World Politics

Page 291 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
redtreviso said:
I pay my taxes and find better things to do than complain about it..Barnett Shale could have all but solved OUR state's budget problems.. Wanna hear how I signed for 5 or 6 times more than my right wing neighbors did?
congrats on your windfall, but no matter how much tax revenue we recieve we'll just spend it. it's the way of the world. we may learn our lesson for a brief time, but get a small surplus and we'll go right back deficits. we're just not very forward thinking.
 

popolo

BANNED
Mar 21, 2011
77
0
0
patricknd said:
congrats on your windfall, but no matter how much tax revenue we recieve we'll just spend it. it's the way of the world. we may learn our lesson for a brief time, but get a small surplus and we'll go right back deficits. we're just not very forward thinking.
Not true. People like you just spout opinions which repeated enough become fact.

Both Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan wanted to include triggers in ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts which would have made them conditional.

This was in 2001 before O'Neill was fired. You really have to stop making stuff up.

There were a lot of people who were forward thinking as Cheney's vote was required to break the tie on the tax cut deal.

So please just stop with the fabrications.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
popolo said:
Not true. People like you just spout opinions which repeated enough become fact.

Both Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan wanted to include triggers in ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts which would have made them conditional.

This was in 2001 before O'Neill was fired. You really have to stop making stuff up.

There were a lot of people who were forward thinking as Cheney's vote was required to break the tie on the tax cut deal.

So please just stop with the fabrications.
Not true people like you want to argue with yourself. So please stop with the fabrications.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Cobblestoned said:
Just short question that is in my mind for some time now.
Can someone explain the Brits proceedings, regarding sports, to me?
I mean, for example, in Fussball they all play for themselfes (England, Wales, Scotland etc.), while in other sports they choose to compete as GB.

Do they (queen of England) decide Great Britain as soon as they need help from other countries ?
Or any other reasons ?
This is a good question. I never understood this. I hope some of our friends here can answer it. :)
 
Sure, situations like that with O'Neill happen. It's just rare, and rarely gets passed into law. Remember "Pay-go" when Clinton was Pres? How about Al Gore's "lock box"? About 10 pages ago I wrote about John Kasich's add-on/carve out long-term Social Security plan. He was very astute, until he sold his soul to money and the power of the far right in the GOP. But that's how he ended up governor of Ohio.

There actually are a few good people in politics. Just that the system is so corruptable it swallows almost everyone who enters it. And the few that do stand true to the principles they believed when elected end up marginalized, often by their own party. The Ron Paul's, Mike Gravel's, Dennis Kucinich's. Or they just get fired, like O'Niell.

rhubroma said:
The US is so far into its commitment in the mess, which it actively sought and planned for, that its politicians have seen no other choice but to continue in this mess, which keeps getting messier, for decades to come.
You really should read some of Andrew Bacevich. This is precisely what he articulates. Here's his book on this very topic. And here's a blog about the war machine mess and defense spending's sacred cow. If you'd rather watch than read, here's a 27 minute interview with Bill Moyers.

Glenn_Wilson said:
Hey my opinion is that we as a country should try every way to become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But if you’re going to destroy / lay waste to the environment to get it then what is the point? Greed!
You pretty much summed it up. But as I wrote about energy before, as this is very much about energy, you don't want to get caught in a false dilemma like many politicians do. This isn't a cut and dry issue of get oil from the Middle East or drill our own country to nothing (or both!). There are other forms of adaptation. Sadly, we hardly explore them or broach them at all. Even in the very aggressive last 5 years or so, there's really been only a small amount of change to electric anything. We've had the opportunity to pursue wind and solar power (and nukes even) for decades. President Carter spoke about it in his famously drab "Malaise Speech". No one wanted to hear it then, and many don't want to hear it now. We'd rather change only when absolutely forced to, when the oil is all but gone. And according to some alarmists like former CIA agent turned investigative journalist Michael Ruppert, that day is closer than we realize.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Sure, situations like that with O'Neill happen. It's just rare, and rarely gets passed into law. Remember "Pay-go" when Clinton was Pres? How about Al Gore's "lock box"? About 10 pages ago I wrote about John Kasich's add-on/carve out long-term Social Security plan. He was very astute, until he sold his soul to money and the power of the far right in the GOP. But that's how he ended up governor of Ohio.

There actually are a few good people in politics. Just that the system is so corruptable it swallows almost everyone who enters it. And the few that do stand true to the principles they believed when elected end up marginalized, often by their own party. The Ron Paul's, Mike Gravel's, Dennis Kucinich's. Or they just get fired, like O'Niell.



You really should read some of Andrew Bacevich. This is precisely what he articulates. Here's his book on this very topic. And here's a blog about the war machine mess and defense spending's sacred cow. If you'd rather watch than read, here's a 27 minute interview with Bill Moyers.



You pretty much summed it up. But as I wrote about energy before, as this is very much about energy, you don't want to get caught in a false dilemma like many politicians do. This isn't a cut and dry issue of get oil from the Middle East or drill our own country to nothing (or both!). There are other forms of adaptation. Sadly, we hardly explore them or broach them at all. Even in the very aggressive last 5 years or so, there's really been only a small amount of change to electric anything. We've had the opportunity to pursue wind and solar power (and nukes even) for decades. President Carter spoke about it in his famously drab "Malaise Speech". No one wanted to hear it then, and many don't want to hear it now. We'd rather change only when absolutely forced to, when the oil is all but gone. And according to some alarmists like former CIA agent turned investigative journalist Michael Ruppert, that day is closer than we realize.
Somone once said to me ALL War is about terortory and what that terortory has that the agressor doesnt. In this case its oil and minerals.
Those that control the energy supply control the means of production and no one is about to deny that there is a global cartel on the production of energy that has NO national boundaries.
EVERY other reason given to justify the militry action now going on in 3 fronts, is utter baloney. Afghanistan is over the gas piplines and and mineral rights, Iraq and Libya are about Oil. EVERY single reason to justify all three wars is a smokescreen for the global control of energy production by a small cartel. China has been the experiment for the society the elite wish to create. There almost there :(
 

popolo

BANNED
Mar 21, 2011
77
0
0
What are you talking about?

Alpe d'Huez said:
Sure, situations like that with O'Neill happen. It's just rare, and rarely gets passed into law. Remember "Pay-go" when Clinton was Pres? How about Al Gore's "lock box"? About 10 pages ago I wrote about John Kasich's add-on/carve out long-term Social Security plan. He was very astute, until he sold his soul to money and the power of the far right in the GOP. But that's how he ended up governor of Ohio.

There actually are a few good people in politics. Just that the system is so corruptable it swallows almost everyone who enters it. And the few that do stand true to the principles they believed when elected end up marginalized, often by their own party. The Ron Paul's, Mike Gravel's, Dennis Kucinich's. Or they just get fired, like O'Niell.
O'Neill was appointed/not elected as Treasury Secy and he along with Greenspan were recognized experts on the economy. What I wrote was extremely simple and to the point and you're complicating matters for whatever reason.

O'Neill and Greenspan argued that the surplus wasn't as large as it appeared and if the tax cuts were implemented at the level the political people in the administration wanted, and the economy slowed it would be a disaster.

That's exactly what happened.

Cheney had to break the tie so there were 50 Senators who recognized the potential impending doom that would be caused by the tax cuts.

After the midterm in 2002, to justify the second round of huge tax cuts, Cheney was quoted as saying that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Now these frauds like Kasich and Ryan are screaming about deficits.

This is all very well known and we don't have to go wringing our hands and reading obscure experts to realize what's happening. We can even look back to the Hoover years, but by design kids in the US are becoming uneducated morons. This is also the basis for the attack on liberal arts education and the advance of anti intellectualism.

You act as if this is a novel situation requiring genius to solve. It's not and it doesn't.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
popolo said:
Not true. People like you just spout opinions which repeated enough become fact.

Both Paul O'Neill and Alan Greenspan wanted to include triggers in ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts which would have made them conditional.

