Thank you GOP for making a mess of everything

Yea, the reall dissagreement comes in what is the right track... More taxes, bigger gov are not the right track.

Hey, I guess W is a bit of a uniter after all.

More taxes, bigger gov are not the right track.

SAWDUST

You have to split that into two parts:

Big Govt.: NO one has EVER increased the federal budget as much as Bush and the NeoCons. Sadly we have nothing to show for it but another $5 TRILLION in debt that now eats up $500,000,000,000 (billion) a YEAR from our government. That's the same amount as what 1/3 of our budget before the NeoCon's got their hands on it was.

Taxes: Who's gonna pay for the irresponsible management of our government by the NeoCons, the war?

You don't seem willing. So who? I say mail every registered Republican a bill and split the extra $5 TRILLION in debt equally amongst them. I never wanted this war - OR the egregious waste of our tax dollars your heroes have been so fond of wasting with nothing to show for it.

Meanwhile, Iraq is running a SURPLUS and yet we're STILL paying for their reconstruction - the reconstruction your NeoCon heroes said their oil would pay for.

Fact it dude, you got duped by a bunch of crooks with 'R's' after their name. Just what they were counting on...

You assume that I am OK with the big gov if it comes from the Repubs, but not so if it comes from the Dems... Not so, I am against it where ever it comes from. In my mind the way you fix this is not to raise taxes but to cut spending.

You are correct the war has cost *too* much. As I have said before, I have gone through a transition on this. I was not for us going to war to start with. At the time I said the "peace" would be much more difficult than the war. Then I felt that we made the mess so we should clean it up. And there is still a part of me that could go with that. There is also a part of me that says, hey get out, see what happens and go from there. We will soon find out whether the Dems or Repubs are right about the consequences.

Barry Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism distrusted Godly conservatism as much as he distrusted godless communism. Goldwater would have opposed the Iraq War and everything else the modern conservatives have perpetrated upon us. He was against unilateral aggression.

Today's conservatives came to power with good ideas and then promptly did the opposite

The largest budget deficits in history, the largest debt in history, the largest trade deficits in history. They trashed states rights. They trampled on individual Constitutional rights. They engaged in unilateral interventionism.

NeoConservatives destroyed modern conservatism. It is the polar opposite of everything conservatism was based on.

The conservative revolution is dead

Today's conservatives came to power with good lies and then promptly did the opposite

There, I fixed that for you.

"things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track"

YUP... Repubs spending like drunken dems...leading in earmark spending. What SSI problem?
Borders wide open with Bush, dems, and Mac trying to fast track illegal immigrants into citizen voters ,food stamps,ssi and medicaid...lowering wages. Left claiming Bush worse threat than Islamofacists. Terrorism is just a bumper sticker. Not God Bless America but the "Goddamn America" sentiment promoted by dems seeking votes and power.
Looks like dems may ride into DC on the gimme biggov-nannystate social welfare vote. Dems or Mac tax/reg to stifle the economy with AGW religion.

Gov taking over so individuals no longer have to be responsible for their disastrous lifestyle and life choices.
And this is only the tip of the socialist iceberg.

Yup...OFF TRACK!

In this survey 69% answered 'no' when asked the famous Ronald Reagan question: "Are you better off now than you were 7 years ago?"

John McCain will get his run for the WH, but I don't give him much of a chance of winning.

As more and more Americans got online in the 21st century, we're more educated, involved, and motivated in directing the course of our government.

I hate what W's done, but I have to say he probably did us all a favor by making sure NeoConservatism is dead in the water. It will be a generation before conservatives ever get another shot at running the government.

An overwhelming majority of voters under 35 identify themselves as Democrats. Rush will die from a stroke yelling into the mic one day. Clear Channel, Cumulous, and Sinclair Broadcasting will be forced to start filling the airwaves with what the majority of Americans care about or go bankrupt.

W and his gang of thugs killed conservatism and made it a bad word.

Taxes: Who's gonna pay for the irresponsible management of our government by the NeoCons, the war?

Why is the notion of cutting spending always the last answer anyone wants to entertain? I won't vote for any candidate that doesn't plan to cut spending (including bringing the troops home)...

AU

IF, the big IF, we have elections this fall. Not a gambler, but I'd bet we don't.

It will be a generation before conservatives ever get another shot at running the government.

I think we need 1 or 2 more Dem terms so that all the sheeple will finally realize there is no difference between these corrupt parties except how they are going to fuck your life up. Then a 3rd party candidate will have a chance. The momentum is already headed in that direction.

It will be a generation before conservatives ever get another shot at running the government.

I think we need 1 or 2 more Dem terms so that all the sheeple will finally realize there is no difference between these corrupt parties except how they are going to fuck your life up. Then a 3rd party candidate will have a chance. The momentum is already headed in that direction.

Anyone who thinks that cut backs will solve the problems is just being simplistic. Of course taxes have to be raised on the wealthy, they currently pay the least amount of tax in many decades. We began running huge deficits when Ronnie Raygun took office and every successive Republican administration has made matters worse due to their "belief" in trickle down, supply side economics. We need a completely new direction away from the failed economic policies and back to those that worked so well during the post WWII era.
We will know we are on the right track when right wing billionaires are screaming like stuck pigs.

JSPRAGUE

We were in pretty good shape a minute before W took the oath on January 20th, 2001.

Projected surpluses and a plan to shore up Medicare and SS, pay down the national debt, etc.

The 60's were 40 years ago. Many of the efforts we made were drastically needed. We had millions of disenfranchised citizens living in our version of 60's South Africa. Big change is going to bring big mistakes. But, largely those efforts helped.

Clinton campaigned in 1992 on Welfare Reform. It was accomplished.

Today's biggest problem is CORPORATE WELFARE.

The GOP mantra was 'personal responsibility' and 'free markets'. In a free market a company like Bear-Sterns go under. The S & L industry goes' under.

Another example is the housing crisis. Millions of homeowners losing their houses - not all because of subprime loans, but illness and unemployment - but, what's the government's response? Billions of dollars for home BUILDERS. What?

That poll question is meaningless. Anyone who doesn't like some part of the situation gets to vote no. Meaningless.

**** Gov taking over so individuals no longer have to be responsible for their disastrous lifestyle and life choices. *****

........responsibility........
..for disastrous choices...........hhmmmm......

........I wonder if we can sell the Bushling on taking responsibility for disastrous choices.......

.....naahhh.....thats crazy......what was I thinking.???.

JS...pols are beginning to see how the net is biting them in the ass. Too much information going out to the unwashed masses. They will have to find a way to regulate the info . They will start with the Fairness Doctrine...then start on the net.
They liked the old days when the networks would spoon out the info.

We were in pretty good shape a minute before W took the oath on January 20th, 2001.

Not that good.. Compared to now, we were in better shape, but still had too much waste, beauracracy, over taxation, corruption, etc.

They will have to find a way to regulate the info . They will start with the Fairness Doctrine...then start on the net.

Certainly possible. I think it is more likely that they will continue growing their database of dissenters and lock them all away when marshall law comes.

What's scarry is that 19% of the country apparently believes that America is on the right track. Who are these people and what are they smoking?

"Not that good.. Compared to now, we were in better shape, but still had too much waste, beauracracy, over taxation, corruption, etc."

Over taxation my ass. That mantra of the conservatives is just self-serving propaganda to excuse millionaires and billionaires like Warren Buffet who pay a much smaller percentage of tax than do their secretaries. Anyone who looks at a graph of the tax rates for the wealthy and compare it to a graph of the deficit, at a graph of real wages.....you can clearly see that as the rich have gotten richer, the working class has gotten poorer and the nation has just created huge deficits.
We will never fix America's economic problems until we deal with the 24 hour propaganda machines from the right. If they can still convince even 19% of the country that we are on the right path then they still have far too much influence. They need to be ridiculed and laughed off the air as the purveyors of utter crap that they truely are. Rush Limbaugh is as much responsible for the nation's economic problems as any one human being can be.

0.1% are the superrich that directly profit from fraud based Disaster Capitalism. They are a group that has misrepresented economic theory and systematically destroyed unions and robbed pension funds.

When the mafia borrowed money from organized labor to create Las Vegas and other monstrosities, THEY PAID THE LOANS BACK. When our beloved white collar criminal Corporate and political leadership borrows the money from pensions or printing presses, it just dissappears, mysteriously and legally.

The other 18.9% are a bunch of dumb fucks that would hate to see their health care and prosperity improve.

"They need to be ridiculed and laughed off the air as the purveyors of utter crap that they truly are"

I'm with you DANNI...freedom of speech. Laugh not legislate! I laugh my way thru AirAmerica in small doses. Why in the world would we want to silence anyone else opinions ? Why that would be intolerant as hell.

Jonryker and the other 18.99% still think Brownie did a heckuva job and are eagerly awaiting Bush's Baghdad Victory Parade and Kumbaya Festival to come out on DVD. The special edition one with Elvis and Dubya doing a duet.

KERRIN I wouldn't silence anyone but I would also make media deconsolidation a priority. Diversity of ownership = diversity of ideas. think how many radio markets there are which have several right wing talk stations but zero progressive or other alternative. Thing is I know everyone roots for their "team" but when the nation's economic system is at risk it is time to consider whether your "team" spirit isn't part of the problem.

I don't think we are on the wrong path, we are on the right path but we are going the wrong way.

"Individual responsibility" and "Free Markets" are bullshit the GOP throw around - until Bear Sterns or the S & L industry, or now the home BUILDERS need a bailout. Then all that goes out the window.

If they really meant it Bear Sterns would go belly up, and home OWNERS and not builders would be getting billions in relief.

It all depends on the definition of Right Track , then you have to consider the source of the poll .
raising taxes
manmade global warming hoax
stupid home buyers ( could'nt figure out that A.R.M.s is not the way to finance a home ) bring on the Reverse Mortgage cluster fuck and Equity Loan debacle , we should clean these up at the same time .

The 1980's - Bailing out the Keading 5 (McCain was one and now hipocritically says NO to bail outs, guess he got his), Iraq Contra where we supported Hussein, and Recession brought on by Trickle Down (voodoo economics).
We had 8 years with a Democratic President, gas was barely over a dollar and we had a budget surplus.
So, who exactly thinks the country is going in the right direction? Oil companies raking in millions, Bear-Stern CEO raking in millions, and CEO's making millions while they lay-off employees in record numbers and freeze employees salaries.

Over taxation my ass. That mantra of the conservatives is just self-serving propaganda to excuse millionaires and billionaires like Warren Buffet who pay a much smaller percentage of tax than do their secretaries.

Yes Danni.. We have been overtaxed for nearly 100 years if you believe what the forefathers did. I do..

Today's conservatives came to power with good ideas and then promptly did the opposite.

You know, I blame everyone that voted for the criminal cabal that occupies the white house.

How many of them were signatories on PNAC? That should have told them where their priorities were. But either stupidity or arrogance told them to vote for them anyways.

Anyone that says they voted for Lil Bush because he is a "conservative" either does not know what a conservative is lying.

How many of them were signatories on PNAC? That should have told them where their priorities were.

Unfortunately, nobody knew who PNAC was until well after the election. Sadly, it would have made little difference to the neocon voters who still seem to make up about 19% of us.

"Yes Danni.. We have been overtaxed for nearly 100 years if you believe what the forefathers did. I do.."

To some any tax would be considered "over taxed."

We have seen our economy get worse with each incremental tax cut, it ought to tell you something.

We need to make people understand, the middle class pays a higher percentage of our small incomes than the wealthy do on their very large incomes.

15% maximum capital gains tax while workers pay twice that on labor is bull shit.

To some any tax would be considered "over taxed."

Sure.. But ultra lefties don't bat an eye at the idea that we pay nearly half of our income to governments. To me it is criminal, and I feel certain that our forefathers would shit their pants. You seem to be of the opinion that rather than cutting taxes and spending, the solution to our problems is to just tax more. Taxing and spending is a big part of the reason this country is about to eat a shit sandwich. Not to mention, it is un-American (used to be anyway)..

"Sure.. But ultra lefties don't bat an eye at the idea that we pay nearly half of our income to governments."

Middle class is paying plenty but the wealthy are not paying anywhere near 50% of their incomes, not even 15%. The solution is to tax the wealthy more and create good paying jobs to get wages moving upwards again.

"Taxing and spending is a big part of the reason this country is about to eat a shit sandwich."

Bull shit. When we "taxed and spent" the country did very well, the largest creation of wealth in the history of the world.
"Borrow and spend" has put this nation at risk though, of course, the wealthy have demonized the idea of taxing them at the same rate as we tax ourselves.

JSPRAGUE

Bush and the GOP Congress broke all records in spending - doubling the national budget (for what?).

What possible solution to what problem did they solve by doing that while doubling the national debt in the process?

The interest alone on that debt now equals what 1/3 of the federal budget was when they finally got complete control in 2000.

"Tax and Spend" in reference to Democrats is as ludicrous an accusation as "fiscal responsibility" is a ridiculous characterization of the GOP. "Free Markets" means bailing out Bear Sterns, the S & L industry, or now home BUILDERS rather than letting them fall on their ass for their lack of 'personal responsibility'.

SOMEONE's gonna have to pay for this war and pey down the debt. If not you, then who? To deny your personal responsibility for your party's actions is to have no personal responsibility for your support of their agenda.

I'm pissed I'M being asked to pay for the GOP's follies. They've spent FAR more than was ever spent on Welfare or anything else that benefited American citizens.

Can't be all bad out there:
According to Ford's proxy statement, which was released this morning, Mulally earned a total of $21.7 million last year, including $2 million in base salary, $7 million in incentive bonuses and stock awards. That was down from $28.2 million in 2006. Ford lost $2.7 billion last year, but that was significantly better than the $12.6 billion the automaker lost in 2006.

Getting paid 22 million for only losing 2.7 billion sounds reasonable to me. Of course, I'm not a fucked over former Ford employee..

how many think the us is on wrong track because obama and clinton are contenders for the presidency? half the people who think the us is on the wrong track can be at odds with the other half of the people who think the us is headed in wrong direction-idoits on left and right have been bitchin bout the direction the us is headed-they both believe we are goin wrong
jasman

NEWJASMAN

Your question isn't valid.

Last year, before this campaign started, 78% thought we were on the wrong track.

Hint: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Tom Delay, et al

AMERICANUNITY
as i rememeber the dems were elected in 2006 with the mantra we are goin to change the climate in dc-
they did now the congress is rated lower then the pres
jasman

NEWJASMAN the MYTH of Democratic majority power has been debunked so many times that your post is just taling point repitition not even worthy of comment.

Jas-are you seriously deluding yourself that the mortgage meltdown and massive job losses and incoming recession would be seen as good things by 80% of the population if Obama and Hillary weren't running for President?
You must be eating the koolaid powder right out of the package.

Danni-

You managed to recite every buzzword you could think of to describe the relationship between government and the economy in distinctly partisan terms. I just wonder if you know what half of those terms mean in practical terms.

Anyone who actually believes that "tax and spend" is the door to economic success solely because there was some statistical correlation in the 1960's and 1970's is either horribly obtuse, or they have no concept of reality. Correlations can show Reagan or the 1994 republicans to be more "successful" in pulling the nation up. But, it doesn't help us much, because it ignores the 99.9% of things that matter more to the nation's economic health that who happens to sit in what chair in Washington.

Get off the democrat high horse and talk about the economy like you actually want to avoid a long protracted and fruitless partisan fight. Buzzwords are enough for the lazy cable news people, but I would assume many posters here are beyond that (notice I said "many" not "all"). YOU can do better I think. I have a bit of hope for you yet.

Yup...OFF TRACK!

Posted by kerrin57 at 2008-04-04 07:58 AM | Reply |


I'm not sure if I should laugh at your pathetic ass or feel pity for your condition.

"I'm not sure if I should laugh at your pathetic ass or feel pity for your condition."

I'm sure he's crushed. What was the point of this comment, though? Does it even make sense? Does pancho pity 81% of Americans? wtf?

George Bush is King Midas in Reverse.

Everything he's touched has turned to shit.

Guess those 19% who still think the US is on the right track are those "people you can fool all the time" that Lincoln spoke of.

Some of them post here.

Be Well.

AMERICANUNITY
as i rememeber the dems were elected in 2006 with the mantra we are goin to change the climate in dc-

NEWJASMAN

They've tried. Problem is there's a moron living in the WH who's happy as punch with the way things are going and won't pull out his pen but to veto good legislation. Not for long though....

They DID change the climate. They treat the GOP members with respect. They don't make them meet in basement furnace rooms as Delay did. They restored decorum to Congress the NeoCon assholes like Delay shredded.

That $5 trillion debt. It is to pay for Bush's Ego And Oil War, the proximate cause of our current and future economic disaster. Of course the market is in the toilet, homes vanishing at an alarming rate, health care and education mere dreams. It's all to pay for that war.

And what do we do about that debt? Have our grandchildren pay? How? One solution is to make a mere $5 trillion chump change. Like a trillion for a loaf of bread. Another might be to elect Democrats to everything and hope for the best. herm

"Anyone who actually believes that "tax and spend" is the door to economic success solely because there was some statistical correlation in the 1960's and 1970's"

6o's and 70's????

Try.....40's, 50's, 60's and 70's.

Try.....what the fuck do you think pulled us out of the great depression of 1929????
Oh, you'll say WWII, which began an intense round of....you guessed it....tax and spend.

When wages become stagnant taxes on the wealthy need to rise and be invested in infrastructure using American labor at good wages to boost the economy and help raise wages. That policy worked, it never failed, Reagan got elected and then figured out how to allow propaganda paid for by wealthy owners of hundreds of radio stations which convinced working class Americans that somehow letting rich folks pay less than half the percentage of taxes the working class pay would be good for everyone....it was the digustingly dishonest "trickle down economics" which even George Bush 1 called "Voodoo" economics.

Danni, you are delusional if you think the policies of the 40's and 50's were the same as the 60's and 70's. No need to go down that imaginary road. Open a history book for christ's sake!

"Try.....what the fuck do you think pulled us out of the great depression of 1929????"

A lot of things. Infrastructure investment being the most notable. Only Huckabee made this the centerpiece of his economic plan and you dems skewered him at every turn because of his social stances (which a prez would have VERY little to do with, btw). So what are YOU talking about? Bailouts? Corporate welfare? You really think that's what we did in the 1930's? That's idiotic.

You and your BS ranting need to grow the fuck up and realize that the world is slightly more complex than good v. evil. You are sounding a lot more like Bush, Cheney and Rove than any respectable democrat when you pretend that's the case. Then people chalk it up to idiotic emotional crap. Just so you know.

Danni-

Please describe for me what "voodoo economics" is without resorting to partisanship. Get past buzzwords already and prove you actually know something about something.

I agree. We've been going down the Socialism road too long. It's time to get back to what this country was founded on....Freedom and minimal government. Screw the 2 party socialists. Republicans and Democrats in the end are the same mess....Socialists.

Hemna,

Agreed. However, the answer will, in fact, come from one of those two parties. My bet is on the
Republicans, as they were not always socialists.

Its true Hemna, republicans are only socialist when it is convenient. Weekend warrior socialists. The best kind!

Kevin you are dilusional if you think that taxation of high income earners wasn't what fueled the success of the 40's thru the 70's. Why do you think that virtually all the debt comes from after that time period, after tax cuts became the mantra of the Republican Party. You morons are still singing...."Freedom and minimal government" as if this were 1776. The big business end of the Republican Party has brain washed y'all into thinking your interests are the same as theirs.
If you want a definition of "voodoo economics" refer to George Bush 1 campaign for the Republican nomination against Ronnie Raygun, which he lost and thus became the VP nominee and had to shut up and sing Reagan's tune.

"However, the answer will, in fact, come from one of those two parties. My bet is on the
Republicans, as they were not always socialists."

Yeah cuz the Republican Party has a long history of fixing the economy after.....REpublican rule.

The fucking Republicans caused this problem and you want them to fix it with more of the same?????

Unbelievable!!! Some folks are incapable of learning.

"Kevin you are dilusional if you think that taxation of high income earners wasn't what fueled the success of the 40's thru the 70's."

Then me and every other respected economist in America will gladly accept our label as "delusional according to Danni". You really do prove to know exactly shit about shit.

"Why do you think that virtually all the debt comes from after that time period, after tax cuts became the mantra of the Republican Party."

Gee, such detailed analysis. Nevermind that the biggest surpluses can during that time as well, right? And did so under a republican congress. You fail to remember that in your cherry picked garbage rant?

"You morons are still singing...."Freedom and minimal government" as if this were 1776. The big business end of the Republican Party has brain washed y'all into thinking your interests are the same as theirs."

Wow. Now you are a conspiracy theorist, too? Stupid. Just plain stupid statements. And you really think they apply to me personally? If you do, then please tell me how, Mrs. Know-It-All?

"If you want a definition of "voodoo economics" refer to George Bush 1 campaign for the Republican nomination against Ronnie Raygun, which he lost and thus became the VP nominee and had to shut up and sing Reagan's tune."

I knew you didn't know shit about it other than what you hear pundits talk about on MSNBC. Everyone knows the Bush/Reagan story. The question was: do YOU know what "supply side economics" is in practical terms???

Its true Hemna, republicans are only socialist when it is convenient

But only with corporations who acted irresponsibly and need a multibillion dollar bailout. If you aren't a corp. forget it, you're being 'personally irresponsible'.

Just so you know.

Posted by kevin23


Tax and spend is a whole lot better than "spend and spend some more". Bush managed to rehash "Trickle Down Economics" by assuming that if he put more money in the hands of the rich, then those rich, presumably business owners, would suddenly hire people and create jobs.

Well guess what Chief, they did the exact opposite. The took the money and moved their companies overseas. Not only are Americans out of work because of this, but the wages being earned by that foreign worker are being spent in another country's economy.

Worse yet, when the job comes back to the US, as in the BS that AT&T is pulling, the company now is unwilling to pay more than what they were paying some person in Indonesia to do the same job.

So now you have workers with no jobs, workers with lower paying jobs, and workers with no health care bearing the burden of the economy, all so business owners can increase profit margins for themselves and the shareholders while they drive massive SUV's and buy corporate jets that they can wrote off completely, because it's a "business expense".

Are you really naive enough to think that they expected the rich to put ALL excess profit back into the economy? Really think that kind of economy benefits all, or that it will result in long-term growth?

"But only with corporations who acted irresponsibly and need a multibillion dollar bailout. If you aren't a corp. forget it, you're being 'personally irresponsible'."

True.

Danni,

You should be kissing the ground the 1994 republicans walk on seeing how much you pretend that Clinton was responsible for all economic successes of the 1990's.

Sorry to interrupt your partisan bitch-fest for a truth break.

DDenton-

Next time you respond to something I say, don't pretend you know anything other than what I wrote. You just went off on someone who you invented.

I love that any disagreement with the notion that dems have a monopoly on economic success immediately leads to a long lecture on the Bush policies.

Stupid.

Those who holler "socialist" the loudest probably have the least idea of what socialism is about. There may not be a real socialist state left outside Cuba. Some western European lands do have fairly advanced social safety nets, but that alone does not a socialist state make.

The word "socialist" seems to be bandied about most by hairy-chested (including Nancy and Kerrin) posters who resent any culture that pays even minimal heed to the less fortunate. That just ain't - well - manly. herm

I'm sure he's crushed. What was the point of this comment, though? Does it even make sense? Does pancho pity 81% of Americans? wtf?

Posted by kevin23 at 2008-04-04 01:27 PM | Reply |

Like a bag 'o fucking rocks...read kerrin's post.

"Like a bag 'o fucking rocks...read kerrin's post."

Uh. Ok. Are you going to start making sense now? I've got time.

There may not be a real socialist state left outside Cuba.

posters who resent any culture that pays even minimal heed to the less fortunate.

Where does it end? Where is the incentive to work? WHEN DO YOU DEFINE SOMEONE AS LESS FORTUNATE? There are many socialist states. Dont give me that bullshit. Any country that takes from the rich and those who earned and give to those who are not fully contributing to the nation are socialists. Are there going to be poor and "less fortunates"? Yes. But it has to fucking END. My problem with socialists is they nevert see and END to giving out money and never seem to help people become SELF ABLED....

The problem with Boaz's thinking is that tax dollars don't only go to the poor, they also build bridges, send men to the moon, etc. which creates good paying jobs, which raises wages throughout the economy, which creates demand for goods.

Rich people with big bank accounts do not increase demand for goods, do not create jobs.

Call it socialism, call it whatever you want but since 1929 this economic system has created the richest country on the planet. Now in a few short years it comes unglued because wages are stagnant, demand drops, the economy heads into recession with inflation.

Danni-

I'll take your silence on all substantive matters to mean you admit your economics background is suspect at best? Or are you still hiding behind the blue curtain, only coming out to throw a rock at a republican caricature before you run away to the land of ignorant bliss and resentment towards all things remotely red?

Common sense be damned when you've got some partisan hackery to commence, right Danni? You are no better than those you purport to hate.

"The problem with Boaz's thinking is that tax dollars don't only go to the poor, they also build bridges, send men to the moon, etc. which creates good paying jobs, which raises wages throughout the economy, which creates demand for goods."

Care to elaborate on exactly how much tax money goes where? Your argument falls apart if you do.

"Rich people with big bank accounts do not increase demand for goods, do not create jobs."

So it DOESN'T take money to make money? All you need is a wing and a prayer? Rich people buy nothing? Contribute nothing? Employ no one? That's about as ignorant as ignorant gets.

"Call it socialism, call it whatever you want but since 1929 this economic system has created the richest country on the planet. Now in a few short years it comes unglued because wages are stagnant, demand drops, the economy heads into recession with inflation."

LOL. Now it goes off the deep end. What a bunch of hilariously illogical and inaccurate nonsense. READ A HISTORY BOOK ALREADY! A lot happened between 1929 and 2008, and most of it happened independent of who happened to sit in what chair in Washington. But that doesn't fit your motives, does it Danni. So deny it exists. Blatant partisan hackery at its worst. Somewhere, Bush smirks in approval.

Rich people don't buy more groceries, gas for their cars, etc. Their utility bill may be twice or three times as high, but when costs go up it drastically affects middle class people more.

Grocery prices have risen 30% in the last year. They're still rising.

No, rich people do not buy more. You can only eat so many groceries. Taking a vacation to the Caribbean does little to help the U.S. economy.

AU-

They do buy more expensive groceries. They do drive more and fancier cars. They do travel more. But all those things are not the point. See the forest for the trees. Without wealth and investment, there is no economy as you know it...just people trying to eat.

They do buy more expensive groceries. They do drive more and fancier cars. They do travel more. But all those things are not the point. See the forest for the trees. Without wealth and investment, there is no economy as you know it...just people trying to eat.

Nothing but condescending arrogant bull shit here.

The economy was not created for the wealthy, it supposed to serve society. Some how the how in the cloud arrogant SOB's seem to think it is they who make the economy. Just a false delusion, and that can be clearly seen by the economy of our country right now.

"Where does it end? Where is the incentive to work? WHEN DO YOU DEFINE SOMEONE AS LESS FORTUNATE? There are many socialist states. Dont give me that bullshit. Any country that takes from the rich and those who earned and give to those who are not fully contributing to the nation are socialists. Are there going to be poor and 'less fortunates? Yes. But it has to fucking END. My problem with socialists is they nevert see and END to giving out money and never seem to help people become SELF ABLED...."

Boaz's pitiful howl needs to be considered. The very worst of the starving trailer trash seeds SOMEone, ANYone worse off to look down on as the enemy.

Boaz, the real enemy is those who steal from you. The rich. The corporations. If you want assistance to the less fortunate to end, work your butt off for more equal distribution of the wealth. But try to learn the difference between essential humanity and "socialism." herm

Care to elaborate on exactly how much tax money goes where? Your argument falls apart if you do.

Batting a thousand in bull shit statements, wonder if this guy is older than a high school senior.


Care to elaborate on EXACTLY where the tax money is being wasted, your argument falls apart if you do.

Posted by moneywar at 2008-04-04 05:10 PM


Anyone who disagrees with me about anything is an idiot.


Sincerely,

Moneywar

Another tilted, biased, and mis-guided poll. How about the poll just taken that says 74% of Americans are happy about their own personal situation? 24% said they were not. How does this mesh?

The worst part is You gots 2 choices if you want a change.

Option 1: Hillary and Co.
Option 2: Obamma and Co.

Jeeeeeezus why did we let it get to this?????

MonerWar-

No shit we waste money. That WAS the whole point genius.

Comprehension is vital to communicating effectively. High school indeed.

No shit we waste money. That WAS the whole point genius.

I think you missed my point, ask JJ, he got the point and threw the scud because he didn't have a reasonable comment to throw back.

he got the point and threw the scud

He would have launched it, but the Chinese interest payments are a killer.

"I think you missed my point"

My point exactly.

ask JJ, he got the point and threw the scud because he didn't have a reasonable comment to throw back.


Actually, I was just mocking your M.O. when this subject arises.

You come accross as believing that anybody who disagrees with your economic outlook does so for one or more of the following reasons:

1. They are stupid
2. They are ignorant
3. They are nefarious


Intelligent, well-read AND well-meaning disagree all of the time on a myriad of issues. I genuinely hope you grasp this truth.

Moneywar?

Kevin is stupid.

JJ is ignorant.

Everyone else is just jealous.

-MoneyWar

DDenton-

Next time you respond to something I say, don't pretend you know anything other than what I wrote. You just went off on someone who you invented.

Posted by kevin23


Maybe the most complicated deflection I've ever seen.

"threw the scud"

Now that's catchy. Kinda like "jump the shark".

DC is one big vortex of suck...

Republicans, Democrats, Rupublicrats, Democans...CUNTZ, allof'em.

American citizens have had their rights whittled away while the intended purpose of federal government has been tossed out the window with more and more egregious disregard for the founders' intentions(i.e. The Constitution).

Politicians need to be required to read and comprehend the constitution before they are allowed to serve...and Voters should have to as well!

"Maybe the most complicated deflection I've ever seen."

It's just you. I'll simplify. Stop assuming. You suck at it.

SOMEONE's gonna have to pay for this war and pey down the debt. If not you, then who? To deny your personal responsibility for your party's actions is to have no personal responsibility for your support of their agenda.

Not my party and I certainly never voted for any of them, but good try. Who is going to pay for it? We all are. My point is that nobody, including you, talks about cutting spending.

Taxing and spending is a philisophy that always leads to spending more than we have and borrowing. Fiscal responsibility should involve doing our best to limit the size of government that is always wasteful. So I ask you.. What does your government do for you now that they didn't do in 1988? Cut spending levels to back then and you have likely saved a trillion dollars. Bring home ALL of our troops from around the world and save a trillion more. Get rid of pork spending and government waste and save hundreds of billions more.

Then you simply use the savings to pay off our debt and drastically cut taxes for the poor and middle class. That is the best recipe for a healthy economy and is the exact opposite of what we have been doing.

If you hate rich people, like many here do, the best ways to improve equality are to:

1) End corporate welfare
2) End corporate personhood
3) End corporatism in general (i.e. government in bed with corps and vica versa).
4) Get rid of the Federal Reserve and their engineered recessions that create a flea market for the rich to further acquire wealth.
5) Get rid of the Federal Reserve because the very elite we dislike are the ones running the Fed. These rich banking families have been exploiting Americans since 1913.

Cheney and the Neocons are in charge and couldn't give a damn what 81% of Americans think.

When the dems take the white house next year, you will soon realize that they don't care what you think either..

19% polled were morons.

Yeah, something is wrong with the polling there...

way more than 19% of Americans are morons.

Intelligent, well-read AND well-meaning disagree all of the time on a myriad of issues. I genuinely hope you grasp this truth.

Posted by JeffJ at 2008-04-04 05:37 PM | Reply | Flag

Without a doubt.

Yes, we disagree all the time, is it because of being well read or political pandering.....there's the rub!

hmmmm....
condensed version of all of Kevin23's postings on this thread:

"I'm rubber and you're glue, everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you."

IDEA: Let's bill the Carlyle group for the 5 trillion! If they refuse to pay, let's take em to court!

Maybe I better watch what I say, they might sick Blackwater on my ass, right?

Let me make this reallllly easy:

Kevin23 - You sir...are a MORON.

These numbers would suggest the Dems should easily take the White House. As thing stand today, how do you Dems feel about your chances vs McCain? Honestly?

The Dems 'seem' to be pissing down their collective leg at the moment. Plenty of time remains before the general election. Still, I have to think a less-than-satisfying (to conservatives) candidate on my side has a very good chance of winning. I honestly wouldn't have thought that several months ago.

Do you think maybe HRC has made a deal with McCain?

1) End corporate welfare
2) End corporate personhood
3) End corporatism in general (i.e. government in bed with corps and vica versa).

Corporations are a legitimate way for individuals to enter into contract. Personhood per se is not the issue. 1 and 3 are the issue. The problem cannot be solved without separating commerce from state the same way church and state are separated. Washington would never voluntary do that unless voters take away their power by refusing to patronize them. Alas, I don't see that happening anytime in the foreseeable future.

"Personhood per se is not the issue. 1 and 3 are the issue. The problem cannot be solved without separating commerce from state the same way church and state are separated. '

Au contraire. Eliminating the fiction of corporate personhood is a necessary first step in separating commerce from the state.