JTG:

I have a serious question because I'm so new to this forum. Are you a self proclaimed 'liberal'?

If so, you join the ranks of many. And if you look at world history in all of its spendor, you will see a very common denominator in the fall of many civilizations. (which lasts about a couple hundred years or so). That common denominator is the reliance on a large governing body for 'the good of the people.' ie. welfare, socialism, the bigger the gov, the better for ALL THE PEOPLE.

It is unfortunate that so many Americans get sucked up into the current definition of liberalism. I'll give you one example so sit back and enjoy: trust me, you're getting the extreme condensed version...

In the late 1800's/early 1900's Americans rode around in horse driven carriages. There were plenty of jobs to make all the components that went into this carriage: the wheels, iron springs for seats, wood, horse ranes (sp?), etc. But you had to feed the horse, water it, shoe it etc. Then along came Henry Ford and he said why can't we go places without the smelly animal? So he invented the horseless carriage...THIS MADE ALOT OF FOLKS REALLY REALLY HAPPY. However, those that made the components of the original buggy were now losing their jobs...an unfortunate endeavor but, hey, for the sake of progress, why not?

Now along comes a politician (democrat)...and he spouts off: I'LL SAVE YOUR JOBS, I'LL PUT A TAX SO HIGH ON THOSE HORSELESS CARRIAGES THAT ONLY THE RICH CAN BUY THEM, YOU VOTE FOR ME AND I'LL MAKE SURE OF IT..BLA BLA BLA.

WELL GUESS WHAT? If that democrat had made it to office, and did what he said he did, we may all still very well be riding behind those smelly horses...get where I'm going yet? Because I can type for 3 weeks straight on a million topics why you should never vote for a liberal.

I can take you to places in this world TODAY where those people are in office and people still ride in those horse driven carriages...why? because America is where the FREE Market is. And it must be protected...here we have the freedom to invent in a competitive market place. You start voting for a politician that fights entrapeneurs (sp?), then YOU and voters LIKE YOU halt progress. People who invent, start businesses, etc. are the job creators, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT TAKE BIG RISKS IN BUSINESS. Then, when they become successful, the democrats want to 'rob' the rich and give to the poor, those that choose NOT to contribute to society. Those that want a free ride/handout.

Now, along comes Charles Kettering of Ohio. What does he do? Well, he invents a battery, which later becomes the Delco Battery Company. He also thought that it was silly to have to crank that lever in the freezing cold to start up your NEW horseless carriage, so he invents the ELECTRIC STARTER! BIG MASSIVE CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY...AGAIN, those that had jobs making those turn crank levers to start the car lost jobs, but for the sake of progress.

Here in America, once again in the free market place, society gets to choose what they want, not the government (socialism/democrat/liberal)...if they want the car with the electric starter, so be it.

Now along comes the Dodge, and GMC folks. They see Henry Ford making all these cars and making all this money, and creating MASSIVE JOBS. And they say, hey, we can do this too, but they make cars that are RED, YELLOW, BLUE...

this is to compete IN THE FREEEEEEE MARKET PLACE with Ford. Henry Ford was actually ousted from his own BOARD because he refused to make a car any color but BLACK. BUT HIS BOARD MEMBERS SAW THE LOSS OF SALES WITH COLORED CARS.

You see, liberals/democrats ALWAYS spout off about SAVING YOUR JOBS, HEALTH INSURANCE TO MATCH WHAT CONGRESS GETS, AND ON AND ON...WELL, GUESS WHAT, Jimmy Carter didn't do it, Bill Clinton didn't do it, and neither will Kerry. LIBERALS WILL LIE LIE LIE TO GET A VOTE. I lived next door to a democratic politician in my home state.

Liberal thinking is borderline socialism. You ever heard of a YUGO automobile? DO YOU KNOW THE STORY? Yugoslavia was a socialist country/communist, whatever you want to call it. Some folks got together and decided to build a GOVERNMENT AUTO MAKER CAR. They called it a YUGO. They passed a law that no one else could make a car...monopoly. It didn't matter if the door opened crooked, the motor wouldn't start, the paint faded in 6 mos, if you wanted a car, you had to buy a YUGO. WEll, Yugoslavia was overthrown and the yugo auto was OUT OF BUSINESS IN A DAY!

