REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Economic recovery: Repubs say we need more of the same

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, July 30, 2010 09:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1838
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, July 24, 2010 6:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Tax cuts. Reduced government spending. Higher profits. More money to the rich... THAT will get our economy on the right track!

And more Americans, being more propagandized than ever before, will believe them.

But we've been through this before: The Great Depression occurred at the same point of inequity as this crash: when roughly 1% of the population owned 24% of total wealth. Like before, the President at some point stepped in to help the average American, spending money it didn't have to provide people with jobs and food. After a few years, Congress was so concerned about the deficit it forced Roosevelt to cut back his spending ... leading to another economic crash in 1933. If the same happens again today, will Americans finally realize that economic inequity is not only unfair, it's economically dysfunctional because it leads to economic crashes? Or will we cling to our ideology that society is here to make some people very very rich?

Meanwhile, while we agonize over such basic things as health care and jobs, and fantasize that guns will give us freedom, in Germany....

Two Million Join Party on German Autobahn
www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,2004714_2167145,00.html
--------------

We create our own hell, and we think its good.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 24, 2010 8:13 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thank you. It's nice to see some reality in a thread, instead of the "Obama's bad, dems are bad, America's going to hell", "Reagan was a god", "trickle-down works" mentality.
Quote:

will Americans finally realize that economic inequity is not only unfair, it's economically dysfunctional because it leads to economic crashes? Or will we cling to our ideology that society is here to make some people very very rich?
Probably the latter, I would bet.

It's not that our ideology that society is here to make some people very, very rich, I don't think. I think it has to do more with the fantasy that "I may be rich someday, too, so I don't want curbs on how much I make". People seem to act against their own best interests, and it makes sense to me that, given most people are self-absorbed, it's not about making the current rich people richer, but the belief that "maybe I'LL be one of the rich ones someday". Look how popular lotteries are, despite the odds...

Whatever the motivation, the majority of Americans sure are dumb, which, coupled with the determination of our politicians to get richer and richer, the rich come out on top... Politicians know they have X amount of time in which to be kissed up to by lobbiests, make laws enhancing their own wealth, etc., so I think their side of it is "I got mine, fuck you, I want MORE!"

p.s. I know Obama has "raised our taxes", I hear it every day. I must have missed that; when did it happen? And don't give me that letting tax cuts for the rich expire is "raising" their taxes...they've been given a gift for years, its just getting back to the status quo.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of __________________, code name ‘Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 24, 2010 8:15 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Wait....it's DEMOCRATS who are saying that....

Quote:



US Sen Conrad: Democrats Should Postpone Tax Increase For Wealthy

First Published Wednesday, 21 July 2010 06:35 pm - © 2010 Dow Jones
By Martin Vaughan
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) a senior Senate Democrat with influence over tax and budget policy, said Wednesday that Congress should not allow taxes on the wealthy to rise until the economy is on a more sound footing.
Conrad told Dow Jones Newswires in an interview outside the Senate chamber that Democrats should cancel plans to let the top individual income tax rates and capital gains rates rise for the wealthy at the end of this year. He said chronic unemployment and turmoil in European debt markets call those plans into question.
"As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn," Conrad said.

"At the same time, we know that very soon we've got to pivot and focus on the deficit," he said. "But it probably is too soon to cut spending or raise taxes."

Conrad, who is the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and sits on the tax-writing Finance Committee, is the most senior Democrat to call for extending all of the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, including those for the wealthy.
His views put him at odds with those of congressional Democratic leaders and President Barack Obama, who have said they want to extend tax cuts for the middle class while letting rates for the wealthy rise at year's end.

Those Democrats have downplayed any negative economic effect of raising taxes on the rich, and argued that the nation needs the revenue to begin to get the soaring budget deficit under control.
"I think the debt is the threat," said Conrad in response to those concerns. "But the immediate, highest priority threat is a double-dip recession."

Under the plan put forward by Obama, the top income tax rate would rise in 2011 to 39.6% from 35%. Capital gains and dividend rates would rise to 20% from 15%.






NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 24, 2010 8:19 AM

WHOZIT


It's true, we need more of the same, and Barry likes hot sweaty man sex.

Those arn't boobs, they're lies! - Stewie Griffin

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 24, 2010 8:47 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Reduced government spending."

Hello,

Is there anyone who thinks we don't need to reduce government spending? That's just common sense.

Let's start by shutting down overseas military operations. We can also cut our Navy in half, putting many ships in mothballs and saving us their operating costs.

Then we can see about cutting back on our ineffective overbloated intel agencies, though I worry when we cut their funding they'll blow something up to prove we still need them.

Anyhow, we can save many billions with this plan.

--Anthony



Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 24, 2010 10:07 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Hear, hear, Anthony. Given the HUGE increase in our "intel" agency, which is utterly astounding, that would be a good place to start...if we can keep them from blowing something up.

I heard a Republican complaining the other day that his state DIDN'T GET ITS SHARE of the stimulus package, and we remember all the Republicans who fought it tooth and nail holding up giant checks and taking credit for them...


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of __________________, code name ‘Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 24, 2010 4:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Tony, I agree with you.

The funny thing is, "government spending" is not necessarily bad. SOME government spending is counterproductive. SOME government spending is highly functional. What we have is a government that shits money in all directions... maintaining our empire abroad is one of those directions that should be stopped.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 25, 2010 12:34 AM

RIVERLOVE


Bring your tar cooking kettles to Washington after the election when the Dems start to sneak out like rats leaving a sinking ship. These traitors and socialist criminals will each get the bath of hot tar and soft white feathers they so deserve. Pelosi and Reid will also be fitted with Mongolian changs around their necks, and marched around the Capitol Bldg. eight hours a day for one year.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 26, 2010 1:27 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Riverlove:

Pelosi and Reid will also be fitted with Mongolian changs around their necks, and marched around the Capitol Bldg. eight hours a day for one year.



Oooh - I love Chang's Mongolian!



Not sure how one wears it around their neck, though.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 26, 2010 3:09 AM

DMAANLILEILTT


well like the old saying says: fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me three times and...you're probably gonna get away with it a fourth and fifth time.

and i doubt think the name riverLOVE really suits that thought process (what you got against socialism?).

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 26, 2010 3:59 AM

MAL4PREZ


Interesting topical article:

The political genius of supply-side economics

To understand modern Republican thinking on fiscal policy, we need to go back to perhaps the most politically brilliant (albeit economically unconvincing) idea in the history of fiscal policy: “supply-side economics”. Supply-side economics liberated conservatives from any need to insist on fiscal rectitude and balanced budgets. Supply-side economics said that one could cut taxes and balance budgets, because incentive effects would generate new activity and so higher revenue.

The political genius of this idea is evident. Supply-side economics transformed Republicans from a minority party into a majority party. It allowed them to promise lower taxes, lower deficits and, in effect, unchanged spending. Why should people not like this combination? Who does not like a free lunch?

[snip]

True, the theory that cuts would pay for themselves has proved altogether wrong...

[snip]

Since the fiscal theory of supply-side economics did not work, the tax-cutting eras of Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush and again of George W. Bush saw very substantial rises in ratios of federal debt to gross domestic product. Under Reagan and the first Bush, the ratio of public debt to GDP went from 33 per cent to 64 per cent. It fell to 57 per cent under Bill Clinton. It then rose to 69 per cent under the second George Bush. Equally, tax cuts in the era of George W. Bush, wars and the economic crisis account for almost all the dire fiscal outlook for the next ten years (see the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

[snip]

So, when Republicans assail the deficits under President Obama, are they to be taken seriously? Yes and no. Yes, they are politically interested in blaming Mr Obama for deficits, since all is viewed fair in love and partisan politics. And yes, they are, indeed, rhetorically opposed to deficits created by extra spending (although that did not prevent them from enacting the unfunded prescription drug benefit, under President Bush). But no, it is not deficits themselves that worry Republicans, but rather how they are caused: deficits caused by tax cuts are fine; but spending increases brought in by Democrats are diabolical, unless on the military.

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/07/25/the-political-geni
us-of-supply-side-economics
/


The comments at the end of the article are also pretty insightful.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 26, 2010 4:16 AM

KANEMAN


Yes. More of the same please. Spend Spend Spend away, it will guarantee a conservative landslide and make this Black community organizer racist a one term prez. So, spend spend spend your way right out of office mr prez. This experiment with radical liberals will soon be over. What were Americans thinking voting a black man into office? Have you ever known of a black person that even pays his credit cards or rent on time? We get what we were snookered into believing. And for that our national finances will be the equivalent of a black persons. Just on a much bigger level. Our national credit rating will take years to fix....

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 26, 2010 5:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Funny, but none of you right-whiners thought to question Bush when he took a surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit in US history, and created the biggest economic crash since 1930.

Don't ever let anyone accuse you of thinking, m'kay?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 26, 2010 5:45 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Funny, but none of you right-whiners thought to question Bush when he took a surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit in US history, and created the biggest economic crash since 1930.

Don't ever let anyone accuse you of thinking, m'kay?




I did. I have consistently said Bush was as bad as a liberal...He was a neo-con. He is as far from being a fiscal conservative as one could get. But, you can continue to make blanket statements if it suits you......

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 26, 2010 6:29 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Welll, that might be akin to "all you progs" and "you liberals" and all the other generalities hurled our way? I for one noted disagreement with Dumbya's fiscal policy among some, but since I wasn't here to hear about it being screamed from the right, I have a strong suspicion it was not the majority who were screaming.

I sure didn't hear about it much anywhere else; everything Dumbya did was peachy keen, except n the end many of his followers didn't like Iraq.

Which is another thing; didn't Dumbya finance the war(s) outside the budget? Isn't Obama doing it INSIDE the budget, which makes quite a bit of difference?

I know, that couldn't possibly be the case. How could the AntiChrist do something RIGHT? Not possible.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of __________________, code name ‘Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 26, 2010 10:30 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Then good on you, Kaneman, bc you're on of the very few.
But let me ask you a question: You saw the deficit. Did you see the coming crash? 'Cause I did.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 1:45 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Then good on you, Kaneman, bc you're on of the very few.
But let me ask you a question: You saw the deficit. Did you see the coming crash? 'Cause I did.





Again, I've followed ron paul for 6 years now and he has warned about all of this over and over....Now he finally gets press coverage on the cable news channel(maybe too much)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:20 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


And Ron Paul predicted the crash because....?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:24 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello Signy,

I found an article about Ron Paul's prediction of financial difficulty. However, his reasons for predicting it may differ from your views on the matter.

http://www.minnpost.com/craigwestover/2008/09/18/3559/ron_paul_saw_thi
s_financial_mess_coming


--Anthony


Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 1:30 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Funny, but none of you right-whiners thought to question Bush when he took a surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit in US history, and created the biggest economic crash since 1930.

Don't ever let anyone accuse you of thinking, m'kay?




I did. I have consistently said Bush was as bad as a liberal...He was a neo-con. He is as far from being a fiscal conservative as one could get. But, you can continue to make blanket statements if it suits you......



Well... you've "consistently" said that since November 2008, anyway... Well, it's true. You never uttered a discouraging word about Bush or the deficit while he was in office.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:14 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Funny, but none of you right-whiners thought to question Bush when he took a surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit in US history, and created the biggest economic crash since 1930.

Don't ever let anyone accuse you of thinking, m'kay?




I did. I have consistently said Bush was as bad as a liberal...He was a neo-con. He is as far from being a fiscal conservative as one could get. But, you can continue to make blanket statements if it suits you......



Well... you've "consistently" said that since November 2008, anyway... Well, it's true. You never uttered a discouraging word about Bush or the deficit while he was in office.



Wrong. But, you are always wrong so I'll let it be.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:25 AM

KANEMAN

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:18 AM

RIVERLOVE


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Funny, but none of you right-whiners thought to question Bush when he took a surplus and turned it into the biggest deficit in US history, and created the biggest economic crash since 1930.



You know what's really funny? I mean really, really funny?? The FACT that you and others of your ilk always like to forget or gloss over? The FACT that Democrats controlled the Congress during the last 2 years of Bush. Controlled Congress, approved and spent all the money, and did NOTHING about Fannie & Freddie, which were the catalysts for the economic meltdown. Not only did nothing, but filibustered all of Bush's efforts to get some type of financial restraint and control over Freddie & Fannie when they were the Minority party, then blocked everything when they became the Majority Party. That's right, your Chris Dodd, and your beloved messiah Obama both participated in the Senate filibuster which killed Republican proposed financial reform, and they went out of their way to protect the fradulent Govt. loan givers. Both Frank & Dodd are on record on video saying that Fannie & Freddie were "just fine" and "didn't need any reform", and this was a mere few months before their misdeeds led to banks failing. Frank, whose gay lover is on the Fannie Mae board of directors, actually accused Republicans wanting reform of being racists. So don't ever give me this bulllshit about Republicans causing or enabling the collapse. Your Dem boys took more Freddie & Fannie money than any Republicans did, and Dodd was the poster boy for the fraudmeisters at Countrywide.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:17 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Paul focused only on the GSE, Fanny and Freddie. They, unquestionably, were part of what caused the problem, but they weren't the only part, so saying he was "Nostradamus" and predicted what would happen and all the reasons behind it are fallacious. Many economists predicted the crash and nobody paid attention, and they predicted numerous reasons, Wall Street among them, and we KNOW what part Wall Street played...a much larger part, in my opinion, than the GSE.

As to the Dems in Congress being all to blame, I posted charts and facts about that, so I won't reiterate it here. Suffice it to say the usual talking points blaming the Dems are only partly accurate, if that. I forget which thread it's in, but ones from yesterday, if it hasn't been replied to since then. Look it up, then let's hear what you have to say (not that the facts will make ny difference to you, I'm sure). Check out the effect the Bush tax cuts had on the deficit--ach, why am I bothering...

Beyond that, I wish you high RWAs would stop with the "messiah" bullshit; we've covered THAT as well. It's pointless and silly and has been proven wrong quite sufficiently.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of __________________, code name ‘Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, at least we're discussing facts.

So- How far are you willing to follow them? (Facts, I mean.) Even the financiers of Wall Street agree that Fannie and Freddie were NOT the biggest problem, because it was lenders like Countrywide and BoA that made the riskiest loans, financiers like Goldman Sachs and UBS who traded the derivatives, and insurers like AIG and monolines like MBIA who insured them.

I could- and have- gone into detail about how Fannie and Freddie made up only 15% of the troubled loans because they were compelled BY LAW to loan conservatively...

I could post figures showing that Fannie and Freddie were trailing the (deregulated) banks- not leading the charge into risky lending, and only getting into risky business because their (PRIVATE) shareholders were seeing higher yields elsewhere ....

I could explain how risk was created and spread by the private business practices of creating Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) which were specifically crafted to AVOID REGULATION as either bonds or as insurance...
... www.ft.com/indepth/monolines

I could quote Greenspan, the biggest free-marketeer of all, who had to admit that self-interest and fear of business failure did NOT REGULATE market action like he thought it would...

But probably the biggest indicator that this had LITTLE TO DO with Fannie and Freddie comes from the fact that the collapse occurred across ALL NATIONS which adopted the same financial practices and economic models...

But, if you're not willing or able to talk FACTS- market shares, multiplier effects, and the calculations banks made to justify to themselves why a bundle of bad loans was more secure than the individual loans that made it up (They didn't envision a market collapse, only the risk of individual defaults)....

Well then, there's nothing to talk about.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:12 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Reduced government spending."

Hello,

Is there anyone who thinks we don't need to reduce government spending?


Yep. They call themselves Liberals. They need to increase government spending, regardless of the state of the economy.
Quote:


That's just common sense.


Yep. Those that call themselves Liberals lack that.
Quote:


Let's start by shutting down overseas military operations. We can also cut our Navy in half, putting many ships in mothballs and saving us their operating costs.

Then we can see about cutting back on our ineffective overbloated intel agencies, though I worry when we cut their funding they'll blow something up to prove we still need them.

Anyhow, we can save many billions with this plan.

--Anthony



You would not be the first to think of that. It has been done.
In the 1850's.
In the 1910's.
In the 1930's.
In the late 1940's.
In the 1990's.
They had drastic cuts in National Defense.
They were followed by Confederate War, World War I, World War II, Korea, 9/11.
One mission of American troops after the Japanese Imperial Surrender was to find out why Japan attacked America. The universal answer was that they did not think we would fight back, we were too weak, we slashed our National Defense and preached Isolationism.
If you do not learn from history Anthony, you will be doomed to repeat it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:28 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So Jewel, I see you didn't respond to the facts about the meltdown.

Oh, and your "analysis" of military spending is so far off the mark...

Where did you ever get the idea that the USA has been "world cop" since time immemorial? Up until about 1920 we'd been content to tyrannize North and South America and the Philippines. But we left the European and Russian empires and monarchies mostly alone, which means our involvement in Europe, Russia, large swaths of Africa and the Mideast was pretty small.

Here's a hint: our military spending or its lack neither caused nor prevented WWI, and WWII. THOSE wars were caused by forces outside of the USA (There IS a world outside the USA, dontcha know!)... the breakup of the British and Russian Empires for WWI, and economic and social stresses caused by the great depression and war reparations against Germany for WWII. AFA 9/11... wow. That wasn't a military attack, it was a terrorist one. And designed to cause the USA to spend itself into oblivion, which we seem all too happy to oblige.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:18 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Reduced government spending."

Hello,

Is there anyone who thinks we don't need to reduce government spending?


Yep. They call themselves Liberals. They need to increase government spending, regardless of the state of the economy.



Whereas Conservatives only believe in increased spending when Republicans are in office. When Orrin Hatch was asked about his voting for Medicare Part D without paying for it he said "we didn't worry about paying for things back then", and upon the Bush/Cheney re-election when Cheney was asked about the ballooning deficit he remarked that Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.

Quote:


That's just common sense.

Quote:


Yep. Those that call themselves Liberals lack that.



Those that claim that Liberals lack that, lack that.

Quote:


Let's start by shutting down overseas military operations. We can also cut our Navy in half, putting many ships in mothballs and saving us their operating costs.

Then we can see about cutting back on our ineffective overbloated intel agencies, though I worry when we cut their funding they'll blow something up to prove we still need them.

Anyhow, we can save many billions with this plan.

--Anthony



Quote:

You would not be the first to think of that. It has been done.
In the 1850's.
In the 1910's.
In the 1930's.
In the late 1940's.
In the 1990's.
They had drastic cuts in National Defense.
They were followed by Confederate War, World War I, World War II, Korea, 9/11.
One mission of American troops after the Japanese Imperial Surrender was to find out why Japan attacked America. The universal answer was that they did not think we would fight back, we were too weak, we slashed our National Defense and preached Isolationism.
If you do not learn from history Anthony, you will be doomed to repeat it.



You need to repeat History, because you obviously failed it the first time around.

Japan knew goddamn well we'd fight back. They attacked in the hopes of crippling us in the Pacific for just long enough for them to grab enough territory so that they could then sue for a more equitable peace settlement once we got back on our feet and came at them pissed off. They needed mineral resources and petroleum reserves, and wanted to get them while the getting was good. They misjudged, both in their attack and our response, by a large margin.

Seems those that call themselves Conservatives lack basic education. Or at least YOU do.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 30, 2010 9:02 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thanx for sticking with the facts, some of you, and clarifying non-facts.

To lump all "libruls" into wanting spending is nothing but a talking point, a generalization that is useful to the right wing. We're also weak on national security...uh, and in favor of propping up the poor...oh, and the evil unions. I'm sure I missed many, but go right ahead, spout silliness.

Democrats aren't against lowering the deficit--remember Clinton? Remember the charts I put up showing that the deficit was RAISED by Republian Presidents, lowered or kept stead by Democratic ones? Your argument (which I realize it wasn't, just something easy to pull out of your hat) fails.

I'm all in favor of lowering the deficit and I hope Obama manages to bring it more in line. Right now, we're fighting an inheritance of the biggest deficit in history, which wasn't going to stop no matter WHO came into office, but the need to get the country off its knees. What ran up the deficit wasn't infrastructure, building the economy or anything good, NOW those things have to be done to make up for it. I'll wait to see if, once we're somewhat back on our feet, attention gets turned to the deficit. Right now, we're not out of the woods yet.

Let's see if I can give you a simple analogy: if parents give Johnny Boy all the money they would have spent on dentists, education, keeping the roof over his head, etc., he'd spend it on candy, maybe war toys, video games, whatever he thought was neat. Then they'd be stuck having to find money elsewhere in order to pay for the things that SHOULD have been done.

That's where we stood when Obama took office. I know you guys love to say "It's not Bush's fault anymore", but he spent so MUCH money on candy, "video games" for his friends, war toys, etc., that we're left holding the bag, just like Johnny Boy's parents were. If we can spend the money to do the necessary things, THEN we can think of putting some in the bank, i.e., paying down the deficit. But first we have to make up the money Johnny Bush spent recklessly.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL