Michael wrote:

When I post something like that I can always count on my good buddy Doug to
set it straight. I get the fun and he gets the credit.

What credit do I get?

Together we
actually get somewhere instead of the usual round and round and round of
nothing. Actually while The Great Society was well meant and set us on the
right track I'd have to say the Education portion was, and for that matter
still is, a dismal failure.

Speaking for yourself?




May be dim and twisted but the New Deal did not
result in more jobs.

Ahem... back to this old favorite lie again? Did you look at *any* of the
references I posted last time? Do you keep repeating this because you enjoy
getting laughed at?


WWII and the runup to it resulted in, and created far
more jobs (for a while).

Now there I agree. Nothing like a war to get the economy jump-started. I wonder
if anybody in DC realizes it's not working too well in the current case, at
least not for most people.

And congrats on the article. I don't read Latts & Atts but will look for your
byline.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:58:32 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:
Now for the good news!

The evil wand has waved and the call of work beckons once again. 24th I fly
out to the next ship. Make some money. Spend it on my boat. Hey! It's
only a "trickle" comparatively
but it's keeping one nautical business from going 'down'.

Have a good trip Michael.

You just got to do your best.

Now for the better than good news. There will be something in the not so
distant future for you all to discuss, and chew into pieces. I just found
out my first magazine article was not only accepted by Lats and Atts but is
slated for the May issue . . .barring changes.

From one side of it only Rick will know of what I speak. But form the other
. . .ouch, ouch, ouch . ..brickbats etc.

Michael


Congrats on your article.
Mark E. Williams

Thanks! Here's the sites you want to visit. www.dol.gov with emphasis on
the statistics. Shows best employment rate at 1983 and a marked decline
from 1992 to 1998 roughly with a spike from there to 2000. The figures only
go back to 1948.

No conclusions drawn, draw your own.

Another good site for those of you who think we had balanced budgets or
surpluses is:

www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

You can check back a couple hundred years. But for recent years compare the
amount of surplus claimed with the increase in debt.

What I did notice was the rate of debt increase slowed in the 90's. I would
attribute this to the increased sale of US Gov't financial instruments use
to finance the annual shortfalls, which changed from long term low interest
to short term high interest.

Be interesting to see what happens when those come due.

Back to the safety of the ______ early next week. I fly half way round the
world and meet the new ship in my favorite port of ______. Did you know in
_____ you can be DVD movies (three on a disk sometimes) for as little as
$3.00 US? Time to stock up on a supply for the new sailboat! Would that
make me a real pirate?

________ by the way is located in the _______Gulf. Just in case you were
wondering.

M.

Thanks for the links.

Here is a brief comment-

Michael wrote:
What I did notice was the rate of debt increase slowed in the 90's. I would
attribute this to the increased sale of US Gov't financial instruments use
to finance the annual shortfalls

Sigh... another basic fact of economics wrong. When the Federal Reserve
sells financial instruments, (T-bills and T-bonds), the US debt does not
change. Those instruments have already been issued, the debt has already
been incurred. What changes is the money supply, often referred to as
M1, M2, or M3.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MoneySupply.html

Don't thank me, it's what I'm here for!

If you want to see some interesting economic facts that are not in any
public discussion I'm aware of, see

http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html




Be interesting to see what happens when those come due.

US debt has been coming due now for the past 200+ years. So far only
very little doubt about Uncle Sam honoring his debt obligations... but
it is certainly possible that we will see double digit inflation again.
That will be quite a shock to Gen-X and the younger crowd!

Regards
Doug King

DSK said:
which Republicans had very much push behind the
civil rights movement? I want names and specific acts & dates.

Dave wrote:
Here's a little history quiz for you, Doug.

When are you going to answer my questions?


Who was the first president since U.S. Grant to send federal troops to the
South to enforce integration?

Eisenhower... although it happened before I was born.


How many Republican senators voted against their minority leader, Ev
Dirksen, on final passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? How many
Democratic senators joined Senators Byrd, Ervin and Gore, Sr. in opposing
passage?

You could look it up.

You could, but the important facts are that Southern Democrats had a
rather mixed outlook on civil rights, and Republicans almost universally
opposed it. This is one big contributing factor in why the South
switched to a Republican majority in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

I remember quite well some of the race-baiting political speeches of
that era. However, it certainly not the sole property of the South. Many
northerners (and westerners and midwesterners) opposed civil rights, and
the worst riots were in the big cities outside the South.



Those were, of course, before the struggle for equal rights became a demand
for special privilege.

Like what?

When black Americans are allowed to own white Americans as slaves, and
this legal system is in place for 150-odd years, then things will be
equal. Short of that, WTF do you have to complain about?

DSK

Dave wrote:

Maybe the fact that my kid didn't get extra points tacked on to her college
applications because of the color of her skin?

Maybe your kid should have applied to one of those snooty schools that does not
allow minorities... you *are* rich enough to afford one, right?



I'm lucky--my kid didn't need the extra points. But there are a hell of a
lot of others who have good reason to be ****ed at systems like the one
maintained by most colleges and universities either explicitly or by a wink
and a nod both before and after the U of M decision.

Let's put it this way... it would be nice if the system could be colorblind.
However it would not be nice if some kids had zero chance of getting into
college, no matter how smart they are or how hard they study, because of their
race, religion, or socio-economic background. And that has been the case all
too often.

Why should you be PO'd at minorities & affirmative action, your kid could just
as easily have been crowded out by a Bush or Cheney offspring... being rich,
affable, and well connected trumps everything else... no matter how dumb that
person is.

DSK

And, you should have mentioned, being the kid of an alumni is taken into
consideration even at colleges like UofM. Things being what they are, most
of the alumni are white folks.
John Cairns
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Maybe the fact that my kid didn't get extra points tacked on to her
college
applications because of the color of her skin?

Maybe your kid should have applied to one of those snooty schools that
does not
allow minorities... you *are* rich enough to afford one, right?



I'm lucky--my kid didn't need the extra points. But there are a hell of
a
lot of others who have good reason to be ****ed at systems like the one
maintained by most colleges and universities either explicitly or by a
wink
and a nod both before and after the U of M decision.

Let's put it this way... it would be nice if the system could be
colorblind.
However it would not be nice if some kids had zero chance of getting into
college, no matter how smart they are or how hard they study, because of
their
race, religion, or socio-economic background. And that has been the case
all
too often.

Why should you be PO'd at minorities & affirmative action, your kid could
just
as easily have been crowded out by a Bush or Cheney offspring... being
rich,
affable, and well connected trumps everything else... no matter how dumb
that
person is.

DSK

Racism is racism is racism. It matters not what direction or what
circumstance. I see no difference between those who would put a person in
school based on their being 'the right color' than one who would keep a
person out based on their being 'the wrong color'. It's just another case
of supporting a pesonal definition 'lesser evil' and is, therefore, simply a
case of perpetuating evil. I find the government forms in this regard to be
highly offensive and patently racist. Why is one group marked by their area
of geographical origin, regardless of color of skin. Whle another is
denoted by their ethnic background and yet another by color alone? The only
'right' thing to do in the US today is check the block marked "Decline To
Answer." Anything else is just racism and those who perpetuate it 'in any
form' can cross the room and join Neal's Group. That's where you truly
belong.

M.






"John Cairns" wrote in message
...
And, you should have mentioned, being the kid of an alumni is taken into
consideration even at colleges like UofM. Things being what they are, most
of the alumni are white folks.
John Cairns
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:

Maybe the fact that my kid didn't get extra points tacked on to her
college
applications because of the color of her skin?

Maybe your kid should have applied to one of those snooty schools that
does not
allow minorities... you *are* rich enough to afford one, right?



I'm lucky--my kid didn't need the extra points. But there are a hell
of
a
lot of others who have good reason to be ****ed at systems like the
one
maintained by most colleges and universities either explicitly or by a
wink
and a nod both before and after the U of M decision.

Let's put it this way... it would be nice if the system could be
colorblind.
However it would not be nice if some kids had zero chance of getting
into
college, no matter how smart they are or how hard they study, because of
their
race, religion, or socio-economic background. And that has been the case
all
too often.

Why should you be PO'd at minorities & affirmative action, your kid
could
just
as easily have been crowded out by a Bush or Cheney offspring... being
rich,
affable, and well connected trumps everything else... no matter how dumb
that
person is.

DSK

"Michael" wrote in message
...
What you are talking about is "Guns and Butter" which resulted in LBJ's
contrived War in VietNam, .....

Sorry old man but LBJ did NOT contrive the war in Vietnam; it was contrived
by JFK's "Whiz Kids" - a pack of north-eastern Brahmins who despised Johnson
as an uncouth southern red neck. Their buddy JFK had let Ike's plan to win
Vietnamese hearts and minds over to capitalism fail. They erroniously
believed the plan could be salvaged by committing US troops. Knowing that
LBJ, congress, the Military and the American people were all "too stupid" to
see the merit in their ivory tower logic they contrived a huge conn job and
it worked. With McNamara as Sec of Defense and Bunker as ambassador
controlling in country intellegence they pulled the wool on everybody,
including LBJ.

LBJ's failed social programs, ...

Agreed, but ....
LBJ's huge national debt increase, LBJ being run out of office .....

My recollection of the period differes from yours - or perhaps you are just
repeating the BS you were told. LBJ's debt increase was tiny compared to
Reagan's or The Shrub's. And as far as being run out of office, LBJ elected
to quit soon after learning how he'd been duped into the war.

JFK where were you when we really needed you!

Bwahahahahaha! That's a good one!!

LBJ took the information sent to him from the Turner Joy and used it as a
pretext to start a war. Even though there's enough evidence to show the
ship, along with the Maddox, was either not under attack, was not attacked
on the high seas, or had violated the territorial integrity of N. Vietnam.
JFK had ordered a complete troop and adviser withdrawal. LBJ reversed that.
JFK did not rule out the use of the National Guard, that was LBJ once again.
That war was Lyndon's War pure and simple. All those names on that monument
in Washington? Because of one meglomaniac. LBJ is not someone the
Democratic party should point to with pride. On top of everything else he
gave us Nixon. Sheesh . . .that's three strikes in one all by itself.

No arguments on the McNamara Gang.

M.

That aside and from a pure professional military viewpoint, I did love the
work.





"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Michael" wrote in message
...
What you are talking about is "Guns and Butter" which resulted in LBJ's
contrived War in VietNam, .....

Sorry old man but LBJ did NOT contrive the war in Vietnam; it was
contrived
by JFK's "Whiz Kids" - a pack of north-eastern Brahmins who despised
Johnson
as an uncouth southern red neck. Their buddy JFK had let Ike's plan to
win
Vietnamese hearts and minds over to capitalism fail. They erroniously
believed the plan could be salvaged by committing US troops. Knowing that
LBJ, congress, the Military and the American people were all "too stupid"
to
see the merit in their ivory tower logic they contrived a huge conn job
and
it worked. With McNamara as Sec of Defense and Bunker as ambassador
controlling in country intellegence they pulled the wool on everybody,
including LBJ.

LBJ's failed social programs, ...

Agreed, but ....
LBJ's huge national debt increase, LBJ being run out of office .....

My recollection of the period differes from yours - or perhaps you are
just
repeating the BS you were told. LBJ's debt increase was tiny compared to
Reagan's or The Shrub's. And as far as being run out of office, LBJ
elected
to quit soon after learning how he'd been duped into the war.

JFK where were you when we really needed you!

Bwahahahahaha! That's a good one!!