Local Posts #23 (Part Two)

2009-7-18 07:33:00

[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog, and were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group prior to being archived here.]


June 2, 2009


Mr. Miller is complaining about the $10 stickers for his four boats, but wait until he gets weighted down by all the taxes (mostly on the poor) that Obama has in store for us:

  1. 145% proposed increase on the beer tax.
  2. A 20% increase in hard liquor and 233% increase on the wine tax.
  3. 62 cent increase per pack for cigarettes.
  4. A large gas tax increase is on the table.
  5. Obama's "cap and trade" program will raise money through massive fuel increases paid by all including the poor.
  6. Obama's massive borrowing will create new high inflation which is virtually a tax that hits the poor the hardest.

Quote from the campaign:

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008, "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."


June 3, 2009 -- Post #1

Sounds like the first consideration for future transportation is to avoid overlap. If there is too much overlap then no system will receive enough support to succeed.

I would think that an investment in a high-speed rail from Mountain Home [Idaho, USA] to Ontario [Oregon, USA] could fill a definite need. Then if it had an edge, such as being extra fast, many would take it for the experience and time savings. If successful this could be expanded to reach the outlying towns of Eagle, Star, Middleton, Emmett, New Plymouth, Payette and Weiser [Idaho, USA].

Many people do not take the bus because it is boring, time consuming and slow. If some type of system could be created to allow the commuter to then quickly get to work from his drop off point we could have a winner that could even make money and attract private investment.


June 3, 2009 -- Post #2


Glad you like my idea Rastaman. Here's another.

After we create the fast rail plan we replace the current bus system with the PUMA electric cars. For information go to:


The advantage of these PUMAs is their cost is low and are very economical to run.

Imagine this. You just arrived in Boise [Idaho, USA] from Ontario [Oregon, USA] after a 20-minute fast train ride and for a reasonable monthly fee you receive a special key that activates any of the thousands of PUMAs available in the city. You pick up a PUMA without having to deal with any clerk and drive it to work. You then park the PUMA at a designated space and start your work day.

After work you find someone else has used your original PUMA, but there's no problem as several others are available. You pick one and drive it back to the train station and head back to Ontario.

Operating this system with the needed number of PUMAs would save time, money and the carbon footprint.


June 4, 2009 -- Post #1


Another good letter by Boulton. This guy is one of the few with some unbiased historical knowledge of the depression era.

It is amazing that FDR [US President Franklin D. Roosevelt] has received so much credit for ending the depression when the country would have been better off if he did nothing.

It is also interesting that until recently most have just assumed that FDR's efforts were the best possible and things would have been worse without them. Many old timers swear by FDR even if they half starved to death during that period.

The reason he received such great support was he was a master of the new media, which was radio. His fireside chats convinced the majority that he was on their side and doing all that could be done to end the depression.

Now we have another president who is also a master of the media, but unfortunately even more clueless about the economy than FDR. Hopefully people are smarter this time around and vote him out if the economy does not improve by 2012.


June 4, 2009 -- Post #2

"Grandjester" [GJ] wrote:

"And, of course, it is relatively simple to answer Mr. Boulton's question: 'The basic question remains - why didn't the United States recover from the depression by 1936 while Western Europe did.' Easy. We did not embrace fascism."


Let me get this straight. You think then that fascism works better to bring economic prosperity than FDR type policies.

A number of you have disagreed with Boulton but I have seen nothing to disprove anything he said. Could someone point out even one thing he said and then give data to prove him wrong?

He did not say that unemployment did not go down by 1936, but correctly stated that Europe did much better than us at recovery.

The evil genius Hitler completely outdid the U.S. with no gold reserves to speak of and starting with an even worse economy, His Germany had only 80 million people and few resources yet challenged the whole world. That should have been embarrassing to us that such a corrupt man could have outperformed us so much.


June 4, 2009 -- Post #4

"Ronk83704" wrote:

"Don't you think that George Bush has something to do with this recession? Like starting it!"


Contrary to the hammering of the media the economy did pretty well under the Bush administration until the subprime problem hit us. Had that problem not surfaced we would have not had a recession and Bush would have went out on a fairly high economic note and [US Republican Presidential candidate] McCain would have been elected.

There are a number of factors involved but the bottom line is that if the subprime problem was not created we would not be in the mess we are in.

Bush bears some responsibility and he pushed for more easing rules on home ownership, but to his credit he also pushed for more regulation in 2003 that was rejected by Democrats. On the other hand, the Democrats resisted regulation and insisted on easy money and little or no down payment. This is what led us to disaster.


June 4, 2009 -- Post #5

GJ writes:

"His very first assertion: "New Deal spending didn't lead to a net increase in employment" is absolutely and demonstrably false."


No one is saying that unemployment did not go down. The argument is that the economy would have recovered more without interference from FDR just as Europe did. You might want to read the UCLA [University Of California at Los Angeles] study that Boulton referred to at:


Thomas Sole, one of the best economists of our age, often cites this study.


"We are talking about MILLIONS of jobs directly created by New Deal spending."


The problem was that only temporary jobs were created by New Deal public works spending. When the projects were completed unemployment spiked again. If FDR had let private enterprise do its job then permanent jobs would have been created without the great increase in debt and the unemployment would not have went up to 19% in 1938.


June 5, 2009

(Comment JJ made on 2nd Amendment argument):

"Every Bible scholar knows that Jesus carried a .38 special and a light saber."