dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

What should be a given is that the financial powers control the media. To break this down, the feds and Wall Street control the Associated Press. Our hometown "Gazette" gets much of their information from the AP. Our Gazette editor is influenced by the ifnformation they put out. So, to some degree, our editor Mr. Kelly is influenced by their information, whether it be their spin or unbiased reporting. Sometimes it is spin. Mr. Kelly's printed statement "As daunting as the prospect of increasing the deficit may be, increased spending may be the only way to short circuit the economic recession, which is now trending toward a full-blown depression." falls into the spin, or just plain tripe. Putting our grandchildren and great grandchildren into debt for what our generation has done, seems to me, very sad. Putting the taxpayers further into debt than they already are is a last resort ploy by the very same people that have caused the coming depression. The Federal Reserve and Wall Street have taken us down this road of debt. There is fault on us sheople, but we have been led. Borrowing and spending is just taking us to Socialism. Free Markets should be allowed to work!

January 12, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alfalfa (anonymous) says...

Well said oxen. I find it amazing, I guess, that the liberal far left media has not bothered to ask the consequences of these trillion dollar bailouts, and the consequences of what Obama himself says will be trillion dollar deficits for the forseeable future. There must be consequences, I thought the medias job was to ask tough questions, they were certainly able to ask plenty of GW Bush. I guess they are just too busy gushing praise all over Obama right now to do a good job of thinking about our future.

January 12, 2009 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Alfalfa, here's your answer right here in the article! This seems like such a simple solution!

"The federal government can print all the money it wants, but the state can only dig into its purse until it reaches the bottom."

So, even though the treasury is broke, we'll just print all the money we need! Ohh, I wouldn't worry about inflation or anything, because if our money starts to become worthless, we'll just print more!

We'll be like Germany in the 1920's and 30's, where the value of their money was less than coal, so it was actually cheaper to use paper money to heat a home than coal or oil.

January 13, 2009 at 3:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

You know I heard about this little thing called the internet the other day, I also heard that if one was so inclined that one could find a virtual plethora of information out there, biased, unbiased, etc. Hmmm?

January 13, 2009 at 7:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alfalfa (anonymous) says...

Not sure if you got this josiesbar and goodoleboy, but there is alot of sarcasm in my comment. Josiesbar what you say is what I have always thought would happen, the more money you print, the more inflation you get. To get to my point without the sarcasm, why aren't we hearing these questions being asked by the people pushing for these bailouts? Pat Kelley certainly didn't seem overly concerned about these massive federal debts in his editorial. Given the fact this entire financial crisis "snuck up" on our government, it is certainly possible it seems to me that the results of non stop printing of money will "sneak up" on them as well. All I want is for the debate, whatever there is of it, about more bailouts to include the possible consequences of the bailouts. The American public needs to have some idea of the level of competence in DC, and what to possibly expect down the road.

January 13, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Alfalfa, check out wikipedia, and search the word "hyperinflation."

In 1923, Ten million marks < One US Dollar.

January 13, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

Alfalfa, I don't know that DC has much say about what happens anymore. I think most of the controlling is done by Wall Street and the Central Banks. Just my opinion, taken from the Plethoria of information "out there".

goodoleboy, the same thing can be said about the plethoria of information in our mainstream medea. Why not just go by the government statistics (sarcasm intended)?

January 13, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

So oxen, no matter what caused it, what is your solution to our country's financial crisis?

January 13, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

Blame Bush and hope for the best. That seems to have worked for years now..................... wait no it hasn't.

January 13, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I recently saw a clip again of an Obama interview last fall where he talked about the massive $400 billion deficit, explaining how we simply should not and could not burden our future generations with this. And HIS administration WOULD not.

Well, folks wanted "change", they're getting it!!!! LOL

January 13, 2009 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

create, It's too late to stop it. All we can do now is make sure that the Wall Street Gang and their cohorts, the fed, are financially secure and that they can create enough debt for us to welcome their control. This will come about when people realize our hopelessness and take note of the probable civil disorder, hunger, etc. It's hard for me to see anything else. The citizens of our country just keep sitting back, letting these people do whatever they want.

January 13, 2009 at 11:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alfalfa (anonymous) says...

Create, my guess is that oxen is not saying he(or she) has an answer necessarily, and neither am I. What I am saying is maybe the cure we are pursuing is worse than the disease. I know about hyperinflation josiesbar, evidently you do too........do our elected officials I wonder? It isn't that I am trying to portray that I know what is best. I am just kicking in a little bit of that history I learned in high school and college. If printing all this money leads to honest to God hyperinflation, then we will be in worse shape than ever, at least those of us who have lived within our means will be. Older folks who have saved will be hit the hardest, because their life savings will be worth nearly nothing. I remember reading it took a wheelbarrow full of German marks to buy a loaf of bread, I don't know if that is exaggeration or not, but I do know that the hyperinflation in Germany helped Adolph Hitler in his rise to power...people in dire straits will vote for some pretty radical folks. Right now it looks like politicians on both sides are living from poll to poll. This is not some local issue that you can either pay attention to if you want, or ignore because it doesn't affect you. The massive spending that has already happened and is proposed will impact every single one of us.

January 13, 2009 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

Silly alfalfa, using history to predict the future. Don't you know that all that history is is antiquated information that was only relevant to "back then?" These are "new" times with "new" issues.
To be clear, that was pure sarcasm. I am a huge advocate of "there is nothing new under the sun." I think the answers to the current dilemmas are also found in history books, but you have to find the story of the country with the economy that crashed but was rebuilt by being frugal and using only tangible resources or find all the "what-not-to-do" stories and avoid those same patterns. My guess is that history is full of what-not-to do-lessons that would lead us to the what-to-do possibilities. One thing I know for sure from four millenniums worth of history---money hungry individuals form money hungry governments that use citizens as vehicles to obtain more money and it begins in our own "back yards."

January 13, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I posted a link to this awhile back, not bothering to look it up again right now, but some UCLA economists did a study recently where they predicted that FDR's policies actually lengthened the depression from 3 years to 10. Their analysis claimed that had the markets been allowed to (painfully) correct themselves, we would have been out of the depression in 3 years. Instead, FDR instituted many popular programs & spending, similar to what we are heading into now, that extended the depression to 10 years.
Now, hindsight is 20/20, nobody can know for sure if those economists are right - or what could have/would have happened. Just something to think about.

As for the respect issue, Observation, deep down I (and I'm sure, alot of us) - do feel like that. But, I sincerely am trying very hard not to embarass myself and make a total jack$$s out of myself like so many on the far left (and some on these boards) have done for the last 8 years by rooting for my country to fail. Even though deep down I do have a vengeful streak that would like to be appeased. I like to think of myself as a bigger man than that, and a bigger man than so many of the pathetic far-left (yes, that is EXACTLY the adjective I mean to use) have been lately. Don't worry, in the end, the truth eventually all comes out, we will all eventually (well, not the radicals - on either end, but most of the sane ones) - realize and admit that Bush was not Satan, he did quite a few good and correct things for us & the world during his tenure, and nor is Obama the Messiah (well, I'm still going to keep a watchful eye out on inauguration day, just in case the heavens part and angels appear, strumming their harps, etc.... but I won't hold my breath.)

January 13, 2009 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And, let's see, our new global warming czar.... up until last week, was the leader of the group "Socialist International"...... this just gets better and better....

January 14, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

So if nobody knows for sure then why even mention it. I understand using the past to predict the future but the world we live in today is also a very different animal, its not even worth a comparison to the 20's and 30's with the globalization of the world. I don't envy anyone trying to figure out how to solve the mess we are in at the moment, it's complexity and implications are mind boggling.

Bush is not Satan, but he is/was a failure as a president. Sure he got some things right, but he got a great many more wrong, watching him backpedal and make excuses for the mistakes he made during the last month confirm this. At least he is finally admitting he screwed up, I can forgive people that do that instead of being to proud.

far as Obama goes, time will tell, if he scerws up as Bush did I'll be right there with you denouncing him, but time will tell and thats all we can say for now. Same goes for his cabinet, Bush had some real winners too, starting with his VP, again if they fail as Bush's regime did I be right there with you, till then ibite your tongue and give them some time. Their slate is clean until the 20th.

January 14, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

"So if nobody knows for sure then why even mention it."
Because this is the U.S. and people can "mention" what they want if you don't mind too much.

January 14, 2009 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

I dunno? Because there is no conclusive evidence one way or another? Yep this is the US mention what you want, even if it is almost useless right? Gimme a break, this is a debate forum irrelevant posts are typically frowned upon right? Oh wait...

January 14, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I just get tired of know it alls telling people to shut up. It makes me angry. Sorry if me getting offended at you insulting everyone offends you.

January 14, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

I never said for him to shut up, I said the factoid was irrelevant, and it is. Show me where I said for him to shut up, please do, there are no edit buttons here. Sorry if I get incensed at people like you who take a debate personal when its not.

Debate 101
You question and or attack an idea not the individual

Stop getting angry and start thinking.

January 14, 2009 at 10:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I never said you specifically said to shut up but it seems to be imlied in your post.
"So if nobody knows for sure then why even mention it."

January 14, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Then why think about anything? Why even study history? Why try to predict the weather? Why look at stock charts of past performance? Why even have the position of economist? Why try to figure anything out? Let's ban all history from being taught in all schools, after all, things might always turn out differently than they did in the past.

Nobody knows FOR SURE if Saddam moved all his WMD's to Syria in the run-up, so why complain about it? Nobody knows FOR SURE if the Iraq war will end up down the road as being the best thing that ever transformed the Middle East and started the world on the road of lasting peace and democracy, so WHY COMPLAIN ABOUT IT? Nobody knows FOR SURE if what you consider Bush's so-called "failures" will turn out to be failures in the long run, so, "why even mention it"?
You can use that argument with everything. Tomorrow will be different from today, so why bother to learn from today. Yes, some things are vastly different, but some things are not. Trying to look at mistakes made in the past, and learn from them, and apply them to the future is at least an attempt at common good sense. I'm sure if something from 100 years ago applied to something you felt strongly FOR, you would be telling us all how we need to learn from history. Good grief.

January 14, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Because there are some incidents were history is a good precursor of whats to come, comparisons to the current financial crisis and the 30's should not even be comparisons as they are completely different situations. The only thing that relates them is dire straights that people are in.