This was in 2001 before O'Neill was fired. You really have to stop making stuff up.

There were a lot of people who were forward thinking as Cheney's vote was required to break the tie on the tax cut deal.

So please just stop with the fabrications.
and which way did cheney vote?
 

popolo

BANNED
Mar 21, 2011
77
0
0
patricknd said:
and which way did cheney vote?
Are you kidding?

What is your point of even submitting this post?

If you're serious, how can you even have a political opinion.

Whatever that opinion is, it would be based on NOTHING.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
popolo said:
Are you kidding?

What is your point of even submitting this post?

If you're serious, how can you even have a political opinion.

Whatever that opinion is, it would be based on NOTHING.
cheney's quote proves my original point. "deficits don't matter". but they do matter. we always have more bombs to buy and programs to fund, and everyone's cow is sacred. and we should all pay less taxes. we learn short term lessons. i love it when gas goes up and suddenly people start *****ing about mileage. then it goes back down and they keep the same guzzler, waiting for the inevitable rise so they can ***** again. we're just not very smart.
 
popolo said:
O'Neill was appointed/not elected as Treasury Secy and he along with Greenspan were recognized experts on the economy. What I wrote was extremely simple and to the point and you're complicating matters for whatever reason.

O'Neill and Greenspan argued that the surplus wasn't as large as it appeared and if the tax cuts were implemented at the level the political people in the administration wanted, and the economy slowed it would be a disaster.

That's exactly what happened.

Cheney had to break the tie so there were 50 Senators who recognized the potential impending doom that would be caused by the tax cuts.

After the midterm in 2002, to justify the second round of huge tax cuts, Cheney was quoted as saying that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Now these frauds like Kasich and Ryan are screaming about deficits.

This is all very well known and we don't have to go wringing our hands and reading obscure experts to realize what's happening. We can even look back to the Hoover years, but by design kids in the US are becoming uneducated morons. This is also the basis for the attack on liberal arts education and the advance of anti intellectualism.
You act as if this is a novel situation requiring genius to solve. It's not and it doesn't.
The problem is that the so called free states are having to increasingly rely upon having a consumer based public that caters to the leading populist trend (both socially and politically).

These trends, however, require a huge amount of conformism, which, according to the populist political class, are made to seem as "being with the times", "keeping up with the trends" and "following the innovations." In reality it's just mass conformism to keep the people drugged and satiated to not be bothered with everything else.

Now in this light it is easy to see why intellectualism and intellectuals are branded as aradical chic brand of elitist snobs, who only wish to attack what they, the populist ruling class (who are the real elites), say is in everybody's best interest. And because they know most people feel threatened by culture in this materialist age, and are insecure about what they don't consider, and know, the populist elites have little trouble in marginalizing the group it most despises.

We live in a populist democracy in which those that govern us wish to see everyone's standard brought down to the lowest common denominator. It's patriotic, its less tiring and ultimately to their benefit.

That this drugged-up and incapacitated social group as a whole is suffering from an incurable state of mental atrophy, is merely another story.
 

popolo

BANNED
Mar 21, 2011
77
0
0
You're all over the place

patricknd said:
cheney's quote proves my original point. "deficits don't matter". but they do matter..
Of course they matter but one side only looks at the spending side of the equation.

If deficits matter so much the money hoarders at the top shouldn't have gotten the tax cuts (Revenue side) extended period.

patricknd said:
we always have more bombs to buy and programs to fund, and everyone's cow is sacred.
Programs that provide Americans their basic sustenance are necessary but not according to T partiers. Summed up by Grayson, Republican health plan summary, don't get sick and if you get sick die quickly.


patricknd said:
and we should all pay less taxes..
Which party is that a religion for? Not the Democrats although, some are buying into the voodoo.

