dget - All Comments

re: Did Ben Bernanke really just say that?

Tapsearch Editor — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:43:03 GMT

Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz did ask Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke what was the best way to spend any extra money recieved from the economic stimulus package. She asked if people should use the money to pay down their credit card debt.

Bernanke said paying now a credit card debt would be a "negative" - so credit is the life line for consumerism.

He said the best way to spend any extra money would be to spend it on domestically produced items to best help the economy.

If Greenspan said this many years ago, we would not have any need for an economic stimulus package today.

It is nonsensical to use stimulus money and shop at places like Wal-Mart because the money quickly fans out to the places where the products are made. It does not stay in the USA to recyle our economy.

This is the problem with so called Free Trade that has made production portable ready to be moved again and again for the sake of cheaper labor.

See www.bizarrepolitics.com/ben-says-buy-usa and then see a satirical commentary about the things to come if we do not start buying domestically produced products at www.bizarrepolitics.com/china-direct-retail-stores Welcome to the the New World Dis-Order

re: A Violation of the Rights of the Parent

Magnus frater — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 04:06:33 GMT

Am I correct in assuming community, state, and national borders are closed by federal mandate to those wishing to move to a more 'hospitable' forced-immunization- educational-system? If so then yes, their rights have been snatched from their unwitting hands.

I wasn't aware this discussion was on tax law and antiquated truancy mandates, so I won't even respond to that. Regarding IMMUNIZATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, a publicly-elected school board has the right to fight a contagion in any way possible, just as children with contagious diseases are asked to stay home-- would you have a congested classroom populated with Chicken Pox sufferers? Fighting infectious diseases is merely a form of security put in place to protect children, the same as security detectors in modern high schools and the front desk officer who watches for skippers.

Other options were available for the parents that had no plans to accept a free inoculation to protect their children's health. For example, NOT signing a document giving over all of their children's health issues to a school nurse.

You cannot cry foul when your own signature is on the document.

Furthermore, it has become apparent that the State is more competent at raising children than modern adults, so why struggle against a move so obviously positive in motive?

re: Neoconservative Propaganda

dget — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:30:29 GMT

Not surprising, is it?

re: A Violation of the Rights of the Parent

dget — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:29:20 GMT

You're point fails to consider that many parents cannot simultaneously afford to pay for their child to go to public schools through taxation and pay for an alternative method schooling, such as the examples you mentioned. Further, the mere fact that children are required to be educated defies the rights of the parent. Ultimately your argument fails for these reasons.

re: A Violation of the Rights of the Parent

Magnus frater — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:54:41 GMT

Stripping the rights of the parent? Such assumes that enrollment in a public school is a federal law-- when in fact, only education is. Private schools with laxer immunization requirements are available, or home schooling where the parent has complete control. By enrolling in a public school, AND signing a slip allowing the school nurse control over health issues, the parent is in effect allowing the State control over the child from 8am-3pm.

Put simply, the parent is stripping THEMSELVES of control, and therefore any decision by a popularly elected school board is accepted ab initio.

Personally, in matters of contagions, I see no reason for a close-quarters educational system not to require immunizations to control infection.

re: Neoconservative Propaganda

zsignal — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:43:45 GMT

"To disagree with Middle East intervention is to disagree with US involvement in WWII."

John McCain and Sean Hannity seem to like this one a lot.

re: A Violation of the Rights of the Parent

Ronorama — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:41:22 GMT

Wow. Utterly amazing.

atplaysx » Blog Archive » A Violation of the Rights of the Parent

atplaysx » Blog Archive » A Violation of the Rights of the Parent — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:38:15 GMT

Pingback from atplaysx » Blog Archive » A Violation of the Rights of the Parent

re: Did Ben Bernanke really just say that?

Dana Getman — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 13:51:13 GMT

your points are well made as usual. Technical correction: China's policy is to peg the yuan to the dollar. One additional point on Ben's commentary: consider the importation of an intermediary material by a US manufacturer (e.g. any internationally traded commodity, especially those priced in USD) and the impact on pricing of the final good. Ben's caught in a trap, he really should be raising interest rates but chooses to print money to save the financial district. May not be a bad decision today but we will pay for it later. Clearly, if he were to be more forthcoming in his testimony, he would have to explain his choices.

Ron Paul - Presidential Candidate » Blog Archive » Did Ben Bernanke really say that?

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 03:04:24 GMT

Pingback from Ron Paul - Presidential Candidate » Blog Archive » Did Ben Bernanke really say that?

re: To end our dependency on foreign petroleum we must subsidize it!

DSG — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:35:16 GMT

I concur absolutely. Monarchy. Or anarchy. Representational democracy will prove to be a short lived governmental form.

re: To end our dependency on foreign petroleum we must subsidize it!

dget — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:33:58 GMT

Your point is well taken. A society that so willfully trusts the protection of its best interests to mother government will rejoice when offered immediate gratification and will never consider the potential long-term consequences of the government’s actions. And left to suffer helplessly in the transaction are those who have not abdicated their freedom, but rather have had it stripped away by the passivity of their peers. Clearly, this argues in favor of a natural order; if we were all forced to consider our own interests we would also be forced to weigh the consequences of our immediate actions. But it also argues in favor of a system of government where the rational action of the leader results in the best outcome for the nation. It argues in favor of monarchy.

re: To end our dependency on foreign petroleum we must subsidize it!

DSG — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 02:58:55 GMT

The subsidy is the amount of future debt the leading class takes on to continue their mollification of the masses. And why not, for to have the masses face economic principal would lead to widespread discontent and risk to their status. Furthermore, the leading class will never repay the debt, the sellers will pay it in the reduced value of the dollar denominated assets they hold. Seems to me Bush and Blair were acting rationally and in their own best interests. We, the masses, are the ones who act irrationally by abdictating our freedom. There is no king born to rule us; we just don't want the responsibility of our own freedom. So don't look askance at the Russian who cannot escape his paesant past, or the Muslim or the Jew or the English; look at your self.