Why thank you Mr Stong you did a fantastic job of detailing how a reasonal sane person would could and should look at our current economic state.

Please know it was never my intent to belittle you in anyway only to generate a non confrontational conversation.

In your opinion which of these 2 options would have had a greater chance of stimulating the economy:

A) spend approximately 1 trillion dollars in an infrastructure stimulus package.
Or
B) reduced corp, business, personal and investment taxes by approximately half of that amount say 500 billion.

If you answer B, you might just be a tea party person.

I joined this forum because I hoped to find an unbiased daily digest of political opinion. Currently unemployed in large part I believe because of a less than aggressive economic stimulation from Washington; I have more than enough time in breaks from my job hunt to read and contribute to this forum. Alas, so far, except for one contributor, this forum appears to be one for those who, many of whom appear functionally illiterate, are in need an arena to perpetuate falsehoods in the hope that doing so frequently enough will make them true. Preaching to their choir [or as one contributor I stumbled across put it "they're"; hence my functionally illiterate assessment] might give the poster some comfort does not further a constructive exchange of ideas, and the political discourse but contributes to its stagnancy. In fact, I ruminated for some time, watching on the side line, before registering so that I could make a post for that very reason, but nevertheless I jump into the fray; a lamb, perhaps, among wolves.

A life long Democrat and progressive, but never an ideologue; I long for the days when the conservative point of view was voiced by lettered gentlemen exemplified by William F. Buckley, Jr. instead of today's exemplars: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh [neither of whom qualify as lettered or gentlemen] and the hoard of others of their ilk. For the record, the neo-cons have necessitated I track further to the left than I might historically have had on one position or another solely to achieve balance.

You can expect me to vent my spleen now and again. You can expect me to question your views rather than launch a broad-side challenge to them, and you can expect me to drop a bomb in your midst now and again solely to stir up the pot and get people to think. Know that I want a polite debate on the issues, but you can expect to be called to account when whatever it is you post while it may pass posting rules criteria doesn't pass the scrutiny of reality. To paraphrase the late Sen. Moynihan, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

I joined this forum because I hoped to find an unbiased daily digest of political opinion. Currently unemployed in large part I believe because of a less than aggressive economic stimulation from Washington; I have more than enough time in breaks from my job hunt to read and contribute to this forum. Alas, so far, except for one contributor, this forum appears to be one for those who, many of whom appear functionally illiterate, are in need an arena to perpetuate falsehoods in the hope that doing so frequently enough will make them true. Preaching to their choir [or as one contributor I stumbled across put it "they're"; hence my functionally illiterate assessment] might give the poster some comfort does not further a constructive exchange of ideas, and the political discourse but contributes to its stagnancy. In fact, I ruminated for some time, watching on the side line, before registering so that I could make a post for that very reason, but nevertheless I jump into the fray; a lamb, perhaps, among wolves.

A life long Democrat and progressive, but never an ideologue; I long for the days when the conservative point of view was voiced by lettered gentlemen exemplified by William F. Buckley, Jr. instead of today's exemplars: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh [neither of whom qualify as lettered or gentlemen] and the hoard of others of their ilk. For the record, the neo-cons have necessitated I track further to the left than I might historically have had on one position or another solely to achieve balance.

You can expect me to vent my spleen now and again. You can expect me to question your views rather than launch a broad-side challenge to them, and you can expect me to drop a bomb in your midst now and again solely to stir up the pot and get people to think. Know that I want a polite debate on the issues, but you can expect to be called to account when whatever it is you post while it may pass posting rules criteria doesn't pass the scrutiny of reality. To paraphrase the late Sen. Moynihan, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

JerseyStrong,
Welcome to the forum. You've been reading our posts for awhile now and I am glad you decided to join in. I am glad you are here to provide us you views. Don't hesitate to post to a topic or start your own.
You are seeking unbiased political opinions which I have always considered to be an oxymoron. Can you separate bias from a political opinion? With that said, I think I may know what you mean: to interact and share positions without being bashed and knowing that the other (or yourself) may change their opinion after additional evidence. Is that kind of what you are meaning? That is exactly what I came here looking for.
I know what you mean by perpetuating falsehoods. Saul Alinsky's Rule #11 --If you tell a lie enough it will be viewed as truth (paraphrasing).
Again, Welcome to the forum. I, for one, am looking forward to having you challenge my positions as you have presented yourself as a respectful debater (which I very much appreciate). The only way we can be sharpened in our thinking is to have our positions challenged and be presented with an opposing viewpoint.
I rarely agree with James Carville political positions, but I did appreciate this article he wrote...
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/james-carville/328731-polarization-in-media-worsens-partisanship
Conservatives love to share their positions with other conservatives, but being challenged by a liberal can often led them respond with emotions, which will put them at a disadvantage many times. Liberals tend to isolate their target and denigrate the person postulating, rather than deal with the topic. I say that in general terms. By no means is that a hard-and-fast rule.
I look forward to engaging with you on the topics, and hope you will be the iron to sharpen me.
Tim

Spend a trillion in infrastructure? I can't presume to know what the number is, but I do know that cutting doesn't stimulate; it's not working now and it never has. It's simple Keynesian economics.

Don't necessarily think of a work crew swinging picks and shovels a la the WPA of the 1930s when you think infrastructure. Let's include:
§ technology,
§ simplified tax code and business regulation.
§ reliable communication and power grids,
§ market stability,
§ etc.

The experts can handle the implementation details; but some heavy duty pump priming is necessary; it has always worked. Once we're over the hump or more aptly out of the hole, we can tackle budget deficits and the national debt.

In high tax or low tax times, businesses manage and create jobs. Business is stymied when forced to navigate unknown waters. We are in a period of comparatively low tax rates, and the economy is a mess; so, lower tax rates is not likely to be a stimulus.

Join the TEA Party? Not likely. I have a fundamental disagreement with what they stand for. In a perfect world, government might not be necessary. We don't live in a perfect world; taxes and regulation are necessary. In the end of the 19th century taxes were for the most part non-existent and unbridled capitalism made the periodic wrenching upheaval of financial panics a way of life. Moreover, the TEA party wants government "off our backs" except when it comes to their social agenda at which time, it is meet and just for government to dictate. They can't have it both ways.

Spend a trillion in infrastructure? I can't presume to know what the number is, but I do know that cutting doesn't stimulate; it's not working now and it never has. It's simple Keynesian economics.

Don't necessarily think of a work crew swinging picks and shovels a la the WPA of the 1930s when you think infrastructure. Let's include:
§ technology,
§ simplified tax code and business regulation.
§ reliable communication and power grids,
§ market stability,
§ etc.

The experts can handle the implementation details; but some heavy duty pump priming is necessary; it has always worked. Once we're over the hump or more aptly out of the hole, we can tackle budget deficits and the national debt.

In high tax or low tax times, businesses manage and create jobs. Business is stymied when forced to navigate unknown waters. We are in a period of comparatively low tax rates, and the economy is a mess; so, lower tax rates is not likely to be a stimulus.

Join the TEA Party? Not likely. I have a fundamental disagreement with what they stand for. In a perfect world, government might not be necessary. We don't live in a perfect world; taxes and regulation are necessary. In the end of the 19th century taxes were for the most part non-existent and unbridled capitalism made the periodic wrenching upheaval of financial panics a way of life. Moreover, the TEA party wants government "off our backs" except when it comes to their social agenda at which time, it is meet and just for government to dictate. They can't have it both ways.