|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 4, 2010 18:41:52 GMT -8
Pelosi is not an idiot. Unemployment insurance goes right into the economy as people spend the money to live-as they must. This is as opposed to a tax cut for the wealthy that is immediately banked, because the affluent are under no such pressure to spend. People on unemployment are forced to put their money back into the economy, because a greater portion of their income must be used to live. The rich can only consume so much, no matter what their income happens to be. It is called in-elasticity of demand. Reagan was the idiot. A tax cut that is immediately banked?? Is there no outlay first for capital equipment to receive a tax credit for capital investment? Is there no down payment, closing costs, appraiser fees, inspector fees, Realtor fees first outlayed when receiving a first time home buyer credit? Reagan had more common sense than all of the Ivy league pols combined. Obama is a clueless clown lapping up the pablum from the ideologues he was raised with. And look at the direction of the economy under his guidance..... it shows. Oh but with Democrats in control of both houses starting in 2007, it is all Bush's fault ....or wait.... Reagan's  Reagan was an sob (of all the politicians that have ever held office in this country, he is the one I think was the most worthless). Bush wasted the money he had on a war that will result in no positive outcome and cut taxes for people who did not need it. In fact, they should have been paying more, because they benefit from our society more. Those tax cuts for the rich resulted in negative income growth for the rest of us and a bubble based on credit speculation, because they would not use their windfall to produce real worth. Capital outlay? Well, where is it? There was no real growth, just speculation and some over educated morons creating investment vehicles that produced absolutely nothing. Then the smart so and so's who manipulate wall street discovered they had no real control despite their supposed genius level grasp of mathematics. Had there been real growth living standards would have improved. They have not improved. They have declined over the past ten years. And the decline is not Obama's fault. It is the fault of the son of the guy who a Dallas freeway named after. Yes, its GW's fault. Please show me how the majority of Americans are in better financial shape than they were in 2000. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 5, 2010 5:11:37 GMT -8
A tax cut that is immediately banked?? Is there no outlay first for capital equipment to receive a tax credit for capital investment? Is there no down payment, closing costs, appraiser fees, inspector fees, Realtor fees first outlayed when receiving a first time home buyer credit? Reagan had more common sense than all of the Ivy league pols combined. Obama is a clueless clown lapping up the pablum from the ideologues he was raised with. And look at the direction of the economy under his guidance..... it shows. Oh but with Democrats in control of both houses starting in 2007, it is all Bush's fault ....or wait.... Reagan's Reagan was an sob (of all the politicians that have ever held office in this country, he is the one I think was the most worthless). Bush wasted the money he had on a war that will result in no positive outcome and cut taxes for people who did not need it. In fact, they should have been paying more, because they benefit from our society more. Those tax cuts for the rich resulted in negative income growth for the rest of us and a bubble based on credit speculation, because they would not use their windfall to produce real worth. Capital outlay? Well, where is it? There was no real growth, just speculation and some over educated morons creating investment vehicles that produced absolutely nothing. Then the smart so and so's who manipulate wall street discovered they had no real control despite their supposed genius level grasp of mathematics. Had there been real growth living standards would have improved. They have not improved. They have declined over the past ten years. And the decline is not Obama's fault. It is the fault of the son of the guy who a Dallas freeway named after. Yes, its GW's fault. Please show me how the majority of Americans are in better financial shape than they were in 2000. This has what to do with Pelosi and her idiocy on jobs? You an have your poorly formed opinion on things and as f now, you are in a shrinking minority if you believe polls. I am better off now than I have ever been, but it is because of how I arrange my affairs and not living beyond my means. My opinion is that we should all get down on our knees and thank God that Ronald Reagan saw fit to change our country for the better. We might still be living in the throes of the Jimmy Carter "misery index" were it not for Reagan. Things have eroded since, but it looks like America is regaining its senses and will begin the process of throwing the Democrat Bums out on their ears. The big problem That we still face is what damage can a lame duck Congress do from Nov to Jan? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 5, 2010 7:00:36 GMT -8
A tax cut that is immediately banked?? Is there no outlay first for capital equipment to receive a tax credit for capital investment? Is there no down payment, closing costs, appraiser fees, inspector fees, Realtor fees first outlayed when receiving a first time home buyer credit? Reagan had more common sense than all of the Ivy league pols combined. Obama is a clueless clown lapping up the pablum from the ideologues he was raised with. And look at the direction of the economy under his guidance..... it shows. Oh but with Democrats in control of both houses starting in 2007, it is all Bush's fault ....or wait.... Reagan's Reagan was an sob (of all the politicians that have ever held office in this country, he is the one I think was the most worthless). Bush wasted the money he had on a war that will result in no positive outcome and cut taxes for people who did not need it. In fact, they should have been paying more, because they benefit from our society more. Those tax cuts for the rich resulted in negative income growth for the rest of us and a bubble based on credit speculation, because they would not use their windfall to produce real worth. Capital outlay? Well, where is it? There was no real growth, just speculation and some over educated morons creating investment vehicles that produced absolutely nothing. Then the smart so and so's who manipulate wall street discovered they had no real control despite their supposed genius level grasp of mathematics. Had there been real growth living standards would have improved. They have not improved. They have declined over the past ten years. And the decline is not Obama's fault. It is the fault of the son of the guy who a Dallas freeway named after. Yes, its GW's fault. Please show me how the majority of Americans are in better financial shape than they were in 2000. Reagan was an outstanding President freeing millions in eastern Europe and turning around the crummy economy created by clueless policies of Carter and the Democrats. And as far as real income is concerned, spare us the party "line". www.house.gov/jec/middle/crunch3/fig-2a.gifAnd as far as our real income is concerned, you can't ship money off-shore year after year after year for energy and trade, allow millions of illegals to come in a work for less money and expect growth in that area. Unless the Democrats had some way of producing Unobtanium for our energy needs (as opposed to kissing Jane Fonda's a$$ and killing the nuclear industry) and could figure out tax policies and labor policies that made our workers competitive (See Detroit for the Democrats answer to that), then we might have a chance to avoid real income droppage. But Reagan actually put a slow down in that slope. Blaming Bush for the Real Estate/Financial Institution debacle is as intellectually sound as blaming Clinton for the .com/stock market bust at the end of his term. So many other things caused the phenomena devoid of one party driven policy is a ridiculous, 2nd grade mentality, Huffington post backed cause & effect analysis. I could go over factor after factor that contributed to the 2008 bust that did not include Bush or the GOP but it would be a waste of time I'm sure. Pelosi, Dodd and Frank claimed it was all the fault of "Deregulation". Could you even ask for a more Chicken $$#!+, responsibility avoiding spin on what actually happened? Obama has exacerbated the situation with his dead-end, make work recovery policy. He actually expected to stop the unemployment at 8%, but it ran to 10%. His clueless approach caused such a delay in the rebound, many of the jobs lost now will never come back because the industries that lost them have restructured to proceed without them. He is a economic wrecking ball committing me, my kids and my kid's kids to pay for "experiments" his leftist profs all assured him would work. But if they didn't work, at least they promote "social justice". Back to the point, extending unemployment benefits indefinitely does not make an economy rebound. Do you even know someone on unemployment or welfare? If you do, you see some of them calculating how much work thy can get on the side without effecting the Government payment? Getting money for nothing is like a drug. Pelosi is pandering and not thinking. But that is nothing new. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 5, 2010 7:08:31 GMT -8
Reagan was an sob (of all the politicians that have ever held office in this country, he is the one I think was the most worthless). Bush wasted the money he had on a war that will result in no positive outcome and cut taxes for people who did not need it. In fact, they should have been paying more, because they benefit from our society more. Those tax cuts for the rich resulted in negative income growth for the rest of us and a bubble based on credit speculation, because they would not use their windfall to produce real worth. Capital outlay? Well, where is it? There was no real growth, just speculation and some over educated morons creating investment vehicles that produced absolutely nothing. Then the smart so and so's who manipulate wall street discovered they had no real control despite their supposed genius level grasp of mathematics. Had there been real growth living standards would have improved. They have not improved. They have declined over the past ten years. And the decline is not Obama's fault. It is the fault of the son of the guy who a Dallas freeway named after. Yes, its GW's fault. Please show me how the majority of Americans are in better financial shape than they were in 2000. This has what to do with Pelosi and her idiocy on jobs? You an have your poorly formed opinion on things and as f now, you are in a shrinking minority if you believe polls. I am better off now than I have ever been, but it is because of how I arrange my affairs and not living beyond my means. My opinion is that we should all get down on our knees and thank God that Ronald Reagan saw fit to change our country for the better. We might still be living in the throes of the Jimmy Carter "misery index" were it not for Reagan. Things have eroded since, but it looks like America is regaining its senses and will begin the process of throwing the Democrat Bums out on their ears. The big problem That we still face is what damage can a lame duck Congress do from Nov to Jan? I am informed at least as well as you are. My responses were to the poster who referred to Pelosi as an idiot. I was simply comparing people I think are idiots to yours and turnabout is fair play. Ronald Reagan was a mean a-hole with a personal agenda. I lived in California when he was governor. He was out of his mind long before he retired. Since my monthly debt to income ratio is eight percent, including my mortgage, I know something of frugality. Americans know who is responsible for the economic mess according to the polls - the Republicans. You cut taxes for the top one percent of earners and started a useless war causing a good portion of the current government debt. You weakened regulations which caused both the financial meltdown and the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Your philosophy directly contributed to the greatest shift in economic burden in the history of this country, which has made people less insured, less wealthy, less prepared for retirement, less able to find secure well paying employment and their children less educated. So long as you field candidates who sleep with special interests like a particular idiot here in Washington named Rossi and that fool Ensign in Nevada, or you field a candidates for senate who believe that the people of the U.S. have wronged British petroleum (And apologized ?!), should completely eliminate social security, reduce or eliminate unemployment insurance, feel that businesses should be unregulated, refer obliquely to violence when they don't get their way, don't understand what the constitution says concerning the separation of church and state, do not believe in the civil rights act and are stupid enough to say it in public, and do not even understand basic science, you have a problem. Win, this country is changing and your idea of conservatism is about to be made obsolete by demographics. Conservatives have reacted with anger to this development, because some of them are smart enough to see that the future is against them. Good bye Win, your philosophy is going the way cathode ray tube. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 5, 2010 7:25:14 GMT -8
Reagan was an sob (of all the politicians that have ever held office in this country, he is the one I think was the most worthless). Bush wasted the money he had on a war that will result in no positive outcome and cut taxes for people who did not need it. In fact, they should have been paying more, because they benefit from our society more. Those tax cuts for the rich resulted in negative income growth for the rest of us and a bubble based on credit speculation, because they would not use their windfall to produce real worth. Capital outlay? Well, where is it? There was no real growth, just speculation and some over educated morons creating investment vehicles that produced absolutely nothing. Then the smart so and so's who manipulate wall street discovered they had no real control despite their supposed genius level grasp of mathematics. Had there been real growth living standards would have improved. They have not improved. They have declined over the past ten years. And the decline is not Obama's fault. It is the fault of the son of the guy who a Dallas freeway named after. Yes, its GW's fault. Please show me how the majority of Americans are in better financial shape than they were in 2000. Reagan was an outstanding President freeing millions in eastern Europe and turning around the crummy economy created by clueless policies of Carter and the Democrats. And as far as real income is concerned, spare us the party "line". www.house.gov/jec/middle/crunch3/fig-2a.gifAnd as far as our real income is concerned, you can't ship money off-shore year after year after year for energy and trade and expect growth in that area. Unless the Democrats had some way of producing Unobtanium for our energy needs (as opposed to kissing Jane Fonda's a$$ and killing the nuclear industry) and could figure out tax policies and labor policies that made our workers competitive (See Detroit for the Democrats answer to that), then we might have a chance to avoid real income droppage. But Reagan actually put a slow down in that slope. Blaming Bush for the Real Estate/Financial Institution debacle is as intellectually sound as blaming Clinton for the .com/stock market bust at the end of his term. So many other things caused the phenomena devoid of one party driven policy is a ridiculous, 2nd grade mentality, Huffington post backed cause & effect analysis. I could go over factor after factor that contributed to the 2008 bust that did not include Bush or the GOP but it would be a waste of time I'm sure. Pelosi, Dodd and Frank claimed it was all the fault of "Deregulation". Could you even ask for a more Chicken $$#!