Palin's Republican Tea Party: the Return of Reaganomics and American Exceptionalism - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tully Mars · 10-19-2010, 05:25 PM

Yes, yes... libs think businesses are evil and the cons think government is evil. Unless of course the cons have control of government then it's happy, chest thumping, flag waving, anyone who dare speak against it is un-American time.

Baraka_Guru · 11-02-2010, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Well, here's my prediction.

Stocks and profits are up, building permits are gradually climbing, and auto production is up. To those who know, these are leading indicators of an economy on the upswing of a recovery, no matter how gradual. To the average Joe, they don't notice these things.

You see, they only notice things such as unemployment, which is an indicator that reflects the health of an economy after the fact.

So what's going to happen is the GOP will win more seats, and probably more power. Then, just as the 2012 election gears up, the unemployment rate will have dropped and the GOP will take credit. This despite the fact that it would be more apt to credit the Obama administration for it.

The timing is quite delicious for the GOP. After a disastrous Bush period, let's put a Democrat in the White House to weather a financial crisis. Let's call whatever the outcome is a failure, no matter how close it is to what Obama had hinted at beforehand. Take back power during midterm; take credit for economic turnaround when (not if) it comes. Use this as leverage for the next presidential election.

More on this.

Quote:

Winners Tuesday May Benefit From Economic Cycle
By MATT BAI
NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — The impact of the anti-incumbency wave of 2010 — if, in fact, it materializes in the way polls would indicate — will be judged in the next few days by the number of seats that change hands in Washington and in statehouses across the country.

In the longer term, though, the importance of any wave election isn’t only about the sheer number of seats gained and lost, but also about when the wave hits — or, more specifically, where it falls in the economic cycles of the country. And if you look at it that way, history suggests that the expected big bang of 2010 may well end up reverberating loudly through our politics for a long time to come.

That’s because, in the years ahead, the country might well experience the kind of economic recovery that the White House had hoped would take hold in time for this year’s elections. This isn’t a sure thing, by any means; some economists are still predicting a long period of Japanese-style stagnation. But most Washington observers seem to be betting on the kind of upturn that’s more evident to voters.

And it’s the politicians who catch the political wave at such fortunate economic moments — particularly governors who get themselves elected during hard times and then preside over the upswing — who tend to establish themselves as folk heroes and turnaround experts, rising to national prominence not just because of their policies but also because of their timing. Which could be very good news for some Republicans like John Kasich, who may yet become Ohio’s next governor, or for an unknown like Nikki Haley, who stands to win in South Carolina.

It isn’t just governors, of course, who can benefit from good timing. Should Republicans take control of one or both chambers of Congress, an improving economy in the next several years could bolster the profiles and credibility of some of the party’s younger leaders and their more innovative ideas.

But governors have a particular ability to capitalize on a turn in the economic cycle. Go back to 1982, when Republican incumbents, still mired in the economic slump that catapulted Ronald Reagan to the presidency two years earlier, suffered a stinging defeat at the polls, if not quite the massive wave they had feared. Democrats picked up a net gain of seven governors’ seats that year. Among the winners were two former governors who had been turned out of office before: Michael S. Dukakis and Bill Clinton.

Mr. Dukakis rode the economic recovery that followed to the Democratic nomination for president in 1988, campaigning on the rebound he called his “Massachusetts miracle.” Mr. Clinton took advantage of the same fallow period (although he did, ultimately, have to govern during the late-1980s downturn as well) to improve education and spur job creation in Arkansas, on his way to becoming arguably the most influential political figure of his age.

By 1994, of course, President Clinton found himself bedeviled by his own sluggish economy, along with other problems. Among the Republicans who swept into office on the wave of 1994 — and who would not have had much chance running in a less turbulent year — were the novice George W. Bush, who stunned the political establishment by unseating Gov. Ann Richards of Texas.

