Posted 8 months, 28 days ago in 
3 votes. Average 3.67/5
Loading ...
The letter to the editor from Kitty Nicholason should have asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi why $30 million were put into the stimulus (aka spending) bill to restore the habitat of a mouse in California, instead of helping a human such as the woman in Texas that she referred to.
Or she might ask Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada about the $8 billion — yes billion — that he had put in the bill for a high-speed train from Disneyland to Las Vegas. That sure benefits the average American, don’t you think? Couldn’t that money have been better used to keep Americans in their homes?
The list goes on and on and it is very hard to find anything in this bill that actually helps struggling Americans stay in their homes. But if you find something that does, I am all ears.
KIRK ANSTAETT
Grand Junction
47 Responses to “Spending bill does little to help Americans”
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 1:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
First off, we are talking a little over 1% of the bill-I wish I only wasted that much of my personal budget. Never the less, I need some help. I read (scanned??) the entire bill and I did not see the above mentioned items. Does anyone know where exactly in the bill they are. I saw a lot of good stuff for our military heros and their families, I saw a lot of things that appear to address some of the inequalities in our society, and I saw a lot of things that most certainly should create a lot of jobs, esp construction type jobs, but I could not find anything about a mouse habitat or a high speed train from Disneyland to Las Vegas. It is very possible I missed it, but it also makes me wonder if Kirk read the bill or is simply spouting off something he heard from a talking head? Anybody-help pls
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 1:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’d call a high speed train from Las Vegas to LA a significant construction project that will create a lot of jobs. What is the problem with that?
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 1:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From what I understand, the mouse habitat thing is not labeled as such. Instead it shows up as some area preservation project in California.
As far as the train from Disneyland to LV, that is one of a number of competing projects for the money allocated to high speed transit. Whether it gets built there or somewhere else has yet to be decided.
One thing that disturbs me is the new budget. Obama made a big deal about saying that the stimulus package contained no hidden items and no earmarks. In his address to Congress he said that next year’s budget would contain no earmarks (a promise). But what about this year’s budget? From what I hear, it contains some 8,700 earmarks (both Democrat and Republican).
How can I take him seriously about earmarks for next year, or about his talk of cutting the deficit, when he allows this sort of irresponsible behavior now? Wouldn;t he score a lot of points by telling the Congress to shove their earmarks?
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 1:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
IMO-this years budget was mostly constructed during Bush’s admin. Budget call is usually 1 Oct. I’m not justifying Obama’s reluctance to weed out the pork, but the fight that would probably ensure over pork already promised may not be worth it. If he holds up the budget, that feeds into the recession and he is seen as contradictory and an obstructionist to recovery. Let’s see if he makes good on next year.
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 2:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-If I understand you correctly on the mouse thing , then it would actually be the State of California choosing to utilize some of it’s stimulus for that project.
Scott-I agree, but putting one in a more needed area would still create jobs and not give Obama’s opposition such good sound bites.
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 2:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is true that the budget was Bush’s budget. But the Congress just raised the spending of that budget by 8%.
The issue of earmarks is not so much the total money amount they represent. It’s, in my opinion, a matter of discipline and integrity. It’s also a matter of transparency, another issue that Obama is touting.
I just wish that Obama would show some spine when it comes to the Congress, with both Democrats and Republicans.
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 2:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I would never say a budget is a president’s or a congress’s-it takes both to dance. And you are so right about appearances. the value of the earmarks is actually pretty insignificant. Let’s give him a chance to show spine-it’s critical that he pick his battles wisely-this years budget may be one he doesn’t want to take on. I’ve never really read a bill before, but the built in over site of the recovery act is pretty impressive. I’m not real impressed with the web site yet, but maybe it will get better as time goes on. At least there is a web site. that’s a start.
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
When FDR took office in March of 1933, unemployment stood at 25% and the economy was reeling. The stock market bottomed when FDR took office, so did the economy, well before any of the New Deal programs were enacted. Why? Because FDR gave hope to the people. They trusted him. They listened to his fireside chats with full attention.
I was hoping the same would happen when Obama took office. Instead, we’ve seen the market continue to fall with nothing but negative reaction to each program announced so far.
Roosevelt said “all we have to fear is fear itself”. That is so true. A lack of confidence in the future is scaring people and keeping them from spending. The continuing fall in the stock market, and retirement accounts, is the clearest sign people have about the future expectations for the economy.
Let’s hope Obama begins to provide the sort of confidence that FDR did. And soon.
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 2:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You understand the markets way better than I do, but could it be that they are not responding because Obama’s programs don’t give them what they want? I’m am not versed enough to know what they want, but could it be more unfettered money? Less regulation? More socialized risk? I’m just guessing, but with my (and the average Americans) lack of trust in the people that run banks and the markets, I tend to think it’s a good thing they don’t like what he’s doing. It may have bad short term results, but they have already demonstrated their lack of concern for the American people and the economy. Just a thought. ( I also want my 750 bil back)
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 3:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The stock market reflects the future expectations for the economy. It is a leading economic indicator.
Economists speak of the “wealth effect” which refers to the reaction of consumers to their percieved wealth. Most folks around today have never experienced the sort of decline in wealth that they are seeing now. It is a combination of the drop in the value of their homes and the value of their invested assets (i.e. retirement accounts).
Consumers can’t easily determine the daily change in the value of their homes. But they can see the daily change in the value of their retirement accounts. That is where the stock market comes in with regard to consumer confidence.
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 3:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Keep in mind the difference in the culture between 1933 and now. Today, the average person has access to a vastly larger amount of information. Coupled with a media (both liberal and conservative) whose unwritten slogan is “if it bleeds, it leads” and I’m not surprised the market slips so easily.
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 4:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I recently listened to a replay of FDR’s first fireside chat. It took place within days of his taking office and followed his decision to declare a bank holiday, which closed all of the banks.
He went on to explain, in language that anyone could understand, what the problem was with the banks and how the government was going to fix it. It was not a blame speech. It was not a political speech. It did not talk of how things could get a lot worse. It gave people hope. It inspired confidence. And the economy began to turn.
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 4:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog,
I agree, but FDR wasn’t contending with today’s media, either. Perhaps I’m just jaded, but the media today seems more interested in ratings than the actual news, and good news doesn’t sell headlines as well as bad news does.
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 4:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I don’t know how much different the media’s negativity was in FDR’s time compared to today. I believe, however, that, in my lifteime, there has never been more adoration by the media, to a president, than we have today.
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 5:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There’s really a chicken-egg question at work here. Which came first - the economy actually being in the tank or exaggerated campaign rhetoric? If one was paying attention and reading more than the mainstream media’s adoration of BO’s every breath, one couldn’t help but notice that, according to BO, the economy has been the “worst since the great depression” for a looooooong time. In fact, it was hammered that the economy was the “worst since the great depression” even before it was anywhere near “worse” than it was in the ’70s. In fact, if the economy really was the “worst since the great depression” when BO first started hammering those words, we’d ALL be living in the streets by now.
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 8:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-”the stock market reflects the future expectations for the economy.” Who’s expectations? My lack of confidence in banks and the stock market have nothing to do with Obama. The have to do with the past and present behavior of those in charge of them. The obscene bonuses, the refusal for any kind of accountability, the arrogance, the refusal to accept responsibility and on and on. I really am curious as to who’s expectations the market basis it’s activity on. Is it the negativity of those like JMH? The optimism of Obama? It reminds me of the gas price jump-”it’s demand” it’s supply” no-it’s a few people manipulating the price to make a lot of money off you and me. It’s amazing that the world economy tanks and all of a sudden gas prices come waaaay down-even OPEC doesn’t alter production enough to raise the price significantly. The drop in demand and the minor added supply does not explain a drop from $4+ to $1.65.
JMH-I know-it’s Obama’s fault-It’s also his fault that it was cloudy today, that I didn’t shoot par the other day and that my wife forgot valentine’s day after 32 yrs of marriage. Did I miss anything?? What we need is some good Republicans from Louisiana and Alaska-they would solve it in a week and I would go to a 0 handicap-works for me
Posted February 26th, 2009 at 8:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-sorry-forgot something . With your knowledge of history and FDR-is there any truth to the story that FDR demanded no one in the media speak our against him? I check it in the few places I know of and couldn’t find anything.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 12:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“I believe, however, that, in my lifteime, there has never been more adoration by the media, to a president, than we have today.”
bullish,
Are you sure you are not mistaking confidence and admiration for “adoration”? President Obama is smart, articulate, and tough. I do not adore him but I admire him and I am damned proud of him. I am proud that he is the spokesperson for my country. I have not been able to say that in a long time.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 8:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
DC, you and others who share your political beliefs, have been waiting a long time for a president who shares your views. That goes for the majority of the media as well. Maybe adoration is not the best word to use, but you know what I mean. I have never seen so much happiness and good humor among the questioners at his news conferences.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 8:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are right about that, bullish. We are very encouraged, but time will tell if he lives up to our hopes for him. In the meantime, we can all enjoy the political discourse that will inevitably continue apace.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 8:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sky:
“I really am curious as to who’s expectations the market basis it’s activity on.”
It is the expectation of the investment community. That includes anyone who has money invested in the markets. It includes both Democrats and Republicans. It includes both the extremely rich and the not so rich. It includes folks who contribute to their 401-K every paycheck who are deciding that the economy stinks, that the stock market stinks, and that the future is grim, and they choose to put their money in a cash instrument (like a money market) rather than stocks. That lack of demand for stocks drives prices down.
And that is not just happening in this country. Stock markets across the world are plunging too.
It is a reflection of confidence, or, rather, a lack of confidence in the future of the global economy. The decline over the last few months are a vote on what investors think of government’s plans to combat the crisis.
“It’s amazing that the world economy tanks and all of a sudden gas prices come waaaay down-even OPEC doesn’t alter production enough to raise the price significantly. The drop in demand and the minor added supply does not explain a drop from $4+ to $1.65.”
Well, the price went way above where it should have gone. It was driven, in my opinion, by excessive speculation based on the belief that we were on the verge of running out. Now, with demand being reduced by the recession, inventories are piling up and that has driven prices down to about where they should be. OPEC has, indeed, cut back and we may be looking at relative stability in prices over the near term.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 8:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
sky: “is there any truth to the story that FDR demanded no one in the media speak our against him?”
I have never heard that.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 8:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-could that not be a good sign. Even Bush supporters have to admit the last 8 yrs have been rough for the nation-whether one “blames” Bush or not. I little happiness and humor is refreshing. Also, would you pls take the time to address post 16 and 17. I really do respect you opinion and would like to read your slant on those post. Lastly, if the press is showing happiness and humor, how does this resolve with you stating Obama is failing to inspire confidence. I understand they are not the same things, but one usually is an expression of the other. (happiness/confidence) I will continue to challenge the idea that the press is overly liberal. Fox News #1 in cable, Rush #1 on talk, 700 club and it’s spin off, Wall Street Journal, William Crystal, and on and on. Is it because the majority don’t carry conservative views that proves the majority of the media must be liberal?
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 8:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-sorry your post were not on when I wrote the above.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-You response confirms for me that the market is not hearing what they want, therefore they are continuing to go down. Not Obama’s fault. It’s the “markets” fault for being dishonest and greedy. I respectfully disagree that it’s the investors lack of confidence in the gov’t response. I think it’s more I’m not going to trust those running the markets. It’s like someone breaks into my house, takes half of my belongings, and then ask me to trust them with the key to my house and the rest of my belongings. No! Wall street/Banks needs a major shake up and some people need to be held accountable. Maybe we need some new financial institutions with new faces-people that will be honest and a lot less greedy.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 9:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
sky: “if the press is showing happiness and humor, how does this resolve with you stating Obama is failing to inspire confidence. I understand they are not the same things, but one usually is an expression of the other. (happiness/confidence)”
Well, because the press likes him, it gives Obama the opportunity to get his political agenda across without excessive media criticism. But if his agenda, as it applies to the economy, does not inspire confidence among investors, then the spirits he lifted during his campaign will erode. And I am concerned that that erosion is being reflected in the market’s decline.
“I will continue to challenge the idea that the press is overly liberal. Fox News #1 in cable, Rush #1 on talk, 700 club and it’s spin off, Wall Street Journal, William Crystal, and on and on.”
Well, I think you pretty much covered most of the conservative leaning media. Fox is #1 because the half of the country that is not liberal has only that one cable network that leans its way. You, on the other hand, have a wide choice of options.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 9:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sky: “Not Obama’s fault. It’s the “markets” fault for being dishonest and greedy.”
The “markets” are individuals like you and me. I am not dishonest. I know a lot of invetors. None of them, as far as I know, are dishonest.
Are there dishonest folks investing in the market? Of course. But they are a tiny minority.
Most folks with a 401-K, or an IRA, have a choice to make as to where to invest their money. When they are confident in the future of the economy they direct more of their contributions towards stocks. When they are not, they sell some or all of what they have invested in the market and put it in bonds or cash. When they do that, the stock market falls.
This is not a matter of fearing or not fearing stock market crooks. If , as you believe, crooks run the market, then they are there when stocks are rising and when they are falling.
It is a lack of CONFIDENCE in the future, not the fear of crooks, that is keeping investors away.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 9:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-w/o criticism? do you see his town halls? press conferences? Fox News? Rush? Wall Street Journal and all other Murdock owned media. Let’s even go with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I really think Obama is taking his fair share of shots. I would also include CNN on the conservative side and the Fox network is a lot bigger than Fox News. Pls don’t think I’m supportive of the media-they’re all pretty worthless to me, (except maybe Stewart and Colbert) it’s just the conservative mantra of blaming the media that gets to me.
I do find it fascinating that we see the world so differently-thanks for the shift in paradigm.
We will never agree on the market issue-for myself, I will not trust crooks-get rid of the crooks, then we’ll talk. Nothing Obama or anyone else says will change that. i wonder how much of middle America agrees with me?
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 9:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-it was the dishonesty of the people controlling the markets, not the people like you and others. You and the other investors had no say in what Wall Street and the Banks did. If you had, there is no way we would be in this situation. From what I have read from you, you have way too much integrity to approve of such morally wrong activities, and I think this is true of most Americans.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 9:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
sky, the issue of the stock market is critical.
If stocks keep falling, retirement accounts will too. As that heppens, the wealth of most folks shrinks. That causes people to reduce their spending. That, in turns, causes business sales to drop, leading to lost jobs, leading to more foreclosures, leading to less spending, and so on. It is a downward spiral.
The clearest, most up to the minute indication, that the economic situation is improving or worsening, is the action of the stock market. I may not be able to convince you of that, but I am convinced.
When the Treasury announced its plan a couple of weeks ago, for addressing the bank problem, they gave few specifics. Investors were very disappointed and stocks dropped sharply. Obama responded that the stock market was looking for an easy fix. WRONG ANSWER.
When Clinton first took office he was told by his advisors that it was critical that whatever agenda he proposed was taken positively by the bond market. That is because it was critical at that time, for the sake of the economy, that interest rates not rise. He followed that advice.
Obama would be well served to understand that the stock market is voting on his agenda every day. And, as I stated earlier, investors are not all Republicans. There are as many Democrats as Republicans on Wall Street and in the investment community.
For FDR, the investment comunity voted thumbs up. For Obama, so far, it’s thumbs down. I did not vote for Obama, but I sure want my thumb to turn up.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 10:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-I’ve said many times there isn’t really a whole lot of difference between Dems and Repubs when it comes to the wealthy. I don’t see the economy as a party issue, I see it as a have/have not issue. Be that as it may, I am voicing what I think is a common opinion of America. i don’t understand the market (as most people don’t), but i do understand people. People trusted, had that trust violated, and are now reluctant to trust. Instead of asking Obama to inspire trust, why don’t the people that were in charge (and those that are still in charge) of the firms that are responsible for the melt down go to the media and explain to the American people why they should be trusted? Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, etc-they are the ones responsible for the lack of confidence in the market, let them convince the American people to reinvest.
I’m not sure the FDR comparison is legit. different world. Doesn’t matter-comparing Obama to FDR won’t solve anything.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 10:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, etc-they are the ones responsible for the lack of confidence in the market, let them convince the American people to reinvest.”
Lehman Brothers no longer exists. Its owners (investors) have been wiped out.
Merrill Lynch no longer exists as an independent company.
Bank of America is on life support. Its shareholders have lost nearly all of their investment.
Sky, you have any money in the market? If not, where are your savings?
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 11:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I understand the present status of these firms, they were examples only, but you get the idea. Again, I am not referring to the investors-they, in general, are the victims (altho willing). It’s the ones that got bonuses from bailout money, the ones that devised the schemes, the raters, the golden parachutes, etc. Altho I respect your opinion, I don’t understand your defense of these people. They knowingly and with intent defrauded the world. They violated the trust that was placed in them and need to make amends. Why do you not insist upon this along with monetary reimbursement.
I have my cash assets in a bank-FDIC is the only reason it’s there. If it weren’t for that, it would be buried in my back yard. My other investments (except for my wife’s 401k from work-she doe not make contributions) are not of a cash/stock variety. I never have trusted those in charge of the market and the recent events justify that lack of trust. Listening to the talking heads, nobody has made a dime the last 11 years or so. (the market dropped to a low not seen in 11 yrs, thus all profits are wiped out-per the talking heads, anyway)
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 11:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sky, where have I defended anybody?
Most of the greedy bastards that contributed to this mess have been punished by the loss of wealth they have experienced. They probably have not suffered enough. But you have to be careful when you use the word fraud. In the vast majority of cases, the greedy bastards did not break any laws.
But I am afraid I am not making my point with you.
My point is that the stock market reflects the economic environment and the expectations for the future of the economy. To deny that, sky, is to ignore history.
History plainly shows that the stock market falls during recessions and rises during expansions. It also shows that the stock market is a predictor (thought it is not infallible) of the future course of the economy.
The fact that the stock market has continued to go down, even after Obama has presented his agenda for recovery, shows a lack of confidence in his program. You may attribute that to crookery or whatever. That is your choice. But you cannot deny historical fact that as long as the stock market goes down, the outlook for economic recovery is negative.
And, coming full circle, that is why I brought up FDR. When he came into office he had the trust of the people. The market immediately began to rise, and so did the economy, following four years of recession and four years of a horrendous stock market.
In contrast, Obama has not inspired the same confidence in either the stock market or the economy.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-wrong word used (defend) sorry. It just seems that nobody (congress) is holding them accountable. You want bail out money? YOU go in front of the american people and explain to them how this happened and how YOU are going to use their money to fix it-in simple terms. When I stole some penny candy, my parents made me tell the owner of the store and made me pay for the candy. I guess I’m trying to use the same logic-bad idea, huh? Bad word again I guess (defraud). How about deceived knowingly and with intent. The stock market is important, but if we allow it to return to the same modi operandi, the same thing will happen in the future. speaking for myself, until I’m convinced the operandi has changed, my money stays our of the market.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 12:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
sky “How about deceived knowingly and with intent.”
I don’t know to whom you are referring when you say that. When a Lehman Brothers trader uses 30 to 1 leverage to purchase a mortgage backed security which turns out to be a bad investment, that trader has made a bad judgement. When the bad investments made by these traders causes Lehman Brothers to fail, it was not a result of fraud or deception. It was a result of bad judgement. When Lehman Brothers fails, and its obligations to other firms cannot be made, it is not the result of fraud or deception, it is the result of bad judgement.
Mistakes in judgement cannot be outlawed. The way to prevent this in the future is not to allow firms to leverage themselves to such an extent and to put regulations in place so that the failure of a firm like Lehman does not result in catastrophic failure across the entire financial system.
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 1:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BF-I’m out of my league, but I’ll try. When a mortgage lender gives a loan using unverified and/or known false data, that is deceit. When a rating firm “Moody’s” doesn’t questions bundled securities it’s people admit they didn’t understand and gives them an AAA rating because if they don’t , someone else will, that is deceit (House of cards program). When a “salesman” representing a bank or a brokerage sells these bundled securities presenting them as little to no risk without knowing that is what they are, it is deceit. Plausible deniability doesn’t work. Choosing to not know something I should know does not relieve me of culpability. I agree with your solution and that there probably wasn’t any law broken. Shame on our law (or lack thereof) Where does human responsibility come in? Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. On House of cards they admitted that some things just didn’t seem right. BS-If they didn’t know their industry better than that, maybe they shouldn’t have been in it. I truly believe that most of the players knew exactly what they were doing and were hoping to get rich and get out before it all came tumbling down-and a lot of them did.
You never addressed them getting up in front of the nation and convincing the nation to invest in the market-thoughts?
Posted February 27th, 2009 at 1:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sky:
“When a mortgage lender gives a loan using unverified and/or known false data, that is deceit.”
Let’s say it is. How does that negate my argument that stock market direction is a reflection of the economy?
“When a rating firm “Moody’s” doesn’t questions bundled securities it’s people admit they didn’t understand and gives them an AAA rating because if they don’t , someone else will, that is deceit”
Let’s say it is, how does that negate my argument that the stock market direction is a reflection of the economy?
“When a “salesman” representing a bank or a brokerage sells these bundled securities presenting them as little to no risk without knowing that is what they are, it is deceit.”
I can guarantee you that when a broker sells a bundled security he looks at the credit agency rating and does little beyond that. He is not knowledgeable enough to know whether the rating is accurate or not. So no deceit there.
Did these bad practices help lead to a recession? YES! But that is not an indictment of the stock market.
I think what you are doing is lumping bad business practices and bad judgement by certain people and certain companies in the financial sector as an indictment of the stock market as a whole. Companies like J&J, Procter and Gamble, Home Depot, McDonalds, Caterpillar, Alcoa, etc., etc,. etc., have nothing to do with the mortgage/housing problem. Their stocks are on the stock exchange. Their movements up and down reflect the state of the economy and its expected future course. And that is what I’m talking about.
Obama’s job is not to convince people to invest in the stock market. Obama’s job is to produce the plan that will get us out of recession as quickly as possible. The investment community does not, as of now, believe he has. And that is why the stock market keeps falling.
And with that. my friend, I wish you a good week end. I’m headed out of town.
Posted February 28th, 2009 at 2:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So what have we learned in the last 2 millennia???
“The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.” - Cicero - 55 BC
Evidently nothing…
Posted February 28th, 2009 at 4:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
publiusco: “So what have we learned in the last 2 millennia???”
As evidenced by what we most often see, even in this forum, not a heck of a lot. Oh, we see enough misused and self-serving quotes, but knowing and understanding of history, absolutely nothing.
Instead of just using quotes, many would do well to first determine what the originator was referring to, and how it came to be used, when he/she formulated that quote. Using one without first doing so is being rather pretentious at best.
Posted February 28th, 2009 at 7:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Instead of just using quotes, many would do well to first determine what the originator was referring to, and how it came to be used, when he/she formulated that quote.”
RL - care to enlighten the peasants? You go first.
Posted February 28th, 2009 at 8:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitress,
Being not as oh so wise and smart as you I can’t figure out if you are trying to slam what I said or if you support the statement I made. Perhaps the individual would care to be more direct? I know you think I as well as many others posting herea are beneath you RLaitres but I have studied ancient Roman history. I know the underlying history of Rome that led the Roman philosopher and politician Cicero to make the above quote. Perhaps the individual could see a little beyond the quote and see the parallels between the fall of the Roman Empire and our society. My point was by quoting what Cicero said might inspire some to go read for themselves the history Rome and why it fell. As you can see now I was not pretentious RLaitres. You just seem to look for any opportunity to discredit anyone here and make yolurself look better. That is a sure sign of weakness or insecurity in my book and I bet others would agree with that observation. However, please enlighten us peasants further though oh great one.
Posted March 1st, 2009 at 11:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ignoring publiusco’s sarcasm, he having taken the criticism personally we might ask him whom, in any society, what and who causes revolutions and upheavals in society, and why?
If he has read history, both ancient and modern, he would know that it is caused, not by the “have nots” but by the “haves.” This is best exemplified in the words of Marie Antoinette “Let them eat cake.”
The lesson is that it is the “haves” that construct their own gallows, guillotine, and assemble their own firing squads. That was true in Greece as well as Rome. It was true in the French Revolution, the Russan Revolution, in China, why Fascism was succesful in Germany, and even true about Cuba and Castro. It is the abuses of the “haves” that cause revolutions. It is the philosophy of “me-ism”, found in the “haves.”
In this country today, that is not to be found in the philosophy of the “liberals”, but in those who call themselves “conservative”, and in particular that of the Libertarians and thbe libertarian wing of the Republican Party. The foundation of that is all I have to look out for, is “me”, and that “The world revolves around me.”
So, if publiusco wishes to use a quote from ancient times as a “pointer”, he might wish to first take care as to whether he is pointing in the right direction, and at the proper party. And, judging from past posts, some of us believe that he may be referring to a symptom rather than a cause.
Posted March 1st, 2009 at 11:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, good point, well made.
Posted March 1st, 2009 at 3:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Today’s US economic disaster is much more complex than historic examples of class warfare. For one thing, the US is not as sharply divided into “haves and “have nots”. Using that paradigm, then the usual Washington power elite should all be viewed as the “haves”. And while there is no doubt there are greedy corrupt “haves” in big business, there are just as many power hungry “haves” in big government. We also have a large middle class that directly benefits (or not) from the success (or failure) of the “haves” in big and small business (employment, 401Ks, retirement investments). Then a smaller economic “lower class” that already benefits from big government.
What we’re actually seeing is the power hungry “haves” in big government waging war with the greedy “haves” in big business. If there’s an upcoming “revolution”, it’s being stoked by monetarily secure “haves” in big government who seem more than willing to shoot the true middle class in the foot just to spite other monetarily secure “haves”.
It’s easy to be an idealist with other people’s money…..as long as you’ve got enough to lose…..or nothing to lose. So, imo, it’s the true middle class that should rise up in protest.
Posted March 1st, 2009 at 5:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “Today’s US economic disaster is much more complex than historic examples of class warfare.”
The substantive issue is not the “US economic disaster” or the “world-wide” economic downturn. Those are merely the consequences of what is. And that is what people “think” and thereby how they act. We should not look for parallels in either dates, personalities or events. Where one needs to look at the “ideas” that domintate at the time, what were the consequences, and why.
When George Santayana spoke of the repetition of history, that is what he was speaking of. It is an absence of “memory” such that the same “ideas” keep showing up over and over again. It is the same old ideas that get resurrected, dusted off, rewrapped, and “sold” all over again. Each generation (or groups of generations), over and over again, have believed, either that have discovered something “new” or that they will have different results with those same beliefs, that they are better than the previous generations and would NEVER allow what happened to others happen to them. Time and time again, in fact every time, those have proven to be false assumptions and beliefs.
History is the memory of humanity and performs the same function on the macro scale that personal memory serves in the individual. And, for those who might claim that history does not matter, let them try to live their lives with only that knowledge they have acquired during the last thirty seconds. Unless they are hiding in a corner or under the bed, not moving, they will not long survive. The same thing applies at the macro level, with civilizations, countries, empires, etc.
Posted March 1st, 2009 at 10:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres: “Each generation (or groups of generations), over and over again, have believed, either that have discovered something “new” or that they will have different results with those same beliefs, that they are better than the previous generations and would NEVER allow what happened to others happen to them.”
For anyone who might want a specific recitation of how this statement by RLaitres applies to our current economic meltdown, the book “A Short History of Financial Euphoria” by John Kenneth Galbraith explains it all – it has all come to be so predictable (including our surprise that it has happened again) that I’ve almost come to believe that we are hard-wired to not learn.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.