Why do you think the Wright Brothers were in the US? Why do you think Charles Kettering, and Bill Gates are in the US? Don Trump? Etc.???

You think they were all LUCKY IN LIFES LOTTERY? NO!!

Because this is where the freedom is. Liberals DO NOT SEE THE BIG PICTURE...THEY ONLY SEE THE HERE AND NOW. I KNOW, MY MOTHER-IN-LAW IS A SELF PROCLAIMED LIBERAL.

To me, liberals are those with a paradigm that says 'success is bad.' Why should they have all that money?! Why should I have to work my a$$ off and they get to sit there, do nothing and rake in all the dough?!

Liberals are the ones back in high school that would look at their best friend that aced a test and said, "I hate you, you suck because you did better than me." AND THEY MEAN IT. I have always been the type to pat you on the back if you are successful.

Here is another common denominator I find with discussing liberalism with the poor blind souls: (and I challenge you to disagree, because it has been this way since I can remember): do the following:

Ask any liberal why they want John Kerry in office. I'll bet you they'll bad talk Bush before they can give AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. SAME CRAP WITH MY MOTHER IN LAW. But because I knew what she would do, I warned everyone in the house of my prediction. I asked her that very question...want to hear her response? "BUSH IS AN IDIOT." I looked around the room at everyone and grinned. I told her to answer the question, she said, "I did." I won't go any further into what happened next but lets just say that she felt like a real moron when I was through with her. Frankly, I enjoyed it.

I am a Christian. I do not believe that anyone else that truly believes in God or Jesus Christ could possibly vote for a liberal. Anyone that would sport a shirt at the Democratic National Convention that reads: "I'm proud to have had an abortion" is a lost soul.

This country is taking a turn for the worst ever since the Democratic Party has modified it's morals and belief systems to include the liberal way of life and thinking, and it is unfortunate. To me, liberals will be the death of this great country, with their anti-christ morals and ignorant thinking that you can put your arm around a terrorist and say, "can't we work this out?" "Can't we be buddies?" Terrorists hate us, they always will.

I don't think Bush is the most articulate man, but God help us if the most liberal anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-national defense, pseudoCHRISTIAN politician gets into office.

ON a final note, I brought up the fact that my mother in law paid 8000.00 less in taxes per year since Bush was in office but she said that THAT was becuase of something Clinton did for the country. I LOST ALL SENSE OF MY CHRISTIANITY AND TOLD HER SHE WAS THE DUMBEST F_CKING WOMAN I'D EVER MET, BLIND TO WHAT IS REAL, IGNORANT TO WHAT IS TRUE, BIAS BECAUSE SHE'D VOTE FOR SOMEONE NOT BECAUSE SHE LIKED THEM, BUT BECAUSE SHE HATED THE OPONENT, AND HER MISCONCEPTIONS POLITICALLY ARE AS INTELLIGENT AS APE THAT EATS ITS OWN SH_T.

SOME WELL POINTS MADE+++WELL SAID--Doc AND FOR YOU JOHN-might as well not vote if it is going to be a waste of TIME

Plus I am 1 of those Utah Republican's

I wouldn't brag about being a Utah republican because a typical Texas democrat is much more conservative.

As an Oklahoma Democrat, may I politely ask you to take this horseshit to the political forum?

Doc

Please relocate this topic to the political colosseum or we will soon have herds of trolls and creatures prowling around


Cheers
/ JOHAN

Doc,



I am with you on this but Johan is right, we need this on the political forum.





Doug

Hey Coc, Excellent points.

---

For those of you wanting the Thread "relocated", let me say that I understand your position, but it just doesn't work that way on AR.

When I first got here, I agreed with you 100%, because it helped me find topics I was interested in quickly without having to sort through a lot of other stuff.

Now that I've been here awhile, I actually prefer the method Saeed has choosen. Anyone can post about anything on any Board. If people find it relevant, they respond to it and it stays alive. If they don't respond to it, it drops right on off the Board as other topics of interest push it aside.(Like my "KY Snow Leopard" Thread )

I'd imagine the closer we get to the Election, the more Threads we will see in each Board that could be considered Political.

another blind soul....anyone who considers this to be horsesh_t is responding like the typical demo...they know it is true, just angry about it.

If you don't think it is true, you need a history refresher course.

Doc; With you 100% but you are wasting your time with that...person and democrats in general. jorge

Your right Doc, here in Seattle I'm surrounded by Democratic Liberals. Your exactly right about your comment about why you shouldn't vote for Bush. They launch into a tirade about what a creep he is. I think he is a great man, he has convictions, and that's what they don't like, the fact that he actually will take a stand, and keep it.

The fact that he claims to be a Christian just infuriates them. A vote for Kerry, and another decade or 2 of Democratic leadership, and they'll be burning us Christians at the stake.

I know I'm wasting my time but I've been molded into being so anti-liberal I cannot help myself. Liberals seem so focused on how 'bad' the republicans are instead of how 'great' their pres. is.

Too much negativity. The truth is the truth.

How about we elect John McCain and Joe Lieberman? Isn't John the least conservative Rep, and Joe the least liberal demo???

What bothers me most is that if Kerry and Edwards get into office, they will be the richest pair to ever seat the office of the whitehouse, and all those poor minorities, democrats, liberals, are under that dense fog of smoke and belief that the 2 richest guys in office EVER will somehow look out for 'the little people.' Those lost souls have been cajoled into thinking Kerry is great.

YOU ARE CORRECT!

liberals hate bush because he is a Christian #1.

If they believe he is an idiot because of the whole IRAQ thing, then I would challenge them to this question: is it that Bush is an idiot or did he make some bad decisions, which we have all done a time or two. He does have an impressive education.

My mother-in-law says things like, "Bush is having his LETS MEET WITH JESUS talk." I look her way and tell her that the devil has a nice warm place waiting for her...really gets her goat. That's why we have a heaven and a hell LOL!

Hell is reserved for liberals and terrorists and we conservatives have our place in the Kingdom of Heaven. If they are not believers here on earth, they'll have a serious wake up call when their number is up. Oh, geez, I'm on a role now... LOL.

I better stop.

Here's an article from the CBS web site, of all places, that you might enjoy:



The Problem With Bashing The Rich
August 2, 2004


This column from National Review Online was written by Bruce Bartlett.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A key theme of the Kerry- Edwards campaign is "us-versus-them," where "us" includes the poor and middle class and "them" indicates the greedy rich. Edwards famously characterized this dichotomy as "two Americas" during his run for the Democratic nomination. The clear implication of the Democrats' message is that the rest of us would somehow be better off if the rich were worse off. Yet according to a July 29 New York Times report, they've already received their wish. Why are they still complaining?

According to the report, the wealthy were decimated by the stock market collapse that began in 2000. This group suffered the greatest income loss of any income group. Every income class above $200,000 � the top 2 percent that Kerry and Edwards say must pay more taxes � suffered an income loss between the years 2000 and 2002 (in inflation-adjusted terms). The losses ranged from 10.5 percent for those with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000, to an amazing 63.4 percent for those with incomes above $10 million.

One out of every eight persons with an income above $200,000 in 2000 had an income below that by 2002. The ranks of those with incomes above $10 million fell by more than half, with the aggregate income of this group falling from $300 billion to $110 billion.

This does not mean we should cry for those rich people whose incomes have fallen. No doubt, the vast bulk of these earners are still doing very well compared with most Americans. But there is reason to question why they should be heaped with scorn by the Democratic party and punished with higher taxes when they have just suffered staggering income losses.

Interestingly, the data show that the bulk of the middle class did fairly well between 2000 and 2002. Despite the recession and higher unemployment, every income class between $25,000 and $200,000 saw an income gain. Those with incomes below $25,000 saw a small income loss of 1.4 percent, which was probably compensated in large part by the 2001 tax rebate and increase in the child tax credit. (The data are for before tax income and thus exclude the effect of tax cuts.)

Kerry and Edwards would have us believe that the federal budget deficit is largely due to tax cuts for the rich. But the article refutes this idea, noting that those tax cuts mainly affecting the rich didn't take effect until 2003. Says the Times, "Falling incomes, rather than tax cuts, appear to count for the greatest share of the decline in income taxes paid. That is because the higher one stood on the income ladder the greater the impact was likely to be from the stock market crunch."

This raises an important point about steeply progressive income-tax rates, which are so strongly supported by liberals. For every $1 increase in income by the wealthy, the government gets about 35 cents. So when the wealthy do well, so does the government. That is why the share of total income taxes paid by the top 2 percent of taxpayers � those targeted by Kerry and Edwards � was 41.3 percent in 2001, according to the Internal Revenue Service, though their share of total income was 22.4 percent.

But this means that the converse is also true. When aggregate incomes fall, the earnings of the wealthy are going to fall the most, meaning that federal tax revenues are going to fall much more. Even in taxation, it's live by the sword and die by the sword. For this reason, many economists favor a flat-rate consumption tax to smooth tax collections. Since consumption varies less than income over the business cycle, government revenues would be far more stable from year to year, rather than skyrocketing up when times are good and collapsing when times are bad.

Kerry and Edwards seldom ever explain that their plan to raise taxes on the top 2 percent of taxpayers means higher taxes for those making $200,000 per year, a good income to be sure, but one that few Americans likely would classify as "rich." With overtime, many cops and firemen make close to $100,000 per year. If they have a working spouse, they are probably in the top 5 percent and within shouting distance of being in the top 2 percent. And even if they themselves never get to that income level, they hope that their children will.

The basic problem with scapegoating the rich for every problem in society, as Kerry and Edwards do, is that far more people identify with the rich than they imagine. Sophisticated liberals know this. As Bob Kuttner, editor of the left-wing American Prospect magazine, recently wrote in the Boston Globe, "Because nearly everyone identifies upward, you don't gain traction in American progressive politics by baiting the rich."

Kerry and Edwards don't seem to get this message.

Bruce Bartlett is senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis.

KJV John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

KJV John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Doc, I'm strong on your trail, of course this is pretty obvious, as I started the first Kerry anti hunting thread here. I do have to make one comment on your original excellent treatise: I don't think religion has to be a factor at all. I am totally anti religion. I don't bash anyone for having it; I simply don't buy in myself. Yet, I am as anti liberal, anti Kerry as anyone could be. I look at as many of the issues that I can in an election in order to make my decision, though I grant that certain issues carry much more weight with me than others, i.e. gun control and anti hunting matters. It is interesting that although religion means nothing to me, I almost always (can't think of an exception, but I'm sure there has been some) end up voting republican (and I am not one--I don't affiliate with a political group). The reason? Virtually all those you address. The abortion issue is one that I don't agree with the republicans on, but, to me, it is a minor issue. Religion, christian or otherwise, is a non-issue with me, yet we agree almost totally on all the other matters. My point--there are so many things not right about the liberal (democrat, socialist, communist, whatever) group and it's thinking that religion doesn't even need to be a factor.

Cheers!

Oh, and regarding comments to move this thread--it originated because of Kerry's anti hunting and anti gun stance, which is just slightly related to this big game hunting forum, hence these are the people that need to be reading it. Good or bad not being the issue, just fact that few people go to the political forum. That is why this thread needs to be right here.

Pleeeeez don't move this to the Gun Ownership and Politics forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They degenerate into name-calling and poor manners and poor language. That's their right to do, of course, but I for one find it offensive and prohibitive to good discussion. Religion---no, God--will always play a part in American politics until He gets completely kicked out. This nation was founded by those looking for freedom from religious persecution and became great because of it's foundations---NOT because we were a rich nation! The freedom to believe or not to believe in God and to live one's life accordingly was built into the Constitution. Now it seems that the same Constitution is being raped by the judiciary in a most unConstitutional way and the laws designed to protect personal rights to believe, worship, and live as one wishes are being used to make Christianity into a hate crime while protecting the fomentors of hate (ie the loud, lunatic fringe of the left.)

I personally disagree with most of the posted views of JTG; however, his posts do reflect thoughtfulness on his part and keep some of the rest of us on our toes. To me, that's a good thing! I guess the real reason JTG hunts all around the world is because he secretly wants hunting abolished! Balderdash!

Well Arts, it's like I said, I gave only one example from millions...so to speak. Religion to me is only one factor, but it is personal to me. I can go on and on about events that have taken place that are so hypocritical on the liberals part it's not even funny. You know as well as I do that they have a double standard: If 'their' president or politician does it, it's ok, if a Repub does it, it's wicked. The reason they respond with such anger is because it is the truth.

And I bet I'm more anti-liberal than you.

Doc, and the liberals would decide if we had religion or not, then (if allowed) what religion it would be. Strange, but I like it the way it is, i.e. we can choose!

Doc,

Please see the definition of "liberal" I put forth in the other John Kerry thread.

Best,

JohnTheGreek

I did see the definition.

Good Shooting.

Doc,
in my humble opinion,you are making many fine points,attitudes I happen to share.Unfortunately you then degrade into the same you critize -if I may word it that way?
Allow me to explain.A discussion can take place when people have the right to expound their opinion,other folks have the right to disagree.Once you sway from that basic premise,and f.i. degrade your oponent-the discussion stops.
Your oponent-in general lets say,has a right for his opinion and if you want to sway him,you will not do so by argument that you are better person(f.i. because you are a Christian,whatever that means to you)TO sway your opponent you take his argument and prove him wrong.
The fact that you and others feel so strongly about 1 party,no matter what that party does,to me means you are as radical as the ones you want to send to hell,as you allow no diversity of opinion or issues.
It is very unlikely that you or me or the pres is "correct" on any issue.If you think about that.Correct does not mean,he is of my opinion.Politics is unfortunately a game of compromises and choices.Rigid party lines and attitudes dont allow listening to others.
You can rightfully say that listeningand compromising defines the beginning of the end,that a righteous attitude is pure and honest and has to stand forever.Trouble is,it is not right,it is yours,and assuming this attitude makes you a dictator.
There is much wrong with the republican party and Bush,there is much despicable and wrong with the democratic party.Moreover what these professional politicians say,especially prior to an election is meaningless.Nobody holds them accountable once in office.Lies on both side is the modus operandi.

To sort thru this mess is virtually impossible and sometimes one simply votes for the person and the perceived lesser evil rather than for what is promissed

Doc, you have a point on the Christian bashing. I am not a Christian, infact I'm almost agnostic. Several of my friends are Dems. & I tolerate tehm but the only reason they hate Bush is his religious convictions & I believe many of the left hate him just for that.
Personnaly, I despise trial lawyers more than any sub group in this country (sorry for those of you who are). The thought of two trial lawyers running the big show is enough to make me campaign for the Pope for president!?

Agreed, we generally vote for the lesser evil, but does not being strongly anti gun and anti hunting make Kerry the greater evil?

The opposition is not against a party, per se, but an attitude, beliefs, a direction. It just turns out that that is usually--not always--the democratic party, on topics that effect shooters and hunters. I don't, and I'd wager Doc doesn't, condone everything about the republican party, but on issues that are of greatest concern to me, and should be to all shooters and hunters, that party (and especially their presidential candidate) happens to be extremely more favorable than the other.

I know but it sure as heck is fun to turn on a faucet and see where the water flows! I'm more humble than you'd think. My opinions are just that. I have a couple of friends that come over for dinner a couple of times per month, bring there kids, etc. They are self proclaimed liberals. Dinner is always entertaining.

Oh, yea, for what it is worth, I'm NOT a registered Republican. Independent, that's me. I've just never been able to muster up any support for a demo.

And Art is right, I do NOT condone everthing going on in the repub party. But this particular election, to me, is critical. John Kerry is absolutely not a favorable guy for us gun owners, shooters, etc. All the hidden talk about banning deer ammo, higher taxes on ammo, guns, etc. I'm sorry, but if he wins, and he gets his way, there will be an awful lot of 'I told you so's' on this forum. Wait and see.

Both of my parents, mom deceased, are retired Federal Gov. employees. (mom military: general's secretary and procurement, My father: mechanical engineer/contractor) He has traveled all over the world and has a wealth of information on politics in general...and he is a fair person. He always spoke in terms of being non biased. I appreciated that.

But I've had so many negative bashing encounters from liberals in my life, INCLUDING PETA folks, other anti-hunters, etc., it has just molded me to be the antagonist, so to speak. I can only turn the other cheek for so long.

Everything you,Arts and other published on this forum is indeed very helpful and should sway any serious hunter or thinking person to stear clear of Kerry.Its the accumulation of facts outlined that gives the ammunition.
From my personal belief this election aint an easy choice.I have a very low opinion of Bush,as somebody put it: he lost all credibility,he is not honest with the people he proclaims to serve,but rather trying to sell them a story.
He also with his actions, caused a singular devaluation of the US dollar rarely seen,worse than any tax increase.
That hurts me and all.So to have a dishonest cheating man call the shots for another 4 years versus a socialist liar and democrat is a tough choice

Well then, Sheephunter, maybe you'll find this to be a good read:

Heinz Company
>
> Shortly after reading the following e-mail content, I
> happened to look at the label of a jar of Heinz sandwich
> slice pickles. Yep...."Made in Mexico". Check some of your
> Heinz products. "Sen. John Kerry keeps talking about U.S.
> corporations leaving this country and setting up shop in
> foreign countries, taking thousands of jobs with them. He is
> right, because that has happened. However, he is trying to
> blame it on George W. Bush.
>
> As far as I know, Bush has not moved one factory out of this
> country because he is not the owner of a single factory.
>
> That cannot be said about Kerry and his wife, Teresa
> Heinz-Kerry. According to the Wall Street Journal, the
> Kerry's own 32 factories in Europe and 18 in Asia and the
> Pacific. In addition, their company, the Heinz Company,
> leases four factories in Europe and four in Asia. Also, they
> own 27 factories in North America, some of which are in
> Mexico and the Caribbean
>
> I wonder how many hundreds of American workers lost their
> jobs when these plants relocated in foreign countries. I
> also wonder if the workers in Mexico and Asia are paid the
> same wages and benefits as workers in the United States.
>
> Of course they're not. However, Kerry demands that other
> companies that relocate should pay the same benefits they
> did in the U.S. Why does he not demand this of the Heinz
> Company, since he is married to the owner?
>
> If Kerry is elected, will he and his wife close all those
> foreign factories and bring all those jobs back to America?
> Of course they won't. They're making millions off that cheap
> labor.


I think Bush made some bad decisions but everything you just accused him of seems to me is a much more accurate description of Kerry, a typical hypocritical liar. Frankly, I wanted John McCain to beat out Bush for the republican ticket but it didn't happen.

My opinion of Bush probably isn't much better than yours, however, Kerry appears to be a true snake in the grass. At least Bush was just a governor, Kerry is a long time, seasoned POLITICIAN.

Look at it this way, if Bush is pres. for another 4 yrs, I'm confident the Hillary Clinton will be running in 2008...so just vote for her in that election to redeem yourself if you vote Bush this time.

I was quite happy with my tax break during the Bush years. I was able to hunt alot more, invest more money in my kids, bought 2 new vehicles, and a bunch of other new hunting toys. Set a lot of $$$ in savings for my kids.

Check this out, maybe you have seen it before. But it's typical of who is really intolerant...





Reich's Rhetoric Shows Spiritual Nature of the Battle We Face





Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich resurrected the rhetoric of comparing evangelical Christians' involvement in the political process with the threat that terrorism poses to the West. Reich took issue with the Bush campaign's efforts to register and turnout evangelicals to the polls this fall.



Reich wrote, "The great conflict of the 21st century may be between the West and terrorism. But terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The underlying battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernist fanatics; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe blind allegiance to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is no more than preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe that truth is revealed solely through scripture and religious dogma, and those who rely primarily on science, reason, and logic. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism is not the only danger we face."



Reich's misguided remarks are unfortunate, but they are very telling of the growing intolerance towards Christians and should remind us that what we face is first and foremost a spiritual battle. Acknowledging this fact, we are challenging our organizations, churches and the people we serve to set aside each Thursday for the next seven weeks to humble ourselves by fasting and praying and seeking the face of God for ourselves and our nation.

Be happy to preach to the infedils
Assume for a millisecond that you are not "a typical american citizen and consumer" and actually believe that you are responsible for yourself and have to save a nestegg for retirement or just happen to believe that having a saving is preferable to having 10 limited out credit cards.
I that scenario,any devaluation of your hard earned savings will get slapped severely and permanently.during our recent Bush years so far maybe 30% loss,as measured against the Euro,gold etc.
That means Bush funded his works with paper money,all money he couldnt get by taxes or cutting expenditures,he funds with newly printed currency.
To my knowledge there is no written record how much money is printed !
The best guestimation is what other bankers "think",and they thought so much of the US dollar that they devalued it down about 30% so far.
The story ,that a weak dollar is beneficial,as it makes our products cheaper overseas,where we have to compete on price is true.I just pose the question:what does the US actually produce,that competes on price? Evreything I buy is made in China .
We are "lucky" if its assembled in the US of A !
If above theory is the formula for succes the Zim currency should really shine !
No,sorry I will never buy into the explanation that a wek devalued currency is good for the country or me.
It also depresses the stock market,as foreigners see that their US $ based holdings loose value even should the stock actually go up.

To add injury to insult,should you actually make some investment money from the devaluation,you have to pay taxes on this phantom earning,again benefiting the government.

So in summary,its nothing but hidden severe taxation and worse,because it devalue all your present holdings,not just loosing a share of future earnings.

The government cant stand a hard currency ,like gold etc,because they cant print money at will ,in the dark and without voter approval as they are doing ever since.Bush just hit a new high note,I will forever be grateful to have lost 30% of my retirement fund to fund is Iraq excursions and support the industries that are behind his "fight for freedom",probably arms industries,oil etc

hope this helps

The last time I heard this archaic economic dogma was in Stalin's Five Year Plan. That got the USSR very far. Manufacturing is no longer the Measure Of effectivenss it once was to gauge a country's economic health. We've farmed our industries overseas because of Labor Unions wanting janitors to make 40k/year. Big deal we're still reaping the profits. Please, stick to hunting or whatever and not economic exegesis. jorge

Guess I must be in the minority, the company I work for exports about $20-25 mil a year in oilfield equipment. The 'weak' dollar definately helps me, but where I see it more is the fact that a 'strong' dollar encourages the manufacturers of our parts suppliers to run to Mexico, Canada, or even Germany to build stuff...explain to me how that is an improvement when coupled with being able to buy $1 pliers and $5 plastic toys from China?

Lets see, how does all this affect hunting...if my JOB goes OVERSEAS beacuse of a STRONG dollar making goods cheaper to produce in China/India/Mexico/Canada/Europe/etc. I CAN'T afford to HUNT!!!

There is an upside and downside to every cycle in the market. Those on the down whine, those on the up grin, and the agile adjust accordingly!

jorge, believe what you like.

Your method of countering my opnions by labeling them antique and stalinistic sounds very convincing,would be even slightly more effective if you also call me a Hitler ,unpatriotic etc,rather than understanding the simple outlined facts.But dont worry,you're in good company

no problem CDH.
some people will and do benefit from Bushes big plan.Oil and arms industries up front.They have their boy up in office and paid for
All I said ,if I may recapitulate,is that a devaluation of my savings,and that of many others,doesnt help and isnt appreciated.
I am not voicing opinions on any economic plan that works thru perpetual devaluation and later inflation.The fellow that has no savings couldnt care less,he pays back his borrowings-like the government -in cheaper dollars.
Stolen on the back of people that saved and depended on their savings.
If you think the government has the right-for the good of all- to steal my money surreptiously,thru paper printing,I dont have anything to counter with.The government obviously is almighty and can do what it pleases,in this case rob me without voter approval of higher taxes

Well, better the US Owned OIL companies than the CHINESE COMMUNISTS Clinton gave missile technology in exchange for contributions to his re-election campaign. Didn't call you stalinist old boy, but I DO call your man Kerry a socialsit traitor. Fortunately the truth about him is coming out. Incidentally, what proof do you have about the oil companies or should I just go and click on "Moveon.org"? jorge

JTG

I am not trying bash anyone with this question but how do you reconcile HATING a person with Christianity? And please tell me what reasons exist to Hate President Bush anyway? Is it just that you disagree with him or has he done something to you personaly? I DISAGREE strongly with much of what President Clinton did in office, but I don't harbor any hatred for the man at all. DISAGREEING is fine but why use the word HATE? I don't even know him, hate requires a personal familiarity.

Tom