Lydia Cornell: THE DAWN OF HOPE

Monday, April 30, 2007

THE DAWN OF HOPE

"I think we can come up with a statement on which all Americans, Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, straight or gay, can agree, despite our country being so tragically and ferociously divided. The first universal American sentiment I came up with was: 'Sugar is sweet.'" - Kurt Vonnegut

"I am neither left wing nor right wing; I need both wings to fly." - Deborah Van Valkenburgh.

L. to R: Lydia, Wally Wingert's mom, Deborah Van Valkenburgh

In Burbank over the weekend, Deborah and I signed autographs and had fun with Henry Winkler (Fonzie from Happy Days and children's book author of the "Hank Zipper" series), Ernie Hudson (Ghostbusters and Beverly Hills Cop. Ernie guest-starred on our show in its first season); Michael Beck from The Warriors; Lorenzo Lamas; Juliet Mills; Larry Thomas, the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld (LOVE THIS GUY!); Bruce Kulick, incredibly gifted guitarist from KISS; Wally Wingert - actor, amazing human, and voice over artist extraordinaire; William Forsythe, Branscombe Richmonds who is now host of GOOD MORNING HAWAII. Deborah and I did an interview for the show, and I'll try to upload clips after it airs. I love Branscombe; he played Jackie Rush's love interest on our show. I met lots of others, but have to post them later. Met the legendary sketch artist ROMEO who works in blue pencil; he gave me a portrait of my favorite actress of all time, Audrey Hepburn.

My son got INVADER ZIM'S autograph, Richar Horvitz, who played ZIM!!!

THE DAWN OF HOPE 2
Progressive is the term I choose to call my social and political leanings. Going forward, making progress, advancing new ideas, bringing people together in the spirit of love, making friends out of enemies, having compassion even for the offensive and downtrodden (because I know what it's like to have a bad day.) Progressive means enlightened, spiritual, diplomatic solutions... getting along with ones enemies, finding common ground, realizing that by joining forces and engaging in community we become stronger and better human beings.

Regressive is the opposite of progressive. In my view, regressive thought encompasses the belief that fighting one's enemies is the way to peace! Never have I heard a more ridiculous statement, but it seems to be the philosophy of the regressive movement. Religious fundamentalism is dangerous in any culture. Being focused on materialism, and on judging others completely negates the love required in order to live in a society. Fundamentalism is the primitive, archaic, eye-for-an-eye mentality -- the way of people who are too afraid of losing what they have and too protective of their own possessions. People who are afraid.

Strong people do not need to fight -- or hide behind guns. Truly brave and courageous men do not breed enemies. They are clever enough to outwit and outsmart their enemies by keeping them close. What sane person on earth, if he's not in law enforcement, needs a semi-automatic weapon?

The Constitution of the United States of America mentions "military defense" only once. But it mentions the importance of sharing, helping each other, helping the states, and building community -- several times, repeatedly.

Our Founding Fathers would not recognize the executive branch today. Their values are quite different from the values of America.

God helps those who help others. "God helps those who help themselves" is not mentioned in the bible anywhere. We must replace the idea of "rugged individualism" with "helping others within your community" because no one ever really made it on his own without a helping hand.

I really feel as if the tide is turning and we are all going to be okay. We will avert nuclear war with Iran, despite the president's war lust, and we will create a safer, cleaner better world. Because we all have intentions toward life and peace.

I signed autographs on Friday and Saturday at Ray Courts show in Burbank and spoke to several people about the state of the world. Eight out of ten people, including a police officer, despise this war and think badly of Bush. Only two people I spoke to the entire day said that they could never vote for a Democrat becaues they are pro-life. They never once acknowledge that the war in Iraq has killed 650,000 Iraqi civilians and innocent children, including babies -- even though they are "pro-life." They are so brainwashed they actually do not understand that Democrats are NOT PRO-ABORTION. Democrats hate abortion too.

These unthinking people who parrot the Bush party line, are killing more innocent souls with their ideology and they refuse to wake up and see it.

Got this from a LAKE TAHOE Journal: "Deep inside of us, we hunger for a simpler life. The fresh mountain air, the smell of pine needles and the bluest lake in the world. Nothing alleviates stress better than the surreal beauty of nature."

If you missed it, YOU WILL NEVER WATCH TV NEWS AGAIN after watching the electrifying PBS Special by Bill Moyers "BUYING THE WAR."

"Buying the War," a 90-minute documentary that explores the role of the press in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. This riveting, thorough investigation includes interviews with Dan Rather, formerly of CBS; Tim Russert of MEET THE PRESS; Bob Simon of 60 MINUTES; Walter Isaacson, former president of CNN; and John Walcott, Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder newspapers, which was acquired by The McClatchy Company in 2006.

In "Buying the War" Bill Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes document the reporting of Walcott, Landay and Strobel, the Knight Ridder team that burrowed deep into the intelligence agencies to try and determine whether there was any evidence for the Bush Administration's case for war. THIS WILL SHOCK PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN BUYING THE PROPAGANDA OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. BUSH AND CHENEY MUST BE IMPEACHED.

NETWORK OF SPIRITUAL PROGRESSIVES AIM TO:

* Bring about a new bottom line of love and caring in America
* Challenge the misuse of God, religion, and spirit by the religious right
* Challenge the anti-religious and anti-spiritual biases in some sectors of liberal culture

www.spiritualprogressives.org

Labels: charity, hope, love, peace

556 Comments:

There cannot be (in my opinion) any long-term future for this country unless we embrace both pragmatism and Justice, in our internal dealings and our relations with the world.

Ideology never fed one person, never fixed anything broken, never solved one problem. Ideology kills. Only common-sense assessment offers any hope for progressing, and that is why I consider myself a Progressive.

My common-sense assessment of what Justice is, is that all must answer for the things that they do. I don't believe this country can survive intact for much longer if we don't start to apply Justice to all of those who have wronged it. To not do so makes a joke out of the whole concept of Justice.

By Jolly Roger, at 10:40 AM
Nothing alleviates stress better than the surreal beauty of nature

Apparently this writer never had sex with me...

By Carl, at 10:41 AM
No nation ever experiences true security until that nation respects the rights of other nations, and their sovereignty.

No one's talking appeasement or total disarmament, because in truth, that's not going to happen in a world where there are 6 billion different points of view.

What it does mean is acknowledging that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent (exhibit A: 21st Century America). You can be strong without brandishing a gun.

By Carl, at 10:46 AM
Lydia said "Had a blast and did "Good Morning Hawaii" with Deborah Van Valkenburgh and Branscombe Richards"

Is Branscombe Richards (Bobby Sixkiller?) Lorenzo Lamas's buddy from the Renegade series??????

By Mike, at 10:48 AM
Report Criticizes millions in CEO Pay By Diane Stafford, Kansas city Mo. star.  Higher Gasoline prices and war have been good - at least finacially for CEO's in the US oil and defense industries.  In comparison, the groups note average workerspay raises have lagged far behind..  Each year the advocacy organization chooses a theme relavant to current events.in 2004 the report zeroed in on CEO pay in companies that outsourced the most US jobs overseas, in 2002 the report looked at CEO pay in the US companies that layed off the largest number of workers.  This report focuses on 2 groups: top executives of the 15 largest Us oil companies who were paid on average of $32.7 million last year, or three times as much as CEO's in other comparibly sized US companies and 8 times as much as foreign oil companies paid their CEO's.  Top CEO's of the 34 largest defense contractors, who last year were paid on average of $7.7 million or double what they earned pre 9/11 and 44 times more than military generals with over 20 years of experience.  The report put those numbers in workforce perspective; since 1990, the overall CEO to worker pay gap in the US has grown from 107 to 1 to last years 411 to 1.

By Mike, at 10:49 AM
the Bush Administration proposed reclassifying hamburger flipping as “manufacturing."

Building Blue-Collar … Burgers?
Bush Report: Fast Food Work A Form Of Manufacturing?

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2004

CBS) Manufacturing jobs making things like airplane engines, cars and farm equipment are disappearing from the American economy.

Or are they? According to a White House report, new manufacturing jobs might be as close as your nearest drive-thru.

The annual Economic Report of the President has already stirred controversy by suggesting the loss of U.S. jobs overseas might be beneficial, and predicting that a whopping 2.6 million jobs will be created in the country this year.

As first reported by The New York Times, the fast food issue is taken up on page 73 of the lengthy report in a special box headlined "What is manufacturing?"

"The definition of a manufactured product," the box reads, "is not straightforward."

"When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?" it asks.

Manufacturing is defined by the Census Bureau as work involving employees who are "engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products."

But, the president's report notes, even the Census Bureau has acknowledged that its definition "can be somewhat blurry," with bakeries, candy stores, custom tailors and tire retreading services considered manufacturing.

"Mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing," the president's report reads. "However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service."

The report does not recommend that burger-flippers be counted alongside factory workers.

Instead, it concludes that the fuzziness of the manufacturing definition is problematic, because policies — like, for example, a tax credit for manufacturers — may miss their target if the definition is overly broad or narrow.

But reclassifying fast food workers as manufacturing employees could have other advantages for the administration.

It would offset somewhat the ongoing loss of manufacturing jobs in national employment statistics. Since the month President Bush was inaugurated, the economy has lost about 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That continues a long-term trend.

And the move would make the growth in service sector jobs, some of which pay low wages, more appealing. According to government figures, since January 2001 the economy has generated more than 600,000 new service-providing jobs.

The annual economic report — most of which consists of charts and statistics — has been the focus of unusual scrutiny this year, perhaps reflecting the presidential campaign and concern about the lack of job creation despite an ongoing recovery.

The report first touched off a furor with a statement regarding the "outsourcing" of U.S. jobs overseas, where wages are lower.

"When a good or service is produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it domestically. This allows the United States to devote its resources to more productive purposes," the report read.

The statement, which reflects standard economic theory about the efficiencies of trade, was denounced by Democrats and Republicans alike.

"These people, what planet do they live on?" asked Democratic presidential candidate and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Even Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert wrote to the White House protesting at the claim.

The president's top economic adviser and the lead author of the report, Gregory Mankiw, replied to Hastert that "My lack of clarity left the wrong impression that I praised the loss of U.S. jobs."

Critics of the White House also seized on a chart in the report that suggested the administration expects 2.6 million new jobs by the end of the year.

"I've got a feeling this report was prepared by the same people who brought us the intelligence on Iraq," said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

The White House insisted the figure was just an estimate.

©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

By Mike, at 10:50 AM
The Bush adfministration are a bunch of criminals cooking and manipulating, Intelligence, inflation and economic statistics and anything else to benefit themselves and push along their corrupt self serving agenda and cheat the working class.

By Mike, at 10:51 AM
Bush, Dems Fight Over Lost Jobs

HARRISBURG, Pa., Feb. 13, 2004

A resolution backed by Clinton would commit the Senate to develop and adopt legislation to provide "a manufacturing tax incentive to encourage job creation in the United States and oppose efforts to make it cheaper to send jobs overseas."

As she chided the Bush administration, Clinton noted that 2,900,00 private sector jobs have been lost since January of 2001, including 2,800,00 manufacturing jobs - in an economy with the fewest jobs created since the days of the Great Depression.

Daschle - who is Senate Minority Leader - and Sen. Edward Kennedy meanwhile are proposing new protections for workers whose employers send their jobs overseas. Their bill would require outsourcing companies to tell employees and the federal government where the jobs are being sent, how many and why.

Democrats have seized on the Mankiw remark as an opportunity to criticize the economic policies of the Bush administration.

"In a report President Bush sent to Congress this week, he says sending jobs overseas is good for America and good for our economy," said Kennedy. "All I can say is, 'Mr. President, what planet are you living on?' Americans want and need good jobs to support their families - not in Asia or Europe or Latin America or Mars."

By Mike, at 10:52 AM
Lydia said "The Constitution of the United States of America mentions "military defense" only once. But it mentions the importance of sharing, helping each other, helping the states, and building community -- several times, repeatedly.

Our Founding Fathers would not recognize the executive branch today. Their values are quite different from the values of America.

Regressive is the opposite of progressive. In my view, regressive thought encompasses the belief that fighting one's enemies is the way to peace. Never have I heard a more ridiculous statement, but it seems to be the philosophy of the regressive movement. Religious fundamentalism is dangerous in any culture. It completely negates the love required in order to live in a society. It's primitive, archaic eye-for-an-eye mentality is the way of backwards thinkers, medeival bloodthirsty warriors and people who are too protective of their own possessions. People who are afraid."

Great post Lydia.........This portion in particular is very powerful and very true.............Our Founding Fathers who truly valued Freedom, Democracy and peace and who opposed tyranny and oppression and terrorism by the wealthy elite would be turning over in their graves if they saw what GWB has turned the Executive branch into.

And Your right this looks exactly what it is the wealthy trying to protect and increase their wealth, status and power by controlling the only oil reserves in the Middle East that can significantly increase production and keep the capitalist robbing from the working class gameand their cushy lifestyles going for another 2 decades.........They are operating out of fear and that NEVER needs to good decision making.

By Mike, at 11:01 AM
Hi Lydia!

Sounds like you had a nice weekend. ;)

I enjoyed reading your post.. Yes, the tide is turning and the sea of change is coming...

By Suzie-Q, at 12:05 PM
I'm posting a long article.........but its a good read particularly with all the spin and smoke and mirrors being used by the Bush administration......also I think by next year the economy and creating a viable energy policy and plan will become just as relevant election issues as Iraq.

By Mike, at 12:07 PM
Inflation, Dow 13K and the Second Great Depression

M.A. Nystrom, M.B.A.
April 27, 2007
Cambridge, MA

When I was about 9 years old, my father took my elder sister and I to see a performance by a famous magician called Blackstone. What I remember most about the show is when Blackstone, with a flourish of his cape, made an elephant appear onstage out of thin air. It was an astonishing feat, and the crowd - including me - went wild with applause. I had no idea how he did it. After the show however, as we were exiting the theater, my elder sister said, “I didn’t see what was so great about that elephant. It just walked onto the stage and everyone started clapping.”

My sister’s revelation was just as amazing as the trick itself, which suddenly made perfect sense. Blackstone had used some kind of sleight of hand, distracting the audience over here while he got the elephant to walk on stage over there. With this simple, well-known magician’s tactic, he managed to fool just about everyone.

Yesterday, as the Dow “smashed its all time high,” closing above 13,000 for the first time in history, I was strangely reminded of Blackstone’s performance that day some thirty years ago. The Dow’s current levitating act is the result of another well-known sleight of hand trick used by central bankers. It's called inflation. Even so, most everyone is mesmerized by the performance. Everyone seems transfixed, clapping in amazement at this spectacular feat.

But at the margins of society, far from the action on Wall Street, a silent depression has already begun – one that is affecting the most vulnerable members of our society. This depression is documented in two books that I recently finished reading: Tamara Draut’s Strapped: Why America’s 20- and 30-Somethings Can’t Get Ahead, and Anya Kamenetz’s Generation Debt: Why Now is a Terrible Time to be Young. Both were recently released in paperback, and I was able to find the hardcopy editions at the local library.

What both of these books confirm, though painstaking research and in painful detail, is what today’s younger generation has already long known: Simply surviving in this hyper competitive world is harder than ever, to say nothing of getting ahead. As Draut points out, a college degree is the new high school diploma; to be considered for any kind of a “good job,” you’ve got to have one. The problem is that college tuition costs have been rising three to four times as fast as inflation for the past few decades, and financial aid hasn’t kept up. Whereas the Baby Boom generation had the hat-trick advantage of cheap tuition, ample grants and scholarships, and a booming economy providing well paying jobs upon graduation, the younger generation has had none of these advantages.

Financial aid has shifted increasingly towards loans instead of grants. Because of higher tuition costs and generalized chronic inflation (in spite of official Federal government statistics), housing and food are more expensive too. Many kids who want to go to college simply can’t because they just can’t afford it. Of those who can cobble together enough money – and here I’m talking about working class families, not the privileged minority whose families can college without much pain - many have to work full time to make ends meet. And even then, in this inflation-ravaged world, it still isn’t enough. So they turn to credit cards, which are amply peddled on college campuses to bright-eyed, green newbies who don’t know a thing about debt or personal finance.

Welcome to higher education - at the school of hard knocks.

Today it is not uncommon for young adults to graduate with unmanageable thousands of dollars in combined student loans and credit card debt. “The next generation is starting their economic race 50 yards behind the starting line,” says Elizabeth Warren, co-author of The Two Income Trap. The debt is unmanageable because good jobs are hard to find. This is not your father’s economy. Sure, there are plenty of jobs available. How does $8 per hour sound, no benefits? As Kamenets, a recent Yale grad points out:

…when the Boomers were entering the workforce in 1970, the nation’s largest private employer was General Motors. They paid an average wage of $17.50 an hour in today’s dollars. The largest employer in the post-industrial economy is Wal-Mart. Their average wage? Eight dollars an hour. The service-driven economy is also a youth-driven economy, burning young people’s energy and potential over a deep-fat fryer…The entire labor market is downgrading toward what was once entry level.
In case you missed it, this week GM was dethroned by Toyota as the world’s top automobile producer. Earlier this year, in an effort to shore up American manufacturing, the Bush Administration proposed reclassifying hamburger flipping as “manufacturing." The times indeed are changing, and the experiences of the younger generation shine a light on the terrifying leading edge of that change.

The Second Great Depression is Here
For the past five years I’ve been saying ‘The second great depression will not be televised.’ In addition to paying homage to the 60’s civil rights activist and poet Gil Scott Heron (The Revolution Will Not Be Televised), it is a jab at the inadequacy of the mainstream news to actually report the news. The composition of the American economy is changing in fundamental ways -- ways that will not, in the long run, be favorable to most Americans if current trends continue. The younger generation is simply the first to bear the brunt of these changes, and as a result, is the first to grow up poorer than the generation preceding it. This, ladies and gentlemen, is known as national economic decline.

This is unpleasant news, and is therefore completely unacceptable to the mainstream media. It’s easier to sell the idea that the younger generation is just plain lazy, stupid and hopelessly screwed up. After all, didn’t you hear? The Dow just hit 13K! How can the economy be bad?

As a result, Draut and Kamenetz take the brunt of Boomer criticism from elders who dismiss their claims and only hear what they believe to be whining. But all these authors are doing is telling the story of their generation, pointing out how times have changed, and just how difficult it is to be young, broke, in debt and with little hope for the future. To me, it is the story of a second great depression. College, housing and food are more expensive, taxes, debt and interest rates are higher, (In spite of the fact that official rates hover near historic lows, one late or missed payment by a financially strapped young person sends credit card interest rates soaring across the board -- 29% or higher), wages are lower, competition is fiercer and most of the good jobs have moved away. Given the facts, it is amazing there is not more complaining or real demands for change. Draut points out that this younger generation was thoroughly “Reaganized” – raised under a steady diet of conservative rhetoric which they have fully internalized: The government is the problem, the free market is the solution – if you fail, it is your own fault, so don’t complain and don’t ask for help. Even though youths 18 – 24 are the most likely to hold minimum wage jobs, giving them a poverty rate of 30% in 2000, we’ve heard pitifully little about this in the MSM.

But poverty is a big impediment to getting higher education. Kamenetz points out that the nationwide high school graduation rate peaked in 1970 at 77%. It was around 67% in 2004….For every 100 young people who begin their freshman year of high school, just 38 eventually enroll in college, and only 18 graduate in a timely manner. This is especially worrisome as the world continues its march towards a knowledge-based economy. America is clearly falling behind.

The question of particular interest to readers of all ages should be whether the current decline in living standards is a one-generation anomaly, or the start of a new American trend. The problems afflicting the young – the outsourced jobs, the low wages and high levels of debt – are increasingly moving up the generational ladder. Just ask the entire city of Detroit, where a house can now be purchased for less than the price of a new car. This year also marks the first time in history that the median American home price is likely to decline.

Transition Ahead
What these two important books demonstrate clearly is that at the margins – where all the interesting economic (and other) activity takes place – the US economy is no longer able to provide its citizens with an increasing standard of living. Having read Jeremy Rifkin’s 1992 classic The End of Work a few years ago, the only surprise to me is that his scary predictions of the disappearing jobs are actually coming true. And with “Outsourcing 2.0,” things are only bound to get worse. Yet as Boomers retire – the first crop starts retiring next year – it is young people that they will be relying on (i.e. taxing) in order to maintain their disproportionately wealthy lifestyle. A Generational Storm indeed looms on the horizon.

What will this mean for the future? Neither Draut nor Kamenetz offer a comprehensive view, but James Fallows had an excellent piece in the Atlantic Monthly a few years ago that remains relevant today: Countdown to a Meltdown, a look back from the year 2016.

Lack of Awareness
To my disappointment, neither author goes deep enough into the root causes of the inflation that makes life for young people so difficult: The Federal Reserve System. We all know by now that the Fed has a “printing press” with which it can mint money, but like the 70% of Americans who don’t know that plastic is made from oil, the majority of Americans don’t realize that a fiat money printing press is the cause of currency inflation. The result of this inflation is more expensive food, housing, college tuition, and (surprise!) Dow 13K. You certainly won’t read about that in the New York Times. The information is, however, widely and freely available on the internet, as my friend Charles Zentay points out. All it takes is some thinking to figure out what is really going on.

[Thank you to BlueWire Studio for the above image, which was originally published in the Trendsman's excellent report The American Inflation: Where we are, How we got here and Where we are going]

Not surprisingly, many of Kamenetz’s interviewees regret ever having gone to college in the first place. They’re saddled with debt and working in jobs that are completely unrelated to what they studied – if they even graduated at all. As a result, she makes the daring recommendation that kids think hard about whether college is right for them or not. Before deciding to become an indentured servant to the bank in exchange for a college diploma, she recommends investigating this book: 300 Best Jobs Without a Four-Year Degree. The key point, which I wholeheartedly agree with is to look at the landscape of the world, see it with clear eyes and think! Don’t go to college just because everyone is doing it and because your parents want you to. The world is changing and navigating it will require a new set skills and street smarts – smarts you’re likely not going to get in school. More on this in future installments. Sign up here to be notified.

I urge everyone to go to the library or the bookstore and take a look at the books. For young people, I give the nod to Kamenetz’s book. Her writing is more urgent, more suited, I think to the younger crowd.

Each generation reshapes the country in its own image. The Boomer generation is the current cultural center, but its cultural power will soon be in decline, and as they fade from the national spotlight, a new generation is rising. Based on Strauss & Howe’s generational analysis in The Fourth Turning, the current young generation will likely be shaped by an extreme crisis – brought on by the exiting Boomer generation - sometime quite soon. It is from this crisis that a new America will be born – perhaps it will be the Golden Age that Ravi Batra writes of, or the complete reorganization that Peter Drucker predicted in 1993.

Every few hundred years in Western Civilization, there occurs a sharp transformation . . . Within a few short decades, society rearranges itself - its worldview; its basic values; its social and political structure; its arts; its key institutions. Fifty years later, there is a new world, and the people born can't even imagine the world in which their grandparents live and into which their own parents were born.

We are currently living through just such a transformation.
Conclusion
Thirteen is considered an unlucky number in American culture. Strangely, most American buildings don’t have a thirteenth floor. Both the income tax and the Federal Reserve were established in 1913. The much-maligned Generation X is the thirteenth born on American soil. It makes me wonder just what Dow 13K will bring.

Getting back to the theme with which I began this piece, Dow 13K is a kind of sleight of hand, brought about by inflation, and distracting the majority of people from the true condition of the economy. Inflation makes the economy less prosperous, not more. If the younger generation is any indication, prepare yourselves, for the times indeed they are a changin’.

The way that is bright seems dull;
The way that leads forward seems to lead backward;
The way that is even seems rough.
The highest virtue is like the valley;
The sheerest whiteness seems sullied;
Ample virtue seems defective;

- Tao Te Ching 41

By Mike, at 12:07 PM
Carl said...

Nothing alleviates stress better than the surreal beauty of nature

Apparently this writer never had sex with me...
-------------------
Carl:

She is probably afraid that she will be the first woman to see a man (you) conceive a baby!

LOLMAO

By Suzie-Q, at 12:08 PM
Hi Mike, Jolly, and all men... you too Carl!

LOL

By Suzie-Q, at 12:08 PM
Jolly Roger said "My common-sense assessment of what Justice is, is that all must answer for the things that they do. I don't believe this country can survive intact for much longer if we don't start to apply Justice to all of those who have wronged it. To not do so makes a joke out of the whole concept of Justice."

I agree completely.......we NEED to hold the treasonous criminals accountable in order to heal and move forward.

By Mike, at 12:10 PM
Hey SQ!

By Mike, at 12:10 PM
This post has been removed by the author.

By Suzie-Q, at 12:25 PM
Hi Mike!

Murtha said there are options for Bush..impeachment being one of them.

Do you think the Dems will impeach Bush and Cheney if he doesn't get our troops out of Iraq?

By Suzie-Q, at 12:34 PM
I think there will have to be a smoking gun with overwhelming evidence to lead them to impeachment..........I think they should move to impeach him THIS year because EVEN if the impeachment fails all the Bush lies and manipulations will be exposed and made public right before the election and will be fresh and clear in the voting publics mind.

That said I think there is PLENTY of grounds and evidece to impeach Bush and his cronnies the only issue is getting enough repugs to support impeachment and the election, the abundance of lies and scandals coming out and the complete and utter failure and incompetence of this Administration and their failed policies will help also.

But like I said The NEED to try to impeach them.......EVEN if it fails its STILL a win because it gets the MSM to cover all the lies and corruption and makes Americans aware of what REALLY went on and how they were deceived by these treasonous liars.

By Mike, at 12:37 PM
Hi Lydia. Another eye opener, and well said. I only wish that progressive Republican was not a contradiction in terms. It wasn't always. Maybe once again after the neocons and theocons are driven from power.

By TomCat, at 12:44 PM
TomCat said...
Hi Lydia. Another eye opener, and well said. I only wish that progressive Republican was not a contradiction in terms. It wasn't always. Maybe once again after the neocons and theocons are driven from power."

LOL, your Right Tomcat, Progressive Republican is an Oxymoron just like jumbo shrimp!

By Mike, at 12:45 PM
Dow at a new record, some do not think so;

"As the Dow burst through the 13,000 milestone this week, few understood the hollowness of the achievement. Measured against the rising dollar-denominated prices of just about everything else on the planet, the Dow has actually lost value over the past seven years. Measured against the truest benchmark, the price of gold, the record high for the Dow was set back in January of 2000 when its price equaled approximately 43 ounces of gold. Today it is only worth about 19 ounces.

To better appreciate just how much of stock gains can be attributed to inflation, consider that the record high for the Dow in 1929 of approximately 380 also equated to 19 ounces of gold. So despite all of the hoopla and a thirty-fold increase in stock prices, the Dow has actually gained no real value during the past eighty years. The entire rise from 360 to 13,000 has been an illusion made possible by the magic of inflation. So much for the concept of stocks being a “can’t lose” long term investment -- unless you feel that eighty years is not quite a long enough time horizon!

Now that is not to imply that the Dow has not generated returns during those years: it has. However, those returns have been a function of dividends and not appreciation. But its not yields that Wall Street celebrates, its prices. By dazzling investors with higher prices, they distract their attention from the unpleasant reality that they are actually treading water. What difference does it make if you have more dollars if the dollars themselves have less purchasing power?

Despite its recent eclipse of 13,000 the Dow now buys 30% fewer euros than it did then back in 2000 when it was priced at approximately 11,500. It also buys 35% fewer gallons of milk, 40% fewer bushels of corn or wheat, 65% fewer ounces of silver, 70% fewer barrels of oil, 80% fewer pounds of copper, and 90% fewer pounds of uranium. Try figuring what the Dow will buy in terms of other necessities, such as housing, insurance, college tuition or hospitalization. Any way you measure it, the Dow is worth far less today then it was in January of 2000.

Back in 1980 one Zimbabwe dollar was worth more than one U.S. dollar. Therefore a billionaire in Zimbabwe was also a billionaire in America. Today, almost everyone in Zimbabwe is a billionaire yet few of them can afford a pack of chewing gum. Do you think that anyone invested in the Zimbabwean stock market these past 30 years cares how many record highs that market has made?

Many might feel that a comparison of the U.S. to Zimbabwe is ridiculous. However, fundamentally there is no real difference between a Zimbabwean dollar and an American dollar. They are both simply pieces of paper, the value of which depends on the resolve of politicians not to print too many of them. During the difficult economic times that lie ahead, the pressure on the Fed to run its printing presses full throttle will be immense.

Think back to the German experience with hyper-inflation during the Weimar Republic. At the time of its currency meltdown, Germany was a major economic power (even after the devastation of the First World War). Yet that status did not prevent its currency from becoming worthless. The impetus for Germany’s hyper-inflation was the fact that its industrial base had been badly damaged during the war, yet under the terms of Treaty of Versailles it was obligated to pay enormous reparations to the Allies. Lacking the ability to export enough goods to repay its debts, it resorted to a printing press instead. America is now in a similar predicament. Although our industry was not destroyed by bombs, it’s gone just the same. While we might not be bound by a treaty to pay reparations, the trillions of dollars of American IOU’s now owned by foreigners will be just as burdensome an obligation. It is hard to image we can “repay” these debts without civil unrest, massive inflation, or both.

The point to remember is that when it comes to records, it is real purchasing power, not nominal value, that counts. Measured by its purchasing power, the Dow has clearly lost value over the past seven years. Those who have remained invested in Dow stocks during that time period are clearly poorer as a result. Those who continue doing so will likely lose even more wealth in the years ahead, regardless of how many more nominal record highs the Dow sets."

Written by koteli

By clif, at 1:02 PM
Come on gay-dalf, dolty, crusty, Tiny the liar, tell me again how well the "dow' is doing.

Come on tell me again how great 13,000 is in 2007 when in reality compared real values not arbitrary abstract values how much people are losing when the Dow is performing so poorly against real prices which people pay to live in this society.

And if the dollar keeps losing value which will cause the price of everything we import, (including oil) to rise how bad is it to hold stocks which are losing relative values even when their numbers do go up a little in comparison.

Keep your paper gains until in reality you have lost your shirts.......

By clif, at 1:07 PM
There have been 104 U.S troops killed in Iraq this month.

Are you happy Bush?

By Larry, at 1:10 PM
What difference does it make if you have more dollars if the dollars themselves have less purchasing power?

Tell me again how 13, 000 in 2007 is great when in reality it is worth less then 11,500 in REAL terms was in 2000.

Tell me again how people are coming out ahead, especially since they have paid commissions and fees besides losing REAL value?

By clif, at 1:10 PM
At least twelve explosions have went off inside the "green zone" in Iraq.

Casualty count to come shortly.

By Larry, at 1:13 PM
Suzi-q, can you please post a link to your blog? When I click on your name, I can't access your newer blog at wordpress.

And no matter what I type in, it won't take me to your blog.

I can't find the link in my mailbox.
Thanks!
xo
Lydia

By Lydia Cornell, at 1:21 PM
Hi Lydia,

Yes, here you go...

http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/

By Suzie-Q, at 1:26 PM
Oilman T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday that global demand will outstrip supply in the fourth quarter of this year, leading U.S. oil prices to rise to $80 or more a barrel. Pickens would not predict how high beyond $80 oil would go this year or in 2008 but said he was interested to see how long $80 oil will need to be sustained to lessen demand.

In other words he is saying OIL will peak this fall.

By clif, at 1:29 PM
Hi Clif and Larry! ;)

By Suzie-Q, at 1:34 PM
Tell me again how 13, 000 in 2007 is great when in reality it is worth less then 11,500 in REAL terms was in 2000.
-clif

Sadly, you have been misinformed once again.

The attached graph shows the value of Dow Jones Industrial Average divided by the price of an ounce of gold. Since 1800, stocks have consistently gained value in comparison to gold...
Wikipedia

Your source is attempting to purposely mislead you:

Now that is not to imply that the Dow has not generated returns during those years: it has. However, those returns have been a function of dividends and not appreciation. But its not yields that Wall Street celebrates, its prices.
-clif's goofy source

Obviously investors care about total return on investment which is part dividends and part capital appreciation.

So you will need to find some other bogus reason to scrap the dynamic free enterprise system in favor of your hallowed marxism.

By Freedom Fan, at 1:44 PM
Well gay-dalf I never said scrape free enterprise a$$hole tell another LIE

By clif, at 1:51 PM
Hey Fool, Clif and I have stated that the DOW has lost buying power the LAST 7 YEARS after adjusting for inflation...............and you do an apples to oranges comparison and put up a chart that compares from 1800 to the present.

You are obviously trying to lie, distort and misrepresent as YOU ALWAYS DO FOOLE!

By Mike, at 1:53 PM
See Foole lets look at your lies.

1) Clif said we should scrap Free Enterprise

2) Clif was refering to the Dow from the 2000 peak to today a 7 year period and YOU dishonestly threw in a 2007 year comparison deliberately to skew and muddy the comparison.

By Mike, at 1:56 PM
clif said...
Oilman T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday that global demand will outstrip supply in the fourth quarter of this year, leading U.S. oil prices to rise to $80 or more a barrel. Pickens would not predict how high beyond $80 oil would go this year or in 2008 but said he was interested to see how long $80 oil will need to be sustained to lessen demand.

In other words he is saying OIL will peak this fall."

T Boone Pickens is an EXPERT who has been right about EVERYTHING I have ever heard him say............If he makes a prediction...........People NEED to listen!

By Mike, at 1:57 PM
While it is true that the DOW is worth less in constant dollars than in 2000, it is false that the DOW has remained stagnant since the 1930.

The dramatic turning point in the broad U.S. economy of the late 20th century happened in the early 80s when Reagan and Volker broke the back of Nixon and Carter's curse of rampant inflation.

Inflation-adjusted DOW

By Freedom Fan, at 1:58 PM
what I said is stocks since 2000 have LOSE relative values considering what they could be worth in other commodities and services back then which is TRUE no matter how much you try to cherry pick around that truth.

Funny son you quote MY 2000 vs 2007 DOW values but try to use the value of gold to the stock market as proof, NOT oil, gas prices, milk prices automobile prices, Home prices which is what REAL people buy son, very few people buy gold in anything near what they spend their money on like food, housing, energy and regular living expenses which have risen quite a bit since 2000, the US Government's dishonest inflation numbers not withstanding.

IDIOT the article said 1929-2007 NOT 1800 idiot, and if YOU look at the graph you posts the point the article made is very well illustrated there moron.

Jesus Christ your a stupid idiot;

QED

By clif, at 2:00 PM
FF said "Your source is attempting to purposely mislead you:"

No Foole YOU are the one deliberately attempting to mislead.

By Mike, at 2:00 PM
Mike the graph at the wiki article shows 1929 to 2007 very FLAT that is why the LYING draft dodger had to go back to 1800 to try to his the truth from HIS own source, just like he hid from Vietnam in ROTC

By clif, at 2:03 PM
Freedom Fan said...
While it is true that the DOW is worth less in constant dollars than in 2000, it is false that the DOW has remained stagnant since the 1930.

The dramatic turning point in the broad U.S. economy of the late 20th century happened in the early 80s when Reagan and Volker broke the back of Nixon and Carter's curse of rampant inflation.

Inflation-adjusted DOW"

First of all Foole..........Clif and I were discussing the Dow from 2000-2007.............show me where one of us stated the Dow has been stagnant since 1930.

As for your second statement Jimmy Carter appointed Volker in 1979 to break the back of inflation and it cost him the election and Reagan took credit for it.

It was Cartersappointing Volker to break the back of inflation coupled with Caters push to diversify and lessen our dependency on imported oil that directly lead to the 2o year economic boom from 1982-2000.

Cater invested in Solar, wind, natural gas, nuclear, increased fuel economy standards etc.......in fact Carter installed Solar panels on the White House and Reagan immediately ripped them down............Reagan took all the credit for Carters sacrifices and put us on the wrong path by dismantling the New Deal policies and progressive innititives like energy independence and brought us back towards the Gilded Age with a massive wealth distribution from the working class to the wealthy...........that will ultimately result in another Great Depression and a decline in the quality of life for our Children and Grand Children.

Reagan was a misguided fool!

By Mike, at 2:09 PM
Well i'm not looking at 1930-2007.........i'm talking 2000-2007 and his 207 year apples to oranges comparison was a dishonest attempt to muddy the watters with skewwed stattistics.

By Mike, at 2:11 PM
Mike the article states the Gold to Dow comparison was basically flat from 1929 to 2007, which is what the draft dodging LIAR is seizing on to try to deflect the truth of HOW bad Bush has done and why the economy is in much worse shape then he or the other lying re-pubie wanna admit

By clif, at 2:17 PM
What's Really Squeezing the Middle Class?
By David Leonhardt
The New York Times

Wednesday 25 April 2007

There are two different stories people tend to tell when they're trying to explain why the middle class is feeling squeezed.

The first one is about inequality. The top 0.1 percent of earners - that's one taxpayer out of every 1,000 - now brings in 11 percent of the nation's total income, triple the share that they did just a generation ago. This has happened because the rich have grown ever richer, while the pay of rank-and-file workers hasn't risen much faster than inflation.

The second, related story is about instability. Layoffs seem to happen more frequently than they once did, and these job losses - combined with the spread of bonus pay - have caused workers' incomes to bounce around a lot more than in the past. So not only have middle-class families been getting meager raises, their finances have also become more volatile.

The story about inequality is indisputably true. But we're starting to learn that the second story, the one about instability, is more complicated. It may even end up being wrong.

There is now a big push in both Washington and state capitals to come up with policies that can alleviate middle-class anxiety. That's all for the good. In fact, it is overdue. If it's going to succeed, however, it will have to focus on the actual causes of the squeeze.

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released a study that was arguably the fullest picture of economic volatility anyone has yet put together. Although some academics have taken a crack at the topic in recent years, they have had to rely on surveys in which people are asked how much money they make. The study by the C.B.O., as the budget office is known, used Social Security Administration records, which cover many more people than the surveys and are more reliable.

If you read the C.B.O. report, you can tell that its authors knew they were dealing with a delicate subject. The summary starts by noting that a "significant number of workers experience substantial variability in their total wage earnings," which is certainly true. Only later do you come to the surprising part: there is the same amount of variability now that there was in the 1980s and 1990s. In journalism, this is known as burying the lead.

"Intuitively, you would think volatility is increasing," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who along with Senator Jim Webb of Virginia requested that the study be done. "But it isn't, which I guess shows that the American economy has always been very flexible."

Mr. Schumer's point about intuition is an important one. We can all tick off reasons that the economy feels so volatile. Hardly a week goes by without another big corporation - the Tribune Company, Citigroup, DaimlerChrysler - announcing a big job cut. The number of temporary jobs, meanwhile, has mushroomed. Globalization and technological innovation are causing many of these changes, and labor unions are too weak to prevent them.

But there is also a whole set of other forces, harder to see and pushing in the other direction. Manufacturing, where furloughs and layoffs have always been the norm, accounts for a much smaller part of the work force than it used to, while more stable industries, like health care, have grown. This is one reason that recessions, and the job cuts they bring, haven't happened as often as they once did.

Yesterday's layoffs could go unnoticed by people who weren't affected by them because they were a regular part of doing business. Today's tend to come in big chunks and are often announced in news releases. "There have always been a lot of mass layoffs," said Lawrence F. Katz, a labor economist at Harvard. "We didn't count them before."

In fact, research by Henry S. Farber, an economist at Princeton, has found that job loss rates have followed a cyclical pattern since the early '80s, peaking around the same highs during recessions and falling to similar lows during expansions. (The rate has risen for workers who went to college and fallen a bit who those who didn't.)

Americans, looking at their own jobs, realize that there hasn't been a big change: in a recent Gallup Poll, 12 percent of respondents said it was very or fairly likely they would be laid off in the coming year. In the 1970s, '80s and '90s, at similar points in the business cycle, the percentage was virtually identical.

I don't want to exaggerate how much we know about instability, because there are some conflicting signals. Mr. Farber has also found, for instance, that average job tenure has declined during this time. Maybe people are more willing to leave a job voluntarily - or maybe companies nudge more workers out the door with early retirements and other stealth layoffs.

The C.B.O., for its part, has looked only at the pay of individual workers. In the future, economists there will look at family income - which is affected by divorce and other factors - and could potentially find changes there, as some academic work has.

The bottom line, though, is that the picture is likely to look mixed. Volatility may or may not have increased over the last generation, but it does not appear to have changed in a fundamental way.

Inequality is a whole different story. It has risen enormously and is not about to stop. With the recent jump in gas prices, the pay of rank-and-file workers is once again failing to keep pace with inflation, just as it did from 2002 until early last year, despite healthy economic growth.

In fact, inequality is probably the real reason that the economy often feels more volatile. When people are stretched - when their pay has been stagnant, when they're worried about health insurance, when they don't know what the future holds - a jolt to their income is harder to handle.

As the C.B.O. pointed out, these jolts do happen a lot, even if they don't happen more than in the past. In 2003, a whopping 20 percent of workers saw their earnings drop 25 percent or more compared to the previous year. (For about 22 percent of workers, earnings rose at least 25 percent.)

But it's important to keep in mind what is really changing. As Mr. Schumer says, "If you're holding a job but your share of the pie is getting smaller, that's a different set of policy needs than if you keep losing your job."

In an economy where volatility was the main problem, you might want to protect jobs by making it harder for companies to cut them. In an economy where inequality was the problem, you would want to protect people. You would help them pay for health insurance, retirement, their children's education and other basic needs when the market, left to its own devices, was not doing so.

And if your resources were limited, wouldn't you start with the problem you were sure that you had?

-------

By Larry, at 2:19 PM
Look at The repug trolls frantically spinning trying to defend GWB.

But it gets harder to TRY to defend a treasonous fool and harder and harder to TRY to defend the indefensible.

By Mike, at 2:20 PM
As for your second statement Jimmy Carter appointed Volker in 1979 to break the back of inflation and it cost him the election and Reagan took credit for it.

It was Carters appointing Volker to break the back of inflation coupled with Caters push to diversify and lessen our dependency on imported oil that directly lead to the 2o year economic boom from 1982-2000.
-Mike

While it is true that Volker became chairman of the Fed towards the end of Carter's term, it was Reagan who let him control the money supply effectively, which pushed the country inevitably into a severe recession, but broke the back of inflation.

But Reagan's tax policies which provided incentives to producers, together with stable prices created an economic juggernaut which has never returned to the days of Nixon's stifling price controls, Carter's pathetic malaise and Ford's goofy "WIN" buttons.

INTERVIEWER: How important was President Reagan's support for Volcker's policies?

MILTON FRIEDMAN: Enormously important. There is no other president in the postwar period who would have stood by without trying to interfere, to intervene with the Federal Reserve. The situation was this: The only way you could get the inflation down was by having monetary contraction. There was no way you could do that without having a temporary recession. The great error in the earlier period had been that whenever there was a little contraction there was a tendency to expand the money supply rapidly in order to avoid unemployment. That stop-and-go policy was really what bedeviled the Fed during the '60s and '70s. That was the situation in 1980, in '81 in particular. After Reagan came into office, the Fed did step on the money supply, did hold down its growth, and that did lead to a recession. At that point every other president would have immediately come in and tried to get the Federal Reserve to expand. Reagan knew what was happening. He understood very well that the only way he could get inflation down was by accepting a temporary recession, and he supported Volcker and did not try to intervene. Now, you know, there is a myth that Reagan was somehow simpleminded and didn't understand these things. That's a bunch of nonsense. He understood this issue very well. And I know -- I can speak with, I think, authority on this -- that he realized what he was doing, and he knew very well that he was risking his political standing in order to achieve a basic economic objective. And, as you know, his poll ratings went way down in 1982, and then, when the inflation seemed to be broken enough, the Fed reversed policy, started to expand the money supply, the economy recovered, and along with it, Reagan's poll ratings went back up.
-Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Winning Economist

By Freedom Fan, at 2:22 PM
The funniest part the "wiki" article the gutless foole used points that out if you take the time to LOOK which he proly didn't sine he is such an idiot.

If you LOOK at this chart which is part of the wiki article the statement the Gold to DOW values which the article states are proved,

the 1929 value right before the crash of Oct 29th, is almost exactly where we are right now......

thus the draft dodging FOOLE has just proved he is still a lying delusional idiot once again..................

If the idiot would STOP trying to prove something which is a LIE he wouldn't look so stupid all the time till then he is just another member of the lying pink pajama circle jerk crowd ......... proly one of the dumber ones given how wrong he is all the time.

