Instead of Democratic Voices using their space to advance the virtues or successes of their political philosophy, we get more of this garbage:

"""the current Republican Party coalesced around its hatred of all things Clinton."""

"""signed the hateful and bigoted Defense of Marriage Act"""

"""today modern Republicans are defined by their own irrational hatred for Democratic presidents."""

"""young Republicans don’t see the point of hating gays"""

According to Mr. Buck, if you're a Republican you HATE all immigrants, poor people, the infirmed, gay people, people who are hungry, homeless people, and all Democratic presidents.

Does Mr. Buck's irrational and despicable tirade really speak for all Democrats?

I'd like to temper Mr. Buck's opinions with some facts.

"""No matter that he presided over an economy that created 20 million jobs, balanced the budget, reformed welfare, signed the hateful and bigoted Defense of Marriage Act and left office with a budget surplus…"""

Bill Clinton had a Republican Congress for six of his eight years as president. He opposed budget cuts and welfare reform and had to be led kicking and screaming by the GOP. These policies led to the budget surplus and 20 million jobs. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in the House 342 to 67 and in the Senate 85 to 14, but Mr. Buck only blames the GOP.


"""The insane Obama conspiracy theories that currently flow non-stop from the Right Wing Noise Machine had their genesis in the obsessive intrusion into Bill and Hillary Clinton’s private lives."""

Bill Clinton had sex with a 24 year old intern in the White House. 78 national newspapers called for his resignation. This was no conspiracy Mr. Buck, the guy Democrats worship today really did it.


"""In both the Clinton and Obama administrations, the Republican congressional majority in the House was consumed by partisan political grandstanding against the president, making it difficult to do the hard work of governing this nation."""

Without the Republican congressional majority in the House, Clinton wouldn’t have had nearly the success for which he takes full credit. As for Obama, has there ever been a president more consumed by partisan political grandstanding?


"""The mainstream pragmatists in the party, who see winning elections as the goal of a political party, know they cannot win national elections unless they make inroads with women, youth and minorities."""

Obama and his minions got more votes because they strategically appealed to the absolute worst common denominator among women, youth, and minorities by spreading fear, hate, and entitlements. Why? Because they see winning elections as the goal of their party.


"""Given that African-Americans vote 90 percent Democratic, and there are no signs that is going to change anytime soon,…"""

Which party opposed freeing the slaves in the 1860s? Democrats. Which party opposed civil rights in the 1960s? Democrats. They get 90 percent of the black vote today because they want to keep people enslaved to Uncle Sam’s plantation. How else could you explain getting 90% of this voting block?

"""The tea party Republicans in the 21st century doom their party’s ability to advance a national agenda because they refuse to recognize the humanity of a people searching for a better life for their families."""

The Democrats got one of the worst “shellackings” in political history in 2010. In 2012, 94,000,000 registered voters stayed home. Obama got 50.6% of what was left after spending a billion dollars. This is the basis for Mr. Buck’s doomsday prophecy for the GOP.

I pray America is not this far gone but time will tell.

I appreciate the history lesson Kevin. Perhaps next time you can regale us with a lesson about how Democrats fought for the right to own slaves. You remember right? It was just a short 150 years ago that the Democrat party fought and died and nearly destroyed this nation for the right to own another human being. It was also just a short 50 years ago that the same Democrat party fought against civil rights legislation. Robert Byrd, the Grand Dragon of the KKK droned on for hours against this legislation. Isn't history a neat thing? But the Dems still have their slaves but instead of plantation owners we have the government who is the slaveholder.

therightstuff,

I agree with your position that we need to speak specifically to our problems.

So with that in mind, do you support a year round homeless shelter in SCV that would allow these people to live with some dignity and provide them the ability to receive mail, take showers, wash their clothes, have a place to keep their belongings?

Dumbounded wrote: I appreciate the history lesson Kevin. Perhaps next time you can regale us with a lesson about how Democrats fought for the right to own slaves.

