LOOKING BACK at the unemployment figures for 2008, it is plain that the Emporia area had a rough ride — a ride that is not yet over.
According to the Kansas Department of Labor, in December 2007 the unemployment rate for the “Emporia Micro-Area,” which covers Chase and Lyon counties, stood at 3.9 percent. By May, the rate had soared to 6.7 percent. Everybody knows the cause — the layoffs at Tyson.
Unemployment stayed above 6 percent in the area through July, then began to ease.
But the Emporia area is not back to normal. The unemployment rate for December 2008 was 4.9 percent. That means that more than 1,000 people who wanted to work could not find jobs.
The national economy is in bad shape and between layoffs and closings, the nation’s jobless rate keeps going up. It would be unusual if Emporia were not feeling the effects of the nation’s problems, and it will continue to feel them.
Much of the national attention on unemployment is focused on the big job losses — factories are closing down, companies are dumping white-collar and blue-collar workers. But there are other jobs being lost that get less attention.
Every community that suffers a big reduction of the number of jobs — just as Emporia lost the Tyson jobs — experiences an additional long-term effect. Jobs continue to bleed out of the community as other businesses are affected by the resulting loss of customers. Those losses are felt across the community — in the building trades, service businesses, retail shops and restaurants. Job by job, businesses pare away employees, looking for the delicate balance that will allow those businesses to survive until better times.
All told, Emporia is doing pretty well after last year’s Tyson shock. Other communities in the nation have seen their economies wrecked by layoffs and factory closings. Emporia’s economy was just badly shaken. But the shaking continues. Next week’s closing of Winter Furniture will leave a big gap on Commercial Street at a time when luring new retail stores is tough.
But there are signs that things could get better. The Dolly Madison bakery, with its parent company newly out of bankruptcy, is hiring again. Congress has passed a stimulus bill that will pump more than a billion dollars into the state for construction projects, schools and medical care. Some of that money will trickle through Emporia’s economy.
With a lot of luck, Emporia and Chase and Lyon counties may already have seen their worst days of this recession.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
trbluma (anonymous) says...
Get a life Pat, the thousand people who wanted a job didn't want one very bad. If they are layed off workers from Tyson's they could have been employed in a lot of places, go back and check your papers want ads for two or three months after the Tyson's layoff's. (and the papers bank account, the paper sure made a killing off of that deal). As for the tricke down from the stimulus package. BI DEAL it's all pork. The stimulus is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It's just taking money out of my pocket AND YOURS. The only reason abunch of these business's are going broke is because of the gov. and now we're going to let the gov. fix it. Choke and puke if you believe it.
February 25, 2009 at 10:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
I wonder if Pat Kelley will ever write an editorial entitled, "I wonder, is there a downside to a $12 trillion debt?", or "Anybody know how we are going to pay this back?". In typical liberal fashion, all he can do is blow about the wonderful stimulus package and how much money it is going to bring to Kansas. OK, fine, but where is it coming from, and how will it be paid back Mr. Kelley??
February 25, 2009 at 11:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Thank goodness we're getting rid of E-Verify so we can fill all those construction jobs, since we're all too lazy.
February 26, 2009 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/imag...
In case anyone is interested, I include a link to the new budget.
I am especially happy to hear that farmers and farmer wannabes who collect $$$ for not using their land will stop getting rich off my tax dollars. Some of those people include Washington hotshots, movie stars, and a few who live around here and shall go unnamed.
Some of those construction jobs are for engineers. Are you an engineer, open_eyes? You can apply.
Observation, don't let your tongue get stuck in your cheek.
February 26, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
create, I really like the fact that you said "some" of those jobs.........
Look at the bright side. At least your tax dollars that went to farm subsidies went to American citizens that were in this country legally.
February 28, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think my favorite so far is the $200,000 for the tattoo-removal machine in the latest pork bill.
February 28, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
USNretired (anonymous) says...
Looks like government jobs for everybody.
February 28, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Once unemployment passes 10% and 4 years from now when the deficit is who knows how many trillions, I'm sure the money will be rescinded because of the rush of people having "Obama" removed..... LOL
February 28, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
I'm hearing a lot of negative here, and I think increasing debt is a scary prospect... But, I'm just wondering if anyone has an alternative plan to get this nation's economy back on track, or if we are comfortable doing nothing and hoping things just work themselves out.