+, responsibility avoiding spin on what actually happened? Obama has exacerbated the situation with his dead-end, make work recovery policy. He actually expected to stop the unemployment at 8%, but it ran to 10%. His clueless approach caused such a delay in the rebound, many of the jobs lost now will never come back because the industries that lost them have restructured to proceed without them. He is a economic wrecking ball committing me, my kids and my kid's kids to pay for "experiments" his leftist profs all assured him would work. But if they didn't work, at least they promote "social justice". Back to the point, extending unemployment benefits indefinitely does not make an economy rebound. Do you even know someone on unemployment or welfare? If you do, you see some of them calculating how much work thy can get on the side without effecting the Government payment? Getting money for nothing is like a drug. Pelosi is pandering and not thinking. But that is nothing new. Unemployment payments go back into the economy, because the recipients must spend the money to live. That is a stimulus to the economy. I have been on unemployment, by the way, and I hated it - ferociously. I still shudder when I think of the fear I felt when I was on it. I took a really hard job at 40% of what I made previously to get off it and not feel afraid. I am sorry, you do not know what you are talking about. Like anything else, there are cheaters. I have talked with literally tens of thousands of people who have been in financial difficulty as a result of my training. The vast majority of them want to do their best. Most of them want to work-and work hard. Most of their economic problems are due to circumstance. Most people in this country, believe it or not, are not freeloaders. If they were, we would not be the best country on earth. America, after all is what its citizens are. If the citizens are basically good the nation is good. If they are bad the nation is bad. So. . .Which is it? Oh yes, Reagan did not defeat the Russians and free Europe. That is a simplistic and unrealistic argument. The Russians and Europeans involved in the process would disagree vehemently and call your assertion wholly chauvinistic. The Russian system failed due to its own inadequacies. That collapse and resulting inability of Russia to prevent the "decay" in the European satellites is what caused the collapse.
Did we contribute to it? Sure.
But it was a contribution started far before Gonzo's buddy had anything to do with it. To attribute Russia's change to Reagan is like attributing the end of apartheid solely to our boycotts.
It just ain't true. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 5, 2010 7:49:50 GMT -8
Reagan was an sob (of all the politicians that have ever held office in this country, he is the one I think was the most worthless). Bush wasted the money he had on a war that will result in no positive outcome and cut taxes for people who did not need it. In fact, they should have been paying more, because they benefit from our society more. Those tax cuts for the rich resulted in negative income growth for the rest of us and a bubble based on credit speculation, because they would not use their windfall to produce real worth. Capital outlay? Well, where is it? There was no real growth, just speculation and some over educated morons creating investment vehicles that produced absolutely nothing. Then the smart so and so's who manipulate wall street discovered they had no real control despite their supposed genius level grasp of mathematics. Had there been real growth living standards would have improved. They have not improved. They have declined over the past ten years. And the decline is not Obama's fault. It is the fault of the son of the guy who a Dallas freeway named after. Yes, its GW's fault. Please show me how the majority of Americans are in better financial shape than they were in 2000. This has what to do with Pelosi and her idiocy on jobs? You an have your poorly formed opinion on things and as f now, you are in a shrinking minority if you believe polls. I am better off now than I have ever been, but it is because of how I arrange my affairs and not living beyond my means. My opinion is that we should all get down on our knees and thank God that Ronald Reagan saw fit to change our country for the better. We might still be living in the throes of the Jimmy Carter "misery index" were it not for Reagan. Things have eroded since, but it looks like America is regaining its senses and will begin the process of throwing the Democrat Bums out on their ears. The big problem That we still face is what damage can a lame duck Congress do from Nov to Jan? I congratulate you on your choices,win. Being frugal and living with your means is wise. Working for the federal government for forty some years was also a good choice for you. It secured a wonderful foundation of retirement income and an inexpensive medical insurance plan for you. All of our country could not have made the same choices as you. While we all could have been frugal, we could not all work for the federal government. What kind of economy would that be? Most of us work in private industry so economy actually produces goods and services. It is those of us that work in the private economy that are bearing the brunt of eoconomic crisis. I see it in my business. None of my clients that lost their jobs have been able to replace them for like money. All have taken paycuts. The retirees that depended on personal savings have seen losses in capital and smaller income streams. They were frugal, they saved, but their lifes are different now from what they planned. That is what happens when you don't work for the federal government. Count yourself lucky, as well as wise. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 5, 2010 7:58:46 GMT -8
Reagan was an outstanding President freeing millions in eastern Europe and turning around the crummy economy created by clueless policies of Carter and the Democrats. And as far as real income is concerned, spare us the party "line". www.house.gov/jec/middle/crunch3/fig-2a.gifAnd as far as our real income is concerned, you can't ship money off-shore year after year after year for energy and trade and expect growth in that area. Unless the Democrats had some way of producing Unobtanium for our energy needs (as opposed to kissing Jane Fonda's a$$ and killing the nuclear industry) and could figure out tax policies and labor policies that made our workers competitive (See Detroit for the Democrats answer to that), then we might have a chance to avoid real income droppage. But Reagan actually put a slow down in that slope. Blaming Bush for the Real Estate/Financial Institution debacle is as intellectually sound as blaming Clinton for the .com/stock market bust at the end of his term. So many other things caused the phenomena devoid of one party driven policy is a ridiculous, 2nd grade mentality, Huffington post backed cause & effect analysis. I could go over factor after factor that contributed to the 2008 bust that did not include Bush or the GOP but it would be a waste of time I'm sure. Pelosi, Dodd and Frank claimed it was all the fault of "Deregulation". Could you even ask for a more Chicken $$#!+, responsibility avoiding spin on what actually happened? Obama has exacerbated the situation with his dead-end, make work recovery policy. He actually expected to stop the unemployment at 8%, but it ran to 10%. His clueless approach caused such a delay in the rebound, many of the jobs lost now will never come back because the industries that lost them have restructured to proceed without them. He is a economic wrecking ball committing me, my kids and my kid's kids to pay for "experiments" his leftist profs all assured him would work. But if they didn't work, at least they promote "social justice". Back to the point, extending unemployment benefits indefinitely does not make an economy rebound. Do you even know someone on unemployment or welfare? If you do, you see some of them calculating how much work thy can get on the side without effecting the Government payment? Getting money for nothing is like a drug. Pelosi is pandering and not thinking. But that is nothing new. Unemployment payments go back into the economy, because the recipients must spend the money to live. That is a stimulus to the economy. I have been on unemployment, by the way, and I hated it - ferociously. I still shudder when I think of the fear I felt when I was on it. I took a really hard job at 40% of what I made previously to get off it and not feel afraid. I am sorry, you do not know what you are talking about. Like anything else, there are cheaters. I have talked with literally tens of thousands of people who have been in financial difficulty as a result of my training. The vast majority of them want to do their best. Most of them want to work-and work hard. Most of their economic problems are due to circumstance. Most people in this country, believe it or not, are not freeloaders. If they were, we would not be the best country on earth. America, after all is what its citizens are. If the citizens are basically good the nation is good. If they are bad the nation is bad. So. . .Which is it? Believe it or not, I believe the government should be there to give the down and out a helping hand, albeit a temporary one. As with the false predictions on the GOP driven welfare reform that Clinton enacted, the results were generally favorable and most would attribute those favorable results to action by the recipients when they knew their benefits were running out/limited. Similar situation here. I think the average Federal unemployment period allowed was 36 weeks. Now some areas get 99 weeks and they are asking for more. Two years is getting into a lifestyle change. And at a cost of 10 Billion/month when we borrow half of that from China can't be a good thing long term. Something has got to give and those who have worn out their benefits, it is time to move on. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 5, 2010 8:18:29 GMT -8
Unemployment payments go back into the economy, because the recipients must spend the money to live. That is a stimulus to the economy. I have been on unemployment, by the way, and I hated it - ferociously. I still shudder when I think of the fear I felt when I was on it. I took a really hard job at 40% of what I made previously to get off it and not feel afraid. I am sorry, you do not know what you are talking about. Like anything else, there are cheaters. I have talked with literally tens of thousands of people who have been in financial difficulty as a result of my training. The vast majority of them want to do their best. Most of them want to work-and work hard. Most of their economic problems are due to circumstance. Most people in this country, believe it or not, are not freeloaders. If they were, we would not be the best country on earth. America, after all is what its citizens are. If the citizens are basically good the nation is good. If they are bad the nation is bad. So. . .Which is it? Believe it or not, I believe the government should be there to give the down and out a helping hand, albeit a temporary one. As with the false predictions on the GOP driven welfare reform that Clinton enacted, the results were generally favorable and most would attribute those favorable results to action by the recipients when they knew their benefits were running out/limited. Similar situation here. I think the average Federal unemployment period allowed was 36 weeks. Now some areas get 99 weeks and they are asking for more. Two years is getting into a lifestyle change. And at a cost of 10 Billion/month when we borrow half of that from China can't be a good thing long term. Something has got to give and those who have worn out their benefits, it is time to move on. The current downturn is not a normal business cycle correction. It is much worse. Those conditions call for a response to those conditions. If there are no jobs (and there are darn few right now), and you remove unemployment, your alternatives become very limited, the salubrious effects of welfare reform notwithstanding. I believe that the vast majority of those on unemployment hate it. If you are on unemployment for two years, perhaps, just perhaps, the lifestyle change was forced on you. Unemployment is a very demeaning place to be. China holding our debt does not bother me as much as it does you. China becomes inextricably bound to us with each dollar they soak up. If we collapse so do they. If we don't buy from them, they sink. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 5, 2010 9:46:20 GMT -8
Reagan was an sob (of all the politicians that have ever held office in this country, he is the one I think was the most worthless). Bush wasted the money he had on a war that will result in no positive outcome and cut taxes for people who did not need it. In fact, they should have been paying more, because they benefit from our society more. Those tax cuts for the rich resulted in negative income growth for the rest of us and a bubble based on credit speculation, because they would not use their windfall to produce real worth. Capital outlay? Well, where is it? There was no real growth, just speculation and some over educated morons creating investment vehicles that produced absolutely nothing. Then the smart so and so's who manipulate wall street discovered they had no real control despite their supposed genius level grasp of mathematics. Had there been real growth living standards would have improved. They have not improved. They have declined over the past ten years. And the decline is not Obama's fault. It is the fault of the son of the guy who a Dallas freeway named after. Yes, its GW's fault. Please show me how the majority of Americans are in better financial shape than they were in 2000. Reagan was an outstanding President freeing millions in eastern Europe and turning around the crummy economy created by clueless policies of Carter and the Democrats. And as far as real income is concerned, spare us the party "line". www.house.gov/jec/middle/crunch3/fig-2a.gifAnd as far as our real income is concerned, you can't ship money off-shore year after year after year for energy and trade, allow millions of illegals to come in a work for less money and expect growth in that area. Unless the Democrats had some way of producing Unobtanium for our energy needs (as opposed to kissing Jane Fonda's a$$ and killing the nuclear industry) and could figure out tax policies and labor policies that made our workers competitive (See Detroit for the Democrats answer to that), then we might have a chance to avoid real income droppage. But Reagan actually put a slow down in that slope. Blaming Bush for the Real Estate/Financial Institution debacle is as intellectually sound as blaming Clinton for the .com/stock market bust at the end of his term. So many other things caused the phenomena devoid of one party driven policy is a ridiculous, 2nd grade mentality, Huffington post backed cause & effect analysis. I could go over factor after factor that contributed to the 2008 bust that did not include Bush or the GOP but it would be a waste of time I'm sure. Pelosi, Dodd and Frank claimed it was all the fault of "Deregulation". Could you even ask for a more Chicken $$#!+, responsibility avoiding spin on what actually happened? Obama has exacerbated the situation with his dead-end, make work recovery policy. He actually expected to stop the unemployment at 8%, but it ran to 10%. His clueless approach caused such a delay in the rebound, many of the jobs lost now will never come back because the industries that lost them have restructured to proceed without them. He is a economic wrecking ball committing me, my kids and my kid's kids to pay for "experiments" his leftist profs all assured him would work. But if they didn't work, at least they promote "social justice". Back to the point, extending unemployment benefits indefinitely does not make an economy rebound. Do you even know someone on unemployment or welfare? If you do, you see some of them calculating how much work thy can get on the side without effecting the Government payment? Getting money for nothing is like a drug. Pelosi is pandering and not thinking. But that is nothing new. Here is a dfferent point of view. Interesting to see that the Reagan increase in median income matches his deficit spending as a percent of GDP. Reagan, the closet Keynsian?  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 5, 2010 12:39:16 GMT -8
This has what to do with Pelosi and her idiocy on jobs? You an have your poorly formed opinion on things and as f now, you are in a shrinking minority if you believe polls. I am better off now than I have ever been, but it is because of how I arrange my affairs and not living beyond my means. My opinion is that we should all get down on our knees and thank God that Ronald Reagan saw fit to change our country for the better. We might still be living in the throes of the Jimmy Carter "misery index" were it not for Reagan. Things have eroded since, but it looks like America is regaining its senses and will begin the process of throwing the Democrat Bums out on their ears. The big problem That we still face is what damage can a lame duck Congress do from Nov to Jan? I am informed at least as well as you are. My responses were to the poster who referred to Pelosi as an idiot. I was simply comparing people I think are idiots to yours and turnabout is fair play. Ronald Reagan was a mean a-hole with a personal agenda. I lived in California when he was governor. He was out of his mind long before he retired. Since my monthly debt to income ratio is eight percent, including my mortgage, I know something of frugality. Americans know who is responsible for the economic mess according to the polls - the Republicans. You cut taxes for the top one percent of earners and started a useless war causing a good portion of the current government debt. You weakened regulations which caused both the financial meltdown and the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Your philosophy directly contributed to the greatest shift in economic burden in the history of this country, which has made people less insured, less wealthy, less prepared for retirement, less able to find secure well paying employment and their children less educated. So long as you field candidates who sleep with special interests like a particular idiot here in Washington named Rossi and that fool Ensign in Nevada, or you field a candidates for senate who believe that the people of the U.S. have wronged British petroleum (And apologized ?!), should completely eliminate social security, reduce or eliminate unemployment insurance, feel that businesses should be unregulated, refer obliquely to violence when they don't get their way, don't understand what the constitution says concerning the separation of church and state, do not believe in the civil rights act and are stupid enough to say it in public, and do not even understand basic science, you have a problem. Win, this country is changing and your idea of conservatism is about to be made obsolete by demographics. Conservatives have reacted with anger to this development, because some of them are smart enough to see that the future is against them. Good bye Win, your philosophy is going the way cathode ray tube. We can never come to an agreement or understanding of any kind about Reagan I fear. What you have to remember is that he had a tough slog with the Congress for a while. His spending was much to much, and I fault him for that which he could have stopped. What caused this last financial meltdown can be argued many ways. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nudged by the idea that people who can never be expected to be able to pay a mortgage were given that mortgage. That was most probably the catalyst that started the mess. I think that your last paragraph will be proven wrong in November when a real resurgence of Conservative power will emerge from that election. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 5, 2010 12:48:37 GMT -8
This has what to do with Pelosi and her idiocy on jobs? You an have your poorly formed opinion on things and as f now, you are in a shrinking minority if you believe polls. I am better off now than I have ever been, but it is because of how I arrange my affairs and not living beyond my means. My opinion is that we should all get down on our knees and thank God that Ronald Reagan saw fit to change our country for the better. We might still be living in the throes of the Jimmy Carter "misery index" were it not for Reagan. Things have eroded since, but it looks like America is regaining its senses and will begin the process of throwing the Democrat Bums out on their ears. The big problem That we still face is what damage can a lame duck Congress do from Nov to Jan? I congratulate you on your choices,win. Being frugal and living with your means is wise. Working for the federal government for forty some years was also a good choice for you. It secured a wonderful foundation of retirement income and an inexpensive medical insurance plan for you. All of our country could not have made the same choices as you. While we all could have been frugal, we could not all work for the federal government. What kind of economy would that be? Most of us work in private industry so economy actually produces goods and services. It is those of us that work in the private economy that are bearing the brunt of eoconomic crisis. I see it in my business. None of my clients that lost their jobs have been able to replace them for like money. All have taken paycuts. The retirees that depended on personal savings have seen losses in capital and smaller income streams. They were frugal, they saved, but their lifes are different now from what they planned. That is what happens when you don't work for the federal government. Count yourself lucky, as well as wise. I agree for the most part. If you live within your means and invest even when it hurts a little you can reap the rewards later. Many folks don't think that they can save much and as a result end up without much. I think that many folks would benefit by reading "The Millionaire Next Door". I do consider myself blessed by the way things have turned out for me and my kids all have similar ways of doing things. Now here is an interesting link that goes over many of the issues that I also consider important. www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/my_shaky_government_pensions.html |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 5, 2010 15:49:30 GMT -8
Pelosi is not an idiot. Unemployment insurance goes right into the economy as people spend the money to live-as they must. This is as opposed to a tax cut for the wealthy that is immediately banked, because the affluent are under no such pressure to spend. People on unemployment are forced to put their money back into the economy, because a greater portion of their income must be used to live. The rich can only consume so much, no matter what their income happens to be. It is called in-elasticity of demand. Reagan was the idiot. Hey, W, what do you think rich people do with their money, stuff it in their mattresses? Come on, now, let's get real. The rich, which by some definitions (I'll let you guess whose) means anyone earning over $200,000 a year, put any money they do not need for day-to-day living expenses into saving accounts, mutual funds, stock purchases, etc. The institutions receiving the money then put it to work by funding various productive enterprises. That's the way the economy grows. The idea that it's better for the government to figure out where money should go than private firms is simply without merit. The basic question is this; should we favor capital formation or income redistribution? AzWm Rich people spend. But, they cannot consume commensurate with their incomes and therefore use their money for mostly other than consumption. Investment is wonderful. But investment is not buying the product the investment creates! If you want people to consume, you have to get the money to people who consume. In the end, if people don't buy there are not going to be enough jobs anyway, no matter how much you invest. Since our economy is 70% consumption and those who consume the most are not buying, the trouble remains. I would argue that there has been little investment in real growth by the wealthy, rather they have put their money into the stupid investment vehicles some hucksters devised with their mathematics degrees. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 5, 2010 16:24:07 GMT -8
I am informed at least as well as you are. My responses were to the poster who referred to Pelosi as an idiot. I was simply comparing people I think are idiots to yours and turnabout is fair play. Ronald Reagan was a mean a-hole with a personal agenda. I lived in California when he was governor. He was out of his mind long before he retired. Since my monthly debt to income ratio is eight percent, including my mortgage, I know something of frugality. Americans know who is responsible for the economic mess according to the polls - the Republicans. You cut taxes for the top one percent of earners and started a useless war causing a good portion of the current government debt. You weakened regulations which caused both the financial meltdown and the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Your philosophy directly contributed to the greatest shift in economic burden in the history of this country, which has made people less insured, less wealthy, less prepared for retirement, less able to find secure well paying employment and their children less educated. So long as you field candidates who sleep with special interests like a particular idiot here in Washington named Rossi and that fool Ensign in Nevada, or you field a candidates for senate who believe that the people of the U.S. have wronged British petroleum (And apologized ?!), should completely eliminate social security, reduce or eliminate unemployment insurance, feel that businesses should be unregulated, refer obliquely to violence when they don't get their way, don't understand what the constitution says concerning the separation of church and state, do not believe in the civil rights act and are stupid enough to say it in public, and do not even understand basic science, you have a problem. Win, this country is changing and your idea of conservatism is about to be made obsolete by demographics. Conservatives have reacted with anger to this development, because some of them are smart enough to see that the future is against them. Good bye Win, your philosophy is going the way cathode ray tube. We can never come to an agreement or understanding of any kind about Reagan I fear. What you have to remember is that he had a tough slog with the Congress for a while. His spending was much to much, and I fault him for that which he could have stopped. What caused this last financial meltdown can be argued many ways. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nudged by the idea that people who can never be expected to be able to pay a mortgage were given that mortgage. That was most probably the catalyst that started the mess. I think that your last paragraph will be proven wrong in November when a real resurgence of Conservative power will emerge from that election. You are right. I hated Reagan viscerally. No arguing will change my low opinion of him. If conservatives would only let him rest in peace. But, no. He is constantly resurrected. As to the financial meltdown, I think Fannie and Freddie were involved (you wrongly, in my opinion, overemphasize their involvement because government is mentioned in the same sentence as them by the pundits). But it was the indecipherable bundling of mortgage securities and hedge funds that created the bubble and most of the economic damage. Some smart SOBS got outsmarted by their own arrogance, but not until they swindled a lot of us suckers. Had the government exercised some of the control exercised by laws like Glass-Stegall (spelling?) perhaps we might have been able to control our capitalistic geniuses and forestall this unmitigated disaster. As far as the future is concerned, in the near term, you may be right, only because the fear in some conservatives is palpable and will motivate them to participate like maniacs. And, I really think the TEA Party participants are terrified, particularly by the coming change in power represented by "the canary in the mine" of Obama's election. Ultimately, conservatism is going to become unrecognizable to you, because it will soon fail in its current form. It must. You cannot effectively shun all ethic groups excepting WASPS and expect to win anything in the long run. The demographics will, soon, no longer support current conservatism. You are a smart guy and you argue your position well, but the change is inevitable, my passionate friend. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 5, 2010 16:46:40 GMT -8
We can never come to an agreement or understanding of any kind about Reagan I fear. What you have to remember is that he had a tough slog with the Congress for a while. His spending was much to much, and I fault him for that which he could have stopped. What caused this last financial meltdown can be argued many ways. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nudged by the idea that people who can never be expected to be able to pay a mortgage were given that mortgage. That was most probably the catalyst that started the mess. I think that your last paragraph will be proven wrong in November when a real resurgence of Conservative power will emerge from that election. You are right. I hated Reagan viscerally. No arguing will change my low opinion of him. If conservatives would only let him rest in peace. But, no. He is constantly resurrected. As to the financial meltdown, I think Fannie and Freddie were involved (you wrongly, in my opinion, overemphasize their involvement because government is mentioned in the same sentence as them by the pundits). But it was the indecipherable bundling of mortgage securities and hedge funds that created the bubble and most of the economic damage. Some smart SOBS got outsmarted by their own arrogance, but not until they swindled a lot of us suckers. Had the government exercised some of the control exercised by laws like Glass-Stegall (spelling?) perhaps we might have been able to control our capitalistic geniuses and forestall this unmitigated disaster. As far as the future is concerned, in the near term, you may be right, only because the fear in some conservatives is palpable and will motivate them to participate like maniacs. And, I really think the TEA Party participants are terrified, particularly by the coming change in power represented by "the canary in the mine" of Obama's election. Ultimately, conservatism is going to become unrecognizable to you, because it will soon fail in its current form. It must. You cannot effectively shun all ethic groups excepting WASPS and expect to win anything in the long run. The demographics will, soon, no longer support current conservatism. You are a smart guy and you argue your position well, but the change is inevitable, my passionate friend. I have long argued that the creation of those financial instruments that you could not know the quality of like the bundled mortgages was a very important part of the problem. The idea that Freddie and Fannie are not addressed in this new financial reform bill shows me that it is very intertwined with government and that the players like Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorlick are too close to Obama for there to be any real "arms length" reform there. I think that I understate the problem that those two entities along with Dood and Frank helped cause. I think that you are looking at the future of grass roots Conservative resurgence with rose colored glasses. The flight of idealistic voters from being Obama supporters now that the bloom is off should show you something. The election of Criss Cristie in New Jersey ad the way he is being able to follow through with some of his ideas and ideals should show you where the country is headed. I am glad that you have decided to come back on this board. We can have some more fun now that a couple of you more liberal guys are back. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 5, 2010 16:54:59 GMT -8
You are right. I hated Reagan viscerally. No arguing will change my low opinion of him. If conservatives would only let him rest in peace. But, no. He is constantly resurrected. As to the financial meltdown, I think Fannie and Freddie were involved (you wrongly, in my opinion, overemphasize their involvement because government is mentioned in the same sentence as them by the pundits). But it was the indecipherable bundling of mortgage securities and hedge funds that created the bubble and most of the economic damage. Some smart SOBS got outsmarted by their own arrogance, but not until they swindled a lot of us suckers. Had the government exercised some of the control exercised by laws like Glass-Stegall (spelling?) perhaps we might have been able to control our capitalistic geniuses and forestall this unmitigated disaster. As far as the future is concerned, in the near term, you may be right, only because the fear in some conservatives is palpable and will motivate them to participate like maniacs. And, I really think the TEA Party participants are terrified, particularly by the coming change in power represented by "the canary in the mine" of Obama's election. Ultimately, conservatism is going to become unrecognizable to you, because it will soon fail in its current form. It must. You cannot effectively shun all ethic groups excepting WASPS and expect to win anything in the long run. The demographics will, soon, no longer support current conservatism. You are a smart guy and you argue your position well, but the change is inevitable, my passionate friend. I have long argued that the creation of those financial instruments that you could not know the quality of like the bundled mortgages was a very important part of the problem. The idea that Freddie and Fannie are not addressed in this new financial reform bill shows me that it is very intertwined with government and that the players like Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorlick are too close to Obama for there to be any real "arms length" reform there. I think that I understate the problem that those two entities along with Dood and Frank helped cause. I think that you are looking at the future of grass roots Conservative resurgence with rose colored glasses. The flight of idealistic voters from being Obama supporters now that the bloom is off should show you something. The election of Criss Cristie in New Jersey ad the way he is being able to follow through with some of his ideas and ideals should show you where the country is headed. I am glad that you have decided to come back on this board. We can have some more fun now that a couple of you more liberal guys are back. You are a good foil and and a good Aztec friend. Life is good. If only we could win a few football games. . . . ;D |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 6, 2010 9:04:45 GMT -8
This has what to do with Pelosi and her idiocy on jobs? You an have your poorly formed opinion on things and as f now, you are in a shrinking minority if you believe polls. I am better off now than I have ever been, but it is because of how I arrange my affairs and not living beyond my means. My opinion is that we should all get down on our knees and thank God that Ronald Reagan saw fit to change our country for the better. We might still be living in the throes of the Jimmy Carter "misery index" were it not for Reagan. Things have eroded since, but it looks like America is regaining its senses and will begin the process of throwing the Democrat Bums out on their ears. The big problem That we still face is what damage can a lame duck Congress do from Nov to Jan? I am informed at least as well as you are. My responses were to the poster who referred to Pelosi as an idiot. I was simply comparing people I think are idiots to yours and turnabout is fair play. Ronald Reagan was a mean a-hole with a personal agenda. I lived in California when he was governor. He was out of his mind long before he retired. Since my monthly debt to income ratio is eight percent, including my mortgage, I know something of frugality. Americans know who is responsible for the economic mess according to the polls - the Republicans. You cut taxes for the top one percent of earners and started a useless war causing a good portion of the current government debt. You weakened regulations which caused both the financial meltdown and the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Your philosophy directly contributed to the greatest shift in economic burden in the history of this country, which has made people less insured, less wealthy, less prepared for retirement, less able to find secure well paying employment and their children less educated. So long as you field candidates who sleep with special interests like a particular idiot here in Washington named Rossi and that fool Ensign in Nevada, or you field a candidates for senate who believe that the people of the U.S. have wronged British petroleum (And apologized ?!), should completely eliminate social security, reduce or eliminate unemployment insurance, feel that businesses should be unregulated, refer obliquely to violence when they don't get their way, don't understand what the constitution says concerning the separation of church and state, do not believe in the civil rights act and are stupid enough to say it in public, and do not even understand basic science, you have a problem. Win, this country is changing and your idea of conservatism is about to be made obsolete by demographics. Conservatives have reacted with anger to this development, because some of them are smart enough to see that the future is against them. Good bye Win, your philosophy is going the way cathode ray tube. Atta Boy !! ++++++ |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 6, 2010 14:42:49 GMT -8
We can never come to an agreement or understanding of any kind about Reagan I fear. What you have to remember is that he had a tough slog with the Congress for a while. His spending was much to much, and I fault him for that which he could have stopped. What caused this last financial meltdown can be argued many ways. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nudged by the idea that people who can never be expected to be able to pay a mortgage were given that mortgage. That was most probably the catalyst that started the mess. I think that your last paragraph will be proven wrong in November when a real resurgence of Conservative power will emerge from that election. You are right. I hated Reagan viscerally. No arguing will change my low opinion of him. If conservatives would only let him rest in peace. But, no. He is constantly resurrected. As to the financial meltdown, I think Fannie and Freddie were involved (you wrongly, in my opinion, overemphasize their involvement because government is mentioned in the same sentence as them by the pundits). But it was the indecipherable bundling of mortgage securities and hedge funds that created the bubble and most of the economic damage. Some smart SOBS got outsmarted by their own arrogance, but not until they swindled a lot of us suckers. Had the government exercised some of the control exercised by laws like Glass-Stegall (spelling?) perhaps we might have been able to control our capitalistic geniuses and forestall this unmitigated disaster. As far as the future is concerned, in the near term, you may be right, only because the fear in some conservatives is palpable and will motivate them to participate like maniacs. And, I really think the TEA Party participants are terrified, particularly by the coming change in power represented by "the canary in the mine" of Obama's election. Ultimately, conservatism is going to become unrecognizable to you, because it will soon fail in its current form. It must. You cannot effectively shun all ethic groups excepting WASPS and expect to win anything in the long run. The demographics will, soon, no longer support current conservatism. You are a smart guy and you argue your position well, but the change is inevitable, my passionate friend. Relying on gender and race based politics to divide and conquer is the Democrat's modus operandi to be sure. But beware the bed you make. As noted with the seeming explosion of GOP women running for higher offices (and many of them being traditional conservatives), I would expect to see some shift in the traditional gender gap in the GOP's favor going forward. "Demographics" is code word for race-based politics with the expectation that voting blocks go along with it. But with the election of Barack Obama, regardless if you like it not, we have started on the glide-path for a post-racial America. How long can the Government's enforcement of and demand for racism be seen as a legitimate safeguard against it? Given the correct GOP candidate/leader or two, the black and/or Hispanic vote can be cut into. The Democrats know this. That is why Thomas, Rice, Estrada, Gonzalez were attacked so. As was Palin attacked for her potential to enable/en-vigor GOP women. Case in point - Jack Kemp was a losing VP candidate and no one gave a lick about him after he lost. Pundits and Democrats are still throwing stones at Palin and we rarely hear of Romney as a target. We all know why. And you mentioned WASPs as the lone GOP holdout. Why not Catholics? Is there a bigger pro-life constituency than Catholics? A bigger Pro-traditional marriage constituency? And what are the "demographics" of the US Catholic church? Do you really think that because a Catholic is Hispanic, they are somehow would-be marchers in a LGBT parade? Hispanics join the Armed forces at significant levels. I wouldn't consider them to be soft on national security issues while or after they have served. Lose a little, gain a little. The GOP never, ever had registration superiority over the Democrats but have won landslides at the presidential level and held both houses of congress at times. Those events statistically shouldn't have happened and only came about as a result of the Democrats governing poorly. And they haven't been governing too well this time around either. And if some GOP Presidential candidate can communicate to the Gen Y types on the generational theft being perpetrated by Obama for the sake of short term political gain, look out for that landslide again. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Jul 6, 2010 16:59:26 GMT -8
Well, I don't see Hispanics flocking to Republicans. It is obvious even to me that the conservative position on immigration from the South is tantamount (in Hispanics view) to saying Brown people are not welcome here.
As to Catholics, well, I have a lay nun sister, a brother who participates heavily with his family (all twenty of them) in church and then there is me a high school alumni of the prefect of discipline of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Levada. Yes, me, the guy who suggested to archbishop Chaput that he had no business participating in politics from the pulpit. I then suggested that the church go fly a kite. None of us would ever vote for a conservative-ever.
So, Catholics are not a monolithic group, nor do they necessarily follow that crotchety old thing in Rome. What you gain (as conservatives) from the choice between choice and anti abortion positions, you lose in your support for corporations against the individual, lack of charity toward those less fortunate and conservative inability to recognize the basic dignity and worth of people who don't look worship or talk like they do.
You cannot rationalize away the fact that Republicans won't extend unemployment benefits, because they view recipients of that benefit to be shiftless and lazy. You cannot rationalize away your willingness to refuse rights to people.
I read a statistically accurate study that indicates the TEA Party is nothing but Republicans with a pasted over name. They are white middle aged and afraid, but they constitute the bulk of the conservative ideology.
The demographics are against you. All that market survey work studying I did as a marketing major tells me you need to change or your position will dissolve into history.
To be honest with you, I think Conservatism will probably adapt to the demographic changes, but it is great fun watching you suffer through all the dissonance as the old guard fades away. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jul 6, 2010 17:18:04 GMT -8
>>>You cannot rationalize away the fact that Republicans won't extend unemployment benefits, because they view recipients of that benefit to be shiftless and lazy. You cannot rationalize away your willingness to refuse rights to people.<<< Republicans do not have the votes to refuse whatever the congressional majority wants to do. You need to look to your own demagogues if you are not getting what you want tinyurl.com/2afyr2j |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 6, 2010 20:49:11 GMT -8
As it is said "this is why they play the game". Everyone, at one time it seemed, was an FDR Democrat, an Eisenhower Republican, An anti-Nixon Democrat, a Reagan Republican, an anti-Bush Democrat, etc, etc. My bet is that there will be a lot of anti-Obama Republicans in the very near future. I don't know if that will translate into a one time thing or a ten year change (ala the Clinton's). Time will tell.
But if you think that single mothers or minorities want to pay $5.00/gal of gas (or more), have themselves or their significant other perpetually under-employed or unemployed all for the sake of a few of them getting increased access to health care and to be part of those that believe that mankind can somehow control the weather by crippling a few first-world economies, then let the delusions fly.
My bet is that Independents will prefer Conservative principles and their promise to deliver a better economy rather than trend to Socialist economic and liberal social policies. Remember, elections are about the economy & jobs first, second and third.
I think the Conservatives gain significantly in 2010 and the only chance the Democrats have to stop the independent's defection in 2012 is to somehow make Union membership "unavoidable" by statute (as their are trying to do with FOCA) and converting the millions of undocumented Democrats into citizens with a general Amnesty or rig the elections (as they are trying to do with the "DISCLOSE" Act). And as of right now, the national sentiment is against them on Amnesty and making everyone a Union member (in the private sector anyhow) has a long way to go and we shall see if they have the votes to trash the 1st Amendment.
In the end, crappy Democrat policies will be their undoing regardless of demographics.
|
|
