[clue-talk] it's over!

[Angelo Bertolli]

Grant Johnson wrote:
>>> Time for the cycle - Republicans back in two years, in four 'hope' will 
>>> turn back to 'read my lips, no new taxes'.  The more things change, the 
>>> more they remain the same. :-)
>>>       
>> The cycle would be Republican moving towards control of congress in 2010, Obama being re-elected in 2012. I somehow doubt that the Republican party is going to be able to do ANYTHING in 2010, though. This was a thorough trouncing, a complete rejection of the Republican party on almost all levels of government. It's going to take a long time for the Republican party to recover. 
>>  
>>     
> There is little left of the GOP.   They tried so hard to be centrist 
> that they no longer stood for anything.   Perhaps we will have a new 
> party.   A reasonable, good one, that realizes that people don't need 
> the government to do everything for them, one that understands that 
> helping people down and out should be charity, not compulsory, one that 
> understands that while under capitalism some succeed, and some fail, 
> under extreme solcialism, all fail.
>   

Ah yes, if only they had been more to the right, that would have gotten 
them more votes!  Actually I think it is a bit the opposite:  they went 
a little too far with the campaign issues that mattered to certain 
groups within their party, that they alienated both the centrists of the 
country and the small-government conservative portion of their own 
party.  They proved that lower taxes does not equal smaller government.

You can argue against social programs all day, and put any labels on 
them that you wish, but systems of government since feudal times simply 
haven't been around long enough for anyone to say there are any clear 
winners.  There are good and bad balances of social programs, all which 
should focus on encouraging people (rich and poor) to add value through 
work to the society they live in.


> Read Farenheit 451.  The interesting part is where they have made 
> everyone equal.   Not by bringing the underclass up, but by bringing the 
> strong down.   SPecifically, they are watching TV and notice that an 
> athlete must be very strong, demonstrated by the very heavy weights he 
> is forced to carry to make it fair.
>   

There is a truth in all of these economy philosophies, but none of them 
have been proven to be totally true.  With the new financial crisis, 
it's starting to become more convincing that pure capitalism, by its 
nature, brings booms and crashes:  an unstable economy.  With only the 
Great Depression to look back on, we could say that it was a special 
case, and only--if only--we could manipulate the market properly (as 
Alan Greenspan tried to do) we could avoid this cycle.  Yes, things like 
pure Socialism may require people to be more honest and less selfish 
than they really are, but things like pure Capitalism require people to 
be more intelligent/critical and cautious than they really are.

Neither extremes reflect reality (well if you care about quality of life 
and human suffering, that is).

I hope the today's stock market is just one of the many fluctuations 
we've seen in the current instability and not about anticipating Obama.  
We'll see if it goes up this week.

-- 
Angelo Bertolli
http://angelo.bitfreedom.com/

~ I'm a sig virus. Please add me to your signature and help me spread! ~