Debate and Discussion

The Economy Is Going Well, Isn't It?
bobhhh at 9:49AM, Dec. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Mister Mxyzptlk
bobhhh
Well he did make it massively worse.

How exactly did he do that?

His tax cut for one which gave 10's of thousands of dollars back to people who didn't need it, while most american got $300, then there was the estate tax where he allowed large amounts of wealth to be transferred upon death without being taxed, and let's not forget his off the map multibillion dollar war of aggression in Iraq. Not to mention his deregulation and sweetheart treatment of the energy industry.

Can anyone say Enron??

Mister Mxyzptlk
As for the war, a majority of Americans WANTED the war. They were SCREAMING for SOMEONE to PAY!!!

For 9/11 sure. But what does that have to do with Iraq?? We have easily spent more $$ we don't have on Iraq, and spent the lives of more servicemen there than we ever will in Afghanistan.

So don't pretend poor old George was forced into iraq by the American public. If any support for Iraq was present at the beginning, it was because of lie after lie from Cheney and Bush linking Hussein with 9/11 and pretending he had a nuke within his immediate grasp.

I wonder if you actually believe this stuff sometimes.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
imshard at 10:11AM, Dec. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Thank you for watching the cynic vs bobhhh happy funtime hour!

Any number of social well-being programs could be paid for with the war funding. In this conflict it is wasteful. To stay in perspective world war two cost a modern equivalent of 3 trillion dollars. Incredibly it boosted the economy out of the Great Depression instead of sundering it. Question we should be asking is whether the current spending trend will help or hurt the economy like the last Great War did.

Oh a funny thing about tax cuts, the federal government made $45 billion more as a result of the most recent cuts. For some reason people who have lower taxes earn more money. Despite the unthinking chant of “tax cuts for the rich” rank and file Americans did benefit. I give no credit to the presidency for this. People with more resources (cash) are able to better improve their situations.

Also: the Dollar just gained over the Euro again. (really though, daily fluctuations in currency values shouldn't be used as evidence in debates)
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
bobhhh at 10:28AM, Dec. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
To stay in perspective world war two cost a modern equivalent of 3 trillion dollars. Incredibly it boosted the economy out of the Great Depression instead of sundering it. Question we should be asking is whether the current spending trend will help or hurt the economy like the last Great War did.

First of all, FDR's policies after the great depression restarted our economy enough so that we were able to build up for the war effort.

Secondly, our investment in the rebuilding of europe had a lot to do with our financial ascendancy after the war. It didn't hurt that we actually won the damn thing, unlike what's happening in the middle east now.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 10:34AM, Dec. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
bobhhh
His tax cut for one which gave 10's of thousands of dollars back to people who didn't need it

Of course you are the ultimate judge of who needs what in the US… IF you decide they don't need it then they bloody well better be giving it up!

bobhhh
while most american got $300

Most Americans didn't pay all that much in taxes. Why should they get a greater refund than the amount they paid?

bobhhh
then there was the estate tax where he allowed large amounts of wealth to be transferred upon death without being taxed

Like family farms and small businesses… Yeah, those bastards need to pay for their success!

bobhhh
let's not forget his off the map multibillion dollar war of aggression in Iraq.

Which a majority of Americans supported along with a majority of foreign nations.

bobhhh
Not to mention his deregulation and sweetheart treatment of the energy industry.

Gee, the industries that heat our homes and fuel our vehicles and thus the economy… Yeah, those bastards need to be beaten down until the economy reels from their suffering. That will show them for their success in the market!

bobhhh
Can anyone say Enron??

Are you asking because you can't?

bobhhh
For 9/11 sure. But what does that have to do with Iraq?

Ah hindsight. Always so clear, always so pure. Too bad we don't have a time machine so we can do back and say “hey, this Iraq thing, dude it's just not going to go well.”
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
imshard at 10:48AM, Dec. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
bobhhh
imshard
To stay in perspective world war two cost a modern equivalent of 3 trillion dollars. Incredibly it boosted the economy out of the Great Depression instead of sundering it. Question we should be asking is whether the current spending trend will help or hurt the economy like the last Great War did.

First of all, FDR's policies after the great depression restarted our economy enough so that we were able to build up for the war effort.

Secondly, our investment in the rebuilding of europe had a lot to do with our financial ascendancy after the war. It didn't hurt that we actually won the damn thing, unlike what's happening in the middle east now.

Rebuilding Europe? isn't that what we're trying to do in Iraq? pay for rebuilding? Europe never paid us back either but like you said we profited from it because years down the line the seeds we planted 60 years ago bloomed into modern europe. Bush is just counting on the same thing happening in the middle east. Politicians and Bush's opposition just don't want to wait that long.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
bobhhh at 10:53AM, Dec. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
bobhhh
imshard
To stay in perspective world war two cost a modern equivalent of 3 trillion dollars. Incredibly it boosted the economy out of the Great Depression instead of sundering it. Question we should be asking is whether the current spending trend will help or hurt the economy like the last Great War did.

First of all, FDR's policies after the great depression restarted our economy enough so that we were able to build up for the war effort.

Secondly, our investment in the rebuilding of europe had a lot to do with our financial ascendancy after the war. It didn't hurt that we actually won the damn thing, unlike what's happening in the middle east now.

Rebuilding Europe? isn't that what we're trying to do in Iraq? pay for rebuilding? Europe never paid us back either but like you said we profited from it because years down the line the seeds we planted 60 years ago bloomed into modern europe. Bush is just counting on the same thing happening in the middle east. Politicians and Bush's opposition just don't want to wait that long.

No its not the same, because in europe we really were greeted as liberators by a populace who wanted us and our help after actually winning a war.

In Iraq we are unwelcome occupiers who failed to win the war successfully. We allow mercenaries to run rampant, torture citizens without due process and profiteer off every aspect of the lame reconstruction effort.

My parents told me stories of how Americans were loved in Greece after WW2 for all their assistance and for defeating the fascists.

Ask Iraqis how much they love us.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
imshard at 11:27AM, Dec. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
bobhhh
imshard
bobhhh
imshard
To stay in perspective world war two cost a modern equivalent of 3 trillion dollars. Incredibly it boosted the economy out of the Great Depression instead of sundering it. Question we should be asking is whether the current spending trend will help or hurt the economy like the last Great War did.

First of all, FDR's policies after the great depression restarted our economy enough so that we were able to build up for the war effort.

Secondly, our investment in the rebuilding of europe had a lot to do with our financial ascendancy after the war. It didn't hurt that we actually won the damn thing, unlike what's happening in the middle east now.

Rebuilding Europe? isn't that what we're trying to do in Iraq? pay for rebuilding? Europe never paid us back either but like you said we profited from it because years down the line the seeds we planted 60 years ago bloomed into modern europe. Bush is just counting on the same thing happening in the middle east. Politicians and Bush's opposition just don't want to wait that long.

No its not the same, because in europe we really were greeted as liberators by a populace who wanted us and our help after actually winning a war.

In Iraq we are unwelcome occupiers who failed to win the war successfully. We allow mercenaries to run rampant, torture citizens without due process and profiteer off every aspect of the lame reconstruction effort.

My parents told me stories of how Americans were loved in Greece after WW2 for all their assistance and for defeating the fascists.

Ask Iraqis how much they love us.

Of course its not the same. Its a different country and culture involved. But have you been there? How would you know how we're treated or thought of other than what CNN tells you? I'm more willing accept the “Iraqis hate us” angle from somebody who has been there. We were unwelcome in Germany too, but that changed after we occupied their country and waited out the cold war for them. Don't forget we will never leave completely, once we invade a country we leave a few bases. Just look at the the Pacific and Europe we still have major bases in countries that were both allies and enemies. It really doesn't matter what the Iraqis think of us since most of the “insurgents” are in fact not Iraqis but rather Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanian for the most part.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 7:52AM, Dec. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
bobhhh
No its not the same, because in europe we really were greeted as liberators by a populace who wanted us and our help after actually winning a war.

That doesn't count. The French greeted Hitler as a liberator too. The French would have greeted Stalin as a liberator had he been the one to get there first.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
TnTComic at 8:07AM, Dec. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Still feeding the troll?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 8:07AM, Dec. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
TnTComic
Still feeding the troll?

Yeah, bobhhh looks so skinny. I feel sorry for him.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
bobhhh at 11:34AM, Dec. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
TnTComic
Still feeding the troll?

No I have started ignoring him.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
bobhhh at 11:58AM, Dec. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
Of course its not the same. Its a different country and culture involved. But have you been there? How would you know how we're treated or thought of other than what CNN tells you?

Something tells me that CNN isn't lying about roadside bombs and crowds of people and angry clerics denouncing Bush. Idon't remember any of that in the newsreels.

imshard
We were unwelcome in Germany too, but that changed after we occupied their country and waited out the cold war for them. Don't forget we will never leave completely, once we invade a country we leave a few bases.

Of course the Germans hated us, we just kicked their ass and proved they weren't as superior a race as they thought they were. But ask the French, English and the Greeks how hapy they were. First we kicked out the fascists, then we rebuilt their infrastucture and fed their people. Iraquis still only have a couple of hors of electricity a day and a majority of building projects on no bid contracts go unfinished and overbudget. The oil is flowing though, first things first!!

imshard
Just look at the the Pacific and Europe we still have major bases in countries that were both allies and enemies.

We were protecting them and ourselves from the boogeyman of Soviet expansion. How ever you want to criticise they prosecution of the cold war, many of those countries wanted us there long term.

Who are we protecting the Iraquis from??? It seems they need prtecting from us considering what a mess we made of their country.

imshard
It really doesn't matter what the Iraqis think of us since most of the “insurgents” are in fact not Iraqis but rather Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanian for the most part.

Yeah that's because we let them in with our lamebrained, half hearted effort to take their country. After all There was no Al qaeda under Hussein, right?? And before thereare claims of 20/20 hindsight, remember that lots of military people lost their jobs in the upper brass for telling Rumsfeld the truth about invading a country like Iraq. They were warned that they would need at least 300,000 troops to take and near a decade to stablize the region.

But Rummy was afraid he couldn't sell that to the American public, so this fiction of a clean, swift war that would generate a Democratic, secular US ally was born. And all criticism of the strategy was silenced.

In short the basic points of WW2 and Iraq couldn't be more different, not just because they are different countries, but because the true goals and prosecution are totally different.

So to get back to the original point, we will stand to lose our investment in Iraq, and that is the legacy Bush will leave us, a tanked economy that will burden generations to come.

I bet they will build him a library.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
imshard at 9:11AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
They always build a library. You'll find no argument from me that the Gub'ment blew it on Iraq. Doubly I resent having to borrow from other countries to fund it.

Newsreels? Come now first off US forces were allowed to hunt down and execute on site any mal-contents in occupied Europe. The German “wolf-packs” being a classic example. Patton had them searched out and shot without trial or compliance. Second communications and the spread of information were not as effective back then and any information available to the public went through censors and many many screenings before it hit the US.

Such measures are impossible today. Summary killings of captured hostiles is grounds for international uproar these days. It is now posh for the media to decry the war effort instead of being required to support it.

And now the infamous “insurgent” actions are dropping to all-time lows because our field commanders finally have the man-power to maintain control. Yes the same man-power rumy was told he'd need n the first place. This investment is not lost and whining about it is not going to help anybody. As always we should focus on whats next instead of what came last.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
TnTComic at 9:44AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
imshard
And now the infamous “insurgent” actions are dropping to all-time lows because our field commanders finally have the man-power to maintain control. Yes the same man-power rumy was told he'd need n the first place. This investment is not lost and whining about it is not going to help anybody. As always we should focus on whats next instead of what came last.

So we're finally where we should've been years ago. Okay. Now what? Doesn't change the problem we have when we leave.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
bobhhh at 9:48AM, Dec. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
imshard
They always build a library. You'll find no argument from me that the Gub'ment blew it on Iraq. Doubly I resent having to borrow from other countries to fund it.

