| 0 |
Subject: Are Badlwin and the Liberals the Same type Person
Posted by: Gator
- [19323103] Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 04:30
I am fascinated by the the right/ left brain theory. The right brain centering on emotion and and the left brain on logic. I find both the far right and far left in politics equally illogical and have come to believe their environment shapes the beliefs as to which extreme they will side. |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 88 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 14:28
|
...the rest of the 6 trillion dollar deficit spending,...
What planet are you deriving these budget numbers from? Certainly not Earth and absolutely not the US budget.
|
| 89 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 15:28
|
#86: From the link: "That makes military spending the second largest Federal government expenditure, after Social Security"
And, of course, Social Security is separately funded and does not come out of general tax revenues. Military spending is by far the largest federal expenditure and therefore contributes the most to the deficit.
And yes, the War on Terror was largely off budget.
The deficit is not going down...
There might be some debate about the rate of the decline. Or who gets "credit" for it. But there is no real question that the deficit is going down.
The 2014 deficit is now projected to be the lowest in 6 years. Even the NRO is talking about who gets the credit rather than challenging the numbers on the ground.
Even since February, the CBO has knocked off $23 billion from the expected deficit for this year, largely as a result of greater tax collections.
|
| 90 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 18:12
|
again, from #57...I do not see how one can claim the deficit has NOT been cut in half.
2009 deficit (the last year for which expenditures were set by the Bush Administration, FY 2009 began Oct 1, 2008. A full month before Obama won his first election); 1,413,000,000,000 dollars. (1.4 trillion. Half of which would be 700 billion)
FY 2014 deficit 649 billion, for a reduction of approximately 764 billion. Now yes, some accounting trickery and sleight of hand undoubtedly exists, but I'd need see proof of such sleight of hand exceeding 100 billion to change the conclusion.
|
| 91 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 18:38
|
I think part of Gator's point is that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were off budget. And both were very large amounts of money.
I agree that the deficit has been cut, and cut substantially.
|
| 92 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 18:51
|
Yes, those wars WERE off budget. But those expenditures are over now, for the most part. But if those dollars arent counted against Bush's deficits, they cant be counted against Obamas in a comparison either.
And if he is going to quote the official budget numbers, then go by those numbers. If you dont intend to do that, dont quote them to start with.
|
| 93 | Boldwin
ID: 29358203
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 19:22
|
The 2014 deficit is now projected to be the lowest in 6 years. - PD
You see how ridiculous it is posting here, Gator?
PD, you couldn't include any years that weren't Obama's or the crash's fault. There's a reason for that. A reason that crushes your argument like a grape.
|
| 94 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 19:45
|
#92: I think (and you would agree, I believe) that we can't know what the real budget numbers are when the official ones lack a huge amount of expenditures. We can't say both "look to the official budget numbers for the real deficit" and "the War on Terror was almost all off-budget."
And no, those expenditures are not over, not by a long shot. Though greatly reduced, I'll certainly grant you.
Largely, we agree: Obama has shrunk the budget much lower than he inherited (although he inflated the deficit while trying to respond to the recession).
|
| 95 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 19:49
|
and inflating the deficit in the short term, forestalled a full blown depression which was clearly the correct thing to do, rightwing protestations not withstanding. Even the WSJ, ultimately admitted that the stimulus package worked, just wasnt big enough to REALLY get the job done.
|
| 96 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 22:18
|
I erred,I meant to say the federal debt is not going down, which is my chief concern for these reasons and this is from the CBO..
The CBO reported several types of risk factors related to rising debt levels in a July 2010 publication:
A growing portion of savings would go towards purchases of government debt, rather than investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers, leading to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur;
If higher marginal tax rates were used to pay rising interest costs, savings would be reduced and work would be discouraged;
Rising interest costs would force reductions in government programs;
Restrictions to the ability of policymakers to use fiscal policy to respond to economic challenges; and
An increased risk of a sudden fiscal crisis, in which investors demand higher interest rates.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm
End of Fiscal Year Debt (in billions) GDP (in billions) Debt/GDP Ratio Event
2013 $16,738 $16,913 in Q3 99% Sequestration reduced government spending, at the same time the end of Obama's payroll tax holiday raised revenue. The debt hit $17 trillion a few days after the end of the fiscal year.
2012 $16,066 $16,356 98% Obama extended Bush tax cuts, combined with $900 billion in defense spending.
2011 $14,790 $15,612 95% Obama Stimulus Act (ARRA) spent $120 billion.
2010 $13,562 $15,050 90% ARRA budgeted $400 billion. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.
2009 $11,910 $14,384 83% Economy contracted 8.9% in Q4 '08, 6.7% in Q1 '09, lowering tax revenues. ARRA spent $241.9 billion. War on Terror cost $79 billion. Fed funds rate lowered to 0%.
2008 $10,025 $14,844 68% Economy contracted 3.7% in Q3 '08, 1.8% in Q1 '08. War on Terror cost $197.6 billion, Bank Bailout Bill cost $350 billion.
2007 $9,008 $14,572 62% Iraq War cost $131.6 billion.
2006 $8,507 $13,911 61% Katrina clean-up was $24.7 billion, swine flu added $6 billion, War on Terror cost $120.4 billion. Ben Bernanke became Fed Chair.
2005 $7,933 $13,207 60% War on Terror cost $107.6 billion.
2004 $7,379 $12,369 60% War on Terror was $94 billion.
2003 $6,783 $11,628 58% Unemployment still at 6%. War on Terror cost $53 billion.
2002 $6,228 $11,040 56% War on Terror added $33.8 billion.
2001 $5,807 $10,644 55% 9/11 attacks worsened the 2011 recession. Bush tax cuts further reduced revenue.
This why I find this interesting study on the human mind. We have shown that the 2009 budget was a combination of Obama and Bush and had the bank bailout, yet Sarge continues to use that as the benchmark for Obama lowering the deficit and he does it year by year instead of the total deficit spent by Obama and Bush. Using this logic Obama could deficit spend one dollar less than the previous year and he would credited him with lowering the deficit, even though the total debt incurred would be trillions.
Many would say the total debt incurred under Obama is 6.5 trillion but unlike some here I try to be logical and don't count much of 2009. If you tack on just 200 billion of 2009 (and that is generous to Obama) his total deficit is projected around 5 trillion. That is double of Bush who fought a war, cut taxes, did a bank bailout and, fiscally, was the one of the most irresponsible presidents we have had in the modern era.
|
| 97 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 22:50
|
Correction-it is projected to be double. Obama spent more in 3.5 years than Bush did in 8.
|
| 98 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 23:12
|
There are a heck of a lot of assumptions in that post. Too many to deal with, frankly. For example, you toss out some numbers which are not net numbers, and cite a CBO study which is nearly 4 years old. The economy was very different in July 2010 than it is now.
Sarge is right: We could have spent more money and come out in better shape than we are right now. A large part of our sputtering economy is a direct result of the short-term hand wringing over the deficit. We don't have a deficit problem right now--we have a problem doing the right things to get people back to work.
You're right that there is a difference between the debt and deficit, but continue to conflate them without distinguishing between them. Is that part of your human mind study?
|
| 99 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Apr 20, 2014, 23:27
|
98, says it all.
|
| 100 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 01:14
|
It was not a CBO study. It was a statement on risk factors for high deficit spending and would be correct for any year, past or present.
Sarge is right: We could have spent more money and come out in better shape than we are right now. A large part of our sputtering economy is a direct result of the short-term hand wringing over the deficit. We don't have a deficit problem right now--we have a problem doing the right things to get people back to work.
That statement is subjective. If we are going to go that route then here is mine..
The economy is doing exactly what I and many others predicted. The ones that can grow the economy the most are sitting on their capital because of a lack of a faith in Obama. here is an exert of a survey of Obama's first year..."As President Barack Obama approaches his one year anniversary in office, 80 percent of small business owners believe that small business initiatives are not a priority for the Obama administration in 2010. The survey, conducted in early January by Manta of more than 900 small business owners and employees, found that 77 percent of respondents say the administration has hurt small business, and 76 percent believe Obama had an unsuccessful first year." and this one done in 2013..“In a separate survey conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the International Franchise Association and cited by the Wall Street Journal, 64 percent of small business franchise owners believe the law will have a ‘negative impact’ on their operations. Just 5 percent felt it would have a positive impact … Twenty-seven percent of franchisees surveyed have replaced full-time workers with part-time workers."
Growing the economy is not as difficult as it may seem. If people and business spend money the economy grows, if consumer and business confidence is low and they sit on their capital the economy shrinks.
You can do all the deficit spending you like but the economy will not grow sufficiently until businesses believe there will be a dividend on the capital invested. That sir is logic.
On a brighter note... the economy will naturally rebound to an extent because businesses are now at the point where they have to replenish their surpluses and hire back employees, but that happens after all dips in the economy.
I do find all this interesting. Biliruben's post 12 where he pokes at Boldwin and states "fear is the mind killer" then states that republicans are "Forcing states and municipalities to layoff unprecedented amounts of teachers, firemen and postpone essential infrastructure maintenance has prolonged our recession, stealing vital tax dollars as well as services that make our country competitive for future generations" sounds a bit like fear mongering.
I don't expect anyone here to slap their head and to come to an epiphany that socialism doesn't work, but to deny Obama's deficit spending and even say he lowering it because his previous years were so extremely high is madness. Worse yet is comparing everything to George Bush, who was fiscally irresponsible. I will explain like your parents probably did many years ago..If little Billy jumped off a cliff would you?"
|
| 102 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 15:53
|
Growing the economy is not as difficult as it may seem. If people and business spend money the economy grows, if consumer and business confidence is low and they sit on their capital the economy shrinks.
If, once Americans are willing to let go the purse strings, they invest outside of the US or spend outside of the US or on foreign made products, then we would all be better off if they would keep a tight grip on their purses and help keep interest rates down.
It's counterproductive to encourage consumption and investment, if it isnt exclusively American spending and investment.
|
| 103 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 19:31
|
Bean, you sound like Keynes fan. The neo-merchantilism ideas have long been considered anti-productive and heterodox economics.
|
| 104 | sarge33rd
ID: 593111219
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 20:06
|
The ones that can grow the economy the most are sitting on their capital because of a lack of a faith in Obama.
Self fulfilling prophecy there, whereby the ones you claim COULD do something, wont, just so they can say "See, told you so". Real Americans right there by gawd.
|
| 105 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 21:48
|
You invest money to make money. There is no anti-Obama conspiracy in the business world. If conditions are such that people feel they will lose their investments then they will sit on their capital.
|
| 106 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 22:31
|
Yes Gator there most definitely IS an anti-Democrat conspiracy in the business wrld.
By every metric out there, the Dems outperform the GOP,
In terms of corporate ROI,
in terms of GDP growth,
in terms of personal income,
in terms of slower debt growth,
in terms of stock market performance,
in terms of employment,
the Democrat administrations have a history of outperforming the GOP. Yet, the business world by and large would cut off its own nose, before admitting that Obama has done anything good for them and that includes MY industry, the auto industry which Obama saved from devestation.
|
| 107 | Boldwin
ID: 63552120
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 22:58
|
Liberals at Slate openly call for purging of all christians from society, from the ability to hold a job.In an article titled, “Purge the Bigots,” Slate writer William Saletan penned these chilling words: “Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.
“More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, ‘Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,’” he continued. “Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them.” Thot I was joking in #33? Oh, you buy his later denial that he was serious? I suppose if I said, 'Let's go get those _____', you'd let me claim it was all a joke later.
|
| 108 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 23:20
|
what makes you think that ONLY Christians donated t that prop?
|
| 109 | Boldwin
ID: 63552120
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 23:50
|
And throwing that issue up, helps your scheme to purge traditional religious people from the workforce and out of society how?
|
| 110 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 23:52
|
You said in 107, that the call was against CHRISTIANS. In fact, he called against all supporters of bigotry. What makes you think, that only Christians fit the target of the call for action? Or, are you saying that while all Christians are not bigots, all bigots are Christian?
|
| 111 | Boldwin
ID: 63552120
Mon, Apr 21, 2014, 23:59
|
Secular humanist marxists are the worst bigots of all. They wrestle with Torquemada for the all-time title.
|
| 112 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 00:04
|
IOW, you dont even know what you said......
|
| 113 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 06:14
|
Wow, 106 is something else. There were 3 democrat presidents in my adulthood. Jimmy Carter who damn near took the country into a depression, Obama who is trying to bankrupt the country and Bill Clinton who Newt Gingrich had to drag kicking and screaming to the center. This is not just my opinion, but also Time magazine who named Newt man of the year. Here is an exert from that year...
"Leaders make things possible. Exceptional leaders make them inevitable. Newt Gingrich belongs in the category of the exceptional. All year — ruthlessly, brilliantly, obnoxiously — he worked at hammering together inevitabilities: a balanced federal budget, for one. ... Today, because of Gingrich (emphasis added), the question is not whether a balanced-budget plan will come to pass but when.
"Gingrich has changed the center of gravity. From Franklin Roosevelt onward, Americans came to accept the federal government as the solution to problems, a vast parental presence. ... Newt Gingrich wants to reverse the physics, make American government truly centrifugal, with power flowing out of Washington, devolving to the states."
And what of Clinton's role?
Time continues: "Having organized an insurrectionist crew in the House, Gingrich seized the initiative from a temporarily passive president (emphasis added) and steered the country onto a heading that the speaker accurately proclaimed to be revolutionary."
In 1996, Newsweek's Evan Thomas wrote: "More than anything else, Gingrich wanted to dismantle the 'beauractic welfare state.' To do that, he understood, he had to attack Congress' addiction to deficit spending. When he assumed power in 1995, he consulted CEOs who had downsized their own companies; they advised him to stake out bold positions and force others to follow. ... Under Gingrich the House passed a budget that truly restrained the growth of federal spending."
|
| 114 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 12:07
|
<103> All of my formal economics education was in Keynesian Economics. I received my BBA in 1978 and that was the flavor of the day, havent had any formal training since. I imagine that any other theories have an element of Keynes in them. Anyway, the model works with limitations. Those limitations are often ignored for political or selfish reasons when people use the model for their arguments. I am sorry if my neo-mercantilist views seem to be heterodox to you, I guess I will just have to remain the minority if thats the case. (insert carcasm)Seems the majority of folks who believe otherwise have done a great job with the banking industry, employment, the deficit and debt, and pensions. No wonder we like these new theories so much, gives us new ways to steal.
Having spent 20 years in the military, I have a protectionist viewpoint for good reason. There really is no need for any country to go to war to conquer us if they can simply buy us in an open market. We call that war by other means in our leadership schools, though this particular strategy is not formally discussed.
Our politicians are corrupt and can easily be purchased on the open market, I am surprised there isnt a vote exchange that can be monitored with some metric to determine the fair price. How much does it cost to buy a Senator these days anyway?
I'll tell you what really scares me is foreign ownership of American natural resources and infrastructure (utility companies). Ronald Reagan's great economic about face would not have been possible without selling off our oil to BRITISH petroleum and ROYAL DUTCH Shell, a fact that few still remember.
Take some time to investigate who owns farm land in this country. Its not scary yet, but the trend is. Farm land prices have been soaring.
Economics is not nearly as complicated as people want to make it. A country should strive to import the natural resources of others and sell them back finished products. That is all there is to it, when you start selling the resources and buy the products, you got it all backwards.
A few decades of economic isolation could do wonders for us as a people, but it will never be allowed to happen and unfortunately we cant turn back the clock on Reagan's plunders and blunders.
|
| 115 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 18:31
|
Bean, watch some Milton Friedman videos on U Tube and tell me what you think.
|
| 116 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 19:54
|
re 113, seriously Gator, Do some honest research. Forbes, even FOX have admitted and published as much. It's been a truthful statement, since 1920 or there abouts and forward. I know, your much ballyhooed GOP talking heads tell you otherwise but guess what? That simply means, they are lying to you...still.
US News
Forbes
FOX Business
Princeton analysis
The facts, are clear Gator.
|
| 117 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 21:30
|
<115> Though Friedman is a very bright guy, I dont agree with his world view of a utopia that's defined by borderless, every man for himself, unbridled greed. I do not feel responsible for the entire world, and many foreign governments would love to own our nation's natural wealth if they can find a way to manage it. With so much wealth in the hands of sovereign states, thats not a hard thing to do. Watch your back free trader.
What Mr Friedman and nearly every anti-protectionist pundit fails to acknowledge is that the profit from foreign goods sold in this country is not taxed without tariffs. Failure to tariff ALL imported goods is simply giving the foreign businessman a competitive edge over domestic companies, since he doesn't have to pay for the costs of our government in any way.
Prohibitive tarriffs on imported products forces companies to produce their products in the US. That in turn creates US jobs and creates a US tax base. That it will increase prices is not important when so many US citizens are unemployed. Eventually a Japanese auto manufacturer could be forced to make ALL of his auto parts in the US, employing US citizens if he wants to make a profit in the US. If he makes a profit in the US, he will pay taxes to the US government to pay for defense and infrastructure that he benefits from.
Aren't you tired of giving all these foreigners a free ride? If we are going to be the world's military protection, then they should be helping us pay for it. If they want to use our roads to distribute their products, they need to pay for it. If they want to take jobs from US people and give them to their own, then they should pay the entitlements. They should not be allowed to just suck on the US teat well past infancy.
|
| 118 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 21:43
|
Lol, one of those studies went back to 1901. Here is a review by a democrat on the book. http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/464639239
"The main flaw in this one is apparent right from the start -- opinions are often presented as facts. In the first pages, for example, it is stated that one of the criteria for determining the economic success of a president was how much he equitably distributed the country's wealth among its people; my radical relatives would immediately disagree with that standard and probably wouldn't read any further. It then goes on to state that civil rights issues are mere "distractions" and that you should only vote based on "what's important -- your pocketbook." This is the point where it turned me off, although I decided to stick with it."
I agree the Dems are better at playing Robin Hood and if that is the criteria, you win Sarge.
"The chapters themselves are also heavily skewed toward the Democrats. Republican presidents are vilified in the text for everything from their upbringing and education to their campaign tactics, whereas Democrats are only lauded for their economic successes. I (full disclosure) am a staunch Democrat, and even I noticed the disparity; it is not subtle, and right-wing-leaning readers are going to pick it up and run with it. It has the effect of making the book seem like subjective propaganda. The authors would have served themselves better to just let their impressive economic facts speak for themselves."
Even a democrat called that hogwash propaganda.
Now lets look at the this joke of a chart. Woodrow Wilson ranks last because of the crash so anyone after him is going to rank high because the economy was rock bottom and he became more liberal than Obama. So even though FDR's policy delayed the recovery he will always be high on a list like this. JFK is first on this list and he was an economic conservative. It is well known Kennedy hated liberals.."MSNBC host Chris Matthews conceded the point in his recent biography, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero. “I am not a liberal at all,” Kennedy once told the Saturday Evening Post. “I’m not comfortable with those people.” Journalist and JFK insider Ben Bradlee confirmed it. “He hated the liberals.
Clinton ranks near the on top of the list also but everyone with knowledge knows it was Newt Gingrich who drove the economic policy.
I do have give the liberals credit for playing with the numbers and coming up with this unique propaganda. It is on par with you taking a budget that Obama helped raise and had a bipartisan bailout and use it to show Obama lowering the deficit. Even though by the end of his term Obama will be close to matching the total of all the presidents in history for deficit spending.
And quit using JFK as example of today's democrat the poor man is probably doing back flips in his grave over you guys sullying his economic views.
|
| 119 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 21:55
|
Bean, It was tariff policies like you are recommending that caused a worldwide trade war and a global depression in the 30's. I cannot emphasize how dangerous that would be.
Friedman is a bit right of me on many topics but I am in awe of his intelligence.
|
| 120 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Tue, Apr 22, 2014, 22:51
|
I doubt that tariffs alone caused the great depression. In any case, we came out of it pretty well. None of my ancestors jumped out of windows, we weren't rich. No pity for the losers who did.
If there is a world wide trade war, and we have the national will, we win it. We simply have more natural resources than most others. If we are a bunch of half asses, we lose.
You're not scared are you?
|
| 121 | Boldwin
ID: 493202218
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 04:52
|
Not only was Keynes less dogmatic than his followers today but Hayek was also more nuanced than his position is portrayed.
Don't get me wrong. Hayek, Mises and Adam Smith are the foundations of the modern conservative position and it is hard to overstate the influence Hayek's 'Road To Serfdom' had. I can't even imagine Milton Friedman and Bill Buckley without him.
|
| 122 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 10:41
|
Talking about economists, John Locke is another favorite of mine and one of the greatest thinkers of all time. He was a bit off on his mercantilism ideas but for his time Locke was a genius and one of the most underrated greats of all time. He needs a publicist.
|
| 123 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 11:03
|
Nothing new under the sun my friend. How many times was Austria raped in the world economy/warfare before they found this enlightenment?
The Austrian lawyer and scholar Philipp Wilhelm von Hornick, in his Austria Over All, If She Only Will of 1684, detailed a nine-point program of what he deemed effective national economy, which sums up the tenets of mercantilism comprehensively:
1) That every little bit of a country's soil be utilized for agriculture, mining or manufacturing.
2) That all raw materials found in a country be used in domestic manufacture, since finished goods have a higher value than raw materials.
3) That a large, working population be encouraged.
4) That all export of gold and silver be prohibited and all domestic money be kept in circulation.
5) That all imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible.
6) That where certain imports are indispensable they be obtained at first hand, in exchange for other domestic goods instead of gold and silver.
7) That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that can be finished [in the home country].
8) That opportunities be constantly sought for selling a country's surplus manufactures to foreigners, so far as necessary, for gold and silver.
9) That no importation be allowed if such goods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home.
|
| 124 | biliruben
ID: 561162511
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 16:53
|
So Gator - how to you propose bringing the deficit to zero? I assume you are suggesting raising taxes, given the ill-advised austerity experiments we have seen in Europe have caused mass unemployment, dis-inflation and in many cases have actually harmed the deficit situation.
So which taxes are you proposing raising?
|
| 125 | Boldwin
ID: 593212312
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 17:59
|
Dismantle the public sector. Every dollar saved from leviathan's maw is a dollar that can be productively utilized.
|
| 126 | biliruben
ID: 41431323
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 18:08
|
All actual evidence to the contrary...
"Logic" needs not depend on any sort of couch in reality, I guess.
|
| 127 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 18:37
|
In what country will that dollar be productively used? Wait, without a government there is no such thing as a dollar or country, so its irrelevant.
Sure, let's dismantle the government and give every one a gun and see who survives. What the hell, lets give everyone a personal nuke and we'll get there even faster, because that's the goal...eternal life after we are dead, right?
Why not dismantle the private sector instead and eliminate greed as a primary motivation of humankind? Seems like a great goal to me. (insert john Lennon song, or those Lennon sisters, not sure which Lennon is appropriate here). Throw out the money-changers from this house of the lord!!!!
Oh, but what if we are the only ones who aren't greedy, then what? What if someone else has discovered passive-aggressive tactics that give the illusion of peace...then what? Those sneaky bastards!!!
Whose team are you on, anyway? Do you wave the flag with one hand, and flip the bird with the other?
What exactly is your vision of utopia Boldy? Does it include all of us, or will we be left off the ark as you already have two of everything you need and we are not required.
|
| 128 | Boldwin
ID: 593212312
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 18:39
|
Conversely every dollar that slips thru our fingers into leviathan's maw only feeds another unelected overpaid DMV petty tyrant to look balefully down at us while they force us to buy their crap.
|
| 129 | Boldwin
ID: 593212312
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 18:44
|
Bean
There is no one greedier or more unworthy of that dollar than a member of the moorlocks nomenclatura.
Perhaps they will find employment in the real world if we took away their free lunch.
|
| 130 | Boldwin
ID: 593212312
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 18:50
|
What exactly is your vision of utopia Boldy?
It is you leaving me alone and doing me no 'favors' as I board the ark. You are all invited. If you can't be taught you won't be there.
|
| 131 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 19:19
|
How bout we just vote on what should be taught, one man one vote
|
| 132 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 19:34
|
Excellent question Bili on 124. Keynes said it best, "The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury."
I have no problem with deficit spending to slow a recession. I do have a problem with the amount, length of Obama's deficit spending and how it was spent.
The one thing economists cannot chart is future business and consumer confidence and thus the flaw in almost every economic model. Liberals and socialists have used the fears of a poor economy to offer a villain to the masses. There is a "Blame the rich" and anti-business sentiment all over the world today. An example is PD talking about corporate welfare.
Reagan did some things that drove my wealthier friends crazy but overall he appeared pro-business and thus we had high business confidence and a strong economy. Reagan is an excellent example of perception becoming reality.
The world needs a charismatic president in the U.S. that can empower business and wealthy consumers to spend capital and reverse the socialist mentality permeating throughout America. World economics is tied to America and a robust U.S. economy would trickled down to the world.
|
| 133 | Boldwin
ID: 593212312
Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 09:46
|
Obama's deficit spending has been nothing but an Obama bailout for his Wallstreet buddies. This is a war of the liberal uber-elites and the nomenclatura against the middle class and any citizen who wants a job.
You will notice the other Obama enablers among the wealthy, namely the establishment republicans always vote to swamp the labor force and they have turned a blind eye to outrageous impeachable offenses letting Obama target the Tea Party with the IRS.
|
| 134 | nerveclinic
ID: 54039114
Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 09:58
|
Baldwins word for the next few months apparently, "nomenclatura". (Actually I trust he means nomenklatura
He latches onto buzzwords like this then parades them around like a poodle on a leash at the gala dog show, and he goes to a lot of dog shows.
At the same time he will stoop into the verbal gutter using such gems as "prolly" because he is too lazy to type out Probably.
If you look it up in the dictionary, you will find this... prolly - no dictionary results
Cheers Baldy.
|
| 135 | Gator
ID: 19323103
Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 10:13
|
I liked leviathan's maw better.
|
| 136 | Boldwin
ID: 593212312
Thu, Apr 24, 2014, 11:21
|
Nerve
I'm prolly just trying to sneak my huge brain under the big tent by pretending to be one of the easy going colloquial hoi polloi instead of one of the pedantic 'hater's-of-the-common-man' outsiders.
BTW if you know the rules you are often allowed to break them. Did you really think I had forgotten the word probably?
|
| 137 | Boldwin
ID: 385491121
Thu, Jun 12, 2014, 00:56
|
Tracking polarization.
|
| 138 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 15:50
|
A fun graphic, but what is the data behind the graph?
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: Are Badlwin and the Liberals the Same type Person
|
|