|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 11, 2013 9:47:20 GMT -8
Yes, she really does, but like most of the card-carrying Lefties, she just can't help but take a few shots at G.W. Bush. Let's see, now; how many years has George W. Bush been out of office? How many years on-the-job foreign relations training has Barack Obama had? Bottom line is this; even ardent Leftists/Democrat-lovers like Dowd are fed up with the Amateur in Chief's bungling. www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/opinion/dowd-who-do-you-trust.html?_r=0AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 11, 2013 10:09:40 GMT -8
Upon re-reading the Dowd piece, it does seem to me that she is at least as interested in bashing Bush and the GOP as she is in honestly evaluating the current President's handing of Syria.
I am almost 71 years of age. I'd say that the odds of my living long enough to see the day when Democrats will not still be running against George W. Bush are no better than 50/50. Remember, the Dems were still bashing Herbert Hoover a good four decades after he had gone home to Palo Alto.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 11, 2013 10:27:48 GMT -8
Certainly as long as cons blamed Bill Clinton for everything, I suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 11, 2013 13:59:27 GMT -8
Funny to see these hopeless liberals flogging the even more hopeless and clueless Obama admins. She can't help but get in a few digs on Bush which doesn't add or detract from the beating she gives Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 11, 2013 15:26:12 GMT -8
I am almost 71 years of age. I'd say that the odds of my living long enough to see the day when Democrats will not still be running against George W. Bush are no better than 50/50. Remember, the Dems were still bashing Herbert Hoover a good four decades after he had gone home to Palo Alto. AzWm You've got me by a few decades, but I'd say that the odds of my living long enough to see some of the profound things caused and created by Bush and his administration fixed is a long shot. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 12, 2013 11:21:27 GMT -8
I am almost 71 years of age. I'd say that the odds of my living long enough to see the day when Democrats will not still be running against George W. Bush are no better than 50/50. Remember, the Dems were still bashing Herbert Hoover a good four decades after he had gone home to Palo Alto. AzWm You've got me by a few decades, but I'd say that the odds of my living long enough to see some of the profound things caused and created by Bush and his administration fixed is a long shot. Name some of those things that have not been overshadowed by the reckless spending and naïve policies of Obama. |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 12, 2013 12:20:39 GMT -8
You've got me by a few decades, but I'd say that the odds of my living long enough to see some of the profound things caused and created by Bush and his administration fixed is a long shot. Name some of those things that have not been overshadowed by the reckless spending and naïve policies of Obama. Creation of DHS and the TSA The Patriot Act and additions to the NDAA Two decade-long wars that exacerbated the dominant worldview of America as Imperialistic, which oddly enough continues to create new generations of foreigners who are all too willing to join the other side of the 'war on terror' Medicare Part D, if you're interested in $ Tax cuts that were proposed as temporary, but beautifully crafted and timed so that they are now the new norm, costing us trillions of dollars we don't have Those are the big ones, I'm currently typing on my phone but I'm sure I'm missing something |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 12, 2013 13:28:30 GMT -8
I'm currently typing on my phone but I'm sure I'm missing something How about thousands of dead Americans. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 12, 2013 15:56:32 GMT -8
Name some of those things that have not been overshadowed by the reckless spending and naïve policies of Obama. Creation of DHS and the TSA The Patriot Act and additions to the NDAA Two decade-long wars that exacerbated the dominant worldview of America as Imperialistic, which oddly enough continues to create new generations of foreigners who are all too willing to join the other side of the 'war on terror' Medicare Part D, if you're interested in $ Tax cuts that were proposed as temporary, but beautifully crafted and timed so that they are now the new norm, costing us trillions of dollars we don't have Those are the big ones, I'm currently typing on my phone but I'm sure I'm missing something All either valid or arguable but not even close to Obama's follies. Bush was no bargain for several reasons, but Obama is mush worse. The out of control spending coupled with obamakare just can't be topped. |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 12, 2013 19:53:27 GMT -8
All either valid or arguable but not even close to Obama's follies. Bush was no bargain for several reasons, but Obama is mush worse. The out of control spending coupled with obamakare just can't be topped. I am not worried about our national debt at this time, quite simply. We have much more pressing issues, and those that I mentioned can't be solved as simply as our debt problem can. I'm still not sure why the 'Pubs hate Obamacare so much. It's conservative and free market as all hell. I'd imagine 20-30 years from now it will be just as popular as SS, Medicare, etc. Now, if you want to argue spending... Let's talk first about trillions of dollars in unfunded tax cuts that are a drag on our entire economy. I agree that we spend to much, but I am astute enough to see tax cuts as one of the biggest spending programs of all. Trickle down Reaganomics doesn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 13, 2013 9:42:00 GMT -8
All either valid or arguable but not even close to Obama's follies. Bush was no bargain for several reasons, but Obama is mush worse. The out of control spending coupled with obamakare just can't be topped. I am not worried about our national debt at this time, quite simply. We have much more pressing issues, and those that I mentioned can't be solved as simply as our debt problem can. I'm still not sure why the 'Pubs hate Obamacare so much. It's conservative and free market as all hell. I'd imagine 20-30 years from now it will be just as popular as SS, Medicare, etc. Now, if you want to argue spending... Let's talk first about trillions of dollars in unfunded tax cuts that are a drag on our entire economy. I agree that we spend to much, but I am astute enough to see tax cuts as one of the biggest spending programs of all. Trickle down Reaganomics doesn't work. I understand the argument against supply side economic theory. I see problems with everything that has been tried in my life time. I just happen to think that market oriented supply siders make a much better case than do the socialists or central control thinking. The Reagan years and the portion of the Clinton years where Newt was calling the shots make a pretty coherent case. Someday in the far distant future after all the kinks are worked out Obamakare might be viable. You only have to look at just the union and working man objections to obamakare to know that there are big problems. I would prefer starting over. A form of single-payer healthcare could work but it would have to be very clean. That means no one who is not eligible and/or not contributing can participate. Your point about trillions in unfunded tax cuts makes sense in that they never made the spending cuts to match the tax cuts. Shame on the vote buyers on both sides of the isle. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 13, 2013 11:15:21 GMT -8
The essential question with respect to economic theory is this; Are we better served by a government that runs the entire economy (e.g., the Soviet Union or China pre-1980) or by one that mostly allows private persons and firms to pursue their ecomonic goals unsupervised (e.g., the USA pre 1900)? I vote for the latter.
Sure, the government, especially in a highly advanced technological era, will always have a role. To use my favorite example, we do not want so much individualism that it's okay for your neighbor to set up a slaughter house on his front lawn. And there are the courts, police and fire depatrments, national defense, diplomatic missions sent abroad, air traffic control, etc. Actually, there are a lot of things that we can all agree that the government (at whatever level) can and should do.
But do we really need a department of education? Be honest here. Has education really gotten better since that payoff to the NEA was created? I contend that it has not improved, surely not enough to justify the expense. For that matter, do we really want the federal government taking more and more power in the field of education, thereby reducing in commensurate fashion the power of the states and local school boards?
For those who want to the government to "do good," there appears to be no point at which they will say, "You know, maybe that's going too far." Put it another way. How much of your yearly income is enough for the government to take? I refer in this case to the total taxation at all levels. My preference would be to limit the total taxation that anyone must pay to 25%, local, state, and federal combined. Right now the maximum taxation cnsidering all theree levels of governement is way above 50%.
And, in case you were going to bring it up, no, I do NOT believe in progressive rates of taxation.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Sept 13, 2013 11:42:28 GMT -8
The essential question with respect to economic theory is this; Are we better served by a government that runs the entire economy (e.g., the Soviet Union or China pre-1980) or by one that mostly allows private persons and firms to pursue their ecomonic goals unsupervised (e.g., the USA pre 1900)? I vote for the latter. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? There is an almost unlimited spectrum of answers to your question between your two extremes, and the answer obviously lies someone on it. I vote neither. I do not believe that we should be indoctrinating our children with creationism, so to that regard, there need to be safeguards against widespread religious beliefs being spread in our (at least) public schools. Beyond that, there are arguments to be made about the effectiveness of what the DoE has become. BUT, one thing that is not up for debate, is that public education at all levels is drastically underfunded, and education should be a much larger priority for state and federal spending. You assume too much. I could just as easily say, "there appears to be no point at which Conservatives will say 'You know, maybe government can do some good in some areas.'" Put it your other way? I believe corporate taxes should be much higher ( effective rate, so closing loopholes to increase the total amount of taxes actually paid counts here). I think that all income (earned, capital gains, etc) should be treated the exact same way on a progressive scale, with anything under about 30k being 0%, up to 100k being about 30%, up to 1m being about 40%, and anything above 1m about 50%. Keep in mind, that includes all types of income. I find it silly that people don't believe in progressive rates of taxation. Please try to reason why someone's 3 millionth dollar should be taxed the same as someone else's 10th dollar. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 13, 2013 15:34:08 GMT -8
William, why do you like sweatshops, child labor, and Robber Barons.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 13, 2013 23:16:47 GMT -8
William, why do you like sweatshops, child labor, and Robber Barons. Well, that's easy. I just love to see people suffer. I also enjoy tearing the wings off small flying animals and, whenever possible, run down little children who wander into the street as I am driving by. Robber Barons? Oh, man, they are my favorites! I hope to be one some day. If I make it to that level, perhaps I will drop by your house one evening and rob you. Just to be nice, I will only take a little bit. In fact, I will make sure only to rob you of anything you make over $100,000 dollars. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 14, 2013 8:20:26 GMT -8
William, why do you like sweatshops, child labor, and Robber Barons. Well, that's easy. I just love to see people suffer. I also enjoy tearing the wings off small flying animals and, whenever possible, run down little children who wander into the street as I am driving by. Robber Barons? Oh, man, they are my favorites! I hope to be one some day. If I make it to that level, perhaps I will drop by your house one evening and rob you. Just to be nice, I will only take a little bit. In fact, I will make sure only to rob you of anything you make over $100,000 dollars. AzWm Non-resonsive. Are you that ignorant about American history? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 14, 2013 10:18:50 GMT -8
Well, that's easy. I just love to see people suffer. I also enjoy tearing the wings off small flying animals and, whenever possible, run down little children who wander into the street as I am driving by. Robber Barons? Oh, man, they are my favorites! I hope to be one some day. If I make it to that level, perhaps I will drop by your house one evening and rob you. Just to be nice, I will only take a little bit. In fact, I will make sure only to rob you of anything you make over $100,000 dollars. AzWm Non-resonsive. Are you that ignorant about American history? Actually, I believe I know more about American history, that term being understood in the broadest sense, than about 98% of my fellow citizens. To illustrate that point, here are some questions, offered off the top of my head. . . * I know who Gideon Welles was and why he was so important to the U.S.A. Do you? * I know what and where Monroe's Uptown House and Minton's Playhouse were and why they were important. Do you? * I know who Branch Ricky was and what was the action he took that changed America. Do you? * I know why the great dam on the Colorado River underwent two name changes. Do you? * I know why Elisha Gray does not get sufficient credit for the groundbreaking technological discoveries he made. Do you? Just asking. AzWm PS: I could ask whether you know who Don Ruppersberg was, but that really is an arcane factoid. My not-altogether-humble claim to be knowledgeable about American history is based on knowledge of facts that really are significant. (Heck, perhaps I should have asked about Kenny Rupp. Surprisingly, the answer to both questions . . . Ruppersberg AND Rupp . . . happens to be essentially the same.) . |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 14, 2013 11:23:04 GMT -8
We went through this exercise once before, William. I answered your questions about arcane facts, but you did not answer mine about the why of history.You asked about Gideon Wells then, as well. I told you that he had a great beard. If you really knew American history you would know it is not a jumble of facts. It is akin to saying I know German because I have learned a lot of German words, just don't ask me about grammar.
|
|