February 28, 2009 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I don't think anyone agrees with just sitting idly by. I like what Obama is doing cracking down on these CEO's getting huge compensations for horrible perfomance. However, we are going to turn around and reward everyone else for their own incompetance as well? Why are all those who screamed bloody murder about Bush's deficit so silent now? Isn't a dollar still a dollar? Why were things that were wasteful spending and pork last year suddenly "stimulus"? Just because you call a porkchop a chicken drumstick doesn't make it one. I don't have all the answers. But I certainly don't think running up unheard of levels of deficits is not the answer, and apparently the market agrees.
But, we are going to find out now, aren't we?
Since I have no choice, I sincerely hope that I am proven wrong.
February 28, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Momus
Of all the things I looked over in the Obama budget spreadsheets that C-Span published, the continuing defecit and public debt are hair raising. The defecit does reduce to over half of the 2010 $1.75 trillion by 2013, but then starts going back, getting to $750 billion by 2019.
The public debt in the budget increases to close to $14 trillion by 2019! The GDP is projected to by $19 trillion. That means public debt owed to China, Saudi Arabia, etc will amount to about 2/3 of our total economic output. Can you imagine any household not going belly up laboring under such a debt load? I can't.
And, the government plan assumes that by 2013 our GDP is growing by 3.5% a year. That's a pretty heady assumption.
I read a piece by Paul Volcker the other day. He noted that industrial production world-wide has declined by over 10% in the past few months, faster than the declines of 1929, 30, etc. He also noted that he did not see anyone expert enough to solve the problems and said that if anyone claimed they were it was proof they really weren't.
I'm not sure what kinds of alternative solutions can be offered. The die has been cast and that's that. We are in big trouble. I think about the best we can do is hope and pray it works.
While I hope there isn't a fatal flaw in this "plan," I find myself asking how getting people to spend more will solve the problem, particularly when it was massive overspending at all levels (government and personal) that was one of the primary catalysts in this mess. It's almost as if we're inviting another round of people buying more than they can afford and living with the expectation someone else will eventually bail them out.
I don't envy anyone trying to figure out how to solve this problem. I suspect there are a lot of them sitting in government offices looking out over the precipice. If we know just how serious this is, it must be even a hundred times worse for them.
The more I think about this situation, the more I find faith as the reasonable outlet. Not much else makes sense. I'm sure that must seem counter-intuitive to those who assume that our wise men are the only ones holding the keys.
February 28, 2009 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think I've figured out the strategy. I call it the "Obama Diet Plan".
For instance, take, say, an average 175-lb man, who ate too much thru the winter months/holidays and saw his weight (deficit) balloon up to 200 lbs. Most people would say cut back, tighten the belt, you may have to go hungry at times but it's the right thing to do to get your weight back down.
The Obama diet plan, however, is to eat massive amounts of calories and get your weight up to 350 lbs. Then, once you lose 50 lbs, and get your weight down go 300, you can proclaim the diet a success, because, after all, you lost 50 lbs..... LOL
I like the phrase they coined the other night. LBJ had his "war on poverty". Obama has his "war on prosperity". And no, I'm not referring to the fat-cat CEO's. That's just plain war on crime, which I'm all for.
February 28, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Trickle Down Economics could will not work in a global economy, its not even a sure thing it worked during the Reagan years.
http://www.bigissueground.com/politic...
And tax breaks of massive proportions were given out during the Bush years, and it has not done us any good. The tax breaks in this stimulus just signed into law were a joke to, if anything they need to be rescinding more tax breaks on companies that export their workforce out of our nation.
February 28, 2009 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
I don't think it's particularly helpful to make this a partisan issue. There's been enough of that already.
I can't say I have the answers, but I certainly have questions about the wisdom of letting debt pile up to the point that it amounts to 2/3rds of our G.D.P. On a micro level I know for sure it would be a recipe for bankruptcy or total collapse. Perhaps government is immune to this ratio at the macro level.
I suppose it could be argued that a little bit of debt can be a good thing, showing optimism in the future. That still begs the question. Is 67% (the administration's number) reasonable or sensible?
The Presiden't 2009 budget calls for a deficit of $1.75 trillion, the 2010 budget calls for a deficit of $1.2 trillion. The rationale being used is to stimulate the economy, the same rationale during the early Reagan years. Reagan did incur deficits, the largest being $220 billion, or about 4% of G.D.P. Most of the Reagan deficits amounted to about 2% of G.D.P. The 2009 Obama budget deficit amounts to a bit over 12% of G.D.P. Further, they remain at high levels from 2010 till 2019 (anywhere from 3% to 8%.
If Reagan or Bush detractors make the claim that President Obama is only inheriting a deficit given him, then the Reagan proponents can make the same claim about the Carter deficits handed to them. It seems to me that those who make such an argument can't have it both ways.
I think the problem is far more complex than can be laid at the feet of any one administration. Any administration can find itself at the mercy of what Solzhenytsyn called the "mericless crowbar of events." I doubt Jimmy Carter counted on the Arab oil embargo or skyrocketing prices that could only be fixed by having the Fed raise interest rates to over 10%. That, and the self induced wounds any leader inflcts sometimes combine to make a toxic brew. I was a Carter supporter, but lost confidence in his ability to lead after listening to his great malaise speech and his handling of the Iran hostage crisis. George Bush came to power with good intentions. A combination of undreamed of events, bad decisions, and lack of collective foresight derailed his presidency. I suspect Barack Obama will have his moments as well. That crowbar of events will come knocking at his door too. Something, tragically, will happen, as it always does. The Chinese might cut off funding to us. The Iranians may start rattling the nuclear sabre at Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, and anywhere they feel vulnerability. And, God forbid, there still could be another terrorist attack on our homeland. The world is a very complex place and no one is wise enough to foresee every problem looming on the horizon or even the ability to respond to such a crisis in a way that is revenue neutral. The problems will be non-partisan. I'd like to think that our national responses to them will be non-partisan. Given our recent history, that's probably wishful thinking.
February 28, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I think that the truth of the matter is that this country has never caught up with it's debt since the end of WWII. Under some administrations the debt was reduced and under others it was compounded, but the long-term solution of paying it OFF has never been accomplished and wasn't even a primary goal with any of them. Reaganomics had the most positive short-term effect, but by increasing our reliance on the credit cycle, it has had the worst long term effect. Add the expenses of four major military conflicts and the toll that those have taken and the financial and medical aid handed out to countries that are not our allies in any way and are black holes for money and we have about 70-75 yrs. of spinning down the funnel. We feel it more severely now because the circles are getting smaller and faster as we near the bottom. About our only hope now is to bottom out and rebuild from scratch. Thing is, we are very susceptible to a bad form of government taking things over at this point and our disregard for the history of every other country this pattern has happened in doesn't bode well for our outcome.
February 28, 2009 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I am just a dumb ole Emporia country boy, but I would like to know how does the GDP grow, if most all of the manufacturing etc., is outsourced to foreign countries, such as China, Korea, Taiwan, India, Bangladesh, Mexico, Thailand, etc., the loss of domestic jobs to foreign counteries, equates to loss of domestic payroll and income tax revenues. And what happens when all of the immigrants coming to America looking for jobs, outnumber the jobs to be had, such as is happening now and suddenly require public assistance and what happens when the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs continues and all of the so called stimulus jobs that are supposed to be created, run out or end when the stimulus money runs out or the taxpayers can't afford to pay their taxes. Will there be more money printed to create more stimulus or WPA jobs as it used to be called.
How many of us actually believe that the problem that is facing all of us in the U.S. now, happened over a short span of time, instead of over the span of a few decades and how many of us believe that this problem will be rectified in the next 4, 8, 12, 16 or even 20 years. Barring a miracle I for one do not, I believe that each of us is in for a long and hard road to recovery, for some time to come.
As I see it there is no single political party or administration that is to blame for the current economic mess, but the blame has to be passed around to all the political parties and administrations over the past few decades.
February 28, 2009 at 7:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Some various quotes by Thomas Jefferson:
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
Most bad government has grown out of too much government.
Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.
I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
(Wait - aren't these the same people that scream about the Patriot Act??????)
February 28, 2009 at 8:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Have a chill pill, mrwho - so we got a little carried away having fun with our quotes. But the ones I posted by Thomas Jefferson have everything to do with our times. Our founding fathers warned us against the path our current administration is charging down. I think our founding fathers, if alive today, would realize that their grand vision is dangerously close to coming to an end.
February 28, 2009 at 10:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I agree, mrwho. I did not agree with the Bush bailout, and I don't agree with the Obama stimulus either. The first was done without any oversight at all apparently, and the second was done without allowing anyone to read it before they voted on it. So much for transparency. Sure, I think we will see some benefits here and there, people are going to be able to get their tattoo's removed, but I think the debt this is placing on the country is going to be disastrous. I think that possibly in our attempt to soften the bottom of this recession, we are going to extend it for a much longer period of time than if we had let it bounce hard and let those that deserve it take their lumps. I'm not saying I'm for doing nothing - as I've said, I like at least a few of the things Obama is doing - cracking down on the criminal CEO's for one - but I think, unlike the Iraq war, which even though it would have been a huge mistake and disastrous to just pull out of, we still could have up and left at any time, there is no way we are going to get out from under the huge burden of huge government Obama is going to saddle us with. Government is easy to expand, nearly impossible to shrink. And the debt - good grief, that's all my stunned mind can think of to say.....
February 28, 2009 at 11:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think what you're saying, mrwho, is the pattern is here, he never finishes what he starts. LOL
Which doesn't give me a warm fuzzy about our deficit......I think our next president (if anyone would be fool enough to run) is going to be using the phrase "the deficit this administration inherited" ALOT....!!!!
Actually, I think Speaker of the House comes between President & Emperor of the World. At least in Pelosi's mind it does - LOL :)
February 28, 2009 at 11:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
oh4theluvof
The troubling thing to me about the debt we're piling up is its relationaship to G.D.P. We have had debt to be sure, but never in the massive amount we're going to have right through 2019, the last year oulined in the Obama budget. It's going to be bad enough for debt to be 40% of G.D.P in 2009, but the budget clearly shows that there is no intention to reduce it. By 2019 the public debt will be close to $16 trillion, or 67% of G.D.P. If there were good intentions one would think that the plan wouldn't call for deficit spending in what the administration calls the "post recession" years. But it does plan on deficits in each of the years through 2019, ranging anywhere from 3 to 8%.
I'll ask it again. How many on this forum would survive long with such a load of debt? I'll also ask again. Is this prudent? I'll also ask. At what point is this trend going to be irreversible, if it isn't going to be by the end of the President's first term? At what point will we owe more than we produce?
March 1, 2009 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
Looks to me like everyone is to blame, starting with you and I. Would we ever vote for someone who said, "we are going to have to tighten our belts, live within our means, and get this national debt paid down"?? Would we vote for someone who said, "125% home equity mortgages are bad especially if you are using the procedes to buy a jet ski and take a vacation"?? We vote for the people who tell us what we want to hear.
Like methusla, I am just a dumb country boy, but I think it is going to get much worse before it gets better. I cannot grasp the $$ figures being batted around today. I borrow quite a bit of money for my business. Every year I have to give the bank my tax returns, to prove I generate enough cash flow to service the debt. I have to do a financial statement to prove I have the net worth to pay the debt off if I fail. I think these mortgages that went over 100% leverage were counting on inflation continuing to drive home values up, so that eventually the mortgage was no longer 100% leveraged. I wonder if our government is figuring the same with our national debt. Whether you are a farmer or a nation, you can only service so much debt, that is what worries me, is the USA getting past that point? Some debt is fine, maybe even healthy if it lets you grow your business or your nation where otherwise you couldn't. But if you simply borrow because you can, that is a recipe for disaster, and I fear that is the road we are on. If I fail the bank will sell my farm,what will be sold to pay off the debt if this nation fails?
March 1, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
I caught the anti-farm comments early in the thread Observation, but didn't figure a comment from a farmer would be taken seriously. I am going to throw a couple things out for everyone to consider. First, the "farm bill" also funds food stamps and school lunches, along with the forest service. Alot is made of the billions of $$ it costs, very little ends up in farmers pockets. There is no longer a set aside, and hasn't been for a long time, so the comment create made about paying farmers not to use land is inaccurate. There are however a myriad of programs now that pay to idle land for wildlife and environmental purposes, that often end up financing a hunting preserve for a doctor or lawyer.
Most off farm taxpayers view the farm program as welfare and nothing I can say will change that. Most farmers feel we would be better off if the government would get out of farming and stay out of farming. Only a fool would leave the money on the table if it is offered. The reason for farm subsidies is fairly simple, too keep food production stable. The subsidy payment keeps people planting say wheat when wheat is no longer profitable to grow. Before everyone chimes in about how stupid that is, think about what would happen if we simply quit growing wheat in the USA for a year, or only grew 70% as much....think about what gas prices did this summer. Subsidies keep food prices stable. Without subsidies you would see a very different food situation in this nation. It would be much more like the oil situation,with alot of production coming from foreign nations, and much more erratic prices. Also in a boom/bust economy farmland would change hands much more often, and more than likely would end up in the hands of a few very wealthy people. They are going to do what makes the most money, if it is grow food they will grow food, but in many cases that would be develope it. Say what you want to about farmers, but I don't think the US would be in very good shape without us.
It already appears to me like farming under an Obama administration is going to be a lost cause(look up the EPA livestock tax,the EPA rulings on dust produced by farming, and the water situation in California), so maybe in 4 years there won't be any farmers collecting subsidies, most of the land will be in National parks, and like energy we will depend on foreign nations for food. Think how brilliantly that will work for us all.
March 1, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
alfalfa, you show your ignorance. Everyone knows that food comes from the grocery stores. Milk, for instance, comes from either a plastic or cardboard carton. Lots of farmers try to spread the sick myth that it comes out of a cows udder, (how in the world they think intelligent, informed voters would fall for something as icky as that is beyond me!) but enlightened liberals know better.
March 1, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I may be wrong, but the situation this nation is in now started a long time before the current president and congress took power, so to speak. As I said in my earlier post, this nations " Government of the wealthy, for the wealthy, and the greedy" started decades ago and not only are Democrats to blame but Republicans as well, because the "Greed Bug" called lobbying, lobbyists and special interests, bit and infected the people we elect to government office and this " Greed Bug" is a very hard blight and infestation to kill or get rid of. And the sad and scary thing about this " Greed Bug" is, it is prevailant in all forms of government, from the top to the bottom.
March 1, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
methusla..... you mean.......... It ISN'T all Bush's fault????? (gasp)..... bite your tongue.....
March 1, 2009 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
And we wonder why the nation is in the state it is in. It seems that most are more interested in name calling and pointing out what is wrong with the other side rather than what is right in their way of thinking. It's disappointing.
A couple of points reading through responses after my initial question: 1. I think their are a lot of people who WANT to work in the US. However, we have an entire industrial class that is rapidly evaporating. Not everyone can be a CEO, Dr. or Engineer. Not everyone has an advanced skill set in professional areas. If we create jobs that trancend the gambit of skill sets we potentially create a situation where everyone is living off of "themselves" as opposed to dependancy on a CEO of a MNC that is uninterested in the social well being of the nation. You can only have so many people at the top of the employment chain, and we have become a top heavy nation.
2. Again, the alternative to a spending stimulous is??? Yes, we create more debt, which is something I am not the least bit excited about, but the alternative is letting the nation crash into economic oblivion. Evidently, some would like the economy and government (including its leaders) to fail. I'm not sure we grasp the full ramifications of what a failure would mean for us, and the world at large. The stimulous bill is a combination of tax cuts and spending, not unlike what President Reagan did when he cut taxes and more than trippled our debt during his Presidency. However, I think that we need to learn from the past and SAVE (read: use surpluses to pay down debt and invest in the future). However, the last time we had a surplus, the public screamed that the surplus was "their money" and they didn't want the government to have it. Well, taxes are our money, and the debt is our debt. The government is us, and we are them. This liberal versus conservative crap may work during an election, but our boat is sinking while two sides are griping about what type of wood to use to patch the hole. Amazing.
March 1, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
So, if we do nothing, things crash. Then, we rebuild & move on. But, if on the way down, we pour gasoline on everything & light it afire, we still crash, only it will take longer to rebuild.
We all fully grasp the ramifications of a failure. Do we truly crash into economic oblivion? Or do we endure a tough time and come out of it? And how long is that tough time going to last? It appears we are crashing no matter what. The questions are: 1) are we going to pursue policies that will prolong the down period, and 2) are we going to pursue policies that will create such an enormous debt that we may never be able to get out from under?
Lots of people (including economists) were against TARP. Let them fail. What would have happened in both the short term, AND in the long?
March 1, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
Observation,
That's my point. When the opposition is in power, they can do nothing right. When our party is in power, they can do nothing wrong. If we don't want to swing from one extreme to the other then we need to comprimise and find some middle ground (and realize the imperfections that exist on BOTH sides of the isle). There are more moderates than liberals or conservatives (IMO). Right now, the majority of the nation wants the government to intercede and stabalize the economy. If we don't have a stimulous plan, what is your plan?
March 1, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
Are you willing to let the most well armed nation in the world fall into a state of anarcy? Are you willing to let what is supposed to be the world's democratic beacon extinguish? Are you ready for the consiquences that would undoubtedly occur in a world without a USA? I'm sorry, I can't hope for the failure of this nation.
March 1, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Not everyone sings kumbaya to everything when "their" party is in power. I'm Independent, but conservative, and I did not agree with TARP, nor some other things Bush did. I'm just not blind enough to blame everything under the sun on him, & spew a bunch of the hate the far-left wing is so proficient at.
We went thru 10 years of a depression in the 30's. Guess what. Last time I checked, America still existed. We've been thru boom economic times, recessions, & depressions. I don't believe letting some banks & others fail means that we wake up tomorrow in total anarchy and the rest of the world is planting flags claiming US acreage as now their own. I don't recall that our beacon extinguished in any of our economic downturns, nor did any history books get edited to remove the US during those times (and then put America back in once more prosperous times returned).
That says alot about it. Nobody is willing to tighten their belt anymore. The end of the world will come if I have to downscale from my 60" plasma to a 27" tube TV with a converter box. End of America because a married couple with 2 kids moves back into a 3-bedroom house and has to give up their 8,000 square foot 8 bedroom mansion.
Yes, Armageddon, certainly.
March 1, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Again, I am just a dumb ole Emporia country boy. But I also have a question I would like answered, if anyone has an answer.
How many of the so-called American corporations, banks, mortgage banks, stock brokerage firms, etc., that were bailed out or are or were in the throws of failure are owned by foreign interests, etc., and if they are foreign owned, why are they being bailed out by American taxpayer money and why aren't the foreign interests that own some of these failing companys pouring their money into this to save their own companys ?
Please, I am just an Emporia hick seeking answers.
March 1, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
momus, I just now caught your statement about not hoping for the failure of this nation.
Well, we've had quite a few people (some politicians) that rooted for us to fail in Iraq.... but that's another point...
Sometimes I get the feeling that it is THOSE who are pushing this spending that ARE wanting our country to fail. They hate capitalism, they WANT socialism. And the only way they can force that on us is to break us. They view socialism/communism as leveling the playing field (spreading the wealth) - and they want the US leveled. Brought down.
I'm not all that sure anymore about who it is that is truly rooting for us to fail......
March 1, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
methusla - same reason the none of the unfathomable-rich oil-wealthy Muslim nations don't spend a dime to help their "poor Palestinians".
They're just a tool, and they have other agendas.
March 1, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Momus
I certainly don't want the U.S. to fail. I invested a good part of youth defending this country and its institutions.
I can't fight this plan. It's been developed, it's been voted on, it's passed and that's that. I'm on board. I feel a bit like I've been Shanghai'd, but I'm on board. I'll be loyal to the bitter end, if it comes to that.
You're right. The debt is ours. I think you're also right that some investment in these times is purdent. But that's only part of the story. How much debt is prudent and with whom are we bargaining to get the dollars. One poster mentioned that we've carried debt since WWII. That's true. But there's a significant difference between then and now. Back then the government was selling war bonds and other investments in the effort. We were the purchasers. Everyone took part in the effort. Even Hollywood stars were out on the stump selling bonds. In essence we owed the money to ourselves. It was a sign of the faith we had as a nation we could pull through together. Things have changed. Who are we indebted to today? Ourselves? No! We owe China trillions. We owe trillions to Saudi Arabia. How loyal do you think they are to our principles? How do you think China would react if we started really pressing them hard on human rights violations (violating principles at the core of American belief)? How do you think they would react if we insisted that they stop manipulating their currency to our detriment? What do you supposed they might do if we started embarrasing them about their treatment of Christians and other religious groups? What about the Saudis and their view on womens' rights or religious freedom? How about Hugo Chavez in Venezuala? Vladimir Putin? Just how much loyalty do they have to our core principles? I think very little? I think they may even sense they can bankrupt us if we decide to stand by our principles in the international arena.
So, I'm on board. If the torpedo hits us I'll be right about midship. I was there back in the Carter years, the Reagan years, the Bush I years, the Clinton years, and the Bush II years. My loyalty has never been selective. I've never called my President a Nazi. I've never cozied up with Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin. I've never believed that 9-11 was a Jewish conspiracy. I'd never think about joining the Taliban.
I'm not saying that you've done any of those things, but I know there are a lot of Americans who have and are now in positions of power. They're seeing the gravy train right now. They're in and they're expecting me and others like me to anoint them and give them all they want (they're gonna' take it without my blessing anyway.) Well, I'm fresh out of oil. I'm all tapped out.
One last thing - where were they when we needed their loyalty a few years ago?
March 1, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Methusla
I'm not sure what the answer is. I don't think anyone really knows who owns the CDO's. That stuff has been sold and resold so many times that our greatest minds will never be able to figure it out. I've read that the total world-wide exposure in the sub primes, CDO's, etc is about $56 trillion.
If you read much, I'd recommend you go to the library and have the librarian order you a copy of "Liar's Poker" on inter-library loan. I don't know who the author is offhand, but he's a young guy who was in the middle of all the wheeling and dealing. It's a good read. It won't give you the technicals and nuts and bolts because I don't think that even the people who invented these instruments can explain how they work, other than to say it was one helluva' international Ponzi scheme.
March 1, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Thanks to those who tried to answer my question. I understand a little of what was said and explained. I am not a financial wizard, nor have or ever had the money to invest in much but my and my families survival and now that I am in the twilight years of my life, I am just hoping to survive, god willing, for a few more years. I am only worried about the survival of my children and grandchildren. I believe that I have lived a long and pretty good and fruitful life and just hope my children, their children and their childrens children will have the chance to do the same.
Thank you for your answers and explainations and good luck to us all !
March 1, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
netloafer:
Sorry so long to respond. Someone was monopolizing the computer. I am completely with you about the GDP. We can't continue to spend what we don't have. In the history of the world, creative financing has never been successful. It can work as a short, temporary bridge between the present and money that exists but is tied up for a while longer. But humans have never accomplished making something out of nothing (creation) especially when it comes to money. However, every time we try we end up making less out of nothing: an amazing phenomenon that we don't seem to learn anything from. If we are to make it out of this, we would have to make some drastic, painful and immediate moves, like reducing imports to a very small budget. Exports would have to be increased to the very limits of our production capacity and then pushed beyond that. Outsourcing, of course, would need to be made illegal, but there are so many loopholes in that that it would take some major laws and penalties. And, of course, the American people would have to learn to be uncomfortable. To use our own resources as they become available, but to live without them in the meantime. Government would have to reduce salaries and quit supporting society. Back to the basics of passing laws only to protect the citizens, providing military defense of the country and enforcing the laws when someone breaks them. NO SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE, NO WELFARE!!!!!!!! And the taxes would need to be collected and handled in a reasonable fashion, with the primary goal to be to pay off debt. That is basic economics as it would look on a federal government level. Personally, because not enough people in this country are committed to being debt free at personal costs, I believe it is too late.
alfalfa pegged it when he said, "Looks to me like everyone is to blame, starting with you and I. Would we ever vote for someone who said, "we are going to have to tighten our belts, live within our means, and get this national debt paid down"?? Would we vote for someone who said, "125% home equity mortgages are bad especially if you are using the procedes to buy a jet ski and take a vacation"?? We vote for the people who tell us what we want to hear."
And the proof of this is that we have two political parties who take turns telling us what we want to hear and we let them take turns trying to fix it--the pattern is so predictable it's pathetic. Meanwhile, the third-party candidates who are trying to warn us and offer solutions--REAL LIFE ones--get shoved aside and mocked. We don't learn so fast, do we?
March 1, 2009 at 7:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I truly do like alot of what I hear third party candidates say. But, I look around, and there are not enough others to keep my vote from being wasted. Unfortunately, our 2 party system, is, for the near foreseeable future, entrenched. Therefore, I would suggest that strong 3rd party candidates align themselves - get some following, and some notice - change the party from within. There are plenty of differences within parties during primaries - that's why we have them.
Of course, our 2-party system may end soon - as I keep harping, once we get hooked on gov, its going to be very, very hard to wean anyone off.
March 1, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Observation:
I think you meant me when you addressed netloafer because I had replied to netloafer.
Observation and open_eyes:
If I preach hard enough and get ten people to pick a third party and they recruit ten more apiece and so on an so forth, the third parties in this country really rock the two-party boat. I don't even care at this point which third party is chosen--the two parties need to understand where the citizens are. Now, in the last election, due to the safety net of the electoral college (which I know is unpopular, but most governmental accountability in this country is) my vote did not change the state's electoral votes. However, it does indicate to the two parties in their census that I did not vote for either of them--a disapproval from me to both of them. Earlier in this conversation, momus said, "If we don't want to swing from one extreme to the other then we need to comprimise and find some middle ground (and realize the imperfections that exist on BOTH sides of the isle). There are more moderates than liberals or conservatives (IMO)." So if that's the case, and I agree that it is, the 25%-25%-50% breakdown isn't accurate. I believe if we could convince people to choose a third party, we could easily come up with a 35% third party compilation, 32% GOP and 33% Dem breakdown. No, one third party wouldn't win, but each of the two main parties would understand that they are going in with a 67% disapproval rate right off. The voice of the people gets pretty powerful pretty quickly and fear of the next election outcome might light some fires. I think if we could get the state of Kansas to put one election's worth of electoral votes as third party, the other states might take note. Get the midwest on board, and we take back our country. You may not agree, but there is my reasoning and explanation. It has to start somewhere and if it starts with me, I'm okay with that. It may be a hopeless cause, but the fight to save a failing country from an evil form of government often is.
March 1, 2009 at 11:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Observation
I'm what's called a lapsed Democrat. In the last election cycle Mike Huckabee was my candidate of choice. I wound up voting for John McCain.
I think if a third party is going to be successful it would need to concentrate on legislative vs. executive power. The legislature holds the purse strings. If a third party could win enough senate and congressional seats to constitute a voting bloc the major parties would have to get the third party's approval for any legislation to pass. If the third party held true to whatever principles it espoused the Republicans and Democrats would have to propose legislation acceptable to those principles. Look at the success the small group of senate Republicans and Democrats (Collins, Nelson, Snowe, et all) in getting the other senators to make changes in the stiumulus bill. Granted, the bill still wound up being lousy, but they did effect change. I think a third party holding to its principles as a bloc in such circumstances could bring some sanity back into the process. The big danger lies in how a third party would act in power. I think Lord Acton's dictum that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" could make such an entity drunk with power.
March 2, 2009 at 5:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master."
- Dwight Eisenhower
March 2, 2009 at 7:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Like I said, what would have happened if the better-known third-part candidates had aligned themselves with either party, and ran as a candidate? Would they have garnered more votes? Would people have viewed them as a more viable alternative? Is there even a possibility that they would have won that party's candidacy? Change the party from within!
netloafer, your last statement rings true no matter who is in power. That is why we always need alternatives.....
Check out the Thomas Jefferson quotes I posted earlier on this thread. They knew the danger that this day would come. They warned against it. They knew how easily the sheeple could fall in line, (especially when the media is in on the scam). It appears our founding fathers are turning over in their graves about right now.....
March 2, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
If a third-party aligns themselves with one of the existing parties, that individual runs the probable risk of getting swallowed up in that party's trend. Not to mention that the more conservative members of the party don't get the nominations and if they do, they don't make it through the primaries. They aren't the ones with the feel good message. When Ross Perot shook things up, it wasn't altogether a bad thing, but sadly, it revealed the average American's priority of money above the good of the overall country. This country is like a boat in the middle of the ocean with a small leak that is growing larger. We keep looking around the outside of the boat at the above-water portion, looking for a hole. We keep sending SOS's to other ships who bring us supplies that we keep using up on the visible parts, hoping that if we add enough, it will keep the flooding holds afloat. Maybe if we rock the boat hard enough, we might actually reveal the damage that is being hidden by the water. Maybe not, but what we're doing sure isn't working.
March 2, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
With regard to farm subsidies, Alfalfa says, "Only a fool would leave the money on the table if it is offered."
That's part of the problem. Whatever happened to integrity? Why take any money at all if it isn't needed?
Those weren't anti-farm comments I made earlier, not at all. They were anti-SUBSIDY comments for those who have no integrity; they're taking the money simply because it's there for the taking, like those programs you mentioned that pay to keep land idle for wildlife and environmental purposes -- otherwise known as hunting preserves or even back yard "scenery" for the rich who have milked this country dry.
I can see by your very intelligent and viable explanation, alfalfa, that farm subsidies do indeed have their worth. Unfortunately, all of it is under one giant umbrella where those rich folks can get to it for personal use.
March 2, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well I certainly WISH a third-party could have a chance - just being pragmatic.
I don't think the danger of being swallowed up in that party's trend is a whole lot different from gaining power & then having that corrupt or derail you. Look what happened with fiscal conservatism the last few years of Bush's presidency. Quite a stray from GOP core principles. But you're right, what we are doing isn't working.
Well, politicians are famous for never sticking to campaign promises (no lobbyists, out in 16 months, reduce the budget, cut spending to name a few of the current ones that fell by the wayside). So, 3rd party, do what all the other politicians do, lie, - most importantly of all, get the media on your side, (then they can plant stories & destroy your opponent for you, while you stay squeaky-clean) then once you're in office do whatever the he** you please...... LOL (and no, the "lie" part does NOT apply to only 1 party)....
March 2, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
alfalfa & create, you both have good points - when the farmer is barely scraping by, patching up worn-out used machinery for the umpteenth time that should have been replaced years ago, then, yes, it is hard to see all those around you snapping up aid and bypass it. Even if you aren't destitute, there are always improvements & expansions that you could make. But, we have some really huge & well-off farmers that are getting oodles of aid...... kindof like these banks that are doing fine that are still getting massive bailout money, & then throwing lavish parties, etc..... or, as you stated, some Hollywood celeb buying up a bunch of land & getting aid for it...... lots of things in our system need scrutinized alot more closely...
Oh, I forgot. Our new "transparent" administration doesn't want to give anyone any time to read anything before they vote on it.....
March 2, 2009 at 11:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Time for a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
March 2, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )