posted
*laugh* Good question. Honestly, I think that depends on whether or not the drooling idiots who voted for Walker figure out that he delivered a steaming pack of lies to them or not by November.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone in the United States achieve success entirely on their own, with no outside assistance of any kind before they achieved their success? Because let me tell you, I'm struggling to think of a modern American businessperson or politician or anyone who has achieved great success in their field who doesn't have somewhere in their past a moving figure, a helping hand, someone who chipped in when things were at their worst or provided a steady, ongoing safety and security. Can you think of any such examples that would contradict what Obama actually said, as opposed to what you're reading into it?
This is relevant to what you are trying to point out.
3. Ryan's father died when Paul was only 16. Using the Social Security survivors benefits he received until his 18th birthday, he paid for his education at Miami University in Ohio, where he completed a bachelor's degree in economics and political science in 1992.
4. Ryan worked as a marketing consultant for his family's construction business before being elected to Congress. Ryan Incorporated Central began as an earthmoving business created by his great-grandfather in 1884.
Ryan is the perfect example. Here is a man who believes in the same kind of tea party libertarian bootstrappiness and wants to gut the system and let people sink or swim. Yet look at all the opportunity he had. A family business he could run. The government is there at a low point and in response to tragedy gives him the means to get into college and make who he is today possible. All so he can just get right to the height of power and be part of a campaign which is ideologically required to disdain and spit venom at the very idea Obama is speaking to.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there's really nothing more antithetical to the Calvinist based bootstrap mentality than the concept of actual, authentically lucky happenstance. Malcolm Gladwell has written extensively on the degree to which luck is minimized by society in preference for "hard work" and " positive thinking." it appears people would rather believe in magical powers than in luck- nobody wants to believe that success and happiness is transient and not necessarily deserved.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orin, its not luck--its Probability, which is a sub-set of Math, and you know that the majority of people hate Math. It requires them to think.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Orin, its not luck--its Probability, which is a sub-set of Math, and you know that the majority of people hate Math. It requires them to think.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Orin, its not luck--its Probability, which is a sub-set of Math, and you know that the majority of people hate Math. It requires them to think.
Yes, which is why we have supposedly serious individuals like Oprah Winfrey talking seriously about magic's influence on their lives.
But that does make sense, in a weird kind of way. It's not like she could have sold the inspirational aspects of her personal story, and justified her success, even to herself, while acknowledging that the other 999,999 people out of a million in similar life circumstances are lucky to become the assistant manager of Taco Bell.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can describe Mitt Romney’s tax policy promises in two words: mathematically impossible. Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has conducted the most comprehensive analysis to date of Romney’s tax plan and which bent over backward to make his promises add up. They’re perhaps the two most important words that have been written during this U.S. presidential election.
quote:If you were to distill the presumptive Republican nominee’s campaign to a few sentences, you could hardly do better than this statement of purpose from the speech Romney delivered in Detroit, outlining his plan for the economy: “I believe the American people are ready for real leadership. I believe they deserve a bold, conservative plan for reform and economic growth. Unlike President Obama, I actually have one -- and I’m not afraid to put it on the table.” The truth is that Romney is afraid to put his plan on the table. He has promised to reduce the deficit, but refused to identify the spending he would cut. He has promised to reform the tax code, but refused to identify the deductions and loopholes he would eliminate. The only thing he has put on the table is dessert: a promise to cut marginal tax rates by 20 percent across the board and to do so without raising the deficit or reducing the taxes paid by the top 1 percent. The Tax Policy Center took Romney at his word. They also did what he hasn’t done: They put his plan on the table. Favorable Conditions To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts. The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class.
posted
There can be no economic recovery without spending cuts. Democrats will not admit that obvious truth, because it would take away their fondly loved power to control other people's lives and money.
The question is whether the Romney administration and a Republican-controlled Senate and House would be able to enact significant spending cuts, since it would mean giving up power for them, too. We will just have to see if they can match spending cuts with tax cuts.
There might be some hope of them doing this, if they can finally get a Constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget--which in turn would be facilitated by giving the president a line item veto. Both these things are things that conservative Republicans have been calling for for decades.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There can be no economic recovery without spending cuts. Democrats will not admit that obvious truth, because it would take away their fondly loved power to control other people's lives and money.
Another transparent Ron Lambert lie. Democrats, while not nearly as enthusiastic about them as Republicans, have also been making serious cuts in spending throughout the nation, voting for them and pushing for them, for years now.
Think carefully, Ron: are you going to deny it? It's a falsehood above your usual standard, so here's a nice chance to qualify.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, the line-item veto was passed back in 94. It was promptly overturned by the courts. But it hasn't seemed to be that much of a Republican priority since then. I wonder why the Bush administration didn't want to get that passed?
Posts: 17 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Budget cuts are absolutely part of the conversation right now. But I would say as a general rule, getting the Democrats to agree to budget cuts is a much simpler matter than getting the Republicans to agree to tax increases or even allowing tax cuts to expire.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a falsehood above your usual standard, so here's a nice chance to qualify.
His usual standard of, That thing you don't see happen in the video you're watching does happen in the video, and if you say it doesn't, you're lying?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There can be no economic recovery without spending cuts. Democrats will not admit that obvious truth, because it would take away their fondly loved power to control other people's lives and money.
The question is whether the Romney administration and a Republican-controlled Senate and House would be able to enact significant spending cuts, since it would mean giving up power for them, too. We will just have to see if they can match spending cuts with tax cuts.
There might be some hope of them doing this, if they can finally get a Constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget--which in turn would be facilitated by giving the president a line item veto. Both these things are things that conservative Republicans have been calling for for decades.
Forget the Democrat vs. Republican part of this. What about all the evidence in the last three years of austerity's enactment around the world convinces you it's the way to solve our problems? Austerity has stalled the economic engine in Europe, and destroyed some of their economies.
Billions of dollars are being sucked out of the US economy when we cut major spending, which means lots of people get fired, and stop spending, and then more people get fired, and then they lose their houses, etc etc.
The first stimulus did what it was supposed to do. Now we need a second one. Once the economy is humming along, we can start scaling back on spending. But when the Republicans refuse to cut things like the defense budget, I really don't see it ever happening.
The Ryan budget isn't a serious budget. It's a partisan fantasy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There can be no economic recovery without spending cuts.
So in your alternate earth history, World war II simply kept us in a depression, as it put government spending through the roof. Therefore, it is impossible for that era, with a net spending increase, to be concurrent with economic recovery for any reason.
Or no, wait. You just made yet another indefensible statement you will stick with forever?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only the most immense stupidity would lead anyone to deny that the real reason for the wreckage of European economies, as well as the downward spiral of our own, is spending more than legitimate income. Anyone who has ever managed a budget--personal or otherwise--has come face-to-face with this inarguable fact. If you live beyond your means, you are destroying yourself. This is a law of nature only complete fools ignore.
But politicos, and especially (more than anyone else) Democrats and liberals of all stripes, base their popularity and power on promising the masses more and more freebies. This is what destroyed ancient Rome--bread and circuses--and the principle remains operative today.
Cut spending to the point where you do not spend more than your legitimate income, or die. Absolutely die. There is no alternative outcome possible. And raising taxes to perpetuate overspending only makes matters worse, because that kills productivity.
Rakeesh, as usual, your obnoxious criticisms of me are invalid and only reveal your own character flaws.
Samprimary, you are just more of the same. Your analysis of the economic consequences of World War II are about the most ignorant I have ever come across. Spending did not end the Depression. Spending caused the Depression. Do you really believe that the tremendous, all-out effort to defend the nation, and free democracies, produced prosperity? Ever hear of rationing? Talk to people who lived through that time, and see if they think it was a time of prosperity. No passenger cars were made. All the automobile factories were making tanks. The prosperity came later, as the world rebounded from the desperate circumstances of war. And that took years.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, to cut through your other associated drivel: you are still standing by your claim that Democrats refuse to admit cuts are needed?
I don't know if it's because you say, "Jesus!" in that super-special way or something that makes you think you can just will this to be true, but this is a provable falsehood, and I'd like to know if you're interested in standing by it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, you are just more of the same. Your analysis of the economic consequences of World War II are about the most ignorant I have ever come across. Spending did not end the Depression. Spending caused the Depression. Do you really believe that the tremendous, all-out effort to defend the nation, and free democracies, produced prosperity? Ever hear of rationing? Talk to people who lived through that time, and see if they think it was a time of prosperity. No passenger cars were made. All the automobile factories were making tanks. The prosperity came later, as the world rebounded from the desperate circumstances of war. And that took years.
Wow it's like you completely managed to miss what I said.
Read this again:
quote:So in your alternate earth history, World war II simply kept us in a depression, as it put government spending through the roof. Therefore, it is impossible for that era, with a net spending increase, to be concurrent with economic recovery for any reason.
Power word: concurrent.
The WWII era was an economic recovery. Nominal GDP went from 101.4b in 1940 to 173.52b in 1945. That is red-hot growth. 1944 alone saw a 28.14% increase in GDP.
During that time, federal spending alone went from 9.47b to 72.11b, rocketing up from less than ten percent of GDP to over 40%. It would not go back down to pre-war levels.
Your words — your exact, inescapable words, are "There can be no economic recovery without spending cuts." — and yet, our very own nation experienced an economic recovery concurrent to a massive growth of spending, both in absolute value as well as percentage of our total gross domestic product, ~and~ a significant degree of centralized governmental control of the economy — the very same rationing and forced re-appropriation of industry you speak of.
According to your words, this is impossible. There would be no way that the economy could recover, because there were no spending cuts at the time, spending grew, and stayed grown through to our next era of economic prosperity.
So, what you said is wrong.
It is an indefensible statement (well, unless you're Ron Lambert and you might be desperate enough to try to claim that an almost 75% GDP increase during a time period in which federal spending doubled two years in a row obviously does not count and continue to call me ignorant and stupid and project onto me as fast as you can).
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Only the most immense stupidity would lead anyone to deny that the real reason for the wreckage of European economies, as well as the downward spiral of our own, is spending more than legitimate income. Anyone who has ever managed a budget--personal or otherwise--has come face-to-face with this inarguable fact. If you live beyond your means, you are destroying yourself. This is a law of nature only complete fools ignore.
I think you're wrong. You CAN do very well by living beyond your means... at least for a short time.
Here's a simple example to demonstrate this: Bob wanted to go to college. Even with the part-time job he could get working in the cafeteria, Bob couldn't really afford college, but went anyway. Bob tried not to waste money while he was in college, but he didn't try to cut his expenses to match his income... he didn't stop doing maintenance on his car, he didn't stop feeding his cat, he didn't even stop helping out his elderly parents financially. Bob ended up taking out a lot of loans and lived well beyond his means for 4 years. When he got out he got a job. He eventually repaid all his loans and is now doing quite well, financially.
Debt isn't necessarily bad... it's unnecessary debt that's bad. Sure, we shouldn't waste money but there are A LOT of very smart economists out there pointing out that you cut your budget in good times, not in bad... because cutting it in bad makes it even worse.
Related thought... our infrastructure in this country is falling apart. It's appalling, in fact. We (which means the Government ultimately, unless we start making every interstate and bridge a toll road and start charging somehow for the locks and dams too) are going to have to fix it eventually if we want to keep our economy going. Construction costs are cheap now, as are interest rates. Seems to me now is the perfect time for our country to borrow a bunch of money to fix our infrastructure.... if we wait until "we recover" it's going to cost us a heck of a lot more.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think we all agree that crushing debt is bad. But using austerity to get out of that debt is also bad. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and I don't know why you think they are.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because he thinks the government and the economy work the way his bank account does. A lot of people do.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you think that the laws of economics are different for nations than for individuals? Like individuals, nations can live beyond their means, for a while--as just_me said. But there comes a time when your credit is exhausted. This takes longer for nations, but eventually the Chinese and whoever else is going to stop buying our treasury notes. Then we will be just as bad off as Spain. Obama will have acheived his number one secret agenda item, of turning America into a third world nation.
But even before you reach the point of credit collapse, you are paying more and more in interest payments, so that you have less and less you can really afford to spend. You (and nations) are forced to borrow more, to keep up their standard of living. Until like Greece and Spain, and the rest of Europe, it all comes crashing down.
For individuals, when that point is reached, all you can do is declare bankruptcy, or else run off and live in the woods. For nations, you have depressions from which it takes a decade or more to recover.
Oh, and by the way, returning to the WWII discussion, remember that America was in a depression when WWII came along. The extreme austerity measures during the half decade we were at war, were necessary. Of course when production could turn from wartime to peacetime, there was a significant gain in GDP. But that was a gain over Depression era GDP, so it looked like a big increase.
There are many economists who believe that if FDR had not tried all his spending stimulus schemes, the nation's economy would have recovered much faster. What was needed to recover from the Depression was a basic correction of all the overheating spending that had led to the big crash.
Now, I believe that in emergency situations, where multitudes are literally starving, some means to provide mercy must be employed, something that allows people to have the most basic necessities--since it is not their fault that industries collapsed and they lost their jobs. But that does not mean you start spending so much you guarantee another Depression.
I have to wonder if any generation will ever learn these lessons, when there still seems to be so much unreasoning resistance to learning what should be obvious.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But not even his bank account works that way. You can do stimulus spending beyond your immediate short-term means to pull yourself out of a crappy life economic situation. I know more than one person who put out some loans to travel to work fairs, relocate to places where jobs were available, hell, even just buy a decent car and a good suit if even just to make it to interviews on time and presentable.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Samprimary, the hypothetical person you are talking about subsequently paid off his student loan, or travel loan, or whatever. Capitalism itself is a good idea, where you borrow so you can build greater capacity, or start manufacturing your genius invention, for the increasing betterment of all society (and for the well-deserved betterment of your personal bank account). But legitimate capitalism pays its bills.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and by the way, returning to the WWII discussion, remember that America was in a depression when WWII came along. The extreme austerity measures during the half decade we were at war, were necessary. Of course when production could turn from wartime to peacetime, there was a significant gain in GDP. But that was a gain over Depression era GDP, so it looked like a big increase.
There was a significant gain in GDP DURING THE WAR. Before production turned from wartime to peacetime. It looked like a big increase because it was a big increase.
You aren't addressing anything I said. It is like you are twisting furiously to get away from what I have pointed out to you. You said "There can be no economic recovery without spending cuts." We went from the great depression to the 1950's prosperity period with a dramatic increase in spending, not spending cuts. So what you said is wrong, demonstrably. Come work around that some more.
In addition, why are you calling what we did during the war 'extreme austerity measures?' It tells me you don't understand what austerity measures are. They certainly aren't "increasing federal spending fivefold."
quote:There are many economists who believe that if FDR had not tried all his spending stimulus schemes, the nation's economy would have recovered much faster.
There are many economists that believe the opposite (probably many more). Without a substantiated reasoning as to what the claim specifically is, this soundbite means nothing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, "legitimate" capitalism sells high and buys low. "legitimate" capitalism today avoids its bills.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But Samprimary, the hypothetical person you are talking about subsequently paid off his student loan, or travel loan, or whatever.
So? You said that spending beyond your legitimate income is destroying yourself and that only fools ignore this basic fact. If I'm unemployed and I'm spending more money to get a job, that's not austerity, that's stimulus spending. According to how you worded it it is not legitimate capitalism.
posted
As an aside, it is interesting how much we try to rely upon logical arguments, and the facts adduced in support of them. The ancient Greeks had a view of the elements of persuasion. They were ethos, logos, and pathos. The first one refers to the character and credentials of the speaker or writer which recommends their credibility. The second is the quality or logic of the argument itself (which includes the facts adduced in support of the argument). Logos you may recall is the Greek word for "word." The last refers to the passion, which includes the power of the speaker or writer's appeal to the emotions or self-interest of the listener or reader.
One thing that makes things a little easier, though, is that if you can get the hearer or reader to remember some key essentials of what you propound to them, it in effect "sows seed," which later they may recall to their benefit in a time of need, when they will be more receptive to previously unwelcomed ideas. This is why Jesus told so many parables, that served to lodge certain ideas in people's memories.
This consideration is why evangelists still try to evangelize the masses, even though the vast majority do not seem to respond at first. As long as we have helped ensure that a responsible witness is out there, we can feel that we have done our job to the best of our ability. Even Jesus did not always see people converted immediately by His preaching (logos), even though reinforced by miraculous works of healing that showed He really cared about people's good (ethos and pathos). But Nicodemus did eventually come around. And Peter was truly converted after he was tested, and forced to confront his own weakness and lack of fidelity, where he had thought he had only strengths and was in need of nothing.
This works in religion. Maybe it will work in politics as well. They say that Barry Goldwater became more moderate as he grew older. And there is the old observation that if a person is not liberal in youth, he has no heart; but if he is not conservative when he becomes mature, he has no brain. Sow the seeds, water and cultivate them, and eventually they may sprout up and grow up and yield a harvest. This is why I keep trying.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you think that the laws of economics are different for nations than for individuals?
I'd just like to point out that the laws of economics are in fact different for nations than they are for individuals, to the extent that they are usually taught in different classes. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Look at ACTUAL examples over your theoretical model.
America actually had a second mini-Depression in the 30s after FDR did exactly what you're saying. He spent a lot at first to get us out, and then when he thought things were fine, they drastically cut back on spending, which sent us back into a Depression. It was only massive WWII spending that got us out.
But let's take Greece as an example. Yes, they spent themselves into a bottomless hole. That was a poor choice. On that we can both agree. But then how to get out of that hole? Most every agreed that for Greece to default on its loans would be catastrophic, so Europe loaned Greece a large sum of money with the understanding that they would have to raise taxes and dramatically cut spending. They were being forced to do exactly what you said they should do to get their house in order and stave off a default (basically, bankruptcy). After much discussion, and a whole lot of rioting, they did exactly that.
What happened?
The dramatic cut in government spending sent Greece's economy into a nosedive. Tens of thousands lost their job as the economy retracted, and as a result, tax receipts dropped dramatically. At the end of the day, they basically ended up back at square one, except hundreds of thousands fewer people had jobs and the GDP was retreating. Austerity was an abject failure in Europe, and most of the countries who forced it on Greece are admitting publicly that it was a mistake.
England is another good example. They were in decent shape a few years ago when they decided to undertake radical austerity. They cut their budget incredibly aggressively, and the result was stalling their economy to the point of stasis. They're just now having a national discussion about what a bad idea that was and how they need to spend more to get things going.
Right now interest on new debt is basically 0%. It's cheaper to borrow than to raise taxes, so why wouldn't we spend more right now to get the economy moving, then cut back later when people actually have jobs, tax receipts are up, and the machine is actually working? Austerity sucks billions of dollars out of the economy, and the proof is right in front of our faces in Europe that it simply does not work.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well since you're clearing diverting into your typical gutless, unethical preaching-http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3605
There. Democrats offering major spending cuts. There isn't a freaking video you can hide behind here, Ron. You said plainly they would never offer spending cuts, and they probably have.
It's bad enough you're such a flagrant liar. What's even worse is that, as stupid as it is, your slant on religion supposedly reveres honesty. So you're a liar and a hypocrite.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw a poster the other day. It had Paul Ryan saying, "You can't borrow and spend you way to prosperity."
Then I see Bain Capital's business plan. Borrow millions of dollars. Spend it on companies. Borrow more millions using those companies as collateral. Spend it on paying off Bain's investors and trying to make the companies you purchased more profitable.
Result was pretty darn prosperous for Governor Romney.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I half suspect the real reason Ron objects to macroeconomic stimulus is because its "usury".
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: One thing that makes things a little easier, though, is that if you can get the hearer or reader to remember some key essentials of what you propound to them, it in effect "sows seed," which later they may recall to their benefit in a time of need, when they will be more receptive to previously unwelcomed ideas. This is why Jesus told so many parables, that served to lodge certain ideas in people's memories.
What do you think you are "sowing" that will make people receptive to your claims? All you do is make false (and kind of kooky) claims and then call people arrogant idiots for denying you.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, Democrats are always the ones who resist cutting spending and cutting taxes. They may pay lipservice to either, but the reality is they do as little of either as they can get away with. They will only cut some program like defense so they can expand spending for some socialist program that offers more bread and circuses to their constituency.
As long as people keep propounding the idea that austerity is a bad idea for getting finances in order (just because it does not result in instant prosperity, after decades of out-of-control spending), does not mean it is not the one and only thing that can save a nation's (or a person's) economy.
For crying out loud, this is not rocket science! Don't you spendthrifts have any sense?
As I said Darth_Mauve, what Bain Capital did was capitalism. They paid all their bills in the long run. That is what capitalism does. What too many nations have been doing for too long is like what an individual does who gets a second credit card so he can use that to make the payments on his first credit card, then gets a third credit card to make payments on the first two, and on and on until the credit card companies get wise to what he is doing, and he can't get any more credit cards. Then he either declares bankruptcy or runs away and lives in the woods.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
"Spendthrift"?
Tell me Ron can people print their own money?
Can people just decide to confiscate all of the gold the people around them or in their home own?
Also how is government money invested in defence not socialism? Why following your logic can we not just simply privatize the military? Let CEO's form private armies that the government can rent? Wouldn't that be more efficient?
Also did you know the Democrats offered to cut 10$ for every 1$ raised with new revenue? Is that "lipservice"?
The GOP threatened to default on US debt, which would've crashed the US economy and caused a depression which would probably have turned the US into a third world nation.
IP: Logged |
quote:Also did you know the Democrats offered to cut 10$ for every 1$ raised with new revenue? Is that "lipservice"?
That is not accurate. Republican candidates for president were asked in a debate if that arrangement would bring them to the table, and they all said no.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I was under the impression it was seriously considered during the Committe/Gang of Four thingy.
IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, Democrats are always the ones who resist cutting spending and cutting taxes. They may pay lipservice to either, but the reality is they do as little of either as they can get away with. They will only cut some program like defense so they can expand spending for some socialist program that offers more bread and circuses to their constituency.
Ok, so you're openly abandoning your original statement (sensibly, since it was proven false) and shifting without remark to a different claim. Thanks for affirming my use of the words gutless an dishonest.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: My mistake but still fairly substantial.
Sure, I suspect Boehner was reined in by his own party, but we can't know what was actually said as nobody from either side has spoken of it other than talks collapsed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And because I am legitimately curious again:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Obama will have acheived his number one secret agenda item, of turning America into a third world nation.
What is this secret agenda and where is the proof of it and what exactly are its goals or why obama wants to make america a third world nation.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Actually Obama made his mindset clear to his early contemporaries such as Dr. John Drew (who was at that time a somehat moderate Marxist) who said he "was stunned at Obama’s unwavering belief in the imminence of a Marxist revolution in the United States."
This is probably the real reason why Obama keeps his college records sealed. He is probably afraid Americans would discover he was not just a communist, but a flaming firebrand communist. And of course he was not disturbed by the Irrev. Jeremiah Wright calling for God to damn America during the TWENTY YEARS he attended the church where Wright was pastor--in his heart, he agreed with Wright.
And let us not forget the fact that one of Obama's primary mentors was Frank Marshall Davis, who was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, who was guilty of "horrible agitation on behalf of international communism throughout the 20th century," and on whom the FBI had a 600-page file, and officially certified him repeatedly on the Security Index, meaning if a war broke out between the USA and the USSR, Davis would have been immediately arrested. Obama having such a man for an influential mentor cannot be ignored by any sane person. If Obama were applying for an entry level position in government, with a mentor like that, he could never get any kind of security clearance. And yet Americans voted him right into the Oval Office.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
