Here is a good article on retirement strategies:

Yahoo Finance

It discusses the differences and weaknesses of the 4% rule and the bucket approach.

I feel as if the people of the Western world have become so comfortable and reached so high expectations that they are unwilling to contribute to society for more than 20-30 years. Many people work 40 years out of necessity, but few do it by choice. Perhaps it is from years of doing a job you hate working for a boss you hate and receiving a paycheck you feel is unfair.

I remember talking to someone who had recently retired from Ford Motor Co. I asked him what he was going to do now. After 20+ years of working a 40+ hour week keeping his mind sharp and using his skills that had been developed from years of schooling and training, his answer was , “What do you mean what am I going to do? I am retired! I’m not going to do anything!” After a few seconds of silence he added, “Golf!”.

I understand you probably hated your job and worked hard. Now you want to enjoy the fruits of your labor. But can one really do nothing for the next 20 years of his life expectancy after being productive for the first 55? Really? Nothing?

I do not believe this guy is alone. Many people really do nothing. Their mind becomes slow and their muscles weak. They age by choice, not by genetics. Not because they want to get old, but because they choose not to live, and part of living is learning and doing, regardless of your age. Maybe if I had a life expectancy of 75 or 80 I would feel differently, but from what I read, if I can continue to run and eat less M&Ms, I can expect at least 100-120 years of life. When I am 55 I may consider going back to school to start my second career. If I do retire early, even at 55, I can’t see myself doing nothing. With the growing apathy and laziness of people around me and the growing power of China, the decline of education, and the decline of our space capabilities, this country needs more output, and people retiring at 55 and then doing nothing with their hard-earned knowledge is not only a waste but borderline treason.

Add to that, the first 18-22 years are also non-productive years spent learning. So you sponge for 18 year, work for 47, then spend the rest retired after age 65. That was reasonable before modern medicine when, if you did manage to reach 65, you probably weren’t able to work. Age 65 was that age where people NEEDED their children or society to look after them. It wasn’t lifetime-reward-vacation send-off day.

America just spent the past decade buying consumer garbage with home equity money. That’s over now. I think it’s apparent. We won’t get that piece of the economy back. Those jobs are GONE. But don’t be fooled. That’s not the transition we need to keep our eye one. ‘Fixing’ the economy isn’t about replacing those borrowed gains which we’re now having to pay for.

It must be becoming obvious to everyone, or will soon, that our economy, the world economy, is making a transition, and has been for the last 20 years. The world is quickly moving from an industrial economy to a technology economy. Steam liberated the horse. The internal combustion engine liberated the farmer. Electricity liberated the housewife. Computers liberated repetition. Networks liberated information. And the combination of computers and networks are liberating the laborer. Liberation = obsolescence.

The new economy doesn’t need the type of jobs that low skilled workers do, the kind that tires a person out by age 65. The new economy needs people who can use their minds and work with information to create systems that do the things that used to take a human’s labor. And as long as you’re not an average recreational eater with an aversion to exercise, 65 is probably not that profound of a milestone physiologically.

We’re so pathetic now. Sponging until 25 or 30 with mom and dad, then we work for 25 or maybe 30 years, and then play golf.

People feel entitled to only work 20 or 30 years before retiring. We’ve got our philosophy on work all wacked out now days. We’re too soft and comfortable, as previously stated. Thats why medicare and SS are killing the economy, because people feel they are entitled to receive it as soon as they reach the ripe old age of 60 or 65. The greatest generation had it right. They worked their asses off until they physically couldn’t get up, then retired, not by choice, but because they had to. And even then, they were trying to do something useful like going up on the roof to fix a leak, fixing crap, etc. All the while their kids were telling them to knock it off or they would fall and break a hip.

We’re so different now. We expect to live like kings and for the government to cater to our every need and whim when the bell dings 60. And if we have to lift a finger after 60, its unjust, unfair, and makes us feel self righteous.

It’s even worse in Europe, where you have 20 and 30 year olds who live in families where no one has ever worked because the government has supported them their entire lives. Then like we saw, they go into the streets and riot saying they will show the business owners who are “rich people” that they will not be told what to do and will forcibly take their wealth because they are entitled to it.

Society has gone upsidedown. Our grandparents understood that the wealthy earned their wealth and they were not entitled to it, but rather grateful for the jobs the “rich” produced. Maybe because the technology age is not as visible as the industrial in its workings, people feel like wealth pops out of no where and strikes the lucky people.

In the industrial age, you saw Ford and edison, and these other rich guys physically using might and brute muscle to create their empires and wealth, while today, you see bill gates and Jobs sitting in their garages smoking weed, “playing on computers”, and making billions from it. So today’s rich guys seem like they just screwed around to become welathy and everyone feels entitled to the same “easy” road to wealth.

This brings up good point about welfare: It’s inherited. Wouldn’t that be weird growing up in a family where no one works? How unnatural it would be for such children to grow up and spend 8 hours a day at a job. And the real problem with people in these welfare-subcultures is, there’s nowhere to go. If all you’ve known is sitting around the house getting a meager check – how could you possible understand what a “Rich Shop-owner” actually is? “E’s goat like fi-ey tellies in e’s shop. That’s like fi-teen thousand quid! I koal that rich.”

But seriously, people in these subcultures can do two things to increase their standard of living. One, they can have more babies. Two, they can enter the criminal economy. Work should be an option too, but unskilled jobs don’t pay a lot more than some benefits, if those jobs exist in their neighborhood at all.

That poses a good question: What do we do with the monkey people? We need fewer and fewer of them every day. So, if your job is simple, if anything you do is at all repetitious, if you rely on your union to keep your standard of living, or if your job requires less than two years’ worth of training — for the love of Bob, STOP F******G AROUND WITH VIDEO GAMES IN YOUR OFF HOURS AND SPEND THEM LEARNING!!! It’s only a matter of time before layoffs come through and you’re helplessly bitching and moaning about Obama and the rich people screwing you.

Oh? Indeed? Your job can’t be replaced by a computer? You drive a fork lift around and retrieve parts per order and pack them in trucks in reverse order of drop-off? Hmmm. Maybe you’re safe… Or, maybe you’re company will do like Art Van did 10 years ago. They replaced a whole mob of warehouse workers with an automated system. Instead of having 50 guys running around, they’ve got one computer, an automated storage and retrieval system (sort of like HUGE vending machine), and one guy that can operate the computer, and a hand full of guys to do minimum wage labor. You might not get canned when that happens, but you probably will, unless you’ve been learning something about computers.

In other words, computers won’t replace people in the way people currently function. The movement, the economy, the knowledge, the way of thinking that created computers and is improving computers will also find ways to do your job without your meaty hands and the expenses and liabilities they incur.

So, to answer that question: “What should we do with this monkey-brained rabble?” Here’s my three-step solution:
1. Stop describing ‘reproductive rights’ as ‘deeply personal’ and start neutering anyone and everyone who receives government aid in any way, even temporarily, including prison inmates or persons arrested. We can set up a little stand next to the fingerprinting station or mug-shot station.

2. Legalize marihuana, tax it, and use the proceeds to fund a secret government program to develop a cheaper, more intense, and more deadly version or meth, and flood the hillbilly market with it, in addition to releasing the recipe.

3. Secretly borrow money from the SS fund in order to fund a secret program that sets up abortion clinics that, instead of killing babies, transfers them into artificial wombs. With the help of gene therapy, we can create a new branch to the military composed entirely of highly conditioned and indoctrinated young soldiers, for purposes of profitable foreign military campaigns and the revitalization of Manifest Destiny.

Darn it. I put the wrong 3-step solution in that message. That’s just my normal boilerplate universal 3-step solution. Here’s the specific solution to the concerns about, “How do we clean society of these more-ape-than-man, shitting, eating, parasitic blobs?”
1. Offer vocational training to the motivated ones.

2. Cut the unmotivated ones off of benefits so they have to take the shitty service jobs from high school kids.

3. Now that the high school kids can’t get jobs, and thus can’t afford drugs or a car to have sex in, they’ll have to learn to masturbate better and will focus on school, get college loans and focus on college, then get a job maintaining and/or developing the systems that replaced mom and dad, hopefully before a bright, young, educated, lives off $2.50 a day Indian or Chinese kid snatches it.

We need to increase tax revenue, not necessarily tax rates. The core problem is the bad economy, growing medical quality (notice I didn’t say costs), and entitlements that haven’t been adjusted for 50 years of change, including increased medical quality that has people living into their 100s and not just their 60s and 70s when SS was constructed.

Raising tax rates won’t fix any of this, and any intellectually honest person with even the slightest understanding of economics will agree that raising tax rates right now could easily decrease revenue, and make the problems worse. Just because the last few harvests have been poor doesn’t mean we should fall to the temptation of selling the tractor… We’re undergoing some serious economic change and we need our “rich” to invent the new economy before our rivals do and we end up behind or buried.

I watched Charlie Rose yesterday. He had a political analyst on there who said something I’ve heard multiple times since the speech, on NPR and FOX, which makes a lot of sense. Basically, according to the commentator(s), Obama’s strategy – political strategy – was to wait for the Republicans to come out with their radical Teapartyish budget reform plan, let it scare everyone into pooping their pants, then appear on TV with a 45 minute speech doing his election-2008 shtick, criticizing all the easy targets of the Republican plan and offering an “alternative” in the form of inspiring moderate ambiguous intangible rhetoric.

But the strategy sort of failed. People didn’t poop their pants after hearing Paul Ryan’s plan. Instead, people praised Ryan – including The Economists magazine – for finally offering some seriously needed reforms. The only partially scary sounding part of the plan is turning Medicare into the type of insurance buying system that Congress gets. Democrats are running around trying to hype it up, calling it a ‘voucher’ plan – which it isn’t. It’s a copy of the prescription drug plan, which works well. Instead of having a monstrous government agency controlling the prescription drug benefits, Medicare recipients have a choice between several private companies. You just check a box. If you want to change you can. The different companies all have to fight over you. Payments to these companies come directly from the government, no vouchers.

And people all this time have been wondering where the hell the President has been. We’ve got serious problems, people are worried about the debt and the future, one guy has produced a plan, but all Obama has done is criticize that plan without offering a solution of his own. People don’t like that. This is lack of leadership. This is indeed political pooplery.

Growing up in Dearborn, MI, aka Ford Country, and having had family, friends, and friends’ family that worked for Ford, Chrysler, and GM, I may be a little biased when it comes to buying and owning American-made vehicles. But I am quite tired of the lousy reasons people give me to justify their purchase of a foreign-made car.
So occasionally, to give people a hard time, or to be serious, depending on who it is, I ask “why did you buy a Toyota/Honda/Hyundaii/Kia/BMW/VW/etc.?” I typically get one to three of the same answers every time.
“They are better quality cars.”
This is the most popular response for Japanese and Korean car owners. Especially in the DC area, there seems to be this unsupported belief that American cars are low quality and that Toyota is far superior to any Ford. Now if this were the 1990′s, or even the early 2000′s, the data show this is probably true. But if you have looked at a Car and Driver Report over the last 5 years or more, you will see that American cars are equal or greater to Japanese-made cars in nearly every category of quality and safety. So whatever 20th century misconception you are still carrying about a Ford car, do some research.
“They get better gas mileage.”
In most cases, especially for cars more than 5 years old, foreign cars were smaller and of course, got better gas mileage. Thankfully Detroit (what!) has stepped up to the fuel efficiency challenge and matches or exceeds that of foreign cars in many vehicle categories (here’s looking at you, Fusion Hybrid).
“This car was made in the US, right in Kentucky and most American cars aren’t even made in the US. Their made in Mexico.”
Wow, aren’t you a smart one. On the surface this sounds like a great argument and could justify buying that Corolla for years to come. However, the argument is garbage when you ask some questions. If factory workers in Kentucky or Ohio were not building a Honda or Toyota, what would they be doing? It is tough to say what they would be doing exactly, because who knows what else they can choose from. But if people aren’t buying foreign cars, what are they buying? American cars. So someone would be building those cars. Maybe in Kentucky, maybe in Michigan, or even Alabama. But American workers would be assembling these cars in some form or another. Most car parts for a Toyota are still built in Japan, even if they are assembled here. And yes, many things such as engines for Fords and GMs are built somewhere else, but this leads to the main point on this topic. Where do the profits go?
The answer is easy. If it is a Toyota, the profits go to Japan. If it is a Ford, profits go to Dearborn. Profits are taxed, which help build and support the local and federal government (and trust me, Michigan needs company profits). Profits support business expansion and growth, which creates more jobs. Would you like to create more jobs in Flint, MI or Seoul?
So tell me the US doesn’t have a roadster like the Z4 or Audi TT. Tell me that you like the look of the Cooper Mini. Tell me Toyota makes cloth seats that don’t give you a rash. Tell me you hate America and want all of its factories capable of full-scale war production to close down and be disassembled (and get a swift kick in the junk from me). But stop feeding me the BS you have convinced yourself is sufficient reason not to support an American company and the strength of the United States economy.

Introducing Comic Dove!

Comic Dove will be rolling out some of the finest and funniest political comics in the weeks and months to come here on Noisy Dove.com   Please Enjoy the first of many savvy comics, and pass it on!

Hey Noisy Dove,
Quack! Just kidding. But seriously though, speaking of quacks, I’ve now head Obama referred to as a fascist, a liberal, a commie, and socialist. These aren’t synonyms, right? So which is he?

Right, they’re not synonyms. But no man is described by one word alone. We’ve had these names thrown around quite a bit lately, mostly toward Obama and his side of the isle. Some people agree on the description while others disagree – and most of this confusion is due to semantics.

Socialism
So lets start with the most frequently used and most semantically abused adjective: socialist. Socialism has earned it’s self a wide definition over the past century. Karl Marx imagined that Socialism would replace Capitalism, as Capitalism replaced Feudalism. And his idea of Socialism was a path to pure Communism – where the workers would take over the means of production and form a “workers’ democracy.”

Of course, Marx didn’t calculate properly for human motivation. He focused too much on the workers’ suffering – their toil for minimal pay under the profiting entrepreneur. He envisioned a world where all workers were guaranteed minimal bounty, and ended the entrepreneur.

As it turned out, prime examples being the USSR, Cuba, and Early Communist China, the minimal bounty, to each according to his need, from each according to his ability, results in a goalless and unfulfilling life. Killing the entrepreneur killed the creator of wealth in order to establish a system of distribution of that wealth.

Today the National Socialist Party, and numerous other organizations, advocates a similar idea, but they have the whole world in mind. They envision a single world “workers’ democracy” with no national borders. This is one end of the Socialist spectrum.

On the other end we have the political parties of certain European countries. I don’t feel honest in granting these Socialists ideological credibility. I’ve become more and more convinced their brand of socialism is little more than populous pandering run-a-muck, shameless vote-buying – elect me and you’ll get this for –free-.

These Socialist political parties advocate for workers rights, including things like vacation time and bonuses. They push for more and bigger entitlements, more government control over business, create numerous lumbering bureaucracies, and to finance these cash-hungry ideas they tax to the limit – and beyond -business and anyone willing to create all this wealth the politicians are promising everyone. They don’t out-right kill the entrepreneur – they attempt to yolk it in order to pull the rest of us. This is the type of Socialist Obama is.

Obama talks about “spreading the wealth” and how people can make too much money – these are Socialist ideas. They come from the idea that capitalism isn’t fair, and it’s government’s job to tax those creating wealth in order to give wealth to those who aren’t.

Communism
Communism is the most inflammatory of the four terms, mostly because we’ve fought a few wars against them, some cold some hot. But if you want to be a jerk, Communism can be used to describe any group working together as a single entity. So hippy-farms and monasteries would count.

Of course, Communism in political and economic terms today describes a military dictatorship, or a government originating from a military dictatorship usually resulting from a successful populous revolution. This describes Cuba, China, and the Soviet Union.

However, if we follow the original intention of Marx, and the self-proclaimed Communist states throughout the past century, Communism is a never-achieved idea. According to the Communist Manifesto, the state must first be overtaken and the people conformed – with force if necessary. (And in all cases bloody awful force was – apparently – necessary) Then, after society has conformed to the Communist ideals, the state would naturally fall away – unneeded.

In actual effect, Communist revolutions, and their necessary force, have resulted in military dictatorships, always under an iconic ruler who is paranoid and ruthless – he had to be. If anything isn’t working out, a factory, a battle – it’s due to neglect of the Communist ideals.

Obama doesn’t fit in here. But men implementing philosophies very similar to Obama’s have enabled these destructive attempts at national Communism.

Fascist
Next we have Fascist. I think this one confuses people the most – I know it does me. This might have a lot to do with the Nazi movement in 1930s-40s Germany, which was a Fascist movement.

Many people see Fascism as the far-right of the political spectrum. This isn’t sensible though. Fascism totally rejects individualism. It’s a political and economic philosophy that can combine philosophies from either side of the political spectrum, as long as the society is organized and highly controlled as one unit – all people serving a single national identity and philosophy – no matter what that philosophy is.

In actual practice, in fact, Fascism ends up being “big government,” the thing right-wingers are always trying to hinder. And in practice, Socialism is Fascism in how it pursues Communism. The only thing really right-wing about Fascism is in how Fascists are willing and highly motivated to defend their nation.

Nazi Germany is a great example of this. People call the Nazis right-wingers, but in form and function the Nazi society ran like an efficient version of the Communist Soviets. Instead of workers revolting against factory owners, the Nazis attacked the Jews and their neighboring countries – stripping them of their wealth to fulfill their ideals.

People were calling Bush a Fascist. This was mostly due to going to war and passing legislation that encroached upon civil liberties. But if that qualified Bush as a Fascist, then Obama also is, since he’s embraced Bush’s expansion of Executive power and the idea of greater government control and national unity.

Liberal
I saved Liberal for last because it’s the easiest and least interesting term. Yes. Obama is definitely a Liberal. And I’m ignoring the numerous uses of the lower-case liberal here. I’m talking about the political term, the one interchangeable with Progressive. A general definition would be this: People should be free but government needs to own that freedom to keep it safe.

You’re free to make money, but government must own that money so they can inspect you, insure your mistakes, and distribute wealth to people who aren’t making enough money to be free according to social standards.

Oil Spill
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is probably going to do some serious and horrible damage to one of the most productive estuaries on the planet, the place that feeds the US 2/3 of its seafood, and provides a living to millions of people. This spill is truly horrible, leaking 5000+ barrels per day, an example of poor Failure Mode and Error Analysis. A collar on the head of the well was supposed to close on the pipe if the oil flowed over a certain rate, crushing the pipe close. But there was other equipment inside the pipe, so it didn’t close all the way. Since then BP has been struggling to find solutions.

So now what? Political grandstanding anyone? Time to score some political points? What did the Obama administration do when they heard of the leak? Well, nothing of substance. Obama had just finished promoting offshore drilling or they would have immediately drilled the drill-baby-drill agenda. And in this case, such offshore disasters are in the Federal reaction domain – unlike the hurricane Katrina disaster which was in the State’s reaction domain.

The Obama talking point this past week was, “from day one,” but that’s BS. Obama’s brigade was focused on other things and figured it was a small leak soon to be capped, something that would blow over, something to ignore while the Obama-oil wake settled down. The head of the EPA went to the Grand Canyon three days after the leak began. When the Obama administration realized the spill was huge and making it to shore, they suddenly sent a helicopter to rush the EPA head southeast. That’s not “day one.”

So now people see a massive oil slick on TV and the country is suddenly against offshore oil.

What did Sarah Palin have to say in this sudden anti-offshore-oil storm? Well she stuck to her gun, she still openly supports expanding US oil production and that includes off shore. What would you call that? Stupid? Stubborn? Idealistic?

Call it what you want. But the fact is: She’s right. Stopping US offshore oil will increase oil spills just like Cap and Trade will increase carbon release. For every barrel the US stops pumping another barrel or more is pumped in South America or overseas, where regulations are MUCH lower. Hell, many non-US oil rigs just plain leak. They have spills all the time too, but when there’s no spill they just sit there and leak. They destroy the ecosystems they’re in just by being there spill or no spill.

I’d like to know exactly what went wrong to cause this leaking, but it looks like Obama’s people are going to drag BP into a “let’s get’m” hearing like they did Goldman Sacks, so BP will probably stay buttoned up.

Oh yeah, Janet Napolitano didn’t know the military has oil spill equipment.

Time Square Bomber
Another failed attack? NO… We don’t hear about the failed attacks until months later. Like the ones we stopped when Bush was in charge, sending people to Gitmo and listening in on our phone conversations. Oh wait, Obama is doing that now too!

The goal of a terror attack is to effect policy – this one has. The terrorists’ method for effecting change is terror – this one terrorized. This was a successful attack with a botched detonation, just like the Burnt Balls Bomber (aka Underwear Bomber).

At least the reaction to this one was mildly saner than with Burnt Balls. They actually questioned this guy for a little while after catching him before Marandizing, as if perhaps he might possibly not be a lone fool. These goofballs though… We’re going to be lucky to get through this administration without another deadly attack similar to or worse than Fort Hood.

This pansy attitude I think has given our enemy new found confidence that they can attack without repercussions. The Obama charm apparently didn’t sweeten up Jonny-Jihad.

Greece
So Greece has gone bankrupt and needs a bailout. It had way too much spending that was reliant on high boom-time tax revenue. So, like California, when things get a little rough, the generous government pay, entitlements, and fat bureaucracies begin to starve. Now Europe has to bail them out.

So what’s happening over there? Are the Greeks breathing a sigh of relief that the Euro was set up so that no one could get out, so no one would willingly leave, effectively compelling other Euro standard countries to bail them out? No. They are rioting because they don’t want spending cut. I hope this isn’t the future for the US.

Oh yeah, they killed three people by throwing Molotov Cocktails in a bank. Mommy Government…

New Arizona Immigration Enforcement Law
People are still protesting it – using TOTALLY uninformed arguments. Seriously people, the law doesn’t legalize racial profiling. It doesn’t really do anything but sort of help AZ police check citizenship status. It’s already a Federal law that non-citizens carry ID inside the US. No one is checking anyone’s ‘papers’. If you sincerely appose this law you basically are in support of illegal immigration, which I think is the case with most of the opposition.

Obama’s Predator Drone Joke
Yeah, another Obama joke fell flat and offended some whiny little wimps. Who’s been coaching him on humor? Biden?
*sigh* He just needs to stop… You’re not funny Mr. President. It’s not your style. When you try it’s awkward and seems contrived. Take some advice: People think this blog is funny. I don’t try to make it funny. I just try to honestly communicate my ideas, usually while watching TV. I’m just weird and the way I think throughout the day is somewhat humorous, especially when I get frustrated.

This is a good one. Pelosi is trying to sell the health reform bill as something helpful to the economy. lol She’s like that sales person who will swear to the patron dying on the sales floor that this juicer will fix the problem. lol Or the idiot on the radio talking about how calcium supplements will prevent cancer – but you have to take his special coral calcium, you can’t just take Tums. Oh what? You’re not worried about Cancer? Everyone in your family dies of heart disease? Well – it just so happens that my coral calcium will prevent heart disease – yes – it’s a heart-health supplement actually.

We all know, and it has been said over and over again, that our economy needs something new, a jolt.  And I believe that this legislation will unleash tremendous entrepreneurial power into our economy. — Pelosi

This reminds me of a skit by that Canadian comedy group – The Kids in the Hall:

The car won’t start, so the ‘husband’ gets out and kicks the tire. He looks to the ‘wife’, now in the driver’s seat. “Try it now.” Nothing. He opens the hood, “Try it now.” Nothing. He closes the hood. “Try it now.” Nothing.

He ends up changing the tire, and I forget what else, everything but fix the damn engine, but it’s about the same as Pelosi’s logic when it comes to economics. Nothing about passing a bill that forces companies to provide health insurance if they have more than 50 employees will stimulate entrepreneurship.

*sigh*

It’s just ridiculous. This is something around a 10% increase (probably more) in employee costs. That might not seem like much to a foolish congresswoman who’s never had to earn a living, but when you realize that a successful business is usually functioning on a profit margin of single percentage points, and that most entrepreneurial ventures fail, and that the ones that do succeed do so only after several years of losing money – you’ll understand how difficult these fancy new taxes will make it to do the things our economy needs us to do: innovate, risk, and invest.

The only entrepreneurial powers this will unleash are new solutions to keep your staff under 50 members.

Well then, stop using characterizations. I’d like to think I have something to learn from Liberal thinkers, but all they do, as you’ve done today, is state general needs and characterizations along with the ever present Bush bash:

I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger. If the bank CEOs had been under tighter control, the world wouldn’t be in an economic down turn. His policies reflect his ideals.

I can’t really blame you at this point though. All Obama has proven to be is a symbol – a mascot to be carted around and make fancy vague sunshine speeches while Nancy and Reid force through the most god-awful legislative concoctions man kind will likely ever know.

I don’t know how to learn anything from any of this. That’s why I keep telling you to explain the policies you support. You read a British magazine. You like it. So you let them do your economic thinking because they’re smarter than you? Seriously? Your admitting that my insulting accusation was true – you believe something without understanding it because you like believing in it. You have a “very British” perspective… That’s lame Dr. Dove – totally lame. I hate believing half the conclusions I’ve come to.

And I’m not getting emotional about a political side – ffs. Thanks for assuming I could actually care though. What annoys me is when anyone makes illogical or useless arguments, or simply states things generally without explanation to refute something I’ve carefully explained.

That’s why it’s exhausting you know. When you have an idea that you can’t explain, nothing is more exhausting than having it challenged. That’s why I said before: if you can’t explain something just say so. But don’t pull out comfortable Liberal falsities you choose to believe then be surprised when I call bullshit. And when I call bullshit don’t call me partisan – or ranting Noisy Dove – just because the bullshit is on the left today.

Give me a logical reason to support one of your ideas. If you do I’ll support it. Until then I’m going to assume that, if we have 10 chickens that each lay one egg every other day we will get 5 eggs per day. And if we slaughter one chicken, yes, we will have a great deal of much needed meat that we can use to proudly and historically feed people with, I’ll agree with that. But I won’t believe we will continue to have 5 eggs per day. And I won’t believe that we have increased our overall protein intake. It has nothing to do with ideology. It’s just logical.

Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps

Hey now. There’s no need to get offensive. You were ranting. You love ranting.

I get really exhausted having these conversations. My personal beliefs on politics and economics are distinctly British. Its probably because I’ve been getting my news from the Economist since medical school. I let them think for me on this kind of stuff. They know more than me. The magazine is socially liberal and economically conservative. Oddly, they think Bush was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

American liberal political philosophy is no more illogical than American conservative political philosophy. Whenever I read something that says Bush was nobly defending our nation, and that Obama has a secret ulterior motive, I can’t help but to put on a liberal American hat and start fighting for their ideology. I just can’t help it.

I hate strong political views, because they’re dangerous, and almost across the board based on a simplified version of reality that jives with some kind of flawed political ideology. Look at the current healthcare reform bill. It is a total disaster, and the price tag is like a trillion dollars. I can almost guarantee it will make healthcare worse for everyone. Look at the war in Iraq. The American people were led to support it based on a lie. Its cost us at least a trillion dollars, and we still may loose the damned thing. On top of that, it has cost the U.S credibility throughout the world.

My point is that I don’t think we should have such strong emotional ties to political ideas. Good doesn’t come from it. They can devolve into the kind of nonsense conversations that noisydove and drdove get into.

I suppose my point is that our political conversations would be a lot more informative if they weren’t filled with characterizations of the opposing side. I have something to learn from American conservatism. You all have something to learn from American liberalism.

If the housing act – whatever the name of that was – the thing that make Fannie and Freddie – such overregulation – the world wouldn’t be in this mess…

Did you ever take even one economics class Dr. Dove? And seriously, I understand your point. It’s the point made by every other Liberal. We need to do this to help these. This isn’t fair. I think reducing the income of the rich is worth helping the poor. I don’t need to hear any more of that. I’d like to know HOW your programs are supposed to work, scientifically, fundamentally, philosophically, specifically – because they never have.

Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps:

Obama’s health reform won’t be helpful to the 40 million uninsured because it’s not health reform. If you can tell me how it WILL help the uninsured I’ll sure as shit support it.

The economic stimulus did nothing for any ‘little guy’ unless that ‘little guy’ runs an asphalt business or works in government.

Obama is already shrinking the gap between the poor and rich. The fact he got elected did that. The Dem policies continue the trend. Business is scared shitless of expansion. Most are tapering down – fearing over capacity, higher taxes, higher energy costs, and higher employment costs. That means entrepreneurs are struggling or hesitating to start or expand the industries that will feed and cloth us in the coming decade – due to lack of investment. You know, like solar panels and stuff, ironically.

And this monetization – this making of dollars out of this air, that’s reducing the gap more than anything. Once this downturn is over, and the pent up cash hits the market, what do you think will happen to the value of the dollar now that these hundreds of billions were magically produced? Inflation. Inflation is basically a tax on anyone who owns dollars.

This was adorable:

I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger.

So tell me then Dr. Dove, because Glenn and I would like to know. How will any of these policies help or better

represent the poor. I know that is your camp’s image: The guys out to fight evil business and help the poor poor. But all I see are ideas that harm business, the thing that actually does help the poor. All I see is a legacy of trapping the poor in housing projects and spreading a sense of entitlement.

And are you trying to say Obama think making everyone poor will make the country stronger? Or are you saying his

policies will somehow make poor people richer? I’d like to know how. If you don’t understand how just say so – because that’s what I think. I think you have no grasp of economic principle but like the feeling of compassion – so you buy into this illogical garbage.