Indy: Yes, it’s good you brought this up since many Americans don’t realize that their Founding Fathers ‘owned’ slaves including Thomas Jefferson, one of the authors of the ‘Bill of Rights’.

And it took a civil war to produce the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments to the Constitution.

So at least the original Founding Fathers seemed to sense that changes to the plight of human dignity would occur, allowed amendments to the Constitution, and thankfully, although it took a war to see it, that people of all races are ‘equal’ in the eyes of the law.

therightstuff wrote: Because they see winning elections as the goal of their party.

Indy: I think this is the crux of the matter that most politicians today see their reelection as more important than moving the nation forward.

What’s at issue is here is that our politicians are taking the ‘narrow’ view of their bases and ignoring the mainstream public that isn’t living in the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

Likewise, the based ‘front’ the elections both in effort and money.

In any event, both parties have lost the ability to lead and have sadly sold out to the ‘highest’ bidders (read lobbyist) that now run congress, unbeknownst to many people.

We just need fair hearings on topics devoid of the charged political rhetoric that has become a proxy for sound, rational, debate, no?

Whenever a Democrat provides advice on how to "save" the opposition, you can be assured they mean the opposite. There's a palpable longing for the days when they had a tamed minority party cowed and a "permanent" legislative majority that lasted for decades.

As pointed out in previous comments, this column is the latest installment of revisionism as Democratic partisans would rather you not focus on actual history and results of their policies.

Examples: Review the status of states and large cities where Democrats have had single party rule for an extended period.

Indy: """...do you support a year round homeless shelter in SCV that would allow these people to live with some dignity and provide them the ability to receive mail, take showers, wash their clothes, have a place to keep their belongings?"""

Indy, I'm absolutely in favor of providing all of these services to the poor in our community, including protecting their dignity, but I don't know if a year-round homeless shelter is the best way to accomplish it. Do we know how many people in SCV are homeless? What existing services could collaborate to meet this need so there isn't a duplication of effort? How would this be supported by the community? What has been the response by the community so far? You've prompted me to call the homeless shelter and ask these questions. I'll let you know what I find out.

Indy: ""I think this is the crux of the matter that most politicians today see their reelection as more important than moving the nation forward.""

Agreed. The number one priority of most politicians is to get re-elected which explains why they will almost always take the path of least resistance to get things done. No wonder so little actually gets done.

However, this was not true during the health care debate. Though I have my misgivings about it, I must confess that there were many Democrats who were willing to fall on the sword of their convictions (or deeply held beliefs if you will), in order for this to get passed. Many of them knew it would likely mean not getting re-elected but to them, it was worth the sacrifice. I have to tip my hat to that kind of conviction.

The point of Kevin's thoughtful piece, and it is a good one, is that political parties don't necessarily have an unlimited life, just because they exist today and have for a long time. The inability to win national elections, like the Whig party endured, can mean transformation to a regional rump and then oblivion. (The other thing that doomed the Whig party was the tremendous expansion of the voting franchise, albeit to white males, that occurred in the 1820's).

It would be hilarious but a compelling case can be made that in 15 years time the Democratic Party will have actually become the center-right, pro-business party, having absorbed the moderate elements of the Republican Party. The center-left party will then probably be the Green Party. You heard it here first!

"The inability to win national elections, like the Whig party endured, can mean transformation to a regional rump and then oblivion."

Yet to be demonstrated.

Post WWII:

Harry S. Truman (April 12, 1945—January 20, 1953). Democratic
Dwight D. Eisenhower (January 20, 1953—January 20, 1961). Republican
John F. Kennedy (January 20, 1961—November 22, 1963). Democratic
Lyndon B. Johnson (November 22, 1963—January 20, 1969). Democratic
Richard Nixon (January 20, 1969—August 9, 1974). Republican
Jimmy Carter (January 20, 1977—January 20, 1981). Democratic
Ronald Reagan (January 20, 1981—January 20, 1989)
George H. W. Bush (January 20, 1989—January 20, 1993)
Bill Clinton (January 20, 1993—January 20, 2001). Democratic
George W. Bush (January 20, 2001—January 20, 2009). Republican
Barack Obama (January 20, 2009—Incumbent). Democratic

I skipped Ford (Republican) as he wasn't elected.

I moved to Santa Clarita to be away from the homeless not to embrace them and encourage them to come and stay a while and kick their feet up. Yea I know, I'm a hateful bigot who is selfish and unsympathetic. On the other hand, maybe I just said the very thing most of the residents of this city think but wont say it for fear of being branded. Let other communities embrace the homeless, I think we should embrace education by spending that money on our schools or any of a hundred other things that are more important than a homeless shelter.

"""Let other communities embrace the homeless"""

Not my problem. I got mine.

DB, do you have any idea how many SCV residents are one paycheck away from being homeless? It could happen to anybody, anywhere, any time, especially in this economy.

therightstuff wrote: You've prompted me to call the homeless shelter and ask these questions. I'll let you know what I find out.

Indy: Thanks and let me know.

From reading the Signal over the last 10 years or so, the reporters that have interviewed the shelter workers and Sheriffs noted that the people there are ‘locals’.

We just need to make sure that people in our community have access to basic services that allow them to at least have a chance to get back to work . . .

The other issue is that some of these folks may never find work . . . since they may lack current skill sets.

So the issue becomes whether we believe some Americans will be homeless in the land of plenty . . .

"DB, do you have any idea how many SCV residents are one paycheck away from being homeless? It could happen to anybody, anywhere, any time, especially in this economy."

No, I don't have the slightest idea but I do know what it's like to be homeless since I was forced to live in my car for several months 30 years ago. Does that count? Do you have any idea how many SCV residents are one check from being homeless? I spent a decade being one check away from being homeless, what does that have to do with a shelter?

Hey TRS, if you love the homeless so much put some of them up in your home. There are lots of things I don't want in my community and if that makes me bad in your opinion, I don't care. I don't want a pot store, strip club, homeless shelter, abortion facility, ACLU, gay parades, illegals, criminals, and probably a lot of other things if I thought more about it. I know sometimes I get my way and sometimes I don't. I also think most people that are homeless, especially the long term homeless, are that way because they want to be. We spend 100's of billions on poverty and there really is no excuse to be long term homeless with all the welfare this country gives out. If not welfare, then family or friends, but I don't want our city to become some kind of homeless magnate.

And finally, any "mine" that I have comes after a lot of hard work and AFTER various governmental agencies extracted over 50% of what I've made. So yea, pardon me if I'm a bit cynical and sensitive about keeping what's "mine". When "you" ask me for money or support, then it becomes MY problem by default otherwise you and like minded people should just handle it yourself.

Dumbounded wrote: I moved to Santa Clarita to be away from the homeless not to embrace them and encourage them to come and stay a while and kick their feet up. Yea I know, I'm a hateful bigot who is selfish and unsympathetic. On the other hand, maybe I just said the very thing most of the residents of this city think but wont say it for fear of being branded. Let other communities embrace the homeless, I think we should embrace education by spending that money on our schools or any of a hundred other things that are more important than a homeless shelter.

Indy: I don’t think you’re a ‘a hateful bigot who is selfish and unsympathetic’, you’re just acting in a ‘economically rational’ manner for you, the individual.

That’s an important point in that if we see ‘society’ only from the perspective of ‘ourselves’, then the ‘drivers’ of the problems we ‘move away from’ go unaddressed.

And that’s why we have more homeless today, for example, than last year.

And there’s nothing wrong with trying to point our resources to uses like our schools but that too doesn’t address the reasons why people become homeless.

Like it or not, our society is in a period of rapid change where people with skill sets that were good 20 years ago now find nobody will hire them.

Thus, your suggestion about schools does address a facet of homelessness is that retraining for current jobs is to be valued.

But in the bigger picture, if you find yourself homeless, how to get back into the working world?

Where would you stay to acquire the basics of employability?

That’s what homeless shelters could do.

And if the shelters provided places for residents there to gain skills and so forth, they wouldn’t be hanging around you per se.

In any event, I’ve seen people ‘flee’ Los Angeles for various reasons feeling they are helpless to change any of the issues they feel cause them to flee.

With our current political system broken including finding it populated by many people that aren’t ‘thinkers’ but just ‘reciters’ that pander to their own ignorance, it’s again, economically rational is the short run to ‘flee’ the problems and ‘Let other communities embrace the homeless’ thus leaving the issue unresolved.

But the long term outlook for that strategy is just more homelessness . . . and the problems creating homelessness go unaddressed.

I’m just not sure that’s our best approach for our society although I can see the value to you personally.

I used to think our leaders were just that, leaders who looked out for our long term interest and were willing to solve problems that in some cases, don’t have immediate results. But that’s no longer the case and that again, supports your actions.

"Indy: I don’t think you’re a ‘a hateful bigot who is selfish and unsympathetic’, you’re just acting in a ‘economically rational’ manner for you, the individual."

Thank you Indy, I honestly appreciate it. Some of my best friends are homeless. :)

"And that’s why we have more homeless today, for example, than last year."

We do? I thought everything was getting so much better in the age of Obama?

Look, here is my bottom line. Some homeless are that way because of unfortunate circumstances, especially battered women. I have compassion for them and I think we as a society should help them out. However, I also believe that a significant percentage of the homeless are that way because they want to or becuase of bad choices they've made. No, I don't give a rat's behind about these people and no I don't want them encamped in our community.

I wonder if TRS is so magnanimus about the homeless that he would be in favor of a shelter across the street from his house?

"""I wonder if TRS is so magnanimus about the homeless that he would be in favor of a shelter across the street from his house?"""

That's why we have zoning, DB. Just because I wouldn't want one across the street from my house doesn't mean I don't want one at all for the SCV. Taking such extreme positions helps no one.

You also say, """I also believe that a significant percentage of the homeless are that way because they want to or because of bad choices they've made.""" The fastest growing segment among the homeless are single moms with little children. Nearly all of these women made bad choices by hitching up with a scumbag of a boyfriend or husband who abandoned them. Should we turn them away because of their bad choices?

Indy, I did indeed call Bridge to Home to get some answers but had to leave a message. I hope to hear back from them.

Dumbounded,

To address some of your additional concerns, let me make some more comments.

At least we agree that some people who are homeless are truly needy and should be helped.

As far as Obama is concerned, I would prefer we keep his discussion at the higher national level since when you drill down into the local economy, Obama simply isn’t in play. Blaming him for everything wrong in America just shunts the debate to a ‘blame game’ and we can’t solve anything.

I would say that Obama is like the preceding presidents that advocate things like ‘free trade’ but appear to be oblivious to the consequences effecting working Americans as a result of same. Many manufacturing jobs that left the US are not coming back regardless of him or any other politician saying so. Sadly, this will result in more people becoming homeless to some degree.

In any event, the Signal has reported that most of the people at the winter shelter are locals, many of whom can’t find work. Obviously, many people make poor choices but likewise, many Americans are told things by our leaders that are not true.

As we saw during the recent financial collapse, many ‘bad choices’ were made at Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch but only a few actually had to ‘pay’ for their mistakes. Others were ‘bailed out’ with the ‘too big to fail’ reality even though we let the ‘moral hazard’ develop by letting these firms become too big and thus their failure would potentially collapse our entire economy.

And the dollar values in play with that crisis dwarf by orders of magnitude what we’d be spending on helping homeless people.

In any event, how can people reenter the workforce without a shelter to give them a place to shower, sleep, receive mail, get calls, and wash their clothes?

And if people did make ‘bad calls’, does that mean they are too pay for them forever?

Even our criminal justice system makes people pay with jail time and then gives them another chance . . .

Finally, the best location of a shelter is near ‘work’ opportunities. Proposing the idea that the shelter should be next to somebody’s house or that they are to shoulder the problem by personally housing the homeless I feel to be inappropriate.

Today, the Democratic Party has a vision of more central control. For example, the nationalization of public education through Common Core. Thank God, that Texas and Nebraska said no to Common Core.
It was the same mission in 1854, when the Democrats consolidated the districts of Spring Garden, Kensington, Northern Liberties, Southwark, the Township of Northern Liberties, and the County of Philadelphia into the City of Philadelphia. The Whig Party controlled the central city, but the Democrats controlled the Township of Northern Liberties. The Whig Party protested, but the Democrats had the votes.
Today, the Democrats spend our money unwisely. In 1854, the Democrats spent a lot of money on the Gadsden Purchase. It was a bad deal. Too much money for too little land. The land was not suitable for the growth of cotton, so it was about as useful as "a fifth teat on a cow." Harry Truman's phrase.

" AFTER various governmental agencies extracted over 50% of what I've made."
I call B.S.

"Illegal" is an adjective, not a noun. There is no such thing as an "illegal" person.

If a person is incapable of making "good choices" that person deserves to be cast aside, to fend for himself?

Republicans will never improve if the best benchmark they can muster is "we're better than the Democrats". Both parties suck the big one. They are joined at the hip and indistinguishable from each other on 99% of the issues.

"I call B.S."

What is BS is your lack of understanding of exactly how much a self-employed person with 300 employees pays in taxes. What is BS is your lack of understanding how much the state and fed takes when one sells his business. If I count all the money I've paid in employee, personal, and corporate income taxes versus what I've made in my life, it's well north of 50%. But of course such an intellectual as you knows nothing about such things.

I just wish I could prove it to you Clay and have you retract and admit your ignorance to all.

And Ricketzz, I know illegal is an adjective but someone here in violation of the law is still an illegal.

Yes, if a peson in incapable of making good choices they should be cast aside or incarcerated. Why is the default of so many the demand that we take care of everyone in every case?

Both parties suck the big one? For once, I'm in total agreement. They are the same on almost all the issues but an ignorant electorate doesn't quite understand this which is why so many of them banter needlessly.

"Why is the default of so many the demand that we take care of everyone in every case?"

Might be that whole judaeo-christian "ethic"...you know, the one based on what this guy named Jesus said about taking care of other people?

Oh, right...he didn't really *mean* those things, did he? Not when it affects *you*.

Of course.

Like you Steve, I'm not a follower of the whole judaeo-christian thing and I find it curious that you are using it now when you've done nothing but denigrate it in the past. I have my own ethics and in many ways they mirror the JC ethic, but they are mine. I believe there are some that simply cannot be helped under any circumstance and I also believe there are some that don't want to be helped.

Do you own ethics allow you to pass those judgements on people you don't know?

BTW, I never denigrated the basic tenets of judaeo-christian ethics in this regard. I think they're fine...I just don't believe there's a god, so the root of those ethics is societal, not divinely inspired. That said, what I find odd is the vast number of people who call themselves christian but utterly fail to live by Jesus' own words.

Dumbounded is honest at least. The disabled are non-productive so they should be warehoused out of sight, out of mind. We need to weed out the "takers" any way we can. They can make brooms if the drooling is not too fierce.

Abrahamic (Jews, Muslims, Christians) religions frequently prescribe "stoning" a person to cure what ails them. I think that a person who, through no fault of their own, cannot make good decisions should be helped.

The Republicans took good old fiscal sanity and spoiled it with their religious crazy, again.

"""what I find odd is the vast number of people who call themselves christian but utterly fail to live by Jesus' own words."""

This is nothing more than a cheap cop out why the "vast number" of atheists say don't believe in God. They blame other people for their lack of faith. Christians are human and will continue to make mistakes, even as they try to follow the teachings of Jesus. But this is why I don't put my faith in people but in Christ alone. Jesus was never a hypocrite.

""" I believe there are some that simply cannot be helped under any circumstance and I also believe there are some that don't want to be helped."""

DB, I don't think these beliefs are very different from those of JC. Even he acknowledged that there will always be poor people (Matthew 26:11). If we "solved" poverty today, there would be poverty tomorrow. Among the homeless, some can't be helped because of mental illness. For others, it is a serious drug addiction which clouds their thinking. For most however, it truly is a matter of wanting to help themselves as you suggested. Until someone genuinely wants to change their circumstances, there's absolutely nothing you can do to help them except emergency services of food and shelter. I agree with the adage, "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."

And yes, I noticed how Steve condemned you for judging others even as he judged the "vast number" of Christians in the very same post, but that's just Steve. If nothing else, he's always good for a laugh.

"...even as he judged the "vast number" of Christians in the very same post..."

A little English lesson for you, TRS...I didn't say "the vast number" of christians behaved that way. I said there are a vast number of people who call themselves christians who behave that way. Subtle difference with a big change in meaning. Try not to put words in my mouth.

And do you deny that there *are* many people who call themselves christians who *choose* to ignore the directions given by Jesus? I'm not talking about occasional errors or mistakes, I'm talking about willfully *choosing* not to abide by the teachings of the man?

Therightstuff wrote: DB, I don't think these beliefs are very different from those of JC. Even he acknowledged that there will always be poor people (Matthew 26:11). If we "solved" poverty today, there would be poverty tomorrow.

Indy: We’ve had discussions on this topic and I would add that if we had true understanding of basic economics that is tuned into a ‘sustainable growth’ society that addresses resource constraints and population, poverty as you’ve known it would be far different.

The biblical assumption that people that don’t work hard is all well and good but you need to look further into the issues of resources be they financial or otherwise, that limit the amount of jobs available.

In other words, we have people in America that want to work but can’t find a job.

These folks are not ‘lazy’.

You also have to look into the hiring practices of business in that if you’re a plumber, you’re not going to be hired as an electrician no many how many of those jobs are available.

Thus, in a purely market fundamentalist world based on ‘individualism’; if you can’t find work you’re homeless.

In a world that addressed the shortcomings of market fundamentalism, you have ‘safety nets’ include retraining opportunities that recognizes the differences between job types.

In any event, if the Bible you and DB cite explains concepts like ‘resource constraints’, ‘market fundamentalism’, and ‘sustainable growth’, please share that with me so I can better understand comments like ‘that there will always be poor people’.

I don’t accept that for the reasons I’ve cited above but in spirit of debate, am willing to read your points that you feel support that declaration.

Indy: """The biblical assumption that people that don’t work hard is all well and good but you need to look further into the issues of resources be they financial or otherwise, that limit the amount of jobs available."""

If we look at global poverty, we get a different story. The natural resources of Africa would rival any other continent and yet it remains the poorest of all. There are many reasons but I suggest the main one is the incredible corruption by many of their leaders who seize control through the military, rape the nation for their personal gain, create total political instability which all but kills investment, and then leaves the country or gets overthrown by another thug who repeats the cycle. It's what the Bible refers to as the depravity of man.

"""I'm talking about willfully *choosing* not to abide by the teachings of the man?"""

If someone is "willfully choosing not to abide by the teachings of Jesus Christ" as you suggest, then I wouldn't consider them a Christian no matter what they may call themselves.

Therightstuff wrote: If we look at global poverty, we get a different story. The natural resources of Africa would rival any other continent and yet it remains the poorest of all. There are many reasons but I suggest the main one is the incredible corruption by many of their leaders who seize control through the military, rape the nation for their personal gain, create total political instability which all but kills investment, and then leaves the country or gets overthrown by another thug who repeats the cycle. It's what the Bible refers to as the depravity of man.

Indy: Can you give me a source for where you see Africa resources would rival other continents?

What type of resources?

And who would develop those assets?

One of the problems with development is that many nations’ lack economic capital.

As far as political corruptions, what do you see in the US that has not addressed poverty here since it remains the same for the last 40 years?

Could the US be the stabilizing force even though we’ve seen that US companies more often than not turn nations into ‘banana republics’ where we benefit and the indigenous people don’t. (chk out the book ‘The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man’)

But let’s get back to the US . . .

Are the people here ‘lazy’ if they can’t find a job if no jobs is there for them?

If that’s the case, what should we do?

Do we simply let people slip into homelessness if no jobs are there?

In any event, we see such depravity here in the US since many of our politicians are so political self-serving that the ‘common interest’ of most Americans is simply ignored.

Who should we address that?

I want to find solutions as I’ve noted before and it looks like if we in the public don’t suggest them, we’ll just keep getting the folklore/ideology recitals that don’t even solve our problems let alone those of the developing world.

Indy: """Can you give me a source for where you see Africa resources would rival other continents?"""

If you type in 'African Natural Resources' to any search engine you'll get an unlimited supply of data. Here's an excerpt from one with the link.

http://www.grida.no/publications/et/ep5/page.aspx

Take the wetlands of the Zambezi River Basin. According to estimates outlined in the Africa Environment Outlook-2 (AEO-2), the economic value in terms of crops and agriculture alone of these wetlands is close to USD 50 million a year. The wetlands also have other economic importance. In terms of fisheries, nearly USD 80 million a year and in terms of maintenance of grasslands for livestock production, over USD 70 million annually. Wetland-dependent ecotourism is valued at more than USD 800,000 annually and natural products and medicines associated with wetlands on the Zambezi are worth over USD 2.5 million a year.

therightstuff,

Thanks, I’ll check out the Africa situation.

But let’s return to the USA . . .

We use more energy than any other nation on earth, about 20%+ of all energy and yet only have 5% of the world’s population.

Energy is the key economic driver although from our politics, you’d think it was ‘tax cuts’.

In any event, why haven’t we reduced poverty in the USA over the last 40 years?

I’ve ask you for your biblical references to same and the statement you provided is just that poverty will always be here. That doesn’t address it’s causes.

And having seen your keynote speaker at the republican CPAC meeting, he was basically confirming ‘market fundamentalism’, that ‘taxes are stealing’ and that republicans were tired of supporting ‘lazy slackers’.

What really scares me here is that the speech was devoid of economic reality.

There was no sense of planning above just letting the businesses of the nation ‘run it’ and as you know, businesses can’t provide social services since it makes them uncompetitive.

So we’re back to Americans looking for jobs even with a ‘booming stock market’ but can’t find them.

I’ve noted the reason for this: globalization. Since only 10 to 20% of the public ‘owns’ 80 to 90% of all stock, the bottom 50 percent of the public has not such opportunity.

They are left looking for jobs that have been off shored to China as the stagnated wages since the mid 70s indicate.

So again, where in the Bible is it going to help us here with the economics. I’m asking that with due respect in that you and DB have asserted the answers to our economy lie in those teachings.

Again, which ones?

How did the writers of Bible address overpopulation relative to resources?

As we know, if more people are looking for few jobs, wages fall. And that creates the situation of more poverty through the ‘working poor’ that simply can’t support themselves on full times jobs that pay low wages.

This is being seen at the homeless shelter where people that were living in their cars then going to work, at least now can sleep in a cot but where does this all lead?

It’s great to have political events that recite wonderful versions of American Folklore peppered with patriotic references but that’s not the fundamental factors that affect jobs in America.

So where do we go from here?

Indy, the Bible actually speaks a great deal about sound economic principles such as saving, staying out of debt, budgeting, avoiding foolish investments and loans, seeking good counsel, working hard, giving to others, and learning contentment. These are hardly “folklore" as you suggest. The practical application of these concepts could help anyone.

As for earth's resources, I don't believe the Bible considers overpopulation as the problem much as I explained about how Africa is deprived mostly because of the depravity of it's politics. The same is true for American politicians. That's why our Founders in their genius tried to create a set of checks and balances because they understood the biblical principle that the heart of man cannot be trusted.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy, the Bible actually speaks a great deal about sound economic principles such as saving, staying out of debt, budgeting, avoiding foolish investments and loans, seeking good counsel, working hard, giving to others, and learning contentment. These are hardly “folklore" as you suggest. The practical application of these concepts could help anyone.


Indy: First, I greatly appreciate the conversation since the topics we are addressing are not really being done so at the level of our politics that is sadly focused ideology concerns and not the reality we actually have to live in.

In any event, when I speak about ‘folklore’ it’s focused on American Folklore.

It’s mainly focused on the idea that ‘hard work’ will bring success and that we’ll have things better in the future than in the past.

And I do support hard work and the other attributions you noted here.

The issue that we are facing, however, isn’t based per se on ‘hard work’ but whether the environment we live in can support our efforts and provide the outcomes we all wish.

Since I read a lot of stuff on sustainable economics, that gets me into areas of resource constraints, carry capacity, our ‘ecological footprint’ with respect to the environment being able to ‘sustain’ us (think pollution) and the population issue.

That’s why it’s so important I understand where you’re coming from with respect to the biblical principles you adhere to.

When you wrote: “As for earth's resources, I don't believe the Bible considers overpopulation as the problem much as I explained about how Africa is deprived mostly because of the depravity of it's politics.”

I agree that the political leadership around the globe to be lacking or we simply wouldn’t be facing the problems we now have.

But politics being important doesn’t address the resource issue per se.

As it stands today, the lack of any debate on ‘sustainable growth’ hides the tradeoffs between discovering new resources and increasing the ‘quality of life’. For the most part, we’ve just seen the growth of the quantity of people.

As America’s population has grown to some 310 million the percentage of those in poverty has remained the same. In other words, as the percentage has stayed the same, the gross of number of people has increased.

And this in a nation with a strong Constitution and a Bill of Rights.

And while it’s true we have political issues, the resource issue is rarely discussed. It’s usually assumed that if we just ‘work harder’ we’ll do better.

But that’s hasn’t proved to be the case.

Anyway, do you see the US has having any particular resource constraint issues? And if so, what are actions we should take to resolve them?

And how is poverty connected from where you’re typing fit into this?

"""Anyway, do you see the US has having any particular resource constraint issues? And if so, what are actions we should take to resolve them?"""

Only with energy but I'm not sure if this is what you mean by resource constraint. It seems incredible to me that we are still so dependent on oil in 2013.

Therightstuff wrote: Only with energy but I'm not sure if this is what you mean by resource constraint. It seems incredible to me that we are still so dependent on oil in 2013.

Indy: Good link on oil reserves from EIA: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/

The important number is that we’ve got about 25 billion barrels proven but use 7 billion per year . . . thus we continue to be oil dependent on imports.

The only major issue is with food production in the US as we’ve used perhaps most of the arable land available to us. . .

But even more important than that is the reality that we use about 9 calories of fossil fuels per 1 calorie of food produced. So our food is tied closely to energy supplies.

For a good read: Eating Fossil Fuels: Oil, Food and the Coming Crisis in Agriculture Dale Allen Pfeiffer for more details.

And perhaps even more important is the water issue in America considering so much of our farming is done from aquifers.

For a good read: Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (Substantially Revised) [Paperback]
Lester R. Brown (Author) ( www.worldwatch.org )

Here in CA, farmers are pumping aquifers faster than they recharge. In some cases, farmers use ‘fossil aquifers’ that don’t recharge . . . Lester gets into that detail.

Today, these resource constraints are ‘hidden’ since politicians refuse to discuss them.

Many of the people I read about that discuss resources believe we are already past what is termed the ‘carrying capacity’ of the basic resources that support us.

Thus the call by me et al to start taking about ‘sustainable growth’ that would disclose this information.

Thus, while I’m in complete agreement with you on things like “saving, staying out of debt, budgeting, avoiding foolish investments and loans, seeking good counsel, working hard, giving to others, and learning contentment.”, these things don’t address the resource issues.

And thus as we move forward, we’ll continue to see through globalization that put downward pressure on wages if not adding to our structural employment, and that’s right here in America.

Thus my call to look beyond folklore and start understand the economics that is based on scarcity.

Therightstuff

Here’s some good data on arable land in the US:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/arable-land-percent-of-land-area-wb-data.html

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/arable-land

The second graph has got three criteria . . . make sure you scroll down. The graph “Arable land (hectares per person)” is interesting in that’s its falling from US population growth.