Federal spending has NOT been out of control for 15 years; it’s been more like 30. Reagan and his obscene amount on military coupled with the crap “trickle down” theory started all this. Don’t put this on Clinton.
Problem is many of the business leaders in this country lack the character to do the right thing with any breaks. We see outlandish bonuses, corruption, and irresponsibility.
+1. You all HAVE to remember that our beloved government doesn’t do squat without Corporate America’s (and their lobbies’) approval. Our government officials are nothing more than CA’s bitches. Snip that, and you’ll see a government more responsive to the regular people and not to the elite.
And no, nothing will change come November, no matter how many incumbents are out, if all you’re gonna do is the same thing you’ve always done: traipse down to the precinct and vote for either Democrat or Republican, or go in there with the mindset of voting someone out instead of someone in. You do that and the problem continues, don’t bitch. You put them there.
Fair enough on Reagan. Though I think spending to defeat the Soviets vs. actually fighting them was worth the debt….. which is minute in comparison with what Bush and—especially Obama has racked up. Clinton…..LOL. Now, that guy was slick. I love how he claims he “balanced” the budget. Here’s an example…... let’s say Willie borrowed $100 million and only spent $90 million. Willie would say we have a $10 million surplus. Reality…... the county owed $100 million.
All in all, though, despite my conservative leanings, Clinton was not a bad president. (Probably because he was flanked by a conservative congress to keep him in check. ;>)) I actually listened to him during the 1996 election. Some of his ideas, though, I disagreed with them at least made sense. Far cry from this clown in the White House today.
Just wow! It’s amazing how some people can be so disinfranchised from the truth and fact. But again, it takes all kinds. I truly enjoy watching people’s reactions and thoughts. It’s honestly amazing…...
On a very serious note.. I’m very thankful I don’t see the world through your eyes.
Fair enough on Reagan. Though I think spending to defeat the Soviets vs. actually fighting them was worth the debt…..
We didn’t defeat the USSR; that nation imploded on its own via bad economy. Sound familiar?
Clinton wasn’t a bad president, however I do think he brought a huge black eye to the Office of the Presidency with the Monica scandal. When a nation’s leader does stuff like that, and he squirts around it (he was impeached but never removed from office), that nation loses a ton of respect worldwide. Particularly when that nation is the lone superpower.
So the Tea Party supports Democrats in places like Idaho? No one cares about Idaho. Smacks of obligatory non-partisanship to me. But, the TP was started by right-wing extremists and is a loud-mouthed Republican faction by origin. There’s no reason to believe they’re neutral - they want their extremist candidate in there, and extremist candidates are not good (Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein).
Fair enough on Reagan. Though I think spending to defeat the Soviets vs. actually fighting them was worth the debt…..
We didn’t defeat the USSR; that nation imploded on its own via bad economy. Sound familiar? Yeah….. scary true. Hope Barry’s paying attention. Let me re-phrase.: We defeated the Soviets militarily by out spending them. Soviets economy was bad and could not compete with ours—especially militarily. Reagan strategically took advantage of an economic opening to defeat an enemy without firing a shot. Heck, Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall. Hence…. glastnost and perestroika.
Clinton wasn’t a bad president, however I do think he brought a huge black eye to the Office of the Presidency with the Monica scandal. When a nation’s leader does stuff like that, and he squirts around it (he was impeached but never removed from office), that nation loses a ton of respect worldwide. Particularly when that nation is the lone superpower.
So the Tea Party supports Democrats in places like Idaho? No one cares about Idaho. Smacks of obligatory non-partisanship to me. But, the TP was started by right-wing extremists and is a loud-mouthed Republican faction by origin. There’s no reason to believe they’re neutral - they want their extremist candidate in there, and extremist candidates are not good (Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein).
Federal spending has NOT been out of control for 15 years; it’s been more like 30. Reagan and his obscene amount on military coupled with the crap “trickle down” theory started all this. Don’t put this on Clinton.
Problem is many of the business leaders in this country lack the character to do the right thing with any breaks. We see outlandish bonuses, corruption, and irresponsibility.
+1. You all HAVE to remember that our beloved government doesn’t do squat without Corporate America’s (and their lobbies’) approval. Our government officials are nothing more than CA’s bitches. Snip that, and you’ll see a government more responsive to the regular people and not to the elite.
And no, nothing will change come November, no matter how many incumbents are out, if all you’re gonna do is the same thing you’ve always done: traipse down to the precinct and vote for either Democrat or Republican, or go in there with the mindset of voting someone out instead of someone in. You do that and the problem continues, don’t bitch. You put them there.
Fair enough on Reagan. Though I think spending to defeat the Soviets vs. actually fighting them was worth the debt….. which is minute in comparison with what Bush and—especially Obama has racked up. Clinton…..LOL. Now, that guy was slick. I love how he claims he “balanced” the budget. Here’s an example…... let’s say Willie borrowed $100 million and only spent $90 million. Willie would say we have a $10 million surplus. Reality…... the county owed $100 million.
All in all, though, despite my conservative leanings, Clinton was not a bad president. (Probably because he was flanked by a conservative congress to keep him in check. ;>)) I actually listened to him during the 1996 election. Some of his ideas, though, I disagreed with them at least made sense. Far cry from this clown in the White House today.
Just wow! It’s amazing how some people can be so disinfranchised from the truth and fact. But again, it takes all kinds. I truly enjoy watching people’s reactions and thoughts. It’s honestly amazing…... Completely agree with you, here. Take a look in the mirror.
On a very serious note.. I’m very thankful I don’t see the world through your eyes.Again…. completely agree with you here.
Yeah….. scary true. Hope Barry’s paying attention. Let me re-phrase.: We defeated the Soviets militarily by out spending them. Soviets economy was bad and could not compete with ours—especially militarily. Reagan strategically took advantage of an economic opening to defeat an enemy without firing a shot. Heck, Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall. Hence…. glastnost and perestroika.
Very true, and here we are now two full decades later, and while we continue to pour money into our military our economy is going the way of the USSR as we speak. Our enemies won’t have to invade us or otherwise attack us militarily to defeat us. We’re killing ourselves quite nicely on our own. More military spending actually spirals us down the hole at an alarming rate. We’re gouging out our brain to save our muscles. And the regular Americans are paying for it all.
al-Qaeda doesn’t need military mobilization to defeat us. They just need to, as you say, take advantage of our gaping economic opening to destroy us. You can fly a jet through that hole, it’s easy pickings.
Fair enough on Reagan. Though I think spending to defeat the Soviets vs. actually fighting them was worth the debt…..
We didn’t defeat the USSR; that nation imploded on its own via bad economy. Sound familiar? All too familiar.
Clinton wasn’t a bad president, however I do think he brought a huge black eye to the Office of the Presidency with the Monica scandal. When a nation’s leader does stuff like that, and he squirts around it (he was impeached but never removed from office), that nation loses a ton of respect worldwide. Particularly when that nation is the lone. superpower.
I agree on both. He wasn’t a bad President, and I think he diminished the office.
So the Tea Party supports Democrats in places like Idaho? No one cares about Idaho. Smacks of obligatory non-partisanship to me. But, the TP was started by right-wing extremists and is a loud-mouthed Republican faction by origin. There’s no reason to believe they’re neutral - they want their extremist candidate in there, and extremist candidates are not good (Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein).
I guess the people in and around Idaho might. It is a state. The Tea Party has no reason to worry about such obligations, they have clearly outlined their perspective. Show me some Democrats that are seriously fiscally conservative and interested in the type of government the Tea Party advocates. I’m sure they would be willing to support them. The problem for democrats as far as being supported by the Tea Party is that they have so much invested in bashing the Tea Party that none of them could idenitify themselves that way or they would risk alienating the national party. I find it interesting that you would talk about the high debt being a problem and talk about how Washington is broken on both sides of the aisle, yet call people extremists that make the same points.
Who I call extremists are those who align themselves with either the far left or far right. For instance, those who loathe Obama are hard-core Republicans. Those who loathe Bush are hard-core lefties. I don’t see many who I truly believe are neutral, because on one hand they’re blasting both parties, yet they align themselves with the Tea Party. I don’t find many who publicly say they align with neither, and actually actually act like it.
As far as many liberals investing so much in bashing Tea Partiers, it’s ironic because the Tea Party is the one who began all this mudslinging bashfest.
Yeah….. scary true. Hope Barry’s paying attention. Let me re-phrase.: We defeated the Soviets militarily by out spending them. Soviets economy was bad and could not compete with ours—especially militarily. Reagan strategically took advantage of an economic opening to defeat an enemy without firing a shot. Heck, Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall. Hence…. glastnost and perestroika.
Very true, and here we are now two full decades later, and while we continue to pour money into our military our economy is going the way of the USSR as we speak. Our enemies won’t have to invade us or otherwise attack us militarily to defeat us. We’re killing ourselves quite nicely on our own. More military spending actually spirals us down the hole at an alarming rate. We’re gouging out our brain to save our muscles. And the regular Americans are paying for it all.
al-Qaeda doesn’t need military mobilization to defeat us. They just need to, as you say, take advantage of our gaping economic opening to destroy us. You can fly a jet through that hole, it’s easy pickings.
Couldn’t agree more, Marble. There needs to be spending cuts across the board.
Yeah….. scary true. Hope Barry’s paying attention. Let me re-phrase.: We defeated the Soviets militarily by out spending them. Soviets economy was bad and could not compete with ours—especially militarily. Reagan strategically took advantage of an economic opening to defeat an enemy without firing a shot. Heck, Gorbachev saw the writing on the wall. Hence…. glastnost and perestroika.
Very true, and here we are now two full decades later, and while we continue to pour money into our military our economy is going the way of the USSR as we speak. Our enemies won’t have to invade us or otherwise attack us militarily to defeat us. We’re killing ourselves quite nicely on our own. More military spending actually spirals us down the hole at an alarming rate. We’re gouging out our brain to save our muscles. And the regular Americans are paying for it all.
al-Qaeda doesn’t need military mobilization to defeat us. They just need to, as you say, take advantage of our gaping economic opening to destroy us. You can fly a jet through that hole, it’s easy pickings.
The Washington Consensus has failed we need to go back to Keynesian economics. It’s pretty sad that we haven’t learned anything from the Great Depression in terms of economic policy.
Who I call extremists are those who align themselves with either the far left or far right. For instance, those who loathe Obama are hard-core Republicans. Those who loathe Bush are hard-core lefties. I don’t see many who I truly believe are neutral, because on one hand they’re blasting both parties, yet they align themselves with the Tea Party. I don’t find many who publicly say they align with neither, and actually actually act like it..
I agree with most of what you say. I think it’s possible to not align with either party and then to align with the tea party or tea party ideas - if you are open to support a candidate that’s either a D, R or Libertarian if their views align with those yours.
Marble Rye - 03 August 2010 07:46 PM
As far as many liberals investing so much in bashing Tea Partiers, it’s ironic because the Tea Party is the one who began all this mudslinging bashfest.
I think the difference has been that the Tea Party members’ “mudslinging” has been to scream about policy versus the attacks on the messenger that they have received. The Tea Party members have gone after Democrats and Republicans based on policy. The people that attack them have rarely made any points on the policies they advocate, they have simply called them names and dismissed them.
Who I call extremists are those who align themselves with either the far left or far right. For instance, those who loathe Obama are hard-core Republicans. Those who loathe Bush are hard-core lefties. I don’t see many who I truly believe are neutral, because on one hand they’re blasting both parties, yet they align themselves with the Tea Party. I don’t find many who publicly say they align with neither, and actually actually act like it..
I agree with most of what you say. I think it’s possible to not align with either party and then to align with the tea party or tea party ideas - if you are open to support a candidate that’s either a D, R or Libertarian if their views align with those yours.
Marble Rye - 03 August 2010 07:46 PM
As far as many liberals investing so much in bashing Tea Partiers, it’s ironic because the Tea Party is the one who began all this mudslinging bashfest.
I think the difference has been that the Tea Party members’ “mudslinging” has been to scream about policy versus the attacks on the messenger that they have received. The Tea Party members have gone after Democrats and Republicans based on policy. The people that attack them have rarely made any points on the policies they advocate, they have simply called them names and dismissed them.
It’s called fear. The Tea Party message resonates with the American people. When you can’t attack the message…... attack the messenger.
he Washington Consensus has failed we need to go back to Keynesian economics. It’s pretty sad that we haven’t learned anything from the Great Depression in terms of economic policy.
Perhaps, if we specifically follow Paul Krugman’s lead, maybe. However, the bad seed that was planted that began this economic mess began before Keynesian economics was born - finance capitalism, which started in the late 1800s. Since that putrid era began, we’ve had wild swings in our economy, most notably in the Great Depression and now in the Great-Almost-Depression. Wild economic swings equal instability, and what nation can last long with that? Sure, we’ve made it over 100 years with this, but this is a totally unsustainable platform to build a strong economy.
Couple this century-long platform of instability with a decades-long military spending on the Cold War, and I’m not sure Keynesian econ is enough to fix anything.
he Washington Consensus has failed we need to go back to Keynesian economics. It’s pretty sad that we haven’t learned anything from the Great Depression in terms of economic policy.
Perhaps, if we specifically follow Paul Krugman’s lead, maybe. However, the bad seed that was planted that began this economic mess began before Keynesian economics was born - finance capitalism, which started in the late 1800s. Since that putrid era began, we’ve had wild swings in our economy, most notably in the Great Depression and now in the Great-Almost-Depression. Wild economic swings equal instability, and what nation can last long with that? Sure, we’ve made it over 100 years with this, but this is a totally unsustainable platform to build a strong economy.
Couple this century-long platform of instability with a decades-long military spending on the Cold War, and I’m not sure Keynesian econ is enough to fix anything.
If we do not follow Krugman the USA will end up having a lost decade like Japan in the 1990’s.
he Washington Consensus has failed we need to go back to Keynesian economics. It’s pretty sad that we haven’t learned anything from the Great Depression in terms of economic policy.
Perhaps, if we specifically follow Paul Krugman’s lead, maybe. However, the bad seed that was planted that began this economic mess began before Keynesian economics was born - finance capitalism, which started in the late 1800s. Since that putrid era began, we’ve had wild swings in our economy, most notably in the Great Depression and now in the Great-Almost-Depression. Wild economic swings equal instability, and what nation can last long with that? Sure, we’ve made it over 100 years with this, but this is a totally unsustainable platform to build a strong economy.
Couple this century-long platform of instability with a decades-long military spending on the Cold War, and I’m not sure Keynesian econ is enough to fix anything.
If we do not follow Krugman the USA will end up having a lost decade like Japan in the 1990’s.
True re Japan. Which reminds me, Japan is I believe now the #2 economy in the world so I’ll have to read up on how they got there. But yes, Japan’s bubble burst in the late 80s. Definitely don’t want to mimic China since there is a massive income gap between the few elite and the rest of the population. Japan or Canada IMO are good economies to mimic, but are they Krugman-Keynesian?
