why isnt the governor held to more responsibility for the unemployment in his or her state than the friggin president?

Because there are too many republican governors right now.

Bob II +1.

that is what your college education bought you number two...
seems like you got ripped off...so what about mayors? hehehe

[This message has been edited by bigsky (11/9/2011)]

You seem especially stupid today aaron, not feeling well? Post your phone number and I'll call and cheer you up.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (11/9/2011)]

hey schmuck...long time no hear...stupid is as stupid does....and today i feel like a winner....

hey schmuck...why is the words good and food sounded out differently?

C'mon dude, I need some laminate.

What's the difference between aaron bruce and a Penn State defensive coordinator?

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (11/9/2011)]

Ask a 10 year old

C'mon people, there are all sorts of acceptable responses. I thought I was going to start the next > Tebow trend.

In an attempt to make an honest reply to bigsky's dishonest question...

Governors can't print money, so they're constrained in their ability to utilize proven Keynesian tools to act as the employer of last resort.

The question shows lack of understanding of the problem and an ignorance of who really has the power to solve it. For that I think it is an excellent question and one worthy of serious discussion. It's just in the wrong forum.

I would agree Jeff that, all things being equal, it is a fine question.

Given the context of the person asking the question however, I'm pretty sure we're about to see a bunch of non-sequitors and other assorted logical fallacies sent our way.

well then forget who asked the question, and just answer it...

Too bad you can't fix "stupid."

I did bigsky, i did. States can't fall back as readily on deficit spending as the feds can, and most are dependent upon the feds to provide funding for things such as medicaid, road repair, etc, etc. Once the feds become unwilling to continue providing this sort of support, you end up with 50 little Hoovers, each providing an object lesson in things we thought we'd learned to avoid since the Great Depression.

Now, please enlighten us to how this relates to kenyan socialism, or why the unions are killing america, or whatever paste-eating nonsense you're peddling in other threads.

You should have just said, "A clipboard."

so bridger...is that a good position for states to be in...in your humble opinion....

How about "aaron has never been to college."

That the federal government has completely dropped the ball? That the elites in the 1% who are happily running our economic policy in the current and prior administrations are more worried about how remedies "look" without appearing to give much thought to whether or not those remedies are effective?

Absolutely not. I'll take real honest to god socialism or well-regulated capitalism ANY day over the grand casino we've been left with. We've privatized all the rewards, and socalized all the risks.

A poorly run federal monetary system however, would still be better than letting each state have its own central bank and the ability to generate legal tender. Down that road lies madness and arbitrage. And now that I've said that, I'm surprised that someone from the skimmer economy hasn't suggested it.

Don't you have anything that involves tight ends?

so bridgier, i agree with you on most of your points. i am glad that you notice this current administration is as corrupt as the last..however i might add the bush sr and clinton administrations as well...

i am glad that you notice that a small percentage of people are ruining this country, i put it at less than 1% but what ever. we do however probably disagree on who that group is.

in light of all that would it not be better to deminish the scope and power of the federal government and let the destiny of the individual state rest on the decisions of the citizens of that state.
within the boundaries of the federal constitution of course. i mean let each state decide wheather they want a socialistic or capitolistic form of government. hell someone might have an totally out of the box solution that really works well...would not that be the right course of action given that the federal government is not capable of agreeing on the rules for a game of hang man let alone agree on solutions for the entire 57 states.

and buck, have you not been weighed measured and found wanting? i think so...shew fly..........

[This message has been edited by bigsky (11/11/2011)]

How about, "aaron's name isn't Jerry."

aaron, you're an idiot for believing for a moment that anyone takes you seriously. Maybe you can create a new handle and try playing the role of Mr. Serious, but you aren't fooling anyone with your "I'll pray for you" BS.

You aren't fooling anyone with your new diplomatic conversation, either. Every time you write the word "socialistic," you expose yourself as the uneducated defensive coordinator you are.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (11/11/2011)]