<p>Cutting down goverment to 10% of current size will result in great improvement in economy and overall standard of living.</p>
<p>What hurts America is the special treatment those at the top receive…</p>
<p>The witch hunts are a good thing because there are witches…</p>
<p>If there were no witches…than I would agree that the witch hunts are bad…</p>
<p>Human nature…being what it is…well…there will always be witches…</p>
<p>“Economy will not get better until our gov. is heavily involved in it. Proven time and again thruout the history in every country. Centrally run business does not function effectively.”</p>
<p>“Cutting down goverment to 10% of current size will result in great improvement in economy and overall standard of living.”</p>
<p>Huh? Your posts seem to contradict each other, Miamidap…???</p>
<p>Cutting government down to 10% of the economy will lead to you losing your job… MiamiDap…</p>
<p>You will be in the poor house…</p>
<p>The depression That would occur would make the 30’s look like a party…</p>
<p>I don’t know why people advocate policies that would destroy them…</p>
<p>Sew - America has put itself in a bad place. It’s a place where Goldman Sachs can create a garbage “investment,” convince the rating agencies that it’s AAA, sell the investment as such, and bet against the investment with it’s own money … because they knew the investment was garbage. You and I aren’t in a position to stop that nonsense.</p>
<p>Enron, Madoff, the BP spill, etc. You and I have ZERO influence there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have posted this before. I have had some time to think about it. But I don’t get it.</p>
<p>Is being “just out to make money” always okay?</p>
<p>I am not sure if this is exactly the same - but in a gun for hire situation, would you only blame the actual hit man? not the person who hired the hit man?</p>
<p>It is okay to blame government officials, but not to blame lobbyists? or those who hired the lobbyists? because those who hired the lobbyists are just out to make money? And that is admirable? I do understand the point that it would be nice if public officials were above all that. But the rest of it just doesn’t follow for me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really hope I live long enough to figure this one out…</p>
<p>“Cutting government down to 10% of the economy will lead to you losing your job… MiamiDap…”</p>
<p>-it will lead to my job being much more secure than it is now. Prying every day that it is there for me tomorrow. I know how it works when gov. controls everything, everybody, axcept those in government, live in “the poor house”. DSTARK, you have no idea, apparently. 30’s were much longer becasue of government, and we are in a current hole for the same reason. We know that our company would hire many more in the USA if it was not for all kind of regulations shoved down on businesses, we see it first hand, those of us who work in industry</p>
<p>Not going to happen…alh. One of life’s mysteries.</p>
<p>Since this is a college board…</p>
<p>Which is better…advocate policies or advocate for policies?</p>
<p>“But if I had to lay blame I would start with the government, not with the hedge fund managers. Those folks are just out to make money.”</p>
<p>It takes two to tango.</p>
<p>dstark: I am hoping maybe when I die I will get to ask three questions…</p>
<p>could you define/explain advocate policies or advocate for policies?</p>
<p>MiamiDAP…are you listening?</p>
<p>My family lost everything to communism…a while back.</p>
<p>We don’t have communism in this country.</p>
<p>We don’t have socialism either…unless you count the elite…</p>
<p>A country can have regulation and still be a capitalist country.</p>
<p>Actually…the US is a mixed economy.</p>
<p>What industry do you work in?</p>
<p>Unemployment is down to 8.6%, so the economy MUST be getting better. ;)</p>
<p>Alh…there is no difference…so which phrase is the proper grammar usage?</p>
<p>If you fellow posters don’t tell me, I am going to have to ask my wife. :)</p>
<p>dstark: I was googling like crazy!!!</p>
<p>Ok…alh…what are your other two questions?</p>
<p>Seattle’s gain is South Carolona’s loss? Actually, higher wages and bennies will mean costlier planes will mean more stress on American and other airlines . . . </p>
<hr>
<p>And lower wages and bennies will mean fewer people who can afford to fly …</p>
<p>The wonderful new jobs my rust belt state is attracting these days provide wages and bennies that leave even those of us in low-cost of living states struggling to make ends meet (and I don’t mean “can’t afford to go on a vacation” struggling … I mean “providing basic necessities” struggling).</p>
<p>I can’t help but remember that mighty empires have fallen in the course of history. I worry that our country may be headed down that path.</p>
<p>My questions: I haven’t quite decided but one will be the problem of evil.
Of course, if I get the answer to that one I may not have to ask the other two.</p>
<p>this board makes me think. now I wonder if there is a link between the problem of evil and voting against oneself.
:)</p>
<p>I don’t feel qualified to give a definitive statement on grammar usage or just about anything else. I hope your wife won’t mind if you ask her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am trying to have a really positive attitude about this and see it as living in really interesting times, really exciting times. We won’t be bored.</p>
<p>Alh…my wife won’t mind… :)</p>
<p>And your question about evil is very interesting…</p>
<p>Kahneman’s research about how humans make decisions (he discovered that it was not consistent or rational or always in the person’s best interest) leads me to wonder if makes sense to move these experiments beyond loss vs gain perceptions in simple situations, to broader more complicated, multiple effect/intertwined ones, such as these here.
Our global economic system is so complex: a price increase in oil can have multiple and opposing effects to our economy. What benefits one state can hurt another or even the rest of the country. Outsourcing makes things cheaper for US consumers but hurts us on the employment side.
My theory is that we think with separate minds depending what we are doing:
- when we shop, we think about the benefits of a better product or a good price, not on other issues like where goods are made, toxicity of component and manufacturing process, use of child labor, ability to recycle, packaging, use of fuel in delivery, etc., made by hand vs machine-made…
2, when we vote… - when we are at work…</p>
<p>We seem to act in utterly contradictory ways from one activity to another!</p>
<p>In California, the same voters who say yes to more gov support and services and regulation also say no to more taxes. Regularly.</p>