BajaNomad - Poor, poor Slim. I guess telephone rates will be going up

Poor, poor Slim. I guess telephone rates will be going up

Howard - 8-5-2011 at 06:40 PM

The Mexican billionaire’s stock portfolio, measured in U.S. dollars, has dropped about 9.5 percent since July 29 and is valued at about $64.4 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That compares with a 7.2 percent slide in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.

Slim, 71, has taken a hit as Mexico’s benchmark IPC index dropped 6.4 percent and the peso slid 2.3 percent against the dollar on concerns that the flagging U.S. economy will hurt demand for assets in its southern neighbor. The removal of three of Slim’s companies from the IPC index has made matters worse for the billionaire.

“He’s been particularly hurt by those companies leaving the IPC,” said Leon Cabrera, a trader at Mexico City-based Vanguardia Casa de Bolsa. “It reflects the nervousness out there. It’s part of being in the market.”

America Movil SAB, the biggest wireless carrier in the Americas and Slim’s largest asset, has declined a relatively benign 6 percent this week. Its Telefonos de Mexico SAB unit has been Slim’s only gainer in Mexico, rising 11 percent on the parent company’s offer to buy out minority shareholders.

The Standard & Poor’s index extended its decline today, falling 0.1 percent at close. The IPC rose 1.1 percent, and America Movil gained 1.1 percent.

Buying Opportunity

The drop in America Movil, which has fallen 20 percent this year as regulators seek to put a dent in its 70 percent share of Mexico’s mobile-phone market, is an opportunity for investors to buy stock in a solid company, Cabrera said yesterday in a telephone interview.

Even measured in Mexican pesos, Slim’s holdings have dropped about 7.3 percent this week, a bigger decline than the broader Mexican market. Bolsa Mexicana de Valores SAB, the Mexican stock exchange operator, said Aug. 2 that it would drop Slim’s Grupo Financiero Inbursa SAB, Inmuebles Carso SAB and Grupo Carso SAB from the IPC index as part of an annual rebalancing.

Inbursa, Slim’s financial-services firm, slid 8.2 percent this week, while Inmuebles Carso, a real estate firm, declined 11 percent, and Grupo Carso, a holding company with retail and construction units, fell 14 percent.

Slim was named the world’s richest man for a second year in a row by Forbes magazine in March. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, second and third on the magazine’s list, have had better weeks, at least for their biggest holdings.

Gates’s Microsoft Corp. (MSFT -1.00%, news) dropped 6.3 percent this week. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) slid 3.9 percent.

Arturo Elias, a spokesman for Slim, declined to comment in an e-mail.

MitchMan - 8-5-2011 at 08:03 PM

Wow, those are some serious declines for the top 3, especially for Slim. When you do the math, that comes out to billions. I don't know how they can hold themselves up. I mean, if I lost even one billion, I would be in deep doo doo. Thank God that I have never had such massive losses. I feel very sorry for them.

Gee, I wonder what necessity they are going to have to do without? Their families must be reeling from the shock and what loosing several billion in such a short period of time is going to mean to their personal finances. Can you imagine the kind of belt tightening those poor people are going to have to do to make up for those massive losses? And to add salt to an open wound, there are some people out there that think that, inspite of such losses, that they should be income taxed more heavily. Wow, is there no mercy for Slim, Buffet, or Gates?

Roberto - 8-5-2011 at 10:36 PM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-05/slim-loses-8-billio...

tjBill - 8-5-2011 at 11:25 PM

Everyone who owns stocks has lost about 10% in the last few days.

toneart - 8-6-2011 at 10:20 AM

I guess Carlos Slim will have to cut back by eating out in restaurants less often. Maybe he could make fewer toll calls on his cell. :rolleyes:

Oso - 8-8-2011 at 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tjBill
Everyone who owns stocks has lost about 10% in the last few days.

My 401k has been in the toilet more than a dozen years now. It's never even regained the amount of my original contributions. I don't count on it. I don't even check on it anymore. :mad:

Bajahowodd - 8-8-2011 at 05:14 PM

Just another reason to extend the Bush tax cuts. Those poor rich folks. :lol:

woody with a view - 8-8-2011 at 07:18 PM

the govmint has us right were they want us. it ain't going to end pretty. why are we building schools in afganistan and not in our country? now the education czar is lowering testing standards for no kid left behind.... change? what a pathetic POS! this experiment the past 3 years has FAILED.

Bajatripper - 8-9-2011 at 06:58 AM

Aahh, I see my retirement plan of limiting my exposure to such calamities by having zero investments is paying off BIG.

Bajatripper - 8-9-2011 at 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
Wow, those are some serious declines for the top 3, especially for Slim. When you do the math, that comes out to billions. I don't know how they can hold themselves up. I mean, if I lost even one billion, I would be in deep doo doo. Thank God that I have never had such massive losses. I feel very sorry for them.

Gee, I wonder what necessity they are going to have to do without? Their families must be reeling from the shock and what loosing several billion in such a short period of time is going to mean to their personal finances. Can you imagine the kind of belt tightening those poor people are going to have to do to make up for those massive losses? And to add salt to an open wound, there are some people out there that think that, inspite of such losses, that they should be income taxed more heavily. Wow, is there no mercy for Slim, Buffet, or Gates?

You know, Mitchman, people who don't know you will likely take you quite seriously. Bet the other Steve from our recent reunion will give you the middle-finger salute should he read this :lol:

Barry A. - 8-9-2011 at 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajatripper
Aahh, I see my retirement plan of limiting my exposure to such calamities by having zero investments is paying off BIG.

Hmmmmm, let me see here-------"zero investments" equals zero profits, and erosion by inflation-------sounds like a winning strategy to me. :tumble:

How is that working out for yu, long term? :rolleyes:

Bajatripper - 8-9-2011 at 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajatripper
Aahh, I see my retirement plan of limiting my exposure to such calamities by having zero investments is paying off BIG.

Hmmmmm, let me see here-------"zero investments" equals zero profits, and erosion by inflation-------sounds like a winning strategy to me. :tumble:

How is that working out for yu, long term? :rolleyes:

Too early to tell. But--as the guy who just jumped off the cliff said--so far, so good.

Barry A. - 8-9-2011 at 10:01 AM

:lol:

Excellent response, Tripper.

But, in checking my portfolios I find that right now I am just about even to where I was on Jan 1, 2011, so in a sense I am in the exact same boat you are in profit-wise, but I was in a position to have "gains"(or losses) all that time, and you were not. I like my strategy better, and it has paid off hansomely over the many years (40 +).

"No pain, no gain", and all that.

Just different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

May we both prosper.

Barry

greengoes - 8-9-2011 at 11:42 AM

The Mexican Peso just hit 12.425 to the dollar..

Tiempo de fiesta.

3 peso note :lol:

who dat?

[Edited on 8-9-2011 by greengoes]

BajaGringo - 8-9-2011 at 12:05 PM

An Argentine dentist...

toneart - 8-9-2011 at 02:20 PM

Quote:

What the hell were you thinking, Mitch? Tax the Billionaires their fair share?

Better to suck the blood of the elderly and infirmed. They are much more vulnerable...easy prey...and politically expendable! You need a good dunking in a teabag with boiling water, Man! Get a grip! :wow:

Barry A. - 8-9-2011 at 02:51 PM

Since the millionairs and "billionairs" are paying the lions share of the taxes now, it only makes sense to try and grab some more from those stingy fat-cats who contribute NOTHING to ME and have all those goodies that WE WANT----------who cares if they move their assets overseas? Good riddance, I say---------stingy so-and-so's!!!!

Bajahowodd - 8-9-2011 at 03:49 PM

Let's cry crocodile tears for the rich. The top 2% have the vast majority of wealth in this country. If there's no pressure placed on them to share on some level, the US becomes a serfdom.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The Bush tax cuts on the wealthy are responsible for a huge percentage of today's debt. What is so wrong with letting them expire, which will only bring their rates back to historic levels?

Barry A. - 8-9-2011 at 04:18 PM

Funny, as I look around me here in Redding, CA I am having a hard time seeing any "serf's"--------things look pretty prosperous in my neighborhood, and beyond.

I must be delusional, tho.

It is pure envy, I say----------I WANT what they have!!!! (even tho "they" often worked hard and took many risks to get where they are, and conducted their lives and work for the benefit of their families thru the generations)

But I agree with you Howard, that the concentration of wealth is way out of wack, but there are good reasons why that is so, and it is not all bad. Still, it has gotten to the point that only the "rich" can afford to "support" the Government, and life-styles of the majority of Americans, and that is a recipe for disaster in my book.

(this thread has gone OFF-Topic, so I will quit)

Barry

Bajahowodd - 8-9-2011 at 05:23 PM

Hmmm. So we agree that the distrubution of wealth is not necessarily good for the country.

We probably agree on lots more than we disagree upon.

Just have to feel that eliminating the Bush tax cuts, which actually represent a huge amount of the US debt, would merely be going back to what previously existed when we had a flourishing economy and a budget surplus.

An interesting aside is that Mexico's next presidential election is really going to be a referendum on that populist versus corporate thing. They will have had eight years of corporate management, given that both Fox and Calderone are corporatists. They are the Wall Street answer to anything that ails.

I just have to believe that despite the history of PRI being a form of socialist oligarchy, the Mexican people are just tired of the drug war and the carnage.

MitchMan - 8-10-2011 at 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
Funny, as I look around me here in Redding, CA I am having a hard time seeing any "serf's"--------things look pretty prosperous in my neighborhood, and beyond.

I must be delusional, tho.

It is pure envy, I say----------I WANT what they have!!!! (even tho "they" often worked hard and took many risks to get where they are, and conducted their lives and work for the benefit of their families thru the generations)

But I agree with you Howard, that the concentration of wealth is way out of wack, but there are good reasons why that is so, and it is not all bad. Still, it has gotten to the point that only the "rich" can afford to "support" the Government, and life-styles of the majority of Americans, and that is a recipe for disaster in my book.

(this thread has gone OFF-Topic, so I will quit)

Barry

You know, Barry, you have written quite a bit that is contradictory in the above quote. You look around your area and you don't see any "serfs", and next counter that observation by writing "...the concentration of wealth is way out of wack" and then immediately contradict that by stating "there are GOOD reasons why that is so...". If there good reasons for it, how can it be "out of wack"?

Next you go on to state that "only the rich can support the government" which I am going to presume that you think is not a good state of affairs, albeit true. But, the question in my mind is do you think it is bad because the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top is so severe that only the top 50% have any money to pay taxes or do you think that the concentration of wealth is fine where it is and aught to be but that it's unfortunate that the government chooses not to suck any money from the bottom 50% in the form of income taxes?

Further, you say the rich are supporting the life-styles of the majority of Americans. Really? First of all, the majority of Americans aren't doing so well, Barry. You know, there is a national and world wide economic crisis going on. The real earnings of the bottom 95% of us Americans over the last 30 years has been on a continual slide downward since the early Reagan Administration, and the GDP of the nation and the wealth and income of the top monied people has gone only upward in those 30 years. What that means, Barry, is that the wealth that was created by the hands and minds of the bottom has flowed to the pockets of the top.

Just to make it easier to understand, that would be like saying that the plantation slave owners pre Civil War were supporting the slaves life style, actually, Barry, the wealthy slave owners were being supported by the dirt cheap labor and backs of the slaves that did the work that created the wealth that flowed to the plantation/slave owner while the slaves just got enough to barely sustain life so that they could both work and procreate. Barry, the slaves were underpaid, and that underpayment is what contributed greatly to the support of the plantation owners and their inequitable rewards.

Furthermore, your use of the term "envy" is nothing more than a cheap and insulting conversational tactic to trivialize people that may have opposing views to yours. It would be like my saying that all the wealthy got their wealth because they are greedy. If you are using the word envy to describe those that are not wealthy, then you are talking about at least 90% of all Americans. Who are you insinuating are envious? What Portion of the population, Barry? Have the courage to take a position and be accountable, make it easy on yourself, + or - 10% accuracy.

I think that you have to think through the 'economics' a little better, when you do, you may find 'consistency instead of contradiction'.

[Edited on 8-10-2011 by MitchMan]

Barry A. - 8-10-2011 at 04:52 PM

MitchMan-----------I would have to write a book to address all the "inconsistancies" you see in my writings---------I believe that you know exactly what I am trying to say, tho I may not have said it that well. I am a Conservative, and for the most part agree with Supply-Side economics with a scattering of Keynesian Demand-side thrown in where appropritate and when the time is right.

Much of your assertions I simply don't agree with, but I am not eloquent enough, or patient enough, to explain (especially since I believe you know what I am saying). You smart guys always make things so complicated that it is a wonder that anything is ever agreed to.

Bottom line I want a FLAT TAX so that everybody is involved in the financing of this Country. I could settle for a Natinal Sales Tax, if I can't get the Flat Tax. I am less enthused about a VAT.

"Envy" is the only work I can come up with for the motivation of the many who want to tax the rich higher %'s more than themselves------i.e redistribution of wealth. Maybe there is a better word than "envy". The reality of the present situation is why I stated or admitted that there ARE real problems, and that at this stage only the "rich" have enough money to begin to fix things, but a good start would be cutting way back on our spending----wayyyyyyy back, and helping the business community to get back up and running better so that they can hire folks who then can afford to pay taxes, etc. etc. Blah blah blah . If the Govt. does not do this NOW, I believe that our good days are well behind us, and we will go into bankruptcy and become essentially a failed state.

Hope that is a little clearer, and not to inconsistant. I am sure I missed many of the inconsistancies that you saw, but this is all that I remember for now. In my own mind, I am not inconsistant, even when I read your critique and thought about it.

Barry

toneart - 8-10-2011 at 10:54 PM

Throughout the years, Barry and I have had many conversations along the same lines. We have often conversed by email and even on the phone. I can now call him a friend. I can separate ideology (some of which would pi$$ me off) from the person. He expresses his opinions based on his personal experience. In my book, that is always valid!!!

Although his views are quite different from mine, he is always a gentleman. He will debate without personal rancor and is fun to joust with. I wish more were like him. :yes:

Barry A. - 8-11-2011 at 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart
Throughout the years, Barry and I have had many conversations along the same lines. We have often conversed by email and even on the phone. I can now call him a friend. I can separate ideology (some of which would pi$$ me off) from the person. He expresses his opinions based on his personal experience. In my book, that is always valid!!!

Although his views are quite different from mine, he is always a gentleman. He will debate without personal rancor and is fun to joust with. I wish more were like him. :yes:

Well thank you, Tony---------I appreciate that.

Best, Barry

MitchMan - 8-11-2011 at 11:51 AM

Hello Barry, I appreciate your response. I beleve that most people generally are coming from a good place and simply see things differently. When it comes to politics and economics, much of the discord, has to do with most people not being on the same sheet of music with regard to actual facts and actual sound correct logic.

For example, you promote the flat tax, you say, so that "everybody is involved in the financing of this Country. I could settle for a Natinal Sales Tax...". Well, now, that sounds fair on the surface, which is good enough for most all conservatives. If Bill Gates has to pay 10% on all his income and if a person with a family of four has to pay 10% on his total household income of $40,000 USD, that would be obviously fair, right? 10% and 10%. Seems fair, doesn't it?

Now, let's look a little closer. There is a thing called Englel's Law which is accepted as a basic principle of income and consumption in classical economics and states that the more income a person acquires, the smaller percentage of it is spent on food. Conservatives avoid and voluntarily choose to ignore this law like the plague because it erodes their economic fabric and philosophy lethally in so many ways. What the law recognizes is that humans consumption has certain common limits. Bill gates can only eat so many lobster dinners, sushi meals, and ounces of Kobe beef. There is a limit. For instance, Bill Gates' house cost $147,000,000 and when you divide that by his net worth, his $147 million mansion is 1/4 of 1% of his net worth. Think it through, Barry, there are hundreds and hundreds of examples that show that human consumption to sustain life is limited whether you are massively wealthy or not.

The other part is the recognition that compensation/income gets wildly out of wack by comparison from person to person in two ways, at the lower income levels, people get very meager reward for their work, and at the upper end it is gangbusters. There is nothing anywhere that says that the supply and demand determinant of a job market will result in a livable wage. The job market is the job market and can and often does result in insufficient and inadequate living wages, especially at the bottom and lavish inequitable rewards for some at the top. Also, what makes anyone think that markets always work perfectly and equitably benefit all participants? Another common error by almost all conservatives. Actually, this insane belief in the religion of unfetterd free markets at all costs is at the basis and foundation of the conservative economic folly and the current world wide economic crisis.

Conservatives in denial refuse to recognize that there is anything wrong or out of kilter for the top 1% to own 37% of the nation's wealth and that the top 10% owning 71% of the nation's wealth while the bottom 60% have only 4% of the nation's wealth and the the bottom 40% have less than 1/4 of 1% of the wealth. Don't have time to go into detail, suffice it to say that our economy is hopelessly and inequitably skewed to favor the top which is to say it is hopelessly skewed to disfavor the working class, especially at the bottom. The obvious lesson here is that those at the top are getting many multiples more in reward from their efforts (largely by way of their 'arranging' things financially rather than actually getting paid for actual work done or joules of energy expended and hours of time worked) than is the working class.

So what you have is wildly disparate income at only the top and the working class (at least the bottom 95% of USA) barely making it. The top cannot consume what they have as widly evidenced by their vast sums of savings an wealth mentioned above because pursuant to Engel's Law there was no way they could atcually consume any signifcant portion of their excessive income or wealth and the rest of working class poplulation barely at subsistance and you want to apply at $4,000 income tax leaving the family of four above with only $36,000 to live on and you want to limit the tax on over 50 hedgefund managers and Wall Street executives that each made over $450 million in 2008 to $45 million leaving them with ONLY $405 million to live on for the year!

Can you see the folly of your ways, Barry? Can you see the numeric factual weakness of the argument for a regressive flat tax or sales tax? Please, I emplore you to internalize the real facts, all the facts, and not succumb to the slogan mentallity and simplicity of what seems fair on the surface. You know, they give PHDs in economics, it is not as simple as conservatives want it to be. You have to understand how numbers actually work through and through. You have to look always at the big picture.

If you think that the disparity of income and wealth is unhealthly for the economy and 'out of wack' as you acknowledged previously, as an ex tax researcher I can tell you that a regressive flat tax or sales tax would make things multiple times wose. Some of those clever ones at the top know this, unfortunately most conservatives are clueless...and I can prove it. It would be a massive windfall for those at the top (just like the Reagan tax cut for the wealthy was) and ruinous to those on the bottom and the economy would suffer from a further reduction to demand in our already suffering economy - most all top credentialed economists acknowledge that our economy big big problem is not at all under supply but fallen and declining demand (consumption) on the whole.

[Edited on 8-11-2011 by MitchMan]

Barry A. - 8-11-2011 at 12:52 PM

Mitch---------It constantly amazes me that many Progressives (Libs) assume that we Conservatives simply don't know, or understand, the complexities of economics, etc.. You have not brought up one "fact" that I have not read about, worried about, analyzed, spent days and months thinking about-------but coming to somewhat different conclusions about, than you have. It is the interaction, interpretation, consequences, and application of those "facts" that lead to various policies and laws out of the Legislature (both Fed. & State) and the effect they have on society that I (and others?) ultimately try to focus on---------and then the "mental wiring" of our brains comes into the final decisions and conclusions that we reach (IMO)--------and they are different (Libs and Conserv), often not to be reconciled, leaving only compromise as a rather unsatisfactory way of moving forward (or not).

There are many learned and intelligent economists that feel the same way as I do, or similar. (Actually, I feel as THEY do, not the other way around). There are NOMADS that articulate these ideas much better than I. ("Old Lady" comes to mind, but there are others)

You appear to me to want to "level the playing field" of success in this Capitolist System, but ignore what it took to get to that "success"-----I resist this, and in fact push-back. I sincerely believe anybody with normal intelligence and an ethic of hard mental and physical work, who pursues education and continued learning, is willing to take risks (sometimes big risks) and proceed fearlessly into proven methods of becoming successful in this Country----CAN DO IT!!! and they should be applauded by ALL of us as living the American Dream. I sure do. I also believe that those who follow this dream are the one's mostly responsible for the continually advancing "standard of living" of all who play the Capitolist game, and also the many who "just hang on" for the ride---------in other words "trickle down economics". People laugh in disgust at the notion of "trickle down", but I have seen it in action everywhere I look, and know in my heart that it is true, generally speaking. My God, the poorest person in this town has so much more than I did when their age it is a wonder to me.

Conversely, I believe that the Nanny-State that we (and Western Europe) have become is the single most detrimental thing that has happened to the citizens of this Country (world), bar none!!! I will push-back at this pervasive "I'm entitled" phylosoply with all my mental strength and votes for as long as I am able. (and at 73 that maybe ain't too long).

I don't doubt your sincerity for a minute------don't doubt mine, and don't assume that I am necesarily talking from gross ignorance (tho I don't claim to have all the answers)--------.

I am long retired (15 yrs), from a moderate-paying job as a Ranger (40K a yr), but I make my real money from the Stock Market (no bonds) and commodities, and it took many years to get here-----my wife and I invested a steady 30% of our wages in the Market for 40 some years, and it is paying off hansomely, even with these recent occasional "burps" we are having in the past few weeks.

We love it---------what is not to love?

Barry

ps-----but I too am worried about the concentration of wealth in the top 1% of the citizens (a flaw in Capitolism)-------that is rediculous and counterproductive and leads to understandable frustration and disgust in the many--------these folks that are "there" in the 1% would be wise to really step up their chritable giving, and they have, but more is needed. I just don't want the Government telling them they have to. The IRS will accept any contributions these "rich" want to give, so give!!! It really drives me nuts when certain high-profile billionairs say, "yes, tax the rich" (Buffett & Gates, and others). If they really feel that way they are welcome to give as much as they want to the IRS------get on with it, I say, it is a free Country!!!

MitchMan - 8-14-2011 at 02:53 PM

Hey Barry, I appreciate the attempt at thoughtful response and the effort you put into it. However and unfortunately, I must say that your thinking is still rather convoluted. You make the typical right wing mistake of drawing flawed inaccurate inferences from the written word and basing your conclusions on those very same flawed inferences. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh have made a living at it. I am going to hold you accountable.

You stated that I want to “level the playing field of success … but (that I) ignore what it took to get to that success”. What I actually said was there is a massive inequitable concentration of wealth and income at the top at the expense of those at the bottom and that the reason is due to our economic system being inequitably and seriously skewed in favor of the top. That is different than your “level playing field of success” inference. Then you double down on your flawed inference and use that as the basis of your other flawed conclusion of my ignoring what it takes to get success. I never said anything about leveling a playing field nor have I ever disputed that it often (though not always) takes hard work to gain financial success, and I challenge you to quote anything that I have written that states that. That was simply another Barryism incorrect inference and an illegitimate attempt to put your own spin on what was said.

Unlike you, I cited many stats and facts that show the very disparate concentration of wealth and income at the top in this country. Then, unlike you, I went on to support my conclusion citing that the economy is inequitably skewed by citing established classic economic doctrine further illustrated with factual examples (e.g., Bill Gates).

Now, if you have a difference of opinion of what the stats that I quoted in my previous post point you to, you know, the facts that you referred to above that you have spent so much time contemplating, please correlate those facts in an argument to support your point of view. I would love to see your argument in writing, here and now. Enlighten us all, Barry. I challenge you to employ just a little of that “hard work” you try to take credit for. I supported my opinions and conclusions, I challenge you to do the same. Be specific, I was. And please, no more lazy cop-outs that different opinions are merely attributed to different “mental wiring” between libs and dems. We are talking hard core economics here, Barry, not your feelings. And, it is obvious to me that you have a very limited knowledge of basic economics.

You seem to limit your understanding of things to the simplicity of everyone can, does, and will succeed with hard work, effort, education and that that trickle down economics works because you have see it in action. Tell me, Barry, the stats show that since the early Reagan administration to now, real earnings and wealth for the working class has been on a continual down turn while GDP has been increasing around a ½ Trillion per year AND the income and wealth of the very few at the top has tremendously increased seemingly exponentially. By way of illustration and just one of many examples, in the early 80s the top 1% owned 20% of the nation’s wealth, just before the crash in 2007/8, the top 1% had increased their share over the last 25 years to 37% of the nation’s wealth. Currently, the top 10% own 71% of the nation’s wealth while the bottom 60% of us own only 4% and the bottom 40% own less than ¼ of 1%. Tell me, Barry, how do those numbers support your contention that trickle down works? I mean, you stated that you know the facts and that I haven’t told you anything new.

Give us your version of the truth and support the success of trickle down in the whole economy with real facts and economic theory so we know that you are not just blowing smoke. You know, Barry, the truth may lie beyond your personal observations and experience. Or, maybe you don’t know that(?)

You are right that we progressives believe that you conservatives don’t know what you are talking about. Here’s your opportunity to prove us wrong. Let’s see if you have the courage and the knowledge to do it. One very typical cop-out by the conservatives is when they are frequently confronted with facts, figures and truth, they readily retreat from the argument. I see it all the time in other forums.

You state that the real problem is the nanny state both here and in Western Europe, but the real problem has and is the ability of special interest big business, especially in the financial sector, to have hijacked the world economy primarily using tax cutting, unnecessary war, deregulation of the financial sector allowing for predatory lending, deregulated banking and CDOs, CDSs, risky derivatives, offshore tax and regulation havens, the shadow banking system, all beginning with and at the time of the Reagan administration and Margaret Thatcher deregulation which laid the weak foundation of the world economy which ultimately crashed in 2007/8, especially here in the USA. $14 trillion of wealth was lost just here in the USA alone, and the wealthy lost a lot less proportionately than the working class. But, then, ofcourse, you already know all the facts and stats, right? So, give me some stats and facts that support the success of trickle down in our economy. I am not talking about your neighbor next door or your cousin, I am talking about the economy taken as a whole.

BTW, Barry, suggesting that those that are for increased taxes on the rich should simply voluntarily donate money to the IRS is really naive and simplistic. That would be a micro fix to a macro problem. I have heard that argument so many times before and it usually comes from the uneducated arm chair conservatives who don't know any better.

You know, I think that your heart is in the right place, and that goes along way with me, but, you are mistaken on so many levels, Barry, I just can't let it go.

[Edited on 8-14-2011 by MitchMan]

Barry A. - 8-14-2011 at 06:25 PM

OK, Mitch-------here is the only "fact" that I am totally interested in and it originated with me------:

What I said "works for me" (that's a fact) and it also "works for my family" (that is a fact, too) and it has made us all very comfortable following the prescriptions that I laid out. I would be foolish to not take that seriously, it seems to me. (Go with what works, and all that--------)

I don't doubt your quoted facts-----all very interesting----I just have a different conclusion as to why some happened, and share a few of your concerns about how others happened.

All the rest of my interpretations come from those I trust, but I certainly don't know personally "the truth" of those facts, and I certainly am not a scholar, as you have observed but I do try to listen to all sides------I just believe what appears to be in line with what I have observed over the many years, and seems logical (to me)-------and much of what the Keynesians say just does not seem logical to me, and the facts they put forth are the "facts" that support their point of view, but certainly not all the facts---(Paul Krugman is a case in point----he seldom makes any sense to me at all, and the more he tries to explain himself the further in trouble he appears to get).

Who knows, you may be right, but using your MO has never helped me to progress, so I stick with what works for me and my family and friends--------Capitolism. You should follow whatever works for you, I would suppose.

I only commented in the first place since I was concerned with what you, and others, said, and wanted to put forth another point of view since your points mostly seemed so negative to me.

Have a good day, Mitch.

Barry

ncampion - 8-14-2011 at 07:49 PM

Another Country heard from:

Here are a couple of "facts" to ponder.
1. Socialist economies continue to fail around the world. They destroy initiative and encourage laziness. Why should I work harder when everyone gets the same.
2. Those “top 1%” people create massive amounts of jobs for people who don’t have what it takes to get to the “top”

Do you also think that we should do away with school grades? Everyone should get a “C” no matter how hard they work or how bright they are.
Should someone who digs ditches make the same money as someone who designs airplanes?
Life is not “fair”. Some people are going to do better than others, accept it and encourage hard work and productivity, not laziness and sucking at the public tit. Someday we’re going to run out of “rich people” to finance all the newly created “poor people”.

Barry A. - 8-15-2011 at 08:46 AM

I 100% agree, ncampion. Well put, short and sweet, and to the point------.

Barry

MitchMan - 8-15-2011 at 10:31 AM

ncampion,
I think that you may be worse than Barry, but since Barry has given you cudos, I guess Barry has sunken to a new low.

First of all, no one is promoting socialism here, not me, certainly not Barry, and I defy you to quote anything that I have written that shows a supporting of socialism. You see, you right wingers go there because you have to create a false premise in order to support your false and incorrect conclusions. Very common among your type. In fact, it is your collective motis operandi.

You double down on your false premise and false self-manufactured issue of socialism, a premise that someone is supporting or calling for socialism and then follow up and point to and demonize people at the bottom of the economic ladder and accuse them of laziness, not measuring up, and insinuate that they are unproductive parasites on society. The final abomination of your diatribe is to insinuate that the rich are financing the "newly created poor people". Real wages have gone down for the middle class and poor (that's at least 95% of the USA population) since early Reagan administration and the rich have just been getting massively richer. That is fact, not opinion. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Then I challenge you to make a substantive comment on that factual trend.

Did you read any of the above? Or do you prefer to wallow in denial and ignorance of the real and pertinent facts? Your intellectual dishonesty may rule your convoluted minds leading you to sidestep reality and not address these stats: the bottom 60% in America only have 4% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 40% only own less than 1/4 of 1%. The top 15% in this country own 85% of all the wealth, and accordingly, the bottom 85% own only 15% of the nation's wealth. Tell me, genius, how does that reflect that the rich are financing the poor? Also, that's alot of people that are in the bottom 60%, are they all lazy, unproductive parasites? If not all, then, just approximately how many of the bottom 60% are lazy, unproductive parasites? Come on, give us your answer! You wouldn't say those things about the poor that you said above if you didn't have at least an approximate idea of how many people in the USA you are critizing, do you? I mean, you posited your opinion so strongly, surely you have a factual basis for your opinion? Would you have said that if you were only talking about 1/1,000 of 1% of the population, if so, that would be a too small proportion to base an opinion on. The concept of an adequate and sufficient quantity to be significant is formally called "materiallity". You wouldn't be so ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and ill-informed as to form an opinion about a segment of the population that is so small as not to be economically "material", would you? So, ....ncampion, share your knowledge with us. What proportion of the USA population are you talking about? Come on, I will make it easy for you, + or - 5% margin of error.

Now, genius, how is that a support of socialism? But, you have to ask yourself, how did that disparity happen and is that disparity a good or bad or normal thing? I challenge you to address this. Only a coward runs and hides from the truth. Stick to the facts of the matter, not inuendo, insinuation, and mere reiteration of your dogmatic opinions. Show us and prove your position with some substance, and not mere opinions and accusations. Prove it with fact and valid accepted economics Don't be cowards.

You too, Barry. You haven't defended your positons, you haven't answered any challenges put to you to prove and support your opinions with objective substance, you haven't commented on the stats and economic theory that were mentioned in this thread with any objective substance of your own to show how you derived your opposing opinions from the facts we talked about, you merely and simply and solely reiterated your weak and unsupported and unproven "opinions". Very weak, and, intellectually dishonest, even derelict.

BTW, ncampion, if you make an effort to read this thread more carefully, the issue has not been a promotion of socialism, that was your false creation as reflected in your statements above. The issue is the massive disparity of income and wealth particularly in the USA since the USA is the second worst offender in the world on this matter. Even your convoluted cohort, Barry, acknowledges that there is a big disparity and further acknowledges that such disparity is bad for the country.

Do you think that the disparity is bad for the country...ncampion? Inspite of the stats that I provided herein, do you think that there is a disparity in the USA? Hmmmmmm? Well, do ya? I challenge you not be a coward and posit your answer so that we can see what you really believe.

Don't be a coward, answer the questions, they are legitimate questions all based on your comments and relevant to your opinions so cavalierly cast here. Be a man...n,campion.

You too, Bary, answer up! Prove your yourself, stand up for yourself. Don't do the typical right wing thing of merely reiterating your previously cast opinions, cowardly feigning mental exhaustion, and then run away, run away (reminds me of "Life of Brian"). Very weak and dishonest!

[Edited on 8-15-2011 by MitchMan]

[Edited on 8-15-2011 by MitchMan]

durrelllrobert - 8-15-2011 at 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tjBill
Everyone who owns stocks has lost about 10% in the last few days.

Geeze, I didn't know that. My Danaher (DHR) on NYSE) went from $40.68 on 8/9 to $45.06 today (+10%) :?:

ncampion - 8-15-2011 at 11:04 AM

MitchMan,
You are obviously a borderline fanatic. It’s impossible to engage in an intelligent conversation with such a person.

I would also guess that you are not one on the "wealthy" people in our country.

Barry A. - 8-15-2011 at 11:21 AM

Mitch-------------back to my original premise--------I am from Mars, and you are from Venus!!!!

Your barrage of veiled and not so veiled insults to me clowds whatever points you are trying to make, that along with what appears to be smoke and mirrors-------most of the time I don't know what you are really talking about, so it is hard for me to address it. But since you think me a "coward", it is really pointless, isn't it, to argue with someone who really has no respect for my points, and in fact negates that they are even "points" at all. Wierd!!!!

I know what my experience is, and I have stated it, and that's a fact.

What you are saying "sounds like" Socialism to me--------I am sorry if that is a false conclusion, but we "right wingers" are always dong that, don't you know, and that is a "fact" because YOU just said it was.. :rolleyes:

And yes, we "investors" in the Stock Market have lost some money in the last few days, but overall I am a little ahead of where I was on Jan. 1 of this year as of last week, so to me that is no big deal--------Even with this choppy Market, Stocks in a "buy and hold" portfolio have still yielded about 7+% (S&P 500) annual return over the years, and THAT is a FACT. My MSCI World (like) portfolio has yielded about 10% + annualized over the years-------another FACT. It is not a "buy and hold" portfolio, but pretty close to it.

I believe what I can see--------you believe whatever you want to believe. There is always more to a story than each of us admits-----me included.

Barry

MitchMan - 8-15-2011 at 11:26 AM

There you go again. ncampion, there you go again. No response to legitimate challenge, no factual support for your contentions, simply a weak and cowardly exit, followed by a guess in the form of an accusation that you have no knowledge of.

Give us some substance and reasonable intelligent logic and support your contentions. Defend yourself. Here is your golden opportunity, it's free, use it.

Come on, don't run away with your little head stuck between your little spindly legs. Be a man.

For the record, you actually haven't written anything here that smacks of intelligence or knowledge, and when given the opportunity to do so, you "run away". Weak, very weak, and I must say, very transparent.

[Edited on 8-15-2011 by MitchMan]

MitchMan - 8-15-2011 at 12:22 PM

Barry, when you make an accusation against someone, it is incumbent upon the accuser to support and otherwise prove the accusations. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Support and proof must be substantive, fact based, and objective, not insinuation, innuendo, spin, or mere opinion reiterated.

Your accusation of "smoke and mirrors" is completely unwarranted. I have only stated solid easily verifiable support, facts and simple logic, not something vague or convoluted. I challenge you to show, in writing, how what I have written constitutes "smoke and mirrors". If you don't do that or if you can't do that, then you owe me an apologie.

BTW, I do have respect for you as a person and I have said a couple of times that I believe that you are coming from a good place, and that is how I ultimately judge a person's character , which happens to be everything to me when it comes to people. All my highschool and most of my college mates were right wing Christian fundamentalists, all my past business partners were right wingers. The absolute criterion for a friend is not political or even economic concurrence but honesty, work ethic, morality, of good character, self discipline, and human compassion. Intelligence and being knowledgeable makes them interesting.

What I do say is that a person is a coward if they make accusations or state opinions without developing or supporting the contention with pertinent, relevant, logic and fact. In my book that is just plain dishonest and cowardly. People do damage that way; it's easy to say something, anything that can be false, and untrue and damaging. The moral burden of proof is on the accuser to "prove". That is not only a moral obligation, it is in our system of Judeo-christian law evolved over milinia.

For the record, I do not brand a person a coward, I brand the actions as cowardly and only after commiting cowardly actions do I then brand a person who commits cowardly actions as a coward. I am very careful about that. I am a careful reader and a careful writer, on purpose.

If ncampion doesn't come back and meet the fair challenges I have posed to him, to take the opportunity to defend his integrity and credibility by standing his ground with good solid support, logic and fact, then he will have earned the brand of coward and intellectual dishonesty. It's up to him, now.

Barry A. - 8-15-2011 at 04:14 PM

Mitch-------under your criteria I could never make any comments or give my opinions. I have forgotten most of the "facts" that you want to see-----only the concepts remain easily accessible from my brain------I have always had a notoriosly poor memory for details, and I can't be researching everything over and over again----way too time consuming. Heck, I don't even remember my phone number most of the time. That is why I just give my impressions, and personal experience senarios, most of the time------they are the only "facts" that I remember. :tumble:

You may brand me a "coward" (or whatever) if you like--------your choice, of course.

I apologize if I have offended you, somehow. I will go back into my corner (for now). :lol:

Barry

Cypress - 8-15-2011 at 04:32 PM

There's no point in attempting to have a debate with a liberal. Their common sense gene is missing. It's a total waste of time. They're not stupid or bad people, just misguided and gullible. I used to feel sorry for them.

Barry A. - 8-15-2011 at 08:23 PM

Mitch----------you want facts, I give you facts----by proxy----

Carve out an hour a week-day from your undoutedly busy schedule and watch THE KUDLOW REPORT at 4pm to 5pm PDT every weekday on CNBC--------listen to "experts" give you facts on the economy and politics all hour long. Or, be like me an record it on your DVR and watch it at your leisure in the evening.

It's fun!!!! You will like it!!!! You can take the info you learn to the bank.

Barry

[Edited on 8-16-2011 by Barry A.]

MitchMan - 8-16-2011 at 10:29 AM

Barry,
I will take a good solid look at the Kudlow Report again. Thanks for the reference. I have seen it before and do drop in on an ongoing basis. For the record, I listen to only talk shows on the radio for several hours each day and 90% of the time it is to right wing AM radio. I listen most every day regularly to Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Praeger, Michael Medved, even Michael Savage. I do not listen much to Limbaugh as he is obviously much less educated and knowledgeable than the others. Limbaugh is simply accusation and spin and no real information, the others are vastly more informative and use good support to bolster their contentions. Rush is what I call ignorant, uneducated, cowardly and very, very intellectually dishonest. He’s a waste of time for even right wingers as you will leave his show with very little real info, the other talk shows serve to truly educate.

Cypress, your motis operandi is clear: make mealy mouthed accusations, refuse to discuss the issue at hand claiming some lame excuse like “There's no point in attempting to have a debate with a liberal. Their common sense gene is missing. It's a total waste of time” but cowardly being careful not putting your foot into the mix. If you have such a great level of common sense and I don’t, this should be a cake walk for you. Actually, I haven’t seen any debate or common sense coming from you, only unsupported accusation and then you “run away, run away” like a loser.

Cypress you said liberals are gullible and misguided (more accusations, unsupported by you as usual), come on, show me how gullible and misguided I am on this thread, quote what I have written and illustrate for us all what was misguided and where the gullibility lies. Prove your point.

You know, there is always a “point” to debating an issue whether or not you persuade your opponents to your side or not or whether you win the debate or not as others read what is being written and if your posts are informative, well presented with substantive support and citations of verifiable fact, the debate serves to educate others and may even persuade others to your point of view. Now, that’s a worthy endeavor, isn’t it ….. Cypress?

Come on, Cypress, take up the challenge and quote me and prove where I am “misguided” tough guy, give us the benefit your “common sense”. Like I said, this should be a cake walk for a dude like you, you know, with all that common sense of yours and your lack of gullibility and the fact that you, as a conservative right winger, are certainly not misguided. Or, is it going to be “run away, run away” like a little teeny mouse?

Barry A. - 8-16-2011 at 10:46 AM

Mitch-------your listening habits give me great insight into you------and that is good. Personally, I don't listen to ANY of those folks you mention as they bore me since I already agree with much of what they say and it is so repeticious (sp?). I do listen to NPR daily as there is much useful info and in-depth coverage if you just disregard some of the input from the left, and the left-slant of the coverage, and also the music is great! Much to my wife's dismay, I listen to certain shows on MSNBC sometimes at night, again to keep tabs on what the 'left' is saying, and maybe even learn something, occasionally. 'Hard Ball' is my favorite, with Cris Mathews.

But yes, as you might suspect, FOX NEWS is my primary source of News, if for no other reason then the beauty-queens that are presenting it--------outstanding viewing!

Then there is the internet------------all the news one can stand, and then some. :spingrin:

Barry

I disagree-----

beercan - 8-16-2011 at 10:47 AM

libs are retards in the worse way... they think "they" are the anointed ones to guide us . I don't feel sorry for any of them, they all would do us a favor by assuming room temp.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
There's no point in attempting to have a debate with a liberal. Their common sense gene is missing. It's a total waste of time. They're not stupid or bad people, just misguided and gullible. I used to feel sorry for them.

MitchMan - 8-16-2011 at 11:13 AM

OK, beercan, doubling down on Cypressisms: sniping from the shadows, accusations and this time sheer direct name calling. Good stuff. Beercan, could you be any more of a stereotype? I mean, look at your moniker, "beercan". :lol:

Another potential member of the legions of those that post accusation, inuendo, sheer name calling and unsupported criticism, never really positing sufficient and adequate factual support for any of their accusations, criticisms, and contentions of their own.

Actually, "beercan" ( :lol:

), why don't you come up with a logo and then the next time you post, simply post of copy of the logo, because I strongly suspect that your input is very predictable.

"beercan", really? :lol:

Maybe that says it all.

[Edited on 8-16-2011 by MitchMan]

MitchMan - 8-16-2011 at 11:28 AM

Barry, cool.

Listening to the opposition is very good and healthy and very informative because, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you come from, the opposing talk shows will always come up info that you won't get on your own like minded shows, always. Plus, knowing and keeping current on what is going on with the opposition makes you much better informed of reality and keeps you informed of "all" the facts, not just the facts that support one point of view or contention. You become better at supporting your own contentions and your contentions will evolve to even a higher level of truth and correctness.

And, that is the real goal: truth and correctness regardless of party affiliation.

I drop in on Fox news every bit as much as MSNBC, HLN and CNN.

MitchMan - 8-16-2011 at 12:07 PM

Barry, beauty queens, how about that Megan Kelly. She's incredibly good looking, and smart too.

Barry A. - 8-16-2011 at 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
Barry, beauty queens, how about that Megan Kelly. She's incredibly good looking, and smart too.

--------as is Harris Faulkner, absolutely the BEST "breaking news" desk person in the business.

They are all great!!!

Barry

MitchMan - 8-16-2011 at 01:18 PM

If you want to see some great informative and intensely interesting shows, take a look at CSPN Book TV on Sunday mornings. I usually get up at about 6:00 am and watch various news talk shows on cable while waiting for Meet the Press and Face the Nation. I keep my eye on Book TV because they usually have very very in depth knowledgeable authors that speak about their latest book usually in a very scholarly fashion. Many of these authors are just plain brilliant and it is a sheer pleasure to listen and learn to such magnificent articulation. Believe me, it is a totally non-partisan show. You get leaders from both sides of the political spectrum.

Reminds me a little of the best political talk show that ever aired, "Firing Line" with William F. Buckley Jr. Unfortunately for the country that the best replacements for him have been the likes of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. I sorely miss Buckely's scholarly well researched and brilliantly articulated and well supported discourse. Instead we have inflamatory unsupported accusation, inuendo, spin, and anything but scholarly objective insight.

[Edited on 8-16-2011 by MitchMan]

Barry A. - 8-16-2011 at 05:06 PM

MitchMan-----Tho as you say, nobody can replace W.F. Buckley, Charles Krauthammer does a excellent job, as does Thomas Sowell.

Then there is Newt Gingrich, Dr. Alan Keyes, Dick Morris, Steve Forbes, and Larry Kudlow-------all who do a decent job of being smart and articulate Media Conservatives.

I am sure there are others.

Barry

toneart - 8-16-2011 at 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
MitchMan-----Tho as you say, nobody can replace W.F. Buckley, Charles Krauthammer does a excellent job, as does Thomas Sowell.

Then there is Newt Gingrich, Dr. Alan Keyes, Dick Morris, Steve Forbes, and Larry Kudlow-------all who do a decent job of being smart and articulate Media Conservatives.

I am sure there are others.

Barry

Uhh....Barry. If you find yourself in a hole, quit digging. You were doing fine until you came up with this list of clowns. They can't hold a candle to William F. Buckley. He was armed with an acute familiarity with his opposition, thereby able to be objective while at the same time strong on his positions. He was crystal clear in his intelligent and sophisticated presentations.

As Mitchman says, (I am paraphrasing... a very rough rendition), "to know and follow the oppositions arguments can give you a better perspective in which to support your own arguments."

These guys that you mentioned are completely biased and present in the new browbeating style that emerged with the advent of Fauxnews and Clear Channel Radio...can you say Rupert Murdock?

Oh, Gingrich was probably the best of the bunch. When he was Speaker of The House he had a vision. He also was able to get things done through some compromise, and didn't hold the country hostage, hung out to die like today's obstructionist Tea Baggers. But now he has descended into the media driven,biased, recalcitrant attitudes prevalent in Right Wing politics today. Also,when they were so busy impeaching Bill Clinton for his transgressions, Newtie was busy with his own cheating ways.

jakecard - 8-16-2011 at 06:48 PM

"Excuse me, sir."

"Ya'll boys lost?" the old man asks.

"Uh, yes, thank you, sir. Sorry for bothering you. Could you tell us how to get back to Baja, please?" "We must have taken a wrong turn and . . . "

"Well, son," as he shifts his chaw and spits, "I know where Baja is . . . " "But ya'll just can't get there from here."

Jake

Barry A. - 8-16-2011 at 09:05 PM

Tony---------I SAID, "nobody can replace William F. Buckley".

Jake----------this entire thread should have been in OFF TOPIC, but it wasn't, and it all started with the premise that Carlos Slim lost a bundle, and how bad the stock market is---------I took exception to that, that's all. :tumble:

Barry

[Edited on 8-17-2011 by Barry A.]

toneart - 8-16-2011 at 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jakecard
"Excuse me, sir."

"Ya'll boys lost?" the old man asks.

"Uh, yes, thank you, sir. Sorry for bothering you. Could you tell us how to get back to Baja, please?" "We must have taken a wrong turn and . . . "

"Well, son," as he shifts his chaw and spits, "I know where Baja is . . . " "But ya'll just can't get there from here."

Jake

Jake,

You are right, of course!

Let us return to Baja and Carlos Slim's Requiem. Please show us the way:

Bajahowodd - 8-23-2011 at 03:05 PM

In a sec.

Wanted to weigh in on the hijack.

When mentioning Bill Buckley, one also ought to consider Bill Kristol's old man. Obviously, there was once a few intellectual conservatives who made sense and did so with class.

Sad fact is that this nation, for reasons I won't go into, has continued to drift to the right over the past half century. I'm willing to bet that someone such as Dwight Eisenhower, if alive today, would be a Democrat.

Carlos Slim Buys More Stock in the New York Tives

Gypsy Jan - 8-23-2011 at 03:21 PM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/23/us-newyorktimes-sa...

toneart - 8-23-2011 at 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajahowodd
In a sec.

Wanted to weigh in on the hijack.

When mentioning Bill Buckley, one also ought to consider Bill Kristol's old man. Obviously, there was once a few intellectual conservatives who made sense and did so with class.

Sad fact is that this nation, for reasons I won't go into, has continued to drift to the right over the past half century. I'm willing to bet that someone such as Dwight Eisenhower, if alive today, would be a Democrat.

We might as well continue with the "hijack" since no one has contributed to the topic in over a week--

Too bad Bill Kristol fell in with the Neocon gang of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld. They formed the Project for the New American Century. Here is some cut and paste:

"Neoconservatism in the United States is a branch of American conservatism that is most known for its advocacy of using American economic and military power to topple American enemies and promote liberal democracy in other countries. The movement emerged during the early 1970s among Democrats who disagreed with the party's growing opposition to the Vietnam War and had become skeptical of the Great Society's welfare programs. Although neoconservatives generally endorse free-market economics, they often believe cultural and moral issues to be more significant, and so have tended to be less thoroughgoing in opposition to government intervention in society than more traditionally conservative and libertarian members of the Republican Party.[1][2] Most neoconservatives support the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya."

In the early 90s they colluded with Radical Muslims to try and find a way to topple Saddam Hussein of Iraq. It is then that they conceived the PNAC. All they needed was to trump up an excuse to invade a sovereign nation so as to mask it illegality. Nine years later they used 9/11 and WMDs as the excuse and had in place, the right dummy as president, GWB, to implement it.

Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, wrote:
"For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order... In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it."

It's all right there for anyone to Google and read. I am not making it up. For those who support this ideology, go there and wallow.

For those who oppose, go there and prepare to be aghast.

Oh...get Carlos Slim on the line and let's see if he is aligned with the Neocons. :?:

OOps...Jan slipped in there, on topic, while I was composing this.

[Edited on 8-23-2011 by toneart]