Posted 4 months, 13 days ago in 
Loading ...
Western Slope businesses have more than enough reasons to be concerned about the economic environment that the Democrats and the Ritter administration have lead us into. In the June 24 edition of The Daily Sentinel, Emily Anderson described how the economy is affecting individual business owners. Here are a few more startling statistics from our area:
· 8.09 percent unemployment rate in Mesa County.
· 81.9 percent decrease in state oil and gas severance revenue.
· 75 percent decrease in drill rig activity on the Western Slope.
· 84 percent increase in home mortgage foreclosures in our county.
· A hyperbolic drop from 10th to 35th in personal income for Colorado families.
· $384 million state budge deficit.
· Tax and fee increase of almost a billion dollars during the last legislative session
A strong argument can be made that the tax and fee free-for-all points to one very bold fact: state government does not get it. Colorado will be successful only when Colorado businesses are successful. That means all Colorado businesses, not just those that are in vogue with the Ritter administration.
Colorado needs strong fiscal discipline, live within its means, cut its budget like every other business in this state. Most of all, state government has to come to terms with the fact that government exists to help Colorado businesses and citizens be successful. We are a free people that has a government, not the other way around.
We find ourselves in a time when Milton Friedman’s words in his book “Free to Choose” have never been more true: “Political leaders in capitalist countries who cheer the collapse of socialism in other
countries continue to favor socialist solutions in their own. They know the words, but they have not learned the tune.”
Let’s learn the tune. We can start by repealing the onerous Business Personal Property Tax.
REP. STEVE KING
House District 54
Grand Junction
20 Responses to “Dems have lead us into unstable economic environment”
Posted June 26th, 2009 at 6:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Dems have lead us into unstable economic environment”
Is that something they learned from the Republicans? How can you with a straight face blame the current conditions on the Democrats. They all sprang from the miss management by Republicans at the national level and percolated down to Mesa county. I did not hear any such charges when they were happening and brought on this downturn. And this is not happening just in Mesa county or had you not noticed what is happening throughout the nation?
Why is it always the “OTHER GUYS”? Lets be honest in assigning blame or is it off the table to criticise our party’s performance? I say this as a former life long Republican.
Posted June 26th, 2009 at 6:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Steve King: “Most of all, state government has to come to terms with the fact that government exists to help Colorado businesses and citizens be successful.”
Mr. King, although a state representative (a clear example of someone elevated beyond his level of competence) constantly mangages to display his real allegiance, to busniness first and, just as long as there is something left over, the people. That is seen in the sequence in which he prioritizes in the above statement. Following his set of priorities,one could conclude that people exist to serve business (an artificially created “person”) and that they not only have a right to be profitable but are actually entitled to their profits. The individual only exists to serve. Strange how some individuals who claim to be “leaders” or want to hold “leadership positions” consistently prove to us that they have neither the knowledge, experience, or courage to be there.
As to the “Dems” having cause this fiscal mess, I would agree with seabeeWWII (the above poster). That attempt to blame the Democrats make no sense at all. All that is is nothing more than an attempt for some Republicans (notice I said some) to deny responsibility for their disastrous policies. We should expect more of that same rhetoric, we have come to expect it.
Posted June 26th, 2009 at 7:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You certainly cannot blame it on the republicans. Where you can put the blame though is on “CONGRESS”.
Posted June 26th, 2009 at 7:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall: “Where you can put the blame though is on “CONGRESS”.”
And who has been in charge in the Congress for most of the last decade? With their party having total control over both Houses of the Congress, and the Executive, for six of those years. Careful now, answer truthfully. those of us with “no memory” recall that little tidbit quite accurately. We are not all afflicted with conveniently selective memories.
Posted June 26th, 2009 at 8:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
during the six years that the repubs were in control i never saw any demos voting against any of those plans, so the blame should be put on the politicians be they either an elephant or an ass.
Posted June 27th, 2009 at 5:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Anyone denying that the blame should be on both parties and especially the incumbants in congress may be too old or naive to be posting here.
Posted June 27th, 2009 at 10:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s obvious that both parties have gotten us where we are.
Posted June 27th, 2009 at 10:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And that they are both different shades of socialist/fascists
Posted June 28th, 2009 at 10:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
david_cox: “And that they are both different shades of socialist/fascists”
And here, we see the very essence of a problem encountered in any attempt to discuss issues rationally. It is that far too many individuals do not understand the meaning of most of the terms they use, using instead what they “believe” them to mean.
The poster apparently has absolutely no concept of what the terms “socialist” or “fascist” mean. Socialism is but an alternateve economic theory which, like capitalism, is neither good nor bad, but merely another theory. Fascism, on the other hand, is an emotional populist movement (based on such things as delusions of national grandeur, or racism. It has absolutely nothing to do with economics, save as economics being used as just another tool to advance the objective of fascists.
One thing to remember when using a term is not only to make sure that one understands its correct meaning. Failing to do so may result in the individual becoming exactly what he would decry.
When looking at the statements of some, such as: “I fought fascism”, “I fought communism” and even “I fought socialism”, what they fail to realize (not understanding the terms) is that they were not “fighting” the “isms” themselves, they were fighting the armies of totalitarian regimes, whatever they claimed to use as the basis of their power. “Isms” are not physical, they are intellectual. As such, that is where they must be addressed. That cannot be done in the physical world.
Posted June 28th, 2009 at 12:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres: “And here, we see the very essence of a problem encountered in any attempt to discuss issues rationally. It is that far too many individuals do not understand the meaning of most of the terms they use, using instead what they “believe” them to mean. The poster apparently has absolutely no concept of what the terms “socialist” or “fascist” mean.”
For those who are new to this site, you should know, that if you ever use a term like socialism, communism, liberalism, or fascism, Laitres will automatically counter with a post like the paragraph shown above. He will automatically consider you to be ignorant.
In the past, when Laitres has been questioned as to how HE defines any of these terms, he has run away from the thread, thus avoiding the question, or he has directed the questioner to one of his books. But he has always refused to answer the question.
Today, however, he provides some insight into his understanding of the term socialism:
“Socialism is but an alternateve economic theory which, like capitalism, is neither good nor bad, but merely another theory.”
That, apparently is the totality of the understanding that Laitres has of the term socialism. Anyone reading his definition can rightfully conclude that he is, at a minimum, as clueless as those he accuses of ignorance.
Laitres: “When looking at the statements of some, such as: “I fought fascism”, “I fought communism” and even “I fought socialism”, what they fail to realize (not understanding the terms) is that they were not “fighting” the “isms” themselves, they were fighting the armies of totalitarian regimes, whatever they claimed to use as the basis of their power. “Isms” are not physical, they are intellectual. As such, that is where they must be addressed. That cannot be done in the physical world.”
Laitres is dead wrong. “Fighting” does not necessarily require the use of physical actions. One can “fight” using words. One can “fight” through peaceful demonstration. The South was not defeated in the fight against racism by defeating an army. The Iranians were fighting totalitarianism through peaceful demonstrations.
Maybe Laitres ought to go pull out his dictionary and check on word definitions before he accuses others of what he himself does not understand.
Posted June 28th, 2009 at 5:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres, Socialism is community, ie group, control of production/capital coupled with democratically elected heads. Fascism, in terms of economics, is a government/corporate/industrial partnership. Also, all words evolve over time and if I use them in a slightly different way than you it doesn’t mean your usage is any more correct than mine.
Posted June 28th, 2009 at 5:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
you use technicality as a tool to discredit opinions and ideas that are contrary to your own. a typical tactic of a true “conservative” who wishes to conserve and continue a socialist system that has overtaken the original free market that this country was founded under and has been responsible for the mass success we have experienced. i suspect that your idealism centered around government interference and coercion is motivated by your own feelings of inability to make a difference as an individual and therefore you run to the collective. too bad for you, your position is fearful and weak.
Posted June 28th, 2009 at 5:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
the goodness or badness of a theory is determined by it’s results on humanity. socialism, ie communism, has been an abject failure in terms of human suffering or rather it’s goals of lifting humanity to a higher state of being. therefore, it is bad. capitalism, or the free market, is good because it has been dominant during a wholly unprecedented rise in living standards. plus it has been thoughtfully explained by such economic giants as hayek and mises. socialism is a third graders best idea for saving the world. sounds great while it’s blurted out but upon second reflection doesn’t add up.
Posted June 28th, 2009 at 5:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
that third grader being the debauched, drunken jackass marx and his thoughtful servant engles
Posted June 28th, 2009 at 7:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
david_cox: “you use technicality as a tool to discredit opinions and ideas that are contrary to your own.”
The correct defintion of terms is NOT a technality. It is essential for effective communication. So, those who first introduce a term in a discourse, should be the first to define it, and tell us exactly what they mean.
david_cox: “capitalism, or the free market, is good because it has been dominant during a wholly unprecedented rise in living standards.”
And, that depends upon what type of “capitalism” you are speaking of, something that our libertarian type thinkers fail to recognize or accept. What Mr. Cox and others fail to realize is that the economic systems that led to serfdom, peasantry and slavery were also “capitalistic” all with disastrous results. So it is important to define that also.
Today, what the libertarians have been promoting is not the type of capitalism that has led to progress or advancement, but one that is measured only by how much one can “accumulate” not what or how much one can be “create.”
So, be careful when you use the terms around people, especially when presenting some value judgment, based upon what was, as opposed to what is.
Posted June 29th, 2009 at 6:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, as is habitually the case, Laitres uses post #11 to say nothing. He once again uses diversion tactics to evade answering simple questions. After accusing others of not understanding what they mean by any given “ism”, he refuses to provide his own explanation.
He once again displays his own ignorance.
Furthermore, in post #9, he states the following: “When looking at the statements of some, such as: “I fought fascism”, “I fought communism” and even “I fought socialism”, what they fail to realize (not understanding the terms) is that they were not “fighting” the “isms” themselves, they were fighting the armies of totalitarian regimes, whatever they claimed to use as the basis of their power. “Isms” are not physical, they are intellectual. As such, that is where they must be addressed. That cannot be done in the physical world.”
When in my post #10 it is explanined why he is wrong in this statement, he chooses not to respond. So, as is usually the case, he runs away when challenged.
Laitres keeps comming to this site to attack any poster who disagrees with his leftist philospophy and posts the same old tired anti-free market talking points.
His attacks are void of specifics and seldom address the subject matter. He refuses to enagage in substantive discussions and his posts are meanigless psychobabble that do nothing but take up space.
We keep losing posters on this site, of the liberal persuasion, who are willing to engage in discussion in a thoughtful and respectful manner. That’s too bad. Those of us on the other side would like to be challenged. Laitres poses no challenge.
Posted June 29th, 2009 at 8:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
lol
Posted June 29th, 2009 at 9:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“We keep losing posters on this site, of the liberal persuasion, who are willing to engage in discussion in a thoughtful and respectful manner.”
We keep losing posters of the “liberal” persuasion because they have come to the conclusion that it is a waste of time. What they all too frequently encounter are individuals who do not want to discuss but argue. And that definitely is a waste of time.
What “liberals” see and encounter are individuals with a totally different set of values based upon nothing less than a self-centric existence, where everything is measured by the following: Me, my, mine, here, and now. A philosphy based upon self-gratification.
The basis of that is they have a very parochial view of the world. Others, on the other hand, have a much more catholic one. The latter, when they approach a question or issue, and in their discussion of specifics, they insist upon putting it in a context beyond themselves or what they can personally “get” from it. And, unless that is done, any further discussion on a particular subject is not only pointless but counter productive.
What this individual finds particularly interesting is that the opposition to what is termed “liberal” thinking or liberals, comes from those who, for whatever reason, are afraid of books and new ideas. Referring to a book appears to be a cardinal offense or, perhaps they are much too accustomed to using Cliff’s Notes as their sole source of information, either that or their ear is glued to the radio, being bombarded by such as Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, O’Reily…, where the constant mantra is nothing but “It’s their fault”, and never, “It’s mine.”
Posted June 29th, 2009 at 9:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, in post 19 Laitres continues to make my point.
First, he repeats, for the umpteenth time, the same old talking point that he uses to characterize anyone who is not of the left wing:
Laitres: “individuals with a totally different set of values based upon nothing less than a self-centric existence, where everything is measured by the following: Me, my, mine, here, and now. A philosphy based upon self-gratification.”
Then he accuses others of doing what he, pretty much alone, does on this site:
Laitres: “We keep losing posters of the “liberal” persuasion because they have come to the conclusion that it is a waste of time. What they all too frequently encounter are individuals who do not want to discuss but argue. And that definitely is a waste of time.”
And, of course, Laitres seldom, if ever, will get involved in a factual discussion. All one needs to do is look at the bottom of his post #9, where he makes a statment reagrding the use of the word “fight”. When challenged by me in post #10, he has no response. This is typical. When challenged, he runs.
And then, given that he never takes a position on factual matters, for fear that he will be challenged, he, instead refers posters to books. Like he does here:
“What this individual finds particularly interesting is that the opposition to what is termed “liberal” thinking or liberals, comes from those who, for whatever reason, are afraid of books and new ideas. Referring to a book appears to be a cardinal offense or, perhaps they are much too accustomed to using Cliff’s Notes as their sole source of information, either that or their ear is glued to the radio, being bombarded by such as Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, O’Reily…, where the constant mantra is nothing but “It’s their fault”, and never, “It’s mine.””
Laitres will NEVER, EVER, give us his interpretation, or understanding, of what his referred sources say. Again, he is afraid to take a position. Somehow this man believes that posters come to this site because they have an interest in his reading list.
Perhaps posters here would take his reading list seriously if they had an inkling that he understands what he reads.
Posted July 3rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You’re absolutely right, bullish. When someone can do no more than analyze the character or personal background of those he disagrees with, it becomes clear that he either has no opinion of his own or is afraid to share it for fear of being challenged. I don’t know about anyone else, but I learned back in Elementary School that to build oneself up by tearing others down only makes one’s own ‘argument’ look weak.
If Liberalism is supposed to be about tolerance and diversity of opinion, we have some pretty poor examples here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.