Economists theorize about the pros and cons that FDR's policies did or did not help matters, hence they don't know the answer. They can only guess, this is not history, this is theorizing, ergo not history. History is factual data that can be used to predict the future, such as the fact that we know their have been mass extinctions in the past by looking at fossil records, and we know there have been recurring ice ages, hence we know it will happen again in time.

There is a big difference in using history to anticipate the future and using guesswork, which is what you referred to in your FDR comment. As you said:

"Trying to look at mistakes made in the past, and learn from them, and apply them to the future is at least an attempt at common good sense."

A great notion but no one knows what would have happend if FDR did things differently, its speculation hence why I say why even mention it. If you want to talk about what he did that worked and did not work then by all means lets go, but speculating on what John Q Harvard says could have been is just that, hence why it is called speculation, not history.

January 14, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And somehow, YOU know exactly WHICH parts of history apply to today, and which do not? I bow and humble myself before your holiness. YOU claim it is not relevant. Many other econimists would say just the opposite. And many economists would agree with you. Who's right?
I never said they "guessed". They may have waded thru miles of charts and economic analysis, or they might have used a Ouiji board, for all I know. (Well, I read part of the article, it was actually the former).

It seems that you like to put labels on what you call "theory and guesswork", and "facts", depending on which support your positions at the time. Which "incidents" can be used, and which cannot? Can you say for sure? Is your intellect really that astounding? You don't really know. I would posit that many of the same conditions and warnings that preceded the crash of '29 have also reared their ugly heads before nearly every major economic downturn since then. But would that be "using history to anticipate the future", or "using guesswork".

It seems to me, that pretty much all your claims are.... .your own "guesswork".

Since you mention ice ages, check out the latest Senate Minority report on Global Warming. Seems alot of scientists are reversing their positions now. (Since we seem to be entering a cooling period).

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cf...

But, hey, what did they use ...... "facts" from the past???

January 14, 2009 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I'm not trying to argue just for arguments sake. But NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, can ever predict the future with certainty. And Nobody can ever say for sure exactly what parts of history apply to today, and what parts do not.
Tomorrow is ALWAYS going to be different from today. We simply do the best we can, with the information at hand. We try to look for similarities, differences, be mindful of what worked in the past, what didn't, and try to do better in the future. You say that we should not guess, only look at what FDR policies actually worked and which did not. That is the question. How do you know "what worked"? The depression lasted a decade. Would it not be prudent to try and figure out what things could have/should have been done differently? Or should we just ignore it all completely, since it happened before today, and therefore things were different. You're putting words and labels on things in the past that it seems are tailored just to fit your particular view. I prefer to look at it all, and realize that nobody can know, not even your superior intellect, exactly what parts of history are relevant to today, and which are not. I'm simply not that smart. (Well, we all already knew that... LOL)

January 14, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I know this is off-topic, I only brought it up because goodoleboy mentioned what we know about recurring ice ages, but for those who didn't bother to follow the Dec 2008 link on the Senate Minority Report, here is the first few paragraphs:

U. S. Senate Minority Report:
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over
Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

INTRODUCTION:
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming
claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report --
updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism
about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650
prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists,
who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250
(and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December
2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN
scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peerreviewed
studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the
UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a
"consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of manmade
climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following:
Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of
warming; (many others here) the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.
In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus”
collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be
responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a
“considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists
countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”.
India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded
the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of
more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is
“settled.”
This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of
the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific
opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore.

January 14, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Agree %100 no one is gonna predict the future and agree using history to anticipate events is a good practice, but in fairness, FDR's policies did work, the depression ended. What your talking about is if it could have been done more effectively, perhaps so. But still that means nothing about a comparison between then and now because both crisis were brought on by different factors, and fixing this will be altogether different than the last time, hell if they were similar we would already have a blueprint to work off of already right?

January 14, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

That is my point exactly, goodoleboy, respectfully. Yes, the depression did end, but after a full DECADE. And many people point to the war is what pulled us out of it, not his policies. It seems 10 years is a long time.... so, yes, the UCLA economists are trying to determine what could have been done more "effectively" - meaning, what steps could have shortened the depression considerably. And yes, there are many different factors in play today - but not all. Many of the SAME factors are in play. A quick search just now showed me that most economists put most of the blame for the cause of the Great Depression on "overindebtedness and loose credit". ANY OF THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?????????

As for using a blueprint to work off of today, hell, how many of our politicians learn from past mistakes???? LOL - When Power & Greed & Re-Election are your main priorities, past mistakes be damned........ sadly....

January 14, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

goodoleboy, thought I'd mention that Obama joined in and voted for the big bail-out for the Wall Street Gang's banks. That pretty much puts him on the outs with me to start things off. Now we'll just wait and see.

January 14, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Observation do you realize that he could not get a declaration of war until Germany was at England's doorstep and aggressively acting on our ships? After WWI neither citizens or government wanted to get involved in another war. Unlike current times the president actually had to get a declaration of war through Congress to go to war. So in actuality blaming FDR for not doing anything about Hitler is pretty laughable, go read up on your history sir, you will find what I say to be true. You go out and find me conclusive evidence that WW2 ended the depression and FDR's programs were a hindrance, please do, love to see that evidence.

PS Check up on FDR's correspondence with Britian's Prime minister at the time. FDR knew and warned Washington of what was to come, most of them were afraid to act in fear that they would be voted out, WWI was not a hit with the people.

January 15, 2009 at 7:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Oxen

"goodoleboy, thought I'd mention that Obama joined in and voted for the big bail-out for the Wall Street Gang's banks. That pretty much puts him on the outs with me to start things off. Now we'll just wait and see."

So did McCain so either way your President would have been on the out, and Bush admitted to abandoning free market principles in favor of government intervention, in short no one has the solution to it all, the next few years will no doubt be painful times for America.

January 15, 2009 at 7:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

If you research it, you can find just about an even number of articles claiming WWII ended the depression, and an even number of articles claiming it didn't. So who is right? Goodoleboy claims to know which half is right and which half is wrong. I'm in awe of his amazing intellect. Looks like we all voted for the wrong person to lead the free world. Search for yourself, goodoleboy - you can find plenty of "conclusive evidence" that WWII ended the depression, and plenty of "conclusive evidence" that it didn't. But, taking a page from your own book, it's all theory, so "why bother to mention it?". Please, also show me your "conclusive evidence" that FDR's policies worked. Show me your "conclusive evidence" that the depression would have lasted 20-30 years had his policies not been in place, and please show me how those studies are taken as fact, and completely different from the studies that show his policies lengthened the depression. And if you can't do that, if you can't prove to me with fact that his policies "worked", then "don't bother to mention it".
Or, you could step back from it just a little ways, admit that maybe you aren't the equivalent of 10 Einsteins put together, and admit, that.... you really don't know for sure which is right, what really worked, and what really didn't. Your crystal ball might be every bit as flawed as everyone else's.

January 15, 2009 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

I have no idea what the answer is, but I know it is no where in the 15 minutes I just wasted reading the back and forth that has nothing to do with the current situation in Kansas. Unless someone is going to resurrect FDR or Hitler or unless dissenting global warming scientists are going to solve the economic woes of Kansas.

In the words of goodoleboy , " Gimme a break, this is a debate forum irrelevant posts are typically frowned upon right?" and "So if nobody knows for sure then why even mention it"

I know it sounds a little brash, but I don't think history is going to help us on this one. Never before has the economy been so complex, and never before have the answers been so complicated.
The real solution for Kansas is the simplest and the most difficult at the same time: Present a balanced budget, or a budget that will work toward balance in a set period of time.

January 15, 2009 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Have I ever claimed I knew for sure one way or another? Show me where I claim that I know who was right, please do. I claimed one thing and thing only, no one knows the real anwser and theorizing is just that in this case, theorizing. It does not not take a genius mind, only a logical one to figure it out. I'm not the one making claims I cannot back up with fact.

January 15, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

I wasn't pointing the finger at you, I just thought your words best summarized what I was trying to say.

January 15, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

"I said the factoid was irrelevant, and it is.".

Prove it.

"History is factual data that can be used to predict the future, such as the fact that we know their have been mass extinctions in the past by looking at fossil records, and we know there have been recurring ice ages, hence we know it will happen again in time."

Prove that history can be used to predict the future. (Thought things were different now?). Prove that gloval warming is not happening, and that we will have another ice age. Or, prove that it CAN'T be used to predict the future.
Once you figure that out, please send me all your stock market picks, super bowl winners, and predictions for world events. Then I'm heading to Vegas.

"its not even worth a comparison to the 20's and 30's ".

Prove it. Easy credit, people overspending... nah, none of that applies to today. But wait, thought you said history can be used to predict the future? You mean like if an economy makes credit too easy, and people overspend, things are gonna crash? Really? Where'd you get that notion? History? Certainly not, things were different yesterday...

"FDR's policies did work".

Prove it. Prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that the depression would have lasted 20-30 years had his policies not been in place. You said "Economists theorize about the pros and cons that FDR's policies did or did not help matters, hence they don't know the answer. They can only guess," - so, which is it? If they only THEORIZE that his policies helped, you cannot say "FDR's policies did work".
Yeah, I took a pocketknife and whittled a 2-foot thick tree down and felled it in 2 days. IT WORKED. THAT IS A FACT. Other people tried to tell me there might have been faster ways, but that's just useless speculation, why even bring it up. LOL

There is plenty of "conclusive evidence" that WWII ended the depression, and that FDR's policies did not work but lengthened the depression. It's pretty much every bit as much "conclusive evidence" and fact that WWII did NOT end the depression, and that FDR's policies DID work.

It's all guesswork, and nobody knows for sure. Except you, apparently, because you claim the latter. But you can't prove it, but everyone with a different opinion is supposed to prove it or "not bother to mention it".

As to Kansas financial problems: (and back to the point of the thread): Learn from history, or you'll be doomed to repeat it. Sure, it may not apply quite the same way, because every microsecond that passes instantly becomes history, but if you are gonna claim "this and that worked in the past", but "this and that don't apply"...... prove both to me. Show me the alternative reality universe where you can prove what would have happened had other courses been taken. In absence of that ability, look at the past, look for similarities, (whatever and however many of them there may be) - and try to see if you can do better this time around.

January 15, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Let's just simplify this down to the basics. I brought up the results of some studies and theorizations for discussion. I was told since nobody knows for sure why even mention it.

There you have it. End all discussion, because nobody here really knows anything FOR SURE. Including the person that made the reply, even though somehow, even though they themselves say ithat economists can only theorize if FDR's policies worked or not... "FDR's policies DID work".

Ok, I give. Uncle.

January 15, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

yeah like I said oleboy basically told everyone to shut up.

January 15, 2009 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wirewatt (Ken Bazil) says...

Credit became to easy to get in the 20's for the stock market, and people jumped out of windows when the notes were called in. Banks found an opportunity to call in loans and take over property.
Today credit was handed out without money down to buy homes, no proof of income, cars sold on a seven year loan. I see a huge comparison, and pouring money down a rat hole is not going to bring around instant healthy economy. The same thing was happening world wide. The great Rome fell because they tried to control everything and couldn't.

January 15, 2009 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

My points exactly, seriouslyfolks & wirewatt.

January 15, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Seriouslyfolks,

Point to where I said it, quit putting words in my mouth. "I basically told EVERYONE to shut up" Yep sure did, challenging people to and engaging in discussion is not telling somone to shut up. How about get a clue?

openeyes,

Working on my response, will make sure to link,cite, and quote sources so as there is no confusion, might be tommorrow before I get it posted though, curveball just was thrown my way at work.

January 15, 2009 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

oleboy
I've already addressed that.
The only reason I even brought it back up was because there are others who obviously feel that the tone of your posts is such to indicate that you would prefer that we all just shut up. Not so much that you actually say it, it's more that your posts are filled with so much pride and arrogance that I want to puke some times. So yeah you never really said shut up so I'm sorry for saying that.

January 15, 2009 at 5:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And I'm sure I'll find just as many links saying the exact opposite. All of it theory, guesswork about what might have been, etc.. etc... and all of them every bit as valid as what you will show. Just kinda like people who's theory that FDR's policies lengthened the depression are just as valid as people's theories that FDR's policies shortened the recession. Same with WWII lifting us out of it. Do you understand exactly what "proof" is? It's something that can't be done, because, unfortunately, we only have this one timeline, and nobody can step into a parallel universe and prove things would have been different. They can only guess. Just as you "guess" that FDR's policies "worked".
Hey, I've got an alternate universe where Bush caved into pressure and cancelled all of the Patriot Act, Saddam managed to get a bunch of ricin & other WMD poisons smuggled over here by a bunch of innocent people just looking for work, and in a coordinated attack, over 300,000 americans were poisoned & died. There. I just proved Bush made all the right decisions. PROVE to me that it could never happen.

January 15, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I don't look at telling someone that a set of theories that don't happen to be your pet view is irrelevant, and should have not been ever brought up is "challenging someone and engaging in discussion". It's arrogance. So you wanto get into a link war of "he said, she said", fine. Rewrite history to your own perception of it, everyone else's be damned. Because their opinion is irrelevant. You really don't get it, do you? I think seriouslyfolks pegged it pretty much dead on.
Sometimes it doesn't take alot to change your tone to "I don't believe, or I disagree, I don't see how/where that applies". But from your ivory tower, you can't even see how you contradict yourself. One statement says "FDR's policies DID work", the next statement says "Economists can only theorize whether it worked or not, nobody can know for sure". Come down once in awhile and mingle with us common folk and you might happen to overhear a recording of youself, and be surprised at how you sound.

January 15, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Do I understand proof?

As webster's defines

1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

Now taking that in mind,, your words:
"Hey, I've got an alternate universe where Bush caved into pressure and cancelled all of the Patriot Act, Saddam managed to get a bunch of ricin & other WMD poisons smuggled over here by a bunch of innocent people just looking for work, and in a coordinated attack, over 300,000 americans were poisoned & died. There. I just proved Bush made all the right decisions. PROVE to me that it could never happen."

Alternate universe? huh? You can never prove a theory until it becomes fact. Were you a Philosphy major or some advocate of "how do we really know that we know what we know" crap?

Here is what we know:
Depression happend
Policy enacted
Depression ends
Period of growth
Recession
Period of Growth
War begins

In that order due to the fact we had consistent economic growth prior to the war. Now from this one can logically deduce that what measures taken worked because, well.... it ended. If they did not work, then guess what, things would have stayed craptastic or the US as we know it would have collapsed as other nations have. Could it had been done better? Maybe? But that is an unknown. We know what we know and that is proof because it is based in fact.

Onto today, your talking about a theory relating to the economy 80 years ago that "might" work. The world is a global animal now, so interwined that is is difficult to tell just what separates what anymore. Terms such as money, credit, etc where used 80 years ago, they are general terms. I don't see anything about ARM's, hedge funds, credit cards, and all the things that contributed to the current fiasco in the annuals of history. Like I said before, if we had a blueprint to work off of or someone had the solution then it would be being executed as we speak. Far greater minds than you or I cannot figure this thing out even with all the data we arguing about now, what does that tell you?

January 17, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Ok, by your reasoning, here is what we know:

9/11 happened - America attacked.
Bush institutes policies, starts wars
America is not attacked again

"Now from this one can logically deduce that what measures taken worked because, well.... (we were not attacked again). If they did not work, then guess what, things would have stayed craptastic or the US as we know it would have (been attacked) as other nations have. Could it had been done better? Maybe? But that is an unknown. We know what we know and that is proof because it is based in fact."

So, please, no more of your whining about Bush. Fact. Proved.

In 1995, economic historian Robert Whaples published a survey in the Journal of Economic History asking “Where Is There Consensus Among American Economic Historians?” (Vol. 55, March 1995). Half of the economists and more than a quarter of historians agreed, in whole or in part, that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.

Specialists of the period may come to this conclusion but most people get their history from textbooks. A 1998 survey of history textbooks reported how criticism of the New Deal was erased from what most Americans read:

“only about half of the economists and three quarters of the historians disagreed fully with the statement that the New Deal lengthened and deepened the Great Depression. Not a hint of that shows up in the textbooks, which cite as criticisms only statements from sources like President Hoover, the Liberty League, or business interests, that to modern ears sound highly ideological, naive, or self-serving. Obviously, such statements were made, and their tone probably represents accurately the majority of the contemporaneous criticisms. All the same, one might wish that the texts would also discuss some of the more sophisticated criticisms, or else avoid evaluation altogether because of the complexity of the issue.” (Thomas F. Cargill and Thomas Mayer, “The Great Depression and History Textbooks,” The History Teacher (August 1998).

Now I know where goodoleboy gets his kind of thinking. If it doesn't agree with his view, it is irrelevant and should not be brought up.

Based on that, there's really no point in discussing anything. Ever. Anyone here comes up with an idea, a guess, a prediction, an estimate, an idea, a point of view, don't bother. Not relevant. Should not be brought up.

January 17, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

9/11 happened - America attacked.
Bush institutes policies, starts wars
America is not attacked again

"Now from this one can logically deduce that what measures taken worked because, well.... (we were not attacked again). If they did not work, then guess what, things would have stayed craptastic or the US as we know it would have (been attacked) as other nations have. Could it had been done better? Maybe? But that is an unknown. We know what we know and that is proof because it is based in fact."

So, please, no more of your whining about Bush. Fact. Proved

LOLOLLLLOLOLLOLLOL!

Last I looked things have not gotten any better, we are furthur in debt than ever, worst financial crisis in modern history, american lives lost getting higher and higher , Patriot Act stripping away many of our freedoms, should I go on?

Fact
Republican President 2000-2008
Repubican Congress early 90's till 2006

Failure abound, and yes we are getting attacked on a daily basis by Al Queda in Iraq according to the President, that statement is so full of holes lol!

January 18, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

According to a 2006 U.S. Government report, this group is most clearly associated with foreign terrorist cells operating in Iraq and has specifically targeted international forces and Iraqi citizens. According to the report, most of AQI's operatives were not Iraqi, but instead were coming through a series of safe houses, the largest of which is on the Iraq-Syrian border. AQI's operations are predominately Iraq-based, but the United States Department of State alleges that the group maintains an extensive logistical network throughout the Middle East, North Africa, Iran, South Asia, and Europe.

According to the June 2008 CNN special report, al-Qaeda in Iraq is "a well-oiled organization (...) almost as pedantically bureaucratic as was Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party", including collecting new execution videos long after they stopped publicising them, with a network of spies even in an American bases. According to the report, Iraqis (many of them former members of Hussein's secret services) now effectively run al-Qaeda in Iraq and "foreign fighters' roles seem mostly relegated to the cannon fodder of suicide attacks." The exception from this is the organization's top leadership, which is still dominated by non-Iraqis.

According to that American troops are being attacked, and last I knew good ole' Osama was yet to be killed or captured. Mission Accomplished! (even the great decider himself says that was a mistake now)

Your statement should look more like:
9/11 happened - America attacked.
Bush institutes policies, starts wars
Americans are served up on a platter for enemies to kill
Osama bin Laden still is alive and free
Bush recants many of his policies and admits mistakes finally
America is still no safer now than it was in 2001

Yep out borders and ports are rock solid, and don't even get me started on one of our biggest problems, cyber security which is perhaps the biggest kick-me sign we have on our backs currently.

January 18, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Spin it any way you want, but you got caught with your own logic. NO attacks on American soil in 7+ years. Since your reasoning ONLY looked at the end product. Sorry. Nice try, but, failed....

You can pretty much apply logic like that to anything. Your logic reminds me of a witch doctor.

Patient comes in with bad wound.
Doctor chants, mixes concoctions of chicken entrails, does dances.
Patient runs fever, is ill, takes long time to heal.
10 years later, patient is completely healed.

Therefore, the witch doctor's methods worked. It is a historical fact and has been proved.

(never mind 50% of doctors believed that the witch doctors methods extended the patients healing to over twice what it should have been, their points of view are irrelevant and should not even be brought up).

So, let's "spin" it, some more...
Depression starts
FDR's policies instituted
Depression lasts longer than any in American History, with
the exception of the late 1800's, (in which American productivity increased 4-fold, however).

Obviously, his policies failed.

Oh, we can spin things forever to fit our own particular views. However, I have a sneaking suspician had FDR been a Republican, you would do a 180 on many points of view. And, in the next 4 years, you will be doing some more 180's.

The list of articles pointing out similarities between today and the Great Depression is.... endless. Although each one will be quick to point out the many differences between then and now, they also note the similarities.

But maybe the economists at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Fran said it best: "Perhaps the most important factor is that policymakers today have the Great Depression from which to learn.".

The fools. The idiots with their years of economic knowledge and their pathetic PHD's. All lthey needed to do was check out the Emporia Gazette message boards, the local know-it-all economist could have told them there are no similarites, and nothing to learn from the Great Depression - why even bother to bring it up.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

January 18, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alfalfa (anonymous) says...

There are plenty of similarities between the Great Depression and our situation now. No two situations in history are ever exactly alike, but you can still learn from history. Never, ever have we seen a national debt grow as rapidly as ours has, and is predicted by our new President to get much larger. There has to be a down side to huge borrowings for these "stimulus packages" we just aren't being told what they are by those we elect to lead, perhaps because they don't know, or perhaps because they do and would rather we don't.

January 18, 2009 at 9:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Spin it any way you want, but you got caught with your own logic. NO attacks on American soil in 7+ years. Since your reasoning ONLY looked at the end product. Sorry. Nice try, but, failed...."

Uh you said,

"Ok, by your reasoning, here is what we know:

9/11 happened - America attacked.
Bush institutes policies, starts wars
America is not attacked again"

We are attacked on a daily basis, our kids are dying, how is that not an attack on America?America is attacked everyday, they only we made it convenient for them to walk out heir back door to do it. But now you say American soil? Oh OK we are gonna get specific now cause it fits our argument....

You act like the answer is out there in plain sight for everyone to see, NEWSFLASH its not.

Witch doctor indeed, conjure us up a solution why don't you, the last depression 80 years ago holds all the answers, and BONUS we can do it more efficient this time!

/happy dance

January 18, 2009 at 10:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"Oh, we can spin things forever to fit our own particular views. However, I have a sneaking suspician had FDR been a Republican, you would do a 180 on many points of view. And, in the next 4 years, you will be doing some more 180's."

Like I said before, I am not a Democrat, I vote best for the job, and considering the republican track record of late how in the name of great Zeus's arse can I justify putting my faith in them. They cannot even decide on what they themselves stand for anymore. Good god man. You really gotta get your head of the elephants behind.

January 18, 2009 at 10:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

One more thing, was just watching HBO and the special on Iraq war vets came on, how dare you say we have not been getting attacked, these kids are maimed for life, some losing their spouses and sanity, and your saying this country is not under attack. All we did is make it easy on those that hate to exact personal revenge. Strikes a real nerve with me, all for nothing, funny how the ones that come back from there say the same things. We are at WAR in case you did not notice, that is attack enough for me, just becuase its not on our soil does not mean it is not happening, how is that logic?

January 18, 2009 at 10:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Yes, I did say there has not been an attack on American SOIL. Call it what you want.
And argue about the economics all you want, I'm gonna go with the economists who say ""Perhaps the most important factor is that policymakers today have the Great Depression from which to learn." over a gazette board poster. Everytime.

There are no answers in plain sight. Anywhere, and for pretty much anything. However, I'm willing to listen to at least half the experts - when that many of them disagree, there must be something to it. I don't have my head so far up an elephant's arse, as you put it, that I can tell all the experts in a field that isn't even my specialty what is relevant and what isn't. You missed your calling, apparently. I also have trouble with logic like "it doesn't matter how long it lasts, as long as it ends, then whatever was done worked". I prefer to look for improvements, better ways of doing things, etc... instead of saying I did my rain dance for 10 years, and it eventually rained, so my rain dance worked. LOL

January 18, 2009 at 10:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alfalfa (anonymous) says...

So goodoleboy, what would YOU have done on 9-12-01 and the days after to keep America safe? You seem to have a little more of an inside track into the workings of the world than the rest of us do. Since in your mind Bush has failed miserably to keep us safe, what would you have done??

January 18, 2009 at 11:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

Looking through the post, no you did not until it suited your argument. Scroll up its does not say it anywhere. You originally said:

"Ok, by your reasoning, here is what we know:

9/11 happened - America attacked.
Bush institutes policies, starts wars
America is not attacked again

"Now from this one can logically deduce that what measures taken worked because, well.... (we were not attacked again). If they did not work, then guess what, things would have stayed craptastic or the US as we know it would have (been attacked) as other nations have. Could it had been done better? Maybe? But that is an unknown. We know what we know and that is proof because it is based in fact."

So, please, no more of your whining about Bush. Fact. Proved.

Says nothing about American soil, I would call war and attacks on our troops an attack on America. I can only base my replies on your comments, not what you "meant" to say.

===========================================
"There are no answers in plain sight. Anywhere, and for pretty much anything. However, I'm willing to listen to at least half the experts - when that many of them disagree, there must be something to it. I don't have my head so far up an elephant's arse, as you put it, that I can tell all the experts in a field that isn't even my specialty what is relevant and what isn't. You missed your calling, apparently. I also have trouble with logic like "it doesn't matter how long it lasts, as long as it ends, then whatever was done worked". I prefer to look for improvements, better ways of doing things, etc... instead of saying I did my rain dance for 10 years, and it eventually rained, so my rain dance worked. LOL"

Willing to bet everything I own our President elect and the coming administration are privy to more experts, and more information than anything you have come across. Bush had his on it all the same, so I am saying that between the two parties they have everything they need at their disposal and the magic links your giving here on the gazette forums are nothing new.

PS If you are what you say you are degree wise then

"There are no answers in plain sight. Anywhere, and for pretty much anything"

You should know better.

January 18, 2009 at 11:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

goodoleboy (anonymous) says...

"So goodoleboy, what would YOU have done on 9-12-01 and the days after to keep America safe? You seem to have a little more of an inside track into the workings of the world than the rest of us do. Since in your mind Bush has failed miserably to keep us safe, what would you have done??"

Me personally? Ensure that my intel was solid before invading a nation and destabilizing a region, and most importantly ensuring American soldiers were there risking their lives for a damn good reason.

Next, ensured that our border patrol and port security was improved, and that our IT systems were also secure. Would have also looked into our national response time, Katrina should have been the wake up call. Should I really keep going? Some of this is indeed hindsight but I can wager one hell of a bet the president of our nation is presented with scenarios and what could happen. Basically though the first thing I would have done is take a long hard look at things at home before starting a war abroad. That sound that illogical to you?

PS Bush himself said he made big mistakes in these decisions, is the word from the horse's mouth not enough?

January 19, 2009 at 12:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...

goodoleboy, shoulda, coulda, woulda, You are so full of crap and have such a big head its hard to believe you would of or could of done anything other than stare at yourself in the mirror,
You say things like
"Ensure that my intel was solid before invading a nation and destabilizing a region"
Just EXACTLY how would you have done that? What different would YOU have done, Who different would YOU have spoke with? Whos word would YOU have taken to make sure your intel was correct?

you also say
"ensured that our border patrol and port security was improved"

You dont think this has been done? If not you sir are a damn fool.AND you sure the F would have not gotten my vote for President of the United States. I have seen from past posts, you cant keep cool under pressure from a few web bloggers , give me a break,
shoulda,coulda,woulda

January 19, 2009 at 6:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

alfalfa (anonymous) says...

I have not seen Bush say he made a mistake in invading Iraq. It is very easy now that Saddam is gone to say he wasn't a threat to begin with, we will never really know that for sure will we? As far as making sure he had good intelligence, I imagine Bush thought he did have good intelligence on the issue. I am not a great Bush lover, especially after he teamed up with Reid and Pelosi to hurl money at people who pooped so much away, but I am not prepared to label him the antichrist, or even the worst President ever.

I have gotten very tired of those who don't like Bush being unable to give him credit for anything. Nobody does everything wrong. We have not been attacked again on this soil. Yes, our brave soldiers, sailors and airmen have been, because we are at war. The left has worked overtime to drive home the idea that Bush has been devisive, if he has been it is only slightly more than the far left has been.

This thread has strayed, but to answer an earlier comment about what all of this has to do with the Kansas financial crisis, the Kansas economy is tied to that of the rest of the nation and the world. Local school districts, city councils, and the state legislature are going to have a really tough time the next couple of years making ends meet. The taxpayers will be in no mood to shoulder a tax increase. What happens in DC usually eventually trickles down to Kansas.

January 19, 2009 at 6:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

"Willing to bet everything I own our President elect and the coming administration are privy to more experts, and more information than anything you have come across."

Agreed. Interesting that Obama decided to keep Gates on. Tell you anything??????? Ouch. (I'm also guessing, they're "privy" to the exact same info Pres Bus was "privy" to)....... again.... Ouch....

I'm guessing you also agreed with going after Obama, & Afghanistan. American soldiers are being attacked and killed there, also. So we shouldn't have done that? Or is it just certain soldiers lives that matter, and other's don't? Which intelligence is it that you would have listened to? The intelligence that convinced both Bill & Hillary Clinton, Sen Kerry, among others, that Iraq was a threat? How would your superior genius have decided which intel brought to you was correct and which was incorrect?

Back to the original thread, thx alfalfa. All this started because FDR policies were mentioned. I mention (and I agree that the financial world today is much more complex and different than it was then) that there ARE similarities to be looked at (in agreement with many, many economic experts) - and that roughly have of economists believe FDR's policies lengthened the depression, as food for thought. And agreed with economists who say we should look at the past and learn from it, specifically that period.
I was told by the resident economic expert that all those people, and I, are dead wrong, and it should not have even been brought up.

Geesh.

January 19, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

LifeGoesOn, isn't it funny how "shoulda, coulda, woulda" is irrelevant and should not even be brought up, when you try to look at what FDR did during the depression, and figure out if things could have been done better? But then, spin it 180 degrees, and sit in your pulpit and point out everything that shoulda, coulda, woulda been done different for something else? LOL....

January 19, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

Wow!!! 63 posts and like three of them are about the Kansas economy. You may not know this but as a posting member of the forum you can start a new thread/topic at any time, and you can call whatever you like. I respect the often thought out and intelligent posts of both goodoleboy and open_eyes, though I don't always agree. I would really like to hear your input on the situation in Kansas. Please don't make me beg.

January 19, 2009 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

It has been there all along, OutsiderJ. I was just told it wasn't relevant and should not have been brought up. Massive spending seems to our politicians' solution to the financial crisis. I pointed out studies done in the past in situations (yes, different, but with many similarities) and disagreements over that course. Which sounds pretty relevant to me. You might disagree with it (I never said I agreed with it, my exact words were, "something to think about". But we're apparently not supposed to. We did the rain dance for 10 years, after 10 years it rained, therefore the rain dance worked. Therefore, lets do the rain dance again. (Climate was much different then, of course, but...... let's do the same thing again and ignore the past, because, as we all know, it eventually rained, that was proven and is fact).

January 19, 2009 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )

glarson (anonymous) says...

Time to move:

http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...

January 19, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )