PDA

View Full Version : Economics How does Empirically Testing the GOP Philosophy and Having Pure Failure Not STFU GOP


jettio
09-20-2008, 12:28 PM
You talk about stupid people.

Wars and war profiteering with tax cuts.

Deregulating in favor of laissez-faire and then acting surprised that the same sh*t happens when greedy people cheat.

The one problem with democracy is that stupid people are allowed to vote and a lot of our people are brainwashed stupid people who think government should only serve greedy people.

STFU. You had your way and disaster is no surprise at all.

donkhater
09-20-2008, 01:10 PM
You talk about stupid people.

Wars and war profiteering with tax cuts.

Deregulating in favor of laissez-faire and then acting surprised that the same sh*t happens when greedy people cheat.

The one problem with democracy is that stupid people are allowed to vote and a lot of our people are brainwashed stupid people who think government should only serve greedy people.

STFU. You had your way and disaster is no surprise at all.

Because dispite having that label, the current leadership is in no way practicing Traditional Republican principles. Why do you think Bush has such a poor approval rating within his own party? Because there are those of us who think is a big spending, war-mongering, foreign pocily liberal parading around as a Republican.

Then Obama comes along and says the Democrats are offering a change? THAT'S laughable. Contrary to what you think Obama is actually more of Bush and to biggere extremes. More government control over private companies (i.e. socalism), less experience in foreign affairs, and an even bigger ego to boot.

What's even scarier is that he'll have a Congress that's dumb enough to be complicit with him.

If the Government actually kept their nose out of the healthcare business in the first place (re: HMO act of '72); their nose out of the mortgage business (re: encouraging low ricsk loans to stimulate the housing market and economy). Much of the current state of affairs could have been avverted.

But praise heaven!!! Government is here to save us yet again!!!

jAZ
09-20-2008, 02:41 PM
Because dispite having that label, the current leadership is in no way practicing Traditional Republican principles.
When was the last R President to do so?

This is Reaganomics in action.

donkhater
09-20-2008, 05:00 PM
When was the last R President to do so?

This is Reaganomics in action.

Really? I don't recall Reagan ever advocating government takeover of private companies.

Reagan failed to control the spending of the democratic Congress. Otherwise, his principles were sound.

It's sad to see, but not all that surprising. Today's generation is weaned on government dependancy and the believe that big brother will solve everything, when in fact the buracracy just makes it worse and the cronies and lobbists prevalent on BOTH sides of the aisle get fatter and fatter.

Neither of these two idiots running are smart enough to know the answer. I wouldn't trust either of them to run my bank book, let alone the federal budget. But that's what a two party system gets ya.

Mecca
09-20-2008, 05:03 PM
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii181/ciantgock/greenberg21.jpg

jettio
09-20-2008, 05:16 PM
Really? I don't recall Reagan ever advocating government takeover of private companies.

Reagan failed to control the spending of the democratic Congress. Otherwise, his principles were sound.

It's sad to see, but not all that surprising. Today's generation is weaned on government dependancy and the believe that big brother will solve everything, when in fact the buracracy just makes it worse and the cronies and lobbists prevalent on BOTH sides of the aisle get fatter and fatter.

Neither of these two idiots running are smart enough to know the answer. I wouldn't trust either of them to run my bank book, let alone the federal budget. But that's what a two party system gets ya.

Our country's problem is that reflexive retards like you are brainwashed into not being able to figure out who has the intelligence to figure out the best way to do something you guys instead vote automatic for the fools that claims to tax less even if it means deficits that lead to a monetary policy that makes the dollar worthless.

Clinton never was and Obama never will be ideologues. They are just two smart guys that try to figure out the best way. Instead of being knee-jerk ideologues they try to figure out the best way.

Only a stupid person would call Clinton or Obama socialists. Congratulations on being stupid.

donkhater
09-20-2008, 05:17 PM
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii181/ciantgock/greenberg21.jpg

Funny, But the entity in our government that sets the budget is Congress. Care to guess when in that timeline that occured?

Clinton, whom most Republicans wanted to paint as liberal, was a very centrist president. It baffles the mind that the Democratic party can't see that America would get behind that type of Democrat. Instead, they nominate a guy that is the output of the most corrupt political machine in America and is more liberal than the one socialist (Bernie Sanders) in Congress. Yikes.

Really, I can't defend in particular the last two Bush presendecies. They were both spineless politicians who pandered to get votes. Can't say i have much confidence in either of these two idiots to do the right thing. It'll just be more government control, more government regulation, more taxes----because we're smarter than you when it comes to running your lives. Disgusting and depressing.

donkhater
09-20-2008, 05:21 PM
Our country's problem is that reflexive retards like you are brainwashed into not being able to figure out who has the intelligence to figure out the best way to do something you guys instead vote automatic for the fools that claims to tax less even if it means deficits that lead to a monetary policy that makes the dollar worthless.

Clinton never was and Obama never will be ideologues. They are just two smart guys that try to figure out the best way. Instead of being knee-jerk ideologues they try to figure out the best way.

Only a stupid person would call Clinton or Obama socialists. Congratulations on being stupid.

When have I called Clinton a socialist? I think Obama definately has socialist tendencies. If YOU were smart enough to actually pay attention to what is underneath than retoric he spouts off everyday, you may come to that realization.

Do you REALLY think either candidate knows what is wrong with the economy and how to solve it? I don't. Both may be smart people, but this is a complex problem that is beyond the grasp of a politician.

It's like Gore spouting off about Global warming. What credentials does he have? Or did he find some nerd off in a lab that told him some theory and ran with it for appearance sake.

Flame on, comrade.

jettio
09-20-2008, 05:22 PM
Funny, But the entity in our government that sets the budget is Congress. Care to guess when in that timeline that occured?

Clinton, whom most Republicans wanted to paint as liberal, was a very centrist president. It baffles the mind that the Democratic party can't see that America would get behind that type of Democrat. Instead, they nominate a guy that is the output of the most corrupt political machine in America and is more liberal than the one socialist (Bernie Sanders) in Congress. Yikes.

Really, I can't defend in particular the last two Bush presendecies. They were both spineless politicians who pandered to get votes. Can't say i have much confidence in either of these two idiots to do the right thing. It'll just be more government control, more government regulation, more taxes----because we're smarter than you when it comes to running your lives. Disgusting and depressing.


You are just a brainwashed pollyanna.

donkhater
09-20-2008, 05:26 PM
Our country's problem is that reflexive retards like you are brainwashed into not being able to figure out who has the intelligence to figure out the best way to do something you guys instead vote automatic for the fools that claims to tax less even if it means deficits that lead to a monetary policy that makes the dollar worthless.

Clinton never was and Obama never will be ideologues. They are just two smart guys that try to figure out the best way. Instead of being knee-jerk ideologues they try to figure out the best way.

Only a stupid person would call Clinton or Obama socialists. Congratulations on being stupid.

BTW, juvenille name calling is seen as a defensive tendency, usually as a last resort by someone who can not articulate their position.

I'm no McCain fan, I'm no Bush fan. Quite frankly i think the difference between the two parties isn't as big as they make it out to be. Both want to be in power and reap the rewards of that position. To think that these people are truly acting in the best interests of the nation is incredibly niave.

donkhater
09-20-2008, 05:27 PM
You are just a brainwashed pollyanna.

Wow. What a child

penchief
09-20-2008, 05:30 PM
Because dispite having that label, the current leadership is in no way practicing Traditional Republican principles. Why do you think Bush has such a poor approval rating within his own party? Because there are those of us who think is a big spending, war-mongering, foreign pocily liberal parading around as a Republican.

Then Obama comes along and says the Democrats are offering a change? THAT'S laughable. Contrary to what you think Obama is actually more of Bush and to biggere extremes. More government control over private companies (i.e. socalism), less experience in foreign affairs, and an even bigger ego to boot.

What's even scarier is that he'll have a Congress that's dumb enough to be complicit with him.

If the Government actually kept their nose out of the healthcare business in the first place (re: HMO act of '72); their nose out of the mortgage business (re: encouraging low ricsk loans to stimulate the housing market and economy). Much of the current state of affairs could have been avverted.

But praise heaven!!! Government is here to save us yet again!!!

I think you're wrong. The republicans are corporate whores who want to destroy the people's government by transferring the taxpayers money over to private entities. Whereas, democrats don't believe in corporate welfare. They believe in the public welfare, which is the job of responsible government. As has been proven, corporate welfare is far more expensive to the taxpayer than is the public welfare.

When democrats are in power the taxpayers money will be used to revitalize the infrastructure and jump start the economy from the bottom up. It's the same old story with republicans. Let the business crooks and war profiteers rape and pillage until the system is broken and then blame the democrats for having to raise taxes and reinvest in the country in order to fix it.

donkhater
09-20-2008, 05:46 PM
I think you're wrong. The republicans are corporate whores who want to destroy the people's government by transferring the taxpayers money over to private entities. Whereas, democrats don't believe in corporate welfare. They believe in the public welfare, which is the job of responsible government. As has been proven, corporate welfare is far more expensive to the taxpayer than is the public welfare.

When democrats are in power the taxpayers money will be used to revitalize the infrastructure and jump start the economy from the bottom up. It's the same old story with republicans. Let the business crooks and war profiteers rape and pillage until the system is broken and then blame the democrats for having to raise taxes and reinvest in the country in order to fix it.

Well, I certainly won't defend corporate welfare any more than I'll defend public welfare. I also don't think Republicans are the only politicians participating in that practice, just as I don't think Democrats have the sole ownership of public welfare (ridiculous stimulus checks anyone?).

The lack of fiscal responsibility among all our respected officials is appalling. Perhaps a balanced budget amendment is needed to regulate the regulators. Jettio can go on and on about how brainwashed republican backers are, but quite frankly anyone looking for a politician to come in and save the day is the picture of brainwashed.

SNR
09-20-2008, 05:48 PM
I think you're wrong. The republicans are corporate whores who want to destroy the people's government by transferring the taxpayers money over to private entities. Whereas, democrats don't believe in corporate welfare. They believe in the public welfare, which is the job of responsible government. As has been proven, corporate welfare is far more expensive to the taxpayer than is the public welfare.

When democrats are in power the taxpayers money will be used to revitalize the infrastructure and jump start the economy from the bottom up. It's the same old story with republicans. Let the business crooks and war profiteers rape and pillage until the system is broken and then blame the democrats for having to raise taxes and reinvest in the country in order to fix it.So this country didn't see a good politician until FDR? :spock:

Saggysack
09-20-2008, 05:51 PM
Wow. What a child

We can start with.... is more liberal than the one socialist (Bernie Sanders) in Congress.

That's a pretty childlike view IMO. And I'm being nice about it.

SNR
09-20-2008, 05:51 PM
When have I called Clinton a socialist? I think Obama definately has socialist tendencies. If YOU were smart enough to actually pay attention to what is underneath than retoric he spouts off everyday, you may come to that realization.

Do you REALLY think either candidate knows what is wrong with the economy and how to solve it? I don't. Both may be smart people, but this is a complex problem that is beyond the grasp of a politician.

It's like Gore spouting off about Global warming. What credentials does he have? Or did he find some nerd off in a lab that told him some theory and ran with it for appearance sake.

Flame on, comrade.Check out Clinton in this 1992 debate. He sounds very much like Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-W4GWjN2kg

donkhater
09-20-2008, 05:52 PM
I think you're wrong. The republicans are corporate whores who want to destroy the people's government by transferring the taxpayers money over to private entities. Whereas, democrats don't believe in corporate welfare. They believe in the public welfare, which is the job of responsible government. As has been proven, corporate welfare is far more expensive to the taxpayer than is the public welfare.

When democrats are in power the taxpayers money will be used to revitalize the infrastructure and jump start the economy from the bottom up. It's the same old story with republicans. Let the business crooks and war profiteers rape and pillage until the system is broken and then blame the democrats for having to raise taxes and reinvest in the country in order to fix it.

I'm also not sure just how you think the economy can be jump-started from the bottom up. Last I looked, rich people and investors create jobs in this nation, at least in a capitalist system. Perhaps Obama wants to change that. But I digress.

I a practical world, weaing ones self off of welfare is incredibly difficult. While in graduate school I knew many people who took advantage of welfare programs. They were living at a $30,000 income level while earning less than $20K. But as soon as they passed, say, $25K in income, they were ineligible for all those programs. They actually lived better the less they made. How is that the American dream?

SNR
09-20-2008, 05:53 PM
We can start with.... is more liberal than the one socialist (Bernie Sanders) in Congress.

That's a pretty childlike view IMO. And I'm being nice about it.Childlike? That's what research has told us. Bernie Sanders is a member of the Socialist Party in the US and Obama is more liberal than he is. What's childlike about it?

penchief
09-20-2008, 05:53 PM
Well, I certainly won't defend corporate welfare any more than I'll defend public welfare. I also don't think Republicans are the only politicians participating in that practice, just as I don't think Democrats have the sole ownership of public welfare (ridiculous stimulus checks anyone?).

The lack of fiscal responsibility among all our respected officials is appalling. Perhaps a balanced budget amendment is needed to regulate the regulators. Jettio can go on and on about how brainwashed republican backers are, but quite frankly anyone looking for a politician to come in and save the day is the picture of brainwashed.

The first step has to be returning the people's representative government back to the people. That is done by electing representatives who believe in representative government, the public's welfare, and governmental transparency and accountability. None of which the republican party believes in.

Right now, business crooks and war profiteers are running our country. They are intentionally neglecting our infrastructure in favor of transferring taxpayer money to private entities for the purpose of "starving the beast." Ultimately their goal is to eliminate accountability. Which is why they don't believe in transparent government.

And it aint' gonna end until republicans are run out of town on a rail.

donkhater
09-20-2008, 05:53 PM
We can start with.... is more liberal than the one socialist (Bernie Sanders) in Congress.

That's a pretty childlike view IMO. And I'm being nice about it.

It's not a childlike view. It is fact.

donkhater
09-20-2008, 05:56 PM
Right now, business crooks and war profiteers are running our country. They are intentionally neglecting our infrastructure in favor of creating a boon for private entities. And they don't believe in open government or accountability. They are only interested in taking whatever they can take before the gravy train ends. And it aint' gonna end until republicans are run out of town on a rail.

I agree, man, all but the last part. If you think Democrats are above this, you need a reality check. Who profited most from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Many, many democratic senators including St. Barry.

But I understand the sentiment. At least by electing Obama, it feels like we're trying something different. I just think it puts the country on a faster path to ruin than we are currently on.

penchief
09-20-2008, 06:03 PM
I agree, man, all but the last part. If you think Democrat are above this, you need a reality check.

But I understand the sentiment. At least by electing Obama, it feels like we're trying something different. I just think it puts the country on a faster path to ruin than we are currently on.

My grandmother was an FDR democrat. She used to tell me that ever since she could remember republicans always made a mess and democrats always had to clean it up. I have seen nothing in my lifetime that does not support that view.

Our current mess started with the Reagan revolution. The Reagan neocons are the forefathers of the current batch of ideologues who believe in the same thing Reagan advocated; imperialism abroad, corporate dominance at home, destruction of the middle class, undermine the working class, undermine economic and environmental regulations, and subvert our constitutional rights. All of those republican ideals had their roots with the Reagan revolution.

And it's going to take something other than another republican to turn that shit around before it's too late, IMHO. Hell, it may already be too late.

Saggysack
09-20-2008, 06:04 PM
Childlike? That's what research has told us. Bernie Sanders is a member of the Socialist Party in the US and Obama is more liberal than he is. What's childlike about it?

Research has told you? Excuse me. ROFL.

I guess we all can't be apart of the meme research society. Painting your opponent as someone further away from American ideals is the #1 tactic for dumbed down politics.

SNR
09-20-2008, 06:07 PM
Research has told you? Excuse me. ROFL.

I guess we all can't be apart of the meme research society. Painting your opponent as someone further away from American ideals is the #1 tactic for dumbed down politics.Yeah, it's all biased Fox News bullshit Republican propaganda.

NPR. What an evil, corrupt, source

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/obama_ranked_most_liberal_sena_1.html

donkhater
09-20-2008, 06:10 PM
My grandmother was an FDR democrat. She used to tell me that ever since she could remember republicans always made a mess and democrats always had to clean it up. I have seen nothing in my lifetime that does not support that view.

Our current mess started with the Reagan revolution. The Reagan neocons are the forefathers of the current batch of ideologues who believe in the same thing Reagan advocated; imperialism abroad, corporate dominance at home, destruction of the middle class, undermine the working class, undermine economic and environmental regulations, and subvert our constitutional rights. All of those republican ideals had their roots with the Reagan revolution.

And it's going to take something other than another republican to turn that shit around before it's too late. Hell, it may already be too late.

Well, you must be too young to remember Jimmy Carter or you wouldn't be so cut and dry in your view.

As much as Republicans tout Reagan as the end all for conservative politics, he really wasn't that conservative in his actions in office.

It's not going to take a republican or democrat to get this nation on the right track pre se, but someone who understands that they were elected to office to serve the American people and act in their best interests.

The current members of these two parties are too busy writing rhetoric and being self-righteous to believe that anyone currently in office fits that mold.

penchief
09-20-2008, 06:15 PM
I'm also not sure just how you think the economy can be jump-started from the bottom up. Last I looked, rich people and investors create jobs in this nation, at least in a capitalist system. Perhaps Obama wants to change that. But I digress.

I a practical world, weaing ones self off of welfare is incredibly difficult. While in graduate school I knew many people who took advantage of welfare programs. They were living at a $30,000 income level while earning less than $20K. But as soon as they passed, say, $25K in income, they were ineligible for all those programs. They actually lived better the less they made. How is that the American dream?

Under Clinton the economy was fundamentally sound because the consumer base was strong. Commerce, like anything else, is a grass roots venture. A truly prosperous economy can't start and end with the same entity. It's built from the bottom up, IMO.

We can't really have a free market full of opportunity if we are all relying on the benevolence of a few people in the ruling class to "allow" us to work for whatever they "wish" to pay. IMO, The trick is to empower the working and middle classes if you want to have a strong consumer base and create an economy that allows more than just a few controlling elites to prosper.

Adept Havelock
09-20-2008, 06:23 PM
Yeah, it's all biased Fox News bullshit Republican propaganda.

NPR. What an evil, corrupt, source

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/obama_ranked_most_liberal_sena_1.html

Actually, that's NPR reporting that The National Journal decreed him the most liberal senator evah!!!!!!

Not NPR itself, as you insinuate. LMAO

Is Obama too liberal for my taste? Yes.

Is he the most liberal member of the Senate? I certainly don't see it. :shrug:

donkhater
09-20-2008, 06:23 PM
We can't really have a free market full of opportunity if we are all relying on the benevolence of a few people in the ruling class to "allow" us to work for whatever they "wish" to pay. IMO, The trick is to empower the working and middle classes if you want to have a strong consumer base and create an economy that allows more than just a few elites to prosper.

Ruling class? You mean employers?

Allow us to work? you mean provide jobs?

What they wish to pay? You mean pay for a service?

You don't seem to realize your language is becoming dangerously Marxist in nature.

Saggysack
09-20-2008, 06:26 PM
Yeah, it's all biased Fox News bullshit Republican propaganda.

NPR. What an evil, corrupt, source

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/obama_ranked_most_liberal_sena_1.html

First thing, NPR isn't the source. Flawed data and source. Old news.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802140003

penchief
09-20-2008, 06:28 PM
Well, you must be too young to remember Jimmy Carter or you wouldn't be so cut and dry in your view.

As much as Republicans tout Reagan as the end all for conservative politics, he really wasn't that conservative in his actions in office.

It's not going to take a republican or democrat to get this nation on the right track pre se, but someone who understands that they were elected to office to serve the American people and act in their best interests.

The current members of these two parties are too busy writing rhetoric and being self-righteous to believe that anyone currently in office fits that mold.

No, I remember Carter. By no means would I call him a good president. However, I also remember that he was more a victim of circumstances than he was a proactive fuggup like the republican neocons have been. I believe that the deck was stacked against him. And it didn't help that the Reagan republicans had worked to undermine him during the hostage crisis by secretly dealing with the Iranians behind his back.

The difference to me is that the republicans have rammed their disasterous policies down our throats for the past thirty years knowing full well how it was going to turn out. This is exactly the outcome they wanted because they are trying to "starve the beast." Their goal is to strip the people of their voice. They don't want to have to compete with the people's interests. They want unfettered access to wealth and power. The public's interests be damned.

penchief
09-20-2008, 06:34 PM
Ruling class? You mean employers?

Allow us to work? you mean provide jobs?

What they wish to pay? You mean pay for a service?

You don't seem to realize your language is becoming dangerously Marxist in nature.

No. I mean the people that are consolidating wealth and power as we speak. Common employers are getting screwed, too. And it's not by the workers or those who think that taxpayer money should go to roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals, etc.

The common employer is getting screwed by the same greedy elitists who are pulling the strings on Wall Street, in the corporate board rooms, and in the basement of the White House. It's by the same people in the banking industry that just rode off into the sunset with billions of dollars of free money while leaving the taxpayers holding the bag for hundreds of billions in debt. How do you think all this crap is affecting the small business owner?

Calcountry
09-20-2008, 06:38 PM
Our country's problem is that reflexive retards like you are brainwashed into not being able to figure out who has the intelligence to figure out the best way to do something you guys instead vote automatic for the fools that claims to tax less even if it means deficits that lead to a monetary policy that makes the dollar worthless.

Clinton never was and Obama never will be ideologues. They are just two smart guys that try to figure out the best way. Instead of being knee-jerk ideologues they try to figure out the best way.

Only a stupid person would call Clinton or Obama socialists. Congratulations on being stupid.Punctuate much? Stupid.

Calcountry
09-20-2008, 06:39 PM
BTW, juvenille name calling is seen as a defensive tendency, usually as a last resort by someone who can not articulate their position.

I'm no McCain fan, I'm no Bush fan. Quite frankly i think the difference between the two parties isn't as big as they make it out to be. Both want to be in power and reap the rewards of that position. To think that these people are truly acting in the best interests of the nation is incredibly niave.
That is all Jettio has got. He has been calling everyone stupid for years.

SNR
09-20-2008, 06:42 PM
Actually, that's NPR reporting that The National Journal decreed him the most liberal senator evah!!!!!!

Not NPR itself, as you insinuate. LMAO

Is Obama too liberal for my taste? Yes.

Is he the most liberal member of the Senate? I certainly don't see it. :shrug:
So how's The National Journal for a source? It says he has the most liberal VOTING RECORD, maybe that's a better way to make the statement.

SNR
09-20-2008, 06:46 PM
First thing, NPR isn't the source. Flawed data and source. Old news.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802140003I should say. Obama and McCain probably have the worst attendence records in 2008.

jettio
09-20-2008, 10:14 PM
BTW, juvenille name calling is seen as a defensive tendency, usually as a last resort by someone who can not articulate their position.

I'm no McCain fan, I'm no Bush fan. Quite frankly i think the difference between the two parties isn't as big as they make it out to be. Both want to be in power and reap the rewards of that position. To think that these people are truly acting in the best interests of the nation is incredibly niave.

Why don't you list the candidates for whom you voted?

whoman69
09-20-2008, 10:25 PM
Really? I don't recall Reagan ever advocating government takeover of private companies.

Reagan failed to control the spending of the democratic Congress. Otherwise, his principles were sound.

It's sad to see, but not all that surprising. Today's generation is weaned on government dependancy and the believe that big brother will solve everything, when in fact the buracracy just makes it worse and the cronies and lobbists prevalent on BOTH sides of the aisle get fatter and fatter.

Neither of these two idiots running are smart enough to know the answer. I wouldn't trust either of them to run my bank book, let alone the federal budget. But that's what a two party system gets ya.

Those who support Reagan have done a great job of whitewashing his record and accomplishments. Reagan failed to control the spending of the Democratic Congress because they were passing his agenda. If its all on them, why wasn't spending that high with Carter? If its all on the Dems then why didn't the spending stop when the Republicans took over Congress?
Its no coincidence that the last three Republican Presidents all doubled the deficit in their tenure. If it was all on the Republican Congress to reel in the spending of Clinton, why did it stop when Bush took over. The fact is that Clinton was able to use his line item veto to control the spend heavy Republican Congress.
Under Reagan businesses were allowed to start many of the policies that have led to such a large gap between the haves and have nots, and the crushing of the middle class. Businesses started merger mania, outsourcing, and the current forms of corporate welfare were begun.

jAZ
09-20-2008, 10:33 PM
Really? I don't recall Reagan ever advocating government takeover of private companies.

Reagan failed to control the spending of the democratic Congress. Otherwise, his principles were sound.

It's sad to see, but not all that surprising. Today's generation is weaned on government dependancy and the believe that big brother will solve everything, when in fact the buracracy just makes it worse and the cronies and lobbists prevalent on BOTH sides of the aisle get fatter and fatter.

Neither of these two idiots running are smart enough to know the answer. I wouldn't trust either of them to run my bank book, let alone the federal budget. But that's what a two party system gets ya.
You've failed to answer the question I asked in the first part of my post or effectively deflect the reality of the second part of my post.


This is Reaganomics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics):

1) reduce the growth of government spending,
2) reduce marginal tax rates on income from labor and capital,
3) reduce government regulation of the economy,
4) control the money supply to reduce inflation.


1) FAIL
2) EPIC FAIL (disaster without #1)
3) EPIC, EPIC FAIL
4) yeah, he did this.

It took Clinton to fix the mess Reagan left to our generation of #1 without #2.

#3 lead to the collapse of our financial markets and has pushed us to the brink of a global depression.

As with anything, it's a matter of degree. The expansion of Reaganomics over the years lead to the disaster we face today.

splatbass
09-20-2008, 10:33 PM
Childlike? That's what research has told us. Bernie Sanders is a member of the Socialist Party in the US and Obama is more liberal than he is. What's childlike about it?

One media outlet - the one that every 4 years pronounces whoever the Dems nominate to be the "most liberal" - has said that. Other information disagrees. For example, electoral-vote.com took ratings by a bunch of liberal groups - who better to rate liberals than liberal groups? - on how they voted on issues that the groups promote. They took the results from 6 different liberal groups on how much each Senator supported their cause in their senate votes and Obama isn't even close to the most liberal.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/lib_senator_ratings-2007.html

Obama is the 42nd most liberal senator, behind Sanders, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, HILLARY CLINTON, Feinstein, and many more. Even Robert Byrd is more liberal than Obama.

Your source is biased and full of shit. It isn't coincidence that every person that the Dems nominate is the most liberal according to them - it is a LIE.

splatbass
09-20-2008, 10:37 PM
It's not a childlike view. It is fact.

No it isn't. See the above post. Don't fall for the propaganda.