Ok so we differ on foreign policy and military excess, but it sounds like on the major point of this thread we agree Bush is largely responsible for the economy being in the shitter, and that his war will not turn the profit for us that WW2 did.

More likely if Iraq does come back from chaos at our expense, they will just join OPEC, blow us off and keep all their oil $$.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 4:27PM, Dec. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
TnTComic
Doesn't change the problem we have when we leave.

It took the US 50 years to leave Germany… Why do you think leaving Iraq will go any faster?
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
bobhhh at 10:26PM, Dec. 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
TnTComic
imshard
And now the infamous “insurgent” actions are dropping to all-time lows because our field commanders finally have the man-power to maintain control. Yes the same man-power rumy was told he'd need n the first place. This investment is not lost and whining about it is not going to help anybody. As always we should focus on whats next instead of what came last.

So we're finally where we should've been years ago. Okay. Now what? Doesn't change the problem we have when we leave.

Exactly!!! When we leave.

Bush and his cronies are hoping we never will. They want a stake in the game. The Neocons will try to justify it by pointing to Europe and say we are still there to remind the Commies to stay away, and we need to stay in Iraq to keep the terrorists at bay.

But the middle east is not Russia. We will have to leave Iraq eventually and then all of the security we have bought will evaporate overnight and the Iraqis will either take control of their nation immediately or it will descend into chaos first. Every day we remain there only postpones the inevitable.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 8:45AM, Dec. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
bobhhh
Bush and his cronies are hoping we never will. They want a stake in the game.

Not just the Bush gang wants a piece of that action. There are a number of groups that think having bases in the middle east would be a good thing.

But go ahead and blame Bush and his buddies for everything. It seems all you lefties can do. I suppose you thank your warm and fuzzy lord every day for Bush winning. Because had Gore or Kerry won then you'd have to be coming up with lame excuses for why all this was still happening…
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
Aurora Moon at 8:54AM, Dec. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Mister Mxyzptlk
bobhhh
Bush and his cronies are hoping we never will. They want a stake in the game.

Not just the Bush gang wants a piece of that action. There are a number of groups that think having bases in the middle east would be a good thing.

But go ahead and blame Bush and his buddies for everything. It seems all you lefties can do. I suppose you thank your warm and fuzzy lord every day for Bush winning. Because had Gore or Kerry won then you'd have to be coming up with lame excuses for why all this was still happening…

I'm what you would call a “left-wing”, I suppose… yet I don't blame bush for everything.

Even I can see that there's corrupt groups on both sides who certainly has special interests in having bases, stakes in oil, etc.
I can even say that Clinton got the ball rolling. However, to deny that bush didn't do anything wrong is foolish. He's in charge now, and he certainly did help that ball keep on rolling.

Bush is the one in power now, So he certainly bears some of the responsblity for what is going on.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
bobhhh at 9:07AM, Dec. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Aurora Moon
I'm what you would call a “left-wing”, I suppose… yet I don't blame bush for everything.

Even I can see that there's corrupt groups on both sides who certainly has special interests in having bases, stakes in oil, etc.
I can even say that Clinton got the ball rolling. However, to deny that bush didn't do anything wrong is foolish. He's in charge now, and he certainly did help that ball keep on rolling.

Bush is the one in power now, So he certainly bears some of the responsblity for what is going on.

Actually Bush senior got the ball rolling on screwing Hussein and entering Iraq. Clinton just continued the no fly zones, which was bad I agree, but not as bad as what Bush JR. did.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 9:26AM, Dec. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
bobhhh
Actually Bush senior got the ball rolling on screwing Hussein and entering Iraq. Clinton just continued the no fly zones, which was bad I agree, but not as bad as what Bush JR. did.

But who put Hussein in power in the first place? He came to power in the 60's with the help of the CIA. Now which party had control of the white house in the 60's again?

Oh right. JFK and LBJ. Democrats.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
Mister Mxyzptlk at 9:28AM, Dec. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 377
joined: 11-3-2007
Aurora Moon
Bush is the one in power now, So he certainly bears some of the responsibility for what is going on.

I agree. SOME of the blame. But many on the left act like everything bad in the last 100 years was the fault of Republicans and everything wonderful and great was done by Democrats.
My soul was removed to make room for all this sarcasm.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:04PM
Aurora Moon at 1:23PM, Dec. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Mister Mxyzptlk
Aurora Moon
Bush is the one in power now, So he certainly bears some of the responsibility for what is going on.

I agree. SOME of the blame. But many on the left act like everything bad in the last 100 years was the fault of Republicans and everything wonderful and great was done by Democrats.

Yeah, that's certainly illogical. And plus it's giving the moron WAY TOO MUCH credit to assume that he even had that much power to start with. I think some of those people are partly blaming Bush JR for the “sins” of Bush senior.
Lump them together, and then people like to think of him as this dangerous evil man with a lot of power.

Which is stupid, as seeing they're completely two different people. For one thing, Bush JR doesn't seem to have the same “intelligence” as Bush Senior…that much is obvious, at least I hope so.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Dark_Elf_Designs at 9:35AM, Jan. 10, 2008
(offline)
posts: 79
joined: 3-29-2007
I have a radical idea how about taxing the rich a higher percentage than the middle class? or better yet how about taxing them at least as much.

Gordon CSA
Weird, If anything, I thought of the 2000 election as being more messed up than the 2004 one. And the popular vote should. Though thats for another thread.

A public work progam got us out of the last depression. Maybe we need another one to avoid another depression. And the money to pay them comes from taxes. In fact, instead of just taxing the rich, just have an automatic tax on all celebrities. Hehe. Or a giant team of tax-in hoods, taxing the rich to give to the poor. :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:08PM
Dark_Elf_Designs at 9:44AM, Jan. 10, 2008
(offline)
posts: 79
joined: 3-29-2007
I dunno if I am right left or middle but I do know what should be common sense and what is actually going on. I also know that things that seem to be logical and mathematically correct have no place among anything having to do with politics or congress for some reason. It's kinda like how the economy should be our number one priority and should have been for decades now, but suddenly stereroids are a more important issue right now. Or maybe it's WOMD's, or some other issue that is anything but the economy directly.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:08PM
bobhhh at 10:22AM, Jan. 10, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Dark_Elf_Designs
I dunno if I am right left or middle but I do know what should be common sense and what is actually going on. I also know that things that seem to be logical and mathematically correct have no place among anything having to do with politics or congress for some reason. It's kinda like how the economy should be our number one priority and should have been for decades now, but suddenly stereroids are a more important issue right now. Or maybe it's WOMD's, or some other issue that is anything but the economy directly.

I think there is a fundamental disconnect among people who influence the Economy. On one side you have the people who say let the rich have more money because they drive the economy and it trickles down to the poor. Conversely you have the people who say tax the rich and have government stimulate the economy and give assistance to those who need it so they can lift themselves out of poverty and join the tax roll.

Personally I feel that either extreme is dangerous, because extremes are always in danger of being too rigid. If, however , I had lean toward one side, I would have to say tax the rich more for several reasons.

1- They can afford it. The notion that if you cut taxes for rich people they will spend more assumes they won't do so if you tax them heavier. That's pure bunk. People who are in the top bracket, who make more than several million a year spend lots of money because they are rich. Taxes don't hurt them because they have a buttload money, more than they are likely to spend in a lifetime.

2- Living in a free society is a privelige. There is a long tradition of rich people realizing this and turning towards philanthropy especially as they draw near an audience with their maker. If this was more common we would be okay, but frankly the majority of rich people are greedy and selfish and have active disdain for poor people, often thinking that they are deservedly poor because they lack iniative. People who benefit so greatly from our economy should be compelled to give more to foster opportunities for those who weren't as fortuanate as them and didn't have the resorces they did because they grew up in poverty instead of affluence.

3-Trickle down is a fantasy. Reagan talked up this trickle down economics and all that happened is the middle class shrunk and less upper middle class people became wealthy as opposed to lower middleclass people who became poor. Rewind to the Great Depression and you see how government spending pretty much saved the economy and acted as a safety net for a huge sector of the public who were cast suddenly into poverty. Whn you give tax breaks to businesses and rich people, all they do is devise ways to avoid paying their fair share. Businesses especially have a math attitude towards money:More is better no matter what the means. If you give assitance and aid to poor people and allow them to lift themselves out of poverty, then the economy rises from the bottom up, more people are able to spend money and therefore fuel the economy.

Finally I believe the ultimate soultion is to scrap income tax altogether, sales tax is really the only way to ensure that people pay their fair share. It's really quite simple, if you spend a lot of money, then you pay more taxes, there are no loopholes. No deductions. As I said above, rich people are still going to buy stuff. If you think higher sales tax is going to stop millionaires from buying iphones and luxury cars, you are being intellectually dishonest. Sure some will try to avoid paying taxes by shopping abroad, but you just have to make them pay duty upon reentering the country. Similarly businesses would have to pay taxes on their expenditures unless its directly related to resale. While we're at it, we could eliminate exemptions from property tax for religious institutions, wouldn't it be nice to see the Church of Scientology and the Vatican pony up some taxes???

Personally I feel a lot of the problem with so called welfare is that we have this protestant ethic in this country that asking for help is an affront to god. It makes people who can give disrespect those who need and makes those who need feel inferior for asking and receiving assistance.

I talk a lot about my trouble with religion. A lot of it is because I see so many people who insist we are a Christian nation act so patently UN-Christian once it comes to their money.

I have to ask all those Christian cinservatives who want to chloroform welfare and oppose a national heathcare system…

WWJD?



My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
CharleyHorse at 5:14PM, Jan. 10, 2008
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
I agree that both extremes are bad for a nation. We are going to see just how much damage the republican leadership's radical practice of 'borrow heavily and spend more heavily yet so as mortgage off the nation's future while giving to the already wealthy in this nation' is going to do to us down the line.

Most reputable economic experts agree that the nation is sliding in languid slow motion into a major recession, and it is going to be of a lengthy duration and perhaps come perilously close to becoming a depression. So much for extremist republican leadership economic policies and practices.

What I hope the new democrat congress and president do after the election is to begin taxing the wealthy again , tax big business heavily indeed, telling them that this is the cost of doing business in this nation and that if they don't like it they can then consider themselves foreign business and be treated accordingly. As it is they enjoy all the benefits of declaring themselves U.S. business without paying anything of any substance for the privilege. That has got to stop.

We have to then make it a priority to begin paying down the trillions and trillions of dollars of debt that George Bush and the republican party deliberately placed us into.

Most important of all we must once again begin opening the windows and doors of opportunity for the lower classes that were very nearly nailed shut during the G.W. Bush era. If we do not then the United States will become sharply divided into the haves and the have-everythings, with only a small middle class between the two acting as a buffer.

Of course this would require a brilliant and determined president and an experienced and ruthlessly efficient staff and political machine along with a strong democrat majority legislative branch to even begin undoing some of the most blatant harm that Bush policies have done to this nation. This would require Hillary Clinton, therefore, as she has all of the necessary requirements and is ready to be a fully functioning president from day one. But can even she and her experienced and efficient staff and a heavily democrat legislative branch be enough to keep us from sliding into a long recession? I honestly doubt it.

I think that this is just how much Bush and his fellow criminals have damaged this nation.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM
imshard at 8:43PM, Jan. 10, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
CharleyHorse
I agree that both extremes are bad for a nation. We are going to see just how much damage the republican leadership's radical practice of 'borrow heavily and spend more heavily yet so as mortgage off the nation's future while giving to the already wealthy in this nation' is going to do to us down the line.

Most reputable economic experts agree that the nation is sliding in languid slow motion into a major recession, and it is going to be of a lengthy duration and perhaps come perilously close to becoming a depression. So much for extremist republican leadership economic policies and practices.

What I hope the new democrat congress and president do after the election is to begin taxing the wealthy again , tax big business heavily indeed, telling them that this is the cost of doing business in this nation and that if they don't like it they can then consider themselves foreign business and be treated accordingly. As it is they enjoy all the benefits of declaring themselves U.S. business without paying anything of any substance for the privilege. That has got to stop.

We have to then make it a priority to begin paying down the trillions and trillions of dollars of debt that George Bush and the republican party deliberately placed us into.

Most important of all we must once again begin opening the windows and doors of opportunity for the lower classes that were very nearly nailed shut during the G.W. Bush era. If we do not then the United States will become sharply divided into the haves and the have-everythings, with only a small middle class between the two acting as a buffer.

Of course this would require a brilliant and determined president and an experienced and ruthlessly efficient staff and political machine along with a strong democrat majority legislative branch to even begin undoing some of the most blatant harm that Bush policies have done to this nation. This would require Hillary Clinton, therefore, as she has all of the necessary requirements and is ready to be a fully functioning president from day one. But can even she and her experienced and efficient staff and a heavily democrat legislative branch be enough to keep us from sliding into a long recession? I honestly doubt it.

I think that this is just how much Bush and his fellow criminals have damaged this nation.

You're .. like .. Mxyls cynical counterpart in the opposite direction!
I'm not normally one to nitpick an argument but your warrants are all wacky.
First off could you show me where the GOP adopted an official “screw the pooch” policy.
Second would you kindly quote or point out some of the “most reputable economists”? We can't take an assumption on a view that dire sounding.
Third section, don't count your eggs before they're in the basket. I hoped the Democrats would win last time too but they didn't and history could repeat itself from looking at how the prez and his actions have been effectively divorced from his party.
Fourth I agree we should pay off the debt but please be reasonable. It was Billions not trillions and I doubt they did it “deliberatley”, or that it was their plan to bankrupt the country and turn the populous against them.
Fifth sociological and economic factors for growth are a bit more complicated than that.
Sixth you're right we should wave bye-bye to things like no-child-left-behind and the patriot act. However, knock off the Billary Clinton worship. They are not the only people with the capability to lead the nation well.

As for your last point, are you willing to include all the “fellow criminals” who are responsible for the state of the nation?
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
imshard at 9:13PM, Jan. 10, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
All that said I wanted to share this video and the accompanying article.
I find it fairly credible.

Article

Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
CharleyHorse at 4:54AM, Jan. 11, 2008
(offline)
posts: 627
joined: 12-7-2006
That's cute Imshard. Is there any other republican generated bogeyman issue you want to fling out on the table as promoted by one of their professional operatives?

Let's see . . . we are now nine trillion dollars in debt due to the Bush/republican leadership's borrow and spend mania. That's nine trillion dollars - NOT billions - and counting. This is HOW this nation paid for all those tax breaks for the wealthy and for two simultaneous and ongoing war ventures. We borrowed from communist china until they now partly own us, and we borrowed heavily from every other nation on earth with a pulse and a bank surplus. I call ten trillion dollars - which it will be and more - before we get Bush the criminal out of office, a substantial amount.

Ten trillion dollars of debt. That's the Bush economic legacy to this nation.

Sort of makes the traditional bogeyman scare of those EVIL BABYBOOMERS and their cost to the nation seem like chump change now, doesn't it?

What I love about republican think is that they - and their mouth pieces and apologists - take a block of people who worked hard all their lives and have done nothing but contribute to the economy and then turn them into evil incarnate just to draw attention away from the real problems and the real evils. Ten Trillion dollars of debt. Hmmmm . . . cookies!

Sort of sounds like the way Nazi Germany scapegoated using the Jews. Sort of sounds like the way the republican leadership, through Limbaugh and Hannity, O'Rielly, Coulter, and other professional propagandists working for the republican party, are currently scapegoating using illegal immigrants and, oh yes, the babyboomers.

“Look! Look Americans! Look over here . . . no, not there! Why do you always want to look at the real - er - the wrong things? Look over there, yes there! See that peacefully and productively living goat? See it?! It's evil! It's going to destr - will you STOP looking at what our other hand over here is doing in your national cookie jar?!”

As I said Imshard, cute. Next time try not to use a red herring that begins by flinging out so many patented republican propaganda bullet points and drips of republican think tank coaching.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:40AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved