TxHoops

Truer words. I wouldn't agree with your solution being the only problem we have. I would also not argue with you and say that it is not a real problem we have (although our definitions of family values would probably differ somewhat). I think we would also agree, by your statement, that "success" is not defined by wealth. I have also been very blessed financially but it has little, if anything, to do with my happiness.

By the same token, our society has become more and more about instant gratification. The "quick fix" is what everyone searches for. We fall into being short sighted far too often. Ultimately, I believe the lasting solutions are long term methologies. It's not unlike you advising someone entering the work force and starting a retirement plan. So while I can appreciate your assertion that we need something that more immediate with our economy, I believe more important is finding solutions that will last for generations.

Ted Cruz is as likely to win the nomination as Rick Perry is/was. My thoughts on the tea party is not germane to my point. My point was these candidates are not electable in a general, national election (in my opinion anyway). They seem to be seen as radicals who are very off putting the moderates who now comprise the majority of the voters in this country. I believe for the foreseeable future, the presidency will be won by who garners the most votes in the middle. A tea party candidate will not accomplish this. The GOP's best bet in '16 will be a Chris Christie type. And the nominee has to be careful not to jump in bed with the radical right (as the last two nominees felt it necessary to do). It is a great help in securing the nomination. It is a great hindrance in winning the office.

You're first sentence here was my original point. And I agree with most of this statement in general.

You may not like his manner of stating his point but he actually makes a good point. If the tea party could succeed in getting one of their candidates nominated for the presidency, they would be handing the keys to the White House to the Dems for another 4 years. The good news for you is there is almost no chance that will happen because the majority of the Republican Party realizes this.

I was correct in my presumption after all (happens every so often). The answer is that the first president to allow social security funds (I.e., money deducted from the work force's for the social security trust) for a purpose other than funding the social security trust is the same president that created the program.

Nixon was the other. And you are spot on with the tutoring situation with Greenspan/Clinton. Alan said he would ask questions that were unlike any politician he ever worked with. Grasped complex concepts immediately. As I recall (maybe from the same book), Greenspan called him the smartest person he ever met. I already agreed short term solutions, no matter how temporary the "fix" may be, are often needed. As far as government bailouts are concerned, I don't recall saying it required business savvy. Your ups/usps is actually a good example. I merely was making a point that your assertion is not absolute. Some segments of the private sector have been worse, even though that is the exception to the rule. Hence my original answer of "depends."

That one was a thing of beauty RG. It's been a while since I have seen a pro team play together the way SA has this postseason. For me, it's been very refreshing to watch (disclaimer: not a spurs fan, do like them, love Duncan, definitely rooting on them).

Yep

Very true

Same weekend as the Under Armour Tournament in Beaumont?

By the way Nash, I am sure you are a bright guy and are successful at what you do. We obviously agree on some things and disagree on others. We both think we are right with an emphasis on think. The little jabs going back and forth are meant in good fun (at least on my behalf) and I sincerely hope you haven't been offended (as I haven't).

You are still off base with what you assume the correct answer is to the question. I am almost certain. But feel free to prove me wrong.

I was talking long term solutions which are more important in my opinion. I certainly don't minimalize that there are other changes that should be made nor is my theory the only solution obviously. Speaking of presidents and their knowledge of economics, Alan Greenspan was a Reagan appointee who served under 4 presidents as FC. He also was an advisor to various presidents prior to Reagan. Who did he say was the president with the strongest grasp of the economy and far and away the brightest that he worked with? Who was second? (Hint: the two were not in the same party.)

I thought we already established Gates and Jobs are/were highly intelligent. As good democrats, how could they not be. As for their education, both were exceedingly bright and could have finished at prestigious schools had they chosen. Both chose to take advantage of their tech skills instead. They may not be stock brokers, but they did pretty well for themselves. You seem to be full of questions and not answers. Maybe you aspire(d) to be a lawyer. Despite the fact that few of your questions could withstand objection in a court of law, I will play along you since you spend hours a day posing questions to others on this site and thus, perhaps merit some answers. The government is certainly can be more efficient than some private enterprises. Otherwise some companies, including a few in your field, would need to "bail out" the government and not vice versa. However, by and large, I agree with your premise. As for your litany of questions with regard to the President (with whom you may have an unhealthy obsession), I would say I do, in fact, have a problem with hypocrisy and unfulfilled promises. I won't make any assumptions as to whether he believed what he was saying when he said those things. As I won't when GHWB had us read his lips. I will say that in my humble opinion, history will not be particularly kind to any president elected thus far in this millennium.

Now to my theory on long term answers to the economy: First of all, it is a theory because obviously no one holds the magic answer to the question. If they did, we would have been doing it for some time and living in a utopian society. If you think you do, you are a fool (your vast fortune notwithstanding). However, we all have our thoughts and opinions and who knows if we are right. Our beliefs are our beliefs and we are entitled to them. I believe the biggest ill in our country (and in our state for sure) is the failure to educate. Specifically, our public education is severely lacking. You see, I believe education is the great equalizer. Education is power, or at a minimum empowering. We have undervalued it in our country for too long. Sure we talk about its importance and almost every politician has it in their platform. But we never see any serious reform. We see how important we believe it is when our teachers, those charged with shaping our children and, thus, our future, are paid just enough to survive if they keep to a right budget. It is appalling. I am not against government spending, per se, but I am against it when it is irresponsible. And in this millennium, we have seen it happen often with two different presidents from two different parties. It is not helpful to the discussion to say, "yeah, but he did it more!" Any of it is unnecessary. And far, FAR too much of it is spent overseas when we have so much to do within our borders. Yes, I believe welfare reform is needed. But it will take more than merely drug testing the recipients. If someone receives benefits, require them to be working, actively pursuing jobs (with proof), or best, working on an education. Put more money into grants and less into other forms of assistance. Make it more attractive financially to be working towards a degree than receiving assistance. If we become more educated as a society, a lot of other problems (crime, drugs, homelessness, poverty) will slowly eradicate themselves. We do a poor job in this country of educating the masses. For instance, I am not appalled by the recent discussions of student loan forgiveness. They have done this for years in the UK. I lived in London and can tell you with no reservation, the Brits, as a whole, are better educated than we are. Are our brightest and best educated behind theirs? Absolutely not and the reverse is probably true. But as a whole, top to bottom, they are well ahead of us. Don't believe me? Go spend some time there and visit with the people. They do not have anywhere near the "gap" we have in this country. As a result, walk down almost any street in London, at 3 am, bearing in mind that their law enforcement officers aren't armed. Do the same in NYC or LA and let me know where you felt safest. Hell do it it in Houston or Beaumont for that matter. It really is amazing. If we would spend more in areas where we are truly benefiting our people, I have no problem with the taxes we pay. And I have no problem paying a higher percentage than those who aren't as fortunate as me. The wealth gap in this country continues to expand and that is not healthy. If history has taught us anything, it is when a powerful country has an elite few who have everything and masses with nothing, it is bound to fail. You have to try and figure out how to pull up those beneath you, not hold them down. Although it is not the only answer, education is a great place to start.

May not be directly related but certainly helps. Ultimately you still have to make your way. I appreciate your concern but I am doing fine. I won't be switching to a career as a trader anytime soon. Since you seem to measure intelligence and success on wealth, who would you imagine is the wealthiest self-made individual in this area? Are you aware he is a hard-core democrat?

Interesting. I agree there is more to education than formal education. I was referring to your comment about google. I have a four year degree with honors. An advanced degree from the top school in the state in my field with studies in a joint program at two European colleges, one arguably the most prestigious on that continent. Oh and I passed one of the exams you were told was harder than the securities exam on my first try, after self studying, and finished in the top 10 percent of those taking the exam in my class. Where's my cookie?

You asked for answers not explanations and I gave them to you. And once again, you broad brushed a question so I said it depends. On a number of variables. In general, I agree with your assertion regarding the private markets assuming a number of variables which I did not have time to get into. As I stated, I will be happy to give you my thoughts on what reforms are needed when I get the time. And I will do it in this thread. Patience is a virtue Nash. As for Google, I have noticed you asking people to google a particular term or query numerous times on this board. I would agree with you that it is a good search engine. If you are assuming that is what I rely on for my information, once again heed the old saying about assuming. I assure you that you probably don't want to get into a comparison of educations with me. ;)

Nash - yes, no, and depends. Smitty - I think you think you know ;)

As am I. Particularly with this question. And I am pretty confident that my answer will be different than yours. But I am more than willing to be educated. :) As for the ills of the economy, you more than most knows there is no absolute blue print to a robust economy (much like the stock markets - as you well know). However, many of us have our opinions as to what is the best strategy to fostering a strong economy. I will be happy to share my opinion later when I have a little more time. As for who is to blame for the ills, the correct answer is there is plenty of blame to go around.

By the way, your assumption why I haven't answered is off base. (See what I mean about assuming?). I really wanted you and/or Smitty to provide your answer(s). I can't decide if you know the correct answer or not. From one of smitty's comments, I lean toward he doesn't (but could easily be wrong). Then again, I guess there could be multiple correct answers to ambiguous questions; hence, the ambiguity.

You know what they say about "assuming." And come on Nash! You are a pro at avoiding answering questions when the answer doesn't suit your cause! You deflect like you're at the net with a 100 mph forehand coming at your head.

I will provide you with this answer. Epic thread title fail 😂

Since a President has no authority to "raid," "invade," or borrow from the social security trust, perhaps you guys are still asking poorly worded question? Or maybe just failing to make whatever point you are jointly trying to make?