Even Voodoo's architect David Stockman says the Voodoo was BS.

patricknd said:
we learn short term lessons..
Jimmy Carter was trying to teach a long term lesson but he sucked as POTUS, right? What party says he was weak and sucked?

patricknd said:
i love it when gas goes up and suddenly people start *****ing about mileage. then it goes back down and they keep the same guzzler, waiting for the inevitable rise so they can ***** again. .
Which party fights like crazy against mileage standards and gives tax breaks to people buying SUV's?

patricknd said:
we're just not very smart.
Speak for yourself. Rhubroma and many others on this forum see which way we're heading and are attacked and marginalized.

How many people voted for GWB and Cheney who also said famously "Conservation is not a direction we want to go."

Please save your obfuscations. The current answers are very clear and have been seen clearly from the time of FDR. Unfortunately the Reagan revolution has appealed to the simpler folk who prefer not to be in the "reality based" world.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
popolo said:
Of course they matter but one side only looks at the spending side of the equation.

If deficits matter so much the money hoarders at the top shouldn't have gotten the tax cuts (Revenue side) extended period.

i haven't been arguing that we should have tax cuts. i run a small business (54 employees) and we're successful because we match our expenses to our income level. it's pretty simple.

Programs that provide Americans their basic sustenance are necessary but not according to T partiers. Summed up by Grayson, Republican health plan summary, don't get sick and if you get sick die quickly.

i pay all of the employee's medical insurance share and 1/2 of their dependents share. you think i don't want insurance reform?


Which party is that a religion for? Not the Democrats although, some are buying into the voodoo.

Even Voodoo's architect David Stockman says the Voodoo was BS.

did you not get the sarcasm in my statement on taxes? try being a little less combative and see that sometimes people are agreeing with you

Jimmy Carter was trying to teach a long term lesson but he sucked as POTUS, right? What party says he was weak and sucked?

considering the margin in that election, i'd guess both parties. Carter was too decent and much too naive about people's motivations to be president.

Which party fights like crazy against mileage standards and gives tax breaks to people buying SUV's?

and when will we make good decisions on what we purchase? my car gets 27mpg in the city and my bergman (scooter)gets about 55. personal accountability needs to figure into the equation as well.

Speak for yourself. Rhubroma and many others on this forum see which way we're heading and are attacked and marginalized.

disagreement isn't an attack. rhub is a big boy and defends himself quite nicely

How many people voted for GWB and Cheney who also said famously "Conservation is not a direction we want to go."

don't blame me, i voted for myself

Please save your obfuscations. The current answers are very clear and have been seen clearly from the time of FDR. Unfortunately the Reagan revolution has appealed to the simpler folk who prefer not to be in the "reality based" world.
run for office and make the changes
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Sure, situations like that with O'Neill happen. It's just rare, and rarely gets passed into law. Remember "Pay-go" when Clinton was Pres? How about Al Gore's "lock box"? About 10 pages ago I wrote about John Kasich's add-on/carve out long-term Social Security plan. He was very astute, until he sold his soul to money and the power of the far right in the GOP. But that's how he ended up governor of Ohio.

There actually are a few good people in politics. Just that the system is so corruptable it swallows almost everyone who enters it. And the few that do stand true to the principles they believed when elected end up marginalized, often by their own party. The Ron Paul's, Mike Gravel's, Dennis Kucinich's. Or they just get fired, like O'Niell.



You really should read some of Andrew Bacevich. This is precisely what he articulates. Here's his book on this very topic. And here's a blog about the war machine mess and defense spending's sacred cow. If you'd rather watch than read, here's a 27 minute interview with Bill Moyers.



You pretty much summed it up. But as I wrote about energy before, as this is very much about energy, you don't want to get caught in a false dilemma like many politicians do. This isn't a cut and dry issue of get oil from the Middle East or drill our own country to nothing (or both!). There are other forms of adaptation. Sadly, we hardly explore them or broach them at all. Even in the very aggressive last 5 years or so, there's really been only a small amount of change to electric anything. We've had the opportunity to pursue wind and solar power (and nukes even) for decades. President Carter spoke about it in his famously drab "Malaise Speech". No one wanted to hear it then, and many don't want to hear it now. We'd rather change only when absolutely forced to, when the oil is all but gone. And according to some alarmists like former CIA agent turned investigative journalist Michael Ruppert, that day is closer than we realize.
Great post Alpe. I guess my opinion's on the troop murders in Afgan.. was not the popular opinon and everyone more or less agrees with Rubbromer on this one. Sad situation regardless.

I have said it before but I want to say it again. If we would have left President Carters Energy policy alone the United States would have been much better off than we are now. I am not sure who done it but right about the time we all started seeing SUV’s (1990’s) is when something should have clicked in our heads…..WTF or why the Fhhuu… are all the vehicles becoming larger???????????????????????????? I thought we went through this in the early 70’s and we all saw how that experiment worked out. NOT worth a ****.

It is a shame President Carter gets such a bad rap. I know he was a humble man with real genuine beliefs and humble opinions. He is punished for that supposed weakness every day when people tear down anything he tried to accomplish.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-energy/

If you go back to youtube or another presidential archives and listen to his plans and speeches he had great ideas and ideals. All torn down.

While I am on the soapbox I want to add that ……..In my opinion the tax cut was a mistake. It is some double speak on my part but I believe if we were to put the taxes back in place or in fact RAISE them to the same tax rate as was in place during President Reagan’s years we would be facing much less troubles.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
0
0
patricknd said:
run for office and make the changes
Well, that's the beauty of the system. Yes, people do run for office and some even get elected. How? Sadly, it's mostly name recognition instead of the actual issues. And how do you get name recognition? Money, money money. And even name recognition isn't enough if your counterpart goes negative. Which again requires money money money (from both sides).

Think about it, Obama raised about 1 billion for the presidential campaign alone. I don't have numbers for senate or congressional seats, but depending on whether it's a swing district or not, it can get really really expensive.

Now enter the 'Citizens United' case. A lot of money which now can pour into those races can (and do) come from corporations (domestic or foreign), and mostly go to the Republican side (although elements of Wall Street and George Soros have donated heavily to the Obama campaign as well). The only other large counterpart on the left are unions. That's precisely why union busting is going on in many states. Once some of the unions are made superfluous (by eliminating collective bargaining rights), the assumption is that there's much less of a monetary counterweight on the left, and the right can essentially buy elections.

Yes, you can try to run on the left, and some candidates even win, but it's been made harder recently, and that trend is continuing. All aspects of the country are remade to benefit corporations instead of the citizens with the idea that if corporations do well, so does the country. But that is a false premise.
 
popolo said:
Of course they matter but one side only looks at the spending side of the equation.

If deficits matter so much the money hoarders at the top shouldn't have gotten the tax cuts (Revenue side) extended period.
No disagreement here. The argument was and still is, that cutting them creates jobs. I have to admit at his point I find such a concept laughable. Were you aware that companies such as GE, Bank of America and several others paid ZERO federal tax dollars last year? Not one single dollar. You personally paid more than they did. And yet, despite the disastrous last five years, we still somehow think it's going to work having them pay nothing. Both Repubs and most Dems think that way too. The strange thing is that not only Stockman, but now Art Laffer is changing his tune. He's pessimistic about the economy, thinks there isn't enough money in the hands of people to help move it to grow the economy, and he now favors a flat tax. Yet for some reason the majority of congress and political leaders cling to this economic draining supply-side theory.

I don't know what the disagreement is about deficits? If we're to cut that, we need to look at a lot more than we are. I think we all agree. As Stockman said, if you locked all of Congress in a room they would come up with $50b in net fixes, when we need to be looking at $1.3 trillion, and tax cuts aren't going to do it. We need to look at taxes, sure, but also defense, overhaul (replacement) of Medicare and Medicaid. That's where all the money is. If we want to save another .001% we can look at cuts for Public Broadcasting, National Parks and such.

If one doesn't like Stockman, just look at David Walker, he's about as impartial, and knowledgeable, as it gets when talking about budgets.

As to Carter, while I think he was dead right on energy and had great foresight on the issue, I am only going to defend the guy so much. He had a pretty negative view of things, when the press questioned him he acted like they were asking questions he didn't need to answer, and he wasn't very aggressive on stopping stagflation, which was rampant at the time. Then there was Bert Lance' corruption problem, and Carter's poor communication with Cyrus Vance made him look like he was out of touch with his staff. To his credit, he had cut the budget deficit way down. And I have to believe had the Delta Force managed to get the hostages out of Iran, he would have been reelected, and probably would have had a better second term than his first. Second biggest election in my lifetime as far as significance and impact when Reagan beat Carter (Bush-Gore was the biggest).
 

popolo

BANNED
Mar 21, 2011
77
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
No disagreement here. The argument was and still is, that cutting them creates jobs. I have to admit at his point I find such a concept laughable. Were you aware that companies such as GE, Bank of America and several others paid ZERO federal tax dollars last year? Not one single dollar. You personally paid more than they did. And yet, despite the disastrous last five years, we still somehow think it's going to work having them pay nothing. Both Repubs and most Dems think that way too. The strange thing is that not only Stockman, but now Art Laffer is changing his tune. He's pessimistic about the economy, thinks there isn't enough money in the hands of people to help move it to grow the economy, and he now favors a flat tax. Yet for some reason the majority of congress and political leaders cling to this economic draining supply-side theory.

I don't know what the disagreement is about deficits? If we're to cut that, we need to look at a lot more than we are. I think we all agree. As Stockman said, if you locked all of Congress in a room they would come up with $50b in net fixes, when we need to be looking at $1.3 trillion, and tax cuts aren't going to do it. We need to look at taxes, sure, but also defense, overhaul (replacement) of Medicare and Medicaid. That's where all the money is. If we want to save another .001% we can look at cuts for Public Broadcasting, National Parks and such.

If one doesn't like Stockman, just look at David Walker, he's about as impartial, and knowledgeable, as it gets when talking about budgets.

As to Carter, while I think he was dead right on energy and had great foresight on the issue, I am only going to defend the guy so much. He had a pretty negative view of things, when the press questioned him he acted like they were asking questions he didn't need to answer, and he wasn't very aggressive on stopping stagflation, which was rampant at the time. Then there was Bert Lance' corruption problem, and Carter's poor communication with Cyrus Vance made him look like he was out of touch with his staff. To his credit, he had cut the budget deficit way down. And I have to believe had the Delta Force managed to get the hostages out of Iran, he would have been reelected, and probably would have had a better second term than his first. Second biggest election in my lifetime as far as significance and impact when Reagan beat Carter (Bush-Gore was the biggest).
I largely agree with you BUT Clinton did balance the budget and in fact produced a surplus and he was hardly a liberal. That was only a few short years ago and surplusses were projected for all of GWB's possible two terms.

The problem is that a psychopathology regarding these tax cuts has taken over and the money hoarders are behind it.

Keynes labeled it a semi criminal, semi pathological propensity which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.

Had we had Rockefeller Republicans instead of Bush we wouldn't have put two wars on credit cards, it's obscene and obvious how wrong it is.

Now the propaganda has taken on a life of its own with all of the screwball fans of the Faux network programming.

Then we have the crazy Repugs against tax enforcement and hiring IRS staff which has been shown to recover $10 for every $1 spent.

That's what I call effective job creation.

As for the flat tax, that's another dodge. Progressive taxation has a long history with almost overwhelming support except for the money hoarders.

One last thing, Reagan's victory over Carter, was wholly style over substance. We've also seen how ruthless the money grabbers are over the last 30 years.
 

popolo

BANNED
Mar 21, 2011
77
0
0
patricknd said:
run for office and make the changes
I've largely abandoned sarcasm myself and when I use it, it's a failing.

Maybe I shouldn't bounce from the clinic to here because some of the argument sused in the clinic almost defy logic.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
We all keep saying we agree, but then we keep bickering. We are falling into the trap that keeps us under control of the people with the money. They keep us focused on labels and nonsense, while they shake out the last nickel. Red falls for it, Glenn falls for it, we almost all do. If they keep us yelling at each other we will never notice what is being done to all of us.:cool:
 

popolo

BANNED
Mar 21, 2011
77
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
We all keep saying we agree, but then we keep bickering. We are falling into the trap that keeps us under control of the people with the money. They keep us focused on labels and nonsense, while they shake out the last nickel. Red falls for it, Glenn falls for it, we almost all do. If they keep us yelling at each other we will never notice what is being done to all of us.:cool:
Well, Obama won a huge mandate for us and turned out to be a Trojan Horse.

That only set us back about a generation. Seriously...
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
popolo said:
Well, Obama won a huge mandate for us and turned out to be a Trojan Horse.

That only set us back about a generation. Seriously...
True, but try to picture where we would be with President McCain and Vice-President Twit.
All we seem to get is a choice between bad and awful.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
True, but try to picture where we would be with President McCain and Vice-President Twit.
All we seem to get is a choice between bad and awful.
i've been flipping a coin for years. out of curiosity, to everyone here, who is the last candidate that really got you excited?
 
I was thinking more along the lines that we should have elected Hillary over Obama. I'm certain she would have beaten McCain as well. Maybe not the nicest lady, but very likely a much better decision maker.

As far as "last candidate" I was pretty impressed with the detail of Paul Tsongas proposals back in...1992. Obama was an emotional choice. "Hope" was definitely a good catch phrase. I hoped. I also hope to win the lottery.

popolo said:
I largely agree with you BUT Clinton did balance the budget and in fact produced a surplus and he was hardly a liberal. That was only a few short years ago and surplusses were projected for all of GWB's possible two terms.
I didn't mention Clinton in my previous posts. Generally agree with you though. Even Art Laffer speaks very highly of Clinton.

As I said about 20 pages ago, I don't equate today's angry and bitter Republicans with Reagan. I didn't agree with many of his policies, but he had unbridled enthusiasm and it gave the mood in the country a real shot in the arm. And as I noted, neither Stockman or Laffer from his staff agree with today's GOP.

I'm not specifically for a flat tax. The main real advantage it has is that it makes the tax code much harder to warp and corrupt in theory. And as I noted many times, that's the root of the problem. People using large amounts of money to buy access to politicians and influence them, and the politicians in return benefit those go make the donations. The entire "liberal vs. conservative" argument is just a distraction.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I was thinking more along the lines that we should have elected Hillary over Obama. I'm certain she would have beaten McCain as well. Maybe not the nicest lady, but very likely a much better decision maker.



I didn't mention Clinton in my previous posts. Generally agree with you though. Even Art Laffer speaks very highly of Clinton.

As I said about 20 pages ago, I don't equate today's angry and bitter Republicans with Reagan. I didn't agree with many of his policies, but he had unbridled enthusiasm and it gave the mood in the country a real shot in the arm. And as I noted, neither Stockman or Laffer from his staff agree with today's GOP.

I'm not specifically for a flat tax. The main real advantage it has is that it makes the tax code much harder to warp and corrupt in theory. And as I noted many times, that's the root of the problem. People using large amounts of money to buy access to politicians and influence them, and the politicians in return benefit those go make the donations. The entire "liberal vs. conservative" argument is just a distraction.
hillary was my choice. even if i didn't agree with some things she said, i felt like she had more integrity than any of the other choices, and as i get older, i value that more than anything else.
 
Jul 4, 2009
340
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm not specifically for a flat tax. The main real advantage it has is that it makes the tax code much harder to warp and corrupt in theory. And as I noted many times, that's the root of the problem. People using large amounts of money to buy access to politicians and influence them, and the politicians in return benefit those go make the donations. The entire "liberal vs. conservative" argument is just a distraction.
In reference to the bolded part, I believe a simple progressive tax with no deductions would be the best. If you made x amount pay y amount base on the charts. That is it. It would reduce fraud and simplify filing.

In reference to the underlined +10000. It is reducing our ability to fix issues because it is reduced to the other party's fault. We never talk about a solution just how it is not my fault we are this way. Crap look at the lack of constructive dialog on this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
S Non-Cycling Discussions 12

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS