yyz28

Que?

Very reasonable and well thought out response. I basically agree with you. ...though, frankly, I'd like to see those foundations, individuals and companies just give to what they want to give with and quit worrying about public opinion. The Government ABSOLUTELY should not be in the business of mandating how the charity any individual, business or non-profit sees fit to give is allocated. That's the giver's business, alone.

Hammons is a heavyweight in the hotel world, and is Hilton's flagship Embassy Suites franchisee. An Embassy really makes the most sense there, though Renaissance is also battle tested as a Mini-Convention center flag as well (see Gatlyn park in Richardson, which is also a JQH property). Embassy Suites was created and owned by Promus Hotel Corporation, a hotel management and franchise company from Memphis, Tennessee. In addition to Embassy, Promus also owned Hampton Inn, Homewood Suites, and Doubletree, all of which are now owned by Hilton. Hammons did not "Invent" the Embassy Suites concept, but they were the pioneers of the Atrium style hotel which is very popular today. In addition, unlike many hotel and management companies, they are long term players so if they are in something, they are likely in for the long haul unlike many owner/operators and management companies. This is GREAT news for both UNT and the City of Denton even if this doesn’t connect to the stadium’s naming rights. NO University in the state will have the type of facility we will have if JQH is involved in this.

Excellent Blog. Thanks for sharing it!

The new deal was an abject failure. From one end to the other. There was NO IMPROVEMENT in our economy in the 8 years leading up to WWII, and it can be easliy argued that the economy remaining on its back is a RESULT of FDR's actions and that without the New Deal the Great Depression would have been a typical depression. Economist Jim Powell of the Cato Institute authored a splendid book on the Great Depressionin 2003, titled “FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression”. He points out that “Almost all the failed banks were in states with unit banking laws” — laws that prohibited banks from opening branches and thereby diversifying their portfolios and reducing their risks. Powell writes: “Although the United States, with its unit banking laws, had thousands of bank failures, Canada, which permitted branch banking, didn’t have a single failure ...”20 Strangely, critics of capitalism who love to blame the market for the Depression never mention that fact. Congress gave the president the power first to seize the private gold holdings of American citizens and then to fix the price of gold. One morning, as Roosevelt ate eggs in bed, he and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau decidedto change the ratio between gold and paper dollars. After weighing his options, Roosevelt settled on a 21 cent price hike because “it’s a lucky number.” In his diary, Morgenthau wrote, "If anybody ever knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, I think they would be frightened.”21 Roosevelt also single-handedly torpedoed the London Economic Conference in 1933, which was convened at the request of other major nations to bring down tariff rates and restore the gold standard. Washington and its reckless central bank had already made mincemeat of the gold standard by the early 1930s. Roosevelt’s rejection of it removed most of the remaining impediments to limitless currency and credit expansion, for which the nation would pay a high price in later years in the form of a depreciating currency. Sen. Carter Glass put it well when he warned Roosevelt in early 1933: “It’s dishonor, sir. This great government, strong in gold, is breaking its promises to pay gold to widows and orphans to whom it has sold government bonds with a pledge to pay gold coin of the present standard of value. It is breaking its promise to redeem its paper money in gold coin of the present standard of value. It’s dishonor, sir.” FDR talked Congress into creating Social Security in 1935 and imposing the nation’s first comprehensive minimum wage law in 1938. While to this day he gets a great deal of credit for these two measures from the general public, many economists have a different perspective. The minimum wage law prices many of the inexperienced, the young, the unskilled and the disadvantaged out of the labor market. (For example, the minimum wage provisions passed as part of another act in 1933 threw an estimated 500,000 african americans out of work).24 And current studies and estimates reveal that Social Security has become such a longterm actuarial nightmare that it will either have to be privatized or the already high taxes needed to keep it afloat will have to be raised to the stratosphere. Many modern historians tend to be reflexively anti-capitalist and distrustful of free markets; they find Roosevelt’s exercise of power, constitutional or not, to be impressive and historically “interesting.” In surveys, a majority consistently rank FDR near the top of the list for presidential greatness, so it is likely they would disdain the notion that the New Deal was responsible for prolonging the Great Depression. But when a nationally representative poll by the American Institute of Public Opinion in the spring of 1939 asked, “Do you think the attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward business is delaying business recovery?” the American people responded “yes” by a margin of more than 2-to-1. The business community felt even more strongly so. In his private diary, FDR’s very own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, seemed to agree. He wrote: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!” At the end of the decade and 12 years after the stock market crash of Black Thursday, 10 million Americans were jobless. The unemployment rate was in excess of 17 percent. Roosevelt had pledged in 1932 to end the crisis, but it persisted two presidential terms and countless interventions later.

I didn't realize this was a discussion about his legitimacy, to be frank. Though, I think he supported Repubilcans despite how flawed they were because it was better than the alternitive. I think we have all done that if we're politically active... ...we vote for people not because we always think they are great, but sometimes because it is the lesser of two evils? Oh, give it a rest. Medicare and Social Security have more oversight than any two entitlement programs in this nation and they have been overseen by Presidents of both parties, and they are the most wasteful and corrupted programs we have today in this country. Bureaucracy breeds corruption and waste. Every government program, I don't care what President or congress created or oversaw them, is corrupt and wasteful, even the ones mandated under the constitution. The founders KNEW this would be the case which is why they limited their size and scope. That protection is a firewall we blew through long ago. This myth you cling to that Government oversight is the solution to all of our government and economic problems is just that. A myth. The most inefficient entity in this country is our Federal Government. Why does this bother you so much. It isn't about have and have nots. It is about the simple fact that I sacrafice time and talent for what I earn and you sacrafice time and talent for what you earn and those of us who are conservative feel we should be able to keep more of what we earn and take care of more of our own need rather than give ever growing portions to the government so they can oversee for these same needs. Most conservatives are all for charity and for saftey nets for those who have hard times that many of us (yeah, even us conservatives) have from time to time. But we don't believe Government should be providing for all of our needs all of the time. Laziness IS a big reason for the situations many in this country find themselves in. Are there some hard working poor folks? Absolutely, we should be helping them bridge the gap and survive. But neither they or the ultra-rich should be having to sacrafice to keep a roof over the head of someone who simply won't get off his dead ass and work. The oil lobby has nothing to do with the demand and profitability of alternitive energy sources. Flyer is right on when he says private companies have been working on these technologies for decades, and if there is demand and a profit to be made, private industry would be on it like locusts. Remember, they are evil, greedy, selfcentered capitalist pigs. LOL! The market is a funny thing. If there is money to be made, the free market is handling its own business just fine. Old myths never die; they just keep showing up in economics and political science textbooks. With only an occasional exception, it is there you will find what may be the 20th century’s greatest myth: Capitalism and the free-market economy were responsible for the Great Depression, and only government intervention brought about America’s economic recovery. A Modern Fairy Tale According to this simplistic perspective, an important pillar of capitalism, the stock market, crashed and dragged America into depression. President Herbert Hoover, an advocate of “hands-off,” or laissez-faire, economic policy, refused to use the power of government and conditions worsened as a result. It was up to Hoover’s successor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to ride in on the white horse of government intervention and steer the nation toward recovery. The apparent lesson to be drawn is that capitalism cannot be trusted; government needs to take an active role in the economy to save us from inevitable decline. But those who propagate this version of history might just as well top off their remarks by saying, “And Goldilocks found her way out of the forest, Dorothy made it from Oz back to Kansas, and Little Red Riding Hood won the New York State Lottery.” The popular account of the Depression as outlined above belongs in a book of fairy tales and not in a serious discussion of economic history. Did Hoover really subscribe to a “hands-off-the-economy,” free-market philosophy? His opponent in the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt, didn’t think so. During the campaign, Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions on the dole. He accused the president of “reckless and extravagant” spending, of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible,” and of presiding over “the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.” Roosevelt’s running mate, John Nance Garner, charged that Hoover was “leading the country down the path of socialism.”8 Contrary to the conventional view about Hoover, Roosevelt and Garner were absolutely right. The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. President Herbert Hoover is mistakenly presented in standard history texts as a laissezfaire president, but he signed into law so many costly and foolish bills that one of Franklin Roosevelt’s top aides later said that “practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.” Spin that.

What is it with you not being able to engage in a debate without calling people names? Jesus... Nationalization of the banks is SOCIALISM. Taking more from the producers and redistributing it is SOCIALISM. Promoting the government take-over of an entire insustry is SOCIALISM. These are facts. Now, he may not be trying to turn us into a totally socialist society, THAT we might argue... but these policies are socialist. We know historically, both by studying our history and the history of other countries that these policies lead to a less secure economy and more government control over our lives. Those of us who oppose these ideals are certainly not traitors, any more than you were a traitor for disagreeing with President Bush's policies. ...maybe we shouldn't say we want these policies to fail - maybe we should just all say that we know they will. ...and then discuss how we're going to fix the problem once those with our ideals are back in a place to do so. EagleD, regarding your points, Conservatism and Conservative economic principals did not fail under Bush. Quite the reverse is true. Bush was the most liberal Republican President in the history of this country when it came to fiscal matters. He oversaw the largest government entitlement program in history. Most conservatives are disgusted at the Republican party for moving away from conservative principals, specifically fiscal policy, which is what Mr. Limbaugh was saying in the speech that most of you didn't hear, but was nit-picked by a left-wing whackjob of a website. So, you're wrong when you say that the ideas and policies being proped up by those of us who object to run-away government spending and leveraging debts that will impact the futures of our children and grandchildren have failed over the past few years. They weren't in place over the last few years. In addition, history has shown us that the Congress has much more pull over the direction of the economy than the President did, and one could argue that things were pretty good before 2006, despite a recession in 2000 and the largest terrorist attack in history in 2001. Regarding Rush's mistake - Fine. He misquoted a founding document. Point accepted. Let's argue some substance and quit calling each other names.

Yet another Obama apointee who doesn't pay his taxes. Former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk to pay $10,000 in back taxes This is getting comical at this point.

The market is reacting to what is being done by your friendly federal government. People who actually run businesses and understand the business world understand that what the Government is doing to fix this problem is only making it worse. Out of control Government spending is going to cause inflation. There is now no doubt that everyone's taxes are going up - the decreases in deductions in the new budget is going to wipe the $13 a week right off the radar for most tax payers. We're about to raise taxes on what capital might be left in the system. We've depressed interest rates to where banks can't make any money even if they want to lend it out. Mark to Market is still fubar. The Nationalization of the banks is diluting private wealth. Welcome to the Change you all voted for... oh, yes. This is MUCH better.

Word, Cotton!

I thougt of you too... so let's examine... Unemployment is roughtly 7%. That means 93% of the people in this country are "Working Americans". Take 95% of them. ...now you've got 88.35%. The bottom 50% of people (which represents 33.35% of the 88.35% shown here) only pay 2% of the entire federal income tax burden in this country. Add to that the fact that unlike during the campagin he said 95% of Working Americans would get a tax CUT and now he's saying 95% of working americans will simply not see their taxes increase. ...what isn't being discussed is the gap between the $73,000 limit on the tax cut in the Stimulus (only individuals making that or less) vs the $125K individual income that is now going to see it's taxes go up. Someone making $125K may be well off, but they aren't rich. You can twist and spin it all you want. Bush left a $455 dollar deficit in 2008, which included the first half of TARP, and by all expectations, as a DIRECT RESULT OF SIGNING THIS BILL INTO LAW, which will NOT help stimulate the economy, we'll have a Trillion dollar deficit on our hands by the end of this year (and in the end it will be higher as a result of killing the Bush tax cuts which, history has shown, increased revenue to the treasury). I'm disgusted with the Deficit left by Bush. ...but spending another Trillion on top of the federal budget has NEVER WORKED in the history of this country. You say "if the previous Administration had gave a damn and watched what was happening with their laisse-faire economy" yet you ignore the historical truth of what is going on here. You refuse to admit that the Fed and Congress' policies to Banks, Fannie and Freddie are at the root of all this, despite the fact it has been documented as true. You refuse to admit that the history of this type of situation dictates less government spending (and when spending IS done, it should be focused and with the private sector) and broad tax cuts solve this type of problem, and inflationary spending and ever increasing taxes on ANYONE (yeah, even the rich) make it worse. The market, left to its own devices will ALWAYS be more efficient than government, and individuals with more dollars in their hands spend more efficiently than Government.

We can sit here and play the blame game all we want. Democrats spend too much as a rule and usually support higher taxes and lower government. Republicans, historically, were fiscally conservative, wanted lower taxes and a smaller Government. ...but for the recent past, the Republicans in power have abandoned the Conservative principals of smaller government, lower taxes and less spending. Just because the party went away from these principals doesn't mean many people still believe in them and want them promoted again. Who's at falut for this mess? Both parties, no doubt. ...but the party in power is not making the right moves to fix the problem, and that is why this debate rages. History is clear, however. Increasing random and make-work spending and increasing taxes on the investor class will lead to a longer recession/depression. Cutting taxes and growing the military will shorten a recession/depression. Mr. Obama has now signed into law a package that will cause the deficit this year to be 1 trillion dollars and then has the balls to go on TV last night and blame the Deficit on George Bush!?

Bring the Youtube then. ...or a transcript. I openly admit I may have missed it, but I was pretty well plugged into all of that. If I didn't catch it, I'll be the first to admit it...

I about fell out of my chair laughing at the keyboard player at about 1:05 in that video... LOL!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H10I3ukSre4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H10I3ukSre4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

...they only said it 5,000 times and never, NOT ONCE, did they clearify, even after being attacked by the news media and the McCain campagin. ...so I don't think this is a misunderstanding of semantics. I'm sorry, there are too many stories of people who are born in the projects, concentrate on school, go through college and become wealthy for me to buy into this way of thinking. Many people who operate in the lower class do so as a result of generations of abuse of the system and being raised and brought up in communities and by people who feel this is simply the way to get by. This is an epedemic in this country, and until we break the cycle of dependancy on govenerment, I don't expect to see much improvement. The answer to this problem isn't more government, it is, in fact, less government. ...and it's a bit ironic that the guy you just put in power as president is ignoring the economic facts surrounding this stimulus disaster and what it is going to do to our economic system in the future, and then lement about the fact that the next generation may not have it as good if not better than their parents. The Stimulus bill signed into law has sealed that deal, my friend. See my comments above. Bad decisions and lifesyles are often to blame, even when the lack of hard work isn't. It really wasn't tounge in cheek. We're bailing out the banks, why is it so bad that they are bailing out the Aviation industry? What makes the millions of people who work in that industry dispinsable, but those that work for the car compaines aren't? Put the product out of your head - who the hell are you to determine if the product is worthy? ...it is the same class of worker that works for Cessna building luxury jets as the carpenter you hire to add on to your house. Middle class is middle class. We're going to start discriminating based on what product he's building? Hey, the shrug shoulder is the right response. Like it or not, the congress and the President didn't put ANY limitations on the money. There is no obligation what so ever for anyone who got that money to account for it. Don't blame the banks for following the rules. ...blame the government for not attaching any.

...Where's P-Diddy when you need him?

Not all regulation is socialist, so I don't agree that all policies that regulate the economy are socialistic, so I agree with this to some degree... During the campagin, the President made the promise that he was going to give 95% of Americans a Tax Cut. The problem with this was that 95% of Americans don't pay Federal Income taxes. The only way for these people to benefit from any tax policy would be for them to get a rebate check even if they didn't pay into the system. Our current President came from VERY poor means, had unmarried parents and background was a mixed race child during a time where that was looked opon as worse than being 100% black, and through hard work, put himself in a position to one day become President of the United States. ANYONE can go from nothing to dumb-stinkin' rich in this country. It happens all the time. The people producing have MADE their own advantages through hard work (or the hard work of their parents, family or someone who took them under their wing) just like many who are "disadvantaged" are so as a result of the choices they (or their parents) have made. We can't think and make decisions for other people. We're almost to a point in this country where there are fewer tax payers than there are people on the government nipple. The myth that weath is handed down is flawed. The VAST majority of people who are "Rich" earned it. ...yeah... ...there are some trust fund babies around, but someone earned THAT money too. It isn't the Government's to seize and resistriubute. Oh, don't misunderstand. I think the companies who are suckling up to Mama pig are disgusting... ...but Cessna got one hell of an order there, didn't they? Doesn't that order for that Jet stimulate the economy? It keeps manufacturers working, it keeps the avionics industry moving along, hey it even creates revenue for the Government in the form of income tax to Cessna, income tax to the people building the plane, landing and airport fees everytime the machine takes flight, fuel taxes for every gallon of aviation fuel used, etc. The banks don't HAVE to say where the money went because we didn't tell them they had to account for it. That's the Government's fault, not the fault of the bank who didn't bother to account specifically for that money. Perhaps, instead of bitching that the company used government money the wrong way, we should just... oh, I don't know... QUIT WITH THE FRIGGIN' BAILOUTS ALREADY. Let the market take out those who can't compete. ...The MOST the government should have done is take the bad assets off the hands of the banks which might have been arguable since it is Government policy that sort of let the horse out of the barn in the first place. THAT you might get me on board with... though we could have done it 20 times over now with the money that has been spent on the economy thus far. See my point above. I think we can probably agree on this one... Reform the "Mark to Market" rule and creat the "bad bank" to hold all this trash paper to relieve the banks of the bad asset and then let the market work the rest of this out.

Well, we have been told by the Attourney General we're a Nation of Cowards today, so I guess we should just be thankful that Obama the Merciful is here to take care of all of us. ...I'm going to go stop paying my mortgage now.

Social programs by their very definition are socialist. When you start giving tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes... that's socialist policy. When you start taking from those who produce and start giving to those who can't or won't produce, you're engaged in socialism. When you talk about "wealth re-distribution", you're promoting socialist ideals. When the government takes over large chunks of the economy, you're watching socialism in action. Do I think Obama is a devout socialist? No... I don't. ...but do I think his policies are socialistic? Yes, I do, and they are. ANYONE with a basic understanding of politics and economics can understand that.

Well, poop.

Some of the whacko comments are rather interesting...

In the same book, he also suggested it get pushed through quickly in a new Democrat administration while the new President is very poplular and has a lot of political capital. In addition, he suggests the bills be "vague" as to not work all the buerucratic detials in the legislation because that is what "doomed the attempt during the Clinton years." I love it when socialists come right out and tell you what they are going to try and do... ...I just never figured we had an electorate that is so asleep they'll let it happen.

I watched some A-11 ball in California this fall, and it was very fun to watch. ...the people who want to ban it are short-sighted, and don't want to take the time and effort to figure out how to defend it. I think this offense would be fun to watch at the College level, and would fit some teams very well if used sparingly. (us and Texas Tech come to mind) ...hope the efforts to ban it fail.