Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (52553)	10/22/2008 10:32:46 AM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224704

Because she wears borrowed clothes? LOLOLOLOL, Kenneth you should not be so desperate. You made an ass out of yourself again...you really should consider not posting.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (52553)	10/22/2008 10:36:51 AM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224704

Here Comes Big Government by William Rusher It was probably inevitable. In small doses, it may even be desirable. Never mind that the economic crisis we face isn't nationwide, but worldwide, with causes that are beyond the power of any one nation, even this one, to remedy. The federal government must, of course, take what steps it can to correct matters and keep the damage within bounds. But it was easy to predict that the Big Government boys would leap on the situation to call for their favorite remedy. "CRISIS INSPIRES RETHINKING OF 'REAGANOMICS,'" blared the top headline in Oct. 19 San Francisco Chronicle. And the subhead followed suit: "Experts say era of small government, deregulation is over." Yep, it turns out the Gipper was wrong. As the article's first sentence puts it, "Big government is staging a comeback." Out from under their rocks are coming all the Big Government fans who have spent the last 30 years in hiding. In the exultant words of William Galston, a senior fellow at Washington's Brookings Institution, "We've gone through a period of three decades when the default assumptions were conservative assumptions. That framework has probably been torpedoed by events." One can practically hear Galston exhaling, "At last!" As the Chronicle article notes, "A combination of circumstances, including the resurgence of the Democratic Party and fallout from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, is giving impetus to wholesale expansion of government economic intervention." And it's true. Government is climbing all over the woodwork, planning to make things better. And if, as seems likely, a Democratic administration and Congress sweep to victory next month, you can bet that the new administration will be positively crawling with fresh ideas to steer the economy in a (supposedly) more desirable direction. But if you get the uneasy feeling that you have heard all this before, you are right. Time after time, every few years since 1934, Washington, D.C., has been trotted out as the solution to the nation's problems. But the New Dealers were still struggling to pull the country out of the Great Depression when World War II obligingly took the problem off their hands. And government has proven no wiser in the ensuing decades. The truth is that bureaucrats have no crystal ball that can reveal the right economic course for the country. The economy has its ups and downs, based in part on global factors beyond merely national control and partly on national trends set in motion by forces sublimely indifferent to Washington's wishes. If (say) the weather dictates a downturn in agricultural production, no "czar" in Washington can command an uptick. But the recent worldwide economic downturn will, predictably, generate a demand that Washington "do something," and Washington will respond with a whole series of programs, laws and expenditures allegedly designed to improve matters. Few, if any, of them will work, but they will have the collective effect of putting government's weight on the scales against the economy's own healthy tendency to right itself. In a few years, we will learn all over again why we acquired our previous deep distrust of government "solutions." That is why the coming barrage of new government programs will predictably be such a desperately bad idea. We cannot legislate our way out of an economic slump, because an economic slump is simply the economy's way of exhaling, prior to taking a fresh breath. We can take palliative measures, to relieve individual cases of economic discomfort, but we cannot repeal the laws of economics. townhall.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (52553)	10/22/2008 11:08:41 AM
From: Ann Corrigan	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224704

Where does Michelle Obama buy her clothes? Who pays for them? No way Democrats will ever convince voters that Princeton/Harvard packaged Mrs Obama is not an elitist. Their room-service delivered Iranian caviar speaks volumes about the nouveau riche Obamas.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (52553)	10/22/2008 12:34:54 PM
From: DizzyG	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224704

Hmm...you mean these voters, Kenneth? Democratic Rep. John Murtha said Monday some of his constituents in western Pennsylvania are "rednecks" and the entire region just five to 10 years ago was "really redneck." elections.foxnews.com LOL! Diz-

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (52553)	10/22/2008 3:28:18 PM
From: MJ	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224704

Kenneth Guess what? Those populist people in PA and Ohio and Virginia and West Virginia enjoy looking good----we women love to dress up-----and our men like to see us dressed up. As a woman, I am just so very pleased that Sarah is getting proper assistance with her clothes and well-being to help her in this campaign. Men have had the royal treatment for decades as they campaign----the same should be done for our Governor Sarah Palin. mj