politics and economics thread. - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > General Discussion Forums > Off-Topic

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 10-03-2010, 11:00 AM   #1
Jeeper
 
skeeter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, Wa.
Posts: 3,869
Send a message via Yahoo to skeeter
politics and economics thread.

If you can't stand politics, why on earth would you enter a political thread?



Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Oh no! I sense Beckonomics.
I assume you're referring to Glenn Beck? If so you need to get your sensors calibrated there Mr. Checkov. While I do listen to him on the radio I studied the Great depression and Keynesian economics long before I ever heard of Glenn Beck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
For those who believe we are working within a Keynesian economic framework, there is one thing that is very important, no matter which side of the political pendulum smacks the side of your head, the mixing of politics and economics is both erroneous and fraught with danger. Politicians love to try and simplify things. Keynesian is bad, Laffer is great, Supply Side is wonderful, the Fed Sux, Bush bankrupted America, Obama will save the world, Obama will bankrupt the world, Reagan started a snowball of debt. All right, all wrong, spun.

We are not an isolated, theoretical economic petri dish. Whether promised by Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians or Tea Partiers, NONE can define an economic policy for this country and make it stick. We have too many outside influences that govern our economy.
Maybe that's why some of us believe the government should do as little meddling in the markets as possible. No matter how smart, no matter how well educated the brain trust the politicians surround themselves with they will never be able to account for all the variables that drive an economy.
More often than not they simply bugger things up. Especially when most of their meddling is simply political payoffs to special interest groups. When you allow the markets to correct themselves they do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
China , and its economic policies drive our economy, as does the EU. We change when the PIIGS squeal and as BRIC continues to build we have to adapt and improvise, to THEIR changes.
Influence? yes. Drive? no. Our economy dwarfs theirs. China and the BRICs may well challenge us sometime in the future, especially if we continue on our current path but for now we are still the economic super power in the world.


Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
So Art Laffer's economics may have had some good theory back in 1981 but practical application did little but cause massive National Debt and double the federal budget within Reagan's presidency.
Way too simplistic. The spending done by Reagan rebuilding the military had nothing to do with supply side economics. Supply side economics did what it was supposed to do. The economy recovered from the recession and government revenue increased. Reagan's spending to rebuild the military does not invalidate the policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
And Keynesian...would it work today? Not in its pure form as it did in 1933 when implemented and pulled the country out of depression, through a war and into the greatest growth of any country in the world. That ship has sailed. Any economic policy has to take into account BRIC, global economic impacts, and a realization that we are not the only folks steering our ship. Some folks get that. Others do not.
Sorry but Keynesian economics has never worked. Whether you take into account international variables or not is irrelevant. Keynesian economics doesn't prevent such consideration. The problem is the government simply cannot spend it's way out of a recession. They cannot create enough demand across a large enough spectrum to give anything other than a small and short lived fluctuation in targeted areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
And regarding Keynesian in a Roosevelt era. The Depression started in 1929-1930. Roosevelt and Keynesian policies began in 1933. The GDP [or GNP as it was called] grew 6.6X from 1933-1973, when economists consider Keynesian to be most active yet only grew 2.1X from the Supply Side/tax cut years of 1980-2009.
You compare a 40 year run to a 29 year run...
You credit Keynesian economics for pulling us out of the Great Depression. That is not the case. WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression, not Roosevelt's economic policy. WWII ended the unemployment problem by taking about 16 million prime earners out of the job market. It expanded manufacturing to tremendous levels and provided a desperate market for anything we could produce. After the war we were about the only industrialized nation left with the manufacturing capacity to rebuild a devastated Europe and Asia so our returning service members had plenty of work. We also had a whole new class of earner. Women had entered the job market and discovered they liked it. We now had millions of women earning money and buying stuff.
Attributing the growth of GDP from 33 to 73 to economic policy alone ignores way too much real world change.

All that aside. Is there a reason you chose to ignore all the other factors I listed for our current trouble? Did you think I believe the current administrations Keynesian influenced fiscal policy is our only true problem and all the other stuff is just fluff? If so, you're mistaken once again. The Keynesian idea that government can boost demand enough to solve the unemployment problem is foolish and dangerous from a debt perspective but it's only one aspect of the uncertainty that is keeping investors from investing and business from expanding.
Keynesian economics aren't just a democrat delusion, many republicans subscribe to the same ideas. The democrats just happen to be the ones in power right now and pushing it by the trillions.

__________________
"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

Arguing with a truck driver is like wrestling with a pig in mud, eventually you realize the pig enjoys it.
skeeter is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 12:42 PM   #2
Jeeper
 
burton160w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Underneath my TJ
Posts: 1,639
ehh... private message maybe?

__________________
It's got a Willy's body, a Chevy engine, Ford axles, GM transmission, and Dodge steering components... it must be a Wrangler.
burton160w is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 01:00 PM   #3
Jeeper
 
KBR97's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,061
KBR97 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 01:08 PM   #4
Jeeper
 
skeeter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, Wa.
Posts: 3,869
Send a message via Yahoo to skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by burton160w View Post
ehh... private message maybe?
If you want to send me a private message, go for it, I'm always happy to respond.
__________________
"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

Arguing with a truck driver is like wrestling with a pig in mud, eventually you realize the pig enjoys it.
skeeter is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 01:30 PM   #5
Jeeper
 
skeeter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, Wa.
Posts: 3,869
Send a message via Yahoo to skeeter
__________________
"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

Arguing with a truck driver is like wrestling with a pig in mud, eventually you realize the pig enjoys it.
skeeter is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 02:12 PM   #6
Jeeper
 
McBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 305
Before one makes assumptions [such as "Mr Checkov"] you might get to know me better. For the record I never went to Star Fleet Academy and there is no second C in Chekov.

Now, regarding your discussion of Keynesian Economics you just proved my point. We don't deal in pure economic policy. We don't deal in abstract theory. We deal in a global mishmash of influences that push and pull our economy in a myriad of directions.

Did Keynesian principles pull this country out of the Depression. YES. Those who like to merge politics with economics also like to minimize its influence but so be it. That is what politicians do. Yes WW2 was an influence but those economics were also present in the 1950s and 1960s as we further built much of the GDP numbers that I referenced. You might not like the principles of Keynesian Economics [I don't like all of them myself] but you can't blow them off just because you don't agree with them.

Now, as for Reaganomics, Supply Side and the National Debt, you say revenues grew. Well, yes, but so did population and other variables that you don't consider in your assumptions. Again, back to my point that NO economic theory, whether you like it or not is to blame or to be responsible for the results of a flowing economy.

As for your question as to why I "chose to ignore" the other factors you listed for our current trouble, I chose one to address, but, now that you mention it...

the media spent the year leading up to the last presidential election telling us we were in a recession when we weren't, well, if you listened to either CNN, CNBC, FoxNews or FoxFinancial you heard that the economy was booming, that there was no problem, that the DOW was the perfect indicator of a vibrant economy. Never mind that we had millions of jobs offshored, that we had a rising unemployment rate and the manufacturing index was going down monthly. I would be very interested in seeing all that media that was talking negative about the economy in 2006 and 2007 as the recession was beginning to build up.

The housing bubble was caused by the community reinvestment act signed into law by President Carter... well, not really. If 100% of CRA loans defaulted that would still have amounted to less than 10% of the financial sector's asset portfolio. And we know from the investigations that resulted that less than 20% of CRAs defaulted. But CRA was a good whipping boy when everyone thought that "housing" was the reason for the recession. Afterall, gotta have a simple bad guy.

But let's look further into things like 35:1 debt to net issues for the financial financial sector which allowed banks to fly fully unsecured as they moved money through the global markets. Exemptions were given, in 2004 to Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley to play with those debt ratios. Or, let's look at CDOs on the global market.

For some strange reason the left can't understand that business drives an economy, not the government. Yes business drives an economy. And left "unbridled" it can drive it into the ground. Just count the millions of offshored white collar jobs, now in BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India, China]. Last year IBM had a "resource action" where they "moved" 20,000 resources. What that means in real terms is that BUSINESS laid off 20,000 US TAXPAYERS and opened a new office in Mumbai with 20,000. IBM stock went up on the "strategic cost saving move" and IBM execs got bonuses.

I can repeat that story with HP, Microsoft, GE, Chase, Lexmark, 3M and 95% of the fortune 1000. That is BUSINESS driving the economy. Those are WHITE COLLAR jobs, big taxpayers who, in the past pay for lots of toys, lots of services like lawn care, eating out, vacations, etc. That gets reduced when jobs are outsourced...or the twin H1B, which brings contract workers in to fill jobs that "can't be filled" by US workers.


Business is not the enemy, neither is Government. They have to work together in order to provide the best possible results for the largest number of Americans.

We are in the "spending out of a recession" mode simply because it sometimes takes investment to get things going again. We have done it in the past under both Democrat and Republican administrations. It is a function of government and it is one of the smart tools that can be used. Is the debt bad? Absolutely. We should have thought about that when Reagan was building up the military in 1982-1988 or when Bush was...just building up debt. It would have been real nice to have not had $10T of debt to start with when we needed to dig out of a recession. Too bad we didn't have that chance.

And again, assumptions are not good. I wasn't in Star Fleet and don't fall under what talking heads consider communist/marxist/socialist. My liberal friends consider me conservative and my conservative friends consider me liberal. I have them just where I want them.
__________________
McAllister
Lexington, KY

http://mcallisterbryant.deviantart.com
McBear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 02:18 PM   #7
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 193
I would venture to say that's it's Americas policies driving all the other countries economies, and yes chinas economy may dwarf ours, but that's simply a result their population, almost every non-perishable consumer good you find in the states, was made in china, now if you were to go to china, and look at the majority or there non-perishable consumer goods, guess where they're made? I'll give you one hint, it sure isn't America. And yes, this recession we find ourselves in is a result of George W Bushes policies, not his fathers, not Reagans either. When you enact the biggest tax cut for the rich and wealthy in history and exponentially increase spending at the same time, well it doesn't take a genius to figure out that your losing money, hand over fist. Thanks W, I wish your stupid a$$ (not sure if that word is PG-13 or not) would have stayed in Texas.
cpainter56 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 02:22 PM   #8
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter
Skeeter, that link is riddled with false assumptions, you sir are a part of the problem with this country, you can keep calling what were doing socialism, anyone with a brain could tell otherwise. But there is no disguising what is the driving force behind people and "movements" (haha) like yours.......it's called racism. Grow up.
cpainter56 is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 02:59 PM   #9
Jeeper
 
McBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpainter56 View Post
I would venture to say that's it's Americas policies driving all the other countries economies, and yes chinas economy may dwarf ours, but that's simply a result their population, almost every non-perishable consumer good you find in the states, was made in china, now if you were to go to china, and look at the majority or there non-perishable consumer goods, guess where they're made? I'll give you one hint, it sure isn't America. And yes, this recession we find ourselves in is a result of George W Bushes policies, not his fathers, not Reagans either. When you enact the biggest tax cut for the rich and wealthy in history and exponentially increase spending at the same time, well it doesn't take a genius to figure out that your losing money, hand over fist. Thanks W, I wish your stupid a$$ (not sure if that word is PG-13 or not) would have stayed in Texas.
I deal with corporate issues in my work and many of our current problems that relate to the economy are as much corporate as they are government. We can't have a system where "free market" is touted in a global economy when our standard of living produces a income of $41K per year and our competitors in India or China have an income of $3-6K [$US, 2008]. Corporate folks just can't resist the cheap labor as a means to the end of higher profits for higher stock prices. It works well as a short term goal but its long term impacts on the US Economy are just now being felt. Those impacts will continue for ever as our job base decreases with offshoring of jobs and our population increases beyond 400M in the next 30 years.
McBear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 03:02 PM   #10
Jeeper
 
McBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpainter56 View Post
Skeeter, that link is riddled with false assumptions, you sir are a part of the problem with this country, you can keep calling what were doing socialism, anyone with a brain could tell otherwise. But there is no disguising what is the driving force behind people and "movements" (haha) like yours.......it's called racism. Grow up.
On the economics forum where I play we have global members. One of the things we learned a bunch of years ago is that some of our more radical European and Asian members define what socialist really is. They laugh at what some of our US media call "socialist agenda". They see it more as moderate to moderate/conservative.

It is a lesson learned from a global perspective.
McBear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 03:18 PM   #11
Moderator

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
doclouie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Was in the mountains, now in Texas
Posts: 3,671
Images: 4
Lets keep it nice people. Conservatives and liberals alike have their points of view and anyone who looks at their stances in a non biased view will see that there are many assumptions. We do not live in a world where one reason is the reason for all of our failures and problems. It is a mix of many ideas and policies that come from those ideas. We see what we want to see as good and bad. Just because I think something is good does not mean everyone will see it as good in fact that is what makes this country great.

Here is a definition of socialism from Websters:
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

You decide if a person, organization or government is socialistic from the definition.

Skeeter & cpainter56- You both have the right to say what you would like and in my opinion you should say what you think. Skeeter placed a link, that although I do not agree with it, maybe that is how he sees everything. Cpainter 56 you do not agree with him and that is fine, but from the words I have read; there is just as much hate in your response as in his link.

He may have hidden motives behind what he says, but every coin has two sides.

We all have differing opinions and personal attacks on anyone is unacceptable whether you are conservative or liberal. It is amazing what grave miscalculations people will overlook when the position agrees with that person, but when it does not they pick it and the person apart. Sounds like intolerance from both sides to me.
__________________
2000 Sahara, 3.5" Rubicon Express Lift, 1" spring spacer & 1" Body Lift, 33" or 35" BFG Mud tires, Front & Rear ARB, Rancho 9000 shocks, UCF Ultra High Belly Up

doclouie is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 03:23 PM   #12
Moderator

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
doclouie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Was in the mountains, now in Texas
Posts: 3,671
Images: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
On the economics forum where I play we have global members. One of the things we learned a bunch of years ago is that some of our more radical European and Asian members define what socialist really is. They laugh at what some of our US media call "socialist agenda". They see it more as moderate to moderate/conservative.

It is a lesson learned from a global perspective.
Very well said. We need to make sure that we are all using the same operational definitions. What is conservative to one may be liberal to another. Both sides are intolerant to anyone who does not agree with their point of view.
__________________
2000 Sahara, 3.5" Rubicon Express Lift, 1" spring spacer & 1" Body Lift, 33" or 35" BFG Mud tires, Front & Rear ARB, Rancho 9000 shocks, UCF Ultra High Belly Up

doclouie is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 03:38 PM   #13
Jeeper
 
McBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by doclouie View Post
Very well said. We need to make sure that we are all using the same operational definitions. What is conservative to one may be liberal to another. Both sides are intolerant to anyone who does not agree with their point of view.
It is that new intolerance that frustrates me most. When I travel to Europe on business the perception of US politics is that both sides are really in a narrow band of view teetering on either side of center. And when we back up and look at US policy from that global perspective we can see that there is not really many outliers that deviate from center, from Nixon to Obama.

The thing that bothers me now is the complete discounting of that which we have been doing for the past decades. Some good, some bad but all by folks with the interests of the country in mind. Suddenly there are folks who only look at the last two years and somehow believe we have tangented to some different realm, yet there is nothing factual to support that.

The main thing that I see that reinforces the argument of tangential movement is talk radio and talking heads on TV, both of whom have a vested interest in selling advertising and building audiences based on controversy. Nancy Grace does the same thing with her shtic though she winds up a different sub-set of folks.
McBear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 04:44 PM   #14
Jeeper
 
skeeter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, Wa.
Posts: 3,869
Send a message via Yahoo to skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Before one makes assumptions [such as "Mr Checkov"] you might get to know me better. For the record I never went to Star Fleet Academy and there is no second C in Chekov.
Pot meet kettle?
Did you not insinuate I get my economic beliefs from Glenn Beck in an attempt to marginalize my views?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Now, regarding your discussion of Keynesian Economics you just proved my point. We don't deal in pure economic policy. We don't deal in abstract theory. We deal in a global mishmash of influences that push and pull our economy in a myriad of directions.
I haven't said we were dealing with pure Keynesian economics. What I mean by Keynesian economics is anything to do with the Keynesian theory that the government could or should try and artificially manipulate the job market by increasing spending.
I think this may be where we are losing each other. No, I don't think the democrats are basing all fiscal policy on Keynesian economic theory. Stimulus programs are however applications of Keynesian theory. I don't like stimulus programs because I don't see where such spending provides a reasonably beneficial return on investment. I believe that ultimately it does more harm than good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Did Keynesian principles pull this country out of the Depression. YES. Those who like to merge politics with economics also like to minimize its influence but so be it. That is what politicians do. Yes WW2 was an influence but those economics were also present in the 1950s and 1960s as we further built much of the GDP numbers that I referenced. You might not like the principles of Keynesian Economics [I don't like all of them myself] but you can't blow them off just because you don't agree with them.
Korea, Vietnam. The changes in the global as well as domestic markets caused by WWII remained largely in effect...


Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Now, as for Reaganomics, Supply Side and the National Debt, you say revenues grew. Well, yes, but so did population and other variables that you don't consider in your assumptions. Again, back to my point that NO economic theory, whether you like it or not is to blame or to be responsible for the results of a flowing economy.
Actually I do consider them. My point of contention is the idea that because Reagan outspent what he brought in this somehow disproves supply side economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
As for your question as to why I "chose to ignore" the other factors you listed for our current trouble, I chose one to address, but, now that you mention it...

the media spent the year leading up to the last presidential election telling us we were in a recession when we weren't, well, if you listened to either CNN, CNBC, FoxNews or FoxFinancial you heard that the economy was booming, that there was no problem, that the DOW was the perfect indicator of a vibrant economy. Never mind that we had millions of jobs offshored, that we had a rising unemployment rate and the manufacturing index was going down monthly. I would be very interested in seeing all that media that was talking negative about the economy in 2006 and 2007 as the recession was beginning to build up.
Strange, I listen to the news 8 to 10 hours a day. I recall hearing a constant barrage of talking heads bemoaning the recession all year long leading up to the primaries and through to the election. I distinctly remember being confused as to why they were calling it a recession when we were not in one at that time. If you didn't hear that then I guess we were listening to different sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
The housing bubble was caused by the community reinvestment act signed into law by President Carter... well, not really. If 100% of CRA loans defaulted that would still have amounted to less than 10% of the financial sector's asset portfolio. And we know from the investigations that resulted that less than 20% of CRAs defaulted. But CRA was a good whipping boy when everyone thought that "housing" was the reason for the recession. Afterall, gotta have a simple bad guy.

But let's look further into things like 35:1 debt to net issues for the financial financial sector which allowed banks to fly fully unsecured as they moved money through the global markets. Exemptions were given, in 2004 to Goldman, Merrill, Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley to play with those debt ratios. Or, let's look at CDOs on the global market.
Was the housing market collapse not the trigger that brought it all tumbling down? When I say the CRA was the cause, I mean that the CRA was instrumental in decisions to lower lending standards. Lowered lending standards, easy credit was the root cause of the housing bubble was it not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
For some strange reason the left can't understand that business drives an economy, not the government. Yes business drives an economy. And left "unbridled" it can drive it into the ground. Just count the millions of offshored white collar jobs, now in BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India, China]. Last year IBM had a "resource action" where they "moved" 20,000 resources. What that means in real terms is that BUSINESS laid off 20,000 US TAXPAYERS and opened a new office in Mumbai with 20,000. IBM stock went up on the "strategic cost saving move" and IBM execs got bonuses.

I can repeat that story with HP, Microsoft, GE, Chase, Lexmark, 3M and 95% of the fortune 1000. That is BUSINESS driving the economy. Those are WHITE COLLAR jobs, big taxpayers who, in the past pay for lots of toys, lots of services like lawn care, eating out, vacations, etc. That gets reduced when jobs are outsourced...or the twin H1B, which brings contract workers in to fill jobs that "can't be filled" by US workers.
And they outsource why? Higher taxes, more regulation, higher cost of labor make it financially prudent to do so. Will raising taxes and increasing regulation keep more of those jobs here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Business is not the enemy, neither is Government. They have to work together in order to provide the best possible results for the largest number of Americans.
I absolutely agree. I believe that was one of the points I tried making. The constant painting of business as the big bad evil nasty enemy of the people by the left isn't conducive to business wanting to expand under such a hostile administration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
We are in the "spending out of a recession" mode simply because it sometimes takes investment to get things going again. We have done it in the past under both Democrat and Republican administrations. It is a function of government and it is one of the smart tools that can be used. Is the debt bad? Absolutely. We should have thought about that when Reagan was building up the military in 1982-1988 or when Bush was...just building up debt. It would have been real nice to have not had $10T of debt to start with when we needed to dig out of a recession. Too bad we didn't have that chance.

And again, assumptions are not good. I wasn't in Star Fleet and don't fall under what talking heads consider communist/marxist/socialist. My liberal friends consider me conservative and my conservative friends consider me liberal. I have them just where I want them.
It would be very nice to not have any debt at any time, that's why I'm a hardcore fiscal conservative.

liberal moderate or conservative I'm enjoying the discussion.
__________________
"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

Arguing with a truck driver is like wrestling with a pig in mud, eventually you realize the pig enjoys it.
skeeter is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 04:56 PM   #15
Jeeper
 
skeeter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, Wa.
Posts: 3,869
Send a message via Yahoo to skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpainter56 View Post
I would venture to say that's it's Americas policies driving all the other countries economies, and yes chinas economy may dwarf ours, but that's simply a result their population, almost every non-perishable consumer good you find in the states, was made in china, now if you were to go to china, and look at the majority or there non-perishable consumer goods, guess where they're made? I'll give you one hint, it sure isn't America. And yes, this recession we find ourselves in is a result of George W Bushes policies, not his fathers, not Reagans either. When you enact the biggest tax cut for the rich and wealthy in history and exponentially increase spending at the same time, well it doesn't take a genius to figure out that your losing money, hand over fist. Thanks W, I wish your stupid a$$ (not sure if that word is PG-13 or not) would have stayed in Texas.
Umm, China doesn't dwarf our economy, quite the reverse actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpainter56 View Post
Skeeter, that link is riddled with false assumptions,
Such as?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpainter56 View Post
you sir are a part of the problem with this country, you can keep calling what were doing socialism, anyone with a brain could tell otherwise. But there is no disguising what is the driving force behind people and "movements" (haha) like yours.......it's called racism. Grow up.
Umm, I didn't call anyone anything, you did. Those signs in those pictures belong to the attendees and they speak for themselves.
But, that's typical of a liberal, when you can't debate the issues you resort to name calling because anyone that disagrees with democrat policy must be racist right? Just because the president is Black the root cause must be racism even if we opposed the same policies under Clinton, and under Carter, and under the democrats in congress...
__________________
"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

Arguing with a truck driver is like wrestling with a pig in mud, eventually you realize the pig enjoys it.
skeeter is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 05:26 PM   #16
Jeeper
 
McBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
Pot meet kettle?
Did you not insinuate I get my economic beliefs from Glenn Beck in an attempt to marginalize my views?

Tis why I responded with a Star Trek comment, not a serious one. By the way, I dislike this type of breakdown of comments as it leads to multicolored responses, with scrollbacks for context, but here goes.


I haven't said we were dealing with pure Keynesian economics. What I mean by Keynesian economics is anything to do with the Keynesian theory that the government could or should try and artificially manipulate the job market by increasing spending.
I think this may be where we are losing each other. No, I don't think the democrats are basing all fiscal policy on Keynesian economic theory. Stimulus programs are however applications of Keynesian theory. I don't like stimulus programs because I don't see where such spending provides a reasonably beneficial return on investment. I believe that ultimately it does more harm than good.

When you use a phrase liike "Sorry but Keynesian economics has never worked." you are indeed suggesting that you are talking about pure Keynesian economics. But what you now say suggests quite a broader implication. Since our current very mixed economy has Keynesian theory, supply side theory, Chicago School, Post Keynesian, Lausanne School and a smidge of Austrian your suggestion is that none must work since you say "What I mean by Keynesian economics is anything to do with the Keynesian theory". You are labeling a morphed, mixed economy as Keynesian or "partially Keynesian" and trying to discount it completely. You can't proof that.


Korea, Vietnam. The changes in the global as well as domestic markets caused by WWII remained largely in effect...

Again, you prove my point that all economies have multiple sources of motion, not singular policy.


Actually I do consider them. My point of contention is the idea that because Reagan outspent what he brought in this somehow disproves supply side economics.

If supply side can't generate more revenue than appropriations then it is a failure as a policy. The theory of supply side is not flawed. The implementation of supply side is fatally flawed and that has been proven in each of its three implementations.



Strange, I listen to the news 8 to 10 hours a day. I recall hearing a constant barrage of talking heads bemoaning the recession all year long leading up to the primaries and through to the election. I distinctly remember being confused as to why they were calling it a recession when we were not in one at that time. If you didn't hear that then I guess we were listening to different sources.

Who were you listening to, certainly transcripts and articles are available to link. It wasn't CNN, CNBC, Fox or Fox Financial. You were also not reading WSJ. They were all pumping up the economy and saying all was well. Of course they were also selling advertising to the financial sector which might have been an influencing factor.


Was the housing market collapse not the trigger that brought it all tumbling down? When I say the CRA was the cause, I mean that the CRA was instrumental in decisions to lower lending standards. Lowered lending standards, easy credit was the root cause of the housing bubble was it not?

Instrumental and "the cause" are two different things. But to that, look deeper and you will find that the root cause analysis that has been done after the fact show a multitude of factors. CRA was a very minor player. Look a leveraged hedge funds and derivatives and their 35:1 leveraging as more of an instrumental player. Many institutions that had nothing to do with the US housing market were felled in the very early stages of the collapse by those securities issues. Those were brought on by a lax SEC, by Gramm, Leach Bliley and by an overall failure to enforce regulations that were on the books. The financial sector was allowed to run free and it did. We see the result.


And they outsource why? Higher taxes, more regulation, higher cost of labor make it financially prudent to do so. Will raising taxes and increasing regulation keep more of those jobs here?

Umm...corporations get DEDUCTIONS for employee expenses. The old "higher taxes" drum doesn't work. Yes, cost of labor is the factor. Our standard of living [that allows us to buy stuff] requires X average labor costs. We can't compete, under any circumstance with global labor if we don't protect our labor force, unless you want ALL US labor costs to drop to global ranges, though I would bet the transition to $1.20 hour MEDIAN pay might be a bit rough for a bunch of entrepreneurial folks.


I absolutely agree. I believe that was one of the points I tried making. The constant painting of business as the big bad evil nasty enemy of the people by the left isn't conducive to business wanting to expand under such a hostile administration.

Nobody on the left paints business as bad. It is the engine of our world. But that does not mean folks should not point out the parts of business that negatively impact America. While business is necessary, not all of it is "good".

But if you absolutely agree, you also agree that government is not bad. The same caveats apply. It is necessary but not all of it is "good". Both have to work together. THAT is what we are not seeing posited by the talking heads and yammering that is coming out of talk radio/TV.



It would be very nice to not have any debt at any time, that's why I'm a hardcore fiscal conservative.

liberal moderate or conservative I'm enjoying the discussion.
I have been a fiscal conservative for nearly four decades. I have been banging this drum for a few decades. It is why I find the noobs on the right suddenly noticing that we have a National Debt to be disingenuous. It is as if $10,625,053,544,309.79 in National Debt did not exist prior to January 21, 2009.
McBear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 05:30 PM   #17
Jeeper
 
McBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
Umm, I didn't call anyone anything, you did. Those signs in those pictures belong to the attendees and they speak for themselves.
But, that's typical of a liberal, when you can't debate the issues you resort to name calling because anyone that disagrees with democrat policy must be racist right? Just because the president is Black the root cause must be racism even if we opposed the same policies under Clinton, and under Carter, and under the democrats in congress...
Were those the only signs at the little rally? Were they representative or cherry picked? I don't know the reputation of that website to know if they "tint" their information.
McBear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-03-2010, 05:59 PM   #18
Jeeper
 
McBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
liberal moderate or conservative I'm enjoying the discussion.
Same here. I was trying to figure out when/where to jump in to OT on this forum and the economics comments seemed a good place.

I mod at another forum and when noobs ask, I tell them to just jump in, they will tick off some, wake up some and most likely enjoy the sandbox once they get the rhythm. I figured I would take my own advice.

And this is saner than the economics forum, where most of the folks demand absolute proofing for each and every point [yet another thing that is not possible in a 256 shades of gray world].
McBear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-04-2010, 04:41 PM   #19
Jeeper
 
skeeter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, Wa.
Posts: 3,869
Send a message via Yahoo to skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
By the way, I dislike this type of breakdown of comments as it leads to multicolored responses, with scrollbacks for context, but here goes.
I've found that splitting up posts and commenting directly to the various points in a post tends to reduce confusion. I don't care for the colored responses but as long as there's some indication of who said what and what is being commented on I can usually work with it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
When you use a phrase liike "Sorry but Keynesian economics has never worked." you are indeed suggesting that you are talking about pure Keynesian economics. But what you now say suggests quite a broader implication. Since our current very mixed economy has Keynesian theory, supply side theory, Chicago School, Post Keynesian, Lausanne School and a smidge of Austrian your suggestion is that none must work since you say "What I mean by Keynesian economics is anything to do with the Keynesian theory". You are labeling a morphed, mixed economy as Keynesian or "partially Keynesian" and trying to discount it completely. You can't proof that.
Applications of the Keynesian theory that government can and should artificially manipulate the job market by raising demand through spending don't return enough benefit to warrant the expenditure in my opinion, and often have unanticipated and adverse effects. An example of what I'm talking about. The cash for clunkers program. The government was able to substantially increase demand for new vehicles but only in the short term. When the program ended auto dealers and makers suffered even lower sales because they simply encouraged people that were already thinking of buying a new car to make the move sooner. The program had an adverse effect on auto repair shops. All those vehicles that got scrapped no longer needed repairs. My wife was working for a VW repair shop and got laid off because business dropped like a rock, that business later closed it's doors.


Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Again, you prove my point that all economies have multiple sources of motion, not singular policy.
I don't disagree, I'm talking specific applications of the theory that the government can and should artificially manipulate the market. As I said earlier, there are simply too many variables for anyone to accurately anticipate and plan for all contingencies. That's why I believe a general hands off policy is best. Let the markets correct themselves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
If supply side can't generate more revenue than appropriations then it is a failure as a policy. The theory of supply side is not flawed. The implementation of supply side is fatally flawed and that has been proven in each of its three implementations.
Implementation of any policy is going to be flawed because politicians are politicians, even if you have an honest one, he or she still has to deal with several hundred more and any one of them can take a dump in the pool and ruin it for the rest.


Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Who were you listening to, certainly transcripts and articles are available to link. It wasn't CNN, CNBC, Fox or Fox Financial. You were also not reading WSJ. They were all pumping up the economy and saying all was well. Of course they were also selling advertising to the financial sector which might have been an influencing factor.
I'm referring to the talking heads on the nightly news. Broadcasts aimed at the lowest common denominator in the electorate.
I've always had difficulty in searching news reports for generic stories. I'm sure there's an easy way to do it but I haven't discovered it yet. I tried and came up with this that covers the gist of what I'm talking about.

Media Myth: The Recession/Depression of 2006


Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Instrumental and "the cause" are two different things. But to that, look deeper and you will find that the root cause analysis that has been done after the fact show a multitude of factors. CRA was a very minor player. Look a leveraged hedge funds and derivatives and their 35:1 leveraging as more of an instrumental player. Many institutions that had nothing to do with the US housing market were felled in the very early stages of the collapse by those securities issues. Those were brought on by a lax SEC, by Gramm, Leach Bliley and by an overall failure to enforce regulations that were on the books. The financial sector was allowed to run free and it did. We see the result.
Ok, I freely admit I may be wrong so bear with me. My understanding is that the poison pill was bad housing loans. Had the housing market not collapsed, had those mortgages not gone bad, would the collapse have occurred? These bad mortgages were bundled in with other investment vehicles and were sold all over the place but it was still the bad mortgages that brought it all tumbling down, right?
I agree that tighter regulation and enforcement could have prevented or reduced broader problem but it was still the lower lending standards and easy credit at the heart of the problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Umm...corporations get DEDUCTIONS for employee expenses. The old "higher taxes" drum doesn't work. Yes, cost of labor is the factor. Our standard of living [that allows us to buy stuff] requires X average labor costs. We can't compete, under any circumstance with global labor if we don't protect our labor force, unless you want ALL US labor costs to drop to global ranges, though I would bet the transition to $1.20 hour MEDIAN pay might be a bit rough for a bunch of entrepreneurial folks.
When I ran my own trucking company I'd get people telling me all the time that I shouldn't have a problem with higher fuel costs or paying more for repairs, or hiring somebody to handle my paperwork...I didn't need more tax write offs, I needed more revenue. Tax write offs only work for some taxes and only to a certain extent. If they were able to write off enough so that raising taxes weren't a problem then why raise taxes?
Making the business environment here as business friendly as reasonably possible will encourage business to stay here and will also encourage new business starting up.
How do you propose to keep business from relocating?


Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Nobody on the left paints business as bad. It is the engine of our world. But that does not mean folks should not point out the parts of business that negatively impact America. While business is necessary, not all of it is "good".

But if you absolutely agree, you also agree that government is not bad. The same caveats apply. It is necessary but not all of it is "good". Both have to work together. THAT is what we are not seeing posited by the talking heads and yammering that is coming out of talk radio/TV.
I agree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
I have been a fiscal conservative for nearly four decades. I have been banging this drum for a few decades. It is why I find the noobs on the right suddenly noticing that we have a National Debt to be disingenuous. It is as if $10,625,053,544,309.79 in National Debt did not exist prior to January 21, 2009.
There were many of us screaming about this all through the Bush years, unfortunately we kept being shouted down by the fools that claimed debt wasn't a bad thing. That's why republicans lost so hard in 06 and again in 08. Fiscal conservatives were simply disgusted with republicans spending as bad as the democrats. That's why the Tea Party movement is so strong today.
__________________
"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

Arguing with a truck driver is like wrestling with a pig in mud, eventually you realize the pig enjoys it.
skeeter is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-04-2010, 04:50 PM   #20
Jeeper
 
skeeter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, Wa.
Posts: 3,869
Send a message via Yahoo to skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Were those the only signs at the little rally? Were they representative or cherry picked? I don't know the reputation of that website to know if they "tint" their information.
Oh, those sites swing hard right and I just posted the links to get a rise out of the democrats
You can go to the blaze link and find links to the sponsoring organizations to see for yourself what they stand for. The signs were pretty representative of the folks sponsoring the event.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Same here. I was trying to figure out when/where to jump in to OT on this forum and the economics comments seemed a good place.

I mod at another forum and when noobs ask, I tell them to just jump in, they will tick off some, wake up some and most likely enjoy the sandbox once they get the rhythm. I figured I would take my own advice.

And this is saner than the economics forum, where most of the folks demand absolute proofing for each and every point [yet another thing that is not possible in a 256 shades of gray world].
Welcome.



Even if you are kicking my butt
__________________
"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

Arguing with a truck driver is like wrestling with a pig in mud, eventually you realize the pig enjoys it.
skeeter is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-05-2010, 02:48 PM   #21
Jeeper
 
McBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
I've found that splitting up posts and commenting directly to the various points in a post tends to reduce confusion. I don't care for the colored responses but as long as there's some indication of who said what and what is being commented on I can usually work with it.

Cool, I tend to go with the colored [or multicultural] differential split and let everyone keep up by either bouncing back and forth or memory. It helps folks with short term memory problems by exercising their brains.



Applications of the Keynesian theory that government can and should artificially manipulate the job market by raising demand through spending don't return enough benefit to warrant the expenditure in my opinion, and often have unanticipated and adverse effects. An example of what I'm talking about. The cash for clunkers program. The government was able to substantially increase demand for new vehicles but only in the short term. When the program ended auto dealers and makers suffered even lower sales because they simply encouraged people that were already thinking of buying a new car to make the move sooner. The program had an adverse effect on auto repair shops. All those vehicles that got scrapped no longer needed repairs. My wife was working for a VW repair shop and got laid off because business dropped like a rock, that business later closed it's doors.

On a bunch of your comments above you suggest that it was not Keynesian policy, rather WW2, Korea, VietNam and Reagan's Cold War military buildup that spurred some/much of the economic growth in previous boom years.

In another part of your answer you suggest "Stimulus programs are however applications of Keynesian theory. I don't like stimulus programs because I don't see where such spending provides a reasonably beneficial return on investment. I believe that ultimately it does more harm than good.

Military spending, Cold War spending, all that which at one time was called the "Military Industrial Complex" are nothing more than Stimulus spending. Many of our defense programs are a direct result of earmarks and policy directed to keep certain sectors of the economy moving forward during recessions. And then there is the massive amounts of monies dumped into the economy during wars. How is that not directly stimulating the economy. The mathematics of the mechanisms are exactly the same.

So whether we are helping Boeing by contracting for additional B52s or GM when they needed it, both kept taxpayers on the payroll, communities working.


I don't disagree, I'm talking specific applications of the theory that the government can and should artificially manipulate the market. As I said earlier, there are simply too many variables for anyone to accurately anticipate and plan for all contingencies. That's why I believe a general hands off policy is best. Let the markets correct themselves.

The markets don't always correct themselves. Sometimes they just crash and burn. TARP, which is proving to be one of Bush's best successes [and one I supported from Day1] is a perfect example. TARP had one mission, to keep the financial sector from liquidating and collapsing. At the time we had a $54TRILLION potential meltdown on the global financial market that was simply a house of cards due to unregulated derivatives, leveraged hedges and banks trying to CYA. TARP was intended to stop the meltdown by instilling confidence. It did so and there was minimum fallout.

There were many who just thought we should "let it burn to the ground and let the market correct itself". One big problem with that. "IT" is all of us and we would have been watching from the inside. Not a very smart place from which to watch your world burn to the ground.




Implementation of any policy is going to be flawed because politicians are politicians, even if you have an honest one, he or she still has to deal with several hundred more and any one of them can take a dump in the pool and ruin it for the rest.

And that is why Supply side Economics can't work as a policy. Too many folks want to add to it, add fees, ancillary taxes [remember the gas tax that over doubled under Reagan in 1983].

And the problem is exacerbated with a potential "cut taxes, cut services" on the federal level because many services will just be passed to state/local levels, adding to their taxes. The OVERALL tax a person pays will undoubtedly increase. THAT is the problem with a demand for "lower taxes" without a comprehensive plan to actually solve the overall problem.



I'm referring to the talking heads on the nightly news. Broadcasts aimed at the lowest common denominator in the electorate.
I've always had difficulty in searching news reports for generic stories. I'm sure there's an easy way to do it but I haven't discovered it yet. I tried and came up with this that covers the gist of what I'm talking about.

Media Myth: The Recession/Depression of 2006

What you were seeing from Network news, and from some articles was another view of the economy. The link you provided is a good example as it reflects the thought that "because the DOW is good" and other lagging indicators are OK, the economy is great". That is the problem. Reports from economists around the world were showing foundation concerns in the economy. They were pointing to mounting debt [much of which was paying for the added revenues by a credit card stimulus], skyrocketing trade deficits, leveraged equities and unrealistic expectations [we called it irrational exuberance]. Those foundation items were posing a problem that seriously showed a recession was in the near future in 2006. And they were stone cold correct. It was not the messenger that caused it, it was failure to listen to the right messenger.

Had you listened to folks like Jim Rogers or Nouriel
Roubini in 2006 your 401K would still be in positive numbers.


Ok, I freely admit I may be wrong so bear with me. My understanding is that the poison pill was bad housing loans. Had the housing market not collapsed, had those mortgages not gone bad, would the collapse have occurred? These bad mortgages were bundled in with other investment vehicles and were sold all over the place but it was still the bad mortgages that brought it all tumbling down, right?
I agree that tighter regulation and enforcement could have prevented or reduced broader problem but it was still the lower lending standards and easy credit at the heart of the problem.

The view that it was bad housing loans was a "first swipe" assumption. That theory went away as investigators dug into bank practices on a much higher level than 12-15% bad mortgages. Any bank could have taken that hit. The problem was in asset leveraging on a more global level, on corporate loans, on credit card debt and gambling on insurance of banks.

Think of it as a cop pulling a guy over for no tail lights [bad mortgages]. Once he is pulled over it is found that he is drunk, has no license, no insurance, is wanted for goat molestation and hoarding donuts. Suddenly the tail-light thing doesn't seem so important but in this case, because it is political, people still use the tail-lights [mortgages] because CRA and mortgage policies was a Democratic idea and it is the only way to blame a recession that started under a Republican President and Republican Congress. That is were stone cold numbers come in. Tail lights were not the issue.




When I ran my own trucking company I'd get people telling me all the time that I shouldn't have a problem with higher fuel costs or paying more for repairs, or hiring somebody to handle my paperwork...I didn't need more tax write offs, I needed more revenue. Tax write offs only work for some taxes and only to a certain extent. If they were able to write off enough so that raising taxes weren't a problem then why raise taxes?
Making the business environment here as business friendly as reasonably possible will encourage business to stay here and will also encourage new business starting up.
How do you propose to keep business from relocating?

My comment on deductions was aimed toward large corporations, not small companies. Large corporations can fully deduct all their employee expenses with no issues whatsoever.

Like you say, for a small business it is more revenue, not more deductions that you need. Cash flow is much more important than write-offs. I have dealt with this for 35ish years both as owner of a consulting firm and a wholesale business [I get bored easy].

To directly answer your question the discussion on the National level has got to move from "BUSINESS" to look at individual classes of businesses. Rules for companies like IBM or Microsoft, both of whom I have done extensive work run completely different than Small Businesses [those under 500 or even under 10 employees]. Yet the dialog from politicos seem to lump them.

I have owned my business since 1977. My interaction with government is so minimal that I seldom see it except when having security clearances every two years and of course taxes. Government is never in my pants, never tells me who to hire, how to hire, what to do, or where to work [and I work in US, Europe and the Pacific Rim].

Now, the companies I work for also have minimal interaction. They move employees to India, China, Brazil on a whim. They testify before Congress that they can't get workers in the US to fulfill jobs so they have to H1B workers in. They lay off US workers and open shops in Mumbai to do the same work. Our "free market" folks cheer them on. I have lost contracts because I speak up [I'm good with that].

How do you keep them from relocating. You remove their tax incentives. You remove their financial incentive to remove US workers from the workplace and replace them with offshore workers. Right now there are tax breaks to "relocate". Tax breaks to layoff. The alternative is to accept that revenue sources in the US are going to continue to drop as more and more jobs are offshored and we become a country of services [who will be paid less as "the market adjusts".




I agree.



There were many of us screaming about this all through the Bush years, unfortunately we kept being shouted down by the fools that claimed debt wasn't a bad thing. That's why republicans lost so hard in 06 and again in 08. Fiscal conservatives were simply disgusted with republicans spending as bad as the democrats. That's why the Tea Party movement is so strong today.
The problem with the Tea Party movement and the Republicans is that they [TP] seem to move en blocke with the Republicans as the harsh light of day shines on them. They trash Republicans in primaries but as soon as they win they move directly to the Republican fold which requires quid pro quo at some point. Here in Kentucky we have watched Rand Paul backtrack on so many issues as he has cosyed up to McConnell for backing from the establishment.

The big problem that nobody is addressing is that revenue is dropping as it is. We have revenues of about $2.2T [WITH the tax cuts still in place], appropriations much higher and a National Debt. To address the lofty goals of "no new debt", we have only a couple of choices. We have to pay down the National Debt [interest is $400B a year if the rates don't go up] and that comes out of revenues FIRST.

The question is...what infrastructure and services are you willing to give up?
McBear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-05-2010, 02:54 PM   #22
Jeeper
 
McBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
Oh, those sites swing hard right and I just posted the links to get a rise out of the democrats
You can go to the blaze link and find links to the sponsoring organizations to see for yourself what they stand for. The signs were pretty representative of the folks sponsoring the event.


Welcome.



Even if you are kicking my butt
This seems like a good site. I find it informative and the OT section is pretty diverse in subject matter [which is a good thing].

And, as for kicking butt, I don't see it that way. On another forum I am listed as Manager, Margaret Mead Tap Room. I see this as just another bar with folks kicked back chatting. On this one, however there appears to be a "no cussin', no spittin'" rule. I find that interestingly refreshing.
McBear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-05-2010, 11:13 PM   #23
amy
Kalashnikitty

WF Supporting Member
 
amy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Spokane wa
Posts: 5,580
Send a message via Yahoo to amy
McBear, Skeeter, this is refreshing. A political/economics discussion that is actually a discussion. Thank you, gentlemen.
__________________
Good girls go to Heaven. Jeep girls go where ever they want.
amy is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-05-2010, 11:22 PM   #24
Jeeper
 
jeffdubya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
The problem with the Tea Party movement and the Republicans is that they [TP] seem to move en blocke with the Republicans as the harsh light of day shines on them. They trash Republicans in primaries but as soon as they win they move directly to the Republican fold which requires quid pro quo at some point.
I love it when someone who clearly doesn't understand the liberty movement try to pound that square peg into a round hole.
__________________
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. If you are one of those standing ready, I thank you. non melior amicus, non nequior hostis

Active duty, honorably discharged and LEOs, please become an oath keeper. Refuse unconstitutional and illegal orders.


jeffdubya is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-06-2010, 01:11 PM   #25
Jeeper
 
McBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdubya View Post
I love it when someone who clearly doesn't understand the liberty movement try to pound that square peg into a round hole.
In the 1970s I began participating in Libertarian politics. In the 1990s I closely followed with great hope the unsuccessful campaigns of Ross Perot.

I have watched the Tea Party movement from both the inside and outside from its roots and my opinions of it come from that experience. If I thought it was the grassroots organization that it attempts to suggest, I would still be looking at it from the inside. But the major funding from Dick Armey, Koch Brothers and other hard core Republicans have shown it to be not what many of its members perceive it and not what they wish it was.

As for pounding a square peg into a round hole, well, that hole is old and well established and known to all as not so round. It has been around the block many times under different names. And the peg? Don't assume I use a hammer.
__________________
McAllister
Lexington, KY

http://mcallisterbryant.deviantart.com
McBear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-11-2010, 01:51 PM   #26
Jeeper
 
skeeter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, Wa.
Posts: 3,869
Send a message via Yahoo to skeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
On a bunch of your comments above you suggest that it was not Keynesian policy, rather WW2, Korea, VietNam and Reagan's Cold War military buildup that spurred some/much of the economic growth in previous boom years.

In another part of your answer you suggest "Stimulus programs are however applications of Keynesian theory. I don't like stimulus programs because I don't see where such spending provides a reasonably beneficial return on investment. I believe that ultimately it does more harm than good.

Military spending, Cold War spending, all that which at one time was called the "Military Industrial Complex" are nothing more than Stimulus spending. Many of our defense programs are a direct result of earmarks and policy directed to keep certain sectors of the economy moving forward during recessions. And then there is the massive amounts of monies dumped into the economy during wars. How is that not directly stimulating the economy. The mathematics of the mechanisms are exactly the same.

So whether we are helping Boeing by contracting for additional B52s or GM when they needed it, both kept taxpayers on the payroll, communities working.
WWII was much more than just the spending that brought us out of the depression, WWII drastically altered the world, the market and the workforce.
Military spending itself is an authorized and necessary function of the federal government and we have something to show for our spending. Not so much with the current "stimulus" spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
The markets don't always correct themselves. Sometimes they just crash and burn. TARP, which is proving to be one of Bush's best successes [and one I supported from Day1] is a perfect example. TARP had one mission, to keep the financial sector from liquidating and collapsing. At the time we had a $54TRILLION potential meltdown on the global financial market that was simply a house of cards due to unregulated derivatives, leveraged hedges and banks trying to CYA. TARP was intended to stop the meltdown by instilling confidence. It did so and there was minimum fallout.

There were many who just thought we should "let it burn to the ground and let the market correct itself". One big problem with that. "IT" is all of us and we would have been watching from the inside. Not a very smart place from which to watch your world burn to the ground.
Which markets have burned and not corrected when the government didn't meddle?
Has TARP worked? do we not still have major problems in the mortgage finance arena? Do we not still have financial institutions holding money rather than moving it into the market? do we not still have investors holding money or moving it into safer investments? Do we not still have close to 10% unemployment and much higher unreported and underemployed?
Are the folks that created the mess not still in the middle of it?
We created a tremendous debt and have solved nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
And that is why Supply side Economics can't work as a policy. Too many folks want to add to it, add fees, ancillary taxes [remember the gas tax that over doubled under Reagan in 1983].

And the problem is exacerbated with a potential "cut taxes, cut services" on the federal level because many services will just be passed to state/local levels, adding to their taxes. The OVERALL tax a person pays will undoubtedly increase. THAT is the problem with a demand for "lower taxes" without a comprehensive plan to actually solve the overall problem.
Most of the "services" provided by the federal government should be moved to the state and local levels where the people directly involved and affected by those programs will have closer oversight and input on how their money is utilized. Politicians at the state and local level are much easier to approach and influence by the local electorate and are less likely to be in the pocket of some special interest with deep pockets.
If these services are moved to the local and state level where they belong then the federal government will have less incentive to impose more taxes and taxes at the state and local level can be controlled by the local electorate directly impacted by them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
The view that it was bad housing loans was a "first swipe" assumption. That theory went away as investigators dug into bank practices on a much higher level than 12-15% bad mortgages. Any bank could have taken that hit. The problem was in asset leveraging on a more global level, on corporate loans, on credit card debt and gambling on insurance of banks.

Think of it as a cop pulling a guy over for no tail lights [bad mortgages]. Once he is pulled over it is found that he is drunk, has no license, no insurance, is wanted for goat molestation and hoarding donuts. Suddenly the tail-light thing doesn't seem so important but in this case, because it is political, people still use the tail-lights [mortgages] because CRA and mortgage policies was a Democratic idea and it is the only way to blame a recession that started under a Republican President and Republican Congress. That is were stone cold numbers come in. Tail lights were not the issue.
Tail lights/bad mortgages were the issue. Lowered lending standards and the fed keeping interest rates low to facilitate risky mortgages caused the credit bubble. The investment games were an attempt to mitigate the risks of that lending and while 12 to 15% failure might have been a sustainable loss to some financial institutions, it didn't stop there. Those bad mortgages seriously degraded otherwise solid mortgages by dropping demand and value for housing in some of the largest markets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
My comment on deductions was aimed toward large corporations, not small companies. Large corporations can fully deduct all their employee expenses with no issues whatsoever.

Like you say, for a small business it is more revenue, not more deductions that you need. Cash flow is much more important than write-offs. I have dealt with this for 35ish years both as owner of a consulting firm and a wholesale business [I get bored easy].

To directly answer your question the discussion on the National level has got to move from "BUSINESS" to look at individual classes of businesses. Rules for companies like IBM or Microsoft, both of whom I have done extensive work run completely different than Small Businesses [those under 500 or even under 10 employees]. Yet the dialog from politicos seem to lump them.

I have owned my business since 1977. My interaction with government is so minimal that I seldom see it except when having security clearances every two years and of course taxes. Government is never in my pants, never tells me who to hire, how to hire, what to do, or where to work [and I work in US, Europe and the Pacific Rim].

Now, the companies I work for also have minimal interaction. They move employees to India, China, Brazil on a whim. They testify before Congress that they can't get workers in the US to fulfill jobs so they have to H1B workers in. They lay off US workers and open shops in Mumbai to do the same work. Our "free market" folks cheer them on. I have lost contracts because I speak up [I'm good with that].

How do you keep them from relocating. You remove their tax incentives. You remove their financial incentive to remove US workers from the workplace and replace them with offshore workers. Right now there are tax breaks to "relocate". Tax breaks to layoff. The alternative is to accept that revenue sources in the US are going to continue to drop as more and more jobs are offshored and we become a country of services [who will be paid less as "the market adjusts".
I'm not aware of tax deductions specifically for relocating or layoffs but since the tax code is so large and screwed up the IRS doesn't even know what's in it, I wouldn't be surprised.
I'm all for a complete revamping of the tax code.



Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
The problem with the Tea Party movement and the Republicans is that they [TP] seem to move en blocke with the Republicans as the harsh light of day shines on them. They trash Republicans in primaries but as soon as they win they move directly to the Republican fold which requires quid pro quo at some point. Here in Kentucky we have watched Rand Paul backtrack on so many issues as he has cosyed up to McConnell for backing from the establishment.

The big problem that nobody is addressing is that revenue is dropping as it is. We have revenues of about $2.2T [WITH the tax cuts still in place], appropriations much higher and a National Debt. To address the lofty goals of "no new debt", we have only a couple of choices. We have to pay down the National Debt [interest is $400B a year if the rates don't go up] and that comes out of revenues FIRST.

The question is...what infrastructure and services are you willing to give up?
I haven't been following the Rand Paul race so I have no idea what he's supposed to be backtracking on. As in any race, the candidates play to their base in the primaries and play to the moderates in the general. This is normal and has always been the way to win an election. What they do when and if they get in office is what actually matters.

One of the largest misconceptions about the tea party movement is the idea that it's a political party. It's an advocacy group in much the same way as the NRA, they will endorse the candidate that best serves their issue. That issue is fiscal conservatism and their power is shown by the level at which all the candidates, even the democrats running for office right now, are trying to out conservative each other. The Tea Party has never been one monolithic block, they are a group of groups free to organize and promote fiscal conservatism as they see fit. If one group endorses a specific candidate it doesn't mean all groups endorse that candidate.

There's a tremendous amount of waste and useless programs within the federal government that can and should be cut without harming our infrastructure . Identifying waste wouldn't be difficult, getting it cut by those that like big government, big spending and the power it brings is the difficult part. Those people need to be removed and the only ones I know of pushing to do that is the Tea Party.

Sorry it took so long to get back to this, I had major case of real life hit last week.
__________________
"But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1782

Arguing with a truck driver is like wrestling with a pig in mud, eventually you realize the pig enjoys it.
skeeter is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-12-2010, 01:01 PM   #27
Jeeper
 
McBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
WWII was much more than just the spending that brought us out of the depression, WWII drastically altered the world, the market and the workforce.
Military spending itself is an authorized and necessary function of the federal government and we have something to show for our spending. Not so much with the current "stimulus" spending.

Yes, military itself is an authorized and necessary function BUT it still is stimulus spending, no matter how you slice it. It provides jobs, provides secondary and tertiary job markets throughout the country. WW2 was global but our "spending" was mostly concentrated in America, building factories and infrastructure.

As for the current stimulus, I just got back from DC, McLean VA on business yesterday. Drove 1200 miles. I should have gotten into the construction traffic barrel business. The barrels, and the Stimulus signs that go with them were everywhere. There are a boatload of folks working that would not have been if monies had not been flowing into the economy. The stimulus was designed to work in a long term consistant fashion, like towing a car [or Jeep] out of a ditch. You don't "yank it", you smoothly pull until it is free.

Which markets have burned and not corrected when the government didn't meddle?
Has TARP worked? do we not still have major problems in the mortgage finance arena? Do we not still have financial institutions holding money rather than moving it into the market? do we not still have investors holding money or moving it into safer investments? Do we not still have close to 10% unemployment and much higher unreported and underemployed?
Are the folks that created the mess not still in the middle of it?
We created a tremendous debt and have solved nothing.

Yes, TARP has worked. It stopped the dominoes from continuing to collapse. THAT was its primary function. Recovery from the Recession is never an instant solution, always taking 2-3X the time it takes to get into it.

Most of the "services" provided by the federal government should be moved to the state and local levels where the people directly involved and affected by those programs will have closer oversight and input on how their money is utilized. Politicians at the state and local level are much easier to approach and influence by the local electorate and are less likely to be in the pocket of some special interest with deep pockets.
If these services are moved to the local and state level where they belong then the federal government will have less incentive to impose more taxes and taxes at the state and local level can be controlled by the local electorate directly impacted by them.

Moving to state and local control does little to "shrink government", just moves the deck chairs. And while we can all name a few federal government corruption scandals over the past few decades, the number of state and local scandals measures in the 100s if not higher. Some stuff belongs in state and local but there is much of our world that belongs in federal where we can establish standards for a common growth.


Tail lights/bad mortgages were the issue. Lowered lending standards and the fed keeping interest rates low to facilitate risky mortgages caused the credit bubble. The investment games were an attempt to mitigate the risks of that lending and while 12 to 15% failure might have been a sustainable loss to some financial institutions, it didn't stop there. Those bad mortgages seriously degraded otherwise solid mortgages by dropping demand and value for housing in some of the largest markets.

Nope, the "issue" was deregulated and softly regulated financials that allowed leveraged CDOs and Hedge Funds on a global scale. That was exponentially more significant than bad mortgages. It was just much harder for media to explain, so they didn't try.


I'm not aware of tax deductions specifically for relocating or layoffs but since the tax code is so large and screwed up the IRS doesn't even know what's in it, I wouldn't be surprised.
I'm all for a complete revamping of the tax code.

There are not "specific" relocation deductions, rather a body of deductions that allow new capitalization to occur overseas and writeoffs of layoff expenses.


I haven't been following the Rand Paul race so I have no idea what he's supposed to be backtracking on. As in any race, the candidates play to their base in the primaries and play to the moderates in the general. This is normal and has always been the way to win an election. What they do when and if they get in office is what actually matters.

Good assessment. With Rand Paul what we are seeing is extreme views on Civil Rights and a complete misunderstanding of how government works. It is as if a frat boy from Animal House decided to run. Only reason we are talking about him is because of his father's coat-tails.

One of the largest misconceptions about the tea party movement is the idea that it's a political party. It's an advocacy group in much the same way as the NRA, they will endorse the candidate that best serves their issue. That issue is fiscal conservatism and their power is shown by the level at which all the candidates, even the democrats running for office right now, are trying to out conservative each other. The Tea Party has never been one monolithic block, they are a group of groups free to organize and promote fiscal conservatism as they see fit. If one group endorses a specific candidate it doesn't mean all groups endorse that candidate.

What I have seen of it, from both in and out is that it is more of a party that doesn't have an interest in doing the foundation work and instead has co-opted the Republican Party infrastructure for its agenda. I would agree that the issue is "fiscal conservatism" IF it were not for all the truthers, birthers, Muslim bigots, social conservatives that are also populating the discussion. If it was single issue there would not be "Tea Party Candidates" of which there are many with reasonably full platforms.

There's a tremendous amount of waste and useless programs within the federal government that can and should be cut without harming our infrastructure . Identifying waste wouldn't be difficult, getting it cut by those that like big government, big spending and the power it brings is the difficult part. Those people need to be removed and the only ones I know of pushing to do that is the Tea Party.

Sorry it took so long to get back to this, I had major case of real life hit last week.
Yes there is waste and useless programs that can and should be cut. Now, back to my question...What services and infrastructure are YOU willing to give up in a massive budget realignment [CUT]?

And, I hope real life wasn't too harsh on you.
__________________
McAllister
Lexington, KY

http://mcallisterbryant.deviantart.com
McBear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-12-2010, 03:17 PM   #28
Jeeper
 
MadMaxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: United Socialist State of Illinois
Posts: 126
Hope you guys don't mind me poking my nose in here,

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
What I have seen of it, from both in and out is that it is more of a party that doesn't have an interest in doing the foundation work and instead has co-opted the Republican Party infrastructure for its agenda. I would agree that the issue is "fiscal conservatism" IF it were not for all the truthers, birthers, Muslim bigots, social conservatives that are also populating the discussion. If it was single issue there would not be "Tea Party Candidates" of which there are many with reasonably full platforms.



McBear... if you have been following the Libertarian/Tea movement for as long as you say you have,(not doubting you, just illustrating a point) then you should also know how near impossible it is for a 3rd party to get any sort of influence or leverage in our Govt'.

As such the current Tea Party objective is to support as many candidates that are sympathetic to the Tea Party cause to effect a sweeping change in Congress. If this is successful then there is a real possibility for actual Tea Party Presidential and Congressional candidates in 2012, if not the outright changing of the GOP political stance. It's taken the Libertarian movement the better part of the past 3 decades to realize that it would be far easier to co-opt an existing party than to create a whole new one from scratch, the far left has known this and learned this fact thru their activism during the '60s and '70s which is why the current Democrat Party is so ingrained with them.

Unfortunately like all causes (both left and right) there are going to be some undesirables, the point is to not let them define the group as a whole. After all I donít let groups like Code Pink, and La Raza, or all the Bush haters define the Democrat Party as a whole. Are they there? Yes, but they are also not the core fabric of the party and the party ideals. There are NO single issue parties out there, only single issue groups that have latched themselves onto a much larger entity to benefit from their influence.
__________________
It's my Jeep thing, and that's what you won't understand.
MadMaxx is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-12-2010, 03:47 PM   #29
Jeeper
 
McBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMaxx View Post
Hope you guys don't mind me poking my nose in here,




McBear... if you have been following the Libertarian/Tea movement for as long as you say you have,(not doubting you, just illustrating a point) then you should also know how near impossible it is for a 3rd party to get any sort of influence or leverage in our Govt'.

As such the current Tea Party objective is to support as many candidates that are sympathetic to the Tea Party cause to effect a sweeping change in Congress. If this is successful then there is a real possibility for actual Tea Party Presidential and Congressional candidates in 2012, if not the outright changing of the GOP political stance. It's taken the Libertarian movement the better part of the past 3 decades to realize that it would be far easier to co-opt an existing party than to create a whole new one from scratch, the far left has known this and learned this fact thru their activism during the '60s and '70s which is why the current Democrat Party is so ingrained with them.

Unfortunately like all causes (both left and right) there are going to be some undesirables, the point is to not let them define the group as a whole. After all I donít let groups like Code Pink, and La Raza, or all the Bush haters define the Democrat Party as a whole. Are they there? Yes, but they are also not the core fabric of the party and the party ideals. There are NO single issue parties out there, only single issue groups that have latched themselves onto a much larger entity to benefit from their influence.
Your point on Libertarians and Independent is exactly why I lost interest. They were, from Day1 and through Ross Perot interested in running top level candidates only and not going through the painstaking work of building a foundation organization necessary to fundamentally include a third party.

I see the same issues with the Tea Party folks. They are very interested in High Profile office but have not had an interest in building a party foundation that would provide a long term future. You have not seen 10 candidates nation wide willing to stake a claim to a Tea PARTY in local elections to begin building on a significant third party. What we do see is a wild Republican Primary with various factions then we see, if a Tea Party candidate wins a folding back into a moderate position, dropping many of the positions that defined them and the party.

Where is the principle in that?

You suggest that Tea Party is like La Raza or Code Pink...umm not even in the same political landscape. La Raza and Code Pink are nothing more than single issue special interest groups. They have very little influence in any Democratic policy, now or ever. As for the "far left"...who is that? It really doesn't exist in the American political landscape other than the Nader group and that has always been so insignificant as to not count on anyone's radar.
McBear is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 10-12-2010, 04:42 PM   #30
Jeeper
 
MadMaxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: United Socialist State of Illinois
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
Your point on Libertarians and Independent is exactly why I lost interest. They were, from Day1 and through Ross Perot interested in running top level candidates only and not going through the painstaking work of building a foundation organization necessary to fundamentally include a third party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post

I see the same issues with the Tea Party folks. They are very interested in High Profile office but have not had an interest in building a party foundation that would provide a long term future. You have not seen 10 candidates nation wide willing to stake a claim to a Tea PARTY in local elections to begin building on a significant third party. What we do see is a wild Republican Primary with various factions then we see, if a Tea Party candidate wins a folding back into a moderate position, dropping many of the positions that defined them and the party.

Where is the principle in that?

You suggest that Tea Party is like La Raza or Code Pink...umm not even in the same political landscape. La Raza and Code Pink are nothing more than single issue special interest groups. They have very little influence in any Democratic policy, now or ever. As for the "far left"...who is that? It really doesn't exist in the American political landscape other than the Nader group and that has always been so insignificant as to not count on anyone's radar.

No, you mistake my point... which is that I am suggesting that the fringe groups that you named (truthers, birthers, etc.) are the same as the leftist fringe groups like La Raza, Code Pink etc. You associating those groups as the core of the Tea Party movement is like me associating the groups that I named as the core of the Democrat party... which honestly we both know that is not the case and to pretend that it is only muddles the issue even further.

As far as your perception about the Tea Movement you are wrong... there is definitely the desire to build a completely separate party but let’s be real... you KNOW that both the current established parties are never going to let a 3rd party gain any real traction and the past 30 years of the Libertarians and Green Party pretty puch proves it. The only alternative is to gain influence in one of the parties (as the leftists have been doing to the Democrat party for years) and attempt to reshape the core of the party or use that new found influence to launch a brand new party.

We shall see what the next 2 years brings us. Personally I know where I would like to see the Tea Movement go and will do what I can to get it there. Like I stated earlier the focus now is to get sympathetic people in office now and once there either force a fundamental ideal shift in the Republican party or coalesce into a true 3rd party.

It’s obvious that you have already formed your own opinion on the Tea Movement, I believe that you are wrong but that is for you to figure out on your own.

Also you cannot tell me that groups like Code Pink and La Raza have little influence... They are the loudest voices on the current war (well at least when Bush was president) and Amnesty for Illegals... and you can't really expect me to believe that these are not hot button topics.

__________________
It's my Jeep thing, and that's what you won't understand.
MadMaxx is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 AM.



Jeepģ, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC