicously low wages.

Actually, I understand Microsoft employees get paid fairly well.

83

Polly meet Anna . Anna , Polly.

84

Considering that the term 'conservative' covers a wide swath of our population, including both the poor, middle-class and rich, and that some of the rich are decidedly not conservative (for example, Bill Gates supports a number of non-conservative causes,as do Rupert Murdoch and George Soros) and considering further that a number of conservatives have little interest in economic gain, but instead are primarily motivated by social and moral concerns, it would seem your statement would be so overly broad as to be useless for reasonable dialogue.

Care to revise?

They may be motivated by social and moral concerns, but their goal is ultimately the same: the impoverishment of their fellow humans. It is arguable that some do not intend that for their goal, to be sure, but make no mistake about it: they are "pro-impoverishment."

Thus such "conservatives" may be acting in not only not their own self interest, but also not even for the interest of the rest of humanity. Or these conservatives may truly buy that trickle down nonsense- despite all the data that shows it didn't work, despite all facts and all history. That's called being "deluded." Tough words, I know, but there's no other word for it. If you set conditions back to those before the New Deal, guess what? You have financial panics. And they're not good things. And they have been prevented.

Now, let's take the case of Bill Gates. First of all he's not a conservative, so it's not surprising that his employees have good benefits (though they are worked quite hard, and like many other companies, his "employees" these days include a fair amount of 2nd class "contractors.") But his company? Well, it's not for nothing there's been anti-trust lawsuits against it...

George Soros, and Warren Buffett, to be sure at least out of a healthy self-interest do not espouse conservative causes that generally impoverish people.

You remember the children's story about the goose that laid the golden eggs? Well, Buffett & Soros kind of got the moral of that story.

There are likely to be sure, some kind of qualified pro-life "conservatives" on social issues that might be socialist or communist on economic issues; I can imagine leftist Christians of the sort.

But of those, I imagine few would embrace the radical "Brain dead people = living people" devaluation of human life that the radical religious right has assumed; to me that is nothing but the ultimate impoverishment of humanity.

85

Another answer I would think would be obvious was given by Nietzsche: money to a large extent is power, and there are some individuals who seek to acquire power, and money as well, for its own sake, and regardless of the consequences. To such people the rest of us merely stand in the way of their goal: more. Or to answer your question another way: because they can.

But capitalism is good in that it channels that desire for power into something that generally helps others. I think Keynes once said that its better a man lord over his bank account than other men.

86

Mumon repeated this talking point;

Deficits are at unprecedented levels.

Boonton should be able to explain this one to you, Mumon.

Everyone has a budget that they have to live on, Mumon. In my budget I owe around $200,000, that's called my debt. If I were to run a deficit, it would mean I spent more money this past year than I earned. That is somewhere around $50,000. I bought a car this last year and had to borrow to purchase the car, which means I spent all $50,000 I earned plus I owe an additional $12,000 over the next five years. In other words, I ran a deficit this year and added to my overall debt. My gross earnings were something like 80k, while my net was around 50k. This is like the United States, our gross earnings are our GDP while our net earnings are our tax receipts.

It is completely and utterly useless to say that we have record high deficit numbers. 100 years from now those deficit numbers will look tiny. But as long as our deficit remains only a small fraction of our GDP, things are fine.

Looked at as a percent of our GDP, our deficit isn't that large. Around 2% I believe for this past year. Current estimates have it at between 270 billion and 320 billion.

So please review your talking points, Mumon. You don't want to continue to embarass yourself.

87

They may be motivated by social and moral concerns, but their goal is ultimately the same: the impoverishment of their fellow humans. It is arguable that some do not intend that for their goal, to be sure, but make no mistake about it: they are "pro-impoverishment."

I am not sure how they could be simultaneously "motivated by social and moral concerns" and ultimately desire the "impoverishment of their fellow humans" since those are obviously directly antagonistic purposes; or again, how this would benefit them. It's seems to be at this point merely a convoluted attack on a general political philosophy with little actual fact to back it up.

Thus such "conservatives" may be acting in not only not their own self interest, but also not even for the interest of the rest of humanity. Or these conservatives may truly buy that trickle down nonsense- despite all the data that shows it didn't work, despite all facts and all history. That's called being "deluded." Tough words, I know, but there's no other word for it. If you set conditions back to those before the New Deal, guess what? You have financial panics. And they're not good things. And they have been prevented.

Again, I have seen no indication that anyone of any serious weight wants to set conditions "to those before the New Deal"; in fact, this would be as detrimental to business as it would be for the poor.

Now, let's take the case of Bill Gates. First of all he's not a conservative, so it's not surprising that his employees have good benefits (though they are worked quite hard, and like many other companies, his "employees" these days include a fair amount of 2nd class "contractors.") But his company? Well, it's not for nothing there's been anti-trust lawsuits against it...

Oh I agree, I think Microsoft has many problems; but desiring "everyone else to be poor" doesn't seem to be one of them.

George Soros, and Warren Buffett, to be sure at least out of a healthy self-interest do not espouse conservative causes that generally impoverish people.

You remember the children's story about the goose that laid the golden eggs? Well, Buffett & Soros kind of got the moral of that story.

So, not all exceeedingly wealthy people desire the impoverishment of others, just 'conservative' ones?

There are likely to be sure, some kind of qualified pro-life "conservatives" on social issues that might be socialist or communist on economic issues; I can imagine leftist Christians of the sort.

You are now connecting 'pro-life' advocates with the wealthy who want to 'impoverish everyone else'? And the only way they might not be connected thusly is if they are communist or socialist?

But of those, I imagine few would embrace the radical "Brain dead people = living people" devaluation of human life that the radical religious right has assumed; to me that is nothing but the ultimate impoverishment of humanity.

Oh, so not only do they want to actually impoverish people, but they also want to render them as brain dead and comatose? Does every conservative want to do this to 'everyone', or just to liberals?

And wouldn't it be difficult to sustain any sort of economy with a significant portion of the population suspended this way somewhere between life and death?

88

jhudson:

I told you not to encourage him, but Mumon has brought to the trainwreck another Moonbat named Rhyspalmer. The ignorance has to be intentional.

89

It is completely and utterly useless to say that we have record high deficit numbers. 100 years from now those deficit numbers will look tiny. But as long as our deficit remains only a small fraction of our GDP, things are fine.

Errr, as a fraction of GDP we don't look fine.

Looked at as a percent of our GDP, our deficit isn't that large. Around 2% I believe for this past year. Current estimates have it at between 270 billion and 320 billion.

Current, unfortunately we are 'headed in the wrong direction'.

90

Hi all, I haven't been around here for a while...

You know when it comes to religious issues, mumon and boonton are usually wrong--my opinion--but when it comes to politics, they seem to have a more balanced view of reality. In this case, i think mumon is pointing us in the right direction.

Eric and Lisa--you need to realize, first, that the deficit isn't what they have been advertising--around $300 billion. You see, Uncle Sam doesn't use the same accounting method that the rest of the post-Enron business world is forced to use. All you have to do is look at the government's obscure "Financial Report" in order to learn that the true deficit for Fiscal Year 2005 is not the widely reported figure of $319 billion but $760 billion.
They get away with this by using the cash accounting method, instead of accrual accounting, in the most widely-distributed financial statements.
If you go to the store and buy an item for cash, you immediately feel it in your wallet. If you go to the same store and buy on credit, unless you are using accrual accounting, you don't feel it until the bill arrives in the mail.
Failure to use accrual accounting is a violation of the infamous Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Of course, our government does not have to obey the standards it imposes on the rest of us.

91

Mike wrote;

You see, Uncle Sam doesn't use the same accounting method that the rest of the post-Enron business world is forced to use.

Actually, it does. If you look Barron's Accounting Handbook, Principle 8: Basis of Accounting you will find the United States Government uses modified accrual accounting.

Revenues should be recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable. Expenditures should be recognized in the accounting period in which the fund liability is incurred, if measurable....

Mike also wrote

All you have to do is look at the government's obscure "Financial Report"

Obscure? What sort of descriptive word is that. Did you have trouble finding it online or something? Go to www.fms.treas.gov, then click on “Financial Report.” Or put in google Financial Report. How obscure is that?

What an odd thing to say.

Mike wrote:

the true deficit for Fiscal Year 2005 is not the widely reported figure of $319 billion but $760 billion.

Scary, if true!

The problem is you are talking about a non-cash expenditure. So while for 2005 it went up by $228 billion this year, it went down in 2003 by $52 billion and $136 billion in 2004. Why didn't we hear Mumon praising the administration for that back then?

Simple. As the skeptical optmisit puts it;

Bottom line: Only real expenditures can increase the real debt. The present value of future liabilities is not a real expenditure—yet. Likewise, the present value of future tax receipts is not an asset—yet.

This is why the media reports the actual deficit, which is going to be around $270 billion for 2005, instead of using smoke and mirrors to report a non-cash deficit of liability that has not yet been incurred.

92

All:

I think a quiet look at the parable of the cave will tell a lot about what is going on in the US, with media spin [and politicised educators] manipulating perceptions waaaay out of alignment with objective reality.

I will never forget the 1992 election campaign, where the US economy in the media and the commrentariat was deep in recession all the way through the campaign, until literally the day after the election, when the news and commentary suddently turned good. It turns out that objective numbers were that it had been growing since late 1991 and at a good clip. But, when a republican is in office, the news takes on a negative cast because of the inclination of those who report and edit and comment on it.

I am also old enough to remember the tone of the news on Reagan's presidency. You all got a two party system in politics, but in the mainstream media, you got in essence a one-party system. [That is part of why Fox is cleaning CNN's clock -- it is the exception so a great many who cannot stomach CNNBCABCBS etc turn to Fox as the least worst alternative out there. Not that Fox is great, either!]

I think too that there is need to look at the force of Aristotle's point at the beginning of his The Rhetoric:

Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . .

Time to wake up and break the chains of mental slavery! [Two cheers f