Conservatives

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

People are fatties not because they are lazy, but because the cheapest foods are high calorie processed crap, largely thanks to the subsidies to large agribusiness. No poor person goes, "Hey, I can become a fatass and the government will take care of me! Why didn't I think of that before?" C'mon winnar, that is just idiotic. Get a clue. Spend some time with the working poor and get to know them. You may have a point about education in our culture, but even a college education isn't the key to success anymore. It is a prerequisite. Having a college degree is NO gaurantee you will get a high paying job, or even a living wage, especially in todays horrific job market and flooded labor pool.

Really. I can go to McDonalds right now; and the salad with a small orange juice or water is cheaper than the quarter pounder meal with cheese. Walking/jogging on the street is free.

You just have to want to do it.

Still, the problem is much more than eating at McDonalds. Even their "healthy" options really aren't that great calorie-wise. Salads and OJ are alright, but you cannot count on that to have a healthy diet. Go to your nearest grocery store. Notice all the processed foods that are cheaper than their non-processed counterparts. Notice all the stuff based on corn (HFCS is one example) that is much cheaper than it otherwise would be because of subsidies. Compare to the fruits, veggies, and meats that otherwise would comprise a healthy diet. Even if you cook yourself, these ingredients average out to be quite a bit more than the can of chef Boyardee.

Walking/jogging is free, but you also have to realize that it doesn't fit easily into the schedules of those who work hourly at oftentimes more than one job. Many employers move schedules from day to day, week to week, so their employees have no regular shift to plan things around long-term. In some areas even, walking/jogging is dangerous due to high crime rates. You can't just make a blanket assumption about people simply being lazy.

First of all, you dont have to eat meat at all if you dont want to. Second, that's simply not true at all.

And you can exercise at any time of day. The minimum is only 20 mins 3 times weekly.

http://health.msn.com/fitness/...entid=100153740&page=1

Theres 1 article on how to eat on $49 a week. There's hundreds more; just have to want to do it.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've seen this a lot lately, a lot of bashing what Obama has done and is going to do.

I haven't been bashing him.

How do you propose to address the myriad of problems the United States is facing, given that supply-side economics has been thoroughly discredited as a legitimate way of running an economy? What is the conservative plan for fixing healthcare, education, tax system, etc etc.

Supply side economics, to my mind, hasn't been discredited, just dismissed.

As far as I can tell, conservatives have no plan. They are simply against whatever plan the Democrats have been putting out. Most conservatives here on this board are cutting off their nose to spite their face. I have yet to see one person articulate what should be done with America's problems.

The most you can say about this is that no one has a plan. This is an economic problem we've never really faced before.

It's ironic that democrats cry foul when other politicians act like they've acted since 2000.

Now, don't say we have no problems. Healthcare is an absolute mess. We spend more goverment money than any other nation on earth and have a less healthy population to show for it. People go bankrupt because they can't afford to treat their conditions. 40 million people simply cannot get any medical care unless it's an extreme emergency.

Link?

What about education? Our public school system is a joke, our students are ill-informed about mathematics, science, engineering. Over 50% of the population does not believe in evolution. Our math and science in K-12 is near the bottom of the developed world. Graduate programs in science and engineering are dominated by foreign students.

I think public schooling might improve if they were subjected to competition. Institute the voucher system and see what happens.

Our tax system is a mess. Past a certain threshold, you can effectively hide your earnings and shelter your gains. Something is wrong when you can pay an accountant $15K and he'll save you more money than just simply paying the taxes outright. Tax cuts simply do not work, there is very little trickle down and the effect is minimal at best. A huge portion of revenue, state and federal, is actively being hidden through dubious means.

I disagree. Tax cuts have been shown to work in the past.

Our infrastructure is collapsing. It was built with a 30 year life span back in the 50s and 60s and we are living on borrowed time. Private companies have proven they can't be trusted nor can they effectively manage the huge amount of infrastructure in the US. We have sewer systems that are 100+ years old, our electric grid is at least a generation too obsolete, our roads, highways, bridges and dams are all in need of some pretty major repair. Every year, the US infrastructure report goes down.

I'd like to see a link to this data.

And this is just a small list of problems. What is the conservative address to all these problems? GWB simply ignored most of them. Others, like the tax system, his administration simply played the GOP line without regard to future consequences. Still others, like the education system, it is most likely that the wrong approach was taken. NCLB is a farce of education reform, it does nothing to address the core and root problems in our education system. We don't need better test takers, we need better thinkers.

Again, I think we'd breed better thinkers if we forced school to compete for students.

I've seen what the Democrats/Obama's plan is for many of these problems. I may not agree with the implementation on some of them, but at least they are trying to address the problems. And with Obama, I know that there is some iterative process going on. He has the intelligence to realize that if a certain approach isn't working, that a retooling must be done to correct the path. I haven't seen a single conservative actually put out a plan that adequately addresses even half of these problems. Doing it the Reagan/GHB/GWB way has not worked at all. We've had a steady decline in nearly every category doing it their way.

Simply trying isn't good enough. It is better to do nothing at all than to cause further damage, as I believe has been done with the bailouts, Bush's included.

Straight out of wikipedia:

"During Reagan's presidency, federal income tax rates were lowered significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.[95] Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year.[96] Unemployment peaked at 10.8% percent in December 1982?higher than any time since the Great Depression?then dropped during the rest of Reagan's presidency.[93] Sixteen million new jobs were created, while inflation significantly decreased.[97] The net effect of all Reagan-era tax bills was a 1% decrease in government revenues."

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Then the IRS should investigate those claims and/or put measures in place to prevent that kind of fraud. As far as capital gains goes, you have to walk a fine line between having a low capital gains tax, which encourages investment, and an equitable capital gains tax, which allows the overall tax system to be progressive and prevents the rise of what we have been seeing, a separate investor class. England may be lowering their capital gains tax, but that is England. We don't need a race to the bottom.

Investigating them would cost more than it would gain. If it was that easy, Clinton would have done it, and Geithner would have paid up in 2001 rather than swindling us for 8 years.

True, but more to the point, why do conservatives such as yourself tend to get up in arms about it when it pales in comparison to the fraud that takes place on the upper incomes? It truly is a pittance in comparison. However, reforming the system to prevent fraud in the first place is cheap, so throwing out the EIC altogether based on this isn't very logical.

There's a lot more of them and it sums up to quite a bit.

If 'reforming' the system is cheap, Clinton didn't do it, and Obama hasn't talked about it. He's tossed $800 more at the defrauders and appointed upper income cheats to key positions.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Then the IRS should investigate those claims and/or put measures in place to prevent that kind of fraud. As far as capital gains goes, you have to walk a fine line between having a low capital gains tax, which encourages investment, and an equitable capital gains tax, which allows the overall tax system to be progressive and prevents the rise of what we have been seeing, a separate investor class. England may be lowering their capital gains tax, but that is England. We don't need a race to the bottom.

Investigating them would cost more than it would gain. If it was that easy, Clinton would have done it, and Geithner would have paid up in 2001 rather than swindling us for 8 years.

True, but more to the point, why do conservatives such as yourself tend to get up in arms about it when it pales in comparison to the fraud that takes place on the upper incomes? It truly is a pittance in comparison. However, reforming the system to prevent fraud in the first place is cheap, so throwing out the EIC altogether based on this isn't very logical.

There's a lot more of them and it sums up to quite a bit.

If 'reforming' the system is cheap, Clinton didn't do it, and Obama hasn't talked about it. He's tossed $800 more at the defrauders and appointed upper income cheats to key positions.

Clinton didn't do it, but he had bigger fish to fry. He accomplished a lot when it comes to reducing the 'entitlements' conservatives often rail against, such as welfare reform. To be honest, EIC reform wasn't a priority back then, and that hasn't really changed too much. Bush and his cronies had the chance, and they didn't do it either, under the Republican controlled congress for six years and the Democratic controlled one for two years. I'm not blaming him per se here, but the fact that no party has gotten around to it when either one has had the chance really shows you how people see this issue. Reform needs to start at the top, where the big problems are. Obama is getting to that....and we will see how that goes. He hasn't been in office long enough to really do the long-term reform that needs to be hammered out.

Edit: ...and another thing, appointing upper income cheats to key positions is hardly anything new. LOLCHANGE all you want, but if they pay their dues and actually DO a good job in their positions, then I am willing to give them a pass. Shall we go through the previous administration's financial shenanigans and beat that horse to death again? No. Double standards FTL.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've seen this a lot lately, a lot of bashing what Obama has done and is going to do.

How do you propose to address the myriad of problems the United States is facing, given that supply-side economics has been thoroughly discredited as a legitimate way of running an economy? What is the conservative plan for fixing healthcare, education, tax system, etc etc.

The conservative plan is simple. Wait, do absolutely nothing, then when the dems unveil a plan, attack that plan like there is no tomorrow!!!

How is that not a plan? =)

Oh yeah... Because its still doing nothing at all... At least they still get to whine and cry the sky is falling.

No, the answer is quite simple. Government shouldn't be more than 18.2% of GDP according to your hero, so the answer to tossing money at worthless inner city public schools is gutting the government health care complex.

How is that an answer ? And how is that the republicans current plan for the economic crisis? Thats is a statement, not a plan.

The OP made up 'problems' in healthcare and education that are apparently the government's fault. The answer is to cut and run, sounds like something you libs favor.

Zero hasn't proposed any solution, other than 'tax the rich'. Of course, he hasnt talked about how he'll make people like Geithner actually pay the tax, other than hiring them.

God man, can you think critically about anything or is everything just jingoisms for you?

He along with Socio and Butterbean are the new faces of the Republican Party.

Along with Jindal and Palin LMFAO If this is the hope for the Republicans, I am afraid they are screwed.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it utterly hilarious the libs on this board are up in arms at all the threads complaining about Obama. Where the fuck have you been the last 8 years? Oh yeah, creating troll thread after troll thread about Bush.

That really doesn't make sense because any negative thread about Bush would be factual.

lol

I dunno... I never created any threads at all about Bush... Although I did participate in a few =) ... I find it extremely hard to believe it was like this after Bush was in office for one whole month. After he broke... everything, yes, I do believe it, but in one month to have all this complaint is odd - especially when its all against his plans, and no counterplan is offered up.

I hate your plan - but I have none of my own , is not going to cut it.

Sorry, but that's what the Democrats did for the last 8 years, it seemed to work for them.

Considering Congress was a Republican majority 3/4 of that time makes your reply rubbish.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

People are fatties not because they are lazy, but because the cheapest foods are high calorie processed crap, largely thanks to the subsidies to large agribusiness. No poor person goes, "Hey, I can become a fatass and the government will take care of me! Why didn't I think of that before?" C'mon winnar, that is just idiotic. Get a clue. Spend some time with the working poor and get to know them. You may have a point about education in our culture, but even a college education isn't the key to success anymore. It is a prerequisite. Having a college degree is NO gaurantee you will get a high paying job, or even a living wage, especially in todays horrific job market and flooded labor pool.

Really. I can go to McDonalds right now; and the salad with a small orange juice or water is cheaper than the quarter pounder meal with cheese. Walking/jogging on the street is free.

You just have to want to do it.

Still, the problem is much more than eating at McDonalds. Even their "healthy" options really aren't that great calorie-wise. Salads and OJ are alright, but you cannot count on that to have a healthy diet. Go to your nearest grocery store. Notice all the processed foods that are cheaper than their non-processed counterparts. Notice all the stuff based on corn (HFCS is one example) that is much cheaper than it otherwise would be because of subsidies. Compare to the fruits, veggies, and meats that otherwise would comprise a healthy diet. Even if you cook yourself, these ingredients average out to be quite a bit more than the can of chef Boyardee.

Walking/jogging is free, but you also have to realize that it doesn't fit easily into the schedules of those who work hourly at oftentimes more than one job. Many employers move schedules from day to day, week to week, so their employees have no regular shift to plan things around long-term. In some areas even, walking/jogging is dangerous due to high crime rates. You can't just make a blanket assumption about people simply being lazy.

First of all, you dont have to eat meat at all if you dont want to. Second, that's simply not true at all.

And you can exercise at any time of day. The minimum is only 20 mins 3 times weekly.

http://health.msn.com/fitness/...entid=100153740&page=1

Theres 1 article on how to eat on $49 a week. There's hundreds more; just have to want to do it.

Nice article, but that is besides the point. You don't have to eat meat. However, we are omnivores, so we should. Without meat, you have to double up on other foods to replace the protien and other dietary things that come with meat, usually by legumes and such. It isn't about "just wanting" to do it, because you a) have to know how, which many do not as their parents and schools do not teach them to cook healthily, if at all, b) it still isn't always the best financial option. A can of Chef Boyardee is $0.88. How about frozen/prepared meals such as Banquet or whatnot? Ramen is cheaper. Meats and veggies are sky high in comparison. The best foods don't have to be organic and/or exotic. Just plain 'ole meats, veggies, and fruits - the kind of stuff our great grandparents used to grow in their garden and actually recognised as food. Can you really blame someone who is poor these days from going for what is cheapest? Depending on your metabolism, a minimum amount of excersize will not make up for a crappy, cheap diet. It still does not address the other issues I spoke about when it comes to getting regular excersize jogging/walking, nor exhaustion from working multiple jobs. You are trying to simplify a complex issue into "they just don't want to do it" or "they are lazy" which is just plain wrong in a lot of cases.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Clinton didn't do it, but he had bigger fish to fry. He accomplished a lot when it comes to reducing the 'entitlements' conservatives often rail against, such as welfare reform. To be honest, EIC reform wasn't a priority back then, and that hasn't really changed too much. Bush and his cronies had the chance, and they didn't do it either, under the Republican controlled congress for six years and the Democratic controlled one for two years. I'm not blaming him per se here, but the fact that no party has gotten around to it when either one has had the chance really shows you how people see this issue. Reform needs to start at the top, where the big problems are. Obama is getting to that....and we will see how that goes. He hasn't been in office long enough to really do the long-term reform that needs to be hammered out.

Edit: ...and another thing, appointing upper income cheats to key positions is hardly anything new. LOLCHANGE all you want, but if they pay their dues and actually DO a good job in their positions, then I am willing to give them a pass. Shall we go through the previous administration's financial shenanigans and beat that horse to death again? No. Double standards FTL.

Lol, what? Unless that bigger fish is Monica. It not like he had the Cold War, or an inherited recession, or 9/11, or a war in Afghanistan...

And no President has appointed as many tax cheats in a month as Obama had. You libs would have cried about it.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Clinton didn't do it, but he had bigger fish to fry. He accomplished a lot when it comes to reducing the 'entitlements' conservatives often rail against, such as welfare reform. To be honest, EIC reform wasn't a priority back then, and that hasn't really changed too much. Bush and his cronies had the chance, and they didn't do it either, under the Republican controlled congress for six years and the Democratic controlled one for two years. I'm not blaming him per se here, but the fact that no party has gotten around to it when either one has had the chance really shows you how people see this issue. Reform needs to start at the top, where the big problems are. Obama is getting to that....and we will see how that goes. He hasn't been in office long enough to really do the long-term reform that needs to be hammered out.

Edit: ...and another thing, appointing upper income cheats to key positions is hardly anything new. LOLCHANGE all you want, but if they pay their dues and actually DO a good job in their positions, then I am willing to give them a pass. Shall we go through the previous administration's financial shenanigans and beat that horse to death again? No. Double standards FTL.

Lol, what? Unless that bigger fish is Monica. It not like he had the Cold War, or an inherited recession, or 9/11, or a war in Afghanistan...

And no President has appointed as many tax cheats in a month as Obama had. You libs would have cried about it.

Monica wasn't really a big fish so to speak, but the stink that ensued from his ummm....encounter....was. Bigtime. You also forget about things he pushed such as welfare reform, which did much more to reduce waste than reforming EIC. There was also the healthcare issue, which he failed miserably at. Also, Clinton had inherited a recession his first term. GHWB, while I do admire him as president wasn't doing too well on the economic front. Does "its the economy, stupid!" ring a bell? Funny how you like to gloss over the Clinton years for what positive things were accomplished. Sure, Clinton had no 9/11, but so what? Uh...buh....bush...clinton.....so what? You do the best you can with the cards you are dealt.

Also, I would like to see how you back up your claim of Obama nominating more tax cheats than any other president. With the amount of corruption surrounding GWB, I hardly think that he had fewer tax cheats. They just had their arses covered better is all. But again, who cares? As long as they pay what they owe, and end up doing a good job for this country I don't give a shit. I'll give them benefit of the doubt until I have enough evidence to judge their performance. I'm not a partisan hack to simply dismiss everything this administration does based on nitpicking everything like the Repub idealogues do these days, with no real alternative. I gave GWB a chance, even supporting him for a few years, but he fell flat on his face. Obama....we will see.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Monica wasn't really a big fish so to speak, but the stink that ensued from his ummm....encounter....was. Bigtime. You also forget about things he pushed such as welfare reform, which did much more to reduce waste than reforming EIC. There was also the healthcare issue, which he failed miserably at. Also, Clinton had inherited a recession his first term. GHWB, while I do admire him as president wasn't doing too well on the economic front. Does "its the economy, stupid!" ring a bell? Funny how you like to gloss over the Clinton years for what positive things were accomplished. Sure, Clinton had no 9/11, but so what? Uh...buh....bush...clinton.....so what? You do the best you can with the cards you are dealt.

Also, I would like to see how you back up your claim of Obama nominating more tax cheats than any other president. With the amount of corruption surrounding GWB, I hardly think that he had fewer tax cheats. They just had their arses covered better is all. But again, who cares? As long as they pay what they owe, and end up doing a good job for this country I don't give a shit. I'll give them benefit of the doubt until I have enough evidence to judge their performance.

http://www.nber.org/March91.html

CAMBRIDGE, December 22, 1992 -- The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call yesterday. The committee maintains a chronology of the U.S. business cycle that is widely used in the analysis of business conditions. In its meeting, the committee determined that the U.S. economy reached a trough of activity in March 1991.
Previously, the committee had determined that the economy reached a peak of activity in July 1990. The eight-month period between July 1990 and March 1991 is a recession in the NBER's chronology. The committee thus determined that the recession ended in March 1991 and that an expansion began at that time.

The committee had waited to make the determination of the trough date until it was confident that any future downturn in the economy would be considered a new recession and not a continuation of the recession that began in July 1990. The committee noted that the broadest measure of economic activity -- gross domestic product in constant dollars -- had finally surpassed its previous peak by the third quarter of 1992.


There was no recession in 1993. All you show is that Slick was a better campaigner than Poppy, which was obvious. I voted for Slick in 1992. Welfare reform was his 1 signature accomplishment....in his first term, although Obama is gutting it now. He had a 2nd term too.

There's a lengthy list of Obama tax cheats. If you want to say that W appointed more tax cheats in Jan > March 2001, be my guest.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Monica wasn't really a big fish so to speak, but the stink that ensued from his ummm....encounter....was. Bigtime. You also forget about things he pushed such as welfare reform, which did much more to reduce waste than reforming EIC. There was also the healthcare issue, which he failed miserably at. Also, Clinton had inherited a recession his first term. GHWB, while I do admire him as president wasn't doing too well on the economic front. Does "its the economy, stupid!" ring a bell? Funny how you like to gloss over the Clinton years for what positive things were accomplished. Sure, Clinton had no 9/11, but so what? Uh...buh....bush...clinton.....so what? You do the best you can with the cards you are dealt.

Also, I would like to see how you back up your claim of Obama nominating more tax cheats than any other president. With the amount of corruption surrounding GWB, I hardly think that he had fewer tax cheats. They just had their arses covered better is all. But again, who cares? As long as they pay what they owe, and end up doing a good job for this country I don't give a shit. I'll give them benefit of the doubt until I have enough evidence to judge their performance.

http://www.nber.org/March91.html

CAMBRIDGE, December 22, 1992 -- The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call yesterday. The committee maintains a chronology of the U.S. business cycle that is widely used in the analysis of business conditions. In its meeting, the committee determined that the U.S. economy reached a trough of activity in March 1991.
Previously, the committee had determined that the economy reached a peak of activity in July 1990. The eight-month period between July 1990 and March 1991 is a recession in the NBER's chronology. The committee thus determined that the recession ended in March 1991 and that an expansion began at that time.

The committee had waited to make the determination of the trough date until it was confident that any future downturn in the economy would be considered a new recession and not a continuation of the recession that began in July 1990. The committee noted that the broadest measure of economic activity -- gross domestic product in constant dollars -- had finally surpassed its previous peak by the third quarter of 1992.


There was no recession in 1993. All you show is that Slick was a better campaigner than Poppy, which was obvious. I voted for Slick in 1992. Welfare reform was his 1 signature accomplishment....in his first term, although Obama is gutting it now. He had a 2nd term too.

There's a lengthy list of Obama tax cheats. If you want to say that W appointed more tax cheats in Jan > March 2001, be my guest.

The economy was still an important issue back then. The official economic indicators may be able to show a recession, but the ultimate arbiter is how people actually perceive things. Remember the "mental recession" conservatives kept blabbering on about? That ordinary people were just whiners as the stock market was doing well, thus it wasn't a recession? I'll trust peoples real-world experience much more than I would a bunch of formulae which can't take into account what is actually going on. Sure, Bush inherited the dot-com bust, but are you honestly comparing that to the recession Obama inherited? They are in no way comparable in size or scope. Bush squandered what strength we had to turn things around even after 9/11, the mild recession after he got into office, and even the war in Afghanistan. I'd take Clinton, Obama or Bush 1 handling that over Bush 2 anyday. They would've done a much better job given the circumstances.

As far as the tax cheat issue goes, like I said, if they pay what they owe and do a good job, I do not care. The people Bush appointed did not do a good job. They proved themselves to be a bunch of liars, cheats, etc. which a good performance cannot simply gloss over. I would rather have a competent tax cheat running the government than an incompetent fool who pays his taxes. You are the one who claimed that Obama appointed more tax cheats than any other president. Color me skeptical. You do not back up your claim, and still ignore that I find it irrelevant in the first place.

 

[ProfJohn]

umm there would have never been welfare reform without the Republican take over of congress.

In case you forgot, after it was passed a bunch of Democrats vowed to 'fix' the reform.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
The economy was still an important issue back then. The official economic indicators may be able to show a recession, but the ultimate arbiter is how people actually perceive things. Remember the "mental recession" conservatives kept blabbering on about? That ordinary people were just whiners as the stock market was doing well, thus it wasn't a recession? I'll trust peoples real-world experience much more than I would a bunch of formulae which can't take into account what is actually going on. Sure, Bush inherited the dot-com bust, but are you honestly comparing that to the recession Obama inherited? They are in no way comparable in size or scope. Bush squandered what strength we had to turn things around even after 9/11, the mild recession after he got into office, and even the war in Afghanistan. I'd take Clinton, Obama or Bush 1 handling that over Bush 2 anyday. They would've done a much better job given the circumstances.

As far as the tax cheat issue goes, like I said, if they pay what they owe and do a good job, I do not care. The people Bush appointed did not do a good job. They proved themselves to be a bunch of liars, cheats, etc. which a good performance cannot simply gloss over. I would rather have a competent tax cheat running the government than an incompetent fool who pays his taxes. You are the one who claimed that Obama appointed more tax cheats than any other president. Color me skeptical. You do not back up your claim, and still ignore that I find it irrelevant in the first place.

People's perception....which is shaped by news and debates and campaigns...which Clinton was better at than Poppy was. That doesnt change the fact that there was no recession in 1993 in the first place.

What claim? You want a list of Obama tax cheats? We know that Obamas cabinet people have tax problems, and we know that nobody found that to be the case with W's nominees, many of whom released their tax returns too. Anything might have happened, but hey, there might be pigs flying in outer space. If you dont care, you dont care; I have no idea why you pretend that it didnt happen.

Oh, Reagan inherited a miserable situation too. Didn't you make some comment about the cards you were dealt?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: retrospooty

How does that address anything? WTH are you talking about? What exactly is the republicans plan to fix our current financial crisis ?

They proposed one. A $400b package of tax cuts and infrastructure spending. It was ignored.

ummm.... And the one that passed, has tax cuts and even more infrastructure spending. You can say its way too much spending and I would agree, but the republicans hardly have a plan to fix this mess.

Spend less on the stimulus packages is hardly a plan unto its own.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: EXman
I have one thing to let you ponder on.

I have never got a job from a poor man

just let that sink in some.

marinate.

hmmm...

Poor people still need doctors, dentists, plumbers, mechanics, food, heat, etc., etc., etc.

Let that sink in a while.... that is unless you have granite or some other impervious material for a brain in which case, nevermind.

 

[CitizenKain]

I've been watching part of the CPAC stuff and its fun watching the Republican party disintegrate as they appeal to an ever shrinking base and drive away middle of the road voters. Please keep running people like Palin and Jindall though, its good for a laugh.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: retrospooty

How does that address anything? WTH are you talking about? What exactly is the republicans plan to fix our current financial crisis ?

They proposed one. A $400b package of tax cuts and infrastructure spending. It was ignored.

ummm.... And the one that passed, has tax cuts and even more infrastructure spending. You can say its way too much spending and I would agree, but the republicans hardly have a plan to fix this mess.

Spend less on the stimulus packages is hardly a plan unto its own.

Why is spending lots of money a grand plan, but spending less money not a plan?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've seen this a lot lately, a lot of bashing what Obama has done and is going to do.

How do you propose to address the myriad of problems the United States is facing, given that supply-side economics has been thoroughly discredited as a legitimate way of running an economy? What is the conservative plan for fixing healthcare, education, tax system, etc etc.

As far as I can tell, conservatives have no plan. They are simply against whatever plan the Democrats have been putting out. Most conservatives here on this board are cutting off their nose to spite their face. I have yet to see one person articulate what should be done with America's problems.

Now, don't say we have no problems. Healthcare is an absolute mess. We spend more goverment money than any other nation on earth and have a less healthy population to show for it. People go bankrupt because they can't afford to treat their conditions. 40 million people simply cannot get any medical care unless it's an extreme emergency.

What about education? Our public school system is a joke, our students are ill-informed about mathematics, science, engineering. Over 50% of the population does not believe in evolution. Our math and science in K-12 is near the bottom of the developed world. Graduate programs in science and engineering are dominated by foreign students.

Our tax system is a mess. Past a certain threshold, you can effectively hide your earnings and shelter your gains. Something is wrong when you can pay an accountant $15K and he'll save you more money than just simply paying the taxes outright. Tax cuts simply do not work, there is very little trickle down and the effect is minimal at best. A huge portion of revenue, state and federal, is actively being hidden through dubious means.

Our infrastructure is collapsing. It was built with a 30 year life span back in the 50s and 60s and we are living on borrowed time. Private companies have proven they can't be trusted nor can they effectively manage the huge amount of infrastructure in the US. We have sewer systems that are 100+ years old, our electric grid is at least a generation too obsolete, our roads, highways, bridges and dams are all in need of some pretty major repair. Every year, the US infrastructure report goes down.

And this is just a small list of problems. What is the conservative address to all these problems? GWB simply ignored most of them. Others, like the tax system, his administration simply played the GOP line without regard to future consequences. Still others, like the education system, it is most likely that the wrong approach was taken. NCLB is a farce of education reform, it does nothing to address the core and root problems in our education system. We don't need better test takers, we need better thinkers.

I've seen what the Democrats/Obama's plan is for many of these problems. I may not agree with the implementation on some of them, but at least they are trying to address the problems. And with Obama, I know that there is some iterative process going on. He has the intelligence to realize that if a certain approach isn't working, that a retooling must be done to correct the path. I haven't seen a single conservative actually put out a plan that adequately addresses even half of these problems. Doing it the Reagan/GHB/GWB way has not worked at all. We've had a steady decline in nearly every category doing it their way.

I have asked pretty the same question a number of times. The responses I got I break down into two categories:


1. Neo Herbert Hoover school of macroeconomics: Do nothing because there is no real economic emergency. This is another example of the normal business cycle. Federal government is evil and can never be effective.

2. Partisan politics or we are hoping the Democrats crash and burn: Do anything to screw Obama and the Democrats. Too bad if it is hurts the country.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
I've been watching part of the CPAC stuff and its fun watching the Republican party disintegrate as they appeal to an ever shrinking base and drive away middle of the road voters. Please keep running people like Palin and Jindall though, its good for a laugh.

I don't find criticizing the budget and spending bills to be any more off-center than the people who passed them.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: EXman
I have one thing to let you ponder on.

I have never got a job from a poor man

just let that sink in some.

marinate.

hmmm...

Poor people still need doctors, dentists, plumbers, mechanics, food, heat, etc., etc., etc.

Let that sink in a while.... that is unless you have granite or some other impervious material for a brain in which case, nevermind.

Good point - those people are entrepenuers. They're a large reason why our country is so great. Anyone with enough sense can start their own business - they don't have to rely on others to hire them.

 

[sandorski]

Republicans know that the Dems will do what needs to be done, so they don't need to do much. So, in their mind, they might as well kick and scream about everything the Dems do. They recieve the Benefit of what gets done, but can point to their kicking/screaming as a record of them "opposing" it at the same time.

Face it, when they had the chance to be "Conservative" they went batshit insane only differentiating themselves from the Stereotypical "Liberal" by not Raising Taxes, in fact reducing them. Everything else they did though(except the Religious stupidity like feigned opposition to GM and Unplugging the Dead) was what they always bash Dems for. Does anyone seriously think a Rep President/Congress/House would handle this Crisis any differently?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: retrospooty

How does that address anything? WTH are you talking about? What exactly is the republicans plan to fix our current financial crisis ?

They proposed one. A $400b package of tax cuts and infrastructure spending. It was ignored.

ummm.... And the one that passed, has tax cuts and even more infrastructure spending. You can say its way too much spending and I would agree, but the republicans hardly have a plan to fix this mess.

Spend less on the stimulus packages is hardly a plan unto its own.

Why is spending lots of money a grand plan, but spending less money not a plan?

I'd call it 2 different versions of the same plan. The one that passed has more spending that's all.

Again, the reps only real plan at this point is to sit back and wait for the dems to propose something and then they attack the hell out of the dems plan. Thats all they are doing since inauguration day.

 

[zebano]

Hmm you want a plan... here you go.

1. Our prison systems cost us tons of money and we provide far too many amenities to the inmates. I propose a bill which:
a. Remove all amenities from the inmates. They are allowed basic TV sometimes, no cable, or internet. Most of their time should be spent doing meaningless tasks.
b.1. Decriminalize victimless crimes. i.e. drug abuse. If people want to f-up their own lives, that's fine.
b.2. Release those imprisoned for drug consumption (but not those in for distribution as that is seeking to profit while breaking the law though in the spirit of this bill, their sentences should perhaps be halved).
b.3. End the "war on drugs".
b.4. Explicitly state that it is allowable for employers to hire based on drug use (and require drug tests) if they so choose.
b.5. Anyone wishing to receive welfare/medicare/medicade/food stamps/other government entitlements (excluded is social security since people are due this after paying into it) must pass a monthly drug test which proves that they are "drug free" by the old rules (i.e. Alcohol is acceptable, but pot, crack, meth etc. are not).


2. Retire the penny, they cost more to make than they are worth. The nickel will now be our minimum denomination. If deflation occurs, we can consider the return of the penny. In 10-20 years I don't think anyone will carry physical cash anyway.


3. Illegal Aliens: This country was founded on immigrants and we should make it easy to immigrate here, but you are not free to break our laws to do so. This will help insure that we collect tax revenues from all workers and that U.S. citizens are not cheated out of jobs by companies hiring cheap work illegally (yes this happens ask my coworker who quit the drywall business to go back to school and become a software engineer).


3.1: Give the INS 1 year to significantly improve their immigration proceedings. They must accept and respond to immigration request in a timely fashion (within 1 month). All people with a lack of a criminal record worldwide are welcome. Things like speeding, jaywalking, loitering or other non-felonies should be very leniently ignored (we do need some threshold however). After such a time 3.2 and 3.3 apply.
3.2 All Illegal Aliens will not receive any healthcare, education or other government services. They will be invited to apply for citizenship as in 3.1 but if they fail, immediately deported, their goods will be confiscated and auctioned off to defray this cost.
3.3 Any business found to be hiring illegals (knowingly or not) will immediately lose all government contracts. They will be fined $50,000 per such worker (with no upper limit) and the workers will be treated as in 3.2.


4. No more bailouts, let business succeed or fail on their own.
4.1 Toward encouraging competition, allow new phone/cable/power/utility companies in using existing lines. I haven't worked this out but I almost think the government should take over most physical lines and rent bandwidth with endpoints to all houses in a city (rural areas might be difficult to fit into this plan).
4.2 With the remaining bailout money specify that for any company receiving bailout money. Compensation for any employee or contractor may not exceed $200,000 / year. The companies also cannot give any type of bonus other than 3 months salary to workers who are quitting or getting laid off.
4.3 An executive convicted of falsifying their companies books is to receive a felony worth life in solitary confinement.

5. Money collected for certain things should be applied to funds specific to those appropriations.
For instance:
a. Social Security collections may be used to pay SS but nothing else.
b. gas taxes may be spent on roads or police forces.
c. Income tax would go to the general fund.

6. A minor priority would be reviewing/simplifying the existing laws. Ones such as those found at www.dumblaws.com would be stricken from the books and others would be edited with the goal that you don't need a lawyer to understand them.


7. End farm subsidies.

Yes much of this needs more detail but you get the gist of what I'm going for.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: retrospooty

How does that address anything? WTH are you talking about? What exactly is the republicans plan to fix our current financial crisis ?

They proposed one. A $400b package of tax cuts and infrastructure spending. It was ignored.

ummm.... And the one that passed, has tax cuts and even more infrastructure spending. You can say its way too much spending and I would agree, but the republicans hardly have a plan to fix this mess.

Spend less on the stimulus packages is hardly a plan unto its own.

Why is spending lots of money a grand plan, but spending less money not a plan?

I'd call it 2 different versions of the same plan. The one that passed has more spending that's all.

Again, the reps only real plan at this point is to sit back and wait for the dems to propose something and then they attack the hell out of the dems plan. Thats all they are doing since inauguration day.

So if anything the government does, whether its spend money or offer more tax cuts, is the 'same' plan, how can they offer a different plan?

They're not in power. They can't really propose anything other than amendments to what Pelosi and Reid do anyway.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: retrospooty

How does that address anything? WTH are you talking about? What exactly is the republicans plan to fix our current financial crisis ?

They proposed one. A $400b package of tax cuts and infrastructure spending. It was ignored.

ummm.... And the one that passed, has tax cuts and even more infrastructure spending. You can say its way too much spending and I would agree, but the republicans hardly have a plan to fix this mess.

Spend less on the stimulus packages is hardly a plan unto its own.

Why is spending lots of money a grand plan, but spending less money not a plan?

I'd call it 2 different versions of the same plan. The one that passed has more spending that's all.

Again, the reps only real plan at this point is to sit back and wait for the dems to propose something and then they attack the hell out of the dems plan. Thats all they are doing since inauguration day.

So if anything the government does, whether its spend money or offer more tax cuts, is the 'same' plan, how can they offer a different plan?

They're not in power. They can't really propose anything other than amendments to what Pelosi and Reid do anyway.

I dont know what thier plan could/would be... My point is they arent offering up anything drastically different as a suggestion, they are just railing against the dems plan. In other words "I dont have an answer to the problem, but I sure as hell wont sit by and have YOU answer it" typical politics - not that the dems in congress are any different, they are all a bunch of bastards