By clif, at 2:24 PM
Even stupider, the idiot didn't even read the other link he tried to "prove" his dishonest spin with,

Mike go here and LOOK at the "quote" in the graph the idiot tried to use;

However, the magnitude of the bull market of 1982 to 1999 (even when adjusted for inflation) was truly of historic proportions. While the Dow has recently made new record highs on a non-inflation-adjusted basis, today's chart does illustrate that on an inflation-adjusted basis the Dow still trades below (albeit slightly) its 1999 peak.

the moron doesn't even READ what he posts to spin his LIES......

hence.......

Gay-dalf is a dumb Foole

QED

By clif, at 2:28 PM
CVome ON gaydalf try spinning both the FACTS I have proved, try son,

and fail again,

and

again.

You've been bitch-slapped by your own links Once again,

and your welcome for the education once again

FOOLE

By clif, at 2:30 PM
Come onb Gaydalf

tell all of us that chart from th WIKI article doesn't back up the statement in the article I posted son,

tell all of us again,

we can use another good laugh at your idiotic ranting and lies about the facts son

By clif, at 2:32 PM
on gay-dalf post another LINK that

well ther is not other way to put this son;

Proves Mike and I are right

and your still the BLOG FOOLE son.....

you still have the pointy widdle and son you earned the right to wear it for another month with your stupidity here today.....

Damn you an idiot and both Mike and I proved it once again

QED

By clif, at 2:34 PM
What's ther matta gay-dalf feeling kinda stoopid about now?

Don't worry son, you've shown all of us your stupid for a long ... long time here son.

Like ever since you decided to show all of us how wrong we all were and FAILED.

By clif, at 2:36 PM
Do you actually tead YOUR OWN stats FOOLE?

your stats proved our point..........you had no choice but to backtrack and retract.

you are nothing more than a blindly loyal partisan trying to defend and perpetuate the repug culture of corruption and lies.

By Mike, at 2:44 PM
Come on gay-dalf find a Milton Freidman quote to make the truth of the links you gave go away and your LIES work again son......

By clif, at 2:46 PM
Thats almost as good as when TT lied and renigged on a bet when he TRIED to CLAIM the repugs would retain both houses of Congress.

Or when Volt tried to say that Cheryl Crow was claiming Rove worked only for her.

By Mike, at 2:46 PM
Come on FOOLE find someway to SPIN this one son..............

By clif, at 2:47 PM
BTW foole did you bother to READ the comments about the inflation adjusted Dow link you tried to dishonestly spin for all of us?

This chart clearly explains why the rally from 1982 to 2000 feels better to the average person than the 2003-? rally. From a chartist's perspective, it also portends an ominous period coming, similar to 1965 to 1980, with mediocre returns and pesky inflation.

You should have son......

By clif, at 2:49 PM
Lying like that Foole is EXACTLY why Brad banned you..........we were talking about the Dow losing purchasing power in inflation adjusted dollars from 2000-2007 and you DISHONESTLY pull the bait and switch and try to slip in statistics from 1800 and from 1930.........and worst of all YOUR OWN STATISTICS CONFIRM that WE ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

AS USUAL!!!!!!!!!!

By Mike, at 2:49 PM
About time for a sock puppet to appear.....

Every other time the foole got handed his widdle a$$ like this time,

a sock puppet troll magically popped out of the tubes...

I wonder if one will this time.

LOL

By clif, at 2:52 PM
You also tried to slip in a lie that Clif said we should scrap the free enterprise system and that was ANOTHER LIE..........Clif never said anything of the sort YOU lied and claimed he did.

Your a hippocrite just like Volt who cries and pisses and moans when people attribute to you things you NEVER said and/or attack you personally................yet YOU gleefully do the very same thing to others like a true lying repug troll and enabler and supporter of the culture of corruption and lies.

By Mike, at 2:55 PM
Damn Mike, don't remind the foole how he got kicked off the Brad Blog after all his delusions are about all he has left.....

That and a diminishing return on investments which are lagging behind the real rate of inflation, which some think is closer to 8% for real Americans who pay real money for their goods and services, and not the government lies the foole clings to.

You know for how much this dishonest liar claims he hates the lies of the bureaucracy of Washington, he is willing to use their dishonest spin to back up his own dishonest spin all the time.

By clif, at 2:58 PM
Looks like the widdle foole has run away with his point hat intact Mike,

LOL

By clif, at 3:01 PM
Cliffy,

I realize that cutting the blue wire instead of the red wire changed your "world view", so let me better lay it out for you:

1) You will see that I agreed several posts ago that the DOW was about even with it's ridiculously high level in 2000, adjusted for inflation.

2) The wiki source shows the value of gold in 1930 as $20.67 whereas today it is about $680, thus representing an average annual rate of return of about 4.6% in nominal terms.

3) The wiki source also shows the value of the DOW in 1930 as 165 compared with today's record high of 13,000. Ignoring the fact that the DOW is comprised of large companies which also typically pay generous dividends, this still represents a rate of return of 5.8% in nominal terms.

But if you add in dividends, the total return of the DOW has yielded well over 10% per year over this same period.

Now even if you adjust both for inflation, you still must conclude that investing in American enterprise over this period was far more profitable than holding gold like a miser.

But you're right I'm stoopid and libs are brainiacs so hi five blah, blah blah.

By Freedom Fan, at 3:01 PM
Which inflation son, the government LIES of what real americans pay year after year which people like You ignore

and the graphs don't lie son, even the stupid ones you tried to dishonestly spin even though you never read them son.

By clif, at 3:04 PM
You also tried to slip in a lie that Clif said we should scrap the free enterprise system and that was ANOTHER LIE..........Clif never said anything of the sort YOU lied and claimed he did.
-Mikey

You and clif routinely bemoan the inequality of outcomes produced in a free enterprise system which affords everyone equal opportunity to become prosperous.

So tell me you are not advocating more and more socialism and higher taxes and that you celebrate economic freedom and I will retract my statement.

By Freedom Fan, at 3:06 PM
Lying like that Foole is EXACTLY why Brad banned you..........we were talking about the Dow losing purchasing power in inflation adjusted dollars from 2000-2007 and you DISHONESTLY pull the bait and switch and try to slip in statistics from 1800 and from 1930.........and worst of all YOUR OWN STATISTICS CONFIRM that WE ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

AS USUAL!!!!!!!!!!

By Mike, at 3:06 PM
And id-jet it is the relative value of Gold to the DOW, which the graph from WIKI proved I was right and your a dishonest stupid re-pubie troll once again son.

Spin it any way you want foole but you posted the wiki article I just read it and realized it showed what I posted was true son.

Bloviate till the cows come home that FACT ain't gonna change son

By clif, at 3:07 PM