Mr. Bush arrived in Austin just in time to catch a historic period of sustained economic growth, fueled by dot-com mania. Like other governors at that time, Mr. Bush was able to cut taxes while proposing increases in education spending and balancing the budget, a bit of magic that, along with his famous name, enabled him to become the first Texas governor to win successive four-year terms and made him the early frontrunner for his party’s presidential nomination in 2000.

In fact, several Republicans who won in 1994, or in the off-year elections of 1993 that were essentially its prelude, went on to build national profiles during the boom years. Rudolph W. Giuliani got credit for making Gotham governable. Christie Whitman of New Jersey, George E. Pataki of New York and Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania all won governorships in reliably Democratic states and rose to stardom inside the party during the Clinton years.

Contrast the arc of these political careers with those of some Democratic governors elected in 2006, who then had the misfortune of governing as the already fragile national economy imploded. Two of the Democrats’ hottest properties after they took back Republican seats in that election, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts and Ted Strickland of Ohio, are trying to eke out re-election after seeing their popularity plummet. Colorado’s Bill Ritter Jr. opted not to run again, and Iowa’s Chet Culver appears likely to lose.

None of this is to suggest that the economy, by itself, is destiny. No one can argue that Bill Clinton wasn’t among the more talented politicians in modern history, or that just because tech stocks were soaring, the guy brewing coffee at the 7-Eleven could have governed just as ably as a Rudy Giuliani. But it does suggest that the politicians who linger longest and most successfully on the national stage tend to also be lucky, having been elected in years of unrest and having been able to claim credit for the periods of relative ease that followed.

So when the polls close on Tuesday, you might want to pay special attention to an obscure governor-elect like, potentially, Scott Walker of Wisconsin or Susana Martinez of New Mexico, both Republicans. If President Obama is right and the economy that has shadowed this election year is about to right itself, then you might be hearing their names again, perhaps even in 2016.

Winners Tuesday May Benefit From Economic Cycle – NYTimes.com

ASU2003 · 11-02-2010, 10:14 PM

What economic 'wave' is coming? Reagan had Microsoft & Apple making every school, business, and homes buying computers in the late 80s to help Reagan. Clinton had the dot com companies get a lot of money flowing around that could be taxed and created surpluses. Bush had an artificial housing boom and war spending in order to get money to change hands.

I'm not saying that it can't happen (if you could predict these trends you could make millions in the stock market), but I don't see what new private sector industry will get created that will hire lots of people, increase the velocity of money around the economy, or change people's lives in the next 2-10 years.

rahl · 11-03-2010, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

What economic 'wave' is coming? Reagan had Microsoft & Apple making every school, business, and homes buying computers in the late 80s to help Reagan. Clinton had the dot com companies get a lot of money flowing around that could be taxed and created surpluses. Bush had an artificial housing boom and war spending in order to get money to change hands.

I'm not saying that it can't happen (if you could predict these trends you could make millions in the stock market), but I don't see what new private sector industry will get created that will hire lots of people, increase the velocity of money around the economy, or change people's lives in the next 2-10 years.

The only thing that comes to mind is Green industries.

Baraka_Guru · 11-03-2010, 03:57 AM

Companies are sitting on an unprecedented shitload of cash. Many have probably been waiting for the political uncertainty to pass.

As an example, historically, the stock market does best under a split government such as it is now.

You will probably see a run up of stocks in the coming months. You will probably see companies being more confident making capital expenditures to increase productivity ahead of rehiring those they laid off in 2008-2009.

It will be a slow recovery, but it will happen. The real question is how each party will spin it for their 2012 campaigns.

Baraka_Guru · 04-26-2011, 04:30 PM

YouTube - A City Upon A Hill: The Spirit Of American Exceptionalism - Official Trailer

Quote:

April 26, 2011 1:06 PM
Newt Gingrich to star in Citizens United movie about "American exceptionalism"

With Republican presidential candidates preparing to face off in their first debate next week, Citizens United Productions, a production company affiliated with the Newt Gingrich-associated Republican advocacy group Citizens United, will release a film entitled "A City Upon A Hill" - a documentary-style film on "American exceptionalism" co-starring Gingrich.

The film, which will premiere on Friday in Washington, D.C., features interviews with Gingrich, his "co-host" and wife Callista, and a handful of prominent Republicans discussing the idea that America is the best country in the world.

"Exceptionalism for Americans is the belief that the United States is in some way more open, more vigorous, more optimistic than other nations are," says Gingrich, a likely 2012 presidential contender, in the film's trailer. "Our best leaders have reminded us that we have a moral obligation to the cause of freedom and that the cause of freedom is the cause of all mankind."

(Watch the trailer above.)

The movie, which according to its website includes a mixture of "real stories from Americans" and interviews with political figures, touts the idea that, as Citizens United president David Bossie puts it, "America is a beacon of liberty for the rest of the world." It also warns that this "exceptionalism" may be at risk -- and seems to pin the blame on Democrats.

"Our belief in American exceptionalism has historically been bipartisan," Gingrich intones. "However, there are signs that this is no longer so."

"We're at battle, quite frankly, between two competing values - the American system and the European socialistic system," adds conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart.

The theme of "American exceptionalism" has become a prominent battle cry among the GOP presidential field.

Mitt Romney, who recently announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, wrote in his 2010 book that "This reorientation away from a celebration of American exceptionalism is misguided and bankrupt."

And Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, suggested in a 2010 interview that president Obama had an anti-exceptionalist perspective.

"His worldview is dramatically different than any president, Republican or Democrat, we've had," Huckabee said of the president. "To deny American exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation."

Gingrich was not the only possible presidential hopeful to make an appearance in the film: Rep. Michele Bachmann and Donald Trump also speak out on behalf of American greatness.

"American exceptionalism is really a great term, and it's something that is very special to us," Trump says in the trailer. "And by the way, we have to be very, very careful to protect it and cherish it because it can also disappear."

"A City Upon A Hill" was written and directed by Kevin Knoblock, who has produced and/or directed a number of films for Citizens United Productions. It is not currently scheduled for a wide release.

Newt Gingrich to star in Citizens United movie about "American exceptionalism" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Quote:

Friday, Apr 8, 2011 08:30 ET
What they really mean by "American exceptionalism"
By Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg

Newt Gingrich can't get enough American exceptionalism. In "A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters," due out soon, the former House speaker and prospective Republican presidential candidate gives a new definition to the term, linking it directly to conservatives' understanding of the importance of the individual relative to the power of government. "That is why President Obama and the Left hate American Exceptionalism," he writes. They hate it because it stops them from expanding government power? That’s a pretty crazy argument.

Gingrich holds a Ph.D. in history, so he shouldn't mind if we investigate where the notion of American exceptionalism came from as we track what it has come to mean. Let’s begin with some early examples of the phenomenon:

In 1771, Connecticut clergyman and future Yale president Timothy Dwight published a poem that spoke to a continent's promise. "AMERICA’S bright realms arose to view, / And the old world rejoic'd to see the new." The newness of America, its unexplored expanse, produced a kind of ecstatic expectation among Revolutionaries, which enlarged as Britain acknowledged independence in 1783. In that year, another of Yale's presidents, Ezra Stiles, proclaimed that a "great people" would arise in America; and that by the year 2000 they would outnumber the Chinese, as a nation "high above all nations which [God] hath made."

In his momentous First Inaugural Address in March 1801, Thomas Jefferson called America "the world’s best hope." That same month, to Dr. Joseph Priestley, scientist and theologian, he wrote, even more sublimely: "We can no longer say there is nothing new under the sun. For this whole chapter in the history of man is new. The great extent of our republic is new." Jefferson and his peers were men of the 18th-century Enlightenment, at once idealists and pragmatists. Their complete adoration of science augmented a belief that the world would improve as tyranny was overthrown, the cause of education promoted, religious superstition undone, and the lives of all people enriched. Americans rejoiced in calling theirs an "infant empire," morally strong and liberty-loving.

The United States was an experiment in republican government being carried out on an unimaginably large scale. From the start, American patriots needed a "brand," because they were competing for global stature with the well-developed, culturally and militarily advanced nations of Europe. Already on the defensive owing to the canker of slavery that infected the body politic -- it troubled the founders deeply -- they had to find ways to rationalize the violence that attended government-sponsored continental conquest. So they broadcast a self-anointed identity as the moral benefactors of all whom they encountered.

Surely, Newt Gingrich would be uncomfortable with the central role played by the French in promoting the positive concept of American exceptionalism. In 1782, the French cosmopolitan J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur authored the well-read "Letters of an American Farmer" and posed the question: "What Then is the American, This New Man?" Born in France, Crèvecoeur migrated to New France (Canada), and became an American citizen before spending his last years back in France. The French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville traveled to the United States in the 1830s, studying its institutions and mores, concluding as his literary predecessor had that Americans were unique. He found that their penchant for community, for joining reform-minded associations and acting in concert, made them different from Europeans.

Early Americans' sense of their exceptionalism conferred collective self-confidence. They saw America as fresh, unsullied and unique in its mission; its political culture, more humane than any other on earth. They wrote, in a maritime era, of American merchant seamen going ashore in distant lands and spreading the word of American liberty. It made good copy, reassuring them that their countrymen stood as moral exemplars everywhere. Liberty was infectious: They would bring new life to the effete Old World and encourage political progress there.

The cosmopolitan Enlightenment had morphed into democracy's worship of individual and collective acquisitiveness. In his recently published book, "The Citizenship Revolution," historian Douglas Bradburn writes: "The cosmopolitanism of the Revolutionary Age dissipated in the Romantic exceptionalism of the nineteenth century. With the opening of the boundaries of the United States into the vast space beyond the Mississippi, the country turned its mind away from Europe and began a century of precocious aggression and expansion within its own hemisphere." The secular missionaries of the founding era easily graduated to "benevolent exploitation" of America’s wild, privileging the "infant empire's" vision of growth over the rights of "less civilized" Indians and Mexicans. Romantic novels about proud Western pathfinders fed the spirit of exceptionalism.

And so it was until the imperial age that succeeded the Civil War, as the U.S. competed for colonies. Hawaii, the Philippines, Cuba were just the beginning. A modernizing military was dispatched overseas to match, and finally exceed, what the European powers had been doing all along. The degree of confidence in America’s superior system continued to enlarge, as political and economic freedom produced invention and industrial combinations that government used to grow its military and extend its reach abroad.

These, then, are antecedents. Putting Gingrich's claims aside for the moment, two questions Glenn Greenwald posed in Salon on March 29, with respect to the administration's limited role in Libya and elsewhere in the Islamic world, remain unanswered: "Does the U.S. indeed occupy a special place in the world, entitling and even obligating us to undertake actions that no other country is entitled or obligated to undertake?" And, "Is it merely our superior military power, or is there something else that has vested us with this perch of exceptionalism?" It is unlikely that the public will agree on its answers to these questions any time soon.

We should pause for just a second to reflect on how the actual term "American exceptionalism" was first used in print. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was Marxist periodicals of the 1920s that adopted "exceptionalism" in recognizing that labor conditions in America suggested a strategy distinct from that which communists were using to advance their cause in Europe.

With or without Newt Gingrich, the tone communicated by the ever-evolving term "American exceptionalism" will continue to be an indicator of one's political identity. It is unfortunate that the political discourse these days dictates that you can't love your country if you don't believe in its exceptionalism. Such oversimplification is one of the reasons why national campaigns focus on symbolic language instead of substantive problems and the alternative plans candidates propose to resolve them sensibly.

Exceptionalism seems to mean, "We lead, others follow." Instead, let's try: In spite of our commanding power, we lead judiciously by consulting with allies and seeking widely agreed-upon solutions to international crises. Can't America be unique among nations without dictating? That seems to be the true articulation of President Obama’s view of the contested term. His restrained view of exceptionalism (the Brits have theirs, the Greeks theirs, too) is an attitude, a sensibility, responsive to recent history; it flows from the recognition that the Bush-Cheney crowd promptly squandered the goodwill of the world after 9/11 by making unilateral decisions, and invading Iraq under false pretenses. But in a speech at Liberty University last fall, Gingrich insisted that Obama’s reference to the Brits and Greeks "proves" that he doesn’t have "any idea what American exceptionalism is."

Has America lost its mojo in the Obama age? Wall Street’s reckless self-aggrandizement and persistent joblessness aside, there’s no reason to think it has. But the panicky voices that cynically (perhaps destructively) call for artificial testaments of jingoistic pride make it sound like the president, with his measured approach to just about everything and his fundamental discomfort with strutting and boasting, is not "American" enough.

Let’s call things what they are: Personalizing the exceptionalism question is a partisan tactic. The president’s cosmopolitan bearing and generous spirit -- the core values of the secular Enlightenment that gave birth to the idea of America -- are being translated as somehow subversive of a "real" American character. It’s never explained, of course; but when it's not code for a critic's sublimated racism, it's the fear-projecting notion that we are locked in a cultural zero sum game and if the U.S. compromises on its long-declared justification to use its power wherever it wants to, then somehow the nation forfeits its preeminence and cedes to the Europeans (or worse, China) the claim to 21st century dominance.

If this devaluation of American power occurs, it will not come as a result of a president’s reasonableness. In any case, Obama has only compromised America’s values by allowing the conservatives’ perverse message of fear (e.g., Obamacare will take away your freedom) to win adherents. American exceptionalism is, in truth, not a tangible or measurable quality, but a buzzword that promises -- with no reliability -- that the sky won’t be falling any time soon.

Historically, exceptionalism has never been incompatible with isolationism. Those who consider Obama poisoned by "foreign ideas" (as conservatives of the 1790s claimed Jefferson was!) are expressing the flip side of an argument; whether it makes logical sense hardly matters. Gingrich's new book, called a "blockbuster" and a "game-changer" by his publisher, wants to make the conversation about big versus small government. He also promises to bring God into the equation, as part of his 2012 effort to distance Obama from both Christian values and what the history-conscious conservative cherishes most: the founders’ God-scented definition of American exceptionalism. Of course, Gingrich’s premises are wrong: Exceptionalism made convenient use of, but did not need, God; and it was never about left versus right.

Gingrich earned his Ph.D. from Tulane University in 1971, the year that Liberty University was founded by Jerry Falwell. Newt's dissertation, never published, was titled: "Belgian Educational Policy in the Congo, 1945-1960." We would not challenge his authority in this area. But he claims to be an authority on U.S. history, where his reading appears to be rather selective. At Liberty, when he previewed his forthcoming book, he warned that "American Civilization is in greater trouble today and in greater danger of disappearing than it was in 1971." He went on, seizing his new mantra: "American exceptionalism refers directly to the grant of rights asserted in the Declaration of Independence." And who does he say is to blame for deliberately undermining a proper reverence for America’s founding documents? "The secular socialist assault on historic America has been growing for more than two generations among our intellectual elites in schools and news rooms and the entertainment industry and increasingly among judges, bureaucrats, and now elected officials."

This is what we have to look forward to as Newt traverses the country in quest of next year's GOP nomination. He will reduce the notion of American exceptionalism to simple black and white. The new American exceptionalism debate will invite insecure potential voters to add to their existing stock of catechisms: They don't care to explore the spectrum of meanings that the word "freedom" possesses; they know "socialism" only as "government invasion"; and they survive on the faith that America is "the greatest country in the world." And that’s how things will remain for a while, because subtlety doesn't poll well.

Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg are professors of history at Louisiana State University and coauthors of "Madison and Jefferson."

What they really mean by "American exceptionalism" - Barack Obama News - Salon.com

Willravel · 04-26-2011, 05:16 PM

Lean back, America. Newt Gingrich is about to suck your dick.

roachboy · 04-26-2011, 05:29 PM

wow. the refiguring of the already problematic notion of "american exceptionalism" is simplistic lunacy, even by the...um....relaxed intellectual standards one typically has to bring to assessing newt gringrich (tm) productions.

i wonder if this meme is going to get traction.

Baraka_Guru · 04-26-2011, 05:41 PM

It looks like a feature-length advertorial for the 2012 Republican candidate.

Derwood · 04-26-2011, 05:45 PM

We are exceptional

Exceptionally expensive health care
Exceptionally corrupt politicians
Exceptional gap between the classes
Exceptionally high CEO pay
Exceptional fear and anger
Exceptionally high numbers of guns
Exceptional xenophobia
Exceptional number of single issue voters

Willravel · 04-26-2011, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

We are exceptional

Exceptionally expensive health care
Exceptionally corrupt politicians
Exceptional gap between the classes
Exceptionally high CEO pay
Exceptional fear and anger
Exceptionally high numbers of guns
Exceptional xenophobia
Exceptional number of single issue voters

We don't even have to do this from a reality-perspective. Even in the right-wing alternate reality, we can do this:

Exceptionally large government
Exceptionally high taxes
Exceptionally black... erm Kenyan president
Exceptionally restrictive gun laws
Exceptionally entitled immigrants/gay people/poor
Exceptionally liberal media
Exceptional FEMA concentration camps
Exceptional bloated, liberal public education system

Exceptionalism is nothing but fellatio.

WhoaitsZ · 04-28-2011, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

We don't even have to do this from a reality-perspective. Even in the right-wing alternate reality, we can do this:

Exceptionally large government
Exceptionally high taxes
Exceptionally black... erm Kenyan president
Exceptionally restrictive gun laws
Exceptionally entitled immigrants/gay people/poor
Exceptionally liberal media
Exceptional FEMA concentration camps
Exceptional bloated, liberal public education system

Exceptionalism is nothing but fellatio.

So... "ummm I really need some exceptinalism tonight' will get me head? sweet

10-19-2010, 05:25 PM	#41 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Yes, yes... libs think businesses are evil and the cons think government is evil. Unless of course the cons have control of government then it's happy, chest thumping, flag waving, anyone who dare speak against it is un-American time. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

11-03-2010, 03:57 AM	#45 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Companies are sitting on an unprecedented shitload of cash. Many have probably been waiting for the political uncertainty to pass. As an example, historically, the stock market does best under a split government such as it is now. You will probably see a run up of stocks in the coming months. You will probably see companies being more confident making capital expenditures to increase productivity ahead of rehiring those they laid off in 2008-2009. It will be a slow recovery, but it will happen. The real question is how each party will spin it for their 2012 campaigns. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

04-26-2011, 05:29 PM	#48 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	wow. the refiguring of the already problematic notion of "american exceptionalism" is simplistic lunacy, even by the...um....relaxed intellectual standards one typically has to bring to assessing newt gringrich (tm) productions. i wonder if this meme is going to get traction. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-26-2011, 05:41 PM	#49 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	It looks like a feature-length advertorial for the 2012 Republican candidate. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

04-26-2011, 05:45 PM	#50 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	We are exceptional Exceptionally expensive health care Exceptionally corrupt politicians Exceptional gap between the classes Exceptionally high CEO pay Exceptional fear and anger Exceptionally high numbers of guns Exceptional xenophobia Exceptional number of single issue voters __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

11-02-2010, 10:14 PM	#43 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	What economic 'wave' is coming? Reagan had Microsoft & Apple making every school, business, and homes buying computers in the late 80s to help Reagan. Clinton had the dot com companies get a lot of money flowing around that could be taxed and created surpluses. Bush had an artificial housing boom and war spending in order to get money to change hands. I'm not saying that it can't happen (if you could predict these trends you could make millions in the stock market), but I don't see what new private sector industry will get created that will hire lots of people, increase the velocity of money around the economy, or change people's lives in the next 2-10 years.

04-26-2011, 05:16 PM	#47 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Lean back, America. Newt Gingrich is about